Not only conservatives are asking this question…moderates and liberals are wondering, too. Neo-Neocon has finally figured out something about Obama: nearly everybody’s trying to figure out Obama.
Obama’s obfuscating and lawyerly language, his deliberate vagueness, and his propensity to lie without blinking, coupled with his affable personality and the unprecedented protection afforded by the press, constitute a carefully constructed screen. But his actions are troubling, even to the Left, who continue to make excuses for his ineptitude; and to the middle (take a look at this by Mickey Kaus, for example) who want to think he’s a thoughtful moderate but see little evidence for it any more. The Right (and I include myself here) thinks it knows that Obama is a man of the far Left, but we argue and wonder about just how far he wants to go, and how successful he will be.
One of the reasons Obama has been a relative cipher compared to past presidents is at least partly because each of them had a longer track record in the public eye than Obama did. It is also partly because they were more forthcoming about their pasts (a good example is the release of academic records). But it is also because they were basically upfront about who they were and what they intended, and/or the press was still doing at least some of its homework back then.
Let us discuss Obama’s propensity to lie without blinking. Are at least a significant number of Americans of all political stripes by now noticing that Obama has no compunction about lying if it suits his needs at any given moment?
For instance, is it possible that he is so uninformed about ACORN, that he was not aware that they have been receiving millions of dollars in federal funds for years, and thanks to several bills he’s signed this year, were eligible for billions more? Is it possible that he has not been paying attention to the spectacular implosion of a group he has been so profoundly, and proudly connected to for decades? He said those things without blinking, and many of us who were watching, yelled out at our t.v. screens, “You lie!” when he said them.
These “You lie!” moments happen on an almost daily basis with Obama, which is why so many conservatives applauded Joe Wilson after his rude, but proven to be correct outburst at Obama’s joint session speech. It was about time someone called him out on it.
Yesterday on Fox News, Charles Krauthammer tried to reconcile Obama’s March announcement of his “comprehensive, new” Afghanistan strategy (which Krauthammer read aloud, because “it’s as if it never happened”) to Obama’s more recent admission that he has no strategy. Last March, Obama cheerfully read words off of a teleprompter. Whether or not what he was saying was true didn’t matter as long as it helped him get through the day.
A unified field theory of Obama would explain all his moves. I think that the idea that he is a covert far Leftist and statist up to no good does exactly that. But saying that aloud is still unconscionable to most people (not to mention racist!). And the difference between Bill Ayers and Obama is that, although Ayers may not be the most straightforward guy in the universe, he’s honesty itself compared to Obama. The reason for Obama’s stealth is clear, however: a person as far to the Left as Obama could not be elected President of the US while being clear and upfront about his agenda, so dissemblance about the essential self and its goals is required.
A discussion ensues about Obama the man verses Obama the President, and she concludes:
It is still possible to speculate on what drives Obama the Man—as one can do endlessly about most people with character disorders, or con men or sociopaths. But it’s a losing game, and not necessary.
We may never know much about Obama the Man, but I believe we now know enough about Obama the President, despite his efforts to hide: he is a statist of the far Left, who wants to implement a statist Leftist agenda for America both domestically and in foreign affairs, and he will do everything he can to achieve these goals.
I recently came upon an interview of Debbie Revor, who once worked for Obama, that sheds some light what “Obama, the man”, Obama, the “community organizer” is like:
Q. What was your impression of Sen. Obama?
A. He wasn’t friendly and was standoffish and arrogant from the start of my job there. My first impression was that I didn’t like him because of this arrogance.
Q. What were his duties with the law firm to the best of your knowledge?
A. Obama was an associate at the firm and had been there about two years. I saw him have meetings with the other attorneys and he helped with hearings and did prep work for trials. Obama probably did other things too, but I wasn’t his personal secretary. These are the things I observed him do or heard his secretary talk about.
Q. You told me the law firm you worked for dealt with civil rights. So would it be safe to say Obama was a champion for the downtrodden and less fortunate? What were your personal impressions of Obama? Did he seem like helping the poor was his primary agenda?
A. I didn’t feel at the time Obama cared about the downtrodden and less fortunate and I still don’t feel that way. I didn’t see any proof of that at all during the 11 months I worked there. I don’t have any knowledge of Obama helping in the community in any way. We as legal secretaries weren’t paid very much there and he could’ve started helping with that – speaking up about the low pay we had. I didn’t see that he cared about our state in life. I also saw him act in ways that were very self-serving, self-focused and ambitious.
Read the entire interview. It is very revealing.
The always succinct Pamela Geller asks, stupid or evil?
Stupid or evil. Most folks, even critics, say that Obama is hopelessly naive. I have heard John Bolton (no Obama supporter) say it more than once. Nonsense. You don’t consistently choose the side of evil by accident. It is no accident that Obama consistently defers to evil. It cannot be. It cannot be an accident, a coincidence that Obama consistently sides with evil.
In his short yet consequential tenure as President, he has unwaveringly taken the side of wrong, of malevolence — the haters of liberty and individual rights. He stands against long time friends and allies of America — Israel, the people of Iran, Honduras, Poland, Czech Republic. He runs interference for the most evil despots on the face of the earth — Ahmadinejad (isran), Chavez (Venezuela), ex-KGB Putin (Russia), Islamist Erdogan (Turkey), Castro (Cuba).
Obama wants us to slash our nuclear arsenal (the superiority that has kept us safe for decades). Mind you, this is fresh on the heels of the Muhammadan-led International Atomic Energy Agency admitting that Iran can make a nuclear bomb.
Armaros opined, “Not only does he want to disarm the US, but also the UK and France.
The French have already given him the finger. Oh La La (those racist radical neocon French) will not submit to the Obaummah. Thank God, at least they are still refusing to surrender to demon cult calling itself a religion.”
Europe will be pleading for the likes of George W. in no short order.
It’s going to get much worse; we have yet to see the full horror of O’s foreign policy.
Gird your loins.
Hat tip Ed Driscoll.
Editor’s note: Sorry if this post ended abruptly, I had to rush off to a dental appt.
More on this theme from David Limbaugh, who says, Americans Have Caught on to Undeterred Obama.
Obama obviously hedged his bets and campaigned as an optimistic reformer, sending clear signals to the far left that he was one of them and, like any good radical, seduced significant numbers of others with center-right language, from praising the free market to pledging his undying loyalty to America’s national defenses.
Unfortunately for Obama, he allowed his extraordinarily high opinion of himself, exacerbated by sycophantic handlers and a fawning press, to delude himself into believing he could unload his destructive socialist agenda on America at hyper-speed without losing the people’s faith and trust a major miscalculation.
Paradoxically, then, we are unintended beneficiaries of this man’s unparalleled arrogance, without which he might have been shrewder about dismantling America’s institutions brick by brick.
People have caught on to Obama now. They’re informed and engaged. They see the abject absurdity of his claiming on “Face the Nation” that the federal budget can’t sustain our inflationary healthcare costs at the same time he is deliberately expanding our federal deficits and national debt into the multitrillion-dollar stratosphere. They see through his indignant denials to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who deserves kudos, that his proposed penalty on those refusing to buy health insurance is a tax.
They see his narcissism in rejecting any political dissent from his ambitious agenda as unreasonable, rude, uncivil, and bickering while dubbing himself the exemplar of civility and calling the rest of us liars. They see his hypocrisy and megalomania in threatening to “call out” anyone who misrepresents his plan, which means anyone who has the temerity to challenge him on his myriad deceptions. Niccolo Machiavelli would be proud.