Alright, we're going to have to clarify what "flip-flop" actually means.

Taking a size 32 pair of pants to the dressing room, then deciding to go for a size 34 is not "flip-flopping"

10/2/2009 11:47:56 AM

I had made a judgment about a topic.

And then, after life experiences and knowledge, I now have a different judgment.

FLIP

FLOP!

10/2/2009 11:49:34 AM

I had made a judgment about a topic.

And then, after I reviewed the polls and saw it wasn't popular, I now have a different judgement.

FLIP

FLOP!

10/2/2009 10:12:31 PM

Quote :

"high-risk decision to fly to Copenhagen to support the Olympic bid of his home town"

hahhahahahahahah. really? it's high-risk to cheerlead one's home town/country? are the other world leaders who went shamed as well for going and not bringing home the bid to their country?

10/2/2009 10:15:53 PM

Quote :

"And then, after I reviewed the polls and saw it wasn't popular, I now have a different judgement. FLIP FLOP!"

Wait, I thought Obama's always going against the will of the People?

10/3/2009 12:00:50 AM

And why is that a bad thing? lol....

10/3/2009 1:05:35 AM

White House officials to appear on Fox News
Monday, October 19, 2009

Quote :

"After impugning the objectivity of Fox News and saying that they would begin to treat the network as 'an opponent,' White House officials said Sunday that they will allow administration officials to appear on the network."

Quote :

"Without citing specific complaints against Fox [sounds familiar], White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CNN's 'State of the Union' that the way 'the president looks at it and we look at it is it is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802260.html



Is there any issue that Obama and his flounders won't flip-flop on?

10/19/2009 3:53:15 PM

How is that a flip-flop? It reads more like the WH recognizing that going on Fox News is going into hostile territory, but they'll still try.

10/19/2009 5:17:08 PM

Yeah that's not a flip flop. Nice try, though.

10/19/2009 6:52:55 PM

Agreed, flip-flops should be repeated and nearly simultaneous vacillations between positions without significant justification.


Realizing that a media war with the most popular news channel on cable is a stupid idea isn't exactly a flip flop.

10/19/2009 7:10:33 PM

10/24/2009 9:22:23 AM

Health savings? No one knows
11/11/09

Quote :

"Barack Obama ran for president on a promise of saving the typical family $2,500 a year in lower health care premiums. But that was then. No one in the White House is making such a pledge now."

Quote :

"Obama was the one who raised expectations of lower premiums. From one city to the next, and during the presidential debates, Obama made the pledge almost as often as he vowed to remove troops from Iraq: 'We estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year.' He has barely uttered it since taking office. The last recorded mention by Obama was in May, when he announced that six health industry groups agreed to lower the growth rate in health care spending by $2 trillion over 10 years, resulting in a savings of $2,500 per family 'in the coming years.'"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29421.html

http://tinyurl.com/6e7n6m

11/13/2009 7:05:58 AM

None other than Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)--a well-known liberal--confirming Obama's flip-flop on single-payer and his lack of leadership on health-care legislation:

White House Has No Comment on Conyers Dishing on Presidential Phone Call (ABC News)
December 08, 2009

Quote :

"White House officials declined to comment on an interview that Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., gave The Hill, in which he says the president 'called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, "Well, let’s talk about it."' Conyers says he told the president he wasn't in the mood to 'chat.' Conyers has been critical of the president's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan and last month he had harsh words on the president's efforts on health care reform. Conyers said on the Bill Press Radio Show, as covered by Sam Stein at the Huffington Post: 'I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can in the White House. I mean, he only won (health care reform) by five votes in the House, and this bill wasn't anything to write home about. The public option is only available, which is the only way you manage cost and get some competition to 1,300 other health insurance companies, the only way he could have got that through is that progressives held their nose and voted for it anyway.' Asked if President Obama had shown enough leadership in that debate, Conyers said 'Of course not, of course not. You know, holding hands out and beer on Friday nights in the White House and bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal about health care, and saying on occasion that public options aren't all that important is doing a disservice to the Barack Obama that I first met who was an ardent single-payer enthusiast himself.' He said White House chief of staff doesn't care that much about the content of the legislation. 'That is essentially what Rahm Emanuel has said: Just give us anything and we will declare victory,' said Conyers. 'Not only is it not a victory, but when it doesn't work, guess who will come at him: the same guys that were saying let's go along with anything... This is all my buddy Rahm Emanuel trying to get anything. But look the bill doesn't go into effect for three years. Many of the people that we are trying to help will be dead by then.' -jpt"

http://tinyurl.com/y8da3m9

12/9/2009 7:23:25 AM

Not to toot my own horn here, but I've been saying he was a legislative lightweight who wasn't particularly respected on the Hill for a while now.

12/9/2009 7:27:32 AM

Obama Smacked for Telling the Washington Post: 'I Didn't Campaign on the Public Option'
December 23, 2009

Quote :

"A liberal group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (P.C.C.C.), is launching a television ad, criticizing President Obama for endorsing a Senate health care bill which includes a mandate to buy insurance but no government insurance option. The ad was produced overnight, according to the group's co-founder, to respond 'to the anger' that progressives are feeling about President Obama telling today's Washington Post: 'I didn't campaign on the public option.' "

http://tinyurl.com/yexo94m

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

Oops--Obama did it again! Wait. . .there's Howard Dean. . . .



IT'S NOT ENOUGH, TOM HARKIN! HEEEYAAAHHHH!!!1

12/23/2009 11:42:37 PM

haha, I used the deanscream in a presentation the other day. it got lots of chuckles.

by the way, how dare anyone try to tell Obama what he said. he knows what he said, so don't try to tell him what he said. It'll be interesting to see how this one gets spun. I'll bet it'll come out that he was "misquoted" by the washington post

[Edited on December 23, 2009 at 11:49 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2009 11:48:19 PM

^ The Obama administration just shrugs off the criticism concerning his flip-flops on a great many issues--just as many do here--even though much of the criticism is coming from Obama's base, not mean-old conservatives.

12/23/2009 11:54:39 PM

Quote :

"much of the criticism is coming from Obama's base"

Why don't you post some of these things in the Liberal Credibility Watch thread? Perhaps it just doesn't fit your narrative?

12/24/2009 12:11:49 AM

^ Why don't you post some positives in the "GOP Credibility Watch" thread?

12/24/2009 12:18:06 AM

The GOP Credibility Watch is not my thread.

The Liberal Credibility Watch is your thread.

I'm sure you'll continue working to keep it full of negatives.

Gotta keep the narrative going, right?

12/24/2009 12:22:54 AM

^ Nice try, troll. I post positives about liberals and Democrats when events warrant.

Check around.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 12:26 AM. Reason : This isn't your thread, either--and yet you somehow post here. Miraculous!]

12/24/2009 12:25:04 AM

lol, rolling out the ol' troll insult.

Everyone knows your agenda.

Embrace it and be proud.

12/24/2009 12:29:17 AM

bumpsaw

5/3/2010 11:49:42 AM

"Transparency"? Really?

Efforts to Limit the Flow of Spill News
June 9, 2010

Quote :

"When the operators of Southern Seaplane in Belle Chasse, La., called the local Coast Guard-Federal Aviation Administration command center for permission to fly over restricted airspace in Gulf of Mexico, they made what they thought was a simple and routine request. A pilot wanted to take a photographer from The Times-Picayune of New Orleans to snap photographs of the oil slicks blackening the water. The response from a BP contractor who answered the phone late last month at the command center was swift and absolute: Permission denied. 'We were questioned extensively. Who was on the aircraft? Who did they work for?' recalled Rhonda Panepinto, who owns Southern Seaplane with her husband, Lyle. 'The minute we mentioned media, the answer was: "Not allowed."' Journalists struggling to document the impact of the oil rig explosion have repeatedly found themselves turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials. To some critics of the response effort by BP and the government, instances of news media being kept at bay are just another example of a broader problem of officials' filtering what images of the spill the public sees. Scientists, too, have complained about the trickle of information that has emerged from BP and government sources. Three weeks passed, for instance, from the time the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20 and the first images of oil gushing from an underwater pipe were released by BP."

Quote :

"Anomalies or not, reporters and photographers continue to be blocked from covering aspects of the spill. Last week, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, tried to bring a small group of journalists with him on a trip he was taking through the gulf on a Coast Guard vessel. Mr. Nelson's office said the Coast Guard agreed to accommodate the reporters and camera operators. But at about 10 p.m. on the evening before the trip, someone from the Department of Homeland Security's legislative affairs office called the senator's office to tell them that no journalists would be allowed. 'They said it was the Department of Homeland Security's response-wide policy not to allow elected officials and media on the same "federal asset,"' said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for the senator. 'No further elaboration' was given, Mr. Gulley added. Mr. Nelson has asked the Homeland Security secretary, Janet Napolitano, for an official explanation, the senator's office said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10access.html

Gates to the Military: Shut Up
July 8, 2010

Quote :

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates is consolidating his power over who can speak and what they can say. The casualty will be candor about the wars America fights. Gates sent a memo last week ordering officers and officials not to talk to the press unless his personal staff approves. That was chilling enough."

Quote :

"This is the same Gates who shut down another flow of information from the Pentagon to Americans. Because the New York Times did not like the process, Gates ended the periodic Pentagon briefings for retired officers who go on TV or on the radio to explain the war on terror."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37942

7/8/2010 12:08:01 PM

Yeah that sucks.

I'll still vote for him in 2012 though.

7/8/2010 12:15:33 PM

^ Fair enough.

7/8/2010 12:17:30 PM

I've levied my fair share of criticism on him. I think that a lot of liberals have. That's one of the reason that polls that say "Obama approval rating falling!!!1" are slightly misleading, because many of those who disapprove (like myself) do it for entirely different reasons than conservatives. And we'll still vote for him in 2012, because the alternative is much more frightening.

7/8/2010 12:21:57 PM

^ One of many reasons to break out of the two-party system, right?

7/8/2010 12:23:57 PM

Sure, I'd be happy with that.

7/8/2010 12:36:00 PM

^ Well, then we're in agreement. But that's no fun, is it?

7/8/2010 12:37:29 PM

fuck youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

7/8/2010 12:43:04 PM

Been there, got the coffee cup.

7/8/2010 12:53:56 PM

Dem Baucus joins GOP in blasting Obama CMS recess appointment
July 7, 2010

http://tinyurl.com/37w3lus

Obama's cynical recess appointment of Donald Berwick
July 8, 2010

Quote :

"And as a matter of good government, the president's move to snub the Senate and install Berwick by recess appointment was outrageous."

Quote :

"A recess appointment should be a last step in cases of egregious delay, not one of the first. That standard was nowhere near met in Berwick's case."

Quote :

"As Montana Democrat Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said after Obama's precipitous action, the confirmation process 'serves as a check on executive power and protects... all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee -- and answered.' Bypassing the process also harms the nominee, undercutting his legitimacy and truncating the time he has to act. Berwick can only serve until Dec., 2011, a short opportunity to make a big difference."

Quote :

"In announcing the appointment, the president complained that 'many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes.' True, but where's the evidence of delay in Berwick's case? You can't fairly accuse the other side of political gamesmanship when you short-circuit the process and storm off the court before the first set. 'To some degree, he's damaged goods,' then-Sen. Barack Obama said in 2005 about John Bolton's recess appointment as United Nations ambassador. Would the president say the same about Berwick?"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/07/obamas_cynical_recess_appointm.html

7/9/2010 12:48:58 AM

Robert Gibbs: There Are Enough Close Races For GOP To Take The House
July 11, 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/11/robert-gibbs-there-are-en_n_642166.html

Gibbs clarifies midterm election prediction, says Democrats will 'do very well'
July 14, 2010

http://tinyurl.com/374l43o

7/15/2010 5:48:51 PM

Yeah, Gibbs got lambasted behind the scenes, without a doubt. Partisan concerns aside, this has been a shitty past couple of years, and there have been plenty of studies done on this kind of thing. When the economy is bad, the party in power doesn't do well. It's not even a matter of who is right on the issues, necessarily.

[Edited on July 15, 2010 at 7:05 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2010 6:59:13 PM

^ Yes, but when the political firing squad becomes circular, it's revealing on a number of levels.

7/15/2010 7:32:32 PM

Quote :

"Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax By ROBERT PEAR Published: July 16, 2010 WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.” And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations. Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums. In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce. While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax. “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.” "

Well so much for this pledge...

Quote :

"Dover N.H. 9/12/08 Obama: "I can make a firm pledge, Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." "

Obama had to abandon his "No Tax Increase" pledge in order to have any inkling of a chance for his iffy health-care mandate to pass the Supreme Court challenge that is inevitably waiting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1&ref=politics

7/18/2010 12:12:48 AM

^ The Obama administration knows no shame whatsoever. It seems that they will do just about anything in an attempt to cram their agenda down the throats of Americans.

7/18/2010 2:39:28 AM

to be fair, in that quote, he said you wouldn't see any of your taxes increase. he didn't mention anything about any NEW taxes

7/18/2010 4:13:35 PM

I think some of these accusations of flip-flops are unfair (when they come from conservatives).

Conservatives demand that Obama reach across the aisle and make compromises. In order to do that, he often has to go back on things he promised to us liberals during his campaign. But then the same conservatives who demanded the compromises jump in and call him a flip-flopper for not totally satisfying the demands of liberals.

For example, I don't blame Obama for the failure to get a public option. I (obviously) blame the Republicans. If Obama says, "I didn't campaign on the public option," I don't consider that a real flip-flop. I mean, what's he supposed to say? I had a huge majority and wanted the public option, but I still got trounced by Republicans and some talk about death panels?

7/18/2010 6:14:56 PM

I love to see Hooksaw complaining about Obama being effective. Like him or not, he is a leader. He is always out there, in front, getting things done ...

7/18/2010 7:29:52 PM

you mean like with the oil spill? oh, wait... he didn't even let in fucking ships that could clean the shit up until months later. nor did he allow Louisiana to protect itself because "an environmental impact study hadn't been done."
you mean like with healthcare? oh, wait... he delegated that to Congress...
you mean like with DADT? oh, wait... he delegated that to Congress...

Quote :

"For example, I don't blame Obama for the failure to get a public option. I (obviously) blame the Republicans."

bull-fucking-shit. He can blame his own fucking party for that. it would have NEVER passed the senate with a public option, despite an at-the-time democratic super-majority.

but, hey, bridget, how about you speak about his promise not to raise taxes, as hooksaw just pointed out? BTW, were you so easy on George H.W.'s promise of "no new taxes"?

7/18/2010 7:47:34 PM

^ because if we need to do anything now, it’s ignore man’s impact on the environment...

[Edited on July 18, 2010 at 7:51 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2010 7:51:44 PM

well, when you've got shit tons of oil coming your way, I'd say there's a fucking impact to the environment that's gonna happen either fucking way, dipshit.

now, instead of stagnant water, a problem which is solved by simply demolishing the fucking berms, you have tons of oil in the marshes. hmmm, which one would have been worse. I wonder...

[Edited on July 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2010 7:52:32 PM

Of course he works with Congress ... that is the way things get done. And thank you for pointing out some of his accomplishments ... He is always a man on the move ... His opponents wouldn't hate him so much if he wasn't effective.

7/18/2010 7:55:05 PM

he's not "working with Congress." Congress is walking all over him.

but, yes, he's "effective."

he sure stopped that oil spill damn quickly, didn't he? He sure let Louisiana protect itself from the oil spill, didn't he?
Man, unemployment is almost non-existent now, isn't it? I mean, his stimulus package sure stopped unemployment from rising, didn't it?
And whoa, has he sure taken care of that debt problem, hasn't he? He's adding trillions to the deficit. he's spending more than dubya ever dreamed of. AND, he's still bombing just as many brown people as dubya ever did.
He's really "fixed healthcare" by introducing more of the problem. Why, just the other day, we were hearing all about those doctors who are dropping medicare patients thanks to all the cuts he put in. Whew, that's really a fix, aint it? Oh, and we're now gonna be spending more on healthcare than we did before. what effectiveness that is!
He really fixed the bank problem, too, didn't he? Yep. Fannie and Freddie and the automakers are still running business the same way, cause those regulations don't affect them. He fixed too big to fail by entrenching it. We'll have no more bailouts by setting up a permanent bail-out fund!

7/18/2010 7:56:48 PM

Come on, we've got more legislation pasted since he's been president then in 8 yrs. of Bush. He's always doing something ...

7/18/2010 7:59:21 PM

passing legislation != effectiveness
especially if that legislation is absolute shit

7/18/2010 8:01:04 PM

Passing legislation does = effective. That is what he came to do. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean he hasn't been effective in carrying out his goals ...

7/18/2010 9:08:52 PM

and you are sadly mistaken. if he went in and passed legislation that said monkeys are blue, that wouldn't be "effective". it is a sad state of affairs in America when people equate "passing bills" to "effectiveness."

It's akin to arguing that a lawyer having X number of cases is indicative of his effectiveness as a lawyer. no, it's not.

7/18/2010 10:10:51 PM