Political & Elections

So zoosermom, you think that Obama is going to choose the romney route? I'm not so sure he can be that dishonest.

That's funny. Good one.

Being unsure that Obama can be dishonest is like being unsure a leopard can have spots or a zebra can have stripes. It's the nature of the animal.

Look, we all know that politics is the art of spin, and to some degree what one side sees as the truth the other side sees as misrepresentation, or dishonesty. And both sides in this contest, or any other contest, do plenty of it.

But there is a fundamental difference in the hearts and minds of these two men.

Here's a quote from an article the other day by far left talk show host from England, Piers Morgan:

Imagine for a moment an interview with a British politician that went as follows:
Q:  Have you ever drunk alcohol?
A:  No.
Q:  Have you ever taken drugs?
A:  No.
Q:  Have you ever had an affair?
A:  No.
Q:  Have you ever smoked a cigarette?
A:  No.
Q:  Do you ever use swear words?
A:  No.

Now imagine that politician was actually telling the truth. Short of Ann Widdecombe, I can’t think of a single MP in our illustrious nation’s history who would be able to answer ‘no’ to more than half these questions.

I’m fairly sure Boris Johnson, the man who might well be our Prime Minister one day, would rack up a resounding 100 per cent ‘yes’ rate.

But when I interviewed Romney for my CNN show, he proudly answered all those questions to me in the firm negative. He is a devout Mormon and takes his faith so seriously that he donates at least ten per cent of his income to the church every year – totalling tens of millions of dollars over the past two decades.

The reason he can give away so much money is that he was a fantastically successful businessman, estimated to have made a $250 million fortune from his time running Bain, a venture-capital firm.

In person, he’s charming, polite, friendly and solicitous. He’s also a great father and grandfather, according to his devoted sons, and a great husband, according to Ann, the woman who was his teenage sweetheart and who he’s helped nurse with deep compassion through her ongoing battle with multiple sclerosis.

Morgan goes on to call Romney possibly the greatest flip-flopper ever, but then adds:

But how much does Romney’s flip-flopping actually matter to the result of the election? The main concern for Americans right now is the economy, after all. I asked Bill Clinton recently if he felt Romney was a ‘principled man’ and Clinton smiled: ‘That’s not the issue to me.’

And I suspect it’s not for most voters either. They just want to know which man, Romney or Obama, is going to revive the economy faster.

Morgan's conclusion is in the title of his article, in which he says I Belive Mitt Romney Might Just Save America.

Now, contrast that with Obama.

Have you read Rules for Radicals? The essence of being a "community organizer" is to appear to be something you're not; it is to ingratiate yourself with your desired constituencey through fake empathy and fake sincerity, and then to leverage the power thus gained to achieve what you really want; it is to hide what you really want (to "fundamentally transform" America) inside a trojan horse of platitudes and tropes that sound great but mean nothing (Hope and Change). It is a con, nothing less, and Obama is a master; so much so that he was not only its greatest student, but also its greatest teacher, save possibly for Saul Alinsky. He is not just lying. This type of dishonesty is essential to his being. Dishonesty is in his bones. It is who he is.

Do you understand what "fundamentally transform America" really means?

Read "I Am The Change" by Charles R. Kesler. You'll see. From the very beginning, progressives like Obama have desired and worked for nothing less than to eviscerate the Constitutional principles of negative liberty which seek to protect people FROM the government and replace them with Marxist/Socialist/Progressivist/Liberal ideals of positive liberty and “rights” like free health care for all provided BY the government. The progressive ideal is, in true fact, the exact opposite of America's founding ideal.


From a review of that book by Jeffrey H. Anderson:


Wilson waged something of a frontal assault on the American Founders. He had little regard for the Constitution or its protections—the separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism—against consolidated power, and hence tyranny. He regarded the Founders as simpler men, from a simpler time, who frankly had gotten it wrong. Government shouldn’t be limited; it should be emancipated—and empowered.

Wilson generally failed to convince Americans that the Founders had been wrong, which limited his ability to advance the liberal agenda. But Franklin Roosevelt had far greater success. As Kesler once put it when speaking at a conference, by avoiding a frontal assault on the Founders, FDR took one step backward to take two steps forward. Roosevelt conveyed that the Founders had gotten things right—for their time. Their assertion of unalienable, God-given rights was correct; it just needed to be supplemented with new (government-given) “rights.” This sounded fine, Kesler said, if one didn’t look too closely at the details; those who did would see that these new “rights” were inevitably provided at the expense of unalienable rights—particularly the right of property, but also of liberty. After all, if you have a “right” to, say, health care, then someone else has a corresponding duty to treat you—and pay for it.
…
As Kesler notes, FDR particularly tried to enlist Thomas Jefferson as a symbolic ally, putting his image on the nickel and building and dedicating the Jefferson Memorial. Yet one Jefferson quote found in that memorial’s basement (where the quotes weren’t chosen during the Roosevelt administration) crystalizes their differences: “The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management.” That’s not something you’d hear from Wilson, FDR, or Lyndon Johnson—or Obama.

Kesler’s readers will be struck by how much Obama has learned from Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, and how little he has learned from Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln. True, Obama’s “rare combination of Ivy League degrees and Chicago street cred, of high-sounding post-partisanship and hard-core partisanship” often “leaves people guessing.” Kesler notes his “soothing and disingenuous language,” and writes, “Notice how craftily .  .  . Obama shifts his examples of social duty from picking up the fallen to sending someone else’s kids to college.”

Like FDR before him, Obama is a liar in his cells. It is not just something he does as part of the spinning which is a natural part of politics, it is who he is at the core. He is a con man. His goal to "fundamentally transform" America, if allowed to succeed, will change the country into something that will achieve the exact opposite of liberalism's stated goals of so-called "fairness," "equality," and "justice," which are anything but. This is not hyperbole. This is not polemics. This is simple truth which, sadly, liberals are too deluded by the good intentions of their myopic, one dimensional moralty of "care" to be able to see.

-- Edited by winchester on Tuesday 16th of October 2012 01:29:01 PM

I think Obama is going to be spectacularly, flamboyantly dishonest in this upcoming debate.  I hope Romney is prepared for how to address that.