Barack Obama, Please Flip-Flop on Colombia

In March, the Colombian Communist Rebels (FARC) were “at their lowest point in 44 years.”

It’s just gotten worse for them — and better for everyone else — sinc ethem

The Communists are in collapse.

The Communists’ high-profile hostages have been rescued.

Colombia, which is winning its war against Communist narco-terrorists, has the most successful President in the history of Latin America.

However, the real exist strategy is jobs.

Considering the little regard that Obama has for his own positions:

Just consider his evolution in a single month: Obama opposed welfare reform, and now he supports it. Obama supported the D.C. handgun ban, and now he believes it was unconstitutional. Obama said he would accept public financing, and now he won’t. Obama opposed immunity for telecommunications companies involved in terrorist surveillance, and now he supports it. Obama opposed the death penalty in all cases, and now believes it is justified in certain extreme instances. Obama supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and now he’ll listen to the commanders on the ground if they tell him to phase out the troops slowly.

Will Barack Obama now contradict himself, as support the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia?

It is important that the FTA with Colombia is signed. It is important that it is signed sooner, rather than later.

If Obama flip-flops now, he can help to embarras the Congressional Democrats who oppose the FTA, oppose the Colombian government, and therefore oppose winning the war against the Communists.

Barack Obama: flip-flop on the Colombian Trade Agreement now!

16 thoughts on “Barack Obama, Please Flip-Flop on Colombia”

  1. I have a hard time deciphering what your position is on Obama in this post. Regardless, this “flip-flop” nonsense really needs to end. Nothing is black and white when it comes to legislation (period)

    1 – He opted out of the “public” financing system because it is still influenced by PACs and the like, and requires him to partake in $2000 a plate fundraisers instead of spending that time going town to town talking to real people. Nothing is more public a financing system than to only accept money from individual donors.

    2 – As for the Telecom surveillance bill that was just voted on, the reason he supported it had something to do with the fact that the companies involved to date have not had sway over (possibly also knowledge of) who was being surveillanced by the govt. He is supportive, as is reasonable to be, of using the surveillance system through Telecoms ethically and when appropriately authorized. If I recall correctly, the immunity only holds for what could be considered offenses that happened in the past, not for the future (which should indicate to any rational mind that he would like the system to be fixed).

    As for the other stances noted above, I have not been keeping up with the news as much lately. My point is there are perfectly good reasons for him to switch his position when it is in the best interest of the citizens of this country, if he does so. Nothing is simple, and the details of situations must be taken into consideration.

  2. This will be tough. The American Left loves South American communist guerillas. They are all a bunch of cute little Che look-alikes. Having “solidarity” with communist guerillas is a bid identity issue for Obama’s Leftist core. They want FARC to win.

  3. Bill,

    Thank you for the comment.

    The point is not that legislation is complex — the point is that Obama is deceitful. On issue after issue, he’s abandoned his original positions and adopted new ones. The consistent explanation for this is that he supports whatever grants him the most power and flexibility. [1]

    He opted out of the “public” financing system because it is still influenced by PACs and the like, and requires him to partake in $2000 a plate fundraisers instead of spending that time going town to town talking to real people.

    This is a valid reason, though certainly it does not excuse him breaking his campaign promise to use public financing. Or was he really so inexperienced and naive about politics that he did not consider this?

    Nothing is more public a financing system than to only accept money from individual donors.

    Nothing would be more “public” than a financing system which is only financially supported by public funds (that is, from governments).

    Obamania is dishonest enough without intellectual dishonestly, like switching the definitions of “public” and “private” for political gain.

    As for the Telecom surveillance bill that was just voted on, the reason he supported it had something to do with…

    Perhaps a valid reason, though one he foreclosed to himself by making a campaign pledge.

    Obama supporters have for a long time warned me against believing what he said, telling me (and readers of this blog) that he actually has secret positions that are nothing like the stuff he’s been professing for the past six months. Certainly their predictions have been right so far.

    Lexington,

    This will be tough. The American Left loves South American communist guerillas. They are all a bunch of cute little Che look-alikes. Having “solidarity” with communist guerillas is a bid identity issue for Obama’s Leftist core. They want FARC to win.

    True, but the American Left loves many things that the Democratic Party regularly works against.

    In 2000, Bush II was brave enough to criticize the Republican Congress. Part of me still expects Bush III (Barack Obama) to behave similarly.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/07/02/power-seeking-among-other-things.html

  4. I’ve been liking Obama more and more as he becomes Centrist during the general election. Of course what happens after he gets into office could be a completely different story.

  5. Dan,

    Your points are well-taken. I’m not arguing for a new definition of ‘public’; my view on the issue needs clarification here – the public financing system that is in place is funded by special interests (in one form or another) and tax money from the American public, hence, I see his decision as a step forward for the party and the government because it effectively eliminates those special interests; now contributions are solely from – the American public. I see no downside to opting out of the system in order to obtain campaign funding solely from American citizens, unless a candidate were to opt-out and then (secretly or not) obtain funding from special interests (which he has no need to do).

    I fully understand if people are upset because he broke his word, however, I think the benefits of such a decision outweigh those concerns not only for his campaign but also for a system in need of reform. I believe the reason he argued, back in the early primary season, that candidates should pledge to opt-in was because it was the fairest option (knowing the special pockets on the right) and no one could have foreseen his fundraising prowess.

    Granted, the benefit of a step towards a reformed financing system seems minuscule compared to the advantage it gives him financially, but no candidate with his present level of grassroots funding would do otherwise. You must admit that his financial advantage compensates – maybe overly but nonetheless – for the attacks he will endure from the deep pockets of the right (referring to the right that is not “officially” associated with McCain) and the disadvantage he has for not having been around as long (the Muslim rumors etc.).

    I still feel as though your argument is lacking a solid example of an issue where he has completely changed his position. I’m the most skeptical person I know, and always aim make well-informed decisions. The way the primaries played out, I know that I have developed a biased point of view though I remain cognizant of this fact. If there is an example of him completely changing his position, I want to know. I’m always open to a change of view.

    Regarding the FISA legislation, this is the letter he put out today to his supporters and the media. I think it illustrates his approach to legislation very well, and other so-called “flip-flops” of his can likely be explained by similar dynamics as this issue:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html

  6. Bill,

    That Obama’s factional support (largely from blacks and educated whites) is direct and not-funneled through an intermediary is a campaign nicety; it hardly means he doesn’t rely on special interests.

    Not that there is anything wrong with factions and special interests [1]. Just that Obama’s rhetoric on them (against them in principle, relying on them in fact) is so universal among politicians I’m surprised that anyone buys it.

    A specific example of an unambiguous statement Obama made and later rejected is his pledge that, under an Obama administration, toys would no longer be imported from China. [2] Obama got some heat from the Communists [3] and others, changed his mind [4], though it seems his bouts of economic unilatealism has earned him some permanent skepticism. [5]

    The broader point stands: whether Obama’s words are useless because he contradicts them, or they are worthless because he builds in enough caveats to change his position at a later time [6], they are worthless.

    This is why I don’t believe his current promise to overturn Doe v. Bolton [7,8]. Whether he can wiggle out of it through some caveat or simple dishonesty, he’s given every indication he will wiggle out of it as soon as it increases his power [9].

    Adam,

    I’ve been liking Obama more and more as he becomes Centrist during the general election. Of course what happens after he gets into office could be a completely different story.

    Exactly.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
    [2] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/obama-stop-chinese-toy-imports
    [3] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/21/content_6337575.htm
    [4] http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/23/obama_retreats_from_call_for_china_toy_import_ban/
    [5] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/07/old_core_dems_new_core_repubs.html
    [6] http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_clarifies_his_position_o_1.asp
    [7] http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_moves_to_the_right_on_ab_1.asp
    [8] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/07/04/obama-against-choice.html
    [9] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/07/02/power-seeking-among-other-things.html

  7. Thanks for the example. Though, his whole approach to politics is founded on reason and compromise, so that things get done. Is that not what bipartisanship is? Has he not been consistently promoted the idea of working closely with those who disagree most? I don’t think it necessary to provide examples, especially given the events of the last 8 years, of the failures or corrupt outcomes of partisan politics.

  8. Bill,

    Thanks for the example. Though, his whole approach to politics is founded on reason and compromise, so that things get done.

    Do you have any grounds for believing that, as opposed to a focus on politics based, say, on power and compromise?

    I get suspicious when someone sneaks in very positively loaded words (“reason”) in any otherwise factual sentence.

    Is that not what bipartisanship is?

    According to the dictionary [1]:

    Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution.

    Thus, Obama’s voting record makes him perhaps the least bipartisan figure in the Senate.

    It surely helps him gather power in the base of his party, though, by compromising his principles. Thus, power & compromise.

    Has he not been consistently promoted the idea of working closely with those who disagree most?

    Has he? Where? And how is that consistent?

    He refuses to meat with the President of Iran, unless certain preconditions are met. He wasn’t part of the substantive comprehensive immigration reform negotiations. He left his church when he began disagreeing with the tone.

    What is your support for this hagiography?

    Your last sentence is troll-fodder. I wonder if you take it seriously?

    [1] http://www.answers.com/bipartisanship&r=67

  9. Sorry, I have better things to do than continue to try and clarify your nuanced use of common words. If you find a better candidate, I bid you good luck with him. One final note though, the whole second half of your last comment does not follow.

  10. Bill,

    I don’t understand your latest comment. Do you believe that “power” and “reason” are synonyms? Something else?

    I’ve outlined my reasons for supporting John McCain [1]. Clearly, if I was lukewarm on comprehensive immigration reform, against free trade, against completing the COIN cycle in Iraq, or in favor of pre-birth infanticide, I might support Barack Obama instead.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/04/06/why-i-support-john-mccain.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *