The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

The Times of London: Obama the Speechmaker vs. Obama the Politician and why Palin is so popular.

Posted by iusbvision on September 14, 2008

 

The Australian and British PRINT Press has been unusually clear minded and shown great powers of intellectual and dispassionate observation in their coverage of the US elections since Governor Palin came onto the political scene. They understand that they don’t have much of a dog in this hunt so they have examined the American media and politics with amusement and in same cases amazement at what they have seen. Here is the link to the complete article. Excerpt:

Barack Obama the speechmaker is being rumbled

There is a yawning gulf between what the Democratic candidate says and how he has acted. That’s why the race is so close

Gerard Baker
September 12, 2008

The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate’s speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.

Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life, to take on the special interests that undermine government’s effectiveness and erode trust in the system itself,

Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.

Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.

Politician Obama has toed his party’s line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party’s line on any issue of substance.

Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.

Politician Obama’s support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate – not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy – opposed this same humane measure.

Here’s the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man’s stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.

The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.

One Response to “The Times of London: Obama the Speechmaker vs. Obama the Politician and why Palin is so popular.”

  1. Rob Lapierre said

    Abortion opponents see Obama’s vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

    Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting “present” in 2001 and “no” the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman’s right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

    “It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute,” Obama said in the Senate’s debate in March 2001.

    During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    Just because Obama said it doesn’t make it true – NARAL even supported the bill, so if NARAL didn’t think it was a threat that means someone lied…

    Bunch of links at the bottom of the following to deal with your objection – https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/obama-brazenly-lied-in-debate-again-elite-media-mum/

    Nice Try. ]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: