The Audacity of Abandonment
Obama moves from denial to obfuscation to capitulation.
By Richard H Collins Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Barack Obama | Obamafiles — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If I were a supporter of Barack Obama I would be nervous. Why? Is it his inexperience, his radical connections, or his stale liberal positions? Nope. I would be nervous because he seems fundamentally incapable of sticking with his principles on a host of issues large and small.
I know his supporters are enthralled with Mr. Hope and Change, but shouldn’t it worry them that he is so quick to backtrack and hedge his answers – or even switch positions entirely – during the course of a relatively short campaign? What will happen should he feel the real pressure of actual leadership (something he has yet to do in any real capacity)?
Read on.
The most recent example is public financing. When Obama was the underdog fighting against the Clinton machine he promised to work with the GOP nominee and agree to public financing for the general election campaign:
“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
This past April, however, he began backtracking and seeking a way out of his promise. Clearly, having raised more money than anyone he was suddenly unwilling to keep his word. He offered this laughable excuse:
"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”
Who needs public financing when you can simply redefine your own campaign as a “parallel public financing system”?
And now Obama has made it official: he will be the first candidate since Richard Nixon to not participate in public financing for the general election. In going back on his word Obama, in classic fashion, declares that this is how to declare “independence from a broken system” and “truly change how Washington works." Only in Obama’s world can breaking a promise mean Hope and Change. For a man who puts such stock in the power of words, he abandons his own with remarkable regularity.
In fact, a clear pattern has developed on issues where his rhetoric meets political risk. Obama moves from denial to obfuscation to capitulation. He follows this pattern on his associations and issues.
Remember how he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could his own grandmother? How the whole issue was a distraction taken out of context? When the pressure continued to mount and questions continued to be asked he soon felt compelled to repudiate Wright’s statements and quit the church he was a member of for 20 years, where he had been married and his children were baptized.
What about the man charged with heading up his VP selection process, Jim Johnson? When the questionable activities of Johnson were first brought up it was “a game” that was being played. But when Johnson’ s sweetheart compensation packages and mismanagement on various corporate boards was set in clear contrast to Obama’s self-righteous rhetoric on the mortgage crisis, Johnson was soon relegated to the ever crowded space under the proverbial bus.
Obama follows the same pattern on issues. When John McCain suggested that Obama should visit Iraq in order to get an up-to-date briefing on the progress their before making promises about withdrawal Obama’s foreign policy advisor labeled the idea “garbage.” And yet Obama recently announced that he was planning to visit Iraq and Afghanistan during the campaign.
Obama’s famous promise to personally meet with unrepentant dictators required a great deal of attempted nuance and clarification – and historical misrepresentation – before he basically admitted that he would not meet directly with America’s enemies without preconditions.
The list goes on and on: from wearing a flag pin to the status of Jerusalem; from lifting the federal supervision on the Teamsters to the threat from Iran; from his family’s role in World War Two liberation to his protectionist rhetoric on NAFTA. Time and time again, Obama says one thing and then does another; makes one promise or statement only to change it based on political expediency.
Obama supporters laud him as a different politician; as someone who can change the way Washington works and bring real solutions to our problems. But how can you trust a candidate who so easily capitulates in the face of criticism and regularly breaks his promises? Is this really change you can believe in?
I can’t believe it, but maybe Hillary was right. Maybe Obama’s campaign is “just words.”
Richard H. Collins is the founder of Stop-him-Now.com, a website dedicated to educating the public about Barack Obama's leftist agenda.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is "Obama" — Comments (4) »
The Audacity of Abandonment 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...something important: his supporters see his maleability as a good thing.
They see his lack of fixed principles as a positive for a very simple reason; they have no fixed principles either.
They see his "ability" to rapidly shift views as good; they know little and believe in nothing themselves so he is the perfect model.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
his team confirm everyday what Rush has said for years. Liberalism, or in Obie's case, American Marxism, is a gutless philosophy. There is no position he won't abandon, no relative or adviser he won't throw under the bus, no lie he won't tell. He has no core values, so he will never have to compromise those.
Sure he has a core value. He is absolutely convinced that he should be president. No matter the cost, no matter the tactic, no matter the political position. Anyone or anything that may stand in the way can and will be compromised, denied, restated, abandoned, denounced, or blamed on someone else.
"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
------------------------------------------
This signature left intentionally blank
And thus, ironicly, the One who claims to be above politics is, instead, the ultimate politician.
------------------------------------------
This signature left intentionally blank
Not really seen much in terms of "principles" getting in the way for them, to be honest.
Decency, common sense, or shame, either.
"Once within the maw of Leviathan, degree of digestion is irrelevant." - Michael Fisk
and reasons to be optimistic. I used to pray that Obama's naivete was at least some part real. His complete 180 on campaign finance reform has finished the job of strangling that notion, and now I find I am terrified of the guy. I definitely think a politician needs to stand on principle at times, but too much of that and you've got a situation like the one outlined in this article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html
where McCain's principled stand on 527s and public repudiation of groups spending money to try and help him has led to a situation where there aren't any PACs willing to stick their necks and wallets out there only to have McCain chop them off. I totally respect McCain for this, by the way, but at the same time I have to admit it has put him at a huge disadvantage, whereas Obama's political expediency has put him at a colossal advantage.
Taking principle out of it for a second, the political calculus here for those who want to be optimistic for McCain would have to be that the damage done to Obama's brand by being politically expedient outweighs the positive effects that all that cash is going to have on things. Certainly there is damage if even the MSM notices, but they'll soon forgive him and even if they don't he'll outspend McCain so much that by November even conservatives will be swaying, eyes unfocused, mesmerized by the Obamathon that they see on their televisions. Okay perhaps not the conservatives, but surely plenty of independents.
The more I read about this Obama guy, the more I think to myself that you know what, he DOES have what it takes to go toe to toe with the badguys of the world. He'll do whatever he needs to do to win. If he needs to play patty-cakes with Iran and Palestine he'll do it, if he needs to bomb them tomorrow he'll do it. Sort of like a Bill Clinton.
Now, I think a poll-driven guy like that can be disaster in dangerous times such as these, I'm just saying that I prefer poll-driven Obama to doe-eyed bambi Obama.
The one thing that Obama supporters have to be nervous about is that, even though Obama's actions increase the likelihood of him winning, they don't exactly fill anyone with the sense that he adheres to any particular ideology other than the one that results in more power for him. In fact on issues that are clear losers in the general, such as NAFTA, it seems all but guaranteed he'll put those at the bottom of the pile.
Obama has a strange, splintered set of tools. Dynamite with a teleprompter, but absolute garbage (and dangerous to himself) speaking off the cuff. A smooth and ruthless operator on one hand who has no problems acting utterly opposite his stated values, and a complete gaffe-o-matic on the other.
I want McCain in office, don't get me wrong, really the only thing that I am furious with him about is that I can tell he's still pissed off that anyone had the gall do disagree with his immigration plan. I think Obama's Marxism and foreign policy, if he means any of what he's said, are just catastrophic. But I'm starting to doubt that he's meant any of it as he fills up his team with former Clintonistas, and I am starting to respect him as a political operator the way I respected Clinton.
Now it's awfully easy to be smooth when the entire media is in your camp. But Obama wouldn't be caught dead pissing off his base overtly like McCain has. He'll flip around, and maybe that will anger them a little, but he always leaves a little cover. He stays at Trinity for the black vote until the last possible moment and even on his way out doesn't say anything bad about them. He'll never come out and say he thinks NAFTA is bunk, and as such he leaves that small bit of space for the die-hards to convince themselves he's still a protectionist.
McCain is, as he's been saying, way more of a new kind of politician than Obama. The problem is that this new kind of politics is a big loser.
The more I read about this Obama guy, the more I think to myself that you know what, he DOES have what it takes to go toe to toe with the badguys of the world. He'll do whatever he needs to do to win. If he needs to play patty-cakes with Iran and Palestine he'll do it, if he needs to bomb them tomorrow he'll do it. Sort of like a Bill Clinton.
Now, I think a poll-driven guy like that can be disaster in dangerous times such as these, I'm just saying that I prefer poll-driven Obama to doe-eyed bambi Obama.
But the problem here is that all the political calculus in which Obama has engaged during this campaign season -- and, arguably, throughout his state legislative and U.S. Senatorial career -- has been aimed at attaining the presidency. The problem arises once he would get into office: how would he govern? He would then already be president of the world's most powerful nation with the largest economy, etc. Would he govern according to the polls? I don't think so -- I figure he would govern according to asserting his personal sway over more parts of the government, over more parts of the private sector, over the Congress, over international organizations, etc.
We call him "Marxist." I don't think that's accurate. The most direct child of Marxism was the Soviet Union, which was a communist state where loyalty to the nation was paramount -- you did what you did for the good of the state, the party, the fatherland, etc. Obama isn't so concerned with engendering loyalty to the good ol' U.S. of A. or George Washington or apple pie or the Stars and Stripes (witness the flag pin controversy or the following explanation of "I have my own kind of patriotism," which centers on "ME discussing MY ideas for the nation"). Obama is a would-be fascist icon in the classic sense... "Hope in ME." "WE are the change we've been waiting for." His campaign is about one thing: Barack Obama, pure and simple. No issues, no positions, no policy articulations, no nothing except his personal self as the sine qua non of the future. That's a fascist icon of the mid-20th century European variety.*
He wouldn't be driven by polls, and certainly not by principle. He would be driven by his own self-aggrandizement.
*No, I'm not saying he would murder millions of people a la Hitler or Mussolini. That would require him to have a position and stick to it, which, thankfully, he's unable to do. But it does mean that, like Hitler and Mussolini, he seeks power through loyalty to his own self as the savior of the nation, all else be damned.
"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)
Clinton was very poll-driven but I think it may be as you say that he was a different kind of narcissist than Obama. Clinton always had one eye on the approval ratings, and was often driven to the center by them. I find myself agreeing with you that, to a greater degree than with Clinton, approval is only secondary to Obama. If it helps him accumulate power, e.g. for his first 4 years in office where he's worried about re-election, he'll pay attention to them. But personal power does indeed appear to be his primary objective.
You're also correct in that the label of Marxism is mis-applied, or rather not quite the best fit. He appears to show some of the redistributive qualities associated with that ideology, but politically he wouldn't seem to be anywhere near as wedded to the party as the communists were. I used Marxism more as a throwaway intended to convey the redistributive side and perhaps should have been more precise.
On those two points I submit to your superior analysis (no snark!).
So, re-casting Obama more accurately as a fascist power-monger (instead of just a poll-driven narcissist), in a head-to-head matchup with the Ahmadinejad's of the world, Obama the backstabber is more equipped to deal with them than Jimmah-lite.
It's just now I'm going to wet the bed tonight after my nightmares of Obama pronouncing himself emperor of the U.S. Now look what you've done :)
I might be tempted to say that Obama the emperor might not be so bad because his track record is one of inactivity, but as you point out, up until now everything he's done has been aimed at the presidency. Once he has the presidency there's no reason to think he'll adhere to any of his past patterns. So really, we have no flipping clue what he'll do when in office, or how much of it we'll do. I mean I'm sure whatever he does will be more liberal than conservative out of deference to the political ideology that made his power grab possible, but he is really sort of unique in that no one, including his own party, really knows what the guy will do.
Bill Clinton was slightly left leaning but not ideological in nature. Thus he could adapt to circumstances.
Obama is a far left true believer. A fanatic from all I can see.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
He is "left" only in the tactics and policies he goes with in the pursuit of self-aggrandizement. Forwarding leftist policies isn't what drives him, they are a means to an end -- the end of him having power over as much as he can.
(Of course, self-aggrandizement is the underlying goal of liberalism in general, Obama is just the most recent, most acute, and most transparent example of embodied liberalism)
"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)
I mean he definitely was forged in the fires of radical liberalism, his wife is out there, his church is out there, etc. And he's said some scary far-left things. But the speed with which he tosses it all away when convenient is breathtaking.
I think it wisest and safest to proceed under the assumption that he's left of everything on the planet. But as Crowe points out, it's starting to look like the only Church Obama subscribes to is the Church of Obama, and none of us really knows what they preach there, other than whatever his little heart desires.
Invest in some plastic sheets...
"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)
The reason Obama can not speak off the cuff is because he studied several charismatic speakers in order to emulate them. His charisma and hope speach is an act he has been perfecting. Real leaders of change such as JFK and MLK could answer hard questions without hesitation because they held true passion in their hearts and believed in what they were saying. Don't most people stumble when they are caught in a lie?
Bill Clinton was not ignorant and practiced lying for a longer time in office and so stopped hesitating decades ago.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Really, just remarkable. And hey, he's relatively safe when he's stuttering up a storm, it's when the record stops skipping that he starts waving the shotgun wildly around in the direction of his feet. His handlers have to get mental images of toddlers racing around with sharp objects every time he gets handed the mic at a townhall.
Like a good politician, though, he throws townhalls under the bus in an instant rather than be sucked into a forum that he knows is dangerous for him, figuring rightly that he has every media advantage and it makes zero sense for him to give McCain a puncher's chance out of some notion of fairness or whatever.
Now Bush can make up an odd word now and then, but he was another example of a talented politician. Since the media had a narrative of Bush the dummy, he played the expectations game like a master, and did a very good job of staying on point during debates. Such a good job, in fact, that rather than getting dragged into some B.S. nuanced discussion with Kerry in which Kerry had both sides of the argument rehearsed, Bush just let Kerry go ahead and get nuanced on his own. Talk about giving a guy some rope. The libs never gave Bush credit for how good a politician he was, which is why even at 0.01% presidential approval rating they're STILL funding his war and caving on FISA and wondering how in heck they got here.
I am an American citizen living in Europe. I came here a few years ago but I kept up with all the news especially the election.
Very recently, and since the nomination of Senator Obama to be exact I noticed here in France a flood of television programming on African Americans and on civil rights activists: a loooong documentary on Obama, on MLK, Malcon X , ROOTS (Monday trough Friday @ 2.45 pm . Just a few days ago, doc on Jack Johnson the fighter, two movies on Mohamad Ali. One I'm watching just as I'm writing to you. I don't know if you can get the programming for the past week or weeks From TF1or FRANCE 2 You will see what they are showing. and will know what I'm talking about. I am reliving the sixties and the seventies all over again. What a drag! Been there. Done that.
Of course they are trying to portray United States as a racist country or how racist it was.
But what ever their motives, I know they don't like the United States or its policy on anything. Their comments on TV are in most parts negative. Few years back they practically crowned Michael Moore and he was invited on talk shows with his stupid translator. Today is Will Smith(1pm channel 2) This sudden interest of reprogramming reruns of the 70s documentaries about selected parts of the American past is of real concern as to why they are doing it NOW? My question is: Is it under the pretense " America is changing? Or Is it a subtle intro of Obama to the Europeans? It's in the bag!
I tell you Mc Cain's name is yet to be mentioned except by me maybe. Of course they know!!! They just don't want to promote his even existence except, stating quickly he is a rival to Obama.
I supported Hillary but now I will be voting for Senator John Mc Cain. I will be going back home to Los Angeles and will volunteer in his campaign.
My European experience has turned me into a somewhat a conservative. I'm not white, i'm not RICH and I'm not religious. I call myself spotted owl because I believe I'm amongst the few who are left who are color blind. Spinning off from Tina Turner " What color's got to do with it? Just today I read he asked "Black fathers" to show responsibility for their kids. Is that supposed to be a bait ? for the GOP? or putting another group under the bus and run away with it? He is a Sly. Don't fall for it. He's got a deck of race cards up his sleeves. Good and bad fathers come in all colors. As a nominee for GE I think he should address all people "the American people hello!!!" and should not speak as if he is addressing himself to blacks. He sure come across as though he does. Saying boys and bro is unacceptable. If Mc Cain said this he could kiss the election good bye wouldn't he? As I would expect that, or at list be put in a hot seat. But not Obama he is above all criticism..
(Btw the the movie about Mohamad Ali is over now and they are showing guess what? Gospel pronunced "goosepel" on Arte channel 6 Called ARTE google it
I happen to know for a solid fact that Europeans are the most racist on the planet in terms of jobs especially, very sexist, and the most xenophobe, and pathetically jealous. (If you are here as a tourist of course you are treated diffently IF!) I think they could careless if Obama is African, or green or outer space. their interest is his inexperience. his not being elected in their country. I believe, to them, he is an easy pinata.They just can't wait to get the €uro to be the currency of exchange.
They are salivating over the situation of our economy Salivating!
The French minister of the economy and labor who happened to have studied in The United States and worked for a prestigious law firm in New York, stood in the Senate bragging about their solid economy making comparison to the failling American Economy. (BTW gas here is 1.55 € per liter That's That is 7€ a gallon or a whopping $10.50.)She was lying through her teeth, but I guess to her if they are doing better than the Americans they are doing something right.In their sick view.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
The French are the largest hypocrites on the planet. They seem to have an unnatural fascination for Black Americans while they treat their own Africans like trash.
When I visited there I was astounded at seeing little curio shops everywhere with these exaggerated figures of African females, with the very exaggerated big lips and clothing that looked like Mammy on Gone with the Wind, or Aunt Jemima. It was amazing because you could not sell crap like that in the USA.
You are right about Euro's being racist. Worst of them all are the Russians. I worked on a Russian pipeline program and met five well educated Russians who spoke fine English.
The called all our brown skinned workers N*ggers and Darkies.
Including Mexicans and Indians. They were also horrible drunks.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
About the Russians that is. I tried working @ a villa here in he soouth of France for Shall we say Suddenly "very rich Russians" Yachts villas and all. OMG the sudden capitalism went right into their heads. So tacky. They treat people like crap like garbage.Because of job crisis here. Oh! this is raw material I have. you can't even image.
I'm a translator. so I try to understand the reasons, the history and the sociogeographical travel of idioms and familar expressions.
I also took pictures of street names in remote towns with racist weird names like you see I can't even use it here. (rue des trois N.) I mean a name of church! of course built in the 12th century, but would they bother changing the name to fit 21st century mentality?
Unbelievable! A lady arguing with me, said to me: " We believe in "Tolerance" ummhum!
cio!
We need to put together multiple clips contrasting all of his flips.