Obama, the Mercurial Politician

The Flip-Flop Express- change- and more of the same…

…and speaking about the Flip-Flop Express. We’re not talking about zorries, sandals, shower-shoes, thongs, or double pluggers no mam. We’re talking about “Change” - not as in change in direction for America, not change in the electoral process, not change in pandering to the fears and woes of the masses, not change as in the dawn of a new day for this country. No mam – we are talking change as in executive prerogative - “I’m going to change my mind because I’m stumping for votes!!” With all due respect accorded a presidential nominee or in this case the presumptive presidential nominee, one such nominee is standing by his campaign slogan. He is living up to his word and we haven’t even reached the party’s before-the-fall semester pep rally. His cavorting with change is stacking up faster than cards on the craps table in Las Vegas. There’s plenty of them, they’re just not the right kind of changes we desperately need. Take for instance what fell between the journalistic cracks. Barack heretofore has talked a good game speaking to the longstanding need for campaign funding reform. He pledged to accept the federal public financing for a presidential general election if his Republican rival did as well. That pledge was abandoned meaning that he will forgo more than $84 million that would have been available to him. He would be the first candidate to do so since Congress passed 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance laws. His opponent has taken steps to accept the public funds in the general election as previously agreed. Might this have anything to do with the power of the Obama fund raising machine having built a $287 million war chest setting a campaign contribution all-time record, and making the federal election financing look pathetically paltry. Moreover, the media reported the news, but what was made of it? Don’t lose that question.
And just two days ago, an announcement hit the airwaves that the senator opposes a November ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California. In a letter to San Francisco’s Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, the nominee said that he opposed the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend California’s Constitution. Let’s rewind the nominee’s stop watch regarding the issue of gay marriage. Throughout his campaign he has made it perfectly clear that he believes marriage should be only between a man and a woman. While Obama believes that each state should be allowed to makes its own decision, his position is meandering at best and conflicting at worst. If he’s opposed to same-sex marriage, he should say so. An interesting footnote – his new statement was sandwiched half way through his letter which was read at the aforementioned club’s annual breakfast. Two other states including California have similar initiatives on the November ballot. And with young, liberal, supporters strongly opposed to the same-sex marriage ban, Obama is gingerly changing courses.
Without reviewing other changes in the senator’s position, you might be asking “so what?” I happen to agree with his and other supporter’s views opposing a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. He’s proven his knack at fund-raising – we desperately need a democrat in the White House whatever the cost. Next issue! Is it the presumptive nominee’s prerogative to make a pledge and nine months later simply disregard his own words? Is that what he had in mind when his campaign machine settled on the buzz word that has now become synonymous with his image? This die-hard liberal for one, thinks not. What about our earlier question - has anything been made of reneging on one’s pledge? These changes in position are sliding under the journalistic wire like a banana peel on an oil-soaked roadway. No groundswell, no upsurge, no questions asked. The political temper appears that we’re desperate for change, and he’s holding the placard, now stop asking these questions and just step in line. God forbid that we do anything to risk giving this election over to the other side – Unity or bust!
Well that’s all fine and good, but these series of “changes” in the senator’s position don’t have anything to do with the change he’s selling to the hysterical masses. At the end of the day, they don’t have anything to do with the inebriated, mainstream journalism’s avoidance of raising questions. And they have little to do with campaign funding reform or the pros and cons regarding same-sex marriage. These little-noticed changes have everything to do with an old-fashioned, 4th of July, all –American, Judaic-Christian value sometimes called truthfulness, honor, integrity, veracity. When that is thrown under the bus, the void in human nature becomes instantly saturated with another very out-dated indulgence – that of pride. Martha Stortz, professor and author identifies it as the desire for power over, the desire to control, the ambition to dominate, the effort to render others subservient to one’s virtuous cause. Obama’s change isn’t change at all. He is following the well-worn way of so many other rapacious political presidential nominees. There is no change to be had.
But to save myself from turning this into a sermon on the seven deadly sins, let me bring this to a conclusion. Plainly put, we forfeit everything when we stop questioning a presidential candidate’s reversing pledges, changing positions, sending double messages, and burying changes in the middle of letters. As second grader Jimmy Connors was told by his teacher Mrs. Green, “don’t tell me you’re going to turn in your math homework today and not do so because your dog ate it.” Pledges mean something in second grade. They should be the political life and death of any presidential nominee. Shame on you Barack. And shame on the media for holding party unity sacred over uncompromising questions.