Axelrod admits Obama lied, nation yawns
David Axelrod has made an admission in his new book:
Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.
“I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.
Axelrod writes that he knew Obama was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as Obama publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages. Axelrod also admits to counseling Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ”˜sacred union,’ ” Axelrod writes.
So, let’s recap. Axelrod admits that (a) Obama lied (b) mainly to his religious black supporters (c) about not only his opposition to gay marriage, but about his religious beliefs (d) in order to win election. And then he lied about his change of heart, which was no change at all but a strategic move. And Axelrod admits this in a book called, ironically Believer (I haven’t read the book, but from the title it appears the “believer” is Axelrod as a political animal).
I contend that this changes nothing, and that the lack of change is a mark of the deep cynicism of the American public. For the most part Obama’s supporters will applaud (and many are already doing so, if the comments on this blog are any example). Good on him, if it helped him get elected! is a common reaction, as well as approval that his heart was always in the right place. His critics care—especially because he lied about his religious beliefs, a matter of principle—but this is only just one more offense of Obama’s, and not a surprising one at that.
Many of Obama’s critics either already supported gay marriage in 2008, or have come to support it since 2008, or have come to accept that gay marriage is here to stay whether they support it or not (or will be here to stay when SCOTUS takes it up). Gay marriage, pro or con, is not the issue here. Lying about a material fact, and especially about religious beliefs, in order to deceive the American public—that is the issue.
Over the years Americans have become cynical about lying presidents. Some date that cynicism—or at least a great leap forward for that cynicism—to the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and the fact that Clinton survived it. The left, of course, says “Bush lied” about WMDs, but the right points out that Bush relied on intelligence reports around the world that were mistaken, and that is different than a lie, and that a lie would have been wrong.
The case of Obama and gay marriage is different in several ways. There is no question this was a lie, a falsehood told for political gain about a matter of principle, and the people Obama intended to fool were among his most fervent supporters—black voters. And yet I predict it will make hardly a ripple now.
Axelrod quotes Obama as having told Axelrod “I’m just not very good at bullshitting.” Perhaps Obama didn’t say it, and perhaps it’s just Axelrod’s way of presenting him now as having been sincere in the middle of his lying—as a reluctant, poor liar and therefore really a truth-teller in his heart, with a noble cause. Or perhaps Obama really did say it—but if so he was lying (or mistaken, or too modest) about that because he’s actually an excellent bullshitter.
But he was correct about one thing: he was not such a good bullshitter about that particular topic. I’m not sure how many people Obama’s original lie really convinced at the time he first told it. My guess is that it was enough people to make the lie worth his while to tell.
It occurs to me, watching this video of Obama stating his religious opposition to gay marriage in 2008 at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, that another group of people Obama may have fooled at the time (besides the black churchgoers Axelrod cited) were a fair number of white evangelicals who then went on to vote for him.
You be the judge of how good a bullshitter he was on this issue:
Obama admitted long ago that for many people he acted as a blank screen on which they projected their own views. But the screen isn’t always so blank. He has often carefully projected on that screen whatever he thinks might be a pragmatic image of himself at the time he says it.
Most politicians do that to a certain extent, but Obama does it to a greater degree, and he has become much more open about the fact that he lies, because he realizes that most of America just doesn’t seem to care. This seems relatively new, and bodes ill for the future of the country, because the less we demand of our politicians the less we will get.
[NOTE: I haven’t seen any reactions from the black religious community yet, but it’s possible they might be quite displeased at this news. It’s one thing to change your mind on something; it’s another to lie to religious people about your religious beliefs.]
Let Brian Williams have his job back. If the President can lie, to further his resume, then why shouldn’t anybody else?? We live in an upside down world now, don’t we??
Well … he wuz elected twice wasn’t he?
neo writes, “Some date that cynicism–or at least a great leap forward for that cynicism–to the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and the fact that Clinton survived it.”
Me? I date my cynicism to how President Johnson got us (much more) involved in southeast Asia. “I will not send American boys to fight an Asian boy’s war” or something pretty close to that, he insisted when campaigning against that extremist warmonger Goldwater in 1964.
I recall that after the U2 incident, one of President Eisenhower’s spokes persons maintained that Ike felt so strongly that a President should never lie to the American people, that if a lie were necessary (presumably for good reason; e.g., national security, etc.), he would send a flunky out to do it.
Very interesting concept. Would one of today’s Presidential flunkies, the equivalent of say Jarrett, Rice, Kerry, or Clinton ever have any credibility under those rules? Well, actually they don’t under any rules–but neither does the current President.
wendy:
Yes, I was thinking about Williams, too.
We’ll see if we demand more of our newscasters than we do of our presidents now.
Oldflyer:
Interesting. Your reminiscence reminds me that, as a little girl, the U2 incident was the first time I became aware that our government was capable of a lie. It was profoundly disillusioning at the time, but I was very young and very innocent.
A “friend” of a friend on Face Book was ranting about ignorant bigots who oppose gay marriage. I asked, “Ignorant bigots like the men you voted for for President and VP?” He responded that Obama was lying back then. And he was fine with that! Smug, in fact.
LisaM:
Probably quite pleased that Obama was such a smart politician: ends justify means and all that. The thought is that religious people are bigots who deserve to be lied to.
he realizes that most of America just doesn’t seem to care
Not sure it’s so much that they just don’t care, as that they just don’t know. Or they know vaguely but not enough to see clearly what’s been going on. And I give credit to this horrid state of affairs mostly to mainstream media — for their utter lack of consideration of his lies and their careful filtering of the news.
But then, of course, the cynicism, and worse, of so much entertainment on TV, in movies, in music, etc., has certainly helped to make a lot of folks less concerned overall with wrong-doing. I’m still hoping, though, that they’re not most of America.
Happened to catch a long interview with Axelrod on O’Reilley last night, and a more smirking, slimy, used car salesman I’ve never seen.
“he realizes that most of America just doesn’t seem to care”
Well most are at the very least enough of America voted for Obama “TWICE.” Some can be attributed to the MSM not calling Obama on his lies but much of it is that the America that voted for Obama “really doesn’t care.” Ends justify the means etc!
When you have no principles to live up to, being less than truthful is easy. Lies are just different words to be used.
Our Founding Fathers said we needed leaders with strong morals, and it surely shows now.
” I haven’t seen any reactions from the black religious community yet, but it’s possible they might be quite displeased at this news.”
Possible, but highly unlikely. There have been rumors bubbling up every so often among conservatives that traditionalist blacks were finally getting fed up with the Democrats for years, but it just never quite seems to happen.
Indeed, GOP outreach is putrid, but when it comes to most religious blacks, I can’t help but suspect that either leftism supersedes their religion or in fact IS their religion (listen to how many sermons devolve into socialist diatribes).
After all, whether it’s abortion, traditional sexual values, marriage, or anything, if their religious beliefs come into any sort of conflict, they choose leftism damn near every single time.
Hell eventually freezes over. Unless we become the USSA, the truth will surface and the would be dictator will be exposed as the narcissistic boychild. History will not be kind.
My guess is that the black community is willing to forgive a lot for the first black president. If this helps the black community become more tolerant of homosexuality, it could be a good thing. Not to excuse his lying or to be a gay advocate, but if it helps them overcome their down-low issues.
Personally, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was my first step in leaving the Democrat party. I don’t think that it’s people are so comfortable with lying per se. It’s that they are okay with the lying if it benefits their own side. (mostly dems, more repubs have principles). They are hypocrites first and
foremost.
“Lying about a material fact, and especially about religious beliefs, in order to deceive the American public–that is the issue…he realizes that most of America just doesn’t seem to care”
That is indeed the issue, that violating the most basic of principles and disrespecting other people’s most cherished beliefs does not give him even the least of concern. Which begs the question; if he’ll lie about something this basic strictly for personal gain, what won’t he lie about?
It is in order not to face that question that is why most Americans don’t seem to care. But eventually they will care and when they do, the crisis will be as much their fault as Obama’s. In not caring, they make of themselves accomplices to Obama’s criminality. Perhaps never, have so many had so much to answer for…
parker: unfortunately liberals write the history books.
Thinking about it, the sheeple elected FDR four times. 4 TIMES!
He was a con man:
FDR mistress Daisy Suckley’s diary, which was discovered under her bed in 1991, isn’t a secret, as I discovered by searching the term. But, it sure as hell has not been been publicly aired. I’m talking about FDR telling Ms. Suckley about D-Day details a month prior to June 6th, 1944 (“… technically treason”). I’m talking FDR’s plan to partner up with Joe Stalin after the war, to crate a new world order, with FDR running the planned United Nations….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeNJ41LfHmk
Joe was right …
GB : you know the answer to your own question. There is nothing he wouldn’t lie about. I find some small measure of satisfaction knowing that he will roast in eternal hellfire.
KLSmith,
Yes, I know the answer. My point is that the question is so obvious that only willful denial can explain a failure to ask it. They not only don’t want to know, they’ll attack anyone who points it out. And in that willingness to attack lies their culpability.
It could well be I am an optimistic fool, but the pendulum swings both ways. I believe bho will eventually seen for what he is.
Dear Infantile Majesty: You’re still No-Good at bullshitting, Little Dude, but you’ve done it every day of your(spitooooey)presidency.
Are we not Blessed?
There are millions of people that will go to their graves believing that Obama the Good just couldn’t solve all the problems Bush created.
“Good on him, if it helped him get elected! is a common reaction”
Are The One’s fans hoping for a Reichstag fire?
Big surprise, Althouse is cool with Obama lying.
parker: I’m pretty sure you are no fool. Do to my upbringing I’ve always been a bit of an agnostic. But the age of bho makes me hope that people better than myself are right and that one day he will stand before His Maker and be judged. Harshly.
Neo: “The left, of course, says “Bush lied” about WMDs, but the right points out that Bush relied on intelligence reports around the world that were mistaken, and that is different than a lie, and that a lie would have been wrong.”
Excerpt:
On March 23, 2004, Clinton Secretary of Defense William Cohen gave the Clinton administration perspective to the 9/11 Commission:
I have the benefit of being from the Upper Midwest, so i know that if a Chicago machine Politicians lips are moving, he’s lying.
Martel says the GOP outreach to blacks is putrid. i beg to differ.
This reminds me of AA (sorry, Alcoholics Anonymous, not Afro-Ams!) with its attitude of “attraction, not promotion”, and that AA is open to anyone who terms themselves an alcoholic. The key is, terms themselves.
That blacks are stuck on stupid with respect to Obama and Democrats in general thus says they have not come to terms with themselves. They still think they might have a “Democrat problem”, but not a Democrat addiction, and they will just do Democrat again at the next occasion, er, election.
It will take a social catastrophe for blacks to admit they have a Democrat addiction, and the rest of us are not going to let such an inhumane catastrophe occur if we can help it. Kinda like taking the keys away from a drunk driver. So, bottom line, get used to it. Blacks are and will be Democrats.
I can’t wait until the next Republican president strolls into office and plays the Obama card. “Look at this huge mess I inherited. Nothing’s my fault.” Etc. Do you think the press will let that dog hunt?
And I do believe we will have a huge mess because Obama is going out of his way to ignore serious problems he’s just not interested in dealing with. And after they fester for a couple more years they’ll be even worse. It’s like he only wants to be president of the things he wants to be president of. Screw the rest. I don’t know how he possibly squares that with the idea (implicit in his blaming of President Bush) that a president has an obligation to turn things over to his successor in better shape than he inherited them. Clinton turned over his lack of diligence in squashing Osama bin Laden and we got 9/11 as a result. I’m afraid we’re going to get treated to Act II when Obama turns things over.
2:05 excruciating minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDF-oN3B1PA&feature=youtu.be
we are in 1937, maybe 1938 …
I blame the voters.
TWICE!
Axelrod quotes Obama as having told Axelrod “I’m just not very good at bullshitting.” Perhaps Obama didn’t say it… Or perhaps Obama really did say it–but if so he was lying (or mistaken, or too modest) about that because he’s actually an excellent bullshitter.
This thing is so rich on so many levels, I laughed when I first read it. To begin with, there’s the obvious yet piquant irony of The One who built a his grandiose career atop a 100-story pile of BS saying this.
Then there’s that faux modesty King Barack affects (ever the astute narcissist, he has learned to mimic this behavior, but has no real feel for it). So I fancied His Royal Highness in this situation struggling mightily to stifle his true feelings, the urge to brag at Axelrod that he is the greatest bullshitter who ever lived, The One who can move mountains with a mere fleck of his herculean, omnipotent bullshit!
The upshot being that Obama coyly saying “I’m just not very good at bullshitting.” is itself just more bullshitting.
But is it true that Alexrod replied, “Don’t bullshit a bullshitter, Mr President.”? No, that’s just bullshit.
g6loq, that was a shocking video.
We dodged a bullet when FDR died before the war’s end. And Churchill was right: the bigger threat, Communism, was not only not defeated, but stronger after WW II.
What was voted for was the image created by lies, what we got was something else because lies covered the true nature…
bottom line is that socialists/communists/liberals etc. all lie as a normal course of their methods, not as some kind of fault or wrongness they succumb to in temptation.
as the long telegram states, the goal is to seek power and more power, and lying is a means to power when your position is untennable to the folks sacrificing their lives to a political position.
the bottom line in terms of their lying is that they know not only that they are not fit for the job, but that everyone would not want them unless they posed as someone else (or else they would not lie).
there is no way around this subtle truth that the unfit, unjust, sociopathic, nasty, manipulative, collusive, and worse, HAVE to lie to acquire position for honesty and transparency would weed them out and create a better less self serving service.
it is impossible for liars by nature to be representatives, or leaders in representative government!!!
another point is that there is no way for such a system to win without lying…
think hitler would have won under the platform of jew extermination, fomenting a world war in partnerhip with stalin, and so on? of course not… yeah, he could claim scapegoats, and the public wont swoon… but if he stood on the podium and said, we will make gas chambers, and we will select people, including your neigbors and shop keepers and we will murder them for a better country…
it would not sell.. he states a problem and fomented scape goats, but he never actually said what he would do detail, and in fact never worked out the details till AFTER the issue of power aquisition…
read the long telegram and you know that good governance is not something they care at all about… that this is a sociopathic collusion by people who feel that government is a ganster organization at the top of all of them…
after all, it was thomas paine that pointed out in common sense that a government of thugs is indistinquishable from being led by criminals…
they have no desire to have a productive state, they only wish to parasite things to grab them while they can and damn the rest… the ONLY thing that limits them are the actions of other thug states that may commit to war while they are robbing their brethren.
The intelligence reports were not mistaken. From what I learned at the time, the WMD were moved to Syria, with Russian assistance, about the time we entered Iraq from the south. The weapons inspectors never contradicted that, they claimed they “ran out of time” before they were able to investigate that possibility. Tractor trailers were observed cleaning out facilities and moving the contents to the Syrian border, and the border guards were replaced by Iraqi Republican Guards during the transfers.
KBK: “The weapons inspectors never contradicted that, they claimed they “ran out of time” before they were able to investigate that possibility.”
Do you mean the Iraq Survey Group?
UNMOVIC wasn’t mandated to find Iraq’s WMD. The weapons inspectors weren’t investigators in the detective sense. Rather, UNMOVIC was mandated to verify Iraq was compliant and disarmed according to the UNSCR 687 standard.
The UNMOVIC Cluster Document, presented to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003 and the principal trigger for OIF, demonstrated Saddam continued to be noncompliant with UNSCR 687 and had failed to prove Iraq was disarmed to the mandated standard.
neo, I think you would have enjoyed Hugh Hewitt’s interview of David Axelrod yesterday.
Here is just one exchange which goes to your post on this subject:
HH: ……….Let me ask you about Alan Dixon. You obviously didn’t like him much. Why did Alan Dixon’s vote for Clarence Thomas bother you so much?
DA: Well, it bothered me for the reasons that were borne out by a book that was later written by a couple of investigative reporters on that nomination. It bothered me, because I felt like he wasn’t voting on the merits. I felt like he had cut a deal to vote for Clarence Thomas in exchange for a weak opponent in his reelection campaign in 1992. And a book was written in which there was a very detailed account of how he went out and played golf with Dan Quayle, and this was discussed, and the deal was cut. And you know, my feeling was that it wasn’t a decision of principle. It was a decision that was based on a deal around the election, and that offended me. But it was also consistent with my feelings about Dixon generally, because he was a guy who was thoroughly consumed by politics, and not all that interested in policy or interested in following a particular point of view. He did what he thought he needed to do to perpetuate himself in office. And Hugh, that’s not unheard of in Washington. That, there are a lot of guys like that. He happened to be my Senator, and I was offended by that.
So—–Mr. Axelrod makes the point that the issue of, “principle”, is why he disliked Mr. Dixon.
BUT——-Mr. Axelrod counseled Barack Obama to LIE about his position on same sex marriage. He LIED to those religious black supporters of his. Mr. Axelrod told Obama to LIE about his religious beliefs.
Is that not an issue of “principle”?
Question: How can Mr. Axelrod be perturbed about Mr. Dixon’s principles and then ask Barack Obama to forego his own; to LIE about his principled positions?
I think I already know the answer to my question.