Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

[AchrisK]

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/breakingnews/101204.php

Bronson: Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

October 30, 2008, 2:44 p.m.
PETER BRONSON
Tucson Citizen

Barack Obama is a transformational political savior, a reincarnation of JFK who will bring peace, justice and worldwide respect as he is "fulfilling Martin Luther King's dream," in the words of one recent headline.

Or he's a smooth-talking humbug in a glossy wrapper - a radical socialist, friend of terrorists, another clueless Jimmy Carter who will cause economic ruin as he appeases our enemies.

Both Obamas are possible.

Both views are true and false because, more than any candidate in our lifetimes, he is a blank sheet of paper, where critics and supporters can write down anything they want.

The reason for that is as disturbing as the fears of Obama: The Fourth Estate has been AWOL.

The media have abandoned their responsibility to check out both candidates. We know next to nothing about Obama except what he and his fawning friends in the press have decided to tell us.

And that's why this election has pushed so many people out on a ledge. Many of his supporters are worried that something dark and ugly from the blank spots in his résumé could jump out of a box and scare voters. So they viciously attack his critics to keep the lid on tight.

Whenever a troubling issue comes up - Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, links to ACORN voter fraud, radical defense of abortion, drug use - they wrap it in yellow tape and tell us, "Move along, folks, nothing to see here."

Many conservatives, motivated more by fear of Obama than enthusiasm for McCain, are just as jittery. Web sites, chain e-mails and talk radio are teeming with Obamaphobia.

Some spread the word about real connections to a Chicago crook, his radical America-hating pastor and domestic terrorists. Others spread wild, high-octane fiction that make him look like a Marxist in a moderate suit.

When our election equipment operates properly, the press checks out those allegations and either confirms them or dismisses them as pulp fiction from conspiracy nuts who think aliens in black helicopters blew up the World Trade Center.

But this time, the background screening machine was unplugged for Obama. While Sarah Palin, John McCain and even Joe the Plumber got the full wand treatment and pat-down, Obama was whisked past the security checkpoint by his fans in the press.

So people are left to guess about the real Obama.

The media will pay a price for this. There's a reason 70 percent say the press wants Obama to win. In this election, there's not even a flimsy pretense of being objective. And that betrayal of public trust and professional standards will do lasting damage.

But nothing much can be done about it now that we're in the final two-minute drill.

If Obama wins, we may be in for a surprise. I hope it's a pleasant one. But there are reasons to doubt that.

In a 2001 radio interview, Obama showed disdain for the Constitution and embraced socialism. He said that a failure of the civil rights struggle was that "the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth."

He defined the Constitution as a menu of "negative rights" that "says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

So Obama's "spread the wealth" remark in Toledo, Ohio, was no slip. He believes it.

Why isn't the press asking for an explanation? When it was reported at all, the story was dismissed as an attack by McCain.

But if that's the real Obama, giving him the almost absolute power of an unchecked Democratic majority in the House and Senate could cause more damage than Carter.

The analogy would be closer to FDR, who ran as a moderate, then prolonged the Depression with a legacy of big-government socialism, even trying to rig the Supreme Court to bypass the Constitution.

Obama gives us a lot to worry about: Weakness in the war on terrorism. Alarming inexperience. Tax hikes that could aggravate the economic crisis. Thin-skinned retaliation against critics. A pinched view that the Constitution guarantees "negative rights," not liberties.


But the biggest worry is what we don't even know about Barack Obama.

It's Obama fever!

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Fuck this stupid ass motherfucking propaganda. I'm sick of people like you (and people on the left, though there is less of it because they're not as bitter and stupid and hateful and bigoted and insane) buying into this shit.

 

[AchrisK]

Case in point.

 

[skeptik]

I'm going to respect your right to post this mostly absurd article (for instance, every "question" raised about this article has been addressed BOTH on CNN and FOX, as well as all over the internet, the only problem is that you have to actually watch/read it), but I'd like to point out that whoever wrote this obviously doesn't know what "negative rights" means and it really makes him look stupid.

 

[Omni]

I wish people would stop believing retarded crap like the first post of this thread.

 

[AchrisK]

I don't know, I think there is some truth to that article. You know how the media is, if they get a whiff of anything controversial they make a big deal out of it before they know anything. If you can't see that the media is unabashedly in love with Obama, you're not paying attention.

 

[The Ozzman]

Obama is cargo

 

[skeptik]

The media has had more positive coverage of Obama because Obama has done a lot more positive. He has bigger events and infomercials and speeches, whereas at McCain rallies there's people chanting "my pals" and "lynch him". The facts of REALITY is that there is more positive to cover about Obama and more negative to cover about McCain. This whole love affair bullshit is really annoying already. He's not a god damn rock star and he doesn't pretend to be. He receives the coverage that any political figure of his stature doing the things that he has done in the past two years should get. If the media is so in love with Obama, then why did CNN refuse to allow Obama to buy their air time, and, during the time that it was airing, air an interview with McCain? And I'm pretty sure I don't have to mention that Fox is not in love with Obama. But you know who else loves Obama? A lot of prominent conservatives and Republicans. They have become so sickened with McCain's negative campaigning and failed policies that they're backing the Democrat. See: Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell, Lincoln Chafee, Wick Allison, Susan Eisenhower, Julie Nixon, Rita Hauser, Larry Hunter, John Hutson, Paul O'Neill (not the Yankee), etc.

 

[Evil?]

Truth.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/breakingnews/101204.php



It's Obama fever!

He's a good guy!

 

[waif]

I'm going to respect your right to post this mostly absurd article (for instance, every "question" raised about this article has been addressed BOTH on CNN and FOX, as well as all over the internet, the only problem is that you have to actually watch/read it), but I'd like to point out that whoever wrote this obviously doesn't know what "negative rights" means and it really makes him look stupid.

Bingo.

 

[CAIRATH]

...whereas at McCain rallies there's people chanting "my pals" and "lynch him".

My favourite part is when he interviews an old lady at one of his rallies and she says she doesn't trust Obama because "he's an Arab", at which point McCain goes on to instantly pull away the mic and deny that by saying "No, ma'm. He's a decent family man".

That was fucking amazing.

 

[cookiecutter]

Thank you Dodens. Ack I'm disappointed that you actually thought that article had any serious merit.

 

[Dak]

whereas at McCain rallies there's people chanting "my pals"

Sounds like your kind of party

 

[Dak]

Whether you "like" Obama or not, this kind of bullshit is why I have zero faith in the entire process. Complete coverup even extending into the Judicial system.

Attempt to have Obama removed from ballot rejected

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.

Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."

The bottom line was all he needed to do was produce a valid birth certificate, which never happened. It's ok though, if the judicial system doesn't care about the law why should anyone else?

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Whether you "like" Obama or not, this kind of bullshit is why I have zero faith in the entire process. Complete coverup even extending into the Judicial system.

Attempt to have Obama removed from ballot rejected

Here you go.

The bottom line was all he needed to do was produce a valid birth certificate, which never happened. It's ok though, if the judicial system doesn't care about the law why should anyone else?

No, the bottom line is that the case was thrown out because it is baseless. The only reason you're buying this crap is because you want to, and / or because you are stupid.

 

[metal_wrath]

What about Sarah Palin's background? Everyday we are hearing about Rev Wright or Bill Ayers. What about Sarah Palin's spiritual advisor/witch hunter and her secessionist husband etc... Noone is attacking Sarah Palin for her associations or her history, especially those in the media. If anything Obama has had much more negative propaganda, which has been mostly misleading.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

you guys just proved everything that the article said

 

[Dak]

Noone is attacking Sarah Palin

I would disagree. She has no business being anywhere near politics and shows it every time she opens her mouth, and she does get ripped quite regularly.

As far as the snopes thing goes, Obama had months to merely show the birth certificate and the suit was dropped. Why not fucking show it if you have nothing to hide? The Snopes article gives no new information.

 

[skeptik]