Is Obama flip-flopping?

[jackoroe]

He's in way over his head. Anybody that has to give a speech defending his patriotism has some serious issues. We're starting to see buyer's remorse, but its too late to change the course, now.

Obama, like many libs, has no core beliefs. He'll say and do anything to get elected. Hell, he fucked over his own Grandmother, for gosh sakes! He's an absolute trainwreck. Sad part is, McCain a toady as well.

We're fucked in 2008!

 

[Sammie13]

I like this centrist 2.0 version of Obama a lot better than the lefty 1.0 Obama. In fact, version 2.0 will probably get my vote in November.

 

[kneelin]

Name one politician in history that's never flip-flopped and changed their mind on an issue. I can wait....

True . . . but that still doesn't make it a positive attribute

and what about the "change" thing???

 

[Zingerific]

in some cases, Obama seems to be abandoning principles.

I don't see it that way, Palindromos. His campaign of "change" wasn't really talking about policy. He was never the most liberal of the Democratic candidates. Most of his change rhetoric was referring to process, not policy. He talked about the partisan tone in Washington, he talked about the virtues of reaching across the isle; his colleagues in the Illinois Senate stressed his compromising, congenial nature and his eagerness to reach consensus. Given that, it's absolutely not surprising that his policy agenda is centrist; I don't know how anyone could have expected anything else.

He has recently come out against MoveOn.org's attacks on General Petraeus, going out of his way to defend the general. What does this mean?

It means that Obama doesn't have a preposterous martyrdom complex that the fools at MoveOn have.

Anybody that has to give a speech defending his patriotism has some serious issues.

You're right, jackoroe, Obama has serious issues. He has issues with people who object to a lack of a flag lapel pin, he has issues with people who have a problem with his name, he has issues with people who think a fist bump is a terrorist signal. Yeah, Obama's got serious issues.

Obama, like many libs, has no core beliefs.

I thought conservatives were deathly afraid of the secular, permissive, godless liberal beliefs.

 

[Jannus]

We're fucked in 2008!

As though there were any way that could possibly compare to the way we were fucked in 2000 and 2004.

 

[iman]

Obama is moving rapidly to the middle. He is distancing himself from the left wing base he needed for the nomination (where else can they go?) and minimizing the differences between himself and McCain. Actually, he is running as Bill Clinton.


McBama - Change We Can Believe In!

 

[falconfan]

Name one politician in history that's never flip-flopped and changed their mind on an issue. I can wait....

Andrew Jackson... man was one of the biggest asses in human history but damn was he consistent

As far as Obama goes I don't fault him for repositioning for a general election. What bothers me is that Obama voters curcified Hillary for doing the same thing but you can't take that out on the man.

 

[Supernature]

Andrew Jackson... man was one of the biggest asses in human history but damn was he consistent

As far as Obama goes I don't fault him for repositioning for a general election. What bothers me is that Obama voters curcified Hillary for doing the same thing but you can't take that out on the man.

If you haven't noticed Obama supporters here putting forth their criticisms on some of the recent positions he has taken (like FISA) then you haven't been paying attention. Even on Obama's website, the current largest group among his supporters are those criticizing his stance on FISA. Hardly a group of mindless unquestioning cultists.

Just as was the case with Hillary, I'm more mystified why McCain supporters aren't questioning McCain's more glaring flipflops (his about face on offshore drilling, immigration, the GI Bill etc.). Plenty of kool-aid to go round apparently.

 

[LaloGS]

I'm concerned about BO's recent statement that he liked and believed in supporting and would increase support of Bush's faith based initiatives for charity. We know that the large percentage of faith based groups used any Federal monies they got to create religious schools in their church basements to keep their children from attending public schools with blacks and Hispanics, and to make sure their children didn't have to hear anything about evolution during their so called education. Maybe there were a few faith based groups who did the right thing and helped out with those funds in their neighborhoods, but the majority did not.

Obama's sudden support for another failed Bush policy is troubling even far beyond the questions of separation of Church and State.

 

[falconfan]

I'm concerned about BO's recent statement that he liked and believed in supporting and would increase support of Bush's faith based initiatives for charity. We know that the large percentage of faith based groups used any Federal monies they got to create religious schools in their church basements to keep their children from attending public schools with blacks and Hispanics, and to make sure their children didn't have to hear anything about evolution during their so called education. Maybe there were a few faith based groups who did the right thing and helped out with those funds in their neighborhoods, but the majority did not.

Obama's sudden support for another failed Bush policy is troubling even far beyond the questions of separation of Church and State.

Wow generalize much? Catholic schools are far from hiding places away from minorities. My mother has been a Catholic school teacher in the diocese of Trenton and a good 95% of her class is always made up of racial minorities. Private schools are often used by people who's local school system has miserably failed them and who are looking for some other outlet.

Not to mention that "faith-based charities" aren't the same as religious schools. A number of prominent charities which provide basic human comforts for men and women of any races, denomination, or social class are faith based, like the Salvation Army.

I personally don't believe in government funding of faith based institutions in that it's a clear conflict of interests but I understand why someone would overlook that conflict and your statements were clearly an over simplification.

 

[iman]

What campaigns have you been watching? Obama has always been circular. He's never been far to one side or the other because he rarely even addressed issues. In most of his speeches, he'd state the issue, name the problems and name what needed to be changed. He never really addressed how he'd change things with few exceptions like his proposal for gas and a general shift in political delivery. His overall tactic, which many are confusing as "weak" and "flipflopping" is that he's willing to compromise.

He may not truly be that flexible, but that's been his angle. He stated his faith and denounced gay marriage early on, but is now supporting civil unions. Whichever side he's on, he waited til he beat Hillary to let it be known. We won't really know which way he truly leans til things heat up and he lays out an actual blueprint, not just maybes and pipe dreams and slogans. The campaign is over for the nomination so now he can set his own identity. Campaigning against another democrat is entirely different from campaigning against a republican.

PS. Until Obama cheats on Michelle and leaves her after she becomes disabled for a young heiress/media whore former crackhead, they're almost polar opposites. Obama=family man, Mccain=expensive cradle thief.

-----------------------------------------------

Your first two paragraphs beg the question: How can you support Obama if you have no idea what he is going to do?

The last paragraph is the kind of gratuitous character assassination popularized by the far right Republicans that has no place in a Democratic campaign. Is this the "new kind of politics"?

 

[chance1]

I like this centrist 2.0 version of Obama a lot better than the lefty 1.0 Obama. In fact, version 2.0 will probably get my vote in November.

scary fuckin post

what makes u think version 2.0 is real?

his whole political life he has been 1.0

u should know better sammie

 

[chance1]

I don't see it that way, Palindromos. His campaign of "change" wasn't really talking about policy. He was never the most liberal of the Democratic candidates. Most of his change rhetoric was referring to process, not policy. He talked about the partisan tone in Washington, he talked about the virtues of reaching across the isle; his colleagues in the Illinois Senate stressed his compromising, congenial nature and his eagerness to reach consensus. Given that, it's absolutely not surprising that his policy agenda is centrist; I don't know how anyone could have expected anything else.
It means that Obama doesn't have a preposterous martyrdom complex that the fools at MoveOn have. You're right, jackoroe, Obama has serious issues. He has issues with people who object to a lack of a flag lapel pin, he has issues with people who have a problem with his name, he has issues with people who think a fist bump is a terrorist signal. Yeah, Obama's got serious issues. I thought conservatives were deathly afraid of the secular, permissive, godless liberal beliefs.

u didn't hear? he's got the flap lapel pin back on

 

[naked gent]

I'm concerned about BO's recent statement that he liked and believed in supporting and would increase support of Bush's faith based initiatives for charity. We know that the large percentage of faith based groups used any Federal monies they got to create religious schools in their church basements to keep their children from attending public schools with blacks and Hispanics, and to make sure their children didn't have to hear anything about evolution during their so called education. Maybe there were a few faith based groups who did the right thing and helped out with those funds in their neighborhoods, but the majority did not.

Obama's sudden support for another failed Bush policy is troubling even far beyond the questions of separation of Church and State.

If he means what he says about giving taxpayer money to religious organizations he'll loose my vote. I'll never vote for Mccain because of his war vote but if Obama wants my vote he had better say that under his program, unlike Bush's, that any organization receiving taxpayer money cannot discriminate against american citizens.

Personally I believe that they are allowed to do so is unconstitutional but if he supports giving money to christians so they can close their doors to non-christians or jews so they can turn their backs on the gentiles he can take his stupid flag pin and shove it where the sun don't shine.

 

[construct]

If he means what he says about giving taxpayer money to religious organizations he'll loose my vote. I'll never vote for Mccain because of his war vote but if Obama wants my vote he had better say that under his program, unlike Bush's, that any organization receiving taxpayer money cannot discriminate against american citizens.

Personally I believe that they are allowed to do so is unconstitutional but if he supports giving money to christians so they can close their doors to non-christians or jews so they can turn their backs on the gentiles he can take his stupid flag pin and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Well, from what I can tell, Sen. Obama's faith-based initiative ideas are a bit different from Pres. Bush's. Apparently there would be greater accountability to ensure that it's not a cover for proselytizing--stuff like that. It really amounts to a public-private partnership to do social services. I think I read something about anti-discrimination considerations, too.

I guess I'm saying that it's not time to get excited yet, but it may be time for both of us to do a little more research.

 

[kneelin]

Well, from what I can tell, Sen. Obama's faith-based initiative ideas are a bit different from Pres. Bush's. Apparently there would be greater accountability to ensure that it's not a cover for proselytizing--stuff like that. It really amounts to a public-private partnership to do social services. I think I read something about anti-discrimination considerations, too.
.

He can say that but we all know that once the churches have the money, there will be no effective way to monitor them without a whole new bureaucracy. The government should use established methods and keep the separation of church and state.

Bad move by Obama to cater to the religious voters.

 

[iman]

There's more Obama hyperbole and gossip in one day than there is Mccain recognition in two months.

------------------------------------------------

I agree with you, but it does no good to try and smear the McCains with the same kind of rhetoric that was used against Bill Clinton for so many years. The public knows McCain and know that he is honest and of good character and calling his wife a tax cheat and a drug addict is just silly. She had a prescription drug problem following surgery and had a property that was in arrears in taxes - big deal, welcome to America. It is not a sin to run against Obama.

Obama is open to a lot of false charges because he has a slim resume and most of that has been constructed with an eye to higher office. That is the chance that he decided to take and now those of us that will vote for him have to take a chance on an unknown quantity. As a voter, I don't like being put in that position.

 

[opinterph]

If he means what he says about giving taxpayer money to religious organizations he'll loose my vote.

Your sentiment is shared by many; however, Obama's revelation probably makes many others happy ...


According to Beliefnet (Part of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Entertainment Group) Obama is demonstrating that faith would shape policy in his administration.

A recent God-o-Meter post (published by that site) also indicates Obama would expand the funding of faith-based groups.

In effect, he's out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President's specialty areas--connecting faith and public policy.

 

[chuck10x]

Obama based his presidential campaign on "Change".
Just words?
Apparently so.
I do want to see Obama in the Whitehouse, But he is moving further to the right than Hillary, And we all know how Hillary was treated on her stands on the issues that Obama now supports.
Funding Religous Organizations is just wrong.
The religous right will vote for McCain, And when Obama wins, will hold Obama to his promise to fund them, either way they win.

 

[LaloGS]

Wow generalize much? Catholic schools are far from hiding places away from minorities. My mother has been a Catholic school teacher in the diocese of Trenton and a good 95% of her class is always made up of racial minorities. Private schools are often used by people who's local school system has miserably failed them and who are looking for some other outlet. Before you attack me you ought to read what I said. I said nothing about existing schools or religious school systems. What I said was the majority of Federal funds going to so called faith based groups did not end up helping at the local level unless you believe the local level was to use the funds to set up private religious schools to keep children of these faith based groups from being forced to attend public schools along with blacks and Hispanics and to hear lectures about evolution. I mentioned no Catholic programs, however now that you have brought them up, they are not guiltless especially in Katrina ravaged New Orleans. From what I see in the media, the faith based groups that have been helping most in that area of need are individual volunteer groups that don't qualify for Federal help, and many have met resistance from both the Federal government as well as local churches who are made to look bad when they have spent their Federal funds on isolating themselves from what they consider riff raff.

Not to mention that "faith-based charities" aren't the same as religious schools. A number of prominent charities which provide basic human comforts for men and women of any races, denomination, or social class are faith based, like the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is not a true church as defined by the Faith Based initiatives, but rather an organization more akin to the Red Cross although they do make people asking to be fed attend a religious meeting before being fed. You really can't read well can you? Not at all on subject. Schools are not faith based groups. Churches are. So what you are saying is you let the churches receiving this Federal faith based money off the hook for doing the right thing because there already exist organizations providing charity where it is needed like the Red Cross, and Oxfam? So why give the fucking churches the Federal money if they aren't going to do the right thing with it? Because it buys conservative right wing religious votes when they are needed.

I personally don't believe in government funding of faith based institutions in that it's a clear conflict of interests but I understand why someone would overlook that conflict and your statements were clearly an over simplification.

Admittedly I do over simplify, but that does not make my points any less valid. The faith based initiatives and Federal funding for them amount to a certain kind of vote buying, and I am shocked that Prince Obama is supporting bush on this and indicating he would increase support for these self interested groups. This is worse pandering than anything I've heard from any candidate ever.