An interesting pattern...

I was reading Instapundit today and came across some wording in one of the articles that Glenn Reynolds linked to that suddenly flipped a switch in my mind... I'm starting to see a pattern in the op-ed coverage of the Obama transition. Everyone is sifting through the scant tea leaves of his policy past trying to find some clue as to what, exactly, this guy intends to do.

Now again, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that President Obama will enact a string of legislative bits of genius the likes of which the world has never seen, but it strikes me again and again how little we know about this man we just elected our president.

Here's a few examples.

"I analyzed Obama’s record on gun rights during the campaign, concluding that he had not been consistent on the issue."

Now ultimately, the author comes to the conclusion that gun owners don't have much o fear from an Obama Presidency, but he also makes it clear that this conclusion is a leap of faith.

A similar sentiment is expressed in this piece on Obama and the drug war...

"Yet President-elect Barack Obama has retreated from his support for marijuana decriminalization, and his position on medical marijuana remains ambiguous. His reticence on these issues suggests he may disappoint those who hope the Obama administration will move drug policy in a less punitive, more tolerant direction."

And again, a leap of faith is the ultimate conclusion for that piece as well.

Rush Limbaugh has been playing a great piece of audiotape lately, as well. It's Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, right before the election, discussing how no one really knows Obama's worldview, and in particular, what he thinks about the future of US/China relations. Rush's comment was sort of genius "Gee Tom, if only there were some sort of investigative organization we could turn to for those answers..."

I've also read at least two articles (though I can't find them now so perhaps it's not fair to mention them) that used exactly the same wording... "It's difficult to know how this would affect President Obama's policy on..." And the reason it's difficult is because you often can't find a coherent explanation of what his policy on a given issue might actually be.

I also doubt the ACLU would feel that this kind of thing is necessary if they were sure he's their guy.

And then I can think of at least five foreign policy instances where he told the American people one thing, and then backchanneled the complete opposite policy position to the foreign nation in question... Poland and missle defense, Columbia and free trade, Canada and free trade, Iraq and troop withdrawal, and Israel and a divided Jerusalem.

I'm just sayin'.... when you get right down to it, we really have no idea what this man is planning to do. Again, no reason to panic until he actually does something, regardless, I'm getting a tingle somewhere, but it ain't up my leg, and it ain't an entirely pleasant sensation.