Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37
  1. #1
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Currently McCain has flip flopped about twice as many times on key issues. If it could be said that Obama is pandering to the voting public then McCain would be pandering to his own party: Obama first:

    heterogenous opinion and commentary
    « Who's right: Jesse Jackson or Barack Obama Obama lies about McCain's immigration policy at Lulac. »
    Comprehensive Obama flip flop list: constantly updated
    07/09/08
    Comprehensive Obama flip flop list: constantly updated

    **update**

    I don't know when "flip-flopping" became such a big issue. It may have started when Aaron decided a golden calf wasn't such a hot idea after all. I also don't know if it shows anything other than that Obama is trying to react to public opinion, or, to put a positive spin on it: that he's flexible. What about the nature of the flips? Since every one is to the right, I think it shows that the nation is more conservative than pre-April Obama. From here.

    Anyways, even though I don't know whether I care about it (The only one that really bothers me is the refusal to debate McCain. The first joint town hall should be exciting.), I know some do, and I'm willing to change my policy on this subject. Doh!

    CHANGE #1: Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground

    In July 2008, Barack Obama Said He Will Continue To "Refine" His Iraq Policy. Obama: "I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed...And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." (Jeff Zeleny, "Obama: Open to 'Refine' Iraq Withdrawal Timeline," The New York Times' "The Caucus" Blog, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, 7/3/08)

    In The Primaries, Barack Obama Committed To Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Regardless Of The Advice He Received From Commanders On The Ground. ABC's Charles Gibson: "And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, 'When he is' -- this is talking about you - 'When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.' So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?" Obama: "Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. ... Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief." (Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)


    CHANGE #2: Despite Pledging To Accept Public Financing, Barack Obama Has Reversed His Position And Opted Out Of The System

    Barack Obama Has Declined Public Financing In The General Election, Calling It A "Broken System." "In a web video emailed to supporters, Obama asks his supporters to help him 'declare our independence from a broken system.' Of course, it's not so much a broken system that explains why he's passing on the FEC's $80+million. He will easily raise more than he could ever get in public funding." (Jonathan Martin, "Obama Opts Out Of Public Financing," The Politico's "Jonathan Martin" Blog, www.politico.com, 6/19/08)

    In Response To A Midwest Democracy Network Questionnaire, Barack Obama Said He Would Accept Public Funding In The General Election. Question: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" Obama: "Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Presidential Candidate Questionnaire," Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07)

    CHANGE #3: Barack Obama Is Backtracking On His Support For Unilaterally Renegotiating NAFTA

    During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Unilaterally Renegotiate NAFTA. NBC'S TIM RUSSERT: "A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?" OBAMA: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)

    In The General Election, Barack Obama Now Says His Words Were "Overheated And Amplified." "In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. 'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,' he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy." (Nina Easton, "Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All," Fortune, 6/18/08)

    CHANGE #4: Barack Obama Is Considering Reducing Corporate Taxes Despite Having Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America"

    The Wall Street Journal Reported That Barack Obama Would Consider Lowering Corporate Taxes. "Sen. Obama's nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn't say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system." (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut In Business Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/08)

    Just Last Month, Barack Obama Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America." OBAMA: "And his proposals, which are essentially $300 billion worth of corporate tax cuts ... I think is the exact wrong prescription for America." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/4/08)

    CHANGE #5: Barack Obama Has Changed Positions On The D.C. Handgun Ban

    In June 2008, Barack Obama Said He Thought The D.C. Handgun Ban Was Unconstitutional. Obama: "It looks to me that the D.C. handgun ban overshot the runway. That it went beyond constitutional limits." (Bloomberg's "Taking Stock," 6/26/08)

    Obama Campaign: "Obama Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional." "[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'" (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

    During An Interview, Barack Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently - I'm quoting here - 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns,' but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama: "Right." (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

    CHANGE #6: Barack Obama Has Shifted From Opposing Welfare Reform To Celebrating Welfare Reform In A Television Ad

    In His Newest Television Ad, Barack Obama Touts His Role In Slashing Welfare Rolls, But Leaves Out That He Was Against The 1996 Federal Legislation That Enacted Welfare Reform. "Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul 'slashed the rolls by 80 percent.' Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction." (Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Shifts On Welfare Reform," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/1/08)

    In 1997, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Probably Not Supported Federal Welfare Reform Legislation. "'I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare,' Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. 'Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems.'" (Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Shifts On Welfare Reform," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/1/08)

    CHANGE #7: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Criticizes The Administration's Energy Policy Despite Having Voted For The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill

    Barack Obama Attacks John McCain On Energy Policy, Saying He Will Be A "Third Bush Term." OBAMA: "Make no mistake, this is an area where John McCain is offering a third Bush term." (Thomas Fitzgerald, "Obama Knocks McCain, Says Primary Fight Not Hurting, Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/1/08)

    "Obama, Of Course, Voted For The 2005 Energy Bill, Which Passed The Senate Overwhelmingly 74-26." (Jake Tapper, "Who's Offering A 3rd Bush Term On Energy?" ABC News' "Political Punch" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 4/3/08)

    "Someone Else Who Voted Against It? The Candidate Whom Obama Says Is Offering 'A Third Bush Term' On Energy Policy -- John McCain." (Jake Tapper, "Who's Offering A 3rd Bush Term On Energy?" ABC News' "Political Punch" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 4/3/08)

    CHANGE #8: Barack Obama Has Shifted Positions On Nuclear Power

    In September 2007, Barack Obama Said "I Don't Think That We Can Take Nuclear Power Off The Table". "I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store it properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)

    In December 2007, Barack Obama Said "I Am Not A Nuclear Energy Proponent". "I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Town Hall Event, Newton, IA, 12/30/07)

    CHANGE #9: Obama Adviser Said Obama Was Not Opposed To An Individual Health Care Mandate Despite His Opposition During The Primary

    Campaign Adviser, Kavita Patel, Said That Obama "Is Not Opposed To The Idea" Of An Individual Mandate And That The Campaign Is In Touch With Former Clinton Health Care Advisers. "Asked if Obama would be seen as reversing himself if he were to endorse an individual mandate after clashing with Clinton on the issue, Patel dismissed the concern. 'He has not said he is opposed to it,' [Kavita] Patel told ABC News. 'He has voiced his disagreement with having that be a part of his health-care plan last year. But he is not opposed to the idea itself.' Patel added that the Obama campaign is in touch with former Clinton health-care advisers." (Teddy Davis, John Santucci and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Health Plan Could Go In Clinton's Direction," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/26/08)

    Barack Obama Argued With Sen. Clinton Saying There Is "A Different Way" To Achieve Universal Care Rather Than Imposing An Individual Mandate. Obama: "We've got a philosophical difference which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it, and my belief is the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it." (Barack Obama, CNN/Univision Democrat Presidential Debate, Austin, TX, 2/21/08)

    CHANGE #10: During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Filibuster Any Bill Which Contained Immunity For Telecommunications Companies Involved In Electronic Surveillance, But Now Backs A Compromise Bill

    In October 2007, The Obama Campaign Pledged He Would Filibuster "Any Bill That Includes Retroactive Immunity For Telecommunications Companies." Obama Spokesman Bill Burton: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." (Greg Sargent, "Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity," Talking Points Memo's "Election Central" Blog, tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com, 10/24/07)

    Barack Obama Now Supports A Bill Reauthorizing Electronic Surveillance That Grants Immunity To Telecommunications Companies. Obama: "Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people." (Ben Smith, "Obama Backs FISA Compromise," The Politico's "Ben Smith" Blog, www.politico.com, 6/20/08)

    CHANGE #11: Barack Obama Disagreed With The Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Convicted Child Rapist Although In The Past He Opposed The Death Penalty

    When Asked About Today's Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Child Rapist, Barack Obama Stated That He Disagreed With The Decision. Reporter: "Senator, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision today striking down the death penalty for a child rapist?" Obama: "I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances, for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime. And if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our constitution. Now, I think it's -- you know, had the Supreme Court said we want to constrain the ability of the states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thi ng. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagreed with that decision." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, Chicago, IL, 6/25/08)

    Running For The Illinois State Senate In 1996, Barack Obama Opposed The Death Penalty. Question: "Do you support capital punishment?" Obama's Answer: "No." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

    CHANGE #12: Barack Obama Has Backtracked From His Earlier Commitment To Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition"

    At A July 2007 Debate, Barack Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations "Without Precondition." QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

    The Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi: "On foreign policy, Obama went from stating that he would meet, without preconditions, with the president of Iran, to saying he would meet 'with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing - if and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States.'" (Joan Vennochi, Op-Ed, "Obama And McCain Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop," The Boston Globe, 6/22/08)

    CHANGE #13: After Saying Jerusalem Should Be "Undivided," Barack Obama Has Since Backtracked

    At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama Says Clearly That Jerusalem Should Be The "Undivided" Capital Of Israel. Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

    One Day After The AIPAC Conference, Barack Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians. CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)

    CHANGE #14: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Has Backed Away From His Earlier Support For Normalized Relations With Cuba And Ending The Embargo

    Barack Obama: "As president, I'll maintain the embargo it's an important inducement for change because we know that Castro's death will not guarantee freedom." (Beth Reinhard, "It's Got A Good Beat And You Can Dance To It," The Miami Herald's "Naked Politics" Blog, 8/25/07)

    "In January 2004, Obama Said It Was Time 'To End The Embargo With Cuba' Because It Had 'Utterly Failed In The Effort To Overthrow Castro.'" ("Top Obama Flip-Flops," The Washington Post, 2/25/08)

    Barack Obama: "I think it's time for us to end the embargo with Cuba." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1/20/04)

    CHANGE #15: Barack Obama Is Against The California Ballot Measure Banning Gay Marriage Despite His Assertion That Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman

    Barack Obama Came Out Against A California Ballot Measure That Would Ban Same-Sex Marriage. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages. In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending 'fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.'" (Aurelio Rojas, "Obama Rejects Proposed California Gay Marriage Ban," Sacramento Bee, 7/1/08)

    "Obama Had Previously Said He Opposes Same-Sex Marriage But That Each State Should Make Its Own Decision." (Aurelio Rojas, "Obama Rejects Proposed California Gay Marriage Ban," Sacramento Bee, 7/1/08)

    CHANGE #16: Barack Obama Says That "Mental Distress" Should Not Be Reason For A Late Term Abortion Which Contradicts His Past Extreme Pro-Abortion Views

    Barack Obama: Mental Distress Should Not Be A Reason For A Late Term Abortion. "I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term." (Sen. Barack Obama Interview, Relevant Magazine, 7/1/08)

    Barack Obama Appears To Have Backed Away "From His Long-Stated Positions On Abortion." "In a recent interview, Obama appears to back away from his long-stated positions on abortion (and a proposed federal abortion rights law he had co-sponsored), repudiate 35 years of accepted Supreme Court rulings on the issue and embrace a view on abortion restrictions that has been expressed on the Court only by Justices Thomas and Scalia." (Jan Crawford Greenburg, "Obama: Sounding Like Thomas And Scalia?" http://blogs.abcnews.com, 7/4/08)

    CHANGE #17: Barack Obama Said He Would Debate "Anywhere, Anytime" But Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings

    Barack Obama Says He Would Debate John McCain "Anywhere, Anytime." OBAMA: "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy. If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have. Because I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush when it comes to our Middle East policy and I think their policy has failed." (Barack Obama, Media Availability, Watertown, SD, 5/16/08)

    However, Barack Obama Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings. "Avoiding town hall meetings and rejecting public campaign financing may be predictable strategies for minimizing one of McCain's greatest strengths and exploiting one of his key weaknesses. But they pull Obama down into the cynical political calculations he pledged to rise above." (Editorial, "Obama's Big Words Ring Hollow," St. Petersburg Times, 6/20/08)

    Change #18: Barack Obama decides to tap the strategic oil reserve.

    “Sen. Obama has looked at this issue, he recognizes that Americans are suffering, that we have a unique situation with rising gas prices and this is one occasion where we need to look at this strategically and he made the decision that we need to tap the strategic petroleum reserves.”

    Obama last month said he did not think the country should use the strategic oil reserves "at this point."

    "I have said and in fact supported a congressional resolution that said we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve but the strategic oil reserve I think has to be reserved for a genuine emergency," he said on July 7.

    CNN

    Change #19: Obama now says he's "open" to oil drilling.

    Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.

    "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.

    But on Saturday morning, Obama said this "wasn't really a new position."

    "I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral.

    "What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems," Obama added.

    "If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

    The senator from Illinois has spoken out against offshore drilling since Sen. John McCain in June proposed striking down the federal moratorium banning offshore oil and gas drilling to help alleviate high gas prices. See where offshore drilling is allowed

    "When I'm president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida's coasts," Obama told reporters in Jacksonville in late June. "That's how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good."

    CNN

    Change #20: Obama flip flops in the same sentence in response to a seven year old girl's question about why he wants to be president. Obama wants to turn back the clock and more forward; Back to the Future?

    Change #21: Obama doesn't know correct stance on Georgia.

    First, a moral equivalency position because he didn't know what he was talking about and hadn't talked to his 300 foreign policy advisers:

    Chicago, IL -- "I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."

    Second, McCain's position:

    "I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire... Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."

    Change #22: Obama insists he voted for protecting infants who survive abortion, but he actually voted against just such a law. When he insisted that he only voted against it because it would water down abortion, he lied because the law included such a provision.

    Change #23: Obama said, at the Saddleback forum that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, but would vote against a federal amendment saying so because it would prohibit people from visiting their lovers in hospitals. California has a proposition that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and doesn't restrict civil unions. He won't support it.

    Change #24:

    STATEMENT: "Originally, the administration suggested that the key measure was whether it gave breathing room for political reconciliation. So far, I think we have not seen the kind of political reconciliation that’s going to bring about long-term stability in Iraq." — Barack Obama, July 22, 2008

    EXPIRATION DATE: August 20, 2008: "Let's be clear, our troops have completed every mission they've been given," Mr. Obama said at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Orlando, Fla., where the likely Democratic presidential nominee courted military voters who are expected to play a pivotal role in several swing states. "They have created the space for political reconciliation."

    Change #25:

    Obama was friends with domestic terrorist William Ayers and then "denounced" him.

    Change #26: On the value of experience.

    In 2004, Obama admitted that he's not ready to be president:

    Change # 27: Obama considers the surge a success.

    This one's a jaw-dropper. In July (July! Less than one month ago!) with Katie Couric:

    Change #28: Obama thinks raising taxes would hurt the economy:

    STATEMENT: "It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed." April 27, 2008.

    September 7, 2008:

    Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy…

    What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

    "I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."
    http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.p...flip-flop-list

    That's 28 for Obama. Now for McCain:

    It’s obvious that the McCain campaign and the RNC have decided to go after Barack Obama as a flip-flopper. What’s equally obvious, though, that Republicans couldn’t have chosen a worse narrative.

    McCain & Co. seemed to stumble on this line of attack almost by accident. They’d experimented with a variety of memes in recent months, none of which had any real salience. The right settled on “flip-flopper,” in large part because it’s the closest available, already-written Republican narrative, and in part because McCain staffers haven’t been able to think of anything else.

    The irony, of course, is that the McCain campaign couldn’t have picked a more hypocritical line of attack. Below you’ll find a comprehensive list of reversals from the Republican nominee, numbered and organized by category for easier reference.

    Remember, McCain recently said, “This election is about trust and trusting people’s word.” Just a few days prior, the McCain campaign admonished Obama for trying to “have it both ways” on issues.

    I should note that there’s nothing offensive about a political figure changing his or her mind once in a while. Policy makers come to one conclusion, they gain more information, and then they reach a different conclusion. That is, to be sure, a good thing — it reflects a politician with an open mind and a healthy intellectual curiosity. Better to have a leader who changes his or her mind based on new information than one who stubbornly sticks to outmoded policy positions, regardless of facts or circumstances.

    So why do McCain’s flip-flops matter? Because all available evidence suggests his reversals aren’t sincere, they’re cynically calculated for political gain. This isn’t indicative of an open mind; it’s actually indicative of a character flaw. And given the premise of McCain’s presidential campaign, it’s an area in desperate need of scrutiny.

    The perception people have of McCain is outdated, reflective of a man who no longer has any use for his previous persona. What’s wrong with a politician who changes his or her views? Nothing in particular, but when a politician changes his views so much that he has an entirely different worldview, is it unreasonable to wonder whether it’s entirely sincere? Especially when there’s no other apparent explanation for six dozen significant reversals?

    McCain has been in Congress for more than a quarter-century; he’s bound to shift now and then on various controversies. But therein lies the point — McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned literally dozens of positions he used to hold. The problem isn’t just the incessant flip-flops — though that’s part of it — it’s more about the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops. That the media still perceives McCain as some kind of “straight talker” who refuses to sway with the political winds makes this all the more glaring.

    Here’s the list.

    National Security Policy

    1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

    2. McCain insisted that everyone, even “terrible killers,” “the worst kind of scum of humanity,” and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, “deserve to have some adjudication of their cases,” even if that means “releasing some of them.” McCain now believes the opposite.

    3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

    4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

    5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.

    6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He’s since come to the opposite conclusion.

    Foreign Policy

    7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it. Now, he’s for it again.

    8. McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

    9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

    10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

    11. McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

    12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

    13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.

    Military Policy

    14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

    15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.

    16. McCain was against additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan before he was for it.

    17. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

    18. McCain has repeatedly said it’s a dangerous mistake to tell the “enemy” when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

    19. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.

    20. McCain staunchly opposed Obama’s Iraq withdrawal timetable, and even blasted Mitt Romney for having referenced the word during the GOP primaries. In July, after Iraqi officials endorsed Obama’s policy, McCain said a 16-month calendar sounds like “a pretty good timetable.”

    Domestic Policy

    21. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

    22. On Social Security, McCain said he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Soon after, asked about a possible increase in the payroll tax, McCain said there’s “nothing that’s off the table.”

    23. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

    24. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

    25. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

    26. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

    27. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

    28. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

    29. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

    30. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

    31. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

    32. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

    33. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.

    34. And on gay adoption, McCain initially said he’d rather let orphans go without families, then his campaign reversed course, and soon after, McCain reversed back.

    35. In the Senate, McCain opposed a variety of measures on equal pay for women, and endorsed the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision. In July, however, McCain said, “I’m committed to making sure that there’s equal pay for equal work. That … is my record and you can count on it.”

    36. McCain was against fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act before he was for it.

    37. McCain was for affirmative action before he was against it.

    38. McCain said the Colorado River compact will “obviously” need to be “renegotiated.” Six days later, McCain said, “Let me be clear that I do not advocate renegotiation of the compact.”

    Economic Policy

    39. McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.

    40. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.

    41. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.

    42. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

    43. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

    44. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

    45. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.

    46. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.

    47. McCain was against massive government bailouts of “big banks” that “act irresponsibly.” He then announced his support for a massive government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Energy Policy

    48. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.

    49. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

    50. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.

    51. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.

    52. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

    53. McCain was for national auto emissions standards before he was against them.

    Immigration Policy

    54. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. In 2007, he announced his opposition to the bill. In 2008, McCain switched back.

    55. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.

    56. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”

    Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law

    57. McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

    58. McCain’s position was that the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

    59. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

    60. In June, McCain rejected the idea of a trial for Osama bin Laden, and thought Obama’s reference to Nuremberg was a misread of history. A month later, McCain argued the exact opposite position.

    61. In June, McCain described the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush was “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” In August, he reversed course.

    Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform

    62. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

    63. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

    64. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

    65. In May 2008, McCain approved a ban on lobbyists working for his campaign. In July 2008, his campaign reversed course and said lobbyists could work for his campaign.

    Politics and Associations

    66. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn’t. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)

    67. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

    68. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

    69. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

    70. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

    71. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

    72. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

    73. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

    74. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was “corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff’s gay lover.” McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.

    75. McCain was for presidential candidates giving speeches in foreign countries before he was against it.

    76. McCain has been both for and against considering a pro-choice running mate for the Republican presidential ticket.
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops


    That's 76 vs 28. Who is the bigger flopper?
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Come on CC. This is hardly a scientific study. As you pointed out, McCain has some 25 years of Senate experience. You CLAIM all his position changes occurred in the election cycle. Yet, you don't give any sources regarding McCain's position changes. You just list them. I understand it would be a daunting task to do otherwise. Still, you are trying to make a point that isn't there.

    I think of several instances where McCain changed his position, acknowledged it, and explained it. This isn't a flip-flop. This is changing one's mind due to some reason. For instance, he noted he changed his position on oil drilling and gave a reasonable explanation (gas prices had drastically increased). In other situations, he has simply admitted he made a mistake (i.e. opposing the MLK holiday). Do you have an issue with someone changing their mind?

    On the other hand, to my knowledge, despite Obama's own position changes, he has never admitted to either being wrong nor even changing his mind. When he called Iran a tiny country that wasn't a threat and later noted Iran was a grave threat, he never even admitted there was a discrepancy. He, instead, claimed he was quoted out of context. That is Obama's pattern. He takes two positions on every topic and then denies it. It is always the media's fault, or a talk show host's fault, or the Republican spin-machine's fault for, you know, misquoting him or misrepresenting his positions. That, in my mind, is the difference.

    Now, if you merely want to show McCain, too is a politician, fine. I concede. He panders. I simply don't think he panders to the degree that Obama panders. And? Obama has promised to be a different kind of candidate. He, due to his own campaign slogan, has set the bar for himself. He shouldn't blame others if he fails to hurdle it. I see it as no different than the Republican scandals in Congress. A Republican makes a supposed racist remark or involved in some scandal and is immediately held to the fire for it. Why? Because the Republicans have claimed moral superiority. They are clearly held to a higher standard than the Dems. Why hasn't Charlie Rangel been asked to step down from the Ways and Means Committee? If he was Republican, is there any doubt he'd be asked to step aside while being investigated?

    My point is that when you create a brand, an image, you have to live up to it. When you don't, you cannot shift the blame on others for your failure. Obama has failed his brand. He is neither a different kind of politician nor a politician of change. He is a mere average and typical politician. For that, his changes in position are viewed particularly harshly. I also think, there is the simple matter than Obama has no record to fall back upon. All he has is his word. So, when he changes his word, its effects get magnified. A couple years in the Senate and some time as a state legislator where he seemed to vote "present" an awful lot, does not give the American people a whole to judge this guy on. So, his words have extra meaning. As a result, when he has altered nearly every major position he has taken over the last 18 months, one has to wonder where he really stands. One has to wonder what he really believes. One has to wonder, if I am electing Obama, what/who am I electing. As Bill Clinton noted, voting for Obama is something of a crap-shoot.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Hmmm...140 working days in the Senate resulting in 28 flops...that's one every five working days -- or one a week.

    McCain with 78 in 26 yrs in the Senate works out to a little more than 3 per yr.

    So CC, even if we accept your claims for argument's sake, when we compensate for time in office -- it is quite obvious which candiate is more likely to change his poistion with the political wind.

    "A slice of Surge anyone? It's all the rage now in the Senate."

  4. #4
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Uhm, the first 65 are from the last 2 to 4 years....................
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    One of the requirements of being a politician is to skillfully flip and flop while up for election.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Maybe because Obama has been wrong from the beginning on more issues, and is still wrong.

  7. #7
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    You know, I never understood the mentality of people who get itchy over "flip-flopping." What you need to do is ask yourself WHY they flip-flopped. Would you really attack a public official who supported something, and then found out that their constituants didn't support it, and so changed their stance accordingly? Would you really look favorably upon a public official who supported something unwaveringly, even if their constituants were decidedly against it? This list, and the negative reactions to it are pointless without the whys. I don't see why any of you are getting all bent out of shape about it.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  8. #8
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    That's been done. People can change their minds. (not so much here at ODN... )
    But when you go from water boarding being torture, absolutely railing (against his own party even) about it for months then suddenly agreeing it is not torture with no rational explanation that seems more a change of heart.
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  9. #9
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    I'll add a pictorial representation to this debate:


  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    You know, I never understood the mentality of people who get itchy over "flip-flopping." What you need to do is ask yourself WHY they flip-flopped. Would you really attack a public official who supported something, and then found out that their constituants didn't support it, and so changed their stance accordingly? Would you really look favorably upon a public official who supported something unwaveringly, even if their constituants were decidedly against it? This list, and the negative reactions to it are pointless without the whys. I don't see why any of you are getting all bent out of shape about it.
    It depends on why they flip flopped. You can have your own opinion, but when you find that that opinion is not popular with the public, and you change your opinion to reflect the views of the public, you are only changing your mind in an attempt to buy votes. You don't change your mind because you know you were wrong, you think 'Well, holding this opinion isn't getting me anywhere, better change it so the public agrees with me'. As soon as that person is elected, you think they stick with the opinion that got them into office? Nope, they switch back to their original position on said issue, as what the public thinks no longer matters.

    If a polititian changes their stance, they should change it because they themselves believe that their original opinion was wrong. They shouldn't change their stance just to get more votes, or just to agree with their constituants.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  11. #11
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post
    If a polititian changes their stance, they should change it because they themselves believe that their original opinion was wrong. They shouldn't change their stance just to get more votes, or just to agree with their constituants.
    You've got to be kidding me. You voted a person in office to represent you, your views, your values... If their "stance" on a particular matter clashes with their constituents, you'd better believe it's their job to vote accordingly. That's what they were elected for. Otherwise, they're in office to serve themselves and not the people who elected them to office.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja Turunen View Post
    It depends on why they flip flopped. You can have your own opinion, but when you find that that opinion is not popular with the public, and you change your opinion to reflect the views of the public, you are only changing your mind in an attempt to buy votes. You don't change your mind because you know you were wrong, you think 'Well, holding this opinion isn't getting me anywhere, better change it so the public agrees with me'. As soon as that person is elected, you think they stick with the opinion that got them into office? Nope, they switch back to their original position on said issue, as what the public thinks no longer matters.

    If a polititian changes their stance, they should change it because they themselves believe that their original opinion was wrong. They shouldn't change their stance just to get more votes, or just to agree with their constituants.
    Not switching their opinions just to reflect their constituency is exactly the opposite of Democratic Theory 101.

    The elected representatives are supposed to agree with the voters; that's why they're called "representatives."
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    When McCain switched his position on oil drilling, he explained why. His reason was, well, reasonable. Not a problem. When McCain switched his position on the immigration bill, he explained why. His reason was he still believed in the bill, but understood the public didn't trust govt and that such trust had to occur first. On the other hand, when he changed his position on economic bailouts, he showed that he was not fully informed when he first answered the question. So, I think it is fair to hold that against him. When a candidate changes position because they gave an uniformed position previously, you have to use that to judge someone's ability to make quick decisions (or judge that the person makes decisions too quickly).

    The other negative flip-flop is when a candidate simply changes position to suit an audience. When Obama comes out against oil drilling and then says he will allow it to make a compromise after he realizes it is heavily supported, does anyone believe him? Obama has changed nearly every single position he has stated during this campaign. He almost never explains why. He usually won't even admit he changed his position. For instance, when he said Iran was a tiny country that wasn't a threat and then called them a grave threat, he never admitted these two statements are contradictory. Rather, he blamed the media for taking his words out of context. The truth is, how do we, the voting public, know how he views Iran or know which quote to believe? He, in one moment claimed Jerusalem should continue to be an undivided part of Israel. He then, just a few days later, punted when asked the same question by saying such a decision was between Israel and the Palestinians.

    So, I think the general flip-flops the two men take occur often, but they are substantially different. McCain's changes of position occur quickly due to changing circumstances or simply due to a change of heart. Regardless of the reason, he is usually up-front about it by admitting he changed his position and explaining why. Perhaps, this is a sign he is a bit rash (temperamental?) in his decision-making. Obama is not as quick to make a decision which makes his often change in course a bit puzzling. In Obama's case, it does not seem to occur because he changes his mind. He certainly rarely admits he changes his mind. Rather, his changes appear to be much more calculated. They appear to be much closer to pure pandering than McCain's. This doesn't mean McCain does not pander. He admitted as such concerning the rebel flag earlier in his career. It does not mean Obama never changes his position because he believes he was wrong. Admittedly, I don't have a single example where Obama admitted to such a thing as a reason for changing his position.

    As a voter, I try to get an idea of what a candidate will actually do when in office. Did anyone really believe Clinton, despite his promises, was gonna shake up the military and open it up to gays? Was Clinton, the good ole boy from Arkansas really gonna do it? Of course not. He made the promise and "compromised" tremendously once in office. The point is, as a voter, could I have predicted Clinton would make a lot of special interest promises he had no intention of keeping? As a voter, which promises appeared to be genuine? He genuinely seemed to try to pass some sort of health care reform. An astute voter would have sensed that was an issue with a little more priority than gay rights.

    So, between Obama and McCain, both will make a ton of promises. They will offer several positions per issue. The tricky thing is trying to figure out which promises they intend to keep. With McCain, I don't see him as a candidate offering much in the way of broad or sweeping promises. That appeals to me. He who governs least governs best. I see Obama as someone who has made a lot of broad and sweeping promises. More troubling, I don't have a good idea which promises he intends to keep. Is he really planning on reducing oil consumption by whatever percent in ten years? That is going to be a pretty painful transition. Is he really going to favor broadening our appeal to other nations and cultures? How far will he go towards that? Will start he approving treaties inimical to our self-interests just to appease others (like Kyoto)? His record isn't long enough to offer a whole lot towards answering these questions. This is why Bill Clinton noted that a vote for Obama was a roll of the dice. Personally, I am not inclined to roll the dice for President.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #14
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    More opinion than fact there for sure. What was McCain's rationale for reversing his rabid stance about water-boarding?

    Both candidates are going to re-align their messages as they either get more information that changes their perspective and also to pander to voters. I don't see McCain as having any high ground in this election. For instance:

    McCain took a stand. "I do not believe that the American taxpayer should be on the hook for AIG," he said. "We cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else."

    Within hours, the federal government had bailed out AIG to the tune of $85 billion. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others who know how Wall Street works understood that if AIG were to collapse, much of the financial system might follow.


    McCain quickly changed his tune, saying the government was "forced" to rescue AIG because of "failed regulation, reckless management and a casino culture on Wall Street." That sounds okay, but wait a minute. If he had any idea what he was talking about -- if he had any inkling of how big AIG is, or how central the company has become -- then why on earth would he have taken a stand against a bailout in the first place?

    McCain now calls for better regulation, too -- after enthusiastically playing a major role in the frenzy of deregulation that helped create this awful mess.
    (full story)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091803052.html
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    More opinion than fact there for sure. What was McCain's rationale for reversing his rabid stance about water-boarding?
    I call it analysis. The facts are laid out. Interpreting them is obviously subjective. Reading the stories about waterboarding, can you show me where he changed his stance? He agreed to a bill supported by Bush. One can argue, as you have done, he therefore supports water boarding. The bill he supports does not mention water boarding, though. Perhaps, I am mistaken here.

    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    Both candidates are going to re-align their messages as they either get more information that changes their perspective and also to pander to voters. I don't see McCain as having any high ground in this election. For instance:

    McCain took a stand. "I do not believe that the American taxpayer should be on the hook for AIG," he said. "We cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else."

    Within hours, the federal government had bailed out AIG to the tune of $85 billion. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others who know how Wall Street works understood that if AIG were to collapse, much of the financial system might follow.
    I think I addressed this pretty directly. McCain is prone to making quick decisions and then quickly changing course. I noted it as a weakness. It is quite different than Obama who seems to change course without any particular reason other than to please the people he is addressing.

    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    McCain quickly changed his tune, saying the government was "forced" to rescue AIG because of "failed regulation, reckless management and a casino culture on Wall Street." That sounds okay, but wait a minute. If he had any idea what he was talking about -- if he had any inkling of how big AIG is, or how central the company has become -- then why on earth would he have taken a stand against a bailout in the first place?
    Perhaps, because, as his record shows, he is truly a free-market advocate. Unfortunately, the reality didn't follow his ideology. So, he had to address the reality here. We know, though, that as a general rule, McCain will seek the path of least regulation. We believe the opposite is true for Obama, but we don't really know, do we?

    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    McCain now calls for better regulation, too -- after enthusiastically playing a major role in the frenzy of deregulation that helped create this awful mess.
    (full story)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091803052.html
    [/QUOTE]
    Talk about more opinion than fact.... Blaming a lack of regulation on this crisis is quite a logical leap of faith. Exactly what was unregulated and how did this non-regulation lead to this crisis? One op-ed columnist blaming AIG's downfall on regulation isn't exactly convincing. How about Alex Cuomo's insistence that lenders give more money to the underclass?
    http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234
    Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.
    http://www.openmarket.org/2008/09/16...gage-meltdown/
    Note that is corraborated by not only the liberal Village Voice, but Investor's Business Daily, as well as, other sources.

    So, the tall tale that the deck of cards was ruined because of a lack of regulation is only telling a small side of the story. Unfortunately, it wasn't private investors who caused this mess and needed to be regulated. It was the govt which needed to regulate itself, but will have no problem blaming the usual suspects, Wall Street, big business, greed, et al.

    While I am saddened McCain has joined the finger pointing, I am pretty sure he is merely pandering on this issue. As you noted, look at his past. For Obama, who the hell knows. What of his history tells us how he really believes this problem should be handled or what the cause is?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #16
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Senator John McCain is feeling the heat from conservatives and libertarians (real libertarian not the liberaltarnians mind you) and has apparently flip flopped on his stance regarding waterboarding. In the past, John McCain has likened the practice to torture (a comparison that has pleased liberals) by stating how, “it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,” and also, “It is torture.”.

    Well, apparently he has had a change of heart.

    Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war who suffered torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, said today that President Bush should veto a bill that would prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrorgation techniques on prisoners.McCain, an outspoken opponent of waterboarding, voted against the bill, which would limit the CIA to using only 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual. He maintains that waterboarding is already illegal, but that the CIA should not be precluded from using other legal measures in its interrogation of suspected terrorists.
    http://www.americanconservativedaily...ing-flip-flop/

    He had only ONE motivation for that flip flop.....pandering.

    And of course I'm out of town for most of the nest 3 or 4 days. Let this sit and I'll give it a proper reply.
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war who suffered torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, said today that President Bush should veto a bill that would prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrorgation techniques on prisoners.McCain, an outspoken opponent of waterboarding, voted against the bill, which would limit the CIA to using only 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual. He maintains that waterboarding is already illegal, but that the CIA should not be precluded from using other legal measures in its interrogation of suspected terrorists.
    http://www.americanconservativedaily...ing-flip-flop/

    He had only ONE motivation for that flip flop.....pandering.

    And of course I'm out of town for most of the nest 3 or 4 days. Let this sit and I'll give it a proper reply.
    I don't know, apparently Waterboarding is already illegal. So supporting MORE legislation to ban what's already banned doesn't make much sense.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war who suffered torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, said today that President Bush should veto a bill that would prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrorgation techniques on prisoners.McCain, an outspoken opponent of waterboarding, voted against the bill, which would limit the CIA to using only 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual. He maintains that waterboarding is already illegal, but that the CIA should not be precluded from using other legal measures in its interrogation of suspected terrorists.
    http://www.americanconservativedaily...ing-flip-flop/

    He had only ONE motivation for that flip flop.....pandering.

    And of course I'm out of town for most of the nest 3 or 4 days. Let this sit and I'll give it a proper reply.
    Waterboading's already illegal though. Why would there need to be another bill to illegalise what's already illegal?
    Last edited by Mr. Hyde; September 19th, 2008 at 08:26 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  18. #18
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I call it analysis. The facts are laid out. Interpreting them is obviously subjective. Reading the stories about waterboarding, can you show me where he changed his stance? He agreed to a bill supported by Bush. One can argue, as you have done, he therefore supports water boarding. The bill he supports does not mention water boarding, though. Perhaps, I am mistaken here.
    (Noted in above post.)

    I think I addressed this pretty directly. McCain is prone to making quick decisions and then quickly changing course. I noted it as a weakness. It is quite different than Obama who seems to change course without any particular reason other than to please the people he is addressing.
    Well I disagree about the only time Obama changes his stance is because of Pandering. For instance his idealistic idea to bring our troops home "immediately" was hit with the hard reality that iot just isn't that easy. So he adop[ted a time line that the sitting government in Iraq agrees with. Also. Obama does not make shoot from the hip decisions as he knows he may have to eat some of those bullets. (words). McCain on the other hand must be used to taking bullets as his tendency to quick draw from the hip reveals.

    Perhaps, because, as his record shows, he is truly a free-market advocate. Unfortunately, the reality didn't follow his ideology. So, he had to address the reality here. We know, though, that as a general rule, McCain will seek the path of least regulation. We believe the opposite is true for Obama, but we don't really know, do we?
    Not only do we not really know, we do know McCain was blind to the economic woes here until the GOP slapped him around with it. At least Obama was "feeling our pain", to borrow a Clinton line.

    [/QUOTE]
    Talk about more opinion than fact.... Blaming a lack of regulation on this crisis is quite a logical leap of faith. Exactly what was unregulated and how did this non-regulation lead to this crisis? One op-ed columnist blaming AIG's downfall on regulation isn't exactly convincing. How about Alex Cuomo's insistence that lenders give more money to the underclass?
    http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234

    Without looking at your link I'll concede that regulation (or lack there of) was only a part of our financial crisis. hell, I borrowed about $120,000 to build my home, in spite of every broker I talked with wanting me to borrow as mush as $275,000 in order to make it a better investment for them and (presumably) me. My wife and I knew how much we could afford to buy and never let them pressure us into borrowing more than we knew could afford. I have two friends that did go that route and you can imagine the fix they are in presently. One of them is falling behind and since property values are down he can't even sell it for what he owes on it.
    Just because the gov lets banks free roll doesn't excuse a buyer from knowing what they can realistically afford. Still, many bought into it. BTW, the bank (IndiMac) that held our mortgage before selling it is oe of the banks that failed.


    http://www.openmarket.org/2008/09/16...gage-meltdown/
    Note that is corraborated by not only the liberal Village Voice, but Investor's Business Daily, as well as, other sources.

    So, the tall tale that the deck of cards was ruined because of a lack of regulation is only telling a small side of the story. Unfortunately, it wasn't private investors who caused this mess and needed to be regulated. It was the govt which needed to regulate itself, but will have no problem blaming the usual suspects, Wall Street, big business, greed, et al.
    I agree. But I still place the bigger blame for the housing crisis at the feet of the borrowers themselves. I had strangers telling me I could afford a $2000 a month mortgage when I knew damn well I could not afford it. I learned to say no to high pressure salesmen a long time ago.

    While I am saddened McCain has joined the finger pointing, I am pretty sure he is merely pandering on this issue. As you noted, look at his past. For Obama, who the hell knows. What of his history tells us how he really believes this problem should be handled or what the cause is?
    Well we do KNOW McCain won't fix it with finger pointing. Obama's skills in that area are an unknown. This time I prefer to vote for the one who does not suddenly change his opinion on a dime with no other reasoning than to pander. I sincerely believe McCain is by far the bigger "panderer". I lost my respect for McCain when he flipped about water boarding.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    I don't know, apparently Waterboarding is already illegal. So supporting MORE legislation to ban what's already banned doesn't make much sense.
    Sure it does. When you have someone trying to make it "legal" by vetoing another bill that allows it you vote against it again. (or for it again to attempt to make it legal)


    Waterboading's already illegal though. Why would there need to be another bill to illegalise what's already illegal?
    If a vote comes up to overturn Roe vs Wade and make abortion illegal, those who are pro-choice would once again vote against it, even though it is already "legal".
    Last edited by CC; September 21st, 2008 at 10:02 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    (Noted in above post.)
    Ok. But, you still have not shown how the bill McCain supports will allow water boarding. You are claiming he has flip-flopped on this, causing you to lose respect for him, but I don't see where he has changed his view.

    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    Well I disagree about the only time Obama changes his stance is because of Pandering. For instance his idealistic idea to bring our troops home "immediately" was hit with the hard reality that iot just isn't that easy. So he adop[ted a time line that the sitting government in Iraq agrees with. Also. Obama does not make shoot from the hip decisions as he knows he may have to eat some of those bullets. (words). McCain on the other hand must be used to taking bullets as his tendency to quick draw from the hip reveals.
    Here's the difference to me. Obama has changed his position on nearly every single item on his platform. Yet, he denies every single change. Has he acknowledged he has changed his position on Iraq? No. He claims he ALWAYS supported a time line of careful and slow withdraw, et al. Yet, you, an Obama supporter, just acknowledged it isn't true.

    He claimed Iran wasn't a threat. Then he said it was a grave threat. Yet, when confronted with the two statements, he denied they are even contradictory.

    He sat down with Bill O'Reilly and acted like he supports nuclear power. Yet, his website is very clear that he'll only support it if it can be done safely and cleanly. This is such double-talking crap, why would anyone believe it? Why won't he just admit he doesn't support nuclear technology?

    Time and time again he gets caught saying one thing and then he tries to explain it away like he was taken out of context or that it was the right-wing bloggers putting words in his mouth. When and where does he take any accountability for anything? When has he ever just said, boy, I was wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by CC View Post
    Not only do we not really know, we do know McCain was blind to the economic woes here until the GOP slapped him around with it. At least Obama was "feeling our pain", to borrow a Clinton line.
    How was Obama feeling our pain? He's a millionaire. He gets sweetheart land deals. Who's pain is he feeling?

    Seriously, though. McCain changed his position and went from being right to being wrong. You admit this when you say,
    But I still place the bigger blame for the housing crisis at the feet of the borrowers themselves.
    and
    Without looking at your link I'll concede that regulation (or lack there of) was only a part of our financial crisis.
    This is basically what McCain WAS saying until he got lambasted for saying the economy is still fundamentally sound and we don't need bailouts.

    Obama, right away, went to the Republicans are to blame BECAUSE OF DEREGULATION card. This is his position. I don't see any reason to disbelieve him. He is a socialist and favors as much govt intervention as possible. YOU KNOW THIS.


    Well we do KNOW McCain won't fix it with finger pointing. Obama's skills in that area are an unknown. This time I prefer to vote for the one who does not suddenly change his opinion on a dime with no other reasoning than to pander.
    No, McCain won't fix it. Neither will Obama. One, though, will regulate the crap out of the economy because he believes the economy should be under greater control. One will create all sorts of new govt programs that will never go away, sucking billions from the coffers, and that produce the crap we expect from the federal govt. Nothing. Finally, saying Obama does not pander as frequently as McCain is silly. Name a single major position he has held from the start of his primary campaign to now.

    [QUOTE]
    I sincerely believe McCain is by far the bigger "panderer". I lost my respect for McCain when he flipped about water boarding.
    Except, we should agree by now that he never actually flipped his position on water boarding.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #20
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ok. But, you still have not shown how the bill McCain supports will allow water boarding. You are claiming he has flip-flopped on this, causing you to lose respect for him, but I don't see where he has changed his view.
    My bad. While he did sign on to a bill that allowed the CIA to work around the AFM he only did so under the condition that Bush give all POW.s and combatants the same legal status. McCain no longer rails about water-boarding though he is solidly "anti".

    Here's the difference to me. Obama has changed his position on nearly every single item on his platform. Yet, he denies every single change. Has he acknowledged he has changed his position on Iraq? No. He claims he ALWAYS supported a time line of careful and slow withdraw, et al. Yet, you, an Obama supporter, just acknowledged it isn't true.
    But timing is important here. He said he would immediately begin withdrawing troops before he announced he was president. Now that he has had a chance to talk and see those involved he has adjusted his stance to a time-line that was recommended by the UN as well as favored by the sitting Iraqi Government. But from the beginning he has always said it would be done in a responsible manner to ensure the safety of our troops while giving the leaders of Iraq enough notice to sh*t or get off the pot.
    It is no more fair to say Obama changed his stance on the war unless you agree that McCain has evolved a bit concerning the war every since he made his "100 years" remark.

    He claimed Iran wasn't a threat. Then he said it was a grave threat. Yet, when confronted with the two statements, he denied they are even contradictory.
    Once again, you are letting McCain take things out of context, in other words "cherry picking" to twist Obama's words and their meanings.

    McCain's new ad, released on Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention, quotes Obama saying that Iran is a "tiny" country that "doesn't pose a serious threat." It implies that he fails to see Iran's threat to Israel.

    The picture changes dramatically when Obama's full quotes are considered:

    * Obama actually said of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela: "These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union" (emphasis ours).

    * Likewise, he said those countries don't pose a serious threat to the United States "the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

    * Obama has also said in speeches that Iran is Israel's greatest threat, and a serious threat to the region, and he has discussed its sponsorship of terrorism.

    AND:
    McCain ad: Obama says Iran is a "tiny" country, "doesn't pose a serious threat." Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't "serious threats"?

    Here's what Obama actually said, in a speech in Oregon in May:

    Obama, May 18: Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet.

    Obama didn't say Iran is tiny – except in comparison to the once-huge Soviet Union. Iran's population is estimated to be about 72.2 million by the Population Reference Bureau. Iran's own statistics put it at 70,495,782 in 2006-2007. Either way, that's about one-fourth of the 270 million people estimated to be living in the U.S.S.R. in 1982, according to various sources.

    Nor did he say Iran doesn't pose a serious threat, except in comparison to the former Soviet Union. And that's a fact. At the time the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the Soviet Union had 12,117 strategic nuclear warheads, including 7,382 atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to a tally published by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Iran has zero nuclear warheads, and a National Intelligence Estimate completed last year concluded that Iran had stopped work in 2003 on a program to develop such weapons. Iran does continue to enrich uranium into material that might one day be made into a weapon, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency report issued last spring. And the NIE said Iran probably "at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." But that's a far cry from having thousands of nuclear weapons that could reach the United States in minutes.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...a_on_iran.html

    He sat down with Bill O'Reilly and acted like he supports nuclear power. Yet, his website is very clear that he'll only support it if it can be done safely and cleanly. This is such double-talking crap, why would anyone believe it? Why won't he just admit he doesn't support nuclear technology?
    First of all, wouldn't you want any Nuclear plants in your back yard to be safe and clean? I don't see that as double talk at all. I see that as someone not wishing to run headlong into a series of nuclear plants that may be done haphazardly. Here is his stance on nuclear power:

    We’ve been through this. Obama has not said a flat-out "no" to nuclear, as the ad claims. Instead he has said he is in favor of nuclear energy if it is clean and safe, saying in his energy plan that "it is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table."
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ut_energy.html



    Time and time again he gets caught saying one thing and then he tries to explain it away like he was taken out of context or that it was the right-wing bloggers putting words in his mouth. When and where does he take any accountability for anything? When has he ever just said, boy, I was wrong?
    He has said he was wrong to purchase property from someone under investigation. But in order for me to actually reply, then I will need a few examples with sources.

    How was Obama feeling our pain? He's a millionaire. He gets sweetheart land deals. Who's pain is he feeling
    ?
    Obama was born into a lower middle class family. His grandparents had to get food stamps to help them feed him. So by "feels our pain" I am obviously pointing to his humble beginnings. While McCain on the other hand has always been from a family of privilege. I am saying that Obama has the background to recall how it feels to "just get by", McCain does not.
    So far as the "Sweetheart Land deal" you let yourself be mis-led.

    McCain misfires as he attacks Obama's home purchase.
    Summary
    On the defensive over the extent of multiple McCain homes, the GOP candidate strikes back. But his TV spot gives an oversimplified and misleading account of how Obama bought his own $1.6 million house in Chicago.

    * The ad says Chicago power broker Tony Rezko got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers." But there's no evidence of any connection to the Obama home purchase. The $14 million was to build apartments for low-income seniors. Obama wrote a letter supporting the "worthy" project, but both men say Rezko didn't ask for the letter.

    * It says Rezko "purchased part of the property [Obama] couldn't afford." Rezko's wife did buy an adjoining tract but later sold the land at a profit. Obama paid market price for his home.

    McCain launched the attack after Obama ran one capitalizing on McCain's inability to recall for an interviewer how many homes the McCains own. Obama's ad says it's seven. The best tally we've seen puts the figure at eight, counting all the apartments and homes owned by McCain's wife, Cindy, and various family trusts, for themselves and their children.
    Analysis
    On Aug. 21, Barack Obama released an ad chiding Sen. John McCain for his inability to remember how many houses he owns, and McCain responded the same day with a counterattack charging that Obama got help buying his house from a "convicted felon" who got $14 million in "political favors" from Obama. We find McCain's ad is careless with the facts and could easily leave a false impression.


    Analysis
    On Aug. 21, Barack Obama released an ad chiding Sen. John McCain for his inability to remember how many houses he owns, and McCain responded the same day with a counterattack charging that Obama got help buying his house from a "convicted felon" who got $14 million in "political favors" from Obama. We find McCain's ad is careless with the facts and could easily leave a false impression.


    Million-Dollar Mansion

    As for that claim about Rezko helping Obama buy his house, well, we've dealt with that one before. The gist of the story: In 2005, Barack and Michelle Obama found a house that they wanted to purchase. The property had been divided into two parcels, one containing a house and the other undeveloped land. The owner had listed the properties separately. After considerable haggling, the seller accepted the Obamas' third bid of $1.65 million for the parcel containing the house. Tony Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining lot for $625,000.

    When the Obamas wanted to increase the size of their yard, they approached the Rezkos about purchasing a strip of the adjacent parcel. Obama told the Sun-Times that a 10-foot strip of the 60-foot lot appraised for $40,000. The Obamas nevertheless paid Rita $104,500 (or 1/6 of the total purchase price of her lot) for the strip. In 2007, Rita sold the remaining lot for $575,000 (or roughly a $54,500 profit on the overall property).

    McCain's ad, however, is worded in a way that could leave a false impression. It says Rezko "helped him buy his million-dollar mansion" by "purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford." That's true, but only because the seller wanted to sell the two parcels as a unit and the Obamas couldn't afford both. Rezko did not make a gift of any property to the Obamas. Furthermore, the fact that his wife sold her lot for more than she paid for it contradicts any suggestion that the Rezkos overpaid for their part of the deal as a way of getting the seller to lower the price to the Obamas for their part.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...o_reality.html
    (I covered that one in my "Debunking Obama Myths" thread)

    Seriously, though. McCain changed his position and went from being right to being wrong. You admit this when you say,

    and

    This is basically what McCain WAS saying until he got lambasted for saying the economy is still fundamentally sound and we don't need bailouts.
    Please point out where I said the part in bold. If I said that i will address it. A quick study shows that it was you who said that.


    Obama, right away, went to the Republicans are to blame BECAUSE OF DEREGULATION card. This is his position. I don't see any reason to disbelieve him. He is a socialist and favors as much govt intervention as possible. YOU KNOW THIS.
    I think you over reach. I mean so far as his being a socialist, last I checked he is running as a democrat. YOU KNOW THIS. So far as him playing the deregulation card, you'll have to provide a source I can debate against. Opinions are too difficult to debate around facts.

    No, McCain won't fix it. Neither will Obama. One, though, will regulate the crap out of the economy because he believes the economy should be under greater control. One will create all sorts of new govt programs that will never go away, sucking billions from the coffers, and that produce the crap we expect from the federal govt. Nothing. Finally, saying Obama does not pander as frequently as McCain is silly. Name a single major position he has held from the start of his primary campaign to now.
    His saying going into Iraq was a mistake?

    No matter how you slice the pie it still comes out to McCain wanting to increase taxes 1.2 TRILLION dollars more than Obama. McCain wants to spen MORE money than Obama does, even if it is without creating any new orgs. (Still you'd have to point out which programs you mean if you wish me to adddress them)
    I sincerely believe McCain is by far the bigger "panderer". I lost my respect for McCain when he flipped about water boarding.
    Except, we should agree by now that he never actually flipped his position on water boarding.
    Yes, we can agree on that about water-boarding, and I thank you. However, he has shut up about it. But then it must be difficult to say an action carried out by the and ordered by the sitting POTUS without losing his constituency.
    I firmly believe Palin was a pandering pick. (one which I believe will cost the GOP more seats as well as the white house) What I regain in respect for realizing he still does not support water boarding is nearly refilled by his VP pick. I don't believe she will be on the ticket in November, but then if Spart can be wrong, (Biden) I could be too.
    I think that trying to say who panders more is too subjective to be evidenced.
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The public presidential election 2008 poll.
    By KevinBrowning in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2008, 02:52 PM
  2. Obama takes the Fifth
    By Spartacus in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 1st, 2008, 04:37 PM
  3. Obama's proposals
    By Spartacus in forum Politics
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: July 30th, 2008, 12:50 AM
  4. Who will bring "change"
    By Spartacus in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 11th, 2008, 10:15 AM
  5. Obama's Uncle who done what?
    By Spartacus in forum Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 28th, 2008, 10:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •