I’ve been out of high school for almost 4 years now, but lately I’ve been feeling as if I’ve landed there again, or worse, back at the middle school bus stop or the elementary school playground.
Me: “Barack, Sarah said you have no experience and community organizing doesn’t count.”
Barack: “Tell Sarah that she’s just a hockey mom, a governor and a moose hunter. Big whoop. Plus, McCain is really old and he could die any second.”
Me: Sigh.
Well, maybe not exactly, but you get my drift. Each morning when I get to my desk, the days headlines are overtaken with the latest stab at either candidate. I’m left reading, researching and desperately trying to figure out what’s truth and what’s just political babble.
One thing I’ve come across that has left me a little uneasy are the claims of “flip-flopping” or hypocrisy. Lately, I’ve seen it mostly in regards to Sarah Palin and her stances on the “Bridge to Nowhere” and earmarks. The attack was also used on Hilary’s voting for the Iraq war and then being against it. John Kerry’s run to the White House was hindered by flip flips.
My question in the past week or so is where do we cry flip-flop and where do we leave politicians room for change? I have no problem with hearing a politician say, “I supported this 2 years ago, but I saw that it was not working and have since recommended the following changes, but no longer support the original project.” Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
With bloggers, media talking heads and the opposing party ready to pounce on any back-track or retraction, we’ve created situations where Obama can admit that the surge has been successful, but won’t admit he was wrong to vote against it. To me, that doesn’t even make sense. I maybe alone, but I would’ve had more respect for him if would’ve said, “you’re right, the surge did work, but there are still many areas we need to work on.”
Let’s look at the Sarah Palin, “Bridge to Nowhere” situation. The Obama campaign is slamming her for being for the project during her gubernatorial run and then pulling the plug once she was governor. Granted I’ve read many different accounts of what happened, each with their own spin, but if what I glean is correct, and she saw the project was going to be too much money and decide to pursue other lower costs alternatives, I have no problem with that change of heart.
I think there is a difference between hypocrisy, changing stances from week to week for political benefit and making decisions as circumstances come at you.
I want a decision maker in office, not someone who’s going to stay on the sinking ship, because they are worried what the media will say. Maybe that's a little naive, and a little too much to ask for.
I watched that interview with Bill O'Reilly where Obama was asked about the surge's success and I must say that the question, I felt, was a little too all inclusive. Just saying, "the surge was successful", is worded to give off the impression that it was successful in all arenas, which it wasn't. The surge has shown that it's reduced the amount of daily violence (for now), but it has so far not been successful in completing the other task it was originally set up to do which was make the Iraqi government more self-supportive. The country has a $79 billion surplus yet we're having to borrow money from China in order to "help them" and to continue to spend billions on the war each month. I wouldn't call that a landslide success.
I think that was the point Obama was trying to make. It has been successful, but only to a point. I wouldn't be anymore comfortable crying, "Success!", anymore than I would, "Mission Accomplished", because neither statements are 100% true.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The ink of a scholar is worth a thousand times more than the blood of a martyr."
- Lupe Fiasco -
I see your point. It may be a little premature yet. Even though Bill O'Reilly is a bit... aggressive, I still wouldv'e like a more decisive answer from Obama. He always seems to be dancing around topics...
Anyhow, thanks for the comment. You make a valid point.
~ElegantFree~
I think it is sooo childish and annoying. What bothers me is the fact that I think both Mccain and Obama should not be running for president. Sarah seems ok, but still you really just can't trust what political figures have to say. They make promises and then don't deliver when the time comes.
I understand how this childish highschool/middle school stuff could bug you because I see it in Magazines and online daily and have to role my eyes.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am voting for Lewis Black.
DrifterDani~
We've created an environment in which we demand that our politicians be right- all of the time. So, it is the fault of the people, the media, and the politicians themselves for demanding perfect foresight from our leaders, thus making it impossible for them to have a change of heart about an issue.
Nobody is 100% right 100% of the time, especially politicians. As far as I know politicians are also not gifted with the ability to foresee the future, so I don't see how anyone can expect another human being to predict accurately what will or will not happen. Those who were in support of the surge from day one are not any more right than those who were not, they just happened to feel it was the right decision and their guess turned out in their favor.
It is a ridiculous idea to place such limits on human beings. If someone decides to change their stance on an issue after much thought and deliberation and are willing to say they made the wrong decision earlier, then it's as much a politician's right to do so as anyone else's.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The ink of a scholar is worth a thousand times more than the blood of a martyr."
- Lupe Fiasco -
Those who were in support of the surge from day one are not any more right than those who were not, they just happened to feel it was the right decision and their guess turned out in their favor.
Well... here's were it gets hazy. I wouldn't call the votes and support of certain policies "guesses" per se. I don't want politician walking around, voting, and then saying "oh! Sorry, it was just a guess and no body could have known what was going to happen." You can be wrong, but take responsibility for it, just don't say, no one could've known...
I guess that's why experience is important, especially when it goes to the presidential race. You can see how many times they supported a policy with favorable outcomes vs. not.
~ElegantFree~