UPDATE AGAIN:  Aside from the abortion issue on which Obama has also done a 180 on.    Now, Obama proposes 90-day foreclosure moratorium – against it before he was for it.

Hillary was for it!  Must have been good.  Urge to have one of the those must steal moments.  Hey you gotta say what you gotta say!  A proposal to include a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures at some banks

Uh huh, go on…

…Obama proposed Monday that banks participating in the federal bailout should temporarily postpone foreclosures for families making good-faith efforts to pay their mortgage.

“We need to give people the breathing room they need to get back on their feet,” he said, adding that families living beyond their means share some of the responsibility.  “Part of the reason this crisis occurred, if we’re honest with ourselves, is that everyone was living beyond their means — from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street,” Obama said.

Wrong, I live within my means.  I have NEVER believed in sucker talk, i.e.  “you can afford it” even without a job or money.

I like McCain’s version better…don’t get to the point of foreclosure.  Capeesh!  A little late I know.

What is the next “wah” story?  “I need more time, cuz you know it is going to be Christmas and I gotta charge them credit cards???”   No worries mate.

Your old friends at ACORN demand a one-year foreclosure moratorium.

Why doesn’t ACORN just stand up and say it straight?  You don’t want to sacrifice anything because that would be too honest.  You knew that the McMansion was just too much for you but you wanted it.  That extra car, ATV, etc was just a WANT.   Hmmm, did you not learn the WANT VS NEED thought process?

How about a rent moratorium for idiots like me who stayed out of the housing market and took a pass on indulging on an overpriced McMansion with no money down and an ARM?

All together now: Dude, where’s our bailout?

Barack Obama the speechmaker is being rumbled

The Times September 12, 2008  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4735295.ece

But let me try to explain to my fellow non-Americans why Mr Obama’s problems go well beyond that. Even if you think that Americans should want to turn their country into a European-style system, there is a perfectly good reason that you might have grave doubts about Mr Obama.  The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate’s speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.

Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life, to take on the special interests that undermine government’s effectiveness and erode trust in the system itself,  Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.

Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.  Politician Obama has toed his party’s line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party’s line on any issue of substance.  Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.

Politician Obama’s support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate – not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy – opposed this same humane measure.  Here’s the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man’s stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.

It’s been remarked that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is religion: ignorant Americans cling to faith; enlightened Europeans long ago embraced the liberating power of reason. Yet here’s an odd thing about this election. Europeans are asking Americans to take a leap of faith, to break the chains of empiricism and embrace the possibility of the imagination.  The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.

From Quipster about guns:

“Where does Barack Obama REALLY stand on guns?”  Flip flop again.  Hard to tell Senator Obama’s true stance on guns.  See the Clinton mailer below for the conflicting details.

On the front of the mailer: “Where does Barack Obama really stand on guns?”

On the back: “Depends on who Barack Obama is talking to.

“First, Barack Obama told a group in Chicago he favored a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (IVI-IPO Candidate Questionnaire).

“Then, Barack Obama told people in Idaho he was for the 2nd Amendment, in order to get their votes (AP, 2/2/08).

“And just this month, Barack Obama accused people in rural places and small towns of being “bitter” people who “cling to guns” (Huffington Post, 4/11/08).

“What does Barack Obama really believe?”

http://quipster.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/flip-flop-barack-on-guns/

3 more examples:

Obama was for NAFTA before he was against NAFTA before he was for NAFTA again. He became against NAFTA as a result of political expediency when faced with the need to win a primary in Ohio. Now, what position on NAFTA should he take to win in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where NAFTA is an especially important issue? Answer: it really doesn’t matter because McCain will play the soundbites to show that Obama took a different position with the goal of reinforcing the image of Backtrack Barack.

During the primaries, Obama shifted his position on Iraq from “smart withdrawal” (which was similar to Senator Clinton’s) to “immediate withdrawal on timetables” to appeal to the left. Obama has taken about 7 different positions on Iraq, each designed to appeal to whoever he is talking to. For example, during his Senate campaign, he called for a surge and said that withdrawal on timetables would be wrong. One problem with taking positions for political expediency is that one rarely thinks through the implications of the position. For example, when asked if he would send troops back into Iraq if al Qaeda was present, Obama said yes. (He had to or else he wouldn’t have looked strong). When he did, McCain pointed out that Al Qaeda was in Iraq right now, making Obama’s position look foolish. Now, which position should Obama take on Iraq? Answer: again, it really doesn’t matter because McCain has all the video clips he needs to reinforce the image of Backtrack Barack.

On drilling:  “This wasn’t really a new position. What I’m saying is that we can’t drill our way out of the problem,” Obama told reporters. “And if we can come up with a genuine bi-partisan compromise in which I have to accept some things I don’t like, or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don’t like, in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of energy independence, then that is something I am open to.”

Let’s see how the press sees it:

Washington Post: Obama’s Shift on Drilling
Los Angeles Times: Major Obama shift on offshore drilling; some might be O.K.
ABC News: Obama Now Open to Off-Shore Drilling
Minneapolis Star-Tribune & McClatchy Newspapers: In major change, Obama says he’ll support offshore drilling
Kansas City Star: Obama shifts his position on offshore oil drilling

So either the press and the rest of us are all wrong and Obama is right OR the entire nation is right and Obama is wrong. Just admit you saw your poll numbers tanking and that you changed your mind. Clearly, McCain has found a winning issue on which to hammer Obama as surprise, “out of touch.” And now Obama just simply has landed himself in a quagmire. He may not look ridiculous but he sure does sound ridiculous. This might just be Obama’s Dukakis in a helmet and riding in a tank moment.

From Charles Lemos blog, By The Fault.

Obama says he will protect NASA jobs, budget

Robert Block | Sentinel Staff Writer
August 3, 2008

TITUSVILLE – In a dramatic reversal of policy, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Saturday told supporters on the Space Coast he no longer favors slashing NASA’s budget, declaring that the United States “cannot cede our leadership in space.”

The Illinois senator promised he would work to add one more space-shuttle flight beyond 2010, the shuttle program’s scheduled end. He said he wanted to ensure thousands of contract workers didn’t lose their jobs. “We cannot afford to lose their expertise,” he said.

NASA has said up to 6,400 KSC workers will be laid off when the shuttle stops flying, though that total will be offset some by Constellation jobs.

Until Saturday, Obama had said he wanted to delay the Constellation man-on-the-moon program for five years to free up money for education programs. His change indicates he considers NASA’s future an important election issue, especially along the critical Interstate 4 corridor…

Obama volunteered his shift in position during a question-and-answer session.

“I know it’s still being reported that we were talking about delaying some aspects of the Constellation program to pay for our early-education program,” he said. “I told my staff we’re going to find an entirely different offset, because we’ve got to make sure that the money going into NASA for basic research and development continues to go there. That has been a top priority for us.”

That position had been “reported” on Obama’s official campaign Web site until it was removed Saturday…

Obama had indicated he would revise his space policy…

Obama also distanced himself slightly from a bipartisan Senate plan to open offshore oil drilling to help finance a $20 billion program to wean the nation off petroleum energy. The plan would allow drilling within 50 miles of Florida’s coast, which is now protected by a 125-mile ban.

Obama had endorsed the plan Friday, only to hear Nelson demand that the 125-mile limit be retained.

On Saturday, Obama was more circumspect:

“The one thing that I’ve said consistently when it comes to the Florida coastline is that as dependent as this state is on tourism . . . we’ve got to proceed with extreme caution when it comes to anything that has an impact on that extraordinary treasure.”

Of course he doesn’t mean he word he says.

He is just pandering for votes in Florida.

That Mr. Obama can change his position on a dime, depending on which group of potential voters he is courting.

In case anyone has forgotten, here is Mr. Obama vowing to fund “No Child Left Behind” by cutting NASA and specifically its central “Constellation Program,” way back in November 20, 2007:

As the article notes, all mention of Mr. Obama’s plans to delay and thereby effectively kill the Constellation Program has just been carefully airbrushed from his campaign’s website.

But luckily there we can still find past copies of his landmark pronouncement on education (pdf file), “Barack Obama’s Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education,” where he makes this sacred pledge:

But that was then, and this is now:


It’s almost as if we can’t believe a word he says.