Obama's flip-flopping is costing him

Dick Morris is the political insider you love to hate. The problem is the guy knows his stuff. Recently, Barack Obama has been slipping in national polls despite a worsening economic environment. One would think he's a slam dunk for President versus a man accused of running for Bush's third term. What gives? Dick Morris knows.

After almost six weeks of a constant Obama lead, generally in the five- to seven-point range, Scott Rasmussen's daily tracking poll records two consecutive days of a tie race (July 12-13) and a one-point Obama lead on July 14. What happened to the Democrat's lead?

Part of the slippage is Obama's fault and part is McCain's gain.

Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate -- who we don't really yet know very well -- reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Obama's breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain's. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama's shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.

As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters. One wag even called him the "black Bill Clinton," a turnaround of the "first black president" moniker that had been pinned on Bill.

-Real Clear Politics, 16 Jul 2008

Dick Morris goes on to say why McCain s doing relatively well by comparison. However, as an Obama supporter, I am more concerned with the first part of his essay. Obama thinks moving to the center is going to let him keep his base while picking up many new people in the middle. I think he's out to lunch. His obvious pandering has lost him lots of credibility. His tone better change or he's going to lose an election that he should win.

Bush's torture goes far beyond waterboarding

Apparently, the Bush administration isn't just waterboarding its detainees; it's doing much, much more. I can't hope this book will get enough press because the American people are completely apathetic, but this is a travesty. Does it take the British press to raise this issue?

Jane Mayer's new book, The Dark Side, reveals in greater detail the utter depravity of the Bush administration's official policy of torture. Mayer's long investigation makes clear that the tactics employed by the CIA on suspected al-Qaida terrorists do not exist in some grey area protected by the euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques". They are unquestionably torture. It is all the more shocking then that John McCain, knowing all that he does about torture past and present, would sacrifice his considerable personal credibility and vote to preserve the CIA's ability to torture detainees.

Waterboarding has been the focus of attention since confirmation from the agency's director, Michael Hayden, that it had been used on at least three al-Qaida detainees. The ancient technique that forces water into the lungs of a subject but stops just before he dies had previously been prosecuted by the United States as a war crime but now found its way into the "enhanced interrogation" programme authorised by the justice department and employed by the CIA. Hayden and attorney general Michael Mukasey said waterboarding was not currently being used but categorically did not rule out its use in the future.

That would be troubling enough, but what Mayer's book makes clear is that waterboarding was only a small part of the CIA's torture programme. In fact, even detainees that were subjected to waterboarding did not think it was the worst technique they had to endure. That was reserved for stress positions. These were often employed differently but included being shackled to the ceiling of their cells, forcing all the weight of their body onto their shoulders as they were suspended upright for eight hours. One detainee was locked in a box half his size for hours at a time. Most of them were deprived of sleep and bombarded with loud music and noises for 24 hours.

There has always been a troubling level of indifference to these activities, because these are al-Qaida terrorists responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. Rage and anger is understandable, but I hope people inclined toward this viewpoint appreciate that one of the principle divisions between us and our enemies is that we hold ourselves to a higher standard, we take our humanity more seriously and we intend to live up to our moral obligations. The United States should not torture prisoners in its captivity, no matter how grave their crimes.
-The Guardian, 15 Jul 2008

Bush: ever the opportunist, lifts oil drilling ban

George W. Bush certainly has chutzpah. Ever the opportunist, he has taken advantage of high oil prices to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. Americans continue to allow this President free reign and Congress as allowed him creeping presidential power, abdicating its role as a check on the executive branch. First, there was FISA where Congress caved, including Barack Obama. Now, we have another opportunity for Congress to step up to the plate. Will they?

Let's give Bush credit; lame duck or not, George W. Bush is getting what he wants.

President George W. Bush said today he's lifting a presidential ban on drilling for oil and natural gas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, setting up a showdown with Congress over a separate ban it put in place in the 1980s.

``Today I've taken every step within my power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS,'' Bush said in a statement at the White House. ``This means the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action by the U.S. Congress.''

Pressure to permit drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean coastlines and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has been building as oil and gasoline prices have surged to records.

Congress has barred drilling since 1983 through an annual Interior Department spending bill. That ban could be lifted if Bush refused to sign the department's fiscal 2009 appropriations measure that is now being debated in the House and Senate. The president's father, George H. W. Bush, imposed the existing executive moratorium.

-Bloomberg News, 14 Jul 2008

Obama is pro-Death Penalty

Obama in his move to the center is increasingly alienating social Liberals/fiscal Conservatives like myself. He is either pandering to social conservatives or he actually believesthis stuff or both. The latest move that demonstrates his social conservatism are his remarks regarding the death penalty to CNN.

U.S. Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in an interview with CNN that he would pursue the death penalty against Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaeda leader is captured.

``If he was captured alive, then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice but world justice down on him,'' Obama said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria. ``I've said this before, I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty. I believe it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, but I certainly think plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.''

-Bloomberg News, 11 Jul 2008

My positive feelings for him diminishes daily as it does all around the netroots. His appeal was a change from the status quo. In the full light of day, he is looking all to similar to every other poitician.

The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran

In a new expose by Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker explains what the Bush administration is up to regarding Iran. Obviously, there is still time to attack Iran before Bush leaves the White House. Are they prepared to do so? Read here.

How 'Operation Check-Mate' Worked

Ingrid Betancourt and other hostages are free. From the Wall Street Journal.

How 'Operation Check-Mate' Worked
By DAVID LUHNOW and JOSÉ DE CÓRDOBA
July 3, 2008

Here's how "Operation Check-Mate" worked. Details of the rescue mission are from Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia's defense minister, and Ingrid Betancourt, one of the freed hostages.

Colombia's army, having infiltrated the FARC's highest ranks over the past few years, sent coded messages to various guerrilla commanders in recent months that the commanders believed were from the FARC's highest ruling body, the secretariat.

The messages told them that the hostages were to be transferred to an area where Alfonso Cano, the new FARC leader after the death in March of the FARC's founder Manuel Marulanda, would be in charge of them. The commanders were told the hostages would be used by Mr. Cano in on-again, off-again negotiations with the government.

Since the guerrilla group doesn't have helicopters of their own, the hostages were to be transferred to Mr. Cano on helicopters used by a sympathetic non-governmental organization. The organization, in fact, didn't exist and was really the Colombian military. To avoid arousing suspicion of the local FARC commanders that held the hostages, the military told them that two FARC commanders would accompany the hostages during the transfer.

In the weeks that followed, the hostages were being held in three separate groups, and were moved by the rebels to one site, where they were to be picked up by the fictitious non-governmental group.

On Wednesday, two helicopters turned up at an arranged time in the jungle. Ms. Betancourt said the sound of helicopters terrified the hostages – because the sound of helicopters usually meant the Colombian army was close by, something that provoked the rebels to hide the hostages quickly in dense jungle. But this time, Ms. Betancourt said, the rebels acted as if they were expecting the arrival.

One helicopter waited nearby while another landed in a clearing near the rebel camp. Undercover military agents, dressed in Che Guevara T-shirts and looking like leftist sympathizers of the rebels, descended from the helicopter and warmly greeted the rebels holding the hostages.

The undercover army officers told the hostages they were being taken to a very important person in the FARC and treated them brusquely. The undercover agents then handcuffed the hostages and loaded them aboard the helicopter. Two of the FARC commanders who had long been charged with overseeing their captivity also boarded the helicopter.

Shortly after the helicopter took off, there was a sudden scuffle, after which the two FARC commanders were subdued. "I saw the commander who for four years had been cruel so many times, who had humiliated us so many times,...on the floor naked," Ms. Betancourt said.

The undercover officer in charge of the operation turned to the hostages and said: "We're the Colombian army. You are now free." Said Ms. Betancourt: "The helicopter almost fell from our cheers. It was a miracle."

Write to David Luhnow at david.luhnow@wsj.com and José de Córdoba at jose.decordoba@wsj.com

Related articles
Freed Hostage Betancourt Sees Children for First Time in 6 Years, WSJ, 3 Jul 2008

The $1 trillion deficit: has Bill Gross gone crazy?

Bill Gross, Pimco's founder and Chief Inestment Strategist is bold. In the past, he has argued for extreme measures to bailout subprime, questioned the CPI and said a lot more over the past few years. Now he's calling for a President Obama to crank up the government juice and spend like mad. Gross is calling for a $1 trillion deficit.

I am no Keynesian, so I can't endorse his call for government spending an bailouts as medicine for what ails the United States. But, I do admire his out-of-the box thinking. Bold!

Here is a snippet of what he has to say:

Dear President Obama, Bill Gross, Pimco, July Investment Outlook

Dear President Obama:

You have inherited a mess. Your predecessor, fixated on emulating a former Republican icon from a far different economic era, chose to emphasize tax cuts for the rich and excessive consumption for all Americans. He promoted deregulation and free markets when, in fact, the markets and their institutions needed tough love. Over eight years, he failed to put forth a coherent energy policy. He needlessly invaded Iraq and lowered worldwide esteem for this nation as a symbol of freedom and benevolence.......

Now I know, Mr. President, that you’re already addicted to those nicotine smokes and I’m not trying to promote a caffeine habit here, but this economy will need an additional jolt of $500 billion or so of government spending real quick. It must replace both reduced residential investment and consumption whose decline has placed the U.S. economy near, if not in a recession. Some quick math for you Sir: gross private domestic investment (machines, houses, inventories) has declined by $200 billion since its peak in late 2006. Due to higher unemployment and energy costs, domestic consumption will soon be $300 billion less than it should be if we are to return to historical economic growth rates. According to that old C + I + G formula (scratch the trade deficit for now) when C + I is reduced by $500 billion, then G should increase by that amount in order to fill the gap. The G, Sir, is you – the government deficit, the fiscal stabilizer popularized by Keynes following the Depression. And since the fiscal deficit for 2008 is likely to press $500 billion even before you take the oath of office, well there you have it: $500 billion + $500 billion = $1 trillion big ones, probably by sometime in 2011 or so. It takes time to spend those types of bucks.

It took the Japanese a lot of time too, Sir. Take a look at the chart below which graphically displays Japan’s increasing deficits as a percentage of GDP following their property bubble of the late 1980s. Over a seven-year span, expansionary fiscal spending widened from a relatively benign 2 percent deficit to a level that exceeded 10 percent at its peak in 1998. Our one trillion dollar level in 2011 would equate to something like six percent of GDP, a mere pittance by Japanese standards.

Tim Russert colleague fired for leaking story

This blurb comes from the Telegraph and is a cautionary tale of spreading sensitive information without authorization.

The station decided to delay reporting the popular anchor man’s death until his family had been contacted. Other US news networks who had been alerted to the story also agreed to hold back.

But within minutes of the 58-year-old’s heart attack the news had spread across the internet, after his Wikipedia page was altered to mention his passing.

Mr Russert’s entire entry on the free encyclopedia – which is compiled by members of the public – was rewritten in the past tense.

The change was made at 3.01pm, nearly 40 minutes before NBC announced the news to its viewers. NBC staff were “flabbergasted” when they noticed, according to a spokeswoman

-The Telegraph, 24 Jun 2008

Obama confounds civil libertarians

Count me in the crowd of Civil Libertarians who are perplexed by Barack Obama's move to the center and rejection of basic civil liberties. He has come out in favor of a bill on wiretapping proposed by the Bush Administration that gives telephone companies retroactive immunity.

I'll be watching Obama's stances much more closely. This is a worrying trend.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the president's illegal program of warrant-less surveillance will be over," Obama said after the House passed the proposal.

Yet several senior Democrats starkly differ with Obama's positive assessment of the wiretaps deal, which the Senate is slated to take up this week.

Three liberal senators allied with Obama – Patrick Leahy, Russell Feingold, and Chris Dodd – already have condemned the bill for its immunity grant to telecom corporations as well as other controversial provisions.

-The Guardian, 23 Jun 2008

Update: Related articles
6/23: Welcome To The General Election, Netroots!, Blogometer, 23 Jun 2008

Scott's Big Day

This is a post I caught at Swampland, Time's blog site:

All of the fireworks over Scott McClellan’s turncoat book finally culminated in last Friday’s kabuki testimony before the House Oversight Committee where Dems indulged in the word “impeachment” and the GOP tried their best to eat one of their own. But for all of the outrage, Scott’s book shouldn’t be that surprising. He’s just one of several former Austin Democrats who drank the Bush Kool-Aid, believing he was the path to the Third Way, and came away from the experience disappointed and disillusioned. Just look at Mark McKinnon and Matthew Dowd – who did more to elect Bush than Scott ever did. Scott’s biggest sin isn’t, then, the betrayal, it’s the writing of the tell-all book.