This just in: America’s presumptive Democratic president elect has just arrived in Afghanistan. Through the years of his constantly, up to the minute modulations on policy ranging from Presidential negotiations with the equally as charming president of Iran to invading a sovereign policy, this is his first visit to the war torn country.
Critics point out that Obama has adjusted his stance to the war on terror and its two primary fronts from his time as a state senator, to a U.S. senator, to the presidential primaries, and now the general election. Democrats don’t see any inconsistency.
“We know what he really thinks,” says one Mary P. Artisan, who describes herself as a typical Democratic voter. “He’s the most consistently anti-war candidate since John Kerry. Kerry liked to talk about his war record, but we knew it was just used as an insurance policy against which to criticize those in uniform who regularly ‘terrorize kids.’ Obama doesn’t have the military credentials, so he throws those right wingers a bone now and then about how he supports the troops and their mission.”
“16 month pullout?!” another self described Obama supporter, Jose Real Istic exclaims. “If he’s elected, I should say WHEN he is elected, the few remaining Republicans in Congress will be lucky to get 6, at most.” Mr. Istic says he knows electoral politics, and claims he knows the true Obama. “Take a look at his record. The militant testament, err, no pun intended, to his wartime leadership is his former preacher. Come to think of it, that should comfort some. He’s still his spiritual mentor, and wow! can he really rail on whitey!”
Republicans are skeptical. “In a word, convenience. That’s all it is. ‘I had to ask myself one question before going to Afghanistan: will it benefit me?’ That’s his mantra. ‘Will it benefit me?’ Sadly, this means I have to vote for John McCain. At least he’ll win the war.” Those biting words were from a self-described conservative, who was afraid of being ostracized for criticizing the party’s nominee, Sen. John McCain. “I was already labeled a racist for opposing open borders, from my candidate! If B. Hussein Obama is elected, I can add “God and gun clinger” to the list.”
Experts closely tacking nuanced policy rhetoric expect any shift in policy from Senator Obama this week to be jettisoned in favor of “change” next week.
Once upon a time, there used to be politicians on the other side of the aisle who were not afraid of labels that accurately described their views – if not perfectly, at least generally. Woodrow Wilson, for example, was a progressive. As the leader of the progressive era, which envisioned a new role of the state as a powerful agent of change and control, Wilson unabashedly defended his views.
Modern times are a bit different.
While there is always a “move to the center” in general elections coming off the primaries, it has been true that Democratic candidates, running happily as liberals (Clinton, actually, described herself as “progressive,” but none the less) to gather votes among close constituents, not only move rightward, but drop any association with the term “liberal.” Why? Well, because liberal has traditionally been the kiss of death for any politician running nationally. Think Carter, Dukakis, Mondale. If a candidate comes off as a cultural liberal, he (or she) won’t win.
That brings us to the most liberal senator in the United States Senate, Barack Obama. The operative word now in use to describe his politics is not “liberal,” of course. His supporters have rehearsed their script well. Now, when asked whether Obama is liberal/conservative/progressive/regressive/oppressive, advocates repeat the lame phrase that he is “transcends politics.” There you have it: the most liberal Senator in the country transcends politics. Sadly, for those with a penchant for self-delusion and a bent to vote for Obama despite apprehension, this is all they need to hear.
There is an ironic, telling twist to all these political games. McCain could do no better than identify himself as a true conservative (which, well, he’s not) and hammer home a theme of free markets, free people, and national security. Instead he panders to a slim number of swing voting Democrats and independents by touting a ridiculous, prohibitively expensive, global warming aimed, carbon cap and trade scheme.
When your opponent is trying to mimic you, why mimic him?
A question to those Americans who are planning on voting for Barack Obama in November: Do you like being thought of as malleable fools?
No, I’m not talking about his liberal positions, though will undoubtedly lead our economy further into the tank, among other ill effects. I’m talking about his almost parody-like, double talking duplicity when it comes to gaining political advantage. Consider the promises he’s now renegged:
1) “Disowning” Wright, only after Wright called him a typical politician
2) Embracing NAFTA, after suggesting he would renegotiate the agreement to benefit American workers
3) Supports legislative protection for phone companies who help federal agencies engage in wiretapping
4) Abandoning the public financing system system after collecting record amounts of donations – shiftily blaming this decision on Republican smear groups, of which there are effectively 0 operating at the current time. Ironically, it’s MoveOn.org, the liberal smear group, that is the most active thus far in the election.
5) The latest, most unbelievably comical example: claiming to support gun ownership in light of the Heller decision, and claiming his former stance on gun ownership restrictions was a misconception based on fallacy, after HIS AIDE checked the wrong box on a questionnaire.
There are more, I’m sure. But seriously, Sen. Obama is now trying to have the American electorate believe that an aide is responsible for his reputation as being against the 2nd Amendment. He’s bet on the stupidity of the American people, and unfortunately, according to the polls, he’s got a 50/50 shot in winning.
Just a sad tidbit about the state of patriotism in New York City. Its July 4th week and I hung in my office window a big American flag yesterday. I got an email this afternoon from the Office Manager saying I need to take it down because the building doesn’t allow window hangings. I checked up with the building manager and its true. They said ‘we are very patriotic, but if we allow you then we’d have to allow everybody, so we just don’t allow it.’
A friend then told me about a guy he knew who had to do the same, take down an Obama poster. Its amazing how almost 7 years after 9/11 in liberal New York City displaying Old Glory has become a faux pas, a political expression warranting limitation instead of an expression of one’s love of country.
Makes you lament, despite how much we have come as a nation, we have definitely left behind a lot of the good things about this country.