The NYT today chided Senator Obama for some of his flip-flops of recent days. One of the interesting elements of the Times’ criticism is that it passed over the rather high profile gun control flip-flop without really calling it the reversal it was, and it chose to avoid the biggest policy reversal of all (Iraq). Instead, the Times chose instead to name campaign finance and FISA as among the relatively arcane flip-flops that deserved to be identified as such. Excerpt:

there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt….the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11…

when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight”…Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state…

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control…What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children? We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

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.

The editorial concludes: “There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq…We don’t want any ‘redefining’ on these.” It’s too late. With his advisers providing him with ample cover, Senator Obama is already “refining” a new position that is, in effect, exactly the opposite, at least in practical terms, of his old and clearly stated position. Whether the Times will call this a flip-flop remains to be seen. Judging from this piece, the editors will do their best to elide the issue.

(UPDATE: Iowahawk gives new meaning to the idea of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, and thus perhaps helps clarify the Illinois Senator’s real position on Iraq.)

This entry was posted on Friday, July 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm and is filed under Democrats, General, MSM, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.