Friday, August 22, 2008
The Case
Against Obama - In His Own Words
by
Lorie
Byrd
It would be hard to make a better case against a Barack Obama presidency than
the one Obama has made in his own words. The most memorable thing about Obama’s
speeches is not generally what he says, but rather how large and enthusiastic
the audiences are. If voters pay attention only to the symbolism and get caught
up in the excitement of the Obamessiah and his throngs of fainting disciples, he
stands a good chance of winning in November. If voters pay attention instead to
the things Obama is saying, the case against an Obama presidency will be clear.
Obama’s youthful appearance is often cited as one of his biggest assets, but
when he opens his mouth he doesn’t always come off as presidential or even
particularly intelligent. The political figure who perhaps has received the
most ridicule in the past twenty years is Dan Quayle (due largely to a
misspelled word on a flashcard he read during an appearance at a school). I
wonder how much more grief would have been heaped on Vice President Quayle if he
had made any of the following gaffes committed by Barack Obama (from Michelle
Malkin):
· Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000
people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten
thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
· Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United
States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United
States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
· Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma,
Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights
movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what
happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a
bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” Obama was born in
1961. The Selma march took place in 1965.
Some of Obama’s gaffes go beyond simple slips of the tongue and confusion
over numbers though and display a lack of knowledge on important issues as was
the case when he commented on the war in Afghanistan and the lack of
translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq,
then it’s harder
for us to use them in Afghanistan.” As Malkin pointed out, the real
reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan is because Iraqis speak
Arabic or Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic
languages. Worse than the lack of knowledge of the languages spoken in other
nations is that he lacks an understanding of the threat posed by some of them.
Or maybe he doesn’t. It is really a bit
confusing. In Portland, Oregon, Obama said of Iran, “They don't pose a
seriousthreat to us.” The following day in Billings, Montana he said:
“I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Maybe it
depends what the definitions of “grave” and “serious” are. As I said, it is all
bit confusing. Maybe that is why so many focus on the crowds at Obama’s
events, rather than to what Obama is actually saying to them.
If voters are paying attention to what Barack Obama says they will see not
only a lack of knowledge of important issues, but on some of the issues where he
is informed, an attempt to hide his true position and past votes.
In the Saddleback Church forum last week, in response to Rev. Rick Warren’s
question, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Obama
responded: “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from
a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that
question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” As
blogger Cassy
Fianopast
comments and votes on abortion legislation definitely say more about him
than anything he is saying on the subject now. points out, the idea that someone running for President would
dodge such an important question in that way is “beyond ridiculous” and
obviously an attempt to be as ambiguous as possible so that he does not offend
those who disagree with the very radical positions he has taken on the issue of
abortion during his political career. Obama’s
Another example of actions speaking louder than words can be found when we
listen to Obama’s money talk. According to Obama’s
tax returns from 2000-2006, the Obamas have given far less to charity
than John
McCain has. In all but the two most recent years reported, the Obamas
gave around 1% or less of their income to charity. Their contributions
increased in 2005 and 2006 to 4.7% and 6.1% respectively, but still are
far short of those of McCain who gave 28.6% in 2006 and 27.3% in 2007.
But if you listen to Obama’s words you will hear that he is very concerned
about the
least among us.
According to the following statement from an
Obama speech earlier this summer, it appears pretty much everyone who
isn’t Obama is a lesser being: “...I am absolutely certain that generations
from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the
moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless;
this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet
began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our
nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the
moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation
so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.” If
Obama is able to slow the rise of the oceans then ending poverty and securing
peace should be a cakewalk. I suppose he will only be able to accomplish such
feats if elected President though.
This week John McCain pulled ahead of Obama in many polls
and projections.
Maybe voters have finally started listening to what Obama has been saying now
that the thrill of his oratory is wearing
thin.
Lorie Byrd is a Townhall.com columnist and blogs at Wizbang and at LorieByrd.com.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher (1788-1860)
