The Obama Change Machine

I have not had much time to post lately, but my new portal at work has been down for the last 30 minutes so I headed over to American Thinker and found this post concerning Obama’s changing opinions during the past 30 days.

[Update: Malkin is letting us know that the House Republicans are jumping on the “change” express.]

Since Senator Obama will probably be the Democrat nominee for president this fall, we need to start carefully looking at what he says now as compared to what he said before when he was trying to get to the top of the Democrat ticket. He’s for change alright – he’s changing his positions every couple of days.

Here’s an excerpt from a great piece written by Peggy Shapiro. Read the entire post.

This week, Obama’s key foreign policy advisor, Susan E. Rice, told the New York Times that Obama never claimed he would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Iran’s president Mr. Ahmadinejad. Dr. Rice said that Obama would not meet at the presidential level with this Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state without the preparation to use such a meeting as the candidate and his slogan leverage for change. In fact, it was only right-wing machinations or imagination that “distorted and reframed” Obama’s views.

Yeah right. I guess it’s just now hitting Obama that you can not negotiate with evil, and you’re not going to be able to get these brutal dictators to sit down with Dr. Phil for an anger management session either. He’s proven he is no different than any of the other stick-your-finger-into-the-wind-to-get-the-most-votes-possible type of politician.

So what did he say before? On his Web site, about half-way down in the Iran section, emphasis added:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

From the CNN/YouTube debate on July 24, 2007, again about half-way down the page:

COOPER: Let’s go to another YouTube video.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

There are a few more good examples at American Thinker.

Obama is dangerous if he thinks he can change his mind like this and assume nobody cares since he’s so popular and a true agent for change… ing his mind.

Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.