Senator Nutless Wears Flip-Flops – Obama In Black And White

Obama: "How do I love thee, Change, let me count the ways…"

We know that Barama's been changing positions more quickly lately as he finds out that not only America, but his own colleagues in Congress aren't where he is. The latest is the FISA renewal that President Bush signed – and Obo voted for.

He did it, apparently, to keep America safe, but he wasn't concerned about that safety until he secured the nomination.

Then there's gun control, the death penalty for rapists, his daughters' TV careers, not to mention Iraq withdrawal, and a whole host of other reversals that we can chalk up to a total lack of experience, conviction, judgment, and innate weakness. The Democrats won't need a mascot in Denver, Obama himself is a walking, talking Jackass – Francis reincarnated.

And have you noticed how he retreats back to the womb when he feels threatened, the womb being an audience of his most loyal sycophants? He did it today as he was responding to Phil Gramm's comments that the "recession" is mental and that Americans have become whiners. Of course, Gramm wasn't referring to all Americans. I mean, if you're not a whiner, you weren't offended… but there was Obama whining to his fans and they whined back the sympathy he so desperately needs.

So his flip-flops also demonstrate a fundamental insecurity – he isn't confident that he can take a position or make a decision that is sound. And his own gaffes are near daily reminders that he can't.

Still, even knowing what he is, I was interested in a column written by Luke Boggs that appeared (magically) today in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution titled: "Obama's frequent regrets may make us sorry." In it, Boggs gives us a novel perspective as he notes that Obama doesn't just change positions, he also regrets the ones he previously held, and Boggs particularly laments Obama's quick reversal on having his children doing interviews "even before the other two parts of the interview could air."

Boggs:  "The guy is running for president of the United States, for heaven's sake. Family members have been a constant in American politics for a long time. And Obama having his daughters at his side in a puffy little holiday interview should have been no big deal to anyone."

Except that Boggs doesn't seem to realize that by allowing his kids to be interviewed, Obama has potentially opened a can of worms. He'd probably succeeded in insulating his family, i.e. Mickey, from much future criticism (as long as she kept her enormous mouth shut for the duration of the campaign), but now, he's re invited such criticism. You can't use your family and expect others to keep hands off.

Boggs: And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often.

In November 2006, Obama said he regretted buying property adjacent to his Chicago home from Tony Rezko, a longtime supporter and big-time fund-raiser who has since been convicted of mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering.

In February 2007, as his presidential campaign was beginning, Obama said he regretted saying that the lives of American soldiers who died fighting in Iraq had been "wasted."

In April 2008, Obama said he regretted his choice of words when he told some well-heeled donors in San Francisco that "bitter" folks in Middle America who have lost economic hope "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Finally, Boggs reinforces and better states the point I made yesterday:

A lot of Americans understand that you don't get a bunch of easy do-overs in the Oval Office. You have to make tough calls, even when they may be politically costly.

I can't help wondering what Obama might regret in four years as president. What might he regret doing — or not doing — on the world stage? What might he regret saying — or not saying — to Putin or Kim Jong-il or Ahmadinejad?

Only time will tell. Depending on what happens in November, we may begin to find out next January. When we do, some voters may well have regrets of their own.

Maybe Obama can't help it? In the words of George Jefferson, Obama is a Zebra. In today's vernacular, doesn't that mean he's a living, breathing Flip-Flop?

And while I'm at it, lets not forget the Obama pontifications… that Jesse Jackson would like to… shall we say… curtail.

Now more flops… Public financing, Jerusalem, NAFTA, Iran, and even running for President… Oh when the saints, go marchin' in… oh when the saints go marchin' in… will Obama be in that number… ?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Senator Nutless Wears Flip-Flops – Obama In Black And White

  1. I wrote this to all the senetors that voted for FISA

    Your vote on the FISA bill raises serious concern over your commitment to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. In an era that has seen the erosion of many of the rights of our citizenry; you have effectively subverted the law in order to grant immunity to criminals that have committed over 30 federal felonies. You took an oath sir. I am amazed that anyone needs remind you of that fact. Your job is to protect us from criminals not legitimize their crimes. There can be no excuse for this. The words “accessory after the fact” spring to mind.

    Celebrate democracy by showing us that no man is above the law. Show your commitment to the American people by pushing to prosecute these criminals.

    Represent us.


  2. TedWest says:

    Well, David, everyone knows I'm not one who ordinarily jumps to conclusions, but if I were, I might be inclined to say you're an idiot.

  3. It never ceases to amaze me how people like yourself can claim to love america but hate the rule of law (when it applies to your or your cronies behavior). But thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful reply. It's that kind of well thought out response that has dropped this country to it's current state.

    But please do explain to me, in your obviouly patient and thoughtful manner, how it serves our country and the ideals under which it was founded to let these companies, and the criminals that ordered the wanton commission of multiple felonies, off the hook for their crimes? I am always open to reinterpretations of my current views. Or should I perhaps just drink directly from your KoolAide supply?

  4. TedWest says:

    First off, David, this is my blog, so I'll ask the questions. So here's the first one:
    Are you aware it's spelled "Kool-Aid?" If not, why not? Because you're not American?
    Next, are you aware how stupid you look talking about the rule of law when liberals have no conception of what that is and if they (you) do, how unbelievable hypocritical they (you) are?
    Third, would you like to take a shot at becoming the First Rational Liberal?
    If so, I don't ordinarily deal with people as dumb as you appear to be, but you look particularly vulnerable, so I'd like you to dispense with the vague and general charges and give me one specific instance of something that troubles you? (hint: not the FISA passage, some particular incident that shows our freedom evaporating)
    Try to focus really hard, I bet you can do it. Although I should tell you that I've lost a lot of money earlier in life betting that liberals could come through on something, and I;'ve been actively looking for a rational liberal for fifteen years without success.
    I don't mean to scare you, but you seem young and idealistic (which I hope you are, because the alternative is old and incredibly idiotic), and I bet you have public school education, am I right?
    Which is question number eight if you're keeping track.

  5. Let’s start with revelations from Sen. Feingold: “I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.”

    Those of you who claim that there were no abuses of these spying powers for all those years when the Bush administration spied in secret are making assertions without having any basis whatsoever. And then there is the entire, unresolved matter of what James Comey was describing when he said that the spying activities in which the Bush administration was engaged for years were so patently illegal and unconscionable that even he, John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller — right-wing ideologues all who approved of the lawless "Terrorist Surveillance Program" — all threatened to resign en masse if those still-unknown activities continued. This should bother you too.

    As for the spelling of Kool-Aid, I don’t use the product as I am a diabetic so thank you for pointing out the correct spelling. Is it really necessary to resort to insults when someone disagrees with your obviously well informed and thought out point of view?

  6. TedWest says:

    I've got good news for you, Kool-Aid is sugar-free!
    Now, don't take my insults personally, I insult all liberals and most conservatives because I have utter contempt for both sides' mindless beliefs… and yours would seem to qualify.
    Which brings me to your main comment.
    I asked you for a specific example and what do you do? You provided more vagaries and anecdotes, and you directed me to the ultra-liberal Salon (thanks for sparing me The Nation).
    I asked YOU to provide a CONCRETE example and I won't accept links to commentaries that ramble on and don't say anything and provide no examples themselves but still conclude the worst.
    I fear you won't understand why the article is wholly lacking, so I will provide you with one tiny example:
    Your source said:
    "Yet even once Ashcroft and Comey made clear that the program had no legal basis (i.e., was against the law)"
    No! what;s contained in those brackets is the writer's belief, not fact, and its a typical example of what liberals do – failing to certify legality does not mean that something is "against the law." If you can't understand that, you fail right there.
    Now, one more chance… either provide a specific instance or else you can tell me how this has personally affected you or someone you know?
    The whole illegality part is effectively moot unless you have real evidence, so let me know if you need a clarification as to what constitutes 'evidence."

  7. Yes well here we have an impasse. As the Bush administration refuses to release any details of anything due to national security issues. See Sen. Feingold quoted above. In regards to the insults I can hardly take offense at someone's remarks about me personally when they no nothing about me, except that I am a proponent of something they are against. As for what I do, I am the IT manager and plant manager for a medium sized factory that makes industrial lighting for the food processing and semiconductor industry. We employ 50 people here in Ohio and are ramping up for 50 more over the next twelve months. Our company is committed to staying in the USA despite incentives from the free trade proponents to move these jobs south of the border. I was the Systems Admin for an international trade company a few years back that vetted everything they did against the Patriot act with their lawyers and had specific instructions for international calls as to acceptable and unacceptable banter per surveillance paranoia. That would be the only concrete effect I could personally point to – increased legal fees for one company.
    I like to think I am fairly well informed, but then again so does everyone, until the glaring holes in their education or background materials are pointed out. But the whole illegality issue cannot be moot when they have admitted to breaking the law, but refused to provide the documentation needed to investigate the matter fully. I wonder where you stood on Clinton’s impeachment, or, for that matter Nixon’s.

  8. Oh and leave out the fact that I spelled Know worng. Didn't catch it in the editing.

  9. TedWest says:

    OK, so you've got nothing. Don't feel badly, that's how it always works out – the charges, the fury, the smoke, and in the end – nothing. increased legal fees hardly constitute a breach of civil liberties, and even that is anecdotal and inconclusive as the increased fees could simply be due to the paranoia you mentioned.
    Now I know you think you bring something new to the table, but I've had fifteen years of you. Some, as you appear to be, are well-meaning, but most just have an idea fixed in their heads with absolutely nothing to support it.
    I confess that my recollection of all the FISA nonsense (that's what it is, btw) is no longer sharp, but I do know that even when it was all flying fast and furious, I found all the charges to be warrantless, and as you know, charges don't make a case, evidence of an actual violation does. And who is this "they" to which you refer who have admitting breaking laws?
    Now let me be as clear as I can. In every case I've encountered, when I try to pin a liberal down, there has never been any "there" there. You're welcome to your beliefs, but you have no real-world support for them. And rest assured, if there were a real assault against civil liberties going on, I'd be screaming louder than anyone.
    Then you did another thing so common to liberals – you attempt to broaden the subject when it's utterly irrelevant to your initial argument. I was for the Clinton impeachment and the Nixon impeachment, but there was good reason for each. There is no evidence that Bush broke any laws, just as there is no evidence Bush lied, and there are limitless things I could bring up to you that would dilute and distract were I so inclined.
    Finally, as you see, I've moderated the insults, but that's only because you didn't insist on pressing a case you couldn't support. I know that in liberal circles, what you presented was plenty good enough, but it wouldn't stand up to the rules of evidence in court, and many in the Democrat Party don't even support such lunacy, although I must ad that when it comes to lunacy, Feingold has no peer.
    So if there is more you'd like to discuss or at any future time you feel the need for a reality check, I'd be happy to consider your your argument, but I'd suggest you not venture off the reservation too often with the sort of post that initiated this exchange, because I can't always be so nice.
    Oh, and I almost forgot, my complaint with your "KoolAide" wasn't actually about spelling. It was about it being indicative of an intellectual sloppiness, and a physical laziness. You could have easily verified the actual spelling, but it either wasn't important or you felt you were correct – just as in your assessment of illegalities.
    Despite how it may appear, I like you. You're obviously a decent person. But we'll have nothing in common until you become more determined to subject your thinking to more rigid scrutiny. Until you do, you're making life more difficult for me, and who needs friends like that?

  10. I think that most tax money is "wasted". But I'm not going to waste my vote on Obama or waste time wishing that Obama will make everything "fair". If Life was fair I'd be Bill Gates.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s