
Politics, the representative kind, has some similarities with marriage.
As the saying goes, when you marry someone you are essentially marrying three people at once- the person you think you are marrying, the person he or she really is, and the person he or she will become because of your marriage.
In a representative democracy, a candidate is expected to emerge from a local base, caring for the local interest. When running for office, a candidate must appeal to the party base during the primary and transition to a general election when the candidate will address the concerns of the whole electorate which will include opposition parties and independents. And when the candidate finally gets into office, he or she confronts what the poet, T.S. Eliot, called the shadow between the idea and the reality.
In essence, when we elect a politician, we elect three persons at once – the person the we think the politician is, the person the politician really is and the person the politician will become because we elected him or her.
It was the same with George H. Bush, Bill J. Clinton and George W. Bush. And so shall it be whether John S. McCain becomes president or Barack H. Obama. Thinking otherwise is wallowing in illusion.
What is important is the hope that the politician so elected will not via so far off from the foundation of the supporters. As long as the politician maintains the core belief of his or her primary constituencies, all shall be well. What is devastating is when a politician goes off on a tangent to the point that he or she becomes unrecognizable to him or her self and to the followers.
One of the mysteries of governance which many outsiders are unfamiliar with is the enormous secrecy associate with running a government. There are a lot of things that only a few top government functionaries know. Some are so grave with far reaching consequences that they have the power to force a turn around of policy positions and initiatives suggested during a campaign.
As the Obama and McCain campaigns go into full gear, I expect people on both sides to call both candidates for flip flopping. Some will say outright that a particular candidate is lying. Such situation is inevitable in today’s fluid political arena where the reality changes in hours and not in days.
For Obama, the heat is on as his campaign transitions into a national campaign. Be it the turn around on the FISA bill, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or about accepting public finance for the general election, Obama is being strategic, moving to the center where elections are won.
It is expected that the other side will turn these issues as cases against Obama. They will do so not because their candidate is not doing the same. (If he is not, it must be a deficiency and one reason why he is reorganizing and arranging his campaign, again). Instead, the other side will make the case out of fear that their opponent is closing in on voters in the middle.
It is normal for the other side to scream. The louder they scream the more likely it is that their own campaign is in trouble. Politicians will say, “I care about being right than being popular.” But no politician will ever say I care about sticking to a position of yesterday made with yesterday’s reality than winning an election. As sad as it may be, a successful politician is the one who wins elections and not the one who sticks to a position when the reality has changed.
No opponent will complain that a politician flip-flopped unless the flip-flop landed the politician where the opponent did not want the politician to be.
For all the beauties of Obama’s candidacy, it will be worth nothing if he fails to win the election.
I am confident that Obama will withstand these cases against him and win the presidency of the United States of America. And that is essentially what scares the opponents the most and not a decision to move to the center or reverse himself on certain issues – a maneuvering the opponents thoroughly understand is the very nature of the beast called politics.
Do I have that right?
I am confident that Obama will withstand these cases against him and win the presidency of the United States of America.
Would have been wishful thinking if he ran for the presidency of a different country - say - like France. But since this is America, anything is possible. hehehehe.....
Peace, Love and Light be unto you.
I guess you definition of good writing doesn’t include source material or factual accuracy or completeness, huh?
Obama might be a ’different politician’ but he has to be a ’politician’ essentially if he has to go anywhere near White House ever in his life. And being a politician means being tactful and being capable of correcting oneself. This correction might also be seen as ’going back on words’ or ’flip-flopping’. But as you rightly pointed out, there is no way around it.
I don’t think you have left any room for any attack whatsoever. This particular post puts the issue very clearly and is not as such loaded in favor of or against anyone. It simply mirrors and elucidates the nature of politics anywhere and everywhere. And it’s hard to disagree with it. I am sure Kim would find someway of doing it. I like Kim precisely for this reason. :):):)
Obama has clearly told us that the only reason to vote for him is precisely because he is NOT a usual ”politician” but something ”new” — ”change you can believe in.”
He lacks any other qualification to be president.
Yet, you state yourself he is not new or different. That means there is no basis for his election whatsoever.
For a campaign that started with ”Hope” (or its audacity) and ”Change”, it has turned to dish out little of either.
I guess the change that was being talked about did not apply to the political shenanigans that were to be resorted to get to that coveted position.
I don’t get it. Are you saying shouldn’t they?
I mean moving to the center does not necessarily win you the elections. Think about it. What if the core support weans cause of a sudden change in the trajectory! Maybe the elections are indeed won on maneuvering (reassessing your opinion on an hourly basis) but let me tell you this won’t make a good leader in the long run. If you are not sure of a candidate even before the elections, with what faith do you vote for him?
Flip-flops are justified only when there’s thorough reassessment of the issue involved and not merely for superficial reasons. And as Kim goes on to say Americans may not be ”clueless patsies” that you are taking them for. At least that’s what is sincerely hoped by all and sundry.
And it’s just a coincidence that you happen to agree with this post, written by somebody ELSE who is voting for him. You were totally objective in evaluating its merits!
Just as I thought.
Now, if we could only get him to adopt McCain’s 3R Economic Plan (which I will not repost on instablogs today).
Still, McCain has the experience and he will lead our nation in for a while.
Happy Independence day.
Such as defining ’flip-flopping’ without including the only excusable affirmative defense for an alleged leader to do so was rather remiss of him though...especially one without a shred of qualifications or experience for the toughest job on the planet...other than the pigment of the man’s skin apparently.
Writers with accalades that I can pronounce with confidence the first time such as Thomas Sowell and Ken Blackwell.
In the pursuit to become capable for one’s own governance, excellent non-fiction reading is a moral imperative if the wish to be an American citizen is sought rather than just living and voting for the party who praised slavery;
The Constitution in Black and White
http://shinbone.home.att.net/bnw.htm
Thomas Sowell -
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell
Ken Blackwell -
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell
Don’t you think it’s time to wake up and smell what they’re shoveling at you??
Local Opinions (22)
That’s quite possibly the most idiotic thing you’ve ever said. It’s HIS OWN SIDE that is annoyed by Obama’s flip-flops. The publisher of the left-wing Daily Kos has just announced his intention to withhold his personal $2,000 contribution from Obama because of his betrayals.
http://kimzigfeld.instablogs.com/entry/memo-to-marcos/
Moreover, you don’t even try to address the serious accusations of personal corruption surrounding Obama.
http://kimzigfeld.instablogs.com/entry/barack-obama-is-waist-deep-in-corruption/
What you’ve written is nothing but a propaganda tract in favor of Obama, hypocritically claiming to review the case against him.
In truth, there’s nothing Obama could say or do that would cause you to withhold your support from him, just as is the case in any cult environment. For someone who pontificates about ”rationality” to adopt such a view is the ultimate in revolting hypocrisy. Apparently, you couldn’t care less about any policy agenda being advanced, you just want ”your man” to ”win” in an act of blind partisanship.
Obama’s negatives in opinion polls have doubled over the past year, while McCain’s are only up 20%. The American people are not the clueless patsies you imagine them to be.
D’oh!
I am confident that Obama will withstand these cases against him and win the presidency of the United States of America.
Would have been wishful thinking if he ran for the presidency of a different country - say - like France. But since this is America, anything is possible. hehehehe.....
Do I have that right?
Peace, Love and Light be unto you.
God’s blessing may well not be sufficient to save us from that.
And it will set back the cause of black civil rights many decades.
I guess you definition of good writing doesn’t include source material or factual accuracy or completeness, huh?
Obama has clearly told us that the only reason to vote for him is precisely because he is NOT a usual ”politician” but something ”new” — ”change you can believe in.”
He lacks any other qualification to be president.
Yet, you state yourself he is not new or different. That means there is no basis for his election whatsoever.
ELECTING him doesn’t, and I didn’t say it did. If you can’t treat my remarks fairly, why read them?
But if he turns into a Bush or Nixon, that DOES. Especially if he was elected without any credentials just because he was black and invoking a cult of personality.
After that it might be a hundred years before another African American is elected, or longer, and racists would have a perfect excuse to justify continuing their racism.
And it’s just a coincidence that you happen to agree with this post, written by somebody ELSE who is voting for him. You were totally objective in evaluating its merits!
Just as I thought.
Now, if we could only get him to adopt McCain’s 3R Economic Plan (which I will not repost on instablogs today).
Still, McCain has the experience and he will lead our nation in for a while.
Happy Independence day.
Such as defining ’flip-flopping’ without including the only excusable affirmative defense for an alleged leader to do so was rather remiss of him though...especially one without a shred of qualifications or experience for the toughest job on the planet...other than the pigment of the man’s skin apparently.
Writers with accalades that I can pronounce with confidence the first time such as Thomas Sowell and Ken Blackwell.
In the pursuit to become capable for one’s own governance, excellent non-fiction reading is a moral imperative if the wish to be an American citizen is sought rather than just living and voting for the party who praised slavery;
The Constitution in Black and White
http://shinbone.home.att.net/bnw.htm
Thomas Sowell -
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell
Ken Blackwell -
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell
Don’t you think it’s time to wake up and smell what they’re shoveling at you??
Global Opinions (6)
Obama might be a ’different politician’ but he has to be a ’politician’ essentially if he has to go anywhere near White House ever in his life. And being a politician means being tactful and being capable of correcting oneself. This correction might also be seen as ’going back on words’ or ’flip-flopping’. But as you rightly pointed out, there is no way around it.
I don’t think you have left any room for any attack whatsoever. This particular post puts the issue very clearly and is not as such loaded in favor of or against anyone. It simply mirrors and elucidates the nature of politics anywhere and everywhere. And it’s hard to disagree with it. I am sure Kim would find someway of doing it. I like Kim precisely for this reason. :):):)
How does electing a black man to the presidency of the United States set back black civil rights a few decades?
You can probably see why this is a confusing statement for me to swallow.
I don’t get it. Are you saying shouldn’t they?
I mean moving to the center does not necessarily win you the elections. Think about it. What if the core support weans cause of a sudden change in the trajectory! Maybe the elections are indeed won on maneuvering (reassessing your opinion on an hourly basis) but let me tell you this won’t make a good leader in the long run. If you are not sure of a candidate even before the elections, with what faith do you vote for him?
Flip-flops are justified only when there’s thorough reassessment of the issue involved and not merely for superficial reasons. And as Kim goes on to say Americans may not be ”clueless patsies” that you are taking them for. At least that’s what is sincerely hoped by all and sundry.
For a campaign that started with ”Hope” (or its audacity) and ”Change”, it has turned to dish out little of either.
I guess the change that was being talked about did not apply to the political shenanigans that were to be resorted to get to that coveted position.
Home

Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
RSS 














That’s quite possibly the most idiotic thing you’ve ever said. It’s HIS OWN SIDE that is annoyed by Obama’s flip-flops. The publisher of the left-wing Daily Kos has just announced his intention to withhold his personal $2,000 contribution from Obama because of his betrayals.
http://kimzigfeld.instablogs.com/entry/memo-to-marcos/
Moreover, you don’t even try to address the serious accusations of personal corruption surrounding Obama.
http://kimzigfeld.instablogs.com/entry/barack-obama-is-waist-deep-in-corruption/
What you’ve written is nothing but a propaganda tract in favor of Obama, hypocritically claiming to review the case against him.
In truth, there’s nothing Obama could say or do that would cause you to withhold your support from him, just as is the case in any cult environment. For someone who pontificates about ”rationality” to adopt such a view is the ultimate in revolting hypocrisy. Apparently, you couldn’t care less about any policy agenda being advanced, you just want ”your man” to ”win” in an act of blind partisanship.
Obama’s negatives in opinion polls have doubled over the past year, while McCain’s are only up 20%. The American people are not the clueless patsies you imagine them to be.
D’oh!
God’s blessing may well not be sufficient to save us from that.
And it will set back the cause of black civil rights many decades.
How does electing a black man to the presidency of the United States set back black civil rights a few decades?
You can probably see why this is a confusing statement for me to swallow.
ELECTING him doesn’t, and I didn’t say it did. If you can’t treat my remarks fairly, why read them?
But if he turns into a Bush or Nixon, that DOES. Especially if he was elected without any credentials just because he was black and invoking a cult of personality.
After that it might be a hundred years before another African American is elected, or longer, and racists would have a perfect excuse to justify continuing their racism.