Obama vs. Obama vs. Obama
The more that Barack Obama talks about energy policy, the more he sounds like a John Kerry flip-flopper. In this McClatchy article, Sen. Obama says that he’s most worried about high gas prices:
Obama made his comments in St. Petersburg during an interview with the Palm Beach Post. “My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” he said.
“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage, I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” the paper quoted Obama as saying.
It wasn’t that long ago that Sen. Obama said he wasn’t worried about the price of gas, just that it shot up too quickly:
Obama drew McConnell’s notice on Wednesday after he commented about a question of whether Congress was actually working to keep prices from falling.
“I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now,” Obama said Tuesday.
Notice how the June version of Sen. Obama is talking about helping “people make the adjustment.”
That’s a far cry from the late July version of candidate Obama. That version of Obama is suddenly populist.
Today’s Obama is more nuanced:
If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem.
Got that? John Kerry said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Obama didn’t mind high gas prices before he didn’t like high gas prices, which was transformed into a more nuanced drilling policy.
The question I have for sensible undecided voters is simple:
Do you want to vote for someone who’s comfortable saying whatever he thinks people want to hear and who isn’t tied to any particular policy position? Or would you rather vote for someone who can explain why he’s changed his mind on the energy issue?
Technorati Tags: Obama, Flip-Flops, Gas Crisis, John Kerry, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Because this website is redundant, why did McCain flip flop on
- Torture
- Tax cuts for the very wealthy
- Campaign finance reform
- Roe v. Wade
- 21st century GI Bill
- Going after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan
- Calling for a respectful campaign
?
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Liem, How did McCain flip-flop on torture?
As for tax cuts, he wants to make them permanent because letting them lapse would result in a massive tax increase.
I’m not aware of how he’s flip-flopped on campaign finance reform or Roe v. Wade, going after UBL in Pakistan or running a respectful campaign.
Running a respectful campaign doesn’t mean not going after your opponent’s weaknesses.
As for going after UBL in Pakistan, Sen. McCain isn’t stupid enough to do that & hand a nuclear Pakiston over to the Taliban.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Torture: McCain 11/16/07: “One of the things that kept us going when I was in prison in North Vietnam was that we knew that if the situation were reversed, that we would not be doing to our captors what they were doing to us.” McCain 2/13/08: Voted against the ban on torture.
Tax cuts: McCain 5/26/01: “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.” In 2006 McCain votes to extend Bush tax cuts.
GI Bill: 5/26/2008. Sen. John McCain defended his opposition to a Democratic bill that would expand education benefits for veterans, saying it would hurt the military that he hopes to lead. He eventually is absent during Senate voting. 6/28/2008. “I’m happy to tell you that we probably agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them that gives them an increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain amount of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That’s a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.”
Osama bin Laden: May 2007 “We will do whatever is necessary. We will track him down. We will capture him. We will bring him to justice, and I will follow him to the gates of Hell.” June 2008 “I will look you in the eye and promise you that I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.” June 2008 When Larry King asked him whether, as president, he would send in US forces to get bin Laden should he find out where in Pakistan he was hiding, McCain responded: “Larry, I’m not going to go there and here’s why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. … But I want to assure you I will get Osama bin Laden as president of the United States, and I will bring him to justice no matter what it takes.”
But I understand your point Gary. Going after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan is too dangerous and we should not risk American lives to go after a terrorist.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Liem, your arguments are junk.
1. Voting to extend existing tax cuts means that he’s opposed to letting them lapse, thereby creating a massive tax increase. He was opposed to the tax cuts. He still is. But he’s even more opposed to a job-killing tax increase.
2. McCain voted for final passage of the torture bill.
3. McCain saying that we’ll do anything necessary isn’t the same as saying that he’d go into Pakistan. As for your smarta$$ comment about “we should not risk American lives to go after a terrorist”, I figured you wouldn’t grasp the concept of going into Pakistan to get UBL & in so doing, stirring up the country to the extent that terrorists overtake the government, thereby putting terrorists in charge of a government with nuclear weapons.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
I get it now. And here I was thinking that doing everything necessary actually meant doing everything necessary. I guess we’re not angry at Osama bin Laden anymore because we’re more scared of other terrorists.
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
OBL is NOT, I say again, NOT a prime target. Killing a leader doesn’t do damned thing except kill a leader.
You want to see OBL dead, I got a deer rifle I’ll lend you. You do know how to shoot dont you?
August 4th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Thank you, TA Gray.
Osama bin Laden is indeed a pitiful character and you’re right to consider him an insignificant. Even if he committed the acts of 9/11, we already know who the real perpetrator is.
The real mastermind behind 9/11 has already been captured and punished for his crimes. His country and its oil are under our control and our economy is reaping the benefits of the victory we have achieved. Thanks to the wisdom of George Bush, Saddam Hussein is gone from this world and his country is bowing peacefully to American might.
Osama bin Laden isn’t worth the effort, even if he’s considered a ‘leader’ of Al Qaeda. Capturing him will mean absolutely nothing. Even if he’s considered America’s most wanted terrorist. Even if the bounty on his head is $25 million. Even if he claimed responsibility for killing 2,974 American civilians. I will echo your statement, TA Gray, that Osama bin Laden is NOT, I repeat NOT, a primary target. If our president George W. Bush has shown us anything, he has shown us the true uselessness of a leader.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Your guessing Liem. Besides that, your making your own assumptions about the relative worth of a leader in comparison to destroying the real time threat posed by his army, and then trying to bury your whole argument in your usual pile of I-hate-Bush-horseshit.
Its one thing to take him out as a target of opportunity in a country already ruled by bloodthirsty fanatics. Quite another to deliberately invade the sovereignty of an allie for the sole gratification of assassinating him, which would only make room for another.
Word games and wise ass comments are fine in the classroom, not military operations.