Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The Cult of Obama

America as been fortunate in avoiding political cults of personality. The closest that we have come to it may have been the 4 terms that Franklin Roosevelt was elected to. We should note also that FDR was a special case. He was first elected during the Great Depression and continued into World War II. This form of crisis situation has been unusual, and while one might disagree with the way that President Roosevelt handled some aspects of them, he certainly understood the gravity of the situation and the need for America to take action to preserve itself. This is exactly the opposite of what we see with current Democrat presidential front-runner, Barack Obama.

Simply stated, and as a significant number of critics, both liberal and conservative have pointed out, Senator Obama is an empty suit; a candidate who talks in endless platitudes, but says nothing of substance, except that he wants to enact a myriad of tax and spend programs at home, while ignoring the true nature of its enemies abroad and emasculating the military. Perhaps he believes that the foreign dictators are foolish enough to fall for his charm. If elected, he will quickly learn that they will be more than willing to say anything, and then do exactly the opposite if it suits their interest at the time. As Neville Chamberlain sold out Europe to Nazi Germany, Senator Obama is willing to sell out the United States anyone and everyone who has an axe to grind and is willing to say the right things in public, regardless of their true intentions.

Sean Hannity has talked a lot about two focus groups that were asked if they could identify any of Obama's accomplishments. Both came up with essentially nothing, which speaks volumes; the man really has done nothing, except promote his own political career as rapidly as can. Now, the fact that he can speak charismatically is really all that he is running on. People like what he says, regardless of whether it has any substance. I remember having a similar reaction to Jimmy Carter many years ago. I was a teenager when I told my, now departed, Mother that he said a lot of things that sounded nice, but there was nothing that I could identify specifically as practical or realistic. Obama is now doing the same thing. He talks about "hope" but it is a blind hope; faith that he has all the answers and that electing him to office will somehow solve all of America's problems. To make matters worse, his campaign is taking on a messianic attitude. This may well speak of an even greater underlying danger.

Michael Medved recently asked of his audience why people are supporting this candidate. He received all of the usual empty answers about hope, unity and the like. In the end, there really was nothing of substance that anyone could identify. I have an answer; it is not one I like, but I believe that it is the truth; that Senator Obama is the candidate of the intellectually bankrupt. It is no wonder to me that so many young people are swooning over this charlatan. He is all show and no substance, like so much of modern entertainment. He is the MTV candidate. He is the candidate of people who love special effects and don't care about the plot. Politically they are oblivious to the consequences of electing someone who is as gullible as they are. He is their drug that will make all problems go away, but like with a drug, the problems don't really go away and after effects are terrible.

Enacting the Obama domestic policies would result in a quick trip to national bankruptcy. His foreign policies would create a weak, vacillating nation that will not defend itself because talking to an implacable enemy is always better than eliminating him. He has no realistic method for dealing with our national energy needs. In short, he is running on hot air, and despite his contentions to the contrary, empty words. He does not have the depth to create words of real substance.

More here



This is just what they used to say about Hitler: "When you watch an Obama speech, you lean forward and listen and think, That's good. He's compelling, I like the way he speaks. And afterward all the commentators call him "impossibly eloquent" and say "he gave me thrills and chills." But, in fact, when you go on the Internet and get a transcript of the speech and print it out and read it--that is, when you remove Mr. Obama from the words and take them on their own--you see the speech wasn't all that interesting, and was in fact high-class boilerplate"

Obama no compromiser: "After his victory last week in Wisconsin and again at the Austin debate, Obama revealed himself to be the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. He is not thrilled with building a border fence. He wants to meet with Raul Castro. He will raise taxes and spend a boatload of money on new programs. He will exit Iraq pronto and spend that money on domestic programs. He opposes any restriction on partial birth abortion and thinks the District of Columbia's total handgun ban is a 'common sense' regulation. This is no 'third way' and, other than a few rhetorical flourishes, there is no sign of 'reaching across the aisle.'

Obama corruption: "A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses. The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain's wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago. A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million. Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15."

I guess it WAS a Jewish guy who said "Love thine enemy": "It is no secret that Obama's candidacy has been supported financially and politically by many prominent members of the American Jewish community. Even previously outspoken Clinton-supporting spokespersons for Democrats Abroad here in Israel have been hedging their bets recently in articles and interviews, suggesting that an Obama Administration would augur well for Israel. Incredibly, citing unenthusiastic, canned pro-Israel campaign statements, these dyed-in-the-wool Democratic sycophants would urge Jewish voters to cast their fate and Israel's with Obama rather than with the Republican candidate, McCain. With all due deference to the Obama celebrity supporters like Steven Spielberg and George Soros, can Jews herein Israel and in America and other friends of Israel risk a vote for Obama in November? A quick look at the facts should switch on a big red light in most peoples' minds."

Foreign press warnings on Obama: "Der Spiegel editor: "The rise of democratic frontrunner Barack Obama signifies an alarming victory of style over substance." And that was just the first sentence. On Friday, it was Gerard Baker of the Times of London asking: "are Americans really ready to leap all the way across in one go to embrace a European-style Left?" Now there is a warning about Obama from Gabor Steingart of Der Spiegel's Washington bureau. "The senator's successes in the primaries also have a narcotizing effect. Obama defines himself as a new type of politician, as someone who refuses to be judged by the old standards," Steingart wrote. Judging by old standards = accountability. I realize my readers are not Obama fans. But they should not buy the baloney about the rest of the world having a feel-good crush on Obama. Europeans want a strong America - that they can complain about being too strong. Steingart pointed out: "If democracy functions only half as well as the market economy, the Obama bubble will burst. The burning question is: When?"

No comments: