Obama’s recent, and extremely controversial decision to opt out of public campaign funding has created a firestorm of press surrounding recent so-called “Flip-Flops” by the two candidate. The reason flip-flips are so important because they show an inconsistency of character. Such an inconsistency is especially notable when votes being cast primarily (theoretically) with regard to the principals each candidate currently stands aside and pledges to remain dedicated to. However to a certain extent issue based flip flops potentially can be a sign of consistency in principals. This is important because overall principals are of much greater consequence than singe issues.
For instance, lets say hypothetically Obama originally decided to receive public financing with the intent to remove big money’s influence on his campaign and potential future office. However, he later was informed of some situation within the system public funding that actually gave big money greater influence on his campaign and potential future office. While this is purely hypothetical, if something like this did happen would we not expect him to change his decision? Not changing his position would be a compromise of his principals. In such instances where principals are to be maintained by otherwise “flip-flopping”, politicians are in fact doing what is right and should not be criticized for it.
However, unfortunately for Obama it seems quite clear that this is not what happened. As it has been said many times already Obama is making a real politik, practical, and amoral decision in opting out of public financing. He is going back on his word and he is doing it so that he may ensure his victory. Apologists such as Biden (on Sunday’s Meet the Press) have made the justification that doing this makes both idealistic and practical sense. This is nothing more than political spin nonsense. Obama is a politician trying to win a presidential race. Period.
At the same time I do not think this is even close to as big of a deal that the media and everyone else is making it out to be. For a long time Obama has been the everything to everyone candidate. He voted for the Iraq war, but the republicans are not about to hit him on that. Other than the Iraq vote he hasn’t really made decisions that have consequences for a Democratic 08 presidential campaign. That is, until now.
What this really comes down to is the idea of Obama finally meeting the reality of Obama. The reality is that he is just another politician who will compromise his principals from time to time. Maybe more than “from time to time”, maybe a lot.
But anyone not drunk on Obama’s cool aid knew that from the beginning.
-jay
The fact that either side is discussing this whatsoever is a shame. But an entire panel…for an issue equivalent if not less important than lapel pins? Shame on both the right and the left.
The question is: How more irellevent can we get?
-jay
This is late, but because me and Jack have always been very big fans of the man I felt we really needed to dedicate a post to his passing. If anything, this post by jack really showed how we felt about the man. He was a man you could always respect for being fair. In an unfair world that means a lot. I
Here’s to you. You set the standard.
Filed under: Current, Israel, Jay, Palestine, Politics, Radicalism, War, ideology, violence
Like anyone with any knowledge of the seemingly unsolvable conflict between Israel and Palestine, I was nothing short of shocked to hear of the ceasefire. The BBC is reporting that under this ceasefire Israel will lift the blockade, in exchange for the increased potential for the release of an captured Israeli Soldier held by Hamas as well as the well reported on rocket attacks.
But what does this really mean for this long standing conflict? I am in no way an idealist when it comes to this matter, like many I had given up all hope for actual lasting peace when we invaded. But I do feel that this is not a power play on either side. Recently there have been talks between israel and many Muslim nations, which were once at war with Israel. The progress in both Lebanon and Syria is a sign to all muslims and jews: it is okay not to hate one another. Peace is a possibility.
well….maybe
-jay
Filed under: 2008, Clinton, Current, Democratic Party, Election, Jay, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
If there was ever a question on the mind of nearly every American it is quite possibly that. As a political science student returning from college I know for sure I have never been asked the same question more by friends and family. Unfortunately this is a very hard question to even begin to answer, hence the popular demand.
The first to bring up the subject are always Obamaites, who are considerably are angry and confused. They see her almost as a child, prolonging her eventual defeat for virtually no good reason. I mainly wrote off this opinion as simply succumbing to politics, but then it came out that it is mathematically impossible for her to win…well that’s quite a worrisome situation. That means we have a candidate who can’t possibly win still hanging on, despite the (debatable) damage being done to the party overall and the obvious futility of the entire situation. If this is the case it is easy to see why Obamaites are so angry.
But assuming this is in fact the case, and it is utterly futile for Clinton to continue, it is important that we try to understand why she is still in this race. My opinion used to be that she was simply taking her time - make deals and set her self up for 2012. Many still hold this to be true. But a recent story, (albeit unconfirmed) stating that she has already asked for the vice presidency makes me really think that she’s in this as a power play. Rather than setting herself up for an 2012 (which could be a disaster) I think she understands that this is the closest she will ever get to the white house. Because of this she needs to use that fickle political capital in some way and she needs to do it now.
The question for next time is: Was Obama supposedly not giving the vice presidency to Clinton a mistake?
-jay
Filed under: Uncategorized
While my condolences go out to Senator Kennedy’s friends and family, the political implications this development has are undeniable.
News of the condition was only worsened by the confirmation that the brain tumor was in fact malignant. While it seems that spokesmen for the senator are implying an impending full recovery and return, I find such a situation highly unlikely. Those familiar with Kennedy will know that he is the second longest serving senator in the congress, out manned only by Senator Byrd. His impact on the nation and all of Massachusetts politics has been quite significant. With regards to Massachusetts politics, the state has had the [insert your own adjective] experience of having Kennedy as a US Senator for nearly 4 decades. A simply astounding term of service.
Such a situation inevitable raises the question: What will happen to the vacant seat? The question really being, who has balls so big they actually think they can even attempt to fill Kennedy’s empty seat. Whomever it turns out to be, this year has certainly been and will be a year of extremely interesting and eventful politics.
-jay
Once more has arrived the intellectual off season known as summer for me and my partner. Such being the case you can expect semi-regular updates all summer long regarding current events, politics, and maybe even pop culture. We’ll have to see about that last one.
Allow me to reintroduce myself. I’m a man, still attending the same unnamed college, as a political science major. I will say its located in new england, and as such quite liberal. This has certainly had a significant effect on own personal politics but I have still maintained many of my prior beliefs. But I feel that to be natural if not expected, being so very open minded person I claim to be. Hopefully the summer will be as educational and full of great experiences as the last many months have been, for all of us! I know I look forward to it.
-jay
Me and Jack started this blog as an exercise in developing our viewpoints and somewhat thorough discussion of issues in a journalistic fashion. I’m happy with it, and we are both moving on to college. This will be the last post, for now, thanks.
You can be pro choice, pro life, you can be for gun ownership or not, you can be a democrat or a republican, you can be an evangelical Christian or a die-hard atheist, you can disagree on so many things, but please come together on this: We need a government that follows rules.
Right now we don’t have that. Move for accountability, and a legitimacy, because without them none of your other positions matter at all, and neither do anyone else’s…well except for the people who’s opinions we don’t want to matter. So please, above everything else, take back your government, take back the constitution, get accountability and eliminate our federalized nation.
“We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to the Congress.”
-Ron Paul
THIS IS YOUR COUNTRY, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.
-jay
Filed under: 2008, Constitution, Corruption, Current, Election, GOP, Iowa Straw Poll, Jay, Mitt Romney, Politics, Ron Paul, ideology
I’ve spent a good part of my afternoon watching CSPAN’s coverage of the straw poll, thus far the attention has been in the republican camp. While I support a republican candidate, Ron Paul, I find myself having very little common ground with the party. At my core I’m for small, limited government regulated strictly by the constitution. While recently the only one who has really been preaching that has been Ron Paul, recently Mitt Romney got up and stated out right that he wanted smaller government and less taxes. But the only aspect of that vague statement he clarified was a promise to reduce the taxes involved with middle income investing. My question is: What about smaller government Mitt? Reducing taxes is meaningless if we don’t change our government because either you’ll just be taxing us in different ways or putting us into even more debt. You really can’t have smaller taxes without smaller government.
The poll also presented several videos of the convention….at the convention, that more or less repeated the “we’re important because we’re ‘first in the nation!’” mantra. But in these videos they showed the candidates as well, which inherently makes for a sticky situation because who ever is making the video would have to have equal face time in the video for all the candidates lest it appear slanted. However there was a clear slant towards Romney, who not only showed up more often in the videos, but was the only candidate I saw that was allowed to speak. When such an obviously disingenuous candidate like Romney can get so much support…well it really speaks to what it takes to be a leader today in the United States. Maybe this is part of the answer to my question about why our leaders are more often that not criminal.
-jay
