Obama’s Hope, Change and Other Weasel Words: The Politics of Usual
June 25, 2008 – 11:57 am“Hope.” “Change.” “A new kind of politics.” Barack Obama’s promise to implement these ideals has led him top of the Democratic pack, as millions of Americans have contributed to his highly successful campaign. And who can blame Americans for jumping on board? On the surface, a platform that promises the invoke hope and change is surely enticing — especially after eight years of political and social turbulence. But, what do “hope” and “change” actually mean? If actions count for anything, Obama’s promise to ignite a “new kind of politics” is laughable at best. So, why are the American people missing all of the cues?
From race relations to the federal tax system, Obama continues to prove that his policies and allegiances possess the characteristics of nothing more than typical, run-of-the-mill political fodder. He’s no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops. Judicial Watch reports the following:
When we talk about proposed tax systems, Obama fares not much better than McCain. According to the Brooking Institution and the Urban Instutite, McCain’s plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from over a 10 year period, while Obama’s plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion during the same time frame.
And what about a more general sense of fiscal discipline? The sad reality is that neither of the candidates’ proposals would balance the U.S. budget:
Obama’s spending plans for health care, infrastructure, education and energy aren’t even included in TPC’s estimate. With Social Security and Medicare in grave danger, allowing our officials to manage a health care system in the current political climate is frightening at best.
But his hypocrisy transcends these issues and extends into nearly every facet of his campaign. Last week, he went back on his word and announced that he would be forgoing more the $85 million in public financing — a move that has McCain and many others (even Obama supporters) frustrated and disheartened. So much for bi-partisan negotiations. According to OpenSecrets:
And while I’m at it, allow me to mention his insane endorsement of ethanol as a viable fuel alternative. I can’t imagine that he has missed the media’s coverage of the destruction that has been caused by the utilization of ethanol. Damaging the world’s fuel supply and potentially worsening the alleged global warming phenomenon apparently doesn’t matter to Obama. Judicial Watch reports the following:
I suppose forgetting to mention Rev. Wright would be irresponsible of me. See, Obama attended the same church for years. He listened to anti-American and anti-white statements and seemed completely content with his pastor’s rants — that is, until his church membership hurt his campaign. It was not until pressures mounted that Obama formerly removed his allegiances to Wright and company.
Are we supposed to believe that Obama was never happy at his church — that he always differed ideologically from Rev. Wright? Believing such an idea would be nonsensical. No one stays at a church if they disagree with the leading pastor. And if by some chance Obama did stay despite some difference in opinion he surely wouldn’t have allowed his pastor to marry he and his wife or baptize his children. And wasn’t Wright an inspiration for one of his books? Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely — he just can’t admit that to the American people.
Perhaps Judicial Watch said it best: “Somehow, the charismatic young lawmaker that the mainstream media loves to portray as a sort of rock star doesn’t seem any different than most Washington heavy hitters.”
7 Responses to “Obama’s Hope, Change and Other Weasel Words: The Politics of Usual”
Billy’s argument might be more persuasive oratorically if he paused for breath in his sustained attack on Obama’s character for more than a token acknowledgement that McCain is not a perfect model of deportment.
McCain’s “questionable conduct”, so the Senate Ethics Committee styled it, as one of the Keating Five senators accused of corruption in 1989 still has an unsavory odor about it. And he has quite a distinguished career as a flip-flopper himself, on issues he’d made defining ones.
I wouldn’t expect an even-handed treatment of a ‘conservative’ vs. ‘liberal’ contest from Billy, but you’d think he would refrain from making it so transparently obvious just what a low regard he has for the dim bulbs who are convinced by his one-sided trash talk.
By Vince Williams on Jun 26, 2008
You successfully managed to avoid answering even one of the charges I’ve posed, which is the response I typically receive from you. This isn’t about McCain’s questionable behavior more than a decade ago. It’s about Obama’s damaging policies and confounded statements that are currently going unnoticed. Dim bulbs? At least we’re still omitting light.
By Billy Hallowell on Jun 26, 2008
Billy, you’ve proved time and time again that you don’t read my arguments, just as you prove it here.
Let me point out (this is tiresome) that I didn’t include you among the dim bulbs.
That was my main point– anyone can see by the lack of editorial care you take with your posts that you don’t even respect the audience most likely to agree with you.
Re-read your lead paragraph. See what I mean?
I’m not debating you– you recycle the same old points over and over. Maybe you’re dimmer than I thought.
By Vince Williams on Jun 26, 2008
“Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely — he just can’t admit that to the American people.”
werd
By Dick on Jun 26, 2008
Billy’s first paragraph is a classic indeed.
He implies that the “millions of Americans” who have contributed to Obama’s campaign have been fooled.
And he dismisses the last eight years of mind-numbing criminality, corruption and incompetence as merely “political and social turbulence.”
If that’s as harsh a judgment as he can render on this administration, he has clearly forfeited his right to comment on the political scene.
By Steve Levine on Jun 26, 2008
“He’s no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops.”
What do you have against Ronald Reagan?
By Joshua Rosenstock on Jun 27, 2008
I think we can be reasonably sure that fear was struck into the hearts of Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and Tom Delay-style K Street Republicans with the news that Obama would decline public financing for his campaign. And I’m sure it leaves McCaine “frustrated and disheartened”, as it should.
Billy shows supreme gall when he ‘charges’ Obama with hypocrisy in such close proximity to the name of John McCain, who has flipped-flopped so recently on campaign finance, and now has some further credibilty problems on that issue, perhaps even some legal ones.
We haven’t heard much about that in the corporate media, so comically depicted as the ‘liberal’ media by the likes of some of the most noxious paid liars in political commentary– Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, et al.
To top off his little lesson in how not to write a persuasive piece, Billy works himself up into Chicken Little hysterics with his newfound psychic powers– he knows that Obama agrees with Wright entirely.
Now there’s journalistic integrity for you– if you can’t prove your assertions about a man are true, just assume a supernatural ability to know exactly what he thinks.
By Vince Williams on Jun 27, 2008