In perusing the various major news outlets over the past week, there seem to be a lot of stories and focus on the shifting positions of the leading Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates and I can only infer that since there are so many stories on this phenomenon, the media either thinks we really care about this or they (the media) feel it is extremely news worthy. Whether it is Hillary on the Iraq War, Mitt on Abortion or Rudy on Immigration, the change from one position to another on these issues are generating a lot of paper and bytes.
Is it news? Take Hillary for example who voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. She was even quoted in the NY Times stating it would be a “mistake” to withdraw the troops from Iraq by a specific date. Now, she is singing a different tune, stating that the troops should be withdrawn (the war should be ended) “today”. Is this position even viable? In my opinion, who ever sits in the Oval Office in 2009 will be faced with the War in Iraq for some time (at least through his or her first term) and that to state such drivel is meaningless. We are not going to withdraw from Iraq as it will demonstrate that America’s resolve is as weak as our America’s enemies say it is. To take this position is pure pandering to the hard left who hate President Bush and hate the Iraq War. Why do the Hillary supporters put so much faith in what is a pure political move with no real policy shift behind it?
Then over on the right, we have Mitt (from my new home state of Massachusetts) having some problems on the issue of Abortion. For as long as I can recall the Republican Party has been on the side of the Pro-Life position and although some of the candidates have only given lip service to Pro-Lifers, Mitt comes from a very liberal state and has been quoted from his campaigns for Governor that he would protect a women’s “right to choose” although he admits he is personally “pro-life”. So now as he is courting the Republican base he seems to have changed, in fact calling for a repeal of Roe v. Wade. Again, a flip flop but is it news worthy at least to the level of attention it has already garnered? Mitt is in the running to be the standard bearer of the Republican Party which similar to the Hillary’s problem is more out of step than he has been as a local politician moving to the national stage. But let me make a distinction here. Where Mitt has spoken on the issue of life and how his understanding of the issue has evolved, one can at least say it makes some sense that with the changes in our understanding of life and the complex life issues (stem cell research, designer babies, etc.) and marry this with a more and more callous view of life observed in society I can understand the change in position.
Hillary’s change is a little more suspect. She supposedly saw all sorts of intelligence data supporting the President’s request to authorize the Iraqi invasion. She should have done due diligence in reviewing this material and making a conscious vote. I will give her the benefit of a doubt and say that all was done. To move away from her vote now when we have troops on the ground, dying almost daily, as well as being in the White House when regime change in Iraq became US policy under her husband strikes me as being a completely political opportunist move rather than a principled one and may play well with the hard left crowd now. But come 2009, if she is in the White House, it will be interesting to hear why the words she is speaking today will be a distant hollow memory.
No comments:
Post a Comment