I have found the perfect adjective to describe the darling golden child of the Marxist net-roots movement groups like MoveOn.org and the Americans for Democratic Action. That adjective is rudderless and it perfectly describes Barack Obama. The Free Dictionary gives the following definition for rudderless:
- Lacking in direction, control, or coherence: the confused and rudderless financial markets; characterized the administration’s Central American policy as rudderless.
Obama’s anti-war posturing, youthful exuberance, gifted oratory skills, and promises to be a new kind of politician, one we could believe in, seemed to over the past year captivate the members of the leftist net-roots community. But, did they ever consider what would happen once Obama clinched the Democratic party’s nomination over the more battle ready but less trendy Hillary Clinton? Did they believe that after largely financing the meteoric rise of the rookie senator on the national scene, that he would remain true to their socialist agenda and reward their backing? If they did, they must be greatly disappointed in the chosen one after the past week.
Over the past week he has shifted to the political right on gun control (Heller), Iraq (shifting time lines), abortion (mental health exceptions), and free trade (he’s for it now I believe).
On gun rights, despite helping past excessive gun control laws in the Chicago area, Barack Obama now would like to fashion himself as a proponent of the 2nd Amendment and the right of Americans to use deadly force to protect themselves. Could it be that he is now trying to make himself more appealing to those citizens in the heartland and rust belt of America that he called “bitter” and who according to him “cling” to their guns and religion? Let’s not forget that when he made those comments he had every reason to believe that they would NOT be leaked to the press because his campaign was holding a closed event with millionaires in San Francisco. It’s reasonable that of all his comments these were the least choreographed and likely the most relective of his true opinions.
So it certainly is audacious that he could believe that he can pass himself of today as a gun rights proponent, and quite frankly it’s insulting to those he is attempting to woo with his rhetoric. The National Review succinctly proves that this is contradictory to Obama’s previous statements made earlier in the campaign in a blog posting titled “Obama Heller Reaction Completely Contradicts Previous Stands, Actions”:
I’m sorry, how can you claim “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms” when you steered $15 million to the self-described “most aggressive group in the gun control movement” that published a book entitled, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns ?
The RNC is calling attention to this comment from before the Potomac Primary, when moderator Leon Harris said, “you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional,” and Obama didn’t dispute the characterization that he believes the ban is constitutional. If he really disagreed, you figure “I don’t think it is constitutional” would have appeared somewhere in his 204-word answer.
Obama - rudderless on gun rights!
Today we find that after securing the endorsement of the pro-abortion group NARAL Obama is moving slightly to the right stating that he believes that severe mental distress does constitute a health wish to the mother where he would support a late term abortion. This is in direct opposition to the position held by NARAL. The Gateway Pundit adds this over Obama’s move:
This “refined” position goes against his 100% rating from NARAL in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Last year Obama said he would trust women to make the right decision on partial birth abortion.
That was when Obama trusted women, before he didn’t trust them.
Whew!… This guy is getting hard to keep up with.
Obama - rudderless on abortion!
And of course, the biggest insult to the MoveOn.org followers, Daily Kosians, and Huffington Posters (who have supported Obama with large sums of money and enthusiasm that helped the rookie senator get elected) is that Obama is changing is tune on Iraq and his immediate withdrawal. I have liberal friends that have sited that this is the primary reason that they chose Obama over Clinton and this was the most crucial reason they donated money to Obama’s campaign. Now virtually guaranteed the nomination, the young senator has turned his back on them and the leftist net-roots fanatics are clearly pissed.
ABC’s Political Punch adds the following:
There’s been lots of speculation this week about whether Sen. Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. He does now.
His comments Thursday, saying that he will “continue to refine” his plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq inside of 16 months, seems likely to leave the campaign on the defensive on this issue for days or weeks.
And it increases the likelihood that his trip to Iraq later this month will not turn out like Obama wants it to.
There will be only one relevant question now out of Obama’s trip now: Do you stand by your plan? Obama is unlikely to give a direct, yes-or-no answer — and that’s where Sen. John McCain and his allies can and will pounce.
Obama - rudderless on Iraq.
So it turns out that Obama is hardly a new kind of politician. He played to the passionite left-wing components of the Democratic power base, he used their money to run an effective primary campaign, and now that he has secured the nomination, he has tossed the leftist net-roots to the curb along with Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger. As he used Jeremiah Wright to gain entrance into the Chicago world of politics, Obama has used the passionate members of MoveOn.org and others to gain entrance into the General Election.
The Marxist net-roots have learned the hard way Caveat Emptor!
[Note: This doesn’t even cover Obama’s flip-flops on campaign finance reform, welfare reform, and FISA. Obama is flip-flopping out of control — he needs to pace himself. ;-)]
Apparently, Obama has felt the pressure and is now trying to comfort his more liberal supporters by indicating that his 16-month withdrawal plan is still a go as reported in the New York Times:
“Let me be as clear as I can be,” he said. “I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.
“And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and, again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.”
Mr. Obama added that when he had spoken earlier about possibly refining his policies, he was referring to questions about how big a residual force should be left to train Iraqi forces and conduct counterterrorism operations, not the overall timeline for withdrawal.
Mr. Obama’s positioning on this issue has been a critical component of his candidacy from the beginning. He, almost alone among the major candidates, opposed the war from the start, and that helped him beat a crowded Democratic field. And while he has long said he would consult commanders in the field when withdrawing troops, that point might have been lost on many Democratic primary voters who supported his call to end the war.
What a bunch of nonsense. He will rely on the commanders but he has “seen no information” that indicates that he can’t do it along the 16-month without TALKING TO THE COMMANDERS. Does that seem like a rather empty statement. He’s hedging and he’s stuck in a pickle. He will rely on the commanders assessments so why exactly should we believe his proposed time table? Or is he lying about consulting the commanders? Utterly rudderless and empty!!!!
