In "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish," the late always-to-be-lamented Douglas Adams did a scene in which Arthur Dent sensed the world as it was experienced by all the different lifeforms that inhabited it. He said this about sheep:

From another direction he felt the sensation of being a sheep startled by a flying saucer, but it was virtually indistinguishable from the feeling of being a sheep startled by anything else it ever encountered, for they were creatures who learned very little on their journey through life, and would be startled to see the sun rising in the morning, and astonished by all the green stuff in the fields.

He was surprised to find he could feel the sheep being startled by the sun that morning, and the morning before, and being startled by a clump of trees the day before that. He could go further and further back, but it got dull because all it consisted of was sheep being startled by things they'd been startled by the day before.

Doug might as well been refering to the U.S. political press. Election after election after election, the Republicans run the same game plan. Between the time the Democratic candidate clinches the nomination and the convention, they begin a full court press to portray the presumptive nominee as a flip-flopper. The day after the Democratic convention, they shift over do demonizing him as that most dreadful political creature, a liberal.

It's remarkably silly. Opportunistic flip-flopper who changes positions at the slightest change in prevailing political winds or most liberal politician since Eugene Debs, a rigid doctrinaire ideologue who votes the liberal position every single time, without fail. Those are seemingly mutually exclusive categories. Unless, of course you're a political reporter covering the Democratic candidate in a U.S. presidential election year. Then the candidate is a flip flopper before the convntion and a liberal after, every time.

Baaaaaahhhh.

This strategy was invented by those cut-ups who worked for Ronnie in '84. They used on Mondale that year. Then they used it on Dukakis in '88, and on Bill in '92, and on Gore in '00, and on Kerry in '04. It is as predicable as the sun rising in the morning and clumps of trees in pastures. Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't. in '92, Poppy went out and ate some waffles to make his point that Bill was a "waffler," and there was much giggling, then, after the convention, he dutifully declared Bill a "tax and spend liberal," but he still got handed his ass in November.

In 1988, 2000 and 2004, it went like clockwork and worked like a charm. Duke? Waffler. Can't pin him down on anything. Until the convention, of course, after which the MSM was astonished to discover that Dukakis was a card carrying memeber of the ACLU who opposed the pledge of allegience and freed murderous negros to prey on white women. And look at him in that tank, trying to pretend he won't sell us out to the Soviets the minute he and his flag burning wife are in office.

Gore? Big fat lying liar who'll say whatever he has to say to get votes. Until the Convention, after which he was the ozone man, a dangerous environmental dogmatist who had the most liberal record in the Senate in his day.

Kerry? He voted for the 80 billion before he voted against it, yuck, yuck, yuck. Until the convention when, to their horror, the MSM discovered he was the most liberal senator ever. Voted liberal every time, regardless of what his constituients thought about it.

The predictability should have reduced it to an eye-rolling banality for our MSM. They should, indeed, have done a number eye-rolling stories  about it by now to show us how slick and sophisticated and savvy they are.  Instead, every time the Republicans roll it out, the political press acts like they've crested a hill and discovered some brilliant, fresh and delicious insight. Touched along by the Republican's shepherd's crook, they are giddily startled to discovery that the presumptive Democratic nominee is a flip-flopping waffler. And then, after the convention, they are astonished to discover he's a liberal.

Baaaaaaahhhhh. Flippppp - flopppppper. Baaaahhhhhh.

Baaaahhhhhh. Librullllllll. Baaaaaaaah.

And so it begins again. Now McCain is screaming that Obama has "changed" his position on gun control and the death penalty and public financing and FISA and NAFTA and Iraq. And, once again, the MSM plays along, nodding approvingly (for now) at his very conventional move from the left to the center.

The problem is that he's changed his position on some of those things, but not all of them.  Doesn't matter.  It's June and he's the Democratic nominee, so one frame fits all facts. 

Obama said, in his last book, published two years ago, that his study of the issue as a Con law professor had led him to the conclusion that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to own guns and that campaigning in rural areas and talking to people there had led him to an appreciation of the importance of gun ownership to rural voters--not just that it was important to them, but why it was important to them.  He said he thought a constructive dialog was needed, and could be had, about why what was appropriate gun regulation on a rural area was different from what was appropriate in a densly populated city. He later opined that the DC handgun ban was constitutional, i.e. not inconsistent with an individual right to own guns subject to sensible regulation. He was one Justice off from being right. No change in position. Just an incorrect prediction how how the Supreme Court would apply a position he had already indicated he shared.

However, it's June, so Obama must be a flip-flopper. He said he thought the DC gun ban was constitutional therefore he must have been saying there was no individual right to own guns of any kind, therefore pointing out that he had always said there was an individual right to own guns means he's a flip flopper.

Obama has not changed his position on Iraq. One to two brigades a month, out in sixteen months. He's been rock solid on that, month after month, since this time last year. However, it's June so Obama must be a flip flopper. Thus, if al-Maliki says he talked to Obama and is satisfied that Obama won't withdraw the troops precipitiously, that must be totally inconsistent with "one to two brigades a month, out in sixteen." Because he's a flip flopper, ya see. Ergo, ipso facto baby. Baaaaaahhhhhh.

Public financing? Obama said, he'd try to make a deal with the Republican nominee if they could reach some agreement about getting 527's under control so he didn't get Swift Boated. Obama got the Democratic 527's under control unilaterally. Turned out to be pretty easy: he went to the party fat-cats and said: "please don't donate to 527's" and, amazingly, they didn't. The Democratic 527's that had already been set up dried up and blew away in a matter of weeks. McCain said "golly, there's just nothing I can do to keep those guys from doing whatever they want with their money.  They're totally beyond my control." And, amazingly, next thing you know the Republican 527's are bloating up like ticks on a deer. Obama says, fine. No deal. What's all that mean? It means Obama's a flip-flopper. It's June, ergo ipso facto, plain as the nose on your face.

Baaahhhhh.

Dealth penalty? Obama has always said he's for it under narrow circumstances, assuming there are apprpriate safeguards. Supreme say, 5-4, it is not proper in cases of child rape. Obama says, as a father, I can't be objective about this--I'd be for it under those circumstances. You can be with him on that or against him, but it isn't a flip flop. Unless it's June and you're in the MSM.

Baa-aaa-ahaa-ahhhhh.

NAFTA? Okay, that's looking pretty flippy to me. Remains to be seen whether it's a flop.

FISA? Sorry, just too many angles, and too many moving parts to characterize it in such a manichean fashion. The "compromise" bill is different than the one being peddled by the Senate Intelligence Committee and he says he's still against telecom immunity. He said he was willing to filibuster the old bill, but says he's not willing to filibuster this one. There's lot's of room for disappointment and anger from our side of the field about it, and plenty of things to get upset about if you are so-inclined. No question about that. But a "flip flop?"  That shoe doesn't fit. 

Unless, of course, you're in the MSM and it's June. Baaaahhhh.

And, coming in August--Did you know Obama is the most liberal senator ever?

Baaaaahhhh.