As this year’s Presidential campaign continues to unfold, I’ve been struck time and again by Obama’s inconsistency on issues and the amount of time, energy and rhetoric he devotes to saying virtually nothing. This is what I’ve noticed thus far:
Pandering
The clearest example of this I’ve seen to date is Obama’s remarks at the recent AIPAC conference. He has consistently advocated a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, yet he led this year’s AIPAC attendees to believe he was firmly and fully supportive of Israel on this issue. That simply is not the case but it won him a large round of applause. Whether it wins him votes remains to be seen. Following that speech, his campaign told the Jerusalem Post that Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel’s capital to remain undivided, stating, for instance, that options could include the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or as a seat of Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods. Inasmuch as Obama’s wife has told you not to ”trust bloggers or someone else’s opinion, because people lie” (quoted in the Billings Gazette), you may find the following link useful in determining position on issues for yourself: http://www.senate.gov/ The site includes voting records and speeches as well as other information you may find helpful in sorting out fact from fiction during this election process.
Superiority Complex
Throughout this campaign, Obama has consistently displayed an offish attitude when questioned on substantive issues, like character or national loyalty. As an example, he continues to feign offense, shut down altogether, or dismiss as inconsequential questions regarding his character, background, and close associations. To me, that smacks of the same elitist attitude he exhibited in his remarks regarding small-town, working class people and their values. Contrary to what he may think, no candidate is above public scrutiny. Voters do, after all, have a right to know the character of the person they’re voting for as they make their selection. To date, Obama has not told you why he chose to embrace Jeremiah Wright and his Marxist-based Black Liberation theology when others left because of Wright’s extremism, why he chooses to welcome documented domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn as friends, what he finds admirable in anti-white, anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, or why his choice for business dealings was Tony Rezko, a Syrian Arab in partnership with Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad’s son, Jabir. The choices we make typically reflect what we genuinely believe in and help define our overall character. Obama’s choices in the preceding instances are decidedly and consistently far outside mainstream America and voters have a right to know why he responds favorably to the radicalism each represents. Whether he believes questions regarding these matters are beneath him doesn’t matter - why he refuses to accept and fully address them does.
