June 27, 2008

Flip-flopping through the campaign

Patrick Casey
As we read in this morning's Politico (McCain, GOP unleash anti-Obama plan) that the Right is coalescing around a unified message against Barack Obama, we simultaneously find that Obama is handing the "I'm just another politician from Chicago" issue to John McCain and the Republicans on a silver platter.

In this morning's edition of ABC News' "The Note", Rick Klein has the following to say about Barack Obama and his "evolving" positions:

Thursday's landmark Supreme Court may or may not have plopped gun control into the campaign. But it does place Sen. Barack Obama's careful, cautious, sometimes contradictory (and dare we say Clintonian?) approach to tricky policy positions squarely in the center of the race.

...Name your issue -- on trade, taxes, guns, the death penalty, campaign finance reform, FISA -- Obama may well be taking the politically smart position for a Democrat in these early days of the general election.

But the point is that he's taking positions that are at least shaded differently than those he's taken in the past, if not outright flip-flops. These are political calculations that make a dangerous assumption for Obama: that he's willing to risk being called a "politician" at all.

Obama's switch from being an "agent of change" to being an "agent of party politics and the status quo" really is remarkable. The one thing that Barack Obama has going in his favor is that as the primary season ended, most of the American public (aside from the media, political types, and their groupies) have pretty much tuned out for the summer (Gallup: Election Enthusiasm Dips After Primaries). So right now, there a better than even chance that large numbers of voters aren't aware that Obama has been flip-flopping on issues more than John Kerry ever dreamed of.

On the other hand, there's a risk for Obama if many of his supporters, especially those independents on the fence, start paying attention again to the campaign in late August only to find that the Obama of August 2008 is not the same as the Obama they thought they knew - that being the Obama of January - April 2008.

Look for the Obama campaign to work hard over the summer to cement the conventional wisdom and media meme that the Obama of "today" - on FISA, gun control, campaign finance reform, and several other issues that are popping up - is the same Obama that "we all" fell in love with over the winter.

An excellent example of certain parts of the media's complicity with Obama's plan is found in this morning's New York Times' article on the Supreme Court's Heller decision. In the 27th paragraph, Linda Greenhouse (didn't she retire?) states "Mr. Obama, who like Mr. McCain has been on record as supporting the individual-rights view, said the ruling would "provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."". As anyone who is familiar with Obama's previous claim that the DC ban was "constitutional", this is a transparent and subtle attempt by Greenhouse to whitewash Obama's changing positions. This is how Obama and his supporters are going to try to change the public record - by injecting Obama's new positions frequently into public discussion as long-time established fact, thus creating a substantial paper trail for the "change agent" to point to as proof of his unwavering commitment to static positions on various issues.

It will be up to the Republicans and the McCain campaign to continually offer proof otherwise, creating a substantial, alternate and more accurate conventional wisdom.

Comments

Thank you for a very fine piece.

It is incumbent on those who wish to prevent the implementation of overtly Liberal Socialist policies that would come with an Obama presidency to learn about his ample weaknesses and to share this information person to person with undecided voters across the country. The MSM can not be trusted to highlight Obama's weaknesses because of their very-apparent bias. We have to do this at a grassroots level outside of the MSM.

Obama's flip-flopping is irrelevant. For McCain to win he has to present reasons to vote FOR him instead of against Obama.

Obama's flip-flopping IS important in the sense that what is it that people are to believe? Will he or won't he raise taxes? Will he or won't he protect us against Islamic radicals? Will he or won't he restrict gun rights? Will he or won't he cede American autonomy to the rest of the world? Etc. etc. It would be smart for McCain and for any 527 groups out there to push on a daily basis his flip flops as a matter of trust.

Roland, in a sane world I would agree with you completely, my friend. But when people want to dance with the devil it's futile to point out he has two left feet. Democrats cannot wait for November 08; they'll be out in droves the same as four years ago. Over 59 million voted for Kerry and the only thing that saved the President's reelection was Rove's herculean effort to whip up and mobilize the conservative base. Who is doing that now? Today's RNC? They're too busy wallowing in self pity. McCain is doing the cartoon opposite of what Rove did; woo Democrats and Independents to go for him and dare conservatives to vote otherwise. Not a winning stategy I'm afraid. He has to get Republicans to want to vote for him or they'll stay home. We're not going to get 60 plus million Republican voters excited over a populist's inconsistent positions. Bob Dole will tell you.

If McCain cannot clearly state his case as to why he wants the presidency to Republicans, Obama will flip-flop all the way to the White House.

George,

Excellent point. I think both are important to be done. McCain has to present himself as a leader who really grasps the issues and he has to be able to communicate three IMPORTANT reasons why he is the right one to lead this country in the next four years.

And then, at the same time, his camp and 527 organizations push the Obama's flip-flops out to the public. Maybe sometimes before and after the Democratic Party convention.

It isn't what we're against that matters,
it is what we're for.

Per Tom Hoefling, National Political Director
Alan Keyes for President 2008

What Obama flip flops on, what radical views he and his closest friends have, or even how many cuddly kittens he drowns (kittens...not polar bears) are INDEED entirely irrelevant at this point. If he were a Republican candidate, he would never have made it this far to begin with...in truth, even if he was a white Democrat he would not have made it this far either. He is in a candy-coated protective shell from the MSM and it will carry him all the way. But THAT'S not the worst of it!
When his policies as President start getting implemented and the country starts its death rattle gasping for air...who do you think will be blamed for the failure of socialized medicine...for the Middle East collapsing in around Iraq after our troops are irresponsibly pulled out...for the death toll DURING the pull out being half the total deaths of our troops in Iraq (mark my words on that one)...for the depression (not recession) that the country falls into economically with haphazard spending for B Hussein Obama's pet projects? WHO? Come on...lets all say it together...you all know the answer...don't be shy! Who will invariably be blamed?!?
George W. Bush

INTEGRITY STICK
Many are familiar with the "Zero-Sum" strategy game of winner takes all. There is too a variance of the "Variable-Sum Game" known as the stick; ergo, whoever holds most of the stick leads. Measuring the "Integrity Stick" McCain versus Obama - McCain Leads!

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

at-store.gif