« LORD FARIS ON FRANKEN: “HE’S A TURNOFF FOR VOTERS” | Home | REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION “LUNCHTIME CHATS” »
MUST READ COMMENTARY: “A NEW KIND OF POLITICS? NOT FROM OBAMA”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 8, 2008
“What a difference a presumptive nomination makes. When Barack Obama started his campaign for president, he talked about a new kind of politics. These words helped propel him through the Democratic primaries. Only after he clinched the nomination did the senator suddenly become a much more familiar figure — not only because we got to know him better, but because he started acting more to prototype — a typical politician who puts his party’s and his personal interests first.
The surest test of a candidate for president is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. While Obama became the putative nominee by claiming to be a new type of politician, there’s nothing more characteristic of Washington politics than breaking your word.” Source: Star Tribune, August 7, 2008
Click here for the complete commentary.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 10 Comments »
10 Responses to “MUST READ COMMENTARY: “A NEW KIND OF POLITICS? NOT FROM OBAMA””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:58 AM
This piece really nails it on the head!
Gets to the core of the phoniness of the Obama candidacy — more and more Minnesotans are seeing Obama for who he really is….this guy is not capable of bringing about change. No chance.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Isn’t this commentary about a month late to the party?
I love how the party that has dominated fund raising and the big ticket dinners for years now, finding itself on the short end of the stick, suddenly cries foul.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:01 AM
for the star tribune to even raise such an issue is “change”.
at this point in 2004 kerry was ahead by 12-15 points with the convention ahead. bho is even, maybe 1-2 points ahead and dropping. nancy pelosi is the only politician that looks worse.
the only thing that is a sure value of bho is he is an opportunist. has been ever since he ran for illinois state senate and continues so today.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:07 AM
“opportunist”
What the hell does that even mean? Yes, I guess he’s leveraging the fact republicans have driven the country into a brick wall to get elected.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I wonder how much of the millions he’s raked in has come from illegal foreign donations.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obama-shipped-t.html
August 8th, 2008 at 11:18 AM
WOW!
The former Republican Party Chair doesn’t like Obama. Too bad blogs don’t need presses, because I would have to demand that you stop them to publish this sort of earth shattering news.
What next? MUST READ FROM HER CAMPAIGN WEBSITE: Bachmann is pro-life!
August 8th, 2008 at 11:44 AM
what opportunistic means is that bho changes his position as soon as he sees he might get more votes–i.e. surge, offshore drilling, fisa, gun ownership. if you need more examples go to http://www.nelsonguirado.com
libs may call that prudent; i call it opportunistic and a lack of character. i respect (don’t agree with) nancy pelosi more than bho; at least she stands up for what she believes in.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:07 PM
“what opportunistic means is that bho changes his position as soon as he sees he might get more votes–i.e. surge, offshore drilling, fisa, gun ownership. if you need more examples go to http://www.nelsonguirado.com
libs may call that prudent; i call it opportunistic and a lack of character. i respect (don’t agree with) nancy pelosi more than bho; at least she stands up for what she believes in.”
That might be convincing if McCain didn’t do the exact same thing. So, I guess they are both “opportunists?”
August 8th, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Yeah. Remember when McCain drove the straight talk express, and was seen as a “maverick”?
I would have considered voting for that guy. But this version of John McCain is as night and day as another opportunist, democrat Norm Coleman who became republican Norm Coleman.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:13 PM
as for norm switching parties, i would say it was primarily because the dfl ran away from him. he was always pro-life and the dfl would never endorse such a position; thus, he maintained his values and just took on a different label.
opportunist would have been for norm to switch to pro-abortion and stay a dem–i.e. gore and bj clinton did exactly that when they ran for president.