Mark Shields: Obama couldn’t pass a polygraph

Mark Shields: Obama couldn’t pass a polygraph on June 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Mark Shields didn’t mince words on PBS about Barack Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing. Appearing as the progressive balance with David Brooks on Judy Woodruff’s show, Shields ripped into Obama, calling him unprincipled and suggesting that his latest video message painted him as a “hostage” who couldn’t pass a polygraph: It was a flip-flop of epic proportions. It was one that he could not rationalize or justify. His video was unconvincing. He looked like someone who was being kept as a hostage somewhere he was so absolutely unconvincing in it. It could not have passed a polygraph test. I mean, coming up with this bogus argument the Republicans have so much more money — the Republicans don’t have so much more money. He’s raised three times as much as John McCain has. David Brooks tried his Messiah/Machiavelli theory, but admitted that Obama hit a new low: I do think it’s the low point of the Obama candidacy, and I think it for this reason. His entire career he has put political reform at the center of it. In the Illinois legislature, in the Senate, political reform has been the essence of who he has been. And so for him to betray this, to sell out this issue, what won’t he sell out?

Brooks tried to play this as Obama making tough decisions that would prove his mettle as Commander in Chief, which makes no sense at all. A true leader would stick to his principles even when it didn’t personally benefit him, not leap from position to position for political expediency. Later, Brooks seemed to figure this out: But McCain wouldn’t have done this. When the chips are down and McCain faced the crucial issue of his career, which was backing the surge, he backed the surge thinking it would cost him the presidency. … On a core issue of character, I do not believe McCain will bend. He’ll bend on all this other stuff he doesn’t care about, but Obama did bend on a core issue of his conscience. Bend? This was a clean break from his oft-cited principles on public financing. He cited them while he broke with them. Even Mark Shields knows that the GOP hasn’t outraised him or funded 527s. He broke with his principles and lied about doing so, while sanctimoniously paying homage to the principles to which his opponent has remained faithful. When the mask has slipped badly enough for Mark Shields to not only see it but get visibly angry about it, trouble is around the corner. And Shields lowers the boom in his column today: Sounds good until you check the facts. McCain has raised a grand total of $650,000 from the lobbying industry (Obama pledges not to accept lobbyists’ or PAC money), according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and just 1 percent of his contributions are from PACs. Talk about a paper tiger. But everybody remembers the most famous 527 group of all, the 2004 “Swift boats” attack ads questioning John Kerry’s bravery in Vietnam. Here are the numbers: The 527 spending has heavily favored Democrats over Republicans in every election cycle since 2000. In 2004, Democratic-leaning 527 groups spent $316 million to Republican-leaning 527s’ $113 million. So far in 2008, the 527 spending has been $116 million to $69 million in favor of the Democrats. Obama complicated his current situation by publicly proposing in March 2007 an agreement between the two major party nominees to rely exclusively upon public financing for the general election. John McCain immediately agreed. Last November, Obama stated: “I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,” and on Feb. 26, Obama told the late Tim Russert, who had asked him if he might “break your word” on his public financing pledge, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.” Obama lied about the 527s. He smeared McCain by accusing him of having fueled his campaign on lobbyist donations. He reversed reality by calling Republicans “masters” of the 527 strategy that his allies George Soros and MoveOn dominated in 2004 and 2000. And Obama didn’t even have the courage to negotiate with his political opponent while telling voters that we shouldn’t fear negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Shields ripped into Obama, calling him unprincipled and suggesting that his latest video message painted him as a “hostage” who couldn’t pass a polygraph

Wow.

Dare I dream that Obama's not on his way to a landslide in the general election??

“Dare I dream that Obama’s not on his way to a landslide in the general election??”

No. Obama is running against McCain, a fellow Democrat who will only attract the votes of RINOs. Obama will win in an enormous landslide.

The Republican elites decided not to run a Republican this year, so real conservative Republicans will not be voting for either of the two Democrats running.

>>>Shields ripped into Obama, <<<

Where's the film....I won't beleive it till I see it.

Mark "In The Tank" Shields ripped Obama...nah. Impossible.

"Shields is a typical white person. His racist remarks makes me cringe." Barack Obama.

Just a slight :).

Give 'em time. They'll be calling Shields a racist soon, if it ain't 110 percent for Obama, it's racist. That's the Rat Party (formerly the traditional Democratic Party) plan.

In fact, I'm hearing about the flooding. All that toxic waste flowing down toward New Orleans. Midwesterners are all racists they wouldn't let that happen otherwise.

> The Republican elites decided not to run a Republican this year, so real conservative Republicans will not be voting for either of the two Democrats running.

Oh, didn't you get the memo?

Conservatives are supposed to hold their noses and vote for McCain anyway. 'Cause don'tcha know, Obama's worse?

Got principles? Chuck 'em! Got reservations? Toss 'em out! Got misgivings about McCain? Ignore 'em! Vote for the guy in the Republican slot, even if he's a Democrat!

This message was brought to you by the Letter "(R)".

Versus Hillary Clinton, I might be able to stay home and sit this one out. She and McCain are very, very similar. But vesus Obama? He wouldn’t accidentally destroy America (and by that I mean our culture, our security, our values) - he would do it on purpose.

> ...Obama? He wouldn’t accidentally destroy America (and by that I mean our culture, our security, our values) - he would do it on purpose.

This may sound odd, but I'll tell ya something.

I was born in 1952, and so I came of age in the period between 1968 and 1976. There were cultural, social, and moral upheavals during that period that were HUGE, and the repercussions from that period, in terms of American values, are still with us.

That happened during Republican administrations.

Truth to tell, I ain't that worried about Obama. He'll do some damage, so would McCain or Clinton.

America will survive it.

Following your logic then there is no way that Any Republican Conservative could possibly lose his Congressional seat since we will all be voting down ticket candidates in support of a true Conservative government. So we should increase our House and Senate holdings and lose the WH.... I really wouldn’t have a problem with that but its not the scenario that is brewing... The scenario that is brewing is extremely scary as a mandate for Mass Progressive change with Democrats in control of a filabuster proof Congress... At this particular time in our history it could mean mass suicide of this nation...

But hey don’t let that stop you from allowing it to happen we can always play the blame game later right?

So when Obama returns us to that “place where terrorism is just a nusiance” (as John Kerry stated in 04) and tells us that we have to get used to he terroists attacks and that our law enforcement will win the day, so when that happens and the Islamic Jihadists take out our schools and kill our kids you do realize that it won’t just be Liberal children that die right?

Hopefully you will be able to say that you, in your part did everything your could to stop that from happening....

I know I will be able to ...

Not to worry. After terrorists nuke NYC, I'm sure Obama (PBJ) will issue a restraining order. ;-)

You give Obama far too much credit for being effective at changing America's direction. I don't think he's going to have nearly as much effect as he claims, or as you fear.

Moreover, I'd wager the things you claim will happen under Obama will come to pass just as easily under a McCain administration, and in any case, it's Congress that holds the real power to do anything about it.

If in four years "the Islamic Jihadists" have NOT "taken out our schools and killed our kids", it won't be because McCain was Pres. He will have let 20 million illegals come in from the south, including a lot more than 19 terrorists.

Not that Obama's any better, of course.

Either way, we shall see...

So voting for down-ticket Republicans and bypassing the Democrat alternate candidate McCain will result in a Democrat sweep, yet voting for McCain will somehow also increase the number of votes the down-ticket candidates will get and block those Democrats?

You have a career as a pundit on MSNBC or CNN.

The Republican elites lost any chance even just to hold the line on House and Senate seats when they picked McCain.

Live with the results for the next four years.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.