Isn’t it laughable as we American voters look-in during the campaign period and see the rush by political candidates to in that “moment of reflection” get an epiphany that prompts their “Switch-A-Rooskies” on very controversial topics? The latest is Joe Biden.
Former VP Joe Biden
Throughout his political career, Biden has been very clear: he’s Catholic by faith and therefore has struggled with abortion. His faith’s doctrine has always been pro-life. Politically, his party has always been pro-choice. However, even though “technically” he has been pro-choice, he’s been emphatic that he is against the Hyde Amendment — the legislative amendment which allows funding of abortions with federal tax dollars. That was a principled stance he steadfastly embraced — until just days ago.
Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond defending Biden’s view on Hyde Wednesday night (June 5, 2019) with CNN’s Chris Cuomo:
“He is a deeply religious man. … He is guided by his faith, his position on the Hyde Amendment has been consistent.”
But then, just one day later, here’s the Democrat Presidential candidate Biden himself:
“If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s ZIP code,” Biden told a cheering crowd at a Democratic National Committee event in Atlanta.
Why the sudden Biden “Switch-A-Rooskie?” He’s been attacked all week by Leftist pro-choice advocates for his political hypocrisy for stating that abortion is OK but that funding it with tax dollars was wrong. Why is that wrong? Those Leftists state that doing so would negatively impact the poor and therefore is wrong. And they said HE could not be elected if he was against tax dollar funding of abortion.
So, he switched — just like that.
California’s Kamala Harris
** Before she was serving the people of California as a senator, Harris served as the state’s attorney general. As attorney general, Harris had to enforce California’s laws as written, but she also used her position to advocate for policies she felt would keep her constituents safe.
Formerly as California’s Attorney General she supported immigration laws that though controversial had to be enforced — even that which required the reporting of illegal juveniles to ICE, which flies in the face of sanctuary cities.
As a presidential candidate, her story has changed. She encourages all federal, state, and law enforcement members to NOT cooperate with ICE on anything that goes against the concept of sanctuary cities and supports deportation of illegals — a “Switch-A-Rooskie.”
** Then during a radio interview with “The Breakfast Club,” Harris claimed that she smoked pot when she was younger and that any claim that she opposes full marijuana legalization is “not true.” But, in her 2014 campaign, her Republican opponent for attorney general, Ron Gold, was very public about his support for full legalization of pot. Harris was not on the same page. When she was asked about legalization by KCRA in 2014, she laughed at Gold’s stance and said he was entitled to his opinion. Her presidential campaign may be pro-pot, but her time as attorney general certainly wasn’t.
**During an interview with CNN shortly after her presidential announcement, Harris told host Jake Tapper that America should “eliminate” the private system. “Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris said of the private health insurance industry. “Let’s move on.”
BUT, according to CNN, “as the furor grew” toward her plan to ban private healthcare, her team announced that she is open to keeping a market system.
Harris has also done the old “Switch-A-Rooskie” on a required investigation of cops involved in killings and on mass incarceration.
He had a bunch: he believed in the evolution of his positions on political issues, like gay marriage. Before he was a U.S. senator, Obama liked gay marriage. Then, when he ran for the Senate, he said gay marriage was wrong. As president, he claimed his views were “evolving” on it — and finally, Obama said he liked it again.
Democrats have not had exclusives on the “Switch-A-Rooskie’s.” During his run for the White House in 2012, Mitt Romney — who had long been pro-choice — announced he was pro-life. Romney during that campaign also made a 180 on gay rights.
George H.W. Bush
Remember his famous speech at the Republican National Convention in which he promised: “Read my lips — NO NEW TAXES!” Of course, that changed and NEW taxes were passed in Congress and signed into law by Bush 41. He was rewarded by voters who chose Bill Clinton over him in 1992 for the White House.
Presidential Candidate John Hickenlooper
Former Colorado governor and Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper does a good job with his “Switch-A-Rooskie.” He strongly opposed a 2012 ballot initiative that made his state the first to legalize recreational cannabis. But by 2019, he had long warmed to the idea, telling a CNN town hall that Colorado’s approach was “so much better than the old system where we sent millions of kids to prison, most of them kids of color.”
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke supported a government-run system embodied in the “Medicare for All” bill during his Senate run in Texas in 2018 that would effectively eliminate private insurance. But in March, after just setting out on the presidential campaign trail, he said he changed his mind and now favors legislation that would add a Medicare-like option to compete with private insurance, not abolish it. O’Rourke acknowledged that many people like their employer-provided health care insurance.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., in a “60 Minutes” Interview last year, said she was “embarrassed” by her opposition to gun safety bills and “ashamed” of her past support for proposals to scale up immigration enforcement and deny driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. The NRA has since gone from giving her an “A” grade to an “F,” and she also has come out for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and transferring its responsibilities elsewhere.
Previously, Gillibrand had been a voracious supporter of the NRA. In fact, a letter from the Senator to the NRA just surfaced in which she praised the NRA for its support of the 2nd Amendment and gun rights for Americans. She also was a huge supporter of ICE and its efforts to protect New Yorkers in areas where illegals in MS-13 gangs have murdered many on Long Island.
Hillary Clinton in 2016
Hillary Clinton has a propensity to change her mind on big issues. She has reversed her positions on gay marriage, immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration, and the Iraq War, and on the Keystone XL pipeline.
When CNN moderator Anderson Cooper called Clinton on her flip-floppery in a 2016 presidential debate (“Will you say anything to get elected?” he asked), she defended her policy “Switch-A-Rooskie” as “expressions of political thoughtfulness rather than weakness.”
“Well, actually, I have been very consistent,” Clinton said, arguing her unyielding commitment to “the same values and principles” over her entire life. “But like most human beings—including those of us who run for office—I do absorb new information. I do look at what’s happening in the world.”
What’s This All About?
Sadly, all of these above and other “Switch-A-Rooskies” are definitely about something specific. Certainly instances like these are not new and are not unique. But they certainly ARE sad examples of what has happened in America.
I remember the stories of the fathers of our Nation when they were establishing our Nation in the first place. They met, they discussed, and they argued. Sure, during those discussions and sometimes in those arguments tempers flared, arguments turned into pushing and shoving, voices were raised and even fists came out from time to time. And there was that famous duel to settle a dispute.
But what this gang of politicos are doing today and have been for several decades is NOT what our forefathers did. There are today NO serious discussions between candidates or those already in office about issues. There is NO debate, NO logical examination of facts of any controversial matter. Such discussions are immaterial today. All that matters is specific political perspectives on EVERY issue.
Example: I listened today as television hosts grilled a political “expert” regarding the “Switch-A-Rooskie” by former VP Joe Biden regarding the Hyde Amendment. Biden was an ardent supporter of the Amendment for a couple of decades. (It prevents federal funds being used to fund abortions) This “expert” — a Democrat Party pundit — defended Biden’s sudden change.
His “Switch-A-Rooskie” was because his “position on federally funded abortions has “evolved” through the years — according to that Democrat pundit. He’s now making sure ALL applicable circumstances of a matter factor into all decisions he makes regarding all issues that are important to Americans.
But it’s NOT about “issues evolving;” it’s not about “new information” or the understanding of “scientific breakthroughs;” (like Climate Change); it’s about one thing and one thing only: whatever it takes to get enough votes to win.
That was not what drove the Washington’s, Franklin’s, Jefferson’s, the Henry’s, and the Burrs of the 1700s.
What’s changed? A whole bunch! But ALL these changes that happen every day among America’s politicians are tied directly to one thing and one thing only: “Moral Compass.”
Simply stated, Moral Compass is the thing inside of us that tells us which direction we should go when we have to make decisions involving right and wrong. This is how we judge a person’s character and whether they will make a moral and good decision.
Many claim to have a simple formula on how to evaluate a person’s character. When you hear their opinions on it, it is clear that they form the basis of their opinion on only a single issue.
This is wrong because the sum of a person is not whether they make no mistakes in judgment. Instead, it is the quantity and quality of those mistakes. A person could otherwise live an upstanding life, be very moral and very good in so many ways, and yet be guilty of a personal failing on a single issue.
When we evaluate a person’s character, the only fair way to evaluate them is to look at how they conduct themselves in many areas. How do they treat strangers? How do they treat their enemies? Are they honest? Are they loyal? Do they help others in need? There are many other criteria in which we can judge. None of this suggests that we weight all moral failings equally. Judging a person is based on the impact their moral failings have on other people.
To this Cajun who emigrated to North Louisiana, honesty is the chief arbiter of a person’s character. Honesty is something that I consider crucially important. What I consider lying (dishonesty) is the case where a person willfully and knowingly misleads others simply to get their own way. It is a huge moral failing to be able to and be comfortable with bending the truth easily. People with a stable moral compass will feel uncomfortable with it, and may even be reluctant to do so. Unfortunately, sometimes people believe their own lies. That’s a sign of complete dishonesty and demonstrates a lack of conviction. It is being a hypocrite to oneself and to others.
How a person treats those they disagree with and those who are less fortunate in any way says a lot about one’s character. Many religions tell us to turn the other cheek when we are attacked. Living up to these standards can sometimes be very hard, maybe impossible. Many people have a difficult time of it. However, the true test of character or lack thereof is when a person is willing to treat their enemy with deliberate and sometimes calculated cruelty and abuse. It becomes clear that he or she has no moral compass and no compassion for other people. When we lack a conscience, then we lack humanity. Humanity is what differentiates us from others in the animal kingdom.
So what reasoning can we to accurately determine the reason(s) for all the “Switch-A-Rooskies” related by America’s politicians above? I must be honest when I take an objective view of these examples. And, honestly, I have serious doubts with the reasoning used for all of them. It’s NOT about the issues, although I have particularly strong feelings about each of them. And it’s not so much about which side of each issue on which any of these come down on. My issue is with the Moral Compass of each of those who made the “Switch-A-Rooskies.” How else can you explain the drastic changes, sometimes literally overnight? Biden held his views on federally funding abortions since Roe v. Wade in the early 1970s. And literally in one night last week, he abandoned that 40-year-old opinion he said previously was “embedded in his conscience.”
Our nation is letting our collective and individual Moral Compass slide and slide. We are making it easy for the generations who follow us to waffle on EVERYTHING they face in life — holding NO absolutes on any issues in their lives. We are slowly embracing the life philosophy of “fly by the seat of your pants.”
It seems to be the easy path on which to walk that teaches us anything goes at any time — just “do what feels good.” But with that goes all of the social skills that humans must use to interface with others.
Want an example of this slide?
We have no longer any political discourse in America. Opposing parties refuse to discuss, negotiate, and find a compromise on ALL issues they face. It’s “our way or the highway” on EVERY issue. And it’s not just Republicans and not just Democrats — it’s ALL OF THEM.
So very little or nothing gets done.
Is that the World you want for your children, your grandchildren, and their children? If so, you’re certainly very happy today. If we don’t want that world, we all must step up and say “Enough is enough!”
If we don’t do that, the only unanswered question will be, “Who’s gonna get all this stuff done?”
Nobody will answer this way, “I’ll do it!” No one will be there to make things happen — especially not with the determination of right and wrong.