Michael Smerconish is thinking of voting for Obama. The Philly talk radio host let it be known while subbing for Dan Abrams on tonight's "Verdict" on MSNBC. He actually did so, chatting with Ron Reagan, while criticizing Obama's flip-flops. But the bottom line is the bottom line.
SMERCONISH: I want to think big picture, and I want to do so by showing you a piece of that which was published in today's Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer, if we can put that up on the screen:The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician . . . When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renogiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily . . . By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.
That's Charles Krauthammer. Ron, I voted for the first time in 1980 for your dad. I have never voted for a Democrat for president. I voted for plenty of Democrats, but never for president. I've not ruled it out in this cycle, because I like this guy. But the events of the last 10 days or so make him seem status quo, make him seem like just a run-of-the-mill politician.
View video here.
So Smerconish is considering voting for Obama because he "likes" him? I mean, Obama might be a perfectly good guy to have in a group going to see Rashomon at the local indie movie house and chat about things afterward over a decent glass of Chardonnay. But what kind of Republican would consider voting for someone to the left of Barbara Boxer on abortion, who has said that Breyer, Bader Ginsburg and Souter are the kind of Supreme Court justices he admires, and who would leave the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of al Qaeda regardless of what his generals are telling him about progress on the ground?
Something to consider next time MSNBC would rebut charges of bias by pointing to Smerconish's presence on its panels.