Earlier this week after President Obama, in his El Paso speech, said that the border fence was “basically complete,” Jim Hoft headlined his post on the matter, “You Lie!” Now, by the standards the left used to just the in incumbent’s predecessor, the president’s statement about the border fence was clearly dishonest.
The real question is whether or not the president knew at the time he was making the statement that it was false. In the Bush era, his critics never showed that the Republican was consciously coloring the facts when he spoke about Saddam’s WMDs. Joe Wilson certainly tried, but it turns out the one-time John Kerry aide was himself playing fast and loose with the facts.
Yet, when a Democrat plays fast and loose with the facts, it doesn’t seem to raise any red flags to the majority of the mainstream media — as it would when it just appears a Republican has done it. Even the context of the two president’s alleged dishonesty is different. Bush didn’t make the claims about Saddam’s WMDs to advance his own political fortunes, but to secure the nation against a threat which, as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted, appeared more worrisome in the heady months after the attacks of 9/11.
When the incumbent president twists the facts, however, he does so to advance his own political fortunes by discrediting and even demonizing his political adversaries. As Charles Krauthammer put it:
The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”
How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.
This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote as part of an openly political two-city, three-event campaign swing in preparation for 2012.
Read the whole thing. The only reason the Democrat could even claim that the fence is close to complete (Krauthammer details just how it isn’t even close to completion) is to say the Republicans’ primary issue in the debate, the one which resonates with most Americans (including those like myself more pro-immigration that most on the right) is just a subterfuge.
If the fence is already up, then he can better exploit divisions in the GOP (between more libertarian voices like the editors at the Wall Street Journal and more legalist ones like Michelle Malkin). As Krauthammer puts it, pretty much (but not perfectly) articulating my view, “Upon receipt of objective and reliable evidence that the border is secure — not Obama’s infinitely manipulable interdiction statistics — the question would be settled and the immigrants legalized.”
It is foolish to move forward on dealing with the problem of the undocumented immigrants here in the United States until we secure the border and can better regulate their inflow. And develop a policy to address those who have flaunted immigration laws to seek opportunity here. But, with the border still porous, we can’t even begin to consider how to deal with those individuals. With his disingenuous statement, the president attempts to dismiss that argument.
Thus, it seems that the man who, when a candidate for president, once promised a new level of discourse, once in office, dismisses conservatives’ greatest concern in the one of the most contentious issues of our time.
Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.
ever notice everything they do is “for the children”?
How is killing babies “for the children”? Should they not say “For those who managed to escape the womb” to keep it honest? wait…dems and honesty are diametric positions.
I digress.
0bama lies because who is going to call him on it? The sycophantic Press?
And they wonder why Perry refused to meet him when he came. Perry should have announced “I will be touring the disaster area burned in the fires. Meet me there”.
From what Fox News is reporting, the Texas Amnesty speech backfired.
I’m hearing the same thing from other places Sebastian…that people actually living along the border dealing with the problems of illegal immigration don’t seem to share President Yuk-Yuk’s amazing sense of humor.
I have never seen a President actually mock the people he is supposed to be serving the way that this jackhole does.
AF, yeah, even Bill Clinton was above mocking his constituents. And here we get such mockery from the candidate who promised a new postpartisan American with less such discourse.
BTW, am in SF for my oldest nephew’s wedding and am very proud of that fine young man for many reasons, including his service in the Air Force where he is now undergoing pilot training, having done ROTC at Duke.
I once worked in an environment where the “chief” would state a bald faced lie and immediately dare anyone in the assemblage of 120 subordinates to challenge him. In effect, he demanded immediate validation of his lie. Since no one wanted to take his wrath and the ensuing misery, all assembled just studied their shoelaces.
I see a lot of that in Obama. He is impervious to correction and he is going to lead the way he leads no matter what. He has billions of unspent stimulus money to fold into his campaign and there is no point of honor of any sort intruding on his drive to be reelected. He could not care less about the Democrat party or the elected offices they seek. He is dedicated to himself.
There is no Democrat or leftist brave enough to face him down. He has them cowed and abused and they are all supplicants. What a lot. Chicago politics on a national scale in full daylight really does work.
Just the math alone shows the rapid decline of American prosperity. But the leftists are so bent for power and authority over people’s lives that they will destroy the nation to achieve their aims. Each is determined to have one of the rare isolated and insulated seats of power in the Politburo that they would destroy their kith and kin to gain it. Really sad.
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattwright/400394507/lightbox/
A cowboy from Texas attended a social function where Barack Obama was trying to gather support for his Health Plan. When Obama discovered the cowboy was from President Bush’s home area, he started to belittle him by talking in a southern drawl and single syllable words.
As he was doing that, he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head. The cowboy says, “Y’all havin’ some problem with them circle flies?”
Obama stopped talking and said, “Well, yes, if that’s what they’re called, but I’ve never heard of circle flies.”
“Well, sir,” the cowboy replies, “Circle flies hang around ranches. They’re called circle flies because they’re almost always found circling around the back end of a horse.”
“Oh,” Obama replies as he goes back to rambling.
But, a moment later he stops and bluntly asks,
“Are you calling me a horse’s ass?”
“No, sir,” the cowboy replies, “I have too much respect for the citizens of this country to call their president a horse’s ass.”
“That’s a good thing,” Obama responds and begins rambling on once more.
After a long pause, the cowboy, in his best Texas drawl says,”Hard to fool them flies, though.”
“including his service in the Air Force where he is now undergoing pilot training”
Good on ’em! 🙂 I hope he does well in UPT, and gets his choice of which platform he wants to fly.
Interesting just came across this and once again I find that so many on the right never stay to point. It usually goes into humilitation and naming calling revealing some kind of juvenile hatred anger. Immigration is not just about the border and Mexico it is so much broader and the American public must get to an understanding of this. For instance what about gay partners who are married or in a domestic relationship but the significant other is from another country. That being just one of the many issues of immigration that is hardly ever addressed. And the public dialogue must become much broader and more real than just people’s anger at Mexicans (and others crossing the border).
Well nwjeff,
Given that the current administration’s view is to ignore the law, why should we be surprised you support them.
Tell you what. Let’s say the next administration decides to ignore hate crime laws. You want to support that too?