The political transformation of President Barack Obama is glaring. He has moved from the “hope and change” candidate we saw in the 2008 election, to the “doing what it takes to win” president fighting for reelection. Every politician makes promises, empty promises, they know they can’t keep, and that’s not the bad part. The bad part is you don’t know who to listen to and believe has your best interests at heart — Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.
Politico: “The first is that every modern president in the fourth year of his presidency resorts to the cheap political stunts, broken promises and truth-fudging it takes to win reelection in what has been and will be a 50-50 nation. The reason is simple: Politics is not clean-living; it’s survival.
The second is that Barack Obama, for all his talk of moving beyond conventional political tricks, is doing just that, which wouldn’t be so glaring had it not been for his incessant call for a newer, cleaner and more transparent paradigm for American politics.
The second is that Barack Obama, for all his talk of moving beyond conventional political tricks, is doing just that, which wouldn’t be so glaring had it not been for his incessant call for a newer, cleaner and more transparent paradigm for American politics.”
You can’t say you are for the people on Main Street when you are secretly yukking it up with the people on Wall Street. I don’t know if President Obama’s actions are transactional more than transformative, but I am just tired of politics as usual in Washington D. C. on both sides of the aisle. I am a centrist and I tend to look at some liberal policies and viewpoints with disdain, but I am for the people on Main Street, who are the ones to jumpstart this ecomony by spending. If you can’t look out for Main Street and truly mean what you say, then you aren’t the candidate for me.
President Obama is playing both sides of the field and you just can’t do that and expect to win big. He has flip-flopped as much as his probable Republican adversary Mitt Romney. I was very surprised when he gave his blessings to Super PACs after vehemently decrying their very existence. He literally gave his blessings to Priorities USA Action Super PAC, to go out and collect lots of money from the affluent.
In 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama said, “you can’t say yesterday you don’t believe in them and today, you are having three-quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can’t just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time. Everybody talks about change during election time. You have got to look at how they will act when it’s not convenient, when it’s hard. And the one thing I’m proud of is my track record is strong on this and I’ve walked the walk.”
So, I guess that record is of little importance to President Barack Obama in 2012, right? The super PACs are a novel way for the fabulously rich and well-connected to influence politics. Um, that doesn’t jibe with his “love and caring attitude” for the people on Main Street. In other words, since everyone is doing it, let’s not get left out of the game, let’s join in this party!
As for the current conundrum with the Catholics and contraceptives, President Obama is just playing politics, that has the potential for serious backlash. Personally, I think the government and the church should not stick its nose in personal matters, such as a woman’s right to chose what she does with her body. This isn’t a fight about religious liberty. It should be a fight about a woman’s right to chose — personal liberty. God knows contraception is the least of President Obama and the Catholic church’s worries. Sorry, but this political transformation of President Barack Obama isn’t the hope and change we signed on for in 2008, but at the same time, who among the Republican slate of presidential candidates is worthy to take the baton? They are all damaged goods. So, here we are, with an enormous problem…..