by Damozel | The Times of London rather gleefully comments on Obama's perceived 'reversals,' on which I have just this moment commented at some length. First, they sum up the positions which have so disappointed the party's progressive wing, and which are bound to disgust a large number of conservative Brits:
Last month he dropped his opposition to a Bill before Congress that would give telecoms companies immunity from prosecution for carrying out illegal wiretaps on potential terrorist suspects.
He told a cheering crowd of Israel's supporters of his fervent commitment to the security of the Jewish state and added, for good measure, that an “undivided” Jerusalem should be the nation's capital. He said that he likes free trade after all, and that his primary campaign pledge to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement was a case of “overheated rhetoric”.
Last week he expressed support for a Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on handguns and opposition to another that outlawed the death penalty for rape of a child.
This week he promised to expand President Bush's faith-based organisations initiative, a programme that channels funds to religious groups so that they can deliver social welfare services, which the Left regards as a heinous blurring of Church-State separation.
If next week he named Dick Cheney as his running-mate and revealed that he spends his spare time drilling for oil in wildlife habitats, the only surprise would be that it took him so long. (ToL)
This is harsh, and also not true. Even so it amuses me greatly, since when I was visiting family in England back in May they were all about the Barackstar. One of my friends was greatly taken aback to hear that I supported Edwards first, and then Hillary. 'Oh why?' he asked. I could see he found my failure to ally with the Herald of the Brave New Dawn a blot on my liberal escutcheon.
The answer was the same then as it is now: Because, as a moderate Democrat, I am more liberal than not; and Obama, as a conservative Democrat, is less liberal than I am.
But nobody believed me. They're starting to get it now, though. While they attribute it to Obama's reversing himself now; I say that the Brits who fell in love with him let themselves be blinded by his rhetoric then. The Times further says:
Change, it turns out, wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. Having campaigned for the past year as the agent of transformation, the man who would lead an historic shift in America's political direction, Barack Obama is discovering that there is quite a lot he likes about the way things are.
Since securing the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, the only change coming from the Illinois senator has been in what he seems to stand for.
The only part of the article that surprised me was when the Times said that a policy reversal is known in the US as a 'pivot.' Surely 'flip-flop' is the more usual phrase?
As one of my Barack-worshipping British friends calls every year to remind, he celebrates American Independence every 4th of July. I suppose he must be celebrating now.
Memeorandum here.
How Uninformed is John McCain About the Economy?
Christian Conservatives Unite Behind McCain
Obama and MoveOn.org (and FISA and NAFTA): Does the "Center" Include Repudiation & Reversal?
Comments