Even though he’s been running for president for two years, we still don’t know a lot about Sen. Obama. He’s been coy about his birth records and has refused to release any school records (transcripts or theses) or medical records (though, in fairness, Sen. McCain hasn’t released his medical records either).
Here’s what we do know about him:
He’s dishonest. He lied or broke his word about accepting public campaign financing after he realized he could raise a lot more by refusing it. His record breaking fundraising has included anonymous donations from all over the world. His campaign has even suspended standard credit card security protocols that would flag illegal donations by non-Americans and prevent fraud.
He repeated his lie about the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Bill in the presidential debate after earlier admitting that National Right to Life was correct.
He plays dirty in politics. His first campaign wasn’t really a campaign because he got everyone else thrown off the ballot. That’s a new kind of politics alright. (see The Case Against Barack Obama, Chapter 1)
He’s willing to use police power to quiet dissent.
He has little respect for the Constitution.
He has little respect for the “common man” unless he’s campaigning in middle America. When he’s on the west coast, people who don’t support him are “bitter” and simply clinging to their guns and religion.
He wants to take care of you, but he doesn’t take care of his brother or aunt. This is the person who told us we are our “brother’s keeper” and to take care of “least of these.”
He hangs out with anti-American or blame-America-first types and other unsavory characters – Rev. Wright, Father Flager, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, and William Ayers. That doesn’t necessarily mean he thinks like them, but you have to ask why he associates with so many of these people.
He isn’t very bipartisan for a “uniter.”
Now, none of this necessarily means he'd be a bad president, but I think it's worth pausing to consider that a large chunk of the little that we know about this man is negative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
None of this necessarily means he’d be a bad president . . . .
Some of it isn’t even true.
He’s willing to use police power to quiet dissent.
Like McCain, Obama relies on local politicians to debunk false claims about him. No one ever threatened to use police powers to quiet dissent.
He has little respect for the Constitution.
Nothing in that interview suggests a lack of respect for the Constitution. Obama simply points out that litigation was not the best vehicle for the civil rights movement to achieve many of its goals because the relief sought exceeded the courts’ power. That is simply the recognition of the constitutional separation of powers, not a criticism.
He isn’t very bipartisan for a “uniter.”
The Chicago Tribune, which endorsed a Democrat for the first time in its 130 year history, had this to say: “We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.”
I think you're being a bit lenient.
On your 1st point, these "prosecutors" are going to go after people who make "false" statements. That boils down to people filing charges against political ads they don't like.
2nd: Go listen again. He doesn't think it exceeds the court's power but their guts. He doesn't like the Constitution, how it's structured, or what it permits and forbids.
3rd: He has zero bipartisan record in the US Senate.
You need to check your facts better Chris. The TV reporter admitted that the Obama' Truth Squad' Story Got Twisted. It was the reporter who claimed that legal action would be taken, not anyone connected with Obama.
You also need to listen to what Obama said for yourself without reading those captions because they don’t reflect what he is actually saying. There is nothing in Obama’s statement that criticizes the Supreme Court’s guts. He is critiquing the litigation strategy of the civil rights because it was focused on the courts to the exclusion of the political process that might have achieved more of their goals. No where does he say that the court should have done more or should have been expected to do more. In fact, he expressly says that the courts are “not structured” to achieve those goals. He is a professor of Constitutional Law who understands the separation of powers.
As far as his bipartisanship goes, I'll take the Chicago Tribune over Sandy Rios any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I am familiar with both of them.
Upon listening again, nothing's really changed for me. He thinks it's too bad the court didn't radically reinterpret the Constitution to create a redistribution of wealth.
That last line, though, shows he thinks it could and can.
Now, on the prosecutors, perhaps we conservatives overreacted to the story. Or perhaps not. I have to wonder if they didn't backpedal after they got caught. The original story talked about "prosecutors" answering "false" claims and dealing with "ethics law violations," and people connected the dots.
It's not as if this campaign hasn't threatened people with just this kind of thing before.
They're not the party of free dissent. They threaten people who oppose them, try to clog up radio shows, invented the fairness doctrine ... What we assumed they were implying is perfectly compatible with past behavior. However, if we overreacted, that is unfortunate.
I'm not familiar with Rios, but, as the other two articles report, he has no record of meaningful bipartisanship in the US Senate.
I'm sorry Chris, but you are simply reading things in that he did not say. He said the tragedy was that the civil rights movement did not pursue its agenda through the political process. Nothing he says suggests the belief that the courts should have ruled differently.
You are correct that "the original story talked about 'prosecutors' answering 'false' claims and dealing with "ethics law violations,'" but it was the reporter who was connecting the dots. It was not anything that the Obama campaign was doing.
Post a Comment