Barack Obama is the candidate of the Establishment, “Dr. No-Change,” who will flip and flop with the views of the Establishment of the government and the Democratic Party. This might be a good thing. Having a smart, intelligent, and ambitiousness President would lead to changes, some of which may be harmful. As it is, Obama’s plan to coast on our greatness isn’t half bad.
The deception angle of it is annoying, however. Obama was against the surge, before he was for it, not that you would know it.
A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.
The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.
The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama’s plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.
It wasn’t just Obama’s website that contradicts itself. Obama’s surrogates contradict Obama, as well:
In The Post American World Fareed Zakaria argues that America’s (relatively) incurious, unintelligent, and small-minded political class hurts American competitiveness. Certainy this is true to a point. But having a country where the best and brightest shun politics has it advantages. When changes do come, they have an inevitable and irreversible quality to them. Similarly, a country where the best and brightest stay out of politics is where truly ambitious government programs are — thankfully — unlikely.
I’ll take an ambitious business-climate over an ambitious government-climate any day.