By Tom Quiner

We’ve followed Barack Obama’s evolving views on marriage over his career.

He was for it in the 90s before evolving to be against it as a Senator and candidate for president; then evolving back to his previous position just last week.

While we wait to see if he evolves again on this issue, let’s review a very partial list of other issues on which he has evolved.

As a candidate, Barack Obama was against military tribunals on suspected terrorists because they …

“failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capacity to ensure swift and certain justice.”

As president, his view evolved to the point that now he is now for them.

The Left railed against President Bush’s stance on this issue. They have been silent after Obama’s view evolved.

As a candidate, Barack Obama was passionately against Guantanamo, and demanded its closure with this sharp rhetoric against …

“running prisons which lock people away without telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with.”

As president, his position evolved. Guantanamo is still open and holds 172 detainees.

The Left railed against President Bush’s stance on this issue. They have been silent since Obama’s view evolved.

As a candidate, Barack Obama was against the rendition of suspected terrorists:

“To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people… This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.”

As president, his position evolved. He now believes in rendition.

The Left railed against President Bush’s stance on this issue. They have been silent since Obama’s view evolved.

As a candidate, Barack Obama was against a president sending the military into foreign lands without Congressional authorization:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

As president, his position evolved. He ordered action against the Libyan regime last year without asking Congress first. The Left railed against President Bush’s stance on this issue. They have been silent since Obama’s view evolved.

Three months into his presidency, Barack Obama vowed to install a Third Site Missile Defense System in Poland and the Czech Republic as a deterrence against possible Iran attacks:

“So let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.”

Half a year later, his position evolved when Russia bristled and said don’t do it. The president quickly complied and nixed the installation even though the threat from Iran still persists.

As a candidate, Barack Obama called for humanitarian intervention in the genocide taking place in Darfur:

“We cannot, in good conscience, stand by and let the genocide continue.”

As president, his position evolved, and he cozied up to the butchers. His special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Major General J. Scott Gration, described the evolved approach of appeasement this way:

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”

The silence of the Left was deafening.

As a candidate, Barack Obama characterized Egypt President Mubarek as a stalwart ally:

“I’ve spoken to him on the phone. He has been a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States. He has sustained peace with Israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in that region, but he has never resorted to unnecessary demagoguing of the issue and has tried to maintain that relationship. So I think he has been a force for stability and good in the region.”

As president, his position evolved and he demanded that Mubarek go.

The president seeks re-election. Certainly no one can vote for him on the basis of his positions, since they are most likely evolving.

What are we left with? His record?

He may be in trouble.

No Comments

  1. Jeane Bishop on May 17, 2012 at 11:18 am

    I think you have the title for your next musical…”They have been silent”.

    With the chorus for the theme song being…..

    “As president, his position evolved. …. The Left railed against President Bush’s stance on this issue. They have been silent since Obama’s view evolved.”

    What do you think?

    I would like to be cast as Sarah Palin 🙂 She rocks!

    • quinersdiner on May 17, 2012 at 11:40 am

      Sounds like Tony Award material. Oh, wait, they’re all a bunch of liberals.

      Thanks for the idea. I’ll get to work on the score!

  2. juwannadoright on May 17, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    I’m printing out a copy of this to take to the dog park tonight for my acquaintances there who are Obama supporters. I doubt that they will read it – in fact, I doubt they will even recycle it. (As a conservative I would do both). But then, I’m interested in hearing all sides on any given subject. I think that’s how you got to the truth, isn’t it?

    • quinersdiner on May 17, 2012 at 10:00 pm

      They probably won’t read it. I have members of my Catholic church who would still vote for him if he was a child-molesting Nazi. My priest will vote for him. Go figure.

      • juwannadoright on May 17, 2012 at 10:12 pm

        Apparently stupidity is the only commodity which we can enjoy with endless abundance.

Leave a Comment