> We all know
I think you see what you want to see, and not any reality.
Nowadays, liberals are all about science. Anyone who'd dare to question the scientific method is corrupt or crazy or both. All it took was the climate change and the controversy around teaching evolution in schools.
Not that I subscribe to the "no true Scotsman" style of argument, but ... Obama liberals, as opposed to liberals, don't seem to have noticed the lack of follow-through on what I thought were pretty cogent criticisms of Bush's entire oeuvre.
Obama changed his support for FISA updates and telecom immunity in the summer of 2008, well before the election. So some (I doubt more than a small vocal minority of progressives and civil liberty types) were upset for that, but I don't see them flip-flopping o. that.
> move on
Obama did not campaign on bringing Woo et al to justice. Progressives certainly angry about that.
I'm unaware of Obama's deviancy from his proclamation to end support for the Bush/Woo policies. I doubt myself that torture has actually ended, but we have no evidence like we did with Bush.
Some democrats do indeed perceive Obama to be the king that Bush was, but he has a little problem with Congress there...
> Bush Doctrine
Neo-Wilsonians would argue they aren't Neocons. I'd agree, they're not as smart as the neocons, and that isn't a complement. But given Democratic support for "containment" of Saddam via weekly bombings and Kosovo, I really don't think the mob of Dems have flip-flopped on
And to try to lend a little credit to my statement, I'm independent, and tend to vote conservative/libertarian.
Well, I'd say Republicans mouth those ideals and then vote for nafta/wto/etc. And so did many Democrats. So did Clinton. But I don't see bringing jobs back as anti-Democrat, I'd see it as more of a progressive/workers thing. The only people screaming about Nafta were unions, socialists and paleocons.
edit: I'd add that as for economic philosophies, Reagan Democrats are still Reagan Democrats.
I'm sure that in your mind, democrats flip-flop all the time. I just don't see any evidence of that regardless of your personal enlightenments.
I'm more interested in you documenting, factually with polls, countless examples of D's doing this flip-flopping. Exactly who was against Afganistan but suddenly rationalized supporting it when they learned Obama was for it?
I'm not entirely sure how I implied dems flip-flop, or do so more than repubs? I was more making the case that people will stick to their "tribe/pack mentality" even when the other side is doing something congruent with their "beliefs". I also wasn't attacking Obama above, but supporting some of his actions.
But now that you mention it... Obama pledged to bring change and transparency to the presidency, but he's been the harshest president on whistle blowers, and actually operates more behind closed doors than any before him. He also flipped on the gitmo/prisoner thing. They all flip-flop (politicians, red or blue), this is politics, say whatever it takes to get yourself in office, then say whatever it takes to keep yourself there. The American public is buyin.
The economic rescue packages enacted during the period spanning the end of the Bush era and the start of the Obama era.
Attitudes to military intervention abroad. When 80s Republican administrations were coddling Saddam Hussain as an ally, liberals were screaming about the injustices in that country and calling for intervention; when conservatives flipped to wanting to oust Saddam Hussain liberals were largely against it - though little had changed for the better internally in Iraq. The flip on Libya when it was the Obama admin working towards the overthrow of Gadaffi, etc. The Republican history of isolationism flipped to a bold militarism. Bush running against nation building/intervention then building a Presidency on it.
The free trade/human rights dichotomy re: China - where the parties swap positions from agitation to accommodation depending on who's in power. Similarly with NAFTA.
I suspect if you don't see policy continuation between administrations in the US, despite the extreme polarization of politics where most R voters will argue against ANYTHING done by a D administration and vice versa, which is exactly the point made, then it may be you seeing what you want to see.
Republicans haven't been isolationist since the 40s.
There is little, if any extreme change in D voters over the last several decades. There is no vice-versa, it's false equivalence nonsense.
Or are there 'Republicans' protesting against the Afghan war now?
As for bailouts, can you name a Democrat who was against before they were for it? Because I don't know a Congessperson with a 'D' who voted against the bailouts.
IMO, he had just decided the 'Decent Interval' strategy was decent enough.
TY for the link, certainly more Congressional dissatisfaction than indicated. I will note that both Administrations supported the bill, so I'm still not sure who flip-flopped except for the House Republicans (it had failed an earlier vote and Pelosi publically said she'd just wait for the Republicans to cough up enough votes, which they did).
The issue here is that the political parties seem to have a "tribal" divide, where parties on both ends refuse to acknowledge that the other side may be doing things according to their ideology, simply because it is the other side...