“Of course the Obamanites could say that he’s grown and learned the error of his way and moved to a more enlightened position, right Obamanites?”
Again you assume obama supporters agree with everything he does.
I know you don’t agree with everything McCain does.
imo I don’t even know where McCain stands on any major issue. For any positition he has taken I can show you a video with him saying something else. For somethings you only have to go back in time 10 minutes. His youtube moments are worse than Hillary’s ever were.

It’s Obama’s flip-flops that give me hope that he may be more of a pragmatist if he becomes President. At this point, I will probably vote for him, even though I fear he will be the “second coming” of Jimmy Carter.
I’m more worried about what I see as McCain’s reckless, unpredictable streak. My brother, who voted for Bush in the last two elections, is afraid John McCain might start WWIII. I’m not sure I’d go that far, I am worried that McCain might do something with more significant negative consequences than anything Obama might do. That said, I think McCain is on balance right about Iraq.

The ad said that he would support legal measures to help companies add workers in America. Foreign countries could consider that approach protectionist and start trade wars, or have us tried in world court. Personally, after suffering massive lay-offs, I think workers could use some protection.

I’m no fan of Obama but I’m getting very bored with McCain. Still, I see no reason why a candidate should not change his mind. There is something truly frightening about the notion that once a politician takes a position he is somehow obligated to never change that position.

I agree with Alicia to some extent. I’d rather have him be a spineless flipflopper than a hard core ideologue. He’ll be less dangerous that way.

Exactly. We’ve already (and still) have the ‘I meant what I said and I said what I meant, even if it is indubitably proven wrong’ already.
I’d rather see a little zig zagging than a full on relentless march… in the wrong direction.

I just got back from the grocery and seeing the sartorial magnificence of my neighbors I was, by obvious divine inspiration, given the following line.
I don’t care how many flip-flops a candidate has as long as he isn’t wearing them!

There is something truly frightening about the notion that once a politician takes a position he is somehow obligated to never change that position.
Exactly. That’s why when people start whining about a politician flip-flopping over an 11 year period, I just roll my eyes. Pointing to something said in 2008 and contrasting it with something from 1997 shows nothing more than a desperate need to score political points rather than actually engage in any kind of real debate.
I know I’m not the same person now I was in 1997, so why should anyone else be held to that kind of artificial standard?
It’s amazing to me that we allow ourselves the ability to grow and change as people, but we expect politicians– who are people– to never, ever change their minds about anything, and to have robotic, one-track minds about issues. It’s as if we expect them to be perfectly preserved in carbonite for the rest of their lives.

speaking of mccain, what do you all think of his new tax plan: “don’t pay them!”
you’d think that if times are so tight for him and his sugar mama that they could sell one of their seven homes to pay the taxes owed.
yeah, like i want this man in charge of the countries finances.

I would agree with commenters stating that 11 years is too long a period for calling flip-flop. However, my concern is whether he believes what he is saying, or is it just a political expedient position. BO is showing himself to be another in a long line of politicans willing to say anything to gain power.
I truly doubt that he agrees with welfare reform, as it seems antithetical to everything he has claimed to believe in upto this point. He is for more tax financed support for the poor, more government intervention in the personal financial affairs of citizens, and more distribution of wealth with the costs on wealthiest citizens increasing. These are morally consistant and defensible positions, although I disagree with them.
So why does this position differ with his other positions? What nuanced difference is there? Public opinion is the only difference. So I assume that that is the only reason for his stated position.

“I don’t care how many flip-flops a candidate has as long as he isn’t wearing them!”
They are ubiquitous aren’t they? So far I’ve avoided them (though my daughters wear them all the time) but I was tempted to get a pair for the beach until I tried them on and was annoyed by the piece of plastic wedged between my toes. How can anyone wear them? They are so uncomfortable.

“speaking of mccain, what do you all think of his new tax plan: “don’t pay them!”
you’d think that if times are so tight for him and his sugar mama that they could sell one of their seven homes to pay the taxes owed.
yeah, like i want this man in charge of the countries finances. ”
Yes, but the alternative is someone who has promised to raise my taxes. Decisions, decisions.

Dale, I agree with you that I don’t think he supports welfare reform and if you read the piece I linked to you will see that he was very careful not to address the issue during the primary. I believe that he’s just saying what he has to say to get elected. The press calls this moving to the center, I call it lying.

“Again you assume obama supporters agree with everything he does.
I know you don’t agree with everything McCain does. ”
You assume I’m a McCain supporter. You must new to the blog. I don’t have a candidate in this race and haven’t decided what I’m going to do in November.

“I’m more worried about what I see as McCain’s reckless, unpredictable streak. My brother, who voted for Bush in the last two elections, is afraid John McCain might start WWIII. I’m not sure I’d go that far, I am worried that McCain might do something with more significant negative consequences than anything Obama might do. That said, I think McCain is on balance right about Iraq.”
Does your brother realize that we aren’t the only ones capable of starting WWIII? We didn’t start WWI or II and we may not start III as well. When other countries see us as weak, it may give them the incentive to take us on.

I’m sure my ‘bro does realize that, Michele.
Personally, I thought Hillary Clinton’s comment in the PA debate that we had the ability to “obliterate Iran” in the event that Iran dropped a nuke on one of it’s neighbors was a great reminder that we have that capability, and that, when push comes to shove, we have the will to use that capability. I think she was right to make that statement.
There’s a difference between taking a tough position that reminds belligerent nations of what they are risking if they threaten another nation with annihilation, and exercising unwarranted belligerence ourselves, however.
My concern is not whether McCain appears tough. I think he is capable of doing so – no problem. My concern is that he might do something unpredictable and dangerous. He has a tendency, at his worst, to be a loose cannon. Like I said, I prefer him to Obama, but I think if Obama is elected, his mistakes may be potentially less far-reaching than those of McCain.

I want you folks to remember that the only welfare reform we got was from Bill Clinton. Obama wants to put Americans to work, Bush allowed American jobs to be shipped to Mexico and Asia, putting more people on welfare.
McCain wants to expand “free trade” with Latin America giving more jobs away, putting more Americans out of work.
Obama want to free me from taxes (I’m retired and make less that $50g a year) and McClain want to free the rich from taxes.
Let me see, what do I want? War or jobs? Taxation of the poor or the rich? Welfare reform or high unemployment?
Not much choice for me.

Obama want to free me from taxes (I’m retired and make less that $50g a year) and McClain want to free the rich from taxes.
Let me see, what do I want? War or jobs? Taxation of the poor or the rich? Welfare reform or high unemployment?”
Hasn’t Obama came out in support of NAFTA?
As to taxes, didn’t they go up for SS recipients under Clinton? If I were you, I wouldn’t be too sure they won’t go up again.
You might want to check what you’ll be paying now that they’re rolling back the Bush tax credits.

“I’m sure my ‘bro does realize that, Michele. Personally, I thought Hillary Clinton’s comment in the PA debate that we had the ability to “obliterate Iran” in the event that Iran dropped a nuke on one of it’s neighbors was a great reminder that we have that capability, and that, when push comes to shove, we have the will to use that capability.”
Yeah but that’s Clinton not Obama. Obama says he’ll “talk” with them. He’ll be viewed as weak by our enemies.
“but I think if Obama is elected, his mistakes may be potentially less far-reaching than those of McCain.”
It’s funny that you say this given the fact that Carter was the reason we are still trying to handle Iran. The mistakes of the past presidents can continue to cause us problems long after they are in office. It was Clinton’s lack of action that emboldened our enemies to hit us on 9-11. We are still paying for his mistakes.

Yeah, and we know Republicans would never TALK to our enemies. Especially members of the ‘Axis of Evil’. Like..oh, say.. North Korea. Because they’d be viewed as ‘weak’. Because only WEAK people engage in diplomacy.
Strong people just give ultimatums, refer to those we disagree with by ‘evil comic book names’, and threaten to blow them off the map.
And no. Carter is not the reason we’re ‘still trying to handle Iraq’. Our support of the Shah of Iraq, and actual support of the suppression of a democratic movement in Iraq was the reason for their theocratic revolution in the first place. There’d BE no ‘Death to America’ if that’d not happened.
But we went with the ‘better the Dictator you know’ policy. A tack we took over and over, and one that had invariably ended up biting us.. well, you get the picture.
So, if ‘talk’ makes you weak, Bush is weak. He ‘talked’ to North Korea. No conditions prior to the talk, bilateral, all that stuff he criticized Obama for.
And if ANYONE is a real danger to the US, it isn’t Iran or Iraq, its those nutcases in North Korea.
But as the saying goes, ‘Why did Bush declare war on Iraq, and now threaten war with Iran and ‘talk’ to North Korea?
Because Iraq may have had WMD’s someday, and might have decided to use them. Iran may develop nukes one day, and they could use them.
But North Korea? North Korea HAS WMD’s, and damned well will use them.’

Thanks, Michele. The point I was attempting to make was that even mistakes that take decades to straighten out are preferable to WWIII, or even to a much wider regional war in the Middle East, unless we have no other options.
Like I said, I pretty much agree with McCain about Iraq. And, I do actually believe Obama may be the “second coming” of Jimmy Carter, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. I just think the damage that could be done by a President McCain could potentially be worse than the damage done by a President Obama. I’m not happy with either choice for President, but I’m going to stick with the one I feel may do less damage in the long run.

now that they’re rolling back the Bush tax credits.
Those Bush tax credits never existed for me personally, so I can’t see a rollback hurting me.
At least Congress is trying to curb AMT for 2008. http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/679470.html

“Yes, but the alternative is someone who has promised to raise my taxes. Decisions, decisions.”
Freedom isn’t free, Michele. Maybe the cheapskate conservatives need to pony up and actually pay for the freedom they enjoy.

“It’s funny that you say this given the fact that Carter was the reason we are still trying to handle Iran. The mistakes of the past presidents can continue to cause us problems long after they are in office. It was Clinton’s lack of action that emboldened our enemies to hit us on 9-11. We are still paying for his mistakes.”
Yep, but if Reagan had not brought Osama into the picture in the first place back in the 80s, we might still have the Twin Towers and the nearly 4000 people who died that day.

Michele, RJohnson, Karen Brown, hello. In general, I have a problem with statements like “Carter was responsible for our problems with Iran” or “Reagan was responsible for the rise of Osama Bin Laden.”
Also with statements like “It wasn’t Carter’s failures, it was the historic U.S. relationship with the Shah.” The current problems with Iran, or Al Qaeda are the result of a very complex historical situation.
The Law of Unintended Consequences being what it is, even with the best of intentions, no country that has a foreign policy is going to conduct that foreign policy without errors. Karen, as I read on another Beliefnet comment board, the kind of exceptionalism that “Blames America first” is just as wrong as the kind that says we are better or more moral than any other superpower in history.

“Yes, but the alternative is someone who has promised to raise my taxes. Decisions, decisions.”
your president has run up quite a debt, michele. i’d say thanks, but i have other words to use – ones that would get this comment deleted. eventually, that debt will come due, and taxes will be raised in order to pay for it. shall we be responsible and pay it now as democrats want to do, or put it off for the next generation to deal with?
karen and rjohnson, thanks for correcting michele on her rewriting of history. saved me the time.

“Freedom isn’t free, Michele. Maybe the cheapskate conservatives need to pony up and actually pay for the freedom they enjoy.”
What makes you think that I’m not paying enough? How much is enough to you people???

Its not so much a ‘blame America first’. We do tons of things right. But there were certain foreign policy philosophies we took that seemed pragmatic at the time, but turned out to be incredibly bad for us.
One is the ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. This lesson, I hope, we learned with both Saddam and Bin Laden, is not so much false.. it certainly is possible. There’s many nations that we are friends with, that we share common enemies. But we aren’t friends BECAUSE we share enemies in common. The enemy of my enemy can be my friend, can be utterly indifferent to me, can be using me as much as I’m using him.. can even be my enemy too.
The next is.. suppressing democratic movements because we can’t control the outcome and supporting the status quo dictator, even if he is friendly to our interests doesn’t seem to work out like we want it to.
And there’s no ‘pet psycho dictators’. Trying to use a vicious dictator to our own ends is like keeping a rabid dog on a leash. Sure, he might attack anyone entering your property, but sooner or later he’s going to bite you in the butt. Because he’s a rabid dog, and that’s what they do.
Rather like the old story about the monk and the snake. The monk sees the snake frozen in the snow. Feeling pity, he takes the snake, the snake promises not to strike. But once in the monk’s robes, warmed up, the snake bites him. The monk, dying, cries out, “Why did you do that? Without me to warm you, you’ll die too..”
The answer was, “You knew I was a snake when you picked me up.”
We got to stop picking up snakes.
There’s more, but if we just learn THOSE three lessons, that will lead to far fewer problems in the future.

“What makes you think that I’m not paying enough? How much is enough to you people???”
How about we pay for our freedoms like past generations paid for theirs? How about we pay enough in taxes so our kids don’t have to pay our bills?
How about we pay enough in taxes to pay for this war? Cheapskate conservatives don’t even want to do that!
Do you believe this generation should pay its own way?

“How about we pay enough in taxes to pay for this war? Cheapskate conservatives don’t even want to do that!
Do you believe this generation should pay its own way?”
How about we stop spending instead?
You still haven’t given me amount. How much is enough? What percentage of my husband’s salary do you think is “fair?” And since we pay about between 30 and 40% in taxes (state and federal), I don’t think that qualifies as a cheapskate.

Well, do you support the war? Do you support the troops?
If it were to actually hit your wallet, instead of posts on a blog, or a magnetic ribbon on a car, how much WOULD you give to support both?

Oh, and unless you are giving above and beyond what is required by law, the amount of taxes has nothing to do with your level of ‘cheapskateness’.
And if one of the issues you vote on is to reduce those taxes, that does.
So, is part of your personal voting platform involve the reduction of taxes?

Me: “How about we pay enough in taxes to pay for this war? Cheapskate conservatives don’t even want to do that!
Do you believe this generation should pay its own way?”
Michele: “How about we stop spending instead?
You still haven’t given me amount. How much is enough? What percentage of my husband’s salary do you think is “fair?” And since we pay about between 30 and 40% in taxes (state and federal), I don’t think that qualifies as a cheapskate.”
How about we double our taxes, Michele, to pay off the debt that has been run up since 9/11 for our defense. Why don’t we sacrifice like our parents and grandparents did in order to defend this nation?
Do you believe we are at war? If so, are you willing to do your part in sacrificing to win that war? Or do you want your taxes cut and leave the sacrificing to pay for your safety to someone else?
Freedom isn’t free, Michele. How much is your freedom and safety worth to you?

“How about we stop spending instead?”
talk about forcing the country back to an 1800s lifestyle! how do you expect to pay for security? for roads and bridges? for police and firefighters? for education? i suppose you’d be just fine letting the many who are temporarily down on their luck, relying on federal programs, to die instead of have the chance to pull themselves back up.

Michele: “How about we stop spending instead?”
An excellent idea, Michele. Where do you suggest we stop the spending? Shall we cut all the money going to welfare queens who drive Lincolns and have satellite TV? Fine. Let’s cut all welfare programs, every last one of them. You’ve just saved $250 billion dollars! You’ve eliminated the deficit completely, but you have not cut your taxes by one dollar. All you’ve done is break even.
So…where should your budget axe fall next? Maybe education, since all conservatives know that the federal government should have no role in education. Let’s cut it all…every dollar. You’ve just saved $115 billion dollars, or the cost of one year in Iraq. Of course you’ve transferred all those costs to the states, but who cares about that, right? You’ve saved yourself and your husband some real money here! Somewhere in the vicinity of $250 a year!
So…we’ve cut welfare completely and eliminated all federal involvement in education, and you have enough savings in taxes to buy a good pizza every month.
Now let’s go after some other targets that conservatives love. How about the arts. You know, all those nasty grants and services like NPR, PBS, NEA and the rest. Let’s cut their funding completely, shall we? Better yet…let’s just cut any and all support of museums, libraries, and academic research as well. Might as well get it all while we are at it. Now…there’s another $30 billion in savings. Now you’ve cut your taxes enough to add a 12 oz can of your favorite beverage to each of those pizzas.
What are some other targets of conservatives these days? Veterans benefits? Sure…let’s get the vets. We know conservatives have no room in their mind for a used up soldier. He can’t carry a gun, so he isn’t worth much. And we need to get those federal retirees, too. Lazy buggers, living off the public dole. We’ll cut it all!! And in doing so we save $160 billion dollars. Now there is real money, Michele. Maybe $160 a year for you and your husband!
Have we saved you enough money yet? So far we’re up to a savings of around $400 a year on your taxes, and we have gutted some of the conservatives’ favorite targets: welfare, education, the arts, and veterans. And we are at a balanced budget. Of course, we are not paying off the debt that has built up, but I’m guessing you really don’t care if we pass that on to your kids or not, seeing as how you are happy to pass on the cost of your safety to them.
Have we saved you enough money yet? Should we go after scientific research or transportation infrastructure next? How about foreign aid?
No…wait…I can see it in your eye. I know what you want to go after next. It’s the cherry at the top of the tree for most conservatives. The grand prize. Sure…let’s do it. Let’s gut Social Security…every last dime of it. All that FICA tax you pay…*poof*…you get to keep it now. Once the fund is broke payments to retirees stop. Sure, we’ll see folks kicked out of homes and such, but we know that the churches are standing ready to take care of that job, so we won’t worry about it.
Now we’re talking real money. $549 billion dollars!! Real money indeed. Of course, it doesn’t affect your payroll tax amount, but who cares! You get all that FICA back! And we end that vestige of socialism that is a pock mark on our government.
Now…how’s that picture for you, Michele? Is that enough spending reduction to please your appetite for lower taxes? We know that the sacred cows (defense, corporate welfare, and interest on the debt) can’t be touched. And with Social Security cut to nothing the Medicare problem will take care of itself in a few years as folks starve to death, so there is no reason to worry about it now.
Happy?

“If it were to actually hit your wallet, instead of posts on a blog, or a magnetic ribbon on a car, how much WOULD you give to support both?”
This is the problem with most conservatives. They always want spending cut, but nothing that actually touches their lives. And they are quite content with letting others pay their way. Here are their usual talking points:
- Deficit spending for war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not a problem! Let my kids pay for it!
- Paying off the debt? Why should we do that? Pay the interest and let a future generation worry about it. Besides, debt is a good thing (for others, but of course, not for me).
- Cut welfare? Sure! They all drive Lincolns and have DISH TV anyway. And besides, I don’t know anyone who receives welfare. They live on the other side of town. So sure, go ahead and cut it!
- A war tax?!?!?!!? What are you, NUTS!! I support our troops! I have the flag flying in the yard, and look at all those “Support the Troops” magnets I have. And I listen to country music! I’m no commie-lib, I am a PATRIOT!!! Take your socialist war tax and put it where the sun don’t shine, or I’ll get my sawed-off rail gun and exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms on your ***.
- Corporate welfare? Not a problem! I own stock in many of those companies, so I get that money back in dividends. Besides, capitalism is the heart and soul of our nation, and anything we can do to support capitalism is good for America!!
This is the conservative message of the past 25 years. Cut someone else’s program, cut my taxes, and let the kids pick up the tab.