7/01/2008

More Flip-flops by Obama

OK, on top of FISA, NAFTA, Campaign finance, preconditions for negotiating with rogue countries, and Guns add welfare reform, social security taxes, and gay marriage. ABC News has these notes:

Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.

"I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare," Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. "Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems."

Obama's transformation from critic to champion of welfare reform is the latest in a series of moves to the center. Since capturing the Democratic nomination, the Obama campaign has altered its stances on Social Security taxes, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions, and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s, sweeping gun ban.


This is on social security:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., outlined a Social Security plan last week that helps inoculate him against Republican charges that he wants to hike payroll taxes on the upper-middle class. But the proposal would raise far less revenue -- $847 billion less over ten years -- than an idea he touted in an Iowa newspaper last year when he was seeking the Democratic nomination.

The substantial revenue difference between Obama's 2007 idea and his 2008 plan will make it harder to shore up the federal retirement program. . . .


Here is Obama's changing position of negotiating with rogue nations:

In his speech Wednesday before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama sounded. He said the military option is "on the table" for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, and in stark contrast to earlier statements, he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States."

Obama's tone was strikingly different from it has been in the past. . . .


The Sacremento Bee reports:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.


Here is yet another one from Kim Strassel at the WSJ's Political Diary:

[Obama] bemoaned the fact that "a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal." That would be General David Petraeus, who last year was the focus of a MoveOn.org smear ad in major newspapers under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

Recall that an uproar ensued at the time and Democratic politicians across the country disavowed the slur. Some 72 Senators even voted for a "sense of the Senate" resolution that condemned the attack and offered support for Gen. Petraeus. Yet one who didn't was none other than Sen. Obama. He managed to miss the Senate resolution vote, despite the fact he was in Washington and voted on two other measures that day. Indeed, when given an opportunity to criticize the ad, Mr. Obama instead criticized the Senate's decision to hold a vote denouncing it. "The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements," Mr. Obama said. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq."bemoaned the fact that "a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal." That would be General David Petraeus, who last year was the focus of a MoveOn.org smear ad in major newspapers under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

Recall that an uproar ensued at the time and Democratic politicians across the country disavowed the slur. Some 72 Senators even voted for a "sense of the Senate" resolution that condemned the attack and offered support for Gen. Petraeus. Yet one who didn't was none other than Sen. Obama. He managed to miss the Senate resolution vote, despite the fact he was in Washington and voted on two other measures that day. Indeed, when given an opportunity to criticize the ad, Mr. Obama instead criticized the Senate's decision to hold a vote denouncing it. "The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements," Mr. Obama said. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq."

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's the candidate of "change." What do you expect?

The democrats, of course, will spin all this as indicative of his flexibility and open mindedness.

Some enterprising conservative needs to sell Obama weather vanes that rotate with the direction of the prevailing wind.

David

7/01/2008 2:48 PM  
Blogger Robert Wenzel said...

So this is typical politcal posturing. George HW: "Read my lips", George W: "a humble foreign policy"

These guys will say anything to get elected. Until they are thrown in jail for lying on campaign promises, we will have no clue what will happen once they get in office.

A "Truth in Campaigns" movement should have started a long time ago, with a key feature being long jail sentences for politicans who attempt to do the opposite of what they promised in their campaigns.

Of course, this will also stop the fliip-flops.

7/01/2008 9:00 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear Robert:

Can you name one major party nominee for president who has switched on so many major policy issues as Obama? You might not like the Bushes and they have many problems, but they are no where near as socialist as Obama. Do you think that you could get a Clarence Thomas or a John Roberts or a Sam Alito from Obama?

7/02/2008 3:36 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home