Obama Addresses The Main Issues

[Green Mean]

These threads are just more proof that you just cant argue over some things and politics is one of them.

[JayDub]

The whole idea of accusing any candidate of any party of "flip-flopping" is ridiculous.

Big. Frickin'. Deal.

Do you really want your "leadership" to be so short-sighted and closed minded that they can't change their minds when presented with new information?

[FirefightnRick]

Nothing about political discussion whips me more than the idea that a politician can't change his mind or reaccess in the face of new evidence.

Better get used to it then.

Rick

Edited August 29, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[yyz28]

I'd like some real evidence about what issues Obama has flipped-flopped on. Give me some links and some decent analysis. Seriously, I'm banking you can't find much. And I will go ahead and throw out his softness on the FISA bill, you get a freebie there.

I'll do this when I have some time, but there have been a lot of examples.

Iraq.

Energy.

Abortion.

Gun Control.

He sat on the board during his time in Chicago of an organization that supported the total ban of handguns and assualt weapons, and then later praised the Supreme Court decision calling the DC ban unconsitutional as "properly upholding the 2nd amendment" and descirbing it as a decision he agreed with.

He ripped Hillary Clinton for months for voting to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Days after Clinton conceded, Obama flipped and said he supported the definition.

Obama repeatedly vowed to meet with various heads of terror states—most notably Ahmadinejad of Iran—"without preconditions." Then, with the nomination in sight, he zigzagged: "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad. He's not the most powerful person in Iran."

In October, he supported NAFTA expansion. In March, campaigning in the Ohio primary, he called for a "reopening" of the trade pact's terms. late July, he called his own primary rhetoric "overheated" and said NAFTA has had a positive effect on the US economy.

In July, after signaling opposition to nuclear power, he told Democratic governors he's open to expanding it.

On Public funding, he promised to accept public financing before he knew he could raise more money from donors. Now that he can raise twice as much from donors as Uncle Sam would give him if he forswore private donations, of course he's pursuing the bigger bucks. What's more troubling is Obama's list of flip-flops is so limitless, he's beginning to sound like he tailors his position to whichever audience he's addressing at the moment. When he spoke to an AIPAC meeting a couple of months back, he said he supports Israeli control of Jerusalem. The next day, trying to placate angry Arab supporters, Obama said "negotiators" should work out the contentious Jerusalem issue.

On July 9th, Today, he voted for H.R.6304, which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (F.I.S.A). In doing so he voted to give telecommunication providers immunity against civil damages that they might incur in the course of enabling the government to execute wiretaps and other types of electronic surveillance. He did so, after an amendment to the bill that would have stripped out the immunity provision, S.Amdt. 5064, was defeated 32-66. In voting for the bill, Obama acted in direct contradiction to his earlier statements. In 2007 Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman, said “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

On Iraq, in a 2004 interview Ted Koppel asked, "But do you think that most the delegates on the floor really understand that President Kerry is not going to pursue a policy in Iraq that is essentially different from the one that George Bush is pursuing?"

"Oh, I think that they understand that," Obama said. "I think that they recognize that we cannot afford to simply cut and run in Iraq, and that we are in a difficult situation right now. And I think that what they are hoping for is somebody who is going to bring a thoughtfulness and a base of experience to decision-making in the White House, which John Kerry possesses,.... (Emphasis added.)

Obama's campaign has been built on skipping over his position on Iraq from 2004 until October of 2006. When you see that part it makes his flip flops look even more cynical. What happened in October of 2006 to make him change his mind? Certainly the war had become more difficult. Since then, he has stated he'd pull out immediately. ...now, he's taking credit for the 16 - 24 month timeline laid out by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government.

...ok, I guess I had some time.

...now, let me back up and say "I'm not such a stickler for flip-flops". As new information comes to light and facts change as often happens when dealing with fluid situations, I don't have too much of a problem with Politicians who change their minds. I'm a little concerned by guys who seem to do it so often, and for purely policial reasons (saying one thing to your base to win a primary, then saying something different to the rest of the country to get elected) but both parties are guilty of having their stands and platforms move as a result of public pressure and polling.

Edited August 29, 2008 by yyz28

[Coffee and TV]

He sat on the board during his time in Chicago of an organization that supported the total ban of handguns and assualt weapons, and then later praised the Supreme Court decision calling the DC ban unconsitutional as "properly upholding the 2nd amendment" and descirbing it as a decision he agreed with.

You're arguing absolutes. They received a lot of requests and made a lot of grants with the overall goal of reducing gun violence.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html

He ripped Hillary Clinton for months for voting to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Days after Clinton conceded, Obama flipped and said he supported the definition.

link?

Obama repeatedly vowed to meet with various heads of terror states—most notably Ahmadinejad of Iran—"without preconditions." Then, with the nomination in sight, he zigzagged: "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad. He's not the most powerful person in Iran."

The truely powerful in Iran is the Ayatollah. Meeting with Amadeinejad would be a step in diplomatic relations, but its not the end all be all. There's no flip flop in what he said and what he states now, you're arguing semantics.

In October, he supported NAFTA expansion. In March, campaigning in the Ohio primary, he called for a "reopening" of the trade pact's terms. late July, he called his own primary rhetoric "overheated" and said NAFTA has had a positive effect on the US economy.

I don't ever recall hearing him say it has had a positive effect, but the terms do need to be reopened.

In July, after signaling opposition to nuclear power, he told Democratic governors he's open to expanding it.

signaling? WTF are you talking about? His policy since he's been running has always been for safe expansion of nuclear power.

On Public funding, he promised to accept public financing before he knew he could raise more money from donors. Now that he can raise twice as much from donors as Uncle Sam would give him if he forswore private donations, of course he's pursuing the bigger bucks.

On public funding he stated he would be willing to take it if the details could be worked out with the Republican nominee. They weren't agreed upon. He didn't take public financing.

When he spoke to an AIPAC meeting a couple of months back, he said he supports Israeli control of Jerusalem. The next day, trying to placate angry Arab supporters, Obama said "negotiators" should work out the contentious Jerusalem issue.

How are those two statements counter-intuitive?

On July 9th, Today, he voted for H.R.6304, which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (F.I.S.A). In doing so he voted to give telecommunication providers immunity against civil damages that they might incur in the course of enabling the government to execute wiretaps and other types of electronic surveillance. He did so, after an amendment to the bill that would have stripped out the immunity provision, S.Amdt. 5064, was defeated 32-66. In voting for the bill, Obama acted in direct contradiction to his earlier statements. In 2007 Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman, said “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

I gave you that one. He softened up on FISA when he shouldn't have.

Obama's campaign has been built on skipping over his position on Iraq from 2004 until October of 2006. When you see that part it makes his flip flops look even more cynical. What happened in October of 2006 to make him change his mind? Certainly the war had become more difficult. Since then, he has stated he'd pull out immediately. ...now, he's taking credit for the 16 - 24 month timeline laid out by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government.

link?

His position has always been a 16 month pull-out since I can remember.

[yyz28]

You're arguing absolutes. They received a lot of requests and made a lot of grants with the overall goal of reducing gun violence.

C'mon. Did he or did he not approve grants to organizations who's mission was the banning of handguns for law abiding citizens. The answer is YES. He now calls the supreme court decision correct. That is a flip flop...

In His Remarks To The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama Said That Jerusalem Should Be The Undivided Capital Of Israel, But Later Said The City's Future Should Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians:

On Wednesday, Obama Said Jerusalem Would 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 Later, 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)

"Facing Criticism From Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama Acknowledged Today That The Status Of Jerusalem Will Need To Be Negotiated In Future Peace Talks, Amending A Statement Earlier In The Week That Jerusalem 'Must Remain Undivided.'" (Glenn Kessler, "Obama Clarifies Remarks On Jerusalem," The Washington Post's "The Trail," Blog, www.washingtonpost.com, 6/5/08)

Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions:

In His Remarks To The AIPAC Conference, Obama Claimed That He Would Only Meet With The "Appropriate Iranian Leaders At A Time And Place" Of His Choosing. Obama: "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy 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." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

But At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Said He Would Meet With Hostile Leaders During His First Year In Office. 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)

At A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)

Obama Has Pivoted In His Opposition To Legislation Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization:

Obama Has Been Inconsistent In His Views On Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization. "Obama's campaign suddenly discovered that their man -despite having spent the last nine months campaigning on his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman - 'has consistently urged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard be labeled what it is: a terrorist organization.' Well, not that consistently. Senator Obama has been scrupulously careful not to call explicitly for designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Now, however, with the Democratic nomination almost in hand, Obama feels comfortable telling a pro-Israel audience what it wants to hear."(Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08)

"[T]he Audience At AIPAC Might Ask Why Senator Obama Has Pivoted From Opposition To 'Lieberman-Kyl' To Support For The IRGC Designation His Audience Demands. Is This Really Change They Can Believe In?" (Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08)

"Which Barack Obama Will Be The Democratic Standard-Bearer: The One Who Vowed To 'Eliminate' The Iranian Nuclear Threat Two Days Ago, Or The One Who Opposed Designating The Revolutionary Guards A Terrorist Organization?" (Editorial, "Obama And Iran," The Washington Times, 6/6/08)

Obama Now Claims That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006, But He Supported Them At That Time:

Obama Says That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006. Obama: "There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections, but this administration pressed ahead. And the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

But During His 2006 Trip To The Middle East, Obama Met With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas And Said The Election Represented An "Opportunity...To Consolidate Behind A Single Government." "Illinois Senator Barack Obama's journey to the Middle East took him to the West Bank Thursday for a meeting with the man elected to replace Yasser Arafat. ... For a time Thursday in the West Bank there was only the clatter of cameras as the newly elected president of the Palestinian authority, Mahmoud Abbas, met with Illinois Senator Barack Obama. At a meeting with Palestinian students Thursday, Obama said the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel, and Obama told ABC7 he delivered that message to the Palestinian president. 'Part of the opportunity here with this upcoming election is to consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel,' said Obama." (Chuck Goudie, "Obama Meets With Arafat's Successor," ABC 7 News, http://obama.senate.gov, 1/12/06)

The Palestinian News Agency WAFA Reported That Obama Was Supportive Of The Palestinian Elections Being Held At Their Scheduled Time. "President Mahmoud Abbas met Thursday with the U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), in the Presidential HQ in Ramallah...President briefed the U.S. Senator about the latest developments in the Palestinian territories including the preparations for the legislative elections.... Abbas and Obama discussed the means of underpinning the American-Palestinian economic relations...Obama asserted the US supports and eager that the Palestinian legislative elections on its proposed time (January 25)."

There are 4 of the flips you doubt documented. ...I don't have time to dig up all the links, but everything is referenced.

This is fun.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I VOTE FOR BUSH............

I know Oklahoma is back in the sticks but you are either 4 or 8 years behind the time. Proof that news travels slooow in that state.

On second thought... Which Bush.?? Have you heard that there is a second one.???