Friday, August 08, 2008


This is the most amazing case of rationalization I've ever seen:

That attitude [of anything to win politics -Ed.] is why charges of flip flopping against Obama will not work. Voters expect the next president to be willing to change his position if necessary to get government moving again. In fact the willingness to change to adapt to new realities is viewed as strong not weak politics. What is weak politics is polarization and inflexibility. The politicians and their polarizing special interest allies who play that game will be rolled by the voters especially if the voters are encouraged to do so by a charismatic cable guy president who is seen as willing to find reasonable consensus in order to "get 'er done".

None of this is to suggest that Barack Obama lacks a moral compass. What he is blessed with rather is an internal compass with the capability to lead us from here to there. No one argues that staying where we are is acceptable. Most agree on where the there is we need to go be it healthcare reform, ending the war, protecting the country, or educating our kids. The only question is how we get there and who has the ability to lead us there. In other words, who can "get 'er done".
I really don't think most "voters" want a president who will "get 'er done" -- because that's as vacuous, vague and empty as "hope and change". What, exactly, is he promising to get done? It isn't as if conservatives and liberals are promising the same actions with different means; if that were the case, this argument would hold water. But they're literally trying to take the country in opposite directions. How can methodology and ideology be irrelevant?

One other thing -- aside from demilitarization, denuclearization, and massively socialistic policies (all of which actually put him to the left of his party), the only thing Barack Obama ran on was his lily-white political naivete purity and his denunciation of politics as usual. He was promising the exact opposite of pragmatism and cold, calculating political maneuvering. If Beckel is truly outlining Obama's plan then he is anything but a "new kind of politician". He's just a really, really good old style, Chicago Rules candidate.

If he doesn't have the "New Politics", and he doesn't have the liberal ideology...then why would anybody in the nation vote for him?

Oh, and read the "about the author section":

Bob Beckel managed Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign...

(Where he lost in a landslide, winning only DC and his home state of Minnesota, losing the election by a "score" of 13 - 525, making him the worst loser of the Democratic party ever: quite a feat.)

This is the guy who managed the worst campaign in modern political history. How is his opinion even remotely close to relevant?


Matt said...

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say in this post... The McCain campaign is making this exact same point. John consistently talks about how he's going to reach across the isle, about how he's going to have "republicans, democrats and independents in [his] cabinet". Want to talk about changing positions in light of new information? Listen to McCain talk about how Wall Street needs more regulation! This is the same guy who's characterized himself as a "deregulater" for over 25 years. Now all of a sudden he wants to stabalize the market through government intervention because the Dow took a tumble in the last few days.

What is Bob Beckel rationalizing? The fact that people want a president who isn't an ideologue, and Obama's campaign acts accordingly? Why does that have to be rationalized? You're making a pretty thin argument here.

What's truly vacuous, vague and empty is the fact that the republican ticket is offering up "change" without providing ANY examples of how their policies are going to differ from the ones that they've been feeding us for the last 8 years. It goes without saying (to anyone with a brain) that the current economic crisis we're in is the direct result of excessive deregulation.

Saying that Obama is a socialist who's to the left of the Democratic party doesn't make him a socialist who's to the left of the Democratic party. SHOW SOME FACTS to support your statements please!

The National Journal rates Obama as the most liberal according to his voting record in 2007 alone. He missed a full third of the total votes on the floor that year due to campaigning, and in terms of the NUMBER of liberal votes cast, he's at least 15 behind Hillary Clinton. In 2006 he was ranked 10th, and in 2005 he was ranked 16th.

By the way, Socialists are Socialists, not Democrats. We don't call you guys Fascists because you push for pre-emptive strikes and the massive privatization of national defense (okay maybe Kos does, but they're nuts).

You've been brainwashed into thinking that there's this HUGE difference between the two parties that trade off every 4 years to share the responsibility of fucking everything up. Here's the difference: one fucks up a lot less.

They both want mixed economies. No one wants what you advocate: fundamentalist free markets. (except in third world countries that allow our corporations to rape them of their natural resources) No one wants socialism or communism. We want smart policies that balance the role of governments and free markets in society responsibly. So cut it out with your paranoid socialist delusions and join us in the reality based community where the world is complicated, and ideas aren't so friggin black and white.

The only real tangible differences as far as I can tell between these two candidates are their plans for taxes and healthcare. All other differentiations are just semantical. The Wall Street Journal (of all publications) ran an editorial yesterday about how Obama's healthcare plan would cover more people, and would reduce costs overall by making pensions more affordable for individuals and by advocating preventative care (which is demonstrably cheaper than the alternative). His plan isn't universal and is anything but socialist. His tax plan doesn't require more borrowing from foriegn banks in order to make it work, unlike McCain's. Even the last legitimate advocate of unbridled free markets, Alan Greenspan, has denounced the so called "mavericks" continuation of Bush's tax overhaul.

If I were you, I wouldn't vote this fall. YOU don't have a candidate representing you. Why vote McCain? He doesn't advocate anything you stand for. This is a man who is clearly pandering his ass off in order to become president, and who will likely revert to his moderate and sometimes liberal positions (pro-choice, anti-torture, pro-gay rights) once having taken the oath of office. That isn't to say that McCain's new found conservatism wasn't there before. It was there before he started voting liberally. In other words, he used to be a conservative before he was a liberal, before he was a conservative again. Can you say Flipper?

Don't answer that. I know you can, because you're part of the same crowd that lambasted our last candidate for flip-flopping on ONE issue. Man, how times have changed. Ever notice how our side doesn't repeat bottom-feeding, dishonest attacks like that one, even when we have more material to work with?

If we were to put all our political biases aside and vote purely on the integrity of the candidates running on each ticket, the choice is just about as black and white as anything in this world gets. This time, it's the black one.

Matt said...

Bob Barr '08!