A number of friends of mine have commented on an odd phenomenon that they have observed — conservative Republicans they know who are saying that they are going to vote for Barack Obama. It seemed at first to be an isolated fluke, perhaps signifying only that my friends know some strange conservatives. But apparently columnist Robert Novak has encountered the same phenomenon and has coined the term "Obamacons" to describe the conservatives for Senator Obama.
Now the San Francisco Chronicle has run a feature article, titled "Why Some Conservatives Are Backing Obama." In it they quote various conservatives on why they are ready to take a chance on Barack Obama, rather than on John McCain.
What is going on?
Partly what is going on is that, in recent years, the congressional Republicans in general — and Senator John McCain in particular — have so alienated so many conservatives that some of these conservatives are like a drowning man grasping at a straw. The straw in this case is Obama's recent "refining" of his position on a number of issues, as he edges toward the center, in order to try to pick up more votes in November's general election. Understandable as the reactions of some conservatives may be, a straw is a very unreliable flotation device.
If all that was involved was Democrats versus Republicans, the Republicans would deserve the condemnation they are getting, after their years of wild spending and their multiple betrayals of the principles and the people who got them elected. Amnesty for illegal aliens was perhaps the worst betrayal.
But, while the media may treat the elections as being about Democrats and Republicans — the "horse race" approach — elections were not set up by the Constitution of the United States in order to enable party politicians to get jobs. Nor were elections set up in order to enable voters to vent their emotions or indulge their fantasies. Voting is a right but it is also a duty — a duty not just to show up on Election Day, but a duty to give serious thought to the alternatives on the table and what those alternatives mean for the future of the nation.
What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year — whether conservative, liberals, or whatever — are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades. Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his complexion. The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes, not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well. Here is a man who has consistently aided and abetted people who have openly expressed their contempt for this country, both in words and in such deeds as planting bombs to advance their left-wing agenda. Despite the spin that judging Obama by what was said or done by such people would be "guilt by association," he has not just associated with such people. He has in some cases donated some serious money of his own and even more of the taxpayers' money, as both a state senator in Illinois and a member of the U.S. Senate.
Barack Obama is on record as favoring the kinds of justices who make policy, not just carry out laws. No matter how he may "refine" his position on this issue, he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was easily confirmed by more than three-quarters of the Senators. Like people on the far left for literally centuries, Barack Obama plays down the dangers to the nation, and calls talk about such dangers "the politics of fear."
Back in the 18th century, Helvetius said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off." Too many voters still have not learned that lesson. They need to look at the track record of Obama's actions.
Back in the days of The Lone Ranger program, someone would ask, "Who is that masked man?" People need to start asking that question about Barack Obama.
This is very, very true! People need to get past the words and look at the history, track record, and actions of these candidates. That's what really counts. Everyone who knows anything about politics knows that politicians always shift their positions as much as necessary in an election year, and Obama is no different. So forget about what they're saying now (other than comparing current statements to past actions to see how waffly they are) and look at what they've been all about for the past few years or decades. Election year rhetoric can be -- and often is -- very deceptive and short-lived. If you believe it, you don't know the candidate!
Historian Victor Davis Hansen nails this concept to the wall in glorious fashion, showing just how similar Obama's current statements are to what George W. Bush has done during the last seven years:
Almost everyone is talking about Barack Obama's flip-flops, as the Senate's most liberal member steadily moves to the political center and disowns firebrands like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger.
But less noticed is that Obama is not just deflating John McCain's efforts to hold him to his long liberal record, but also embracing much of the present agenda of an unpopular President Bush on a wide variety of fronts.
Take social issues. Obama is now a gun-rights advocate. Like Bush, he applauded the Supreme Court's overturning of a Washington, D.C., ordinance banning the possession of handguns. The senator, also like Bush, supports the death penalty. He recently objected to the court's rejection of a state law that allowed for the execution of child rapists. And although Obama is still pro-choice, he now, like the president, thinks "mental distress" should not justify late-term abortion. In addition, the new Obama would like to continue -- and even expand -- Bush's controversial faith-based initiative program of involving churches in government anti-poverty programs.
Consider also the campaign trail. Like a Republican in good standing -- but unlike the maverick John McCain -- Obama has, by his sudden forgoing of public funds, rejected the idea of campaign-finance reform. In fact, he's the largest raiser of private cash in American political history, and seems to have dropped opposition to accepting pernicious "special interest money." Like a Republican, he raises the most among the nation's wealthiest on Wall Street.
During the primaries, Obama seemed to advocate the dismantling of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But now candidate Obama has little desire to overturn the present Bush trade policies. On foreign policy and the war against terror, Obama once leaned left in his primary battles against Hillary Clinton. But his latest mutations move him once again closer to George Bush. For all his prior talk of the loss of civil liberties, a President Obama, like a President Bush, would give telecommunication companies exemption from lawsuits over tapping private phone calls at government request.
Obama wants to continue Bush's successful multilateral efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now praises the Bush-inspired six-party talks with North Korea that led to the apparent dismantling of Pyongyang's nuclear program. Like Bush, he advocated expanding the military after the Clinton-era troop cuts. Obama once advocated lifting the embargo against Cuba -- but no longer. Like Bush, he thinks that it is wise to leave it be. There is suddenly not much difference when it comes to the Middle East, either. Palestinian supporters were dismayed to hear Obama promise that Jerusalem must be Israel's eternal and undivided capital.
Obama once criticized Bush for his unwillingness to meet directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and exaggerating the danger from Iran, which supposedly didn't "pose any serious threat." Lately though, he agrees with the president that Iran now in fact is a "grave threat."
Obama's most serious about-face is on Iraq. He once promised a rigid and rapid timetable for withdrawing our troops. But given the radical success of Gen. David Petraeus' surge and change in tactics, Obama is now calling for withdrawals to be based on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. How different is this plan from the present administration's policy of incrementally sending home brigades as Petraeus hands off security responsibilities to Iraqis in additional provinces?
There's one more big one coming, too - even McCain is predicting Obama will shift even further after his upcoming trip to Iraq.
Election perfectionist Karl Rove analyzes the situation as well, saying that although Obama has created a juggernaut campaign, he is mirroring Richard Nixon's playbook by pandering to the extremists of his party in the primary, then skewing way to the center in the general election. He offers this warning to Obama's expediency:
The only possible explanation for these sudden moves to the center is that he's insincere about these position changes, and that he will flip back to his original positions -- which he's been acting on throughout his entire history in politics according to his track record -- as soon as he is no longer campaigning. Another telling factor is that you only saw this centering of policy only when it came to the general election. The Democrat base (who votes in the primaries) wants to hear the crazy America bashing, big-government, nanny state mentality from their leaders. Outside of the Dem party base, Americans don't. The moment Hillary dropped out, he began tacking to the center. It's so obvious that it's pathetic, especially when you consider that Obama is supposed to be a 'different' kind of politician. The reality is that he is a recycled version of Jimmy Carter and liberal Leftists from decades past, but with a shiny new presentation. Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying that the most expensive commodity in America today is ignorance, and the groundswell of support for Barack Obama is the perfect example of ignorant people getting suckered into a man who is certain to be extraordinarily expensive (in many ways, even more than financially) to this great nation.In the primary, Mr. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq within 16 months, called the D.C. gun ban constitutional, backed the subjection of telecom companies to expensive lawsuits for cooperating in the terror surveillance program, opposed welfare reform, pledged to renegotiate Nafta, disavowed free trade and was strongly against the death penalty in all cases. But in the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has reversed course on all of these, discarding fringe liberal views for relentlessly centrist positions. He also flip-flopped on accepting public financing and condemning negative ads from third party groups, like unions.
By taking Nixon's advice, Mr. Obama is assuming such dramatic reversals will somehow avoid voter scrutiny. But people are watching closely, and by setting a world indoor record for jettisoning past positions, Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate's credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.
For those of you who think you know Barack Obama, think again. How long have you been paying attention? It is absolutely critical to look not at his current statements, but at his history and track record. They are worlds apart.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment