Back in the 1980 presidential debate, Ronald Reagan brushed aside Jimmy Carter’s attacks with the remark, “There you go again.”  While the Gipper used the expression to dismiss the then-President’s baseless accusations, perhaps we should use it in this campaign to highlight the attempts of Carter’s candidate to rewrite his record.

Just today, the presumptive Democratic nominee claimed, “What I said even at the time of the debate of the surge was that when you put 30,000 American troops on the ground, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s no doubt about that.“ (Statement at 6:05 minute mark.)

What he actually said at the time:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal. . . . .I think he is wrong.

I guess since the “surge” succeeded, Obama now wants us to believe he always supported it, even if he refuses to acknowledge its success.

The guy misrepresents his own record — and not for the first time.  If he were a Republican, this rewriting of history would headline the news.

Once again, Obama does stand for change, changing what he stands for to suit the needs of the moment.

UPDATE:  Editors at USA Today ask: Why can’t Obama admit the obvious? The surge worked. (Via Instapundit.)

UP-UPDATE: Obama, a “serial liar“? One blogger speculates . . . .

I had always believed Hillary Clinton put on the centrism which defined the better part of her Senate career (well, until she started seeing challenges emerging in the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination) as a guise to grease the wheels for this fall’s general election.

After all, before her election to the Senate in 2000, she often seemed the liberal ballast to her husband’s leadership in the Democratic Leadership Council which tried to move their party to the center.

In the Democratic campaign this year, she first moved to the left to try to outflank Senator Obama, then later to the right to appeal to blue collar constituencies in the states whose primary contests came late in the game.

Once she had lost that game, she seems to have reverted to her pre-2000 form, voting against the FISA reform her erstwhile primary opponent had long opposed, but suddenly backed as he felt the need to move to the center in anticipation of the fall campaign.

Now that her presidential hopes seem perpetually dimmed, she’s back to voting her liberal conscience. A conscience she once scorned in pursuit of political advantage.

I haven’t really had the chance to follow the hearings conducted by the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel concerning the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. From the video clips I’ve seen on You Tube and press reports (e.g. this National Review column), it appears that I’ve been missing some dramatic political theater. I guess part of the reason I haven’t been following this more closely is that the status of DADT will not change this election year and the same tired arguments from the pro-ban side can be overly tedious. I suppose hearings like this one though do help lay the groundwork for eventual repeal, which I hope happens soon. Yet I read today’s column by Dana Milbank and think he makes a good point: pro-ban advocates like Elaine Donnelly hurt their cause more and more each time they open their mouths. From what Milbank and others report, along with Donnelly’s own testimony, I’m somewhat encouraged that the policy’s days are numbered. While Donnelly’s performance yesterday enraged folks like disabled Marine veteran Eric Alva, who opposes the ban, it also helped in “torpedoing her own ship”. I do not know Alva personally but was privileged to meet him at a SLDN event last year. My impression of him is that he is a good man who has sacrificed a lot in service to our country. Donnelly’s inability to show discretion and tact in defending her position was unwise and insulting to veterans like Alva, which perhaps in the long-run will help in repealing this stupid ban.

Perhaps most interesting to me though from Milbank’s column is this exchange between Donnelly and a Republican Congressman, who was very unimpressed with her shoddy performance:

Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) pointed a finger at [retired Navy Capt. Joan] Darrah and glared at Donnelly. “Would you please tell me, Miss Donnelly, why I should give one twit about this woman’s sexual orientation, when it didn’t interfere one bit with her service?”

Donnelly said something about “forced intimacy.”

Shays cut her off. “You’re saying she has no right to serve her country because she happens to have a different sexual orientation than you.” [...]

Shays, his voice rising with Yankee indignation, continued to lecture Donnelly: “I think the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is unpatriotic. I think it’s counterproductive. In fact, I think it is absolutely cruel.”

Donnelly said something about her respect for the service of gay veterans. “How do you respect their service?” Shays demanded. “You want them out.”

Donnelly seemed to have unified the lawmakers — against her. The next questioner was Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy vice admiral. “I couldn’t ask it better than you did,” he told Shays. (Washington Post)

Not bad Congressman, not bad at all.

UPDATE: Pepe Johnson from Integrity in Service has an interesting post composed of notes he took of the hearings.

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Is it possible? Could it be true? Has public anger over sky-rocketing gas prices finally instilled some backbone into Senate Republicans?

Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed…

Following swift Senate action on the narrow energy bill, Reid wanted the Senate to approve a massive defense authorization bill, an overhaul of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, legislation to protect reporters’ sources, an extension of expiring energy tax incentives, and a major package of 33 bills held up by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

But Republicans are planning to keep the Senate on the energy issue until their demands are resolved. The massive housing-rescue package might be the only other measure that gets valuable floor time before the August recess. (The Hill)

So in other words, Reid planned on only offering an ineffective CYA bill on energy for his fellow Dems while doing nothing to address the problem. Considering the number of filibusters that Senate Democrats employed prior to gaining the majority in 2006, Reid’s complaints are not only hypocritical but truly pathetic. Yes, use wind, solar, geothermal, etc., but let’s not forget the lifeblood of our economy. Drill NOW!

h/t – Hot Air

– John (Average Gay Joe)