03/31/2008 (3:26 pm)
A Disturbing Pattern Persists
Politico reports that Barack Obama’s handwriting appears on an Illinois voter group’s questionaire that he denied having filled out, showing him taking much more liberal positions than he currently espouses. This joins a growing list of questionable statements about his positions from the past, adding to the impression that what he says about himself cannot be trusted, and confirming once again that he leans farther left than he’s letting on.
Hot Air summarizes the current matter nicely, while Wake Up America recounts the running tab of misstatements from the Obama campaign, including several rounds of the Reverend Wright (he never heard Wright’s radicalism, then he did hear them, then he was about the leave the church, but really he wept when he first heard it…) And we can add yesteryday’s Washington Post story about the Kennedys’ role in bringing Obama’s father to the US to the list.
Morrissey, at Hot Air, reports that the questionaire demonstrates that Obama:
- Opposed parental notification for abortions. He amended this to say that he might possibly support it for 12- or 13-year-olds, but no older.
- Flatly opposed the death penalty, a position he denied ever having.
- Supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns, again a position he denied ever taking.
These are positions that some Democrats will find difficult to swallow, and most Republicans would find unacceptable. More to the point, though, this highlights the fact that Obama is working very hard to hide a radical past. Consider the difference between Obama’s approach — denying that he ever held the more radical positions — and, say, Mitt Romney’s or Al Gore’s alleged reassessment of their political positions once they turned national. The latter raised suspicions that their conversions were too convenient to be sincere; they might have been misleading us. With Obama, though, there’s no question, he’s clearly misrepresenting his previous position, and ineptly at that.
The pattern does not just involve Obama, of course. Most of us here already know not to trust Hillary Clinton. We saw similar patterns from the John Kerry campaign, which was caught more than once taking opposite sides of a controversial issue in two different speeches delivered at different locations on the same day, to say nothing about his self-reported heroism in Vietnam. Al Gore earned himself a reputation for self-aggrandizing resume inflation, and Bill Clinton… do I need to say more? For at least the last 20 years, the norm for Democratic candidates for President has been that correlations between the candidate’s words and their actual positions have been no more than coincidence.
Yes, politicians, generally, are noteworthy for their inflated rhetoric. However, it’s one thing to inflate skills one actually offers; it’s quite another to simply invent them because they’re what the electorate wants to hear.
Regardless, Obama maintains the pretense that he’s a new breed of politician, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that not only is he the same, old breed of politician, but he’s hiding hard-left positions that his background suggests he might harbor.
Michael Ramirez provides his take on Obama forgetting his past:
« « Desperation Leads the Unwise to Folly | Main | Democratic Infants » »
7 Comments »
Comment by RM
Caught both Obama’s and Hilary’s TV ads tonight. I’ve only seen them a couple of times each, but Obama’s at first blush seems more openly leftist; i.e. “PENALIZE windfall profits by oil companies”, “invest” billions in alternative energy sources, etc. Hilary’s ads seemed more moderate, if still populist, stressing that her whole career has been about “leveling the playing field”, tax cuts for the hard working middle class, heavier taxes for companies that move jobs offshore, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, both had an almost socialistic slant that I think would have been hooted at a few years ago (sad times these days), but Obama seemed to be taking a more open, confiscatory position.
This is scary stuff to me. I have no great love for huge corporations, and I believe in harsh penalties for those who do break the law. However, who decides what is and isn’t a “windfall”? Once we crack down on the oil companies, why not hit the pharmaceuticals, and maybe insurance companies? And then why not extend it to small businesses as well? Who are they to profit unfairly?
My company was recently able to take advantage of some economies of scale and made a nice profit on a recent job. I guess rather than it being a matter of taking 25 years of hard work to know who to call and how to make it happen, I guess my work’s result is merely an unfair “windfall” that really ought to end up in someone else’s pocket who perhaps “needs” it more, as determined by a Democrat appartchik. Barack is not many steps away from advocating that every business owner or employer must only make so much “profit”, said amount to be decreed by government officials, with the “excess” profit to be distributed to the more “needy” among us, also to be decreed by the government.
That ain’t even socialism “lite”.
Comment by Robert
Just look at how Democrats describe themselves, there isn’t the DNC Leadership, or the Democrat leaders, it’s the “Democrat Elite” and the “elders of the Democrat Party.” They see themselves as the saviours of the world, to save us from capitalism and democracy. They’re no different than any other Marxist-style Socialists.
Robert
Comment by Phil
I’ve only recently noticed the similarity between the “evil corporations” that Americans hear about so often and the “blood-sucking capitalists” of the Marxist world view. I believe they’re the same view.
The oil industry is cyclical; they go through “feast or famine” cycles. The “windfall profits” that Obama (and Carter, and Clinton, and every other Democrat) complain about are the “feast” side of the cycle. If they ever get to taxing the “windfall profits” of the oil companies, they’ll artificially reduce the margins those companies expect, drive investors away, reduce the economic upside of oil exploration, and the resulting change in their cost/return picture will drive the price of oil through the roof — we’re talking $6/gallon gasoline here.
We need strong, public declarations on a regular basis to the effect that strong businesses are the backbone of America’s wealth. If we don’t get this, the schools (controlled by leftists) and entertainment industry (controlled by leftists) will convince future generations to dismantle our ability to produce, and reduce the US to a third-rate economy.
Democrats, who understand economics less than John McCain (if that’s possible), seem intent on destroying America’s economic strength.
Comment by RM
Some of my liberal friends describe us as being on the Titanic under the boot of the Bush regime, rearranging deck chairs and hated by the world as we glide toward our impending crash with reality.
More frightening to me is the seeming total lack of recognition of the role business plays in our economy. I’m waiting for the time when some Republican harkens back to the early Reagan years and uses “Profit is not an evil word!” as an applause line at a Rotary dinner. Some of the rhetoric is demagoguery and pandering to the base or target audience. That’s how Hilary’s ads hit me, as a little exaggerated but not over the top. Both sides of the aisle do this. But Barack’s ads seem to me to go a little bit further – a bit of the “I will protect you from the evil corporations and businessmen who prey on you” tone. Again, maybe an insight into what he truly believes.
Comment by Phil
I’m pretty thoroughly convinced at this point that Obama’s a theoretical Marxist who’s deliberately hiding his ideology.
Alan Keyes actually said this while running against Obama in Illinois, but Keyes didn’t have the credibility with the voters, nor the political savvy, to make it stick. Despite being a political lightweight, though, Keyes is a very smart man, and not prone to saying unsupportable things.
Comment by RM
You’re further along than I am, but I’m watching carefully and am not encouraged by what I see.
Comment by labrialumn
Granted that the Left candidates are operating from a Socialist perspective, but we are dealing with monopoly power, and that is supposed to be broken up by law. Supply and demand are not governing in this situation, and the poor are the ones being hardest hurt.
We need more refineries, but we also need real, genuine competition on price.
I would favor making stock speculation illegal. It drives bubbles, harms the economy, is not equitable, and violates the theory of capitalism.
The Democrats want to do things that will hurt the poor even more, and BHO wants to go beyond that, and destroy the remaining family farms – black and white, with a heavy tax on capital gains. Speculation drives up land prices, and the liquid assets aren’t available to pay the higher taxes.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
