Barack Obama's shifts in his positions on issues are becoming the stuff of legend. Many opponents of Barack Obama call him the ultimate flip-flopper. The Obama-churian candidate is never called on his flip-flops, however, because he is one that wears a teflon shield powered by the mainstream media's love affair with him.
The Democrat's Presidential Nominee's flip-flopping is so bad, that BothWaysBarack.com says that Obama actually is not a flip-flop candidate - he's much worse! According to the site, Obama is not a flip-flopper at all because flip-floppers only hold one position at a time. Senator Obama is different, according to their TV ad - Obama holds two positions at the same time! In the ad they go through some of Obama's more legendary "changes of position," beginning with the ban on handguns, where he is on record for being both for, and against, banning handguns; then both ways on public financing; both ways on withdrawing from Iraq (pull out now? Or in 16 months after January 2009?). This, the ad claims, is worse than being a flip-flopper.
Obama's changes in position are nothing new, however. Last February the Washington Post did an article on the "Top Obama Flip-Flops," detailing five of Barack's changes in position up to that point. In the article, they specifically zeroed in on his changing positions on Special interests, public financing, the Cuba embargo, Illegal immigration, and the decriminalization of marijuana.
Now, as the annointed one realizes that his position may not be very popular on yet another issue, Obama has changed his position again! This time, his change of position on an issue is in regards to off-shore oil drilling. Obama said today that he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
When McCain dropped his opposition to off-shore oil drilling the Democrats and the media jumped all over it, accusing McCain of being a flip-flopper (though his changes are rare and far between). In fact, the Democrats "Ripped McCain" for his oil drilling "flip-flop."
Will they do the same for Obama? Will they rip into Obama for his change of position on this issue? Of course not. He is a habitual flip-flopper (or both-ways politician), and they have yet to call him on any of them!
Goes back to that teflon shielding.
What is even more fascinating, by the way, is that this change in position happened in the same day as him voicing an opposing view. Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.
And as an added note, how stupid is the idea of a windfall profit tax? Is there a limit to the profit a company is allowed to make in a "free" market economy? History shows that such taxes don't bring in the revenue expected, such taxes reduce domestic production (making the U.S. even more reliant upon foreign oil - which means what the Democrats want to do actually yields the opposite results of what they claim they desire), and places more stress on the job market and our economy because:
Our free-market economy is built on profit. Higher profits mean more jobs, higher incomes, more investment in equipment and people, higher standards of living. Yes, profits are the engine for all of this — and that includes the profits of "Big Oil."
What this means is that the Democratically controlled Congress (you know, the one with a 9% approval rating) is really the obstacle standing in the way of lowering fuel prices. At least 20 billion barrels of oil sits under Alaska, and another 30 billion barrels lie offshore. The Democrats in Congress are demanding that these sources remain untapped - because they are placing limited effects on the environment, and an unproven and false theory of man-made global warming, over the "fact" of our energy crisis and its affect on our economy. Besides, the Democrats are thrilled that gas prices are high - because it is their goal to force Americans into using less efficient means of energy like wind and solar power before technology has figured out a way to make such means of energy as efficient as oil, coal, and nuclear power - and they feel if it become too expensive for you to drive your car, you will be begging for alternative sources of fuel.
Of course, this is not to say I am against alternative sources - but let's be smart about it. Let's continue to use oil, of which we have plenty of right here in the good ol' U.S.A., and allow private organizations to develop methods of providing energy we need, rather than government mandates for it, and government taxation as a punishment for success, and regulations so steep that smaller companies find it not profitable to pursue new sources of fuel and energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment