Barack Obama and the Willing Suspension of Disbelief
I wrote an article after the election about President-elect Obama, appealing to civility that he be given a clean slate to work with from November 4th forward. That lasted less than 72 hours with his announcement of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff (in violation of change); making a cryptic joke about Nancy Reagan during a press conference that made Obama look very presidential, indeed; and his nuanced vote of present in addressing the economy during the same press conference. With anticipation from the markets of his announcing a Treasury Secretary or even suggesting he would not increase taxes immediately–the markets crashed. With that said, the slate is soiled and the gloves should be removed, post haste.
Obama has lied incessantly during his political career. Not the type of lying one would expect for political expediency, but with manufactured lies encompassed with a pathological urgency.
There were 126,558,818 votes cast in the presidential election. Obama received 66,744,472 or 52.7%; McCain received 58,272,729 or 46%; other candidates received 1,541,617 or 1.2%. Obama disgorged one substantiated lie after another daily to the American people. 66,744,472 or 52.7% American citizens voluntarily voted for a candidate they knew was lying to them daily. Perhaps it is far fetched to state that all who voted for him knew he was lying and voted for him anyway, but when presented on a daily basis with one contradictory statement after another from Obama, one would either have to choose to overlook the pathological nature of his lies, or be too blinded with any of the ensuing voter bloc breakdowns below to discern the difference–either one is just as bad as the other.
97% of blacks that voted, voted for Obama– he lied, but he was black, so he got their vote. The white vote he received was because he was a liberal, and he was not Bush or McCain, between who these voters could not distinguish the difference–he lied, but he was not Bush or McCain, and got their vote. The Jewish vote was because he is a liberal something or other–he lied, but he was not a conservative, so he got their vote. 66% of Hispanics voted for Obama because, well who the hell knows why, after McCain committed political suicidium with his base by crafting a sword out of the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill, then unceremoniously falling on it. The Hispanics turned out to be McCain’s Judas Iscariot.
Of Obama’s lies, other than the lies he told about infanticide, the lies he told about his relationships with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright were the most offensive because one villainous character attacked America with bombs, and the other attacked America with a polluted soul that spewed hate from the pulpit.
William Ayers, the capitalist-hating domestic terrorist, is out, at this very moment, capitalizing on Obama’s win by hawking his new book so he can enjoy the pleasant side effect of capitalism–money. While making the rounds of the morning talk shows, he was asked about his relationship with Obama. His remarks:
“We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign. But right-wing commentators tried to use those connections to smear Obama,” he writes in the forward of his book.
“Obama’s political rivals and enemies apparently saw an opportunity to deepen a dishonest narrative about him, that he is somehow un-American, alien, linked to radical ideas, a closet terrorist, a sympathizer with extremism,” he said.
Contrast this with Obama’s flippant remarks about their relationship during a debate between him and Clinton, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” I am not sure what exactly constitutes an endorsement, but conventional wisdom would dictate that if someone held a fundraiser for a political candidate in their home, that would be an official endorsement.
In regard to Wright, compare and contrast the two statements by Obama at different points in time, and the relevance of convenience:
On March 27, 2004, Obama was interviewed by Chicago Sun-Times religion writer, Cathleen Falsani. The interview was not released in full until after the election for obvious reasons. Obama’s comments about Trinity United Church of Christ:
“One of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.”
Falsani asked, “Do you still attend Trinity?”
“Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service.
I actually wrote a book called ‘Dreams from My Father,’ it’s kind of a meditation on race. There’s a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.”
After the firestorm over Wright’s anti-American, vitriolic sermons hit the national news, Obama started singing a different tune about his church-going schedule and his relationship with Wright. When asked on the campaign trail in 2008 about Wright and the church by Major Garrett of Fox News, after Wright had become persona non grata to genteel folks, Obama said:
Garrett: “As a member in good standing, were you a regular attendee of Sunday services?”
Obama: “You know, I won’t say that I was a perfect attendee. Trinity was always packed, and so you had to get there early. And if you went to the morning service, you were looking at-it just was difficult.”
Barack Obama is cool and suave; his lying is not forced, but very natural–a very practiced professional. He is cool and suave even while under the influence of a willing suspension of disbelief. Maybe that is why he is so popular with 52% of the voting sect–perhaps they believe if we were all better liars, the world would be a better place, or then again, maybe looking at Obama is the same as looking in the mirror and identifying with what they see.
Comments (6)
Obama’s lying appears pathological.
He also counts on the public being unable to comprehend that someone could lie so frequently and about everything.
That’s because more of them have some shred of morality and cannot imagine anyone living in such fraud as he does.
That’s the disbelief: No one could be that big of a liar, could they?
Meet Barack Hussein Obama, whose words appears to mean only what he said, until the last syllable is uttered and the sound of that last syllable fades away.
Thus what he says never connects to what he just said or is about to say.
Nice con, eh?
But, then, he needs suckers to believe the con.
I see nothing inconsistent with Senator Obama saying, in 2004, when he was living in Chicago, that he attended Trinity every Sunday, and then four years later, after he had been living in Washington most of the time as a US Senator, in saying that his attendance at Trinity was less than perfect. Calling that a lie is really a stretch.
Timing is the problem.
Obama stated many times he never heard Wright give all the sermons that were anti-American, anti-Semite: God Damn America, chickens come home to roost after 9/11, etc. 2008 was four years after Obama said he went every Sunday. But the difference is he was either lying in 2004 or 2008. I pick 2008 after the Wright mess hit the media. Or perhaps he was lying in 2004 try to solidify his Christian persona. Which one is more damaging?
Politicians lie. Period. It’s one of the job’s requirements, so I’m not sure what’s so earth shattering about this. You hear what you want to hear when things are as effed up as they are now (and there can be no dispute that they are, regardless of your political affiliation), especially for the portion of the population that voted for “Change”.
The choice of Emanuel as Chief of Staff is simply brilliant politics: it’s just political “good-cop, bad-cop”.
The Bill Ayers line is old and tired. I went to high school with a dude that later in life shot and killed someone. If you try hard enough, I bet you can somehow make me an accomplice.
The only credence the Reverend Wright criticism carries is that it calls into question Obama’s judgment. Not for attending the church, but for continuing to attend after the controversial remarks were made, considering his political aspirations. As far as the Reverend is concerned, he is exercising his freedom of speech. Don’t have to like what he says, but since I am primarily a white male born in this country, I have no idea what it is like to suffer from prejudice of any sort, so I give him props for not being an Uncle Tom.
Obama’s election instantly improves our international standing. As the once (and hopefully future) leader of the free world, it’s about freaking time we had a minority leading us.
The election is over and Obama won fairly handily. Let’s see what he can do, now that he has the ball. At least give him the opportunity to get sworn in and actually do something as president before declaring his presidency a failure.
Sure politicians lie. But not to the extent that Obama has about his past—or just misunderstood many times. The people who voted for change because of the economy are fools because the economy’s current state is primary a product of the Democrat forcing the financial markets to be in the welfare business. A change on that would have been a different election result. Emanuel for Chief of Staff, and Holder for Attorney General–and, if the rumors are true, Clinton for Secretary of State is hardly change.
Bill Ayers is not old and tired. Time should not diminish his role as a
terrorist—and an unrepentant one at that. He is relevant not only because he is a terrorist, but because he establishes a long list of unsavory characters Obama has associated with. That is the
relevance. Your example is in reverse: I went to high school with a dude that later in life shot and killed someone. If you try hard enough, I bet you can somehow make me an accomplice. If your high school friend shot and killed someone, then you decided to become friends with him, then it would be a good analogy.
To go to a radical sermon at Reverend Wright’s church once knowing his divisiveness, could be considered bad judgment, but to go there for 20 years is an affirmation. Wright does have a 1st Amendment right to say what he wants. But that does not protect Obama, nor does it make it right. I have the right to say whatever I want, but to do so in a radical and hateful way would preclude me from advancing in any endeavor that required razor sharp judgment—which I would hope a leader would possess. For hypothetical reasons, assume Wright was a bad judgment call. Then add to the mix, Sirhan Sirhan, Rezko, Phleger, Farrakhan, ACORN and what you have is an entire political career defined by bad judgment calls. Indeed, hardly someone capable of leading a country.
As far as the improving our relations in the world, I could care less what the populace of a mostly socialist Europe thinks of America. They were bitching about us as we were saving their asses twice last century. I can assure you their leaders do not share their sentiment. As usual it is our capitalist system and willingness to use our military for their defense and very existence, that should, and probably will, give them pause if Obama follows through with his plans for our military, and national defense—as our power and its determent goes, so goes the EU.
It is not about time we had a minority leading us… it is a about time we had a true leader leading us, regardless of race.
I never declared his presidency a failure. Only he can make it a failure. But his mantra of change is a bit off, and his promise to appoint outside the beltway is already broken. It doesn’t matter to me because he did not lie to me about his hope and change, and it is not a promise to me that he will have to break. It is with the myriad groups and sub-groups that believe he will make good on all his promises, even though most of his promises contradict each other
If there was any real meat behind any of these questionable affiliations, there would have been much more of a smear campaign run, either by the McCain camp or Swift Boat organizations.
It has occurred to me that Obama has had his eye on the Cracker House very early on. His seat in the senate was just a stepping stone and he knew it would be, hence his habit of voting “Present” so not to muddy his record. Again, political genius.
Fort that same reason, though, I don’t understand why he continued to hang with the Rev. He needed that association to get elected to the senate, but once he had that seat, I’m surprised that he didn’t start to distance himself.
I like Rev. Wright for the simple reason that he makes white people uncomfortable.
For the record, I was neither an Obama nor a McCain supporter. I felt that both candidates sucked and I threw my vote away by voting for the Libertarian ticket. My theory is that we will continue to get terrible candidate after terrible candidate until there is a viable third party. This won’t happen until they become eligible for campaign financing. And you won’t see a true leader until that time.