PDA

View Full Version : Obama: The Consistently Political Politician


patteeu
03-16-2008, 04:22 PM
From Paul Mirengoff of Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020048.php):

Peter Wehner (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/RE-RETHINKING-IRAQ-br---Obama-s-War-11263) takes a detailed look at Barack Obama’s positions with respect to Iraq. Despite what Obama would like voters (especially Democratic primary voters) to believe, Obama has not always opposed the Bush administration on the war. In fact, according to Wehner, Obama told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

Wehner’s piece is fairly long but will repay the time spent reading it in full. Here, though, is the bottom line:

Unlike his presidential rival John McCain, an early and vocal and truly consistent critic of the Bush administration’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, Obama. . .was opposed to doing anything about Iraq even when, like everyone else, he believed Saddam Hussein was a menace who was likely armed with weapons of mass destruction; became a supporter of the war after the fact and remained one even as things were going poorly; and morphed into an aggressive opponent again just as the prospects of an American victory began to brighten. If there is a consistency here, it would appear to be the consistency of one consistently divorced from the facts on the ground and, lately, almost hermetically sealed off from even the possibility of good news. In a politician admired for his supposed open-mindedness and his ready willingness to consider new evidence, this is, to say the least, striking.

But perhaps a different kind of consistency is to be discerned in this maze. When Obama opposed the war in 2002, it was clearly in his political interest to do so; according to Dan Shomon, his campaign manager at the time, the key to Obama’s chances in the Democratic race for the Senate nomination lay in his ability to rally the Left to his side. Then, in 2004, when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush occupation strategy. In 2005, as Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular, he temporized by joining those saying we had to reduce but not withdraw our troop presence. By 2006, with the war’s unpopularity deepening, he embraced a policy of full-scale withdrawal. . . .

[W]hat all this suggests is that Barack Obama does not represent an authentic new “brand” in American politics; rather, he has shown himself to be an exceptionally adept political animal who can adjust to the prevailing political winds with seamless ease. As the election season progresses, it remains to be seen what tortuously defended new positions will be embraced by this consistently political politician, and what price they will exact in his reputation as a principled and courageous new voice.

memyselfI
03-16-2008, 04:25 PM
Shocking.

Meet the new boss...

SNR
03-16-2008, 04:31 PM
I do wonder what lot of Obama supporters have to say regarding this. Most of the time when I bring this point up, they say I just hate hope and change and tell me to **** off.

HonestChieffan
03-16-2008, 04:47 PM
You racist

tiptap
03-16-2008, 05:48 PM
I am as disappointed and will change my vote as much as Bush's change about Global Warming and curbing of CO 2 changed my vote. I am not looking for consistency. Hell I have had enough of that with this Presidents approach to Iraq. And I am not looking for a new brand of politician just someone new.

jettio
03-16-2008, 06:04 PM
From Paul Mirengoff of Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020048.php):

Peter Wehner (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/RE-RETHINKING-IRAQ-br---Obama-s-War-11263) takes a detailed look at Barack Obama’s positions with respect to Iraq. Despite what Obama would like voters (especially Democratic primary voters) to believe, Obama has not always opposed the Bush administration on the war. In fact, according to Wehner, Obama told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

Wehner’s piece is fairly long but will repay the time spent reading it in full. Here, though, is the bottom line:

Unlike his presidential rival John McCain, an early and vocal and truly consistent critic of the Bush administration’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, Obama. . .was opposed to doing anything about Iraq even when, like everyone else, he believed Saddam Hussein was a menace who was likely armed with weapons of mass destruction; became a supporter of the war after the fact and remained one even as things were going poorly; and morphed into an aggressive opponent again just as the prospects of an American victory began to brighten. If there is a consistency here, it would appear to be the consistency of one consistently divorced from the facts on the ground and, lately, almost hermetically sealed off from even the possibility of good news. In a politician admired for his supposed open-mindedness and his ready willingness to consider new evidence, this is, to say the least, striking.

But perhaps a different kind of consistency is to be discerned in this maze. When Obama opposed the war in 2002, it was clearly in his political interest to do so; according to Dan Shomon, his campaign manager at the time, the key to Obama’s chances in the Democratic race for the Senate nomination lay in his ability to rally the Left to his side. Then, in 2004, when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush occupation strategy. In 2005, as Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular, he temporized by joining those saying we had to reduce but not withdraw our troop presence. By 2006, with the war’s unpopularity deepening, he embraced a policy of full-scale withdrawal. . . .

[W]hat all this suggests is that Barack Obama does not represent an authentic new “brand” in American politics; rather, he has shown himself to be an exceptionally adept political animal who can adjust to the prevailing political winds with seamless ease. As the election season progresses, it remains to be seen what tortuously defended new positions will be embraced by this consistently political politician, and what price they will exact in his reputation as a principled and courageous new voice.

I remember McCain spent the 2004 campaign on the trail side by side with B*sh, saying stay the course and I sure don't remember him as any dedicated opponent of the strategy, if he was he kept a lid on that until 2005 or 2006.

Some fools just believe anything that they read without even trying to rely on their own memory.

Bowser
03-16-2008, 06:06 PM
Is it just me, or is it strange to see pat and denise agree on something?

patteeu
03-16-2008, 06:15 PM
I remember McCain spent the 2004 campaign on the trail side by side with B*sh, saying stay the course and I sure don't remember him as any dedicated opponent of the strategy, if he was he kept a lid on that until 2005 or 2006.

Some fools just believe anything that they read without even trying to rely on their own memory.

That's funny. You've got a memory like a bear trap. Or maybe like a broken mouse trap.

Posted 11/5/2003 5:44 PM Updated 11/6/2003 10:07 PM

McCain: Force levels in Iraq inadequate
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain sharply criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war Wednesday, saying the United States should send at least 15,000 more troops or risk "the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam."

more... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-05-mccain-usat_x.htm)

patteeu
03-16-2008, 06:17 PM
Is it just me, or is it strange to see pat and denise agree on something?

Well if it helps any, she wants Obama to lose the nomination and I want him to win it. :)

jettio
03-16-2008, 06:21 PM
That's funny. You've got a memory like a bear trap. Or maybe like a broken mouse trap.

Posted 11/5/2003 5:44 PM Updated 11/6/2003 10:07 PM

McCain: Force levels in Iraq inadequate
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain sharply criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war Wednesday, saying the United States should send at least 15,000 more troops or risk "the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam."

more... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-05-mccain-usat_x.htm)


Wow. McCain called for 15,000 more troops to stave off defeat and nobody listened to him.

That is great leadership. I suppose after nobody listened to him, He decided to get behind B*sh and Rumsfeld even though he disagreed with them.

Sounds like a political politician, thinking they are right, but willing to kiss azz and pretend like everything is okay.

McCain's political politician compromises are going to cost him a lot more on this issue than Obama.

Extra Point
03-16-2008, 06:22 PM
He's spent 2 years of his constituents' time running for president, rather than not being absent for voting.

Understandably, the democrats have a front running person of color. Buy, hey, I wanted Keyes to win earlier.

Obama wants something new. So do most of Americans. Something new, something tabled. He can't talk the game after he's in it.

beer bacon
03-16-2008, 07:58 PM
Is it just me, or is it strange to see pat and denise agree on something?

You don't know? They have been together for at least a month.

Mr. Laz
03-16-2008, 07:59 PM
“There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

they key to the statement is "at this stage"

because wasn't this comment made by Obama because basically it was too late .... Bush has already committed us down the path and the only choice was to push forward.

i think i remember something to that extent.

chiefforlife
03-16-2008, 08:15 PM
People are really digging now. There isnt much to find so it will eventually come down to punctuation. Obama placed a comma where it was obvious it should have been a period.:shake:

Sully
03-16-2008, 08:16 PM
People are really digging now. There isnt much to find so it will eventually come down to punctuation. Obama placed a comma where it was obvious it should have been a period.:shake:

Timely.
Obscure.
Hilarious.

That was an awesome post.

SNR
03-16-2008, 09:42 PM
People are really digging now. There isnt much to find so it will eventually come down to punctuation. Obama placed a comma where it was obvious it should have been a period.:shake:That's exactly my point.

Obama prides himself on being against the war from the beginning. His voting record says otherwise. He's no better than Hillary, as far as I'm concerned.

Cochise
03-16-2008, 10:34 PM
“There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

they key to the statement is "at this stage"

because wasn't this comment made by Obama because basically it was too late .... Bush has already committed us down the path and the only choice was to push forward.

i think i remember something to that extent.






How can that be if he was against it from the beginning?

patteeu
03-17-2008, 08:13 AM
Wow. McCain called for 15,000 more troops to stave off defeat and nobody listened to him.

That is great leadership. I suppose after nobody listened to him, He decided to get behind B*sh and Rumsfeld even though he disagreed with them.

Sounds like a political politician, thinking they are right, but willing to kiss azz and pretend like everything is okay.

McCain's political politician compromises are going to cost him a lot more on this issue than Obama.

Yeah, you left out the part where you graciously admit that you were completely wrong.

McCain was a critic throughout the operation, but unlike the politically opportunistic democrats, like Obama, who care more about political success than the interests of their country, he recognized that staying under sub-optimum conditions was preferable to cutting-and-running.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 08:15 AM
“There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

they key to the statement is "at this stage"

because wasn't this comment made by Obama because basically it was too late .... Bush has already committed us down the path and the only choice was to push forward.

i think i remember something to that extent.






That doesn't even make sense. Why was the only choice to push forward at that point, but not now?

patteeu
03-17-2008, 08:18 AM
People are really digging now. There isnt much to find so it will eventually come down to punctuation. Obama placed a comma where it was obvious it should have been a period.:shake:

:spock: Do you not recognize any difference between "not much difference" with the position of GWBush on the war and being in favor of withdrawal? Dude, you've got Obamavirus bad.

jettio
03-17-2008, 10:16 AM
Yeah, you left out the part where you graciously admit that you were completely wrong.

McCain was a critic throughout the operation, but unlike the politically opportunistic democrats, like Obama, who care more about political success than the interests of their country, he recognized that staying under sub-optimum conditions was preferable to cutting-and-running.

in March 2003, McCain said the war would be a cakewalk and he campaigned right alongside B*sh in 2004.

The only congressional oversight hearings that he called for was related to Abu Gharib.

He was one of the senior members of the Armed Services committee and all he did was make a few remarks in 2003, gave up the fight, then played loyal soldier to B*sh in 2004, for no other reason other than his own ambition to run for President in 2008.

There has been a load of compromisin' on the road to McCain's presidential horizon.

I say that in an Obama v. McCain matchup, the Iraq discussion will not be at all about the premise of the article, Obama's consistency.

McCain will try other arguments, but that will not be one of them.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 10:35 AM
in March 2003, McCain said the war would be a cakewalk and he campaigned right alongside B*sh in 2004.

The only congressional oversight hearings that he called for was related to Abu Gharib.

He was one of the senior members of the Armed Services committee and all he did was make a few remarks in 2003, gave up the fight, then played loyal soldier to B*sh in 2004, for no other reason other than his own ambition to run for President in 2008.

There has been a load of compromisin' on the road to McCain's presidential horizon.

I say that in an Obama v. McCain matchup, the Iraq discussion will not be at all about the premise of the article, Obama's consistency.

McCain will try other arguments, but that will not be one of them.

McCain has been consistent on Iraq. The standard you're trying to hold him to is stupid. If he had a couple of hundred Congressmen/women who agreed with him, he may have tried to force President Bush to make the changes he was calling for, but instead he had a handful of supporters and was faced with a large number of political opportunists on the other side of the aisle looking for the opposite of what he advocated (surrender rather than reinforcement).

Obama, by contrast, has been all over the place on the war. Only blind Obamists can take his "against the war from the beginning" statements seriously. You blind Obamists believe every far-fetched thing he says. Some might say he's riding you dirty.

You were wrong about McCain and can't bring yourself to simply admit the obvious without hemming and hawing about how McCain didn't somehow impose his will on the rest of the government. Weak.

jettio
03-17-2008, 10:58 AM
McCain has been consistent on Iraq. The standard you're trying to hold him to is stupid. If he had a couple of hundred Congressmen/women who agreed with him, he may have tried to force President Bush to make the changes he was calling for, but instead he had a handful of supporters and was faced with a large number of political opportunists on the other side of the aisle looking for the opposite of what he advocated (surrender rather than reinforcement).

Obama, by contrast, has been all over the place on the war. Only blind Obamists can take his "against the war from the beginning" statements seriously. You blind Obamists believe every far-fetched thing he says. Some might say he's riding you dirty.

You were wrong about McCain and can't bring yourself to simply admit the obvious without hemming and hawing about how McCain didn't somehow impose his will on the rest of the government. Weak.

You need to provide a lot more evidence that McCain did anything to make a difference.

You think it is okay to lie to start a war and have a lot of people die and get maimed because of some unspoken goal for Utopian Democracy in the Middle East.

Of course, it is then no surprise that you do not see the dishonor in standing alongside an incompetent warrior President and campaigning for that incompetent's re-election.

We'll see how it plays out. My argument is that McCain gets nowhere if he wants to talk consistency.

Obama's answer at the last debate about there being a limited number of options after the bus has been driven into the ditch is somehting that you have forgotten already.

McCain has to count on re-selling the 2004 argument of no surrender. He will not get anywhere trying to sell the premise of this thread. Americans understand that the bus is in the ditch, and that the best practical decision about what to do after the mess is created is a different decision entirely.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 11:11 AM
You need to provide a lot more evidence that McCain did anything to make a difference.

You think it is okay to lie to start a war and have a lot of people die and get maimed because of some unspoken goal for Utopian Democracy in the Middle East.

Of course, it is then no surprise that you do not see the dishonor in standing alongside an incompetent warrior President and campaigning for that incompetent's re-election.

We'll see how it plays out. My argument is that McCain gets nowhere if he wants to talk consistency.

I don't know that McCain will even try to play the inconsistent card. But I can see that my playing it has made at least one Obama guy expose his ignorance about McCain's consistency on the subject. And instead of graciously admitting his mistake, this same Obama guy has decided to compound his self-incrimination by resorting to the worn-out and fraudulent meme about President Bush lying us into war. :shrug:

HonestChieffan
03-17-2008, 11:19 AM
I don't know that McCain will even try to play the inconsistent card. But I can see that my playing it has made at least one Obama guy expose his ignorance about McCain's consistency on the subject. And instead of graciously admitting his mistake, this same Obama guy has decided to compound his self-incrimination by resorting to the worn-out and fraudulent meme about President Bush lying us into war. :shrug:

Exposing Jettio is not a challenge. But you have taken up the battle and have done well.

jettio
03-17-2008, 12:09 PM
I don't know that McCain will even try to play the inconsistent card. But I can see that my playing it has made at least one Obama guy expose his ignorance about McCain's consistency on the subject. And instead of graciously admitting his mistake, this same Obama guy has decided to compound his self-incrimination by resorting to the worn-out and fraudulent meme about President Bush lying us into war. :shrug:


I served in the military and I understand that it is not a job that you can just quit whenever you feel like it.

As a submariner, I never really feared dying in combat, even though there is some amount of risk.

You do not have any conception of the sacrifice that people that serve our country make and that is why you think it is okay for a President to pretend to be afraid of a low rent tyrant when the real objective for the war is to make a utopian arab democracy to serve as some kind of shining beacon for democracy.

You lack a proper sense of honor, and that is why you don't see the dishonor of pretending to be afraid of a broke dick tyrant to chose the option of war when international pressure and oversight was suffficient to nullify any threat that the broke-dick tyrant posed to any other country.

You need to pay attention and not be so casual about the fact that a lot of people are dead, maimed and psychologically impaired because of a war that was really for a pie in the sky reason of utopian arab democracy and not for the ostensible reason of a threat to the United States sold by the worst and most dishonorable presidential adminstration in our history.

You seem like you could be a great guy, but you just simply lack a sense of honor and are far too casual about the consequences of lying sacks of Raiduhs thinking that war is fun and games and sh*ts and giggles.

There is nothing funny about it. It is not impossible for Denise to be right about something and anyone with any sense of right and wrong knows that B*sh lied about why he wanted to go to war.

chiefforlife
03-17-2008, 01:56 PM
:spock: Do you not recognize any difference between "not much difference" with the position of GWBush on the war and being in favor of withdrawal? Dude, you've got Obamavirus bad.

I think you are choosing to ignore the timeline to validate you position.

2002 Obama opposes the war.

2004 In the heat of the battle his position isnt much different from GWs, we must at this point go forward. (He still opposes the war but realizes we cant stop at this point)

2008 After 5 years of American fatalities and little to no progress, he wants to withdrawl.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 01:57 PM
I served in the military and I understand that it is not a job that you can just quit whenever you feel like it.

As a submariner, I never really feared dying in combat, even though there is some amount of risk.

You do not have any conception of the sacrifice that people that serve our country make and that is why you think it is okay for a President to pretend to be afraid of a low rent tyrant when the real objective for the war is to make a utopian arab democracy to serve as some kind of shining beacon for democracy.

You lack a proper sense of honor, and that is why you don't see the dishonor of pretending to be afraid of a broke dick tyrant to chose the option of war when international pressure and oversight was suffficient to nullify any threat that the broke-dick tyrant posed to any other country.

You need to pay attention and not be so casual about the fact that a lot of people are dead, maimed and psychologically impaired because of a war that was really for a pie in the sky reason of utopian arab democracy and not for the ostensible reason of a threat to the United States sold by the worst and most dishonorable presidential adminstration in our history.

You seem like you could be a great guy, but you just simply lack a sense of honor and are far too casual about the consequences of lying sacks of Raiduhs thinking that war is fun and games and sh*ts and giggles.

There is nothing funny about it. It is not impossible for Denise to be right about something and anyone with any sense of right and wrong knows that B*sh lied about why he wanted to go to war.

You're right about one thing in that rant. It's not impossible for memyselfi to be right about something. She's right about Obama being a consistently political fraud of a politician (who, if all goes well from my pov, will lead the democrats to defeat once again). Go Obama! ;)

patteeu
03-17-2008, 01:59 PM
I think you are choosing to ignore the timeline to validate you position.

2002 Obama opposes the war.

2004 In the heat of the battle his position isnt much different from GWs, we must at this point go forward. (He still opposes the war but realizes we cant stop at this point)

2008 After 5 years of American fatalities and little to no progress, he wants to withdrawl.

I think you are ignoring Obama's own words. He claims to have been opposed to the war from the beginning. There's no amount of spin that can reconcile that position with the facts.

chiefforlife
03-17-2008, 03:00 PM
I think you are ignoring Obama's own words. He claims to have been opposed to the war from the beginning. There's no amount of spin that can reconcile that position with the facts.

Where does he say he is in favor of the war?

In 2004 he knows we are in to deep that we must now go forward, a similar position to GW at the time. That does not say he has changed his opposition to the war, only that its to late to oppose.
Would it make sense to oppose a war we are already in? Or should we try to end it as soon as possible?

There is no spin involved.

jettio
03-17-2008, 03:07 PM
You're right about one thing in that rant. It's not impossible for memyselfi to be right about something. She's right about Obama being a consistently political fraud of a politician (who, if all goes well from my pov, will lead the democrats to defeat once again). Go Obama! ;)


I am also quite right that you have a remarkably cavalier attitude about the American and Iraqi causalties that resulted from B*sh's farfetched plans to turn Iraq into Utopia, our 51st state.

As I rightly said before you lack a sense of honor, and it is not funny.

We will be a lot better off when people that you disagree with are elected into office.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 03:13 PM
Where does he say he is in favor of the war?

In 2004 he knows we are in to deep that we must now go forward, a similar position to GW at the time. That does not say he has changed his opposition to the war, only that its to late to oppose.
Would it make sense to oppose a war we are already in? Or should we try to end it as soon as possible?

There is no spin involved.

So you're saying he opposed the war by voting to fund it at every critical juncture and by practically endorsing the President's position but that no spin is involved in this topsy-turvy interpretation?

Come on, man. Don't insult people's intelligence.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 03:15 PM
I am also quite right that you have a remarkably cavalier attitude about the American and Iraqi causalties that resulted from B*sh's farfetched plans to turn Iraq into Utopia, our 51st state.

As I rightly said before you lack a sense of honor, and it is not funny.

We will be a lot better off when people that you disagree with are elected into office.

Hopefully we won't have to find out anytime soon.

chiefforlife
03-17-2008, 03:23 PM
So you're saying he opposed the war by voting to fund it at every critical juncture and by practically endorsing the President's position but that no spin is involved in this topsy-turvy interpretation?

Come on, man. Don't insult people's intelligence.

I honestly dont see it that way.

You cant watch as others send troops to war and then not vote to fund the troops while they are there. That would be pulling the rug out from under the very people who are risking their lives. Did you really expect him to vote NOT to fund the troops, No one would do that.

You can vote NOT to send them in the first place. Once they are their you MUST support them.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 03:52 PM
I honestly dont see it that way.

You cant watch as others send troops to war and then not vote to fund the troops while they are there. That would be pulling the rug out from under the very people who are risking their lives. Did you really expect him to vote NOT to fund the troops, No one would do that.

You can vote NOT to send them in the first place. Once they are their you MUST support them.

There are a lot of people in the anti-war wing of the democrat party who want just that. It's the only way that democrats could have ended the war and fulfilled their promise to the voters.

I can accept that Obama felt forced into supporting the war when funding bills were presented, but support it he did. That's different than opposing it from the beginning. He was free to call for withdrawal at any time, but it took him quite some time (and a worsening of our situation there) to do it. He was content to support the war until it became clear to him that he could gain politically from calling for withdrawal.