No money from oil…
…companies, says Obama. Just their executives, family members, and employees.
Which of course leaves him free from any taint of oil influence—as opposed to all the other candidates who also do not take money from oil companies, because it’s illegal.
And he never had sexual relations with that woman, either.
It’s not that Obama lies/distorts more than most other politicians, although he certainly doesn’t lie less. What rankles is his profound hypocrisy in holding himself out to be a different breed of politician.
I think that the mantle of “Slick” has been passed to a new generation.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the media lets him get away with it.
It’s weird how Obama’s high-handed hypocrisy makes Hillary’s naked grubbing for votes every which way she can seem refreshing.
I don’t think that Obama has the belly to be president.
I’ve been paying attention these past several months and trying to understand what makes Obama tick and I just don’t get the guy.
Obama reminds me of The Great Gatsby. He’s changed his name, allied himself with dubious characters, aimed himself at success and gone a long way in little time, but really drives him? I don’t think Michelle is Obama’s Daisy. It seems to be an emptiness he’s still trying to fill, as in Dreams from My Father.
And like Jay Gatsby, I think he’s headed for a fall, though not–please God–by murder.
“not one of those politicians”…”pure as the driven snow”….That is sorta hard to accomplish when you learn politics in the Chicago machine, whose last semblance of honesty and transparency occurred sometime before Mrs. O’Leary’s cow cleaned out the city.
In Alexander Cockburn’s formulation, “Senator Slither.”
holding himself out to be a different breed of politician
What’s make him different.
Most if not all do same, that’s why they got votes and elected.
Despite the facts they are truly meaning what the say or believ’en as much as to persuade the public opinion to elected them, well why they spending millions of dollars and massive propaganda median behind them for what paying these millions of dollars for?
Are these millions paid to help the poor people or to be invested in a public service?
“Show me the money!” 😳
What is strange that in this campaign is conspicuosly absent the theme of economics, especially its foreign oil dependence. No serious discussion on nuclear energy, for example, which could not be developed without massive government intervention in issues of regulation, government insured loans to investors and so on.
I liked the one Clinton ad that said “Obama says he doesn’t receive money from oil companies. Well no candidate does. It’s illegal for corporations to give presidential candidates contributions”
Not only “slick”, but take a look at one of BHO’s primary bloggers:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29708_Obamas_Official_Blogger-_A_Hardcore_Marxist#rss
We definitely have the true Manchurian Candidate, and the MSM is behind him!
C’mon Neo, he is a different breed! Not in that he brazenly would lie if you asked him if it were daytime outside, but because he actually seems to believe that given his exalted opionion of himself, it is his right to lie without being questioned about it.
In the past, others just blustered and huffed as a diversionary tactic.
The left does this half truth dance all the time.
one of my favorites was a feminist who was hollaring that a before x date a woman couldnt get a degree from harvard… which was to imply that women werent allowed in harvard, which is a half truth. harvard created radcliffe for women, and harvard for men, so a woman would have a degree from radcliff, and a degree from their was prestigious too.
she said “oh yeah”, i said “yup”, then she bantered that before x date a woman hadnt reached x position in the army… but i informed her they had reached generals in the air force and navy, where women were not so easily in the direct line of fire, and so in army was harder to get promotions.
the point was that the half truth has just enough sugar to help the medicine go down… and if one is not careful, one doesnt realize it.
another one is to link up a minor acceptance of a bad next to a major acceptance of a good…
in this way, in order to accept the point of the good, one has to blindly accept the bad that isnt the focus. if one is not discriminatign one can have a big meal of sweatmeats and never notice the worms
I second Sergey’s bewilderment at the lack of substantive discussion and debate on the economy and energy this Presidential election.
We feel like we’re being swindled all the way around by the Democrats, but not even McCain is giving us a meaty discussion of these issues. Vague genuflections in this direction won’t cut the muster in what everyone is expecting to be an economic and energy crunch.
I mean, seriously, what are we going to do if Al Qaeda and pirates step up their attacks on oil shipments coming out from the Persian Gulf. It’s starting to happen and virtually no one is talking about it.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the media lets him get away with it.
It’s the new template: Hillary is the liar. She’s been lying for many years but they only recently noticed it. The Savior, however, is perfect in all respects and by definition cannot utter imperfect speech.
It’s all part of the plot of that continual installment of The Great Novel all the fiction writers who call themselves journalists have been writing since the sixties. A good novelist always uses contrast in character.
Obama’s followers are falling prey to a psychological and philosophical phenomenon.
In my reading I came across a passage in I. A. Richard’s book, “Principles of Literary Criticism.” In the chapter entitled “The Chaos of Critical Theories,” he had this to say:
There seems to be good reason to suppose that the more simple the object contemplated the more varied the responses will be which can be expected from it. For it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to contemplate a comparatively simple object by itself. Inevitably it is taken by the contemplator into some context, and made part of the larger whole, and under such experimental conditions as have yet been devised it seems not possible to guarantee the kind of context into which it is taken.
So Obama himself supplies the context, the Progressive matrix, hysterical and platitudinous in nature, of hope, change for the sake of change and the Liberal idea of absolution. To Obama’s disciples he is an impeccable artifact, a Holy Grail, and they seem willing to follow him without regard to where he may ultimately lead them.
But once an object, upon closer inspection, is revealed to be mundane and flawed, the spell may be irretrievably broken. This is the task which faces his opponents – to snatch away the veil of sugar-coated banality to reveal the flawed human beneath.
The MSM will labor mightily to prevent this from happening but concealment is more difficult in these days of the internet, blogs and alternative news sources. The memory hole is at least a bit obstructed if not plugged entirely.
not even McCain is giving us a meaty discussion of these issues.
of course not…
duh…
his time to talk will come later..
why should he stop a good fight in which his oponents beat each other up, tear each other down, and rip of each others ‘mask’ covering their sociopathy?
he should just halt and jump in and get messy when his fight comes AFTER theirs?
i dont think so…
though notice how helpful wright was in jumping in today…
nothing like a socialist free for all, where the feminists beat up on the anarchists, who beat up on the socialists, who yell to the communits, who think everyone is fascist… etc.
no… i think its better he wait his turn on this one.
Artfldgr: I agree. McCain is doing exactly what he should. He shouldn’t be “piling on.” When he does take on the candidate it will be fresh in the sense it will be his first time in the fray. There is also a certain inevitability to it: “Your own party raised this issue with you, and you didn’t satisfy them, why shouldn’t I raise it as well? I’m virtually obligated to do so.”
Also, it is difficult enough to arouse an audience when they probably had mainstream media translations of your words before you ever get to them. That problem is made all the worse if it is the fifth or sixth time around. The media introduces so much redundancy into campaigns at the public can burn out fairly early.
Artfldgr Says: “The left does this half truth dance all the time.”
To some extent the far left can’t help it. They are only working with half of the reality of the country. Typically the radical left is comprised of materialists. Materialists do not believe in spirit, soul, religion, etc.. The human is but a piece of meat animated by the electro-chemical mechanics of its system. We are supposed to find the liberal mantra that humans are perfectible to be an optimistic doctrine. However, perfection in this case is on the order of taking a pebble out of your shoe. Whether through the reprogramming/brainwashing of sensitivity groups or the more severe cautery of gulags, the piece of meat learns to march in line with the progam. This is not individual perfection, the kind of self-actualized self-realization that the framers of this country had in mind for a country of sovereign citizens. It is difficult for hardline materialists to grant even the possibility of individuality as opposed to minor variations within a species. The individual is something that never occurs.
If you’re a Marxist, a materialist, human spiritual needs are all mumbo-jumbo. The only needs are material, those generated by the material needs of the body and those materials which satisfy those needs. A hug is no more than material stimulus and response it elicits. Love is no more than its physiological substrata.
Now think about trying to tell the truth that you as a materialist/Marxist hold near and dear to a traditional American audience. How are you going to make them believe that the makeover you propose is going to bring them a better life? How can you tell a person brought up in this culture that they are just a chunk of meat in need of proper programming and make them feel good enough about it to vote for you? A history of applied Marxism is a history of a deceit.
I think Orwell may be the modern Cassandra. If you wish a single (although fictional) embodiment of Marxism, materialism and post-modernism, it is O’Brien, Winston’s “mentor” in the Ministry of Love. And that in addition to Orwell’s depictions of thought crime, double-think and a theory of brain-washing that anticipates the findings of R. J. Lifton and Edgar Schein.
Sergey, the Democrats can’t talk about nuclear energy because their voters are the same folks whose No-Nuke protests arrested the development of nuclear energy in this country in the 80s and 90s. These voters are still boasting about their arrests at the Seabrook nuclear plant protests in New Hampshire back in 1988. And anyway, they are much too busy now with global-warming and no-war-for-oil protests to stop and consider the possibility that they might have been mistaken about nuclear energy back then, or worse, that their mistake contributed mightily to our current dependence on fossil fuels. So, no, the Democrats can’t mention nuclear energy. Way too much cognitive dissonance — much better to blame oil companies, instead.
Of course, that’ doesn’t excuse McCain for failing to bring it up.
holding himself out to be a different breed of politician
So did George W Bush in 2000. Rememeber all that biparisan compassionate conservatism we heard so much about.
Clinton and Blair claimed to be a new breed as well. People have been making that claim for a long, long time.
The problem that Bush faced was an intolerant and hostile national Democrat politicians as opposed to the Democrats in Texas.
Blame the Democrats for engaging in the most petty sort of partisanship I have ever seen in my life.