Posted on 04/18/2008 12:51:52 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new-—an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.
But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.
He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.
Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.
He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.
Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ain’t it always interesting how, according to the MSM, Republicans lie but Democrats tell “fibs”?
I had to rub my eyes and look twice. This is in the New York Times? I wonder what page it is on in the hardcopy edition. Nonetheless, the lights are being turned up on the real BHO.
This is all true, if viewed from the perspective of a "Rev-rund Wright Hate Speech". Unify the country...right after we get rid of 'Whitey'...
Ain’t life grand. David Brooks, welcome to the Republican Party.
A crack in the wall of stupidity, The NY Times likes to have a token R around to balance the scales/sarc...they must have to pay David Btooks a small fortune to put up with thw Hippie stench at that place!
All of this makes no difference to the Obama swooners.
No, all that would have happened is that he might have slipped through the net without anyone knowing what he was really like. I'm profoundly grateful that that didn't happen.
So am I Nipfan...so am I.
this enormously thoughtful man
Enormously irresponsible, you mean. When asked about the inverse relation between the cap gains tax rate and the cap gains tax revenue, all Obama wanted to talk about was punishing the rich.He thinks the little guy would rather see the fat cat suffer than to ever be able to retire himself. Where does Obama think the money is gonna come from to retire the Treasury's debt to the Social Security Trust Fund when the Retirement Boom starts to call that debt in? IMHO it won't come from anywhere - instead, the retirement age for collecting Social Security will be increased to limit the burden on the Treasury.
Raising the retirement age to 75 would after all slash the cost Social Security - and by the time the Baby Boom is fully retired, there will be no choice but to slash the cost of Social Security.
You are exactly correct. The Obama folks are believers now and Hillary, for them, is no better than W.
What a great convention they are going to have... Can’t wait.
Bingo! - As I've always said:
| taxes don't hurt the rich, they keep you from becoming rich |
Raising the retirement age to 75 would after all slash the cost Social Security -
Might as well raise it to a hundred.
The surest and shortest end to Iraq is the election of McCain. Once A-Q sees the US is committed to victory they will melt back into the highland s of pPakistan to lick their wounds.
A victory for the Dems in Nov. is a victory for A-Q.
Let me see if I have this straight:
His father was a Kenyan, Muslim, black - we have seen pictures of his ‘African family’
His mother is a Kansan, atheist, white
Where are the pictures of his Kansan, white mother and his white grandparents who raised him?
His father deserted his mother and him when he was very young and went back to his family (whose family?) in Kenya?
His mother married an Indonesian Muslim and took him to Jakarta where he was schooled in a Muslim school
His mother returned to Hawaii and he was raised by his white Kansan grandparents? When?
He later went to the best high dollar schools, how?
He lives in a $1.4 million dollar house that he acquired through a deal with a wealthy fund raiser. How?
He ‘worked’ as a civil rights activist in Chicago - has never held a productive job.
The presidency is not a civil rights post, nor is it subject to affirmative action set asides
He entered politics at the state level and then the national level, where he has minimal experience
He is proud of his ‘African heritage’ but it seems that his only African connection was that his African father got a white girl pregnant and deserted her.
I didn’t know that sperm carried a ‘cultural’ gene.
Where is the pride in his white culture?
He goes to an ‘Afrocentric’ church that hates whites, hates Jews, and blames America for all the world’s perceived faults and then repeatedly covers up for the pastor and the church
He claims that he could not confront his pastor but he wants us to believe that he can confront North Korea and Iran, yeah, right!!!
Yeah, I think I see how he could be a ‘Uniter’ and bring us together,
I think the hope he speaks of is that he hopes no one will put the pieces together until after the “election”.
Like I said at the start, ‘ I am confused!!!!
.. and Obama's supporters cannot (IMO) fall back on the old reliable, trusty "Racist!" to shame Americans into voting for Obama. That's sooooooo Twentieth Century.
I'm hearing more and more callers (radio) coming right out and saying that conservative-talk opposition to Obama is "racist."
In the 1960s the left made the Tenth Amendment code words for the N-word. Today the Obama supporters are trying hard to make the First Amendment code words for the N-word.
Some in the MSM are aiding and abetting. I have not heard so much race talk in the mainstream media since the 1960s.
This could be one long, hot summer. It could be real easy for Rat Party stalwarts to stir up violence all over the place. This time the Left owns liberal mainline political organizations not just the streets and campuses.
“Ain’t life grand. David Brooks, welcome to the Republican Party”
Did you notice the last line?
“Everybody is miserable” (about the way the campaign is going)...
Hello-—not McCain.
You're not confused you have it edxactly right.
O'Barnum wants to confuse people, why else for example, would the cover of his first book "Fathers something or other" have a picture of a black woman and a white man?
Exactly the opposite of reality.
That's O'Barnum.
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.