Flip . . . Flop . . . Flip . . . Flop . . . Flip . . . Flop
Dick Morris offers a nice, pithy rundown of Obama’s biggest flip-flops (which Morris believes may have contributed to the stall in Obama’s soar):
• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.
• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.
• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.
• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.
• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers – but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
It’s important to note that these are not principled changes. As someone who turned a 180 herself, from liberal to conservative, I’m a big believer in principled, well-thought out changes that arise either from radically new underlying facts or from a careful analysis of the errors in ones approach to the old facts. Instead, the above twirls and spins are manifestly opportunistic moves aimed at enabling Obama to grab the only thing he really does care about: Power.
My friend Patrick, who blogs at the Paragraph Farmer, has an American Spectator article out today that also looks at Obama’s dizzying revolutions, although he has a more philosophical and less pragmatic analysis than Morris. Patrick’s ultimate conclusion is the same, though, as Morris’ (and mine): Obama is an unprincipled man who will say anything to win. Should he win, of course, it remains to be seen whether he’ll continue spasming and twitching like a fish on the deck of a ship or if, power safely in hand, he’ll revert to his far Left default setting.