Good. Trying to renegotiate NAFTA would have been quite possibly the stupidest thing he could have possibly done, trade-wise. I don't give a shiat if he was pandering to the rust belt back in the primaries, as long as he doesn't actually go through with it if elected.

Yes. Attack Obama on changing his mind on the issues.

I farking dare you.

Raiden333: Yes. Attack Obama on changing his mind on the issues.

I farking dare you.

Why does Obama get a free pass for evolving his position? Does the fact that McCain has done it over and over again somehow make it less bad for Obama to do it?

I mean, if you are condemning McCain for flip-flopping left and right, shouldn't you hold Obama to the same standard? If "evolving" your position is bad, its bad no matter which candidate does it. At least, it should be.

OK, so our only two choices for president have flip-flopped on some issues. This means I will have to write in Bugs Bunny again.

I thought we were done with this "flip flop" garbage 4 years ago.

Nice. This was clearly a political maneuver, but the anti-NAFTA stance was one of the stances I was iffy on, so personally I'm actually kind of glad he "changed his mind."

KaponoFor3: Raiden333: Yes. Attack Obama on changing his mind on the issues.

I farking dare you.

Why does Obama get a free pass for evolving his position? Does the fact that McCain has done it over and over again somehow make it less bad for Obama to do it?

I mean, if you are condemning McCain for flip-flopping left and right, shouldn't you hold Obama to the same standard? If "evolving" your position is bad, its bad no matter which candidate does it. At least, it should be.

You misinterpreted me. I personally do not think changing one's position is a bad thing. I just find it amusing that Obama is being attacked for changing his mind when the other candidate does it 10 times more often.

Not to mention, Obama's response was "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

Meanwhile when McCain's campaign is confronted with contradictions, they outright deny it

2 examples:

Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator's views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.

Can't get the link citing it to work, but it's a NYT article from 6/6 titled "Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps"

But a spokeswoman defended McCain's apparent flip-flop. "He said he is willing to look at all ideas - not simply Republican or Democratic ideas," said Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director.[2]

So that's the difference to me. Actually acknowledging you're changing your public position instead of trying to do some hand-wavery and deny it.

Raiden333: Yes. Attack Obama on changing his mind on the issues.

I farking dare you.

Is that the new meme? McCain did it so that means Obama can do it too? Is this the answer to "But, but... Clinton"?

How about address the issue directly.

/Hates both Obama and McCain

lexnaturalis: Raiden333: Yes. Attack Obama on changing his mind on the issues.

I farking dare you.

Is that the new meme? McCain did it so that means Obama can do it too? Is this the answer to "But, but... Clinton"?

How about address the issue directly.

/Hates both Obama and McCain

Please see the post directly above yours.

Raiden333: Please see the post directly above yours.

I see that. I obviously misunderstood your intentions as well.

Raiden333: I just find it amusing that Obama is being attacked for changing his mind when the other candidate does it 10 times more often

The kyy thing here is that for all the talk of Obama being beyond politics as usual, he is showing that he is a normal politician like all the rest.

HJe went left during the primary and pandered shamelessly on NAFTA to the union voters in Ohio, telling them what they wanted to hear, and now he's moved his position since he got the nomination and the pandering is not needed to win the election.

That's the point the submitter is trying to make. Obama is not a post-politics Moses leading us to a promised land of "no-more-politics-as-usual." This, and his public financing switch, prove the case that he's as cynical as any other.

albo: That's the point the submitter is trying to make. Obama is not a post-politics Moses leading us to a promised land of "no-more-politics-as-usual."

So he's not the strawman Republicans have been building up? Color me shocked.

I wish I could run towards the center but I hate flip-flops filled with waffles.

Article title: "Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all"

Let the man behind the curtain unveiling begin. Don't feel too bad Obamaphiles some of us fell for other trendy stuff too, like the Pepsi Challenge and pet rocks.

KaponoFor3: Raiden333: Yes. Attack Obama on changing his mind on the issues.

I farking dare you.

Why does Obama get a free pass for evolving his position? .

Because he is a Democrat, DUH! Changing your mind even if it exposes you as a liar still makes you progressive and thats the good thing. Meanwhile the unemployement lines will get progressively longer

Tastes Like Chicken: Nice. This was clearly a political maneuver

What do you call it when a Republican does it?

Luckily he is running against John "flip flop machine" McCain, so he is still 100x time smore honest and principled than his opponent.

Nobody at the national level is going to undo NAFTA. There's just too much money involved for it to change. All the 'power people' with all the money DO NOT want NAFTA to change. And they fund the campaigns.

voters like you and me? we don't count. we get to sit down, shut up and watch our jobs slowly bleed out of the country. Then watch our taxes go up to support social security and 'universal health care'. And don't even THINK about asking how we're gonna pay for all this...

Duke_Phillips: Trollomite:

Article title: "Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all"

Let the man behind the curtain unveiling begin. Don't feel too bad Obamaphiles some of us fell for other trendy stuff too, like the Pepsi Challenge and pet rocks.

You know, it wouldn't be so obvious if you didn't have it in your name

You still bit though. This Obama thing stings a little don't it? He'll sell out the working man just like the rest have

GoldSpider: Tastes Like Chicken: Nice. This was clearly a political maneuver

What do you call it when a Republican does it?

Business as usual?

Republican. Democrat. They're all the same these days. It's just that some of the are moderately more trustworthy than others. At the national level tho - you cannot trust anyone in D.C. Nobody there has our interests in mind.

Bill Frist: Luckily he is running against John "flip flop machine" McCain, so he is still 100x time smore honest and principled than his opponent.


Mmmmmmm s'mores

Weaver95: voters like you and me? we don't count. we get to sit down, shut up and watch our jobs slowly bleed out of the country.

The only thing I disagree with here is the word "slowly."

The longer this guy is on the campaign trail the less impressed I find myself. *Sigh*

farking republicrats.

It's like McCain and Obama are at a pig-wrestling contest, and McCain strips naked, wallows in the mud, squeals and wrassles hisself a good'un. Obama rolls up his sleeves and picks up a cute little piglet, but gets some mud splatters on his shirt.

ZOMG! THey're the same! Obamaroids claim he never leaves the dry cleaners!!!! Yaaarrrgggllleeebaaarrrggghhh!!

/it's like a war of strawmen

I almost forgot...

Why does Obama get a free pass for evolving his position?

If you want my personal take:

All politicians pander and thus change their tone to a degree based on where they are talking. More so all politicans change their mind or "evolve" their position at some point.

However, the difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama has never flip-flopped on any of hte core principles, none of the things that are supposed to define him as a man and as a politician.

McCain, OTOH, has pissed on every principle or shred of integrity he ever had. I don't care when Obama decides not to do public financing, but I DO care when McCain BREAKS THE MCCAIN-FEINGOLD LAW! He broke his own law!

Similarly, I don't care when Obama changes his tone on NAFTA. He never acted like NAFTA was one of his defining goals. However, when McCain flip-flops on pandering to the religious right, the Bush tax cuts, banning torture and everything else that was supposed to define him it is quite disgusting.

Honestly, why would you want to change NAFTA anyways?

I can still remember when everyone felt Canada would become a poor country with massive unemployment because all the jobs went south.

Instead it has become richer.

/the problem has been an over-reliance on a cheap dollar, which led to an unproductive manufacturing sector in Ontario that is now getting dinged.
//Ontario will evolve and be richer

rob.d Quote 2008-06-20 12:15:58 PM
Honestly, why would you want to change NAFTA anyways?

I can still remember when everyone felt Canada would become a poor country with massive unemployment because all the jobs went south.

Instead it has become richer.


And now the US has more uneployment... that is why you'd want to change it.

IMO, this whole thing just reeks of the Rovian "pre-emptively attack your opponent on your own biggest weaknesses" thing. I thought we all caught on to that but apparently not.

I am okay with his reversal. Union rhetoric against NAFTA is kind of funny. The US has a vested interest in keeping Canada and Mexico tied at the hip with us. Free trade and open borders tends to do that.

Billygoat Gruff: Because he is a Democrat, DUH! Changing your mind even if it exposes you as a liar still makes you progressive and thats the good thing. Meanwhile the unemployement lines will get progressively longer

Yes, please tell us about how the Republicans have been doing such a great job.

mediaho: IMO, this whole thing just reeks of the Rovian "pre-emptively attack your opponent on your own biggest weaknesses" thing. I thought we all caught on to that but apparently not.

So questioning a democrat's inconsistent stances is now considered a dirty attack?

Weaver95: we get to sit down, shut up and watch our jobs slowly bleed out of the country.

Whoa, when did you become a protectionist?

I'm not too happy about this.

This isn't to say that I agreed with the position he previously took on the issue, but this is the first time someone's said "Oh my god, Obama lied/changed his position for political reasons/etc." and not been just an idiot or a liar.

I wish Obama hadn't spoken so strongly against NAFTA during the campaign if that was not actually his position.

On the other hand though, he may not have won the nomination if he hadn't, and I'm certainly still voting for him, so all I can do is sigh about this particular situation.

KaponoFor3: Why does Obama get a free pass for evolving his position? Does the fact that McCain has done it over and over again somehow make it less bad for Obama to do it?

I mean, if you are condemning McCain for flip-flopping left and right, shouldn't you hold Obama to the same standard? If "evolving" your position is bad, its bad no matter which candidate does it. At least, it should be.

And yet, most of the "flip-flopper" accusations still seem to be coming from the McCain camp. They're trying to brand Obama as such.

I am quickly losing my patience with Obama.

rob.d : Honestly, why would you want to change NAFTA anyways?

For starters, because it contains mechanisms (new window) that supersede governmental authorities and accountablity their citizens.

my position is, yea stuff like this bothers me. but not more than the thought of a McCain presidency, so I feel like i'm forced to defend obama no matter what because internally i'm scare shiatless that any amo against obama will catch on and be used by the republicans.

It's the Devolution of Barack Obama! From National Savior and Bringer of Change to banal Democrat pencil-pusher!



Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

GoldSpider: I almost forgot...

it's not so much that you can't say it.

it's more about the fact that you don't want anyone to criticize you if you do.

GoldSpider: I almost forgot...

Is this really the new Right Wing Refrain? "Obama followers are persecuting me?"

Oh I can't wait until we have state sponsored censor monitors to jail the Obama heretics. Oh sweet rainbow farts, anoint me now!

/sandy vagina
//rototiller etc.

There are 2 possibilities:

1) This thread is full of Democratic voters who are anti-NAFTA and are mad that Obama has inched away from their pet policy peeve.

OR

2) This thread is full of die hard Republicans who have their minds made up (I ain't mad atcha, you know what you like) and are using this tiny policy shift as a gotcha moment.


You all know you're not convincing anyone, right? Save your outrage for something that merits it, and maybe people will give you a listen.

Gee? You mean it's not prudent for a `consumer' nation with a huge trade deficit to piss-off it's `supplier' neighbour nations?

JaMorg: I am okay with his reversal.

What happens when he 'evolves' a view with you currently agree?

That seems to be the prevailing attitude around here. It's OK for Obama to be inconsistent as long as it's something you don't care about. What happens when he inevitably declares that troops will still be in Iraq by the end of his first term?

Edsel: Weaver95: we get to sit down, shut up and watch our jobs slowly bleed out of the country.

Whoa, when did you become a protectionist?

NAFTA is not the answer. You'd have to be willfully blind not to see the flaws.

I'm a firm believer that any treaty (or policy decision) should be based on the idea that somewhere, some how eventually someone will pervert the intention of the policy change. So you should construct your treaty/policy decision based around the idea that someone will take your change(s) and warp them somehow. As near as I can figure, NAFTA was designed by people who believed in puppies and rainbows, not greedy asshats running businesses to their personal advantage.

GoldSpider: So questioning a democrat's inconsistent stances is now considered a dirty attack?

IMO, nothing's off the table during campaigning - all's fair in love and war and all that. However, there are plenty of things to go after Obama for (seizing windfall profits? Are you kidding me?!) but to focus on something that McCain himself has done far more is an incredibly transparent and flimsy tactic to me, especially after 8 years of seeing the tactic slowly backfire.

GoldSpider:
So questioning a democrat's inconsistent stances is now considered a dirty attack?

the same way that quoting anything john mccain says seems to be.

canyoneer: It's the Devolution of Barack Obama! From National Savior and Bringer of Change to banal Democrat pencil-pusher!



Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Again. You've won the battle against the cartoons in your head. I'm sure they'll all mope around for months when Obama doesn't fix their tricycle.

i love the smell of Republican desperation in this thread.