So, since pretty much all is lost, I am reverting to purely capitalistic tendencies. As such:

THIS DOMAIN (www.obamaontherecord.com) IS FOR SALE.

I will sell it to anyone — even misguided liberals — provided they are willing to pay me enough money. Please reply below if you’re interested, and I will contact you.

Two days ago he was saying stuff like this:

“We could save all the oil that [the Republicans] are talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires, and getting regular tune ups. You could actually save just as much.”

But then came the flip-flop:

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices. If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

Well, at least he’s headed in the right direction this time. Of course, the irony here is that the Democratic Congress hightailed it out of town, leaving unfinished business regarding drilling on the table, simply to protect Obama from having to vote against it. And now he’s apparently in the middle of changing his tune.

Of course, in his heart of hearts, we all know that Obama, like most left wing politicians beholden to the interests of radical environmentalists, actually wants oil prices to be high. If Obama gets into office along with a majority Democratic Congress tha can’t be filibustered, I fully expect we’ll see $6 pe gallon gas before very long. Not to mention a very deep and painful recession.

His article is an exercise in extreme intellectual and political dishonesty. Luckily, Peter Wehner has thoroughly dissected Obama’s plan in a recent article:

In his New York Times op-ed today on Iraq, Barack Obama makes several claims worth examining.

In his opening paragraph, Obama writes

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

A phased redeployment of combat troops can now be done in the context of a victory in Iraq, whereas when Obama first called for the complete withdrawal of all combat troops in Iraq by March 2008, it would have led to an American defeat. It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.

Obama goes on to write

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda – greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge . . . Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country.

This point cannot be emphasized enough: Obama, in opposing the surge, was wrong on the most important politico-military decision since the war began. He not only opposed the surge, he predicted in advance that it could not succeed and that it would not lead to a decrease in violence (on January 10, 2007, the night President Bush announced the surge, Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” A week later, he repeated the point emphatically: the surge strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.”)

Both predictions were demonstrably wrong….

There’s a lot more. I highly recommend this article. Obama is using the war for political purposes, and even as American progress in Iraq renders Obama’s position untenable, he continues to stick to it dogmatically. If elected, Obama will likely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — meaning countless American lives will have been ultimately sacrificed in vain.

Unfortunately, all too often those words seem to change — dramatically – depending on which way the political wind is blowing. This site will document these changes. A digital directory, if you will, of Obama’s flip-flopping. And just for kicks, we’ll also throw in some value added Obama content. Basically, the best of Obama, from the horse’s mouth — Obama on the record.

Check out the flip-flop list here.

Check out Obama in his own words here.

A quick comment on this site: I do not believe that a flip-flop is a bad thing, per se. In fact, I believe that a candidate that maintains a bad policy position in the face of overwhelming evidence of failure is a fool. So in some cases, flip-flops are entirely appropriate.

A good example of this is, of course, a scenario where external conditions change in unanticipated ways. For example, refusing to extend leases for offshore oil drilling might have been a luxury this country could afford when gas was $2.00 a gallon. But with gas pushing $4.50 a gallon, it’s time to drill. A candidate who rationalizes a policy change based on clearly changing external circumstances has my respect.

But a candidate who changes policy based purely on the election is trying to win at the time is a panderer who lacks the courage of his convictions. He can’t be trusted to act consistently or responsibly if he wins that office.

Therefore, this site is dedicated to maintaining a running list of Barack Obama flip-flops – because he’s a guy who just doesn’t seem to be able to make up his mind. Just to be fair, those that disagree with my list will have the opportunity to justify the position changes, and/or comment on them. I’ve even included an area where we can document the more modest list of McCain flip-flops.