LMFAO... really? What principal is that?
It's hard making that claim when your guy just changed his position on gay marriage... and has consistently failed to deliver on empty promises, or just plain changed his political stances to suit the audience in front of him...
So far he's changed positions on
- the surge in Iraq
Few believed the surge would work at the time, especially not the counter-terrorism approach that was originally proposed. In fact, if you go back and read literature covering the run-up to implementing the surge, what you'll find is it wasn't until Gen. Peatraus insisted on using "counter-insurgency" techniques not "counter-terrorism" techniques did things begin to turn around.
- the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq
It's not that President Obama was against removing combat troops from Iraq. It was the conditions underwhich combat troops would be removed and how quickly troop withdrawals would happen. Regardless, I don't think anyone could argue that the President changed his mind about pulling combat troops from Iraq. After all, he opposed the War in Iraq from the start. Therefore, yours is a false argument at best, misleading at worse.
- permanent troops stationed in Iraq
This remains the case. Currently, those military personnal who are still there are "trainers" and are not suppose to be in a combat role.
If GW Bush couldn't close it, what makes you think Obama can especially considering that the war that ushered in the creation of this terrorist detension facilty is still on-going? Yes, he promised to close it, but let's be honest. His hands are virtually tied behind his back on this issue. One the one hand, those who opposed waterboarding and insisted on upholding the Geneva Convention (I include myself here) haven kept the pressure on the President to close this facility. But on the other hand, those who scream national security are the ones making it difficult to try these terrorist whether at military tribunals or in civilian court. This will continue to be a contension position for the President as long as the War in Afghanistant continues.
- the use of military tribunals for terrorists
See my comments above
- permanent detention (calling it prolonged detention)
See my comments above
- the legitimacy of intel gathered from torture
Even those in the U.S. Intelligency community agree that not all information gained through torture is reliable. The Obama Administration got lucky when they did use the the intel on Bin Ladin's couriers to track him down. Still, you really didn't need the intel from torture to figure out you needed to follow the couriers. Folks outside the intelligency community had been saying for years all both the GW Bush and Obama Administrations had to do was place a spy at Al Jaazera and follow the video tapes. It really wasn't that much of a stretch. The intel just took the survellience in another direction. But it was "follow the courier" just the same.
- the Patriot Act surveillance
No one was saying it wasn't important to have the power/authority to trace cell phone conversations. After all, it's long been known that the 911 hijackers used pre-paid cell phones to communicate w/o detection. The problem came in how the gov't violated the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens by using warrantless wiretapes all in the name of "national security" and fighting the "war on terror" that was the problem. Glad that's been corrected somewhat. But let's not get it twisted.
This "threat" has been going on since 1979. Do you really think a trumped up rallying cry to "go to war with Iran" now will make things any different where this country is concerned? You'd best think again.
- srikes in Pakistan, and the unmanned drones
Read both books, "The War Within" and "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward and you may rethink your position here. Obama's never said he wouldn't use predetor drones against Al Qauda terrorist let alone not use them within Pakistan's boarders.
- unilateral military action and pre-emptive strike
What country has this occured against during the Obama Administration? Libya? I suggest you re-think that one. (Not defending the President's actions there necessarily; but I am saying it wasn't a pre-emptive strike.)
Is this the same as "partial-birth abortions"? You may be getting the two confused.
Can't speak to this one; don't know anything about it.
Insisting that NAFTA is re-examined isn't the same as opposing it. Try again...
Agreeing to allow them to continue at a time when the economy could least afford to change the tax structure isn't the same as wanting to keep them permanent. Try again...
- not intending on raising taxes
Granted, (I believe) a tax on tobacco has been implemented, but not personal income taxes. Still, nice try attempting to spin the tax issue.
- opposing raising the debt ceiling
This is 1 of 2 issues I'll give you full credit for. Obama was against raising the debt ceiling until he had to support it last year.
- a religious exception with the prescription drug plan, or a compromise solution
Maybe if you conducted an indepth study on women's health (not to mention read the health care reform law) maybe you'd rethink your opposition here.
- requiring an individual mandate for healthcare
Like Republican's weren't for it before they were against it. Try again...
- support of whistleblowers, and desire to protect them
Don't know if his position here has changed; quote some examples....
- accepting public money for his campaign
You mean asking the voting public for campaign contributions is now wrong? You'll have to explain yourself here.
- accepting donations from lobbyists
I don't recall him saying he wouldn't. Link please where he's said otherwise...
I don't think the presidential candidates can have SuperPACs, only their supporters. But I hear you; President Obama did initially oppose accepting campaign financing from SuperPACs. But if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
So, Obama has been around since 2004 (not even 8 years), and there's already a much long line of inconsistencies, broken promises, changes of position, double talk, shape shifting, etc.
He's even openly admitted it...
He told the Canadians don't listen to his position it's just empty rhetoric during the campaign
He told Putin, give him some space to win the election, then it wont matter what I do...
He told a reporter who asked him about his political expediency...
"This is not politics of the moment, this is about what we can do right now"
He even classified his position on gay marriage as "evolving" DURING THIS VERY ELECTION CYCLE...
So if you want to avoid voting for a candidate whose word means nothing, vote for Obama...