Is Obama flip-flopping?

[LaloGS]

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.

A situation expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

 

[construct]

A situation expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

Would you please outline the case law you would use to support your interpretation of the establishment clause and show how Sen. Obama's approach to faith-based initiatives conflicts with it? I think the Lemon test (or some modification of it) is still in effect.

 

[MrWright]

The "under God' was added in the 1950's. Originally, it was not there.

I was going to tackle that myself but you got it first.

 

[LaloGS]

Is it that surprising? Unless it's to an obnoxious degree, I overlook the merging of church and politics. Anybody remember the pledge of allegiance?

One nation, under God

Yeah, sounds like they really intended to separate God from politics

Marley, I generally agree with you, but this merging of church and state will lead us further from what we are as outlined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, what it generally means is fundamentalist conservative directions, which is what we are supposedly opposed to in middle eastern countries while we slowly drift in that direction ourselves. To over look it is more dangerous for America than to be blind to terrorism.

Look into the fundamentalist agenda in the US, and you with find the hairs on your neck rising in fright of these people. They want your freedom abolished, they want you living as you are told to live, and they are planning a hot revolution with guns and violence if they don't get their way. Our sick politicians of whom I now have to include BO, there seems to be a total lack of understanding of this evil agenda in the name of religion.

This might be a narrow POV, but it was better understood by our founding fathers who provided against the mixing of Church and state, because they had come from a religion strangled Europe, and understood the consequences of religious power over government. In this day and age, we seemingly do not grasp how evil this could be. We want to give every man his opportunity. Unfortunately a fundamentalist does not want to return the favor.

 

[LaloGS]

Would you please outline the case law you would use to support your interpretation of the establishment clause and show how Sen. Obama's approach to faith-based initiatives conflicts with it? I think the Lemon test (or some modification of it) is still in effect.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I have to say I can't do as you ask. I will however say that Obama planted his own seeds of doubt in the very speech under discussion by indicating that even as he would increase the support for Faith Based groups, he would demand more oversight and accountability because even he recognizes that these so called Faith Based Initiatives did not use the Federal funds for which they were intended. His position is blatant buying of votes in my opinion, since Faith Based initiatives were and always have been a failure.

Are you aware that Federal funds once given must be spent, and without oversight and accountability, the Government is not particularly interested in how they get spent. I was director of two programs in New York while I was younger that went after and received government grants to educate people for jobs. There was never any oversight, and both projects were targets for sponsors to bleed off the money to their own use. The same will and already has happened with Faith Based funds handed out by the Feds. This will not get my support ever. It reeks of vote buying.

 

[iman]

A New York Times editorial questions Obama's position changes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

 

[chance1]

YES

the answer to the thread question is ............

undeniably yes

he's not special

he's not unique

and he has NO experience

so what r we talking about?

an inexperienced senator with no accomplishments to speak of - who now apparently isn't really all that principled

hmmmmmmmm

Hillary must be kicking herself

 

[naked gent]

an inexperienced senator with no accomplishments to speak of - who now apparently isn't really all that principled

hmmmmmmmm

Hillary must be kicking herself

She probably is.......and McCain,no doubt, is mystified that he's losing to this guy.

But you can beat what you can't figure out.

 

[chance1]

She probably is.......and McCain,no doubt, is mystified that he's losing to this guy.

But you can beat what you can't figure out.

after 8 years of bush ...............

the dems could put up a monkey - literally

and be competitive

a well spoken minority candidate .............. should be blowing the doors off this thing

the fact that the repubs r competitive

speaks volumes about u know who

u know who is THE CHOSEN ONE

when u campaign a certain way ............ a diff way

and draw all this attention to urself - which he has done

its hard to go "BACK"

and he's trying to go "BACK"

perhaps he will be successful in fooling the peeps

doesn't fool me

if he does NOT win the genl election, it will one of the all time great upsets

yep

 

[naked gent]

^^ You're right chance.....the republicans have demonstrated that they are unfit to rule. They abandoned their principles concerning fiscal responsibility and nation building so exactly why would any sane person vote for them?

They have made a mess of our country inside and out and should be punished for doing so by being sent to the political wilderness. If Obama wins and is a disaster as president some of the blame will fall on the republicans, no matter how much they try and avoid it, because after having bungled governing as completely as they have they practically forced people to look elsewhere for competent leaders.

As I've said before the republican party has been reduced to waving their guns as they demand their tax cuts. And a sorry lot they are.

 

[letme]

If Obama wins and is a disaster as president some of the blame will fall on the republicans, no matter how much they try and avoid it

OMFG Naked Gent.....

The Dims always blame every bad thing on the Pugs. NOW you are already Blaming the Pugs for OB's train wreck that will happen

BO failed 'cause the pugs lost the election !!!!!!

Jesus , I have heard it all now.................

 

[construct]

NOW you are already Blaming the Pugs for OB's train wreck that will happen

Well, why not tell you the back-up plan. But first there's got to be a train wreck, like current administration. Hey, if we don't get sixty seats in the Senate, we'll blame congressional inaction on you guys, too.

 

[kneelin]

A New York Times editorial questions Obama's position changes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

What a well written editorial; I just read it and was going to post it here myself.
The "Times" really takes Obama to task for his numerous flip-flops on key issues.
The "Times" represents a key Obama demographic . . . if they're concerned about his changes within 'change,' he better be concerned.
They also put him on warning that he better not take the flip-flops much farther.

 

[kneelin]

So are you happy with Mccain's firm stance against homosexuality? Damn you Obama for flip-flopping onto our side!!!

Did you bother to read the editorial?
It goes after him for flip after flip and that's all you have as a response?
Stick with the whole issue instead of trying to trivialize it into a sound bite on an issue NOT even mentioned
They do mention public financing of campaigns, electronic wiretappings, special interest (religious) groups, as well as his twists on gun control and capital punishment.

 

[kneelin]

I'm well aware of Obama's flipflops, I'm one of his few supporters who acknowledges them. I've referenced them several times. I'm not trying to trivialize it, it just seems that people talk about him as if there's a better choice. What I'm wondering is, if Obama's flipflopping discourages people from voting for him, are they not going to vote or are they going to vote for Mccain? What I'm asking is, are we criticizing Obama and voting for Mccain or criticizing Obama and not voting at all. I think that's a fair question to ask.

Acknowledging his flips (which is more than most of his disciples do)doesn't reduce their significance and his weakness.

Maybe he needs to grow some balls and take some stands on issues instead of pandering.
They can always throw him out in Denver; then McCain won't be the only option.

 

[Kurn]

If a living center-political-space is not created no reform is possible.
Obama must weld left and right into a functioning whole.
Obama can do this better than Sen. McCain.

 

[jackoroe]

I was watching Obama speak in Butte, Montana yesterday. He's excruciatingly painful to watch. The man is not good on his feet at all. We are so fucked this year!

 

[kneelin]

. . . As it stands, there's literally no choice for the gay community. Someone who flip-flops, or someone who's firmly anti-gay. I don't understand why you insist I reduce the significance of his flip-flops. I talk about them, I think about them, I just don't obsess about them with an Obama voodoo doll. In some cases he flip-flops, in others its beneficial to have a flexible candidate. But if you don't think there's a chance for the gay community, go ahead and vote for Mccain, but don't get mad with George Bush III.

This is not a one issue election . . . "gay rights." Whoever is elected will have little impact on the subject, so it is a non-issue when it come to voting.
Having someone who is continuing flip-flopping on the issues is a real concern. It appears Obama needs a few more years of experience to figure out where he stands on issues.

To quote Jackroe^^^^"We are so fucked this year!"

 

[naked gent]

What is Plan B?

If the Democrats would vote for McCain, Clinton could run in 2012.

If Obama wins, no Hillary in 2012.

 

[kneelin]

. . .
Once again, George W had all the experience in the world so what if this election had been inexperienced Obama vs. George W.? I'm not saying it doesn't matter, Obama has seemed amateur since the beginning. . . . .

You better check your facts here. George W. had little to no experience ( he owned a baseball team and was Gov of Texas) when he ran for President . . . a lot like Obama and see where that lack of experience has gotten us.