The MSM noticed and they are worried.Uh-oh. The NY Times editorial board is keeping track of Barack Obama's flip-flops. And they seem afraid that the presumptive liberal Democratic nominee may start equivocating when it comes to the far left's most sacred cows: cutting and running in Iraq, abusive taxation, socialized medicine and abortion "rights."
The board could have saved a lot of time and ink by simply referring readers to an op-ed piece written by the NY Times' very own token "conservative" David Brooks' June 20th column titled "The Two Obamas." In his column, Brooks describes Obama as "the most split-personality politician in the country today" and introduces his readers to "Dr. Barack" and "Fast Eddie Obama." Read it and laugh or cry or both.
The editorial states that there seems to be a "new and not improved" Barack Obama on the scene. One who has flip-flopped on public financing limits, electronic wiretapping - particularly the Illinois freshman senator's support for the immunity clause for telecommunications companies, expansion of faith-based initiatives as well as his recent pronouncements about Supreme Court decisions on the death penalty and gun control.
"Perplexing," "distressed" and "striking" are only a few of the choice words the Obama-loving NY Times editorial board used to express the belated discovery that their candidate for president is just another run-of-the-mill politician who will do and say anything to anyone in order to get elected. Read this pathetic paragraph:
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
Gee, do you suppose Obama was faking it to begin with? Is it possible he was never about change we or anyone else can believe in? Could it be that he is not a man of convictions, passionate or otherwise? Is Obama, perhaps, just another politician beholden to special interests and someone to whom political expedience always trumps publicly stated "principles?"
The NY Times editorial board concludes with a not-so-veiled threat:
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
In other words: "We'll put up with your flip-flops and continue to carry the water for you, but don't you dare sell out on Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations (i.e. abortion). Or else."
Like they would endorse or vote for anyone else. Obama is not shaking in his boots. He owns the liberal media and they know it. They will continue to be his sycophants, no matter how many liberal "principles" Obama kicks to the curb.
Remember, Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his mentor and father figure of twenty years, as well as the grandmother who raised him under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so.
What makes the main stream media believe Obama would treat them any differently?
No comments:
Post a Comment