Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : John McCain for President -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (1407)	6/19/2008 1:01:15 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6579

McCain flip flops again on coastal oil drilling. You mean he supports the will of the people?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (1407)	6/19/2008 11:19:15 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 6579

how big brown ? losing big time ?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (1407)	6/19/2008 11:25:47 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 6579

Obama's Back Flips By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:20 PM PT Election '08: In just days, Obama has changed his mind on Iraq, reversed course on campaign finance, volte-faced on NAFTA and backtracked on Social Security. So what does the candidate of change really believe? On Thursday, Barack Obama declared he'd forego public finance for his presidential campaign, going back on a public pledge to Common Cause to do the opposite. Instead of admitting he'd be more likely to win with private finance, he blamed Republicans. "We face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system," he claimed. Never mind that the bridge-builder had assured rival John McCain's camp that he'd talk it over with them. He didn't even bother calling. This switch sounds like old Chicago machine politics. On policy, Obama gets even more chameleonic. We all remember how he vowed an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But in the course of burnishing his foreign-policy credentials, he conversed with Iraqi foreign minister Hoshay Zebari and said Zebari had no questions for him about the troop-withdrawal plans. But Power Line blogger Paul Mirengoff points out that Zebari's account, as presented in the Washington Post, paints a different picture: "My message . . . was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." According to Zebari, Obama vowed to not do anything reckless, and added that "whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field," Mirengoff wrote. So apparently, Obama is telling one thing to voters and another to a foreign official. He also knows the implications of his cut-and-run position. Same with the North American Free Trade Agreement. A few months ago, Obama called the trade treaty with Mexico and Canada "devastating" and promised to go after America's top two trading partners "with a hammer." But on Wednesday, Fortune magazine quoted Obama as saying NAFTA's not so bad after all, dismissing earlier statements as "overheated" campaign rhetoric. By coincidence this "change" came after he finished up the Ohio primary and began courting Mexican-American support. On Social Security, too, Obama's made "changes" in defining the class enemy. He raised his definition of "the rich" subject to his proposed 12.4% hike in taxes from anyone making $97,500 a year to those making $250,000. Still pretty poor for rich, but likely to lull more voters into thinking his tax hikes won't touch them. What to make of all these changes? There are three possibilities, none of which makes the candidate look good. The sympathetic may dismiss them as Obama coming to his senses and aligning with the mainstream. His new positions are improvements, after all. But they also raise questions about judgment, maturity and consistency. It's also worth remembering that the shifts came under political pressures to which Obama may be less inclined to submit once elected. Jimmy Carter used to ignore the public like that, too. Then again, Obama could be an opportunist who'll say anything to carry a swing state, appease anti-war radicals, win over a special-interest group or propitiate wealthy donors. In which case, the political road ahead may get very cynical indeed. It could also be possible that this is a candidate who'll deceive to get elected only to surprise us later. Unseen forces may be at work. For example, Richard Fernandez, blogger with Pajamas Media, noted that Obama's shifting positions on Iraq track the rise and fall of the business prospects in that country of his Chicago patron, Tony Rezko. Meanwhile, given Obama's radical political roots, his mainstream talk may be a cover for a more leftist agenda that's otherwise unsalable to voters. Whatever the case, we'll grant that this is "change." Just don't call it change anyone can believe in.