If we want to take down a man for being sensible and doing things to get elected (I mean flip-flopping. Damn, I always forget to use the Approved Rhetoric), let's take a look at Mr. McCain. From the Economist:
In a world short of conviction politicians, Mr McCain’s Straight Talk Express has its charms.
But not when the straight talker starts saying things it is very hard to imagine that he remotely believes in. It was a bad omen last year when this freewheeling western conservative in the Reagan mould went off to court the intolerant Christian right. And recently, the flip-flops have come rapidly. Once a vigorous opponent of Mr Bush’s tax cuts, he says he wants not only to continue but also to extend them. Once a champion of greenery, he has called not only for an expensive petrol-tax holiday (something Mr Obama cleverly resisted) but also for a resumption of drilling off America’s coast. Once a supporter of closing down Guantánamo Bay, he recently criticised the Supreme Court for daring to suggest that inmates deserve the right of habeas corpus. He has edged to the right on two other areas where he used to be hated by his party’s conservatives as a dangerous maverick: on torture (he won’t rule out water-boarding) and immigration reform (he says fix the border first, which will take an eternity).
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=11670343
From the same article:
American elections classically involve a two-step: the candidate runs to the extreme in the primary, then back to the centre for the general. Mr Obama is doing that. Mr McCain seems to be doing precisely the opposite. It is a mistake.
Yes, I am mad at Obama for supporting FISA (why are the conservatives on here mad at him for that? It's a heinous bill to me but I thought chopping up our civil rights "cause a da terists" was sort of the GOP bread and butter). But I would rather have a man in the White House who can recognize the intelligent course of action and take it than the man who is too old or dumb to do so.
