Obama Version 2.0, Veering Right
Posted June 26th, 2008 by Da King
Now that Barack Obama has captured the Democratic nomination, it appears his campaign has moved into Presidential Calculation Phase 2.0, Operation Win The General Election. Obama has taken more non-left wing positions in the last few weeks than he's taken in his entire previous political career. He angered liberals by reversing his stance on public campaign financing. He reversed his position against the FISA bill and supported it. He reversed his position on NAFTA, said his previous smoke on the issue was "overheated campaign rhetoric", and now supports it. He came out in opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that abolished the death penalty for child rapists, and now, he has even come out in opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. Is that the gnashing of liberal teeth I hear ?
"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," [Obama's] press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday. "He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
Holy Pelosi, Batman ! Is this a Democrat supporting democracy ? A Democrat supporting free speech ? Wow. They haven't done much of that lately. Of course, Obama's spokesman did say that stuff about network neutrality, public broadcasting, and minority ownership, so Obama doesn't support freedom THAT much, but it's still a giant step forward from the pro-Stalinist Pelosi position of reimposing the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle all those right-wing radio talk show hosts. You go, Barack ! Yes we can, er, I mean, good job.
Now try to remember the last time you heard a liberal come out in favor of the death penalty for ANY crime (other than the crime of being a Republican, that is). Yet, Obama favors the death penalty for child rapists, a stance that breaks with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, who thought the death penalty for child rape was excessive and therefore unconstitutional. This was another of those 5-4 decisions, with the conservative wing of the Court voting that the death penalty was not unconstitutional for child rape. This is one of the times when I think the liberals got it right, because I believe the death penalty is only an appropriate and proportional punishment for the crime of murder. Obama has even veered to the right of me on this issue. Who woulda thunk it ? Oddly enough, Obama previously took a position against expanding the death penalty for gangbangers who DO murder people. I'd attempt to explain the contradiction to you, but I didn't attend Harvard, so it's beyond my capability. It's too nuanced for the likes of me.
On to Obama's reversal on the FISA bill. From the Washington Post:
The Illinois senator's reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups, but Obama told reporters at a news conference this afternoon that he was satisfied with changes made to the original bill, including a provision that gives a secret court, rather than the White House, the final say on spying procedures. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also switched sides on the legislation, for the same reasons as Obama.
"It is a close call for me," Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the "exclusivity" provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, "met my basic concerns." He said the bill's target should not be the phone companies' culpability, but "can we get to the bottom of what's taking place, and do we have safeguards?"
Most of the time, a decision that angers liberals groups is just fine with me, and this time is no different. Obama has the right concerns here. Oversight of the government's spying activities is the key. We don't want to handcuff ourselves in the fight against terrorism, but we do want to make sure the government doesn't exceed or abuse it's authority. I agree with Obama again (is this a sign of the apocalypse ???). Yes we ca…..never mind. I don't want to get carried away.
Now, if only somebody would teach Obama basic economics and convince him to stop trying to undermine the Iraq war when we're on the verge of victory………..
That would be change I could believe in.
And as long as Obama is making a right hand turn to sell himself to the general public, my estimation of him would increase greatly if he just admitted he was dead wrong about the Iraq surge.
But I won't be holding my breath. So far, the Obama spinmeisters have decided to flat out lie about that:
January 14, 2007: "We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." - Barack Obama
July 20, 2007: "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked." - Barack Obama
May 30, 2008: "[Barack Obama] never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference." - David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager.
Sigh.
Finally, in the ultimate bow to mainstreaming, check out Obama's family values television ad. It's truly precious, complete with the flag pin and everything (and listen to the background music. If any of you are South Park fans, it's reminiscent of Mr. Tweek's Coffee Shop music, lol).
Didn't the old Obama say flag pins were phony expressions of patriotism ? America, meet the new and improved Barack Obama, Version 2.0.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I think Jim Geraghty of NRO said it best - "every Obama statement has an expiration date. every one."
June 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Obama will continue to say whatever is politically expedient. Lie, cheat and steal. The end justifies the means. Any good marxist knows this, and Obama has proven himself to be one of the best.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Activist bush Supreme Court to cause blood in our streets:
Lock and Load
Published: June 27, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27fri1.html
Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.
In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.
This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.
There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns. The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.
On Wednesday, as the court was getting ready to release its decision, a worker in a Kentucky plastics plant shot his supervisor, four co-workers and himself to death.
Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.
Overturning that law, the court’s 5-to-4 decision says that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. But that’s a sharp reversal for the court: as early as 1939, it made clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right of people to carry guns for military use in a militia.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens was right when he said that the court has now established “a new constitutional right” that creates a “dramatic upheaval in the law.”
Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia’s “compelling” public-safety interests.
In this month’s case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case.
The gun lobby will now trumpet this ruling as an end to virtually all gun restrictions, anywhere, at all times. That must not happen. And today’s decision still provides strong basis for saying it should not.
If the ruling is held to apply to the states, and not just to the District of Columbia — which is not certain — there will still be considerable dispute about what it means for other less-sweeping gun laws. Judges may end up deciding these on a law-by-law basis.
Supporters of gun control must fight in court to ensure that registration requirements and background-check rules, and laws against bulk sales of handguns — a major source of guns used in crimes — are all upheld.
The court left room for gun-control advocates to fight back. It made clear that there were gun restrictions that it was not calling into question, including bans on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings.
That last part is the final indignity of the decision: when the justices go to work at the Supreme Court, guns will still be banned. When most Americans show up at their own jobs, they will not have that protection.
This audaciously harmful decision, which hands the far right a victory it has sought for decades, is a powerful reminder of why voters need to have the Supreme Court firmly in mind when they vote for the president this fall.
Senator John McCain has said he would appoint justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — both of whom supported this decision. If the court is allowed to tip even further to the far right, there will be even more damage done to the rights and the safety of Americans.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Even Obama believes in the individual right to bear arms, which has been a tradition throughout the history of the United States and is a stated Constitutional right (unlike, say, abortion).
The violent crime rate in D.C. increased greatly after guns were banned there. The far left prefers to leave law-abiding citizens defenseless, at the mercy of the thugs. The hell with that.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Mr. King,
Was it last week that I predicted that Obama would lean toward the DLC and the financial services industry?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Mr. King,
Obama's recent statements are disappointing but not unexpected. He's still a long way off from McCains's reversals and pandering. McCain, at times, seems confused.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Obama will keep changing his tune until he and McCain have pretty much the same stance on most issues. Then he'll point it out during the debates with the implication being if you don't vote Obama you're against 'change.'
It makes absolutely no sense but I've seen it before.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Frank,
I agree with half your statement and disagree with the other half.
Obama's panderings and reversals are every bit the equal of McCain's. Plus, Obama has a way of taking both sides of an issue by using contradictory rhetoric that is simply infuriating (the guns issue is a good example).
But McCain does seem confused, almost half-hearted. He doesn't seem to be able to figure out who he is or what kind of candidate he should be. Not very impressive. When I envision an Obama/McCain debate, I think Obama's oratorical skills, higher energy, and tv "look" will carry the day, even though my political beliefs are a little more in line with Mac's. The GOP picked the wrong candidate. Obama will win the election.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:58 am
larry,
Obama is a cunning campaigner, if not an honest one. I think he looks at what the GOP's strategy is, such as the GOP saying Obama's history is straight liberal, and then he takes some right wing positions on some issues to offset that so he can say the GOP is being dishonest later on in the campaign. Every time a charge that might stick is made against Obama, he changes like a chameleon (Rev. Wright, Iran, guns, the surge, etc). That's why I think Lindsay Graham was so accurate when he said that pinning down Obama's position on issues is like "trying to nail Jello to a wall". That's the most accurate description of Obama I've heard yet.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
You're right about McCain too, King. He's too darn tired.