Explaining Obama's 'Shift to the Center'

[halfback20]

Now that every wag in Washington is regurgitating this woeful tale, we here at Stumper headquarters thought it would be worthwhile to pause, take a deep breath and actually examine the evidence of Obama's recent "transformation." What we found is--unsurprisingly--not as simple as the MSM would have you believe.

 

A pair of Obama's newly "moderate" positions, for example, aren't new at all. When Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision late last month striking down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape--siding with arch-conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas over the more liberal Supremes--the left cried foul. "What was the man thinking?," wrote Herbert. But whether or not you beleive, like Herbert, that Obama's position is "barbaric," it's wrong conclude that the senator fabricated it for the general election. In fact, Obama's death-penalty stance dates back at least to 2006, when he wrote in "The Audacity of Hope" that "there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment." Likewise, Obama's plan to expand President George W. Bush's efforts to "empower faith-based organizations"--characterized by liberals after it was announced last week in Zanesville, Ohio as a pander to evangelicals and a threat to the separation of church and state--is perfectly consistent with Obama's past as Christian, church-based community organizer. "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square," he said in a celebrated June 2006 speech on religion. In other words, Obama actually believes that faith-based programs are a good investment for government--and not a convenient political ploy.

 

Upon closer inspection, most of the rest of Obama's alleged zigs and zags amount to little more than the usual shifts in emphasis that occur as conditions change and/or a candidate transitions out of the primaries and into the general election. Take Iraq. Much of the recent uproar centers around remarks the senator made late last week in Fargo, N.D. indicating that "the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability." "When I go to Iraq, and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground," he added, "I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." Egged on by an eager John McCain, many commentators quickly concluded that Obama, who has long said he hopes to "have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months," had softened his stance.

 

Read the rest here...

[Clyde]

1. Partisanship causes folks on the left and the right to overreact to soundbites and bits of information about their candidate's rival.

 

2. Presidential campaigning is filled with shifts. McCain has shifted right on some issues and Obama has shifted right as well (relatively right not absolutely right).

 

3. We see it on here all the time. If you're for one, you jump on anything to trash the other.

 

4. We then have the audacity to complain about the candidates who run. Can't imagine why others would want to miss this circus.

[mcpapa]

1. Partisanship causes folks on the left and the right to overreact to soundbites and bits of information about their candidate's rival.

 

2. Presidential campaigning is filled with shifts. McCain has shifted right on some issues and Obama has shifted right as well (relatively right not absolutely right).

 

3. We see it on here all the time. If you're for one, you jump on anything to trash the other.

 

4. We then have the audacity to complain about the candidates who run. Can't imagine why others would want to miss this circus.

 

Can't disagree with you there, Clyde.

 

And, like someone's posts on a message board are going to get me to change my vote. No flip-flopping for old papa.

[Clyde]

Can't disagree with you there, Clyde.

 

 

You don't think that a good number of people can't wait to hear something negative about their guy's opponent? Should I point you to the numerous threads on here?

[True blue (and gold)]

You don't think that a good number of people can't wait to hear something negative about their guy's opponent? Should I point you to the numerous threads on here?

 

It's late, but read his post again, Clyde. I think he is agreeing with you.

[Clyde]

You don't think that a good number of people can't wait to hear something negative about their guy's opponent? Should I point you to the numerous threads on here?

 

It's late, but read his post again, Clyde. I think he is agreeing with you.

 

So I'm the only one that saw the word "more" after "disagree with you?":lol:

[oldrambler]

Obama is not about any "change" as his slogan says, he is just another politician that will do or say anything depending on who he is talking to at the time to sway a vote. :sleep:

 

John Kerry, Al Gore = Barock Obama......all one in the same, the only change is the name, not the policy or agenda's.

[halfback20]

Obama is not about any "change" as his slogan says, he is just another politician that will do or say anything depending on who he is talking to at the time to sway a vote. :sleep:

 

John Kerry, Al Gore = Barock Obama......all one in the same, the only change is the name, not the policy or agenda's.

 

Who is Barock Obama?

 

BTW, did you read the article? Or did you just jump on another chance to compare Barack Obama to other Democrats that you dislike?

[cch5432]

It's too ironic that one of positions that Obama has agreed with conservatives on (the death penalty) is one of the few issues that I fall on the left of the aisle. :lol::lol:

[True blue (and gold)]

So I'm the only one that saw the word "more" after "disagree with you?":lol:

 

Evidently.

[leatherneck]

1. Partisanship causes folks on the left and the right to overreact to soundbites and bits of information about their candidate's rival.

 

2. Presidential campaigning is filled with shifts. McCain has shifted right on some issues and Obama has shifted right as well (relatively right not absolutely right).

 

3. We see it on here all the time. If you're for one, you jump on anything to trash the other.

 

4. We then have the audacity to complain about the candidates who run. Can't imagine why others would want to miss this circus.

 

Honestly, I pay very little attention to what a candidate says on the campaign stump anyway. To me a past voting record provides a better analysis of a candidate's position on issues (although one must carefully examine a vote, as often a particular vote may be more based on the numerous amendments added to the main thrust of the bill than the main thrust of the bill itself). I don't think there can be much, if any, debate, that McCain is trying to attract the right while not alienating the moderates, and Obama is trying to attract the moderates while not alienating the far left. A very tough balancing act. I don't approve of Jackson's "threat", but the point he was making is accurate: Obama is pandering to the religious types. McCain has pandered to other voting groups. The real issue is: will voters be so gullible to believe what is being said on the stump.

[Gunner11]

Honestly, I pay very little attention to what a candidate says on the campaign stump anyway. To me a past voting record provides a better analysis of a candidate's position on issues (although one must carefully examine a vote, as often a particular vote may be more based on the numerous amendments added to the main thrust of the bill than the main thrust of the bill itself). I don't think there can be much, if any, debate, that McCain is trying to attract the right while not alienating the moderates, and Obama is trying to attract the moderates while not alienating the far left. A very tough balancing act. I don't approve of Jackson's "threat", but the point he was making is accurate: Obama is pandering to the religious types. McCain has pandered to other voting groups. The real issue is: will voters be so gullible to believe what is being said on the stump.

 

Unfortunately the answer to this question is yes. Most do not take the time or effort to look at the issues critically and make a decision for themselves. They would rather be spoonfed by CNN or MSNBC or FOX...

[75center]

There are a lot of people on both sides scrambling to explain away the apparent flip flops by both major candidates. As Leatherneck stated, they both have major voting blocs they need to attract which are different than the ones they needed in the primaries. The problem is that they have both put themselves out there as straight talkers or something different. They're not.

[oldrambler]

Who is Barock Obama?

 

BTW, did you read the article? Or did you just jump on another chance to compare Barack Obama to other Democrats that you dislike?

 

I merely stated my opinion that I have a right to do as others have on here. Nothing more and nothing less. Thanks for the attempt at mind reading and spinning things to what you want them to say though, there seems to be alot of that on here as well. Maybe you are just taking an opportunity to jump on an opinion that you didn't like. Pot......meet Kettle. :lol:

 

As for my spelling blunder, thanks for the correction and I apologize.

[oldrambler]

The problem is that they have both put themselves out there as straight talkers or something different. They're not.

 

:thumb: