“Pretzel Logic” by Howard Kurtz at the Washington PostIn case you missed Howard Kurtz’s latest post – at the Washington Post, please do a u-turn and go visit it.
It is an adventure into the latest in analysis of the presidential campaign landscape in 2,235 words, but it is worth the time – and I did not have to look up one single word.
He lays it out cleanly and clearly, includes source materials and cites to back up his insights into everything from Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s utterances about gun-control; flip flopping; New York Senator Hillary Clinton; Colin Powell; Karl Rove; to Lloyd Bensen’s absolutely devastating Dan Quayle with his famous line about Jack Kennedy and Tom Brokaw cancelling a fishing trip to Russia set for September.
Hat Tip: Doug Ross: Friday, June 27, 2008 “Obama's Speeches need a "Born-on Date" And while you are over on Mr. Ross’ site, also check out “8,400 murdered in DC since gun ban went into effect”
It is an adventure into the latest in analysis of the presidential campaign landscape in 2,235 words, but it is worth the time – and I did not have to look up one single word.
He lays it out cleanly and clearly, includes source materials and cites to back up his insights into everything from Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s utterances about gun-control; flip flopping; New York Senator Hillary Clinton; Colin Powell; Karl Rove; to Lloyd Bensen’s absolutely devastating Dan Quayle with his famous line about Jack Kennedy and Tom Brokaw cancelling a fishing trip to Russia set for September.
Hat Tip: Doug Ross: Friday, June 27, 2008 “Obama's Speeches need a "Born-on Date" And while you are over on Mr. Ross’ site, also check out “8,400 murdered in DC since gun ban went into effect”
Barack Obama is under hostile fire for changing his position on the D.C. gun ban.
Oh, I'm sorry. He didn't change his position, apparently. He reworded a clumsy statement.
That, at least, is what his campaign is saying. The same campaign that tried to spin his flip-flop in rejecting public financing as embracing the spirit of reform, if not the actual position he had once promised to embrace.
Is this becoming a pattern? Wouldn't it be better for Obama to say he had thought more about such-and-such an issue and simply changed his mind? Is that verboten in American politics? Is it better to engage in linguistic pretzel-twisting in an effort to prove that you didn't change your mind?
Regardless of what you think of the merits of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling overturning the capital's handgun law, it seems to me we're entitled to a clear position by the presumed Democratic nominee. And I'm a bit confused about how the confusion came about.
[snip]
New York Post columnist Charles Hurt suggests the appearance of a reversal by the "most liberal member of the Senate," but doesn't provide the evidence on this point:
"Obama may as well have strapped on his John Wayne chaps and holster yesterday to announce his support of the Supreme Court's decision that the Second Amendment guaranteeing gun rights actually means what it says . . .
"As Obama moves rightward and gets tougher, Republicans are desperately trying to portray him as some sort of arrogant flip-flopper. But these audacious moves by him are not signs of weakness; they're signs of a man who will win at any cost.
"Isn't that what they used to say about the Clintons?"
The conservative blogosphere, however, brings out the heavy guns. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey points out that Obama is, after all, a lawyer:
"Barack Obama has been spinning like a top, and watching his positions on, well, just about everything is like watching table-tennis matches on TiVo triple fast forward. FISA, public financing, and NAFTA have all been reversed in the last couple of weeks, and Obama's not through yet . . .
[…]
Red State: "May I suggest that Senator Obama start putting a 'Freshest if used by' date on all his speeches? It'd be a help, really."
[snip]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.