Kenneth T. Walsh of U.S. News & World report has an article titled, without apparent irony, "Obama's Flip-Flops for the Public Good." After rehearsing a lengthy catalog of broken campaign promises, Walsh informs us it's all good: "Overall, however, Obama has been praised for his flexibility, not condemned for his flip-flops.
Praised by whom? By a "senior Democratic strategist," who, for reasons Walsh does not even attempt to explain, apparently is willing to praise the president only under cover of anonymity":
One reason, pollsters say, is that he seems such a contrast to the still-unpopular Bush, who was the opposite--stubborn and set in his ways. "When presented with a tough problem where a change of course was called for, Bush just dug in. He felt that it was weakness to change his mind," says a senior Democratic strategist. He cites Bush's positions to limit stem cell research, oppose legislation expanding healthcare for children, enact partial privatization of Social Security, and pursue the Iraq war. In contrast, he says, "Obama is willing to change course if he feels it's needed. The American people will still support him if he is not seen as doing it for political reasons."
This is especially rich in light of the Walsh's list of Obama's flip-flops. All are reversions to Bush administration policies: abandoning the pro-abortion Freedom of Choice Act, failing to push for repeal of the law against open homosexuals' serving in the military, refusing to release photos of abused Abu Ghraib detainees, reinstituting military war-crimes commissions, and extending his timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops for Iraq.
If only Bush had taken the positions he took after promising to do the opposite, he would have been a pragmatist too, instead of being stubborn and set in his ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment