JLF Triangle Blog

Why I don’t trust the Obama candidacy

Too many hints of an affinity with hate-America multiculturalism, in his personal life, his spiritual life, among his supporters, and himself personally, who can’t praise America without adding the qualifier “for all of its flaws.”

UPDATE: Another reason to be afraid of the Obama candidacy: He may be another Pierre Trudeau.

UPDATE: It has been determined that Obama has been lying about positions he took on issues in his 1996 Senate race. Here’s his campaign’s incredible (literally) response:

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved – or even read – the latter questionnaire.

Did you get that? It’s HIS handwriting but he didn’t even read the responses. Huh?! As I said, his candidacy is a hoax.

UPDATE: No “for all its faults” in this speech by John McCain in Meridian, Miss., today. Read it and you will be amazed at his family history. It is truly inspiring, unless you’re a Code Pinker. McCain notes that his father rose higher in Navy command than his grandfather, both admirals. His grandfather commanded a carrier task force in the Pacific in World War II. His father commanded all U.S. forces in the Pacific during the Vietnam war. Will John McCain exceed his father’s place in the Navy command? There are only three ways to do it: becoming Chief of Naval Operations, Secretary of the Navy or Commander in Chief. I don’t think he’s in the market for the first two.

14 Responses to “Why I don’t trust the Obama candidacy”

  • Mar
    30
    2008

    If we don’t acknowledge America’s flaws, aren’t we implicitly condoning them?

  • Mar
    30
    2008

    I think you know that’s not what I’m getting at. Liberals who always put “for all its flaws” as a qualifier for their love of the country are like someone adding “despite all your flaws” whenever they tell their children they love them. They’ll get the message pretty quick that you really don’t like them much at all.

  • Mar
    30
    2008

    Apparently the Obama style is to speak of ‘bringing change’ without specification, but any discussion of America must be heavily qualified.

  • Mar
    30
    2008

    JH: That’s your interpretation; I would rather see a candidate making positive statements about a flawed America than praising America without reservation; any candidate who ignores or glosses over those flaws (and they are surely deeper now than ever before) is a candidate who will be taking America further in the same disastrous direction we have been going — which is not a direction I want to go in, now or ever again.

    JS: Obama goes into great detail on his web site about what he proposes to do.

    More on the race/Wright thing: a former evangelical leader points out the double standard in the criticisms of Obama via Wright: “When Senator Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.”

  • Mar
    30
    2008

    W: I am sure he does. I was referring to his stump speeches, at least the one’s I’ve read, which use “hope” and “change” as placeholders for actual policy proposals. He’s not the first to do so, but then, he’s not the first I’ve criticized for doing so. It seems a surefire if hackneyed way to get fans to project their own hopes and wishes for change upon one’s campaign.

    Do you really think that making a positive comment about something without an overt acknowledgment of its flaws means you condone those flaws?

  • Mar
    31
    2008

    I’m not sure I expect a stump speech to contain much in the way of specifics, as they tend to interrupt the smooth flow of emotion-laden rhetoric which seems to be required in order to get elected; do you have any counterexamples by which Obama’s speeches should be measured?

    In the context of this particular presidential race, where we have both the “America – love it or leave it” and the “God damn America” crowds to contend with, yes — it’s very reassuring to hear a candidate say that he loves America and realizes it is flawed. Neither embittered cynicism nor blind patriotism would be a good thing in a president, especially now.

  • Mar
    31
    2008

    W: Obama IS the “God damn America” crowd, unless you think he’s been attending a church for 20 years that he disagrees with. His candidacy is a hoax, as this story proves.

  • Mar
    31
    2008

    Taking lessons from old Shaggy songs is not a way to become president

  • Mar
    31
    2008

    W: One can operate within the expectations of stump speeches and still do more than sloganeer, or so I hope. I could be wrong. As far as I am concerned, in recent memory, only John Edwards struck me as a worse elegant speaker of nothing than Obama. I grant you that I could not be giving some other milquetoast his full due. I dislike political rhetoric in general, and I don’t understand people who get swept away in it. De gustibus non disputandum est .

    You didn’t answer my question, however. I think you have erected an ad hoc standard. One would expect that love for one’s country with a perception of flaws would animate any person to seek the presidency — any campaign agenda would necessarily require promoting solutions to problems, I would think. In other words, it’s the sort of thing that should go without speaking. Having to state such a thing outright, frequently, would prompt the question of why something that should be obvious would need to be said at all.

    It’s only when the rote ‘recognition of flaws’ becomes a mandatory tagline at the end of expressions of love for one’s country that it becomes suspect.

  • Mar
    31
    2008

    What’s scary, Joe, is that you actually know a Shaggy song.

  • Mar
    31
    2008

    JH: Yes, he does disagree with it, and he said so; I quoted this in comments on an earlier post, but maybe that one slipped under the radar. Obama said, on March 18 (emphasis mine):
    ==begin quote==
    And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

    On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

    I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

    But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems […]
    ==end quote==
    I’m not sure what else you could ask for.

    Re the Politico story (fixed link): This proves he’s a sham because he is willing to change his mind after gaining more experience with the issues? Isn’t this what we need now — someone who allows his thinking to be influenced by objective reality?

    I don’t think he’s “the chosen one” or anything like that, but he seems like the closest thing to a non-lizard running for this office (with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who seems to have no chance for the GOP nomination at this point). Nobody seems to like Hillary much anymore except her loyalists (and GOPers trying to get her nominated so McCain will have an easy victory); McCain is perfectly happy to go on fighting termites with bigger and bigger sledgehammers until there’s nothing left of the house, in the name of security. Who would you pick?

    JS: Answering “Do you really think that making a positive comment about something without an overt acknowledgment of its flaws means you condone those flaws?” I did answer this question (“in this context, absolutely yes”, to paraphrase), but I see your objection to my answer. I’m not sure how my standard is ad hoc; I would think it would apply to any discussion of major issues. At the very least, someone who doesn’t explicitly acknowledge something is failing to make their position clear. If you don’t know what their position is on a key issue, you can’t be sure of whether they are being consistent or not when that issue plays a role in further discussion; they are free to change their position on that point without being caught, unless you have both a talent for spotting implications and a very good memory.

    Applying the principle to this particular context: too many candidates for office seem perfectly willing to appeal to the “my country right or wrong” group by glossing over, ignoring, or outright denying flaws in the American way of doing things and in the way we have acted in the past. A candidate who does not acknowledge those flaws sets off my warning bells (and leaves room for later waffling). After all we’ve been through with a president who not only wrapped himself in the flag but also stuck a halo on his head (“God is back in the White House”) and charged full steam ahead to spread his idea of the perfect American ideal to the heathens (it’s perfect, so why wouldn’t they want it?), I fail to understand how anyone with any sense would want a candidate who didn’t seem to appreciate those flaws, who displayed no indication of having learned from history. We don’t want another bulldozer operator.

    I would agree, however, that when expression of this understanding becomes just a tagline — a passphrase or ritual incantation to be uttered as part of the Viable Candidacy admission ceremony — that it is suspect.

    I do not think this is the case with Obama, however, as his platform as expressed both online and in his speeches seems to me to reflect a pretty deep understanding (well… deep for a politician, anyway) of the great, good, bad, and ugly sides of America. That understanding is my requirement, not some group of words.

  • Mar
    31
    2008

    I know what he said about Rev. Wright’s comments. The point of my original post is that I just don’t believe him, about that or much of anything else. There are too many indicators that run counter to his latest rhetoric. That’s why I call his candidacy the Obama Hoax.

  • Mar
    31
    2008

    I’m missing the argument for why you don’t believe him. Are you presuming he is generally untrustworthy on the basis of the fact that he changed his policies some over the years, or is there some more specific reason to believe that he actually agrees with Wright?

  • Apr
    18
    2008

    [...] Read all of Andrew McCarthy’s column. It points out the areas of concern I raised in a recent post, “Why I don’t trust the Obama candidacy.” [...]

Leave a Reply

........As you post your comment, please conform to Right Angles's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

JLF Network Websites & Blogs