57 States of Moslem and Obama the Flipper, A Man of Seasonal Principles

by PEP | July 4, 2008 at 04:02 am
728 views | 39 Recommendations | 20 comments

Update July 6-- Recently, a friend and I discussed the campaign. The issue of Obama's flip flops and his mis-statements came up, including the now-infamous brag that he'd campaigned in all 57 states.

I'd pretty well shrugged that one off. Then my friend said "But don't you know? That's a reference to Muslim-run states."

What? A true confession here--I routinely toss any of those email attachments and forwards that rant about political matters. So many of them have been proven to be false (I read and heed snopes.com) that I just don't bother.

So I figured that this, too, must be another email circulation. Given that my friend is very aware, I said that obviously I needed to do some research.

What do you know? There are indeed, 57 current Muslim states. They are banded together in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

Reading about the organisation, and recalling Obama's ties to various shady and America-hating peoples, I had to stop and reflect. And I changed my opinion.

Obama's gaffe wasn't, as I originally thought, just an accident. I think it was a true Freudian slip.

And he accidentally sent a message about which states he's really interested in and wishes to forge bonds with, and lead.

Original post follows.

A read of the Washington Post's news section yields this: " Sen. Barack Obama raised the possibility of slowing a promised gradual, 16-month withdrawal from Iraq if he is elected president, saying that Thursday he will consult with military commanders on an upcoming trip to the region and "continue to refine" his proposals." 


In Obama's rush to out-McCain Mcain, will his race to grab onto the coat tails of the war hero reveal yet another bit of political opportunism? Post Op-Ed columist Charles Krauthammer thinks this newest change is just one in a long series of position flips from Obama.

What do you think?

UPDATE: I decided to do some research on Obama's positions on Iraq. Here's what I found on his own webpage:

"As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences...

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months... if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

[q url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070302451.html?hpid=opinionsbox1"

Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?

Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.

Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.

[/q]

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
mpress
mpress
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 07:38 on July 4th, 2008

PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
PEP

mpress, over luncheon yesterday a friend and I talked about how many times, especially recently, Obama has flipped his stances on major issues--and how he gets away with it! Ever notice that when he's not reading from the teleprompter, but going ex temp, he tends to put foot in mouth and make some outrageous flip flops and statements? Thanks for the read and the flag.

0
James Pate

Change we can believe in... I'll believe it when I see it, until then every politician is suspect. Obama's recent behaviour has done nothing to convince me he's any different than those who came before him.

0
PEP

James, unfortunately, the Obama buzzword of "change" has been embraced in a cult-like manner without a crystal clear definition. Hey, if I decide to throw rocks at my neighbor's house, it's a change--but is it a good one? The mantra-like repetition of "change, change" while embracing the "same old" in cynical political flip-flopping is getting a bit thin, IMHO.

0
Albert Milliron

 As I have stated on NP in the past.  Obama is all about change.  He was Liberal in the Primaries and has Changed to moderate for the general election.  He will Change back to the most liberal senator once the election is over.  He speaks of coming together but has voted almost completly with the majority of Democrats. 

BigT
BigT
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 12:20 on July 4th, 2008

Change we can believe in... Yeah right. What we've got for this election is two top-notch political power players. Both are savvy at meaning nothing.

0
PEP

Politics, politics, huh? Of the two, though, at least McCain has a long track record, and one that includes not hewing to a certain political camp based on kneejerk reactions ("oh, I always vote way leftist liberal or far far right conservative" type of thing), but a focus on individual issues--which to me signals more of a moderate, able to balance and negotiate ability. The problem with politics, I think, is that pablum works--easy to manipulate the masses with nifty slogans and buzzwords. And that's scary. Thanks for the read and the flag.

0
James Pate

McCain likes to paint himself as a moderate, and I believe in some ways he is (or was, he changes his mind so much). However, my main issue with him is not that he now agrees with Bush on 95% of the issues, it's his famous explosive temper. He is a loose cannon and should not have his finger on the button.

0
PEP

I've looked seriously at the "anger" issue, James, and I'm not sure that it's not being exaggerated. In reading about numerous presidents, I've not yet found one that didn't lose his temper.


McCain is a straight shooter who's overcome cancer--and is repeatedly made fun of for the way he talks--and who's survived being a P.O.W., and who lives with daily pain because of those injuries from P.O.W. days. And let's face it--Washington has a lot of reasons to make you angry, especially if you work in the government and have to deal with it daily.

So I had to ask myself--would I rather have a man with all this experience and who speaks his mind and who now and then has a bit of a temper--and who knows that and works on it--or a man who's smooth, smooth, reads well from a teleprompter, and flip flops?

Give me the man with honest passion and experience. And the sad thing: notice that we're still talking about "the man who.." Shirley Chisholm, despite being a great candidate, didn't have a chance. at all. Hillary didn't have much more, and was derailed by a huge Obama block, including media that became propagandists. But that's another discussion!


0
dunkelberg

Would anyone care to label this as opinion?

0
PEP

Will you fix the auto-tagging problem that doesn't allow you to do your own, or the bug that throws tags at the story and then refuses to allow you to publish because there are too many tags, or the glitch where headlines were getting cut off, willy-nilly, for apparently, some unknown "x" factor of  length, arbitarily cutting words off before completion?

Thanks in advance for doing that!

There's also three very big clues in the body of the post: " Post Op-Ed columist Charles Krauthammer thinks..."    i.e. Op-Ed, columnist, thinks. I rather doubt anyone thought that an op-ed columnist's thoughts were a straight news story.

NP glitches plus FF3 adapations have made for some passing problems, as several of us have noted.

0
Albert Milliron

The story is tagged as op-ed. 

Barry ORegan
Barry ORegan
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 18:42 on July 6th, 2008

PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
PEP

Hi Barry, thanks for the read and the flag. This is going to be a very hard-fought campaign, I think.

René
René
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 19:45 on July 6th, 2008

Thanks, PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
René

Very charitable of you to call outright duplicity simply flip-flopping.

0
PEP

Flip flopping doesn't quite haul all the freight, does it?      ;}

Thanks for the read and the flag.


duo
duo
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 21:33 on July 6th, 2008

PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff.  A 16-month projection for troop withdrawal (even if the deadline is extended later) beats the heck out of McCain's idea of having a 100 Years War.  What would be the source of funding and soldiers for extended warfare?

0
PEP

Hi duo, and welcome! Thanks for the  read and the flag. I'd like to respond to one comment, if you don't mind. McCain didn't say that he would have a 100 years war (I always think of Brit history with that term!)-he said that he believed we should stay the course until the job was done, even if it takes 100 years.

Albert Milliron
Albert Milliron
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 19:40 on July 7th, 2008

PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff. nice spirited discussion

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from