I never would have thought it possible to say but I believe now it is a powerfully good thing that our presidential nominating process is such a long, drawn out affair.
How else were we ever going to confirm that Barack Obama is a most accomplished and shameless liar?
Obama lies with an ease that bespeaks a comfortable familiarity with the practice. At first, when his lies about his friend Tony Rezko were revealed and then confirmed by the candidate himself, I thought to myself that every politician lies at some point and that Obama telling the press that he barely knew Rezko, that he was one of a thousand contributors, and that he only raised around $50,000 for his campaigns could be written off as a candidate simply blowing smoke about a problematic associate. (It turned out that Rezko was Obama’s most important fundraiser, a patron, and that he raised closer to $275,000 for the candidate.)
And then came the lies about the house he purchased with the help of Rezko. Obama addressed most of the questions in a sit down with the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times reporters – where further information came to light once again contradicting Obama’s previous statements about the extent to which he and Rezko cooperated in securing the home.
In Obama’s original statements about the purchase, he denied coordinating anything about the purchase with Rezko. He also denied knowing that Rezko was under investigation at the time when the entire city of Chicago knew that the “Fixer” was in trouble due to his fundraising activities for Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. (He admitted during the Trib interview that he had heard of Rezko’s troubles.) He also tried to paint Rezko as some eager beaver lobbyist who was just trying to get close to him.
In fact, one could say that Obama’s original explanation of his relationship with Rezko and much of what he said about the purchase of his house was nothing but a tissue of lies – swallowed for the most part by the national press. It was left to local reporters to ferret out the true story and put the pressure on Obama to come clean.
Again, when most of these revelations came to light, I was inclined to give Obama a break. Nothing unusual about a politician faced with an indicted associate trying to distance himself from the dirt. But I should have made note of the ease with which Obama first lied about his relationship with Rezko and then corrected the record without apolology and with zero damage to his credibility with his supporters.
But then came the Reverend Wright fiasco and Obama’s lying took on an entirely different character. His speech on race – done out of political necessity but nevertheless a thought provoking and wonderfully crafted address – contained many statements about Wright and his relationship with the preacher that strain credulity. John Derbyshire pointed out several of these “sleight of mouth” prevarications by Obama. And Obama’s biggest fibs about whether he heard Wright utter his hate filled sermons were given a pass by almost everyone.
It is breathtaking the way Obama has changed his narrative about Wright. He has done it with an ease and slipperiness that should disturb anyone who believes a president telling the truth must be placed fairly high on any list of qualifications for office. We’ve just spent 16 years dealing with Presidents who proved to be less than honest on big issues. Can’t we do better this time around?
Lies about Wright, about his grandmother, about the context in which he heard Wright’s remarks when attending Trinity Church – and finally, this whopper Obama blurted out in an interview scheduled to air today:
“Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church,” Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, “The View.” The interview will be broadcast Friday.
Let’s leave aside the extraordinarily self serving notion that Obama would have left the Church after 20 years of sitting in its pews listening to the hate spewing from the mouth of Reverend Wright not because he found the words objectionable but because it would have complicated his run for the presidency. Let us instead look at the ease with which he lied on a very popular TV show watched by millions of women by stating that Wright had “acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people” and that the remarks “were inappropriate.”
Did he indeed?
Tom McGuire:
So, when did Wright acknowledge that what he had said was deeply offensive and inappropriate? The AP story recounts some of Wright’s controversial comments but oddly omits to mention his apology, as does all other news coverage with which I am familiar. And I am strangely certain that a Wright apology would have made the news – unless he never made it publicly.So what are we supposed to believe – that Wright apologized to Obama, who is now apologizing to the rest of us on Wright’s behalf? For heaven’s sake, this really does show that Obama is made of Presidential stuff – maybe he can do an Apology Tour, just as Bill Clinton did.
But why is Wright apologizing to Obama, who only heard these remarks second hand – well, “second hand” if we still believe Obama’s insistence that he missed every service with these controversial comments (Huffington Post) but heard others (The Speech) but didn’t hear anything at all (town hall). Shouldn’t Wright be apologizing to those of us who took offense? Or after thirty years of delivering three sermons per week, has Wright developed a fear of public speaking?
Is this a little lie? Or a big one? Considering the fact that if Wright had indeed issued this tepid apologia it would place Obama’s defense of his minister in an entirely different, more palatable light, it certainly is not insignificant.
But what concerns me more than the lies themselves is the ease with which Obama employs them. Most politicians are pretty good liars but Obama, like Bill Clinton (unlike George Bush who is a horrible liar) is very, very good at it. And what’s even worse is his ability to turn 180 degrees and embrace the truth when he is discovered while barely acknowledging or ignoring the lie.
I will probably end up doing a post soon on McCain’s whoppers as well. The guy can’t keep his story straight about his support for amnesty, the Iraq War, or campaign finance reform, or any number of issues he has dealt with over the years. McCain doesn’t have quite as much to lie about – or at least about his personal associations.
For two guys running on how honest they are, it’s depressing to think that if these guys are the straightest talkers we have in the political class, our republic is in deep trouble.
8:39 am
None of this matters a bit. The piped piper leads the brain dead populace down the road.
9:03 am
Don’t miss this selection via Christopher Hitchens’ piece ..
Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he’d one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago “base” in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.
Perhaps Obama didn’t hear them, but he certainly knew of them at least a year ago. Also, note that Rev. Wright knew he would be viewed as contraversal, requiring an astrangement.
10:26 am
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/28/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
12:00 pm
Obama may lie,but he has a long way to go to top the “MASTER” Slick Willy.
12:44 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House » AN EASY LIAR [...]
12:56 pm
Speaking of Obama and deception…Would your “church,” if you fellowship with one, put on it’s bulletin board hateful articles from the anti-semitic, terrorist group Hamas? Barack Obama’s CURRENT church, Trinity United Church of Christ, did just that.
We just found out in the last 48 hours that Wright, while giving a eulogy in 2007, said that “(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him… The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”
Now comes a report by NBC News that while Wright was in charge at Obama’s CURRENT church, reprinted anti-Israel writings, including one column by none other than Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, appeared on the bulletin board there.
The column by the Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, asked: “Why should any Palestinian recognise the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel’s founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?”
The question becomes one of judgment, character, integrity, honesty and intelligence.
If I were to believe Obama’s defense that he didn’t, and still doesn’t, know what was, and still is, going on at his church for 20 years, then, in my opinion, he must not be very observant nor intelligent, and does not possess sensible judgement. Therefore he cannot be qualified to be the POTUS, in my opinion. If I do NOT believe Obama, then his integrity, character and honesty is woefully insufficient to be the POTUS, in my opinion.
Obama went to Harvard Law School (they don’t let just anybody in), where he became the first African-American president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1991. Now do you think he is NOT aware of what his church and ex-pastor are all about? Be AFRAID! Be VERY AFRAID!
Barack Obama’s political FRAUD against the American People continues…
Read the rest of this article here…http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/barack-obama-reverend-wright-trinity-united-church-of-christ-and-hamas/
1:42 pm
And now you understand why the likes of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Dem leadership are so eager to have Hillary drop out even though the Obamamessiah doesn’t have enough votes to secure the nomination on the first ballot, either.
In Barak Obama the people who now control the Democratic party have their perfect candidate-an America hating Marxist. An America hating Marxist who is essentially an empty suit but gives pretty speeches and “says all the right things”. That is why they withdrew their support of Hillary months ago and want her to quit-Obama is so far to the left that he makes Hillary look like Reagan.
You know the calls by Pelosi and the Dem leadership for Hillary to drop out has always struck me as very bizarre. If she only had like 200 delegates and was just staying in for the hell of it I could understand that. But they are not that far apart on delegates and neither one will be able to get the nomination without the superdelegates so there is no logical reason for their repeated calls for her to drop out that were coming even before the Texas primary. But after the stuff about Obama’s racist “pastor” and church came to light I now understand why. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the baggage that Obama has-and it is baggage that if the Dems can not keep it covered up before the election they know there is no way Obama will win. Baggage that makes “Rev.” Wright look like a very small problem. There are his dealings with Tony Rezko and Rezko’s ties to the UN oil for food scandal, there are Obama’s active assistance in bringing Islamofascism and the sharia to Kenya just to put some names on a couple of Obama’s bags. There are plenty more. The Dem leadership also are beginning to get the clue that their propaganda wing aka the MSM is no longer the gatekeeper of information. 30 years ago they could have buried Obama’s baggage, now they can not. The Dem leadership knows that Hillary plays for keeps and will not hesitate to open up the Pandora’s box that is Obama’s baggage. That is their greatest fear and that is why they want her to be the good little girl and quietly STFU and STFD.
3:06 am
Around The Campaign 2008 Sphere March 30, 2008…
Is Hillary on the ropes? Is Obama facing a lull before another storm? Is he too wounded to win the election? Is that guy smiling John McCain (yes). Here’s another edition of our linkest offering you an Internet roadmap to various sites. NOTE: L…
6:20 am
Yeah, he lied on THE VIEW the other day when he said the right reverand had said he knew his comments were diffisive and he had apologized which is a BIG LIE. I do not recall one article or hearing one commentater on any program mention what obama said.
Hillary ducking bullets in Bosnia, all the dems know how to do is lie.
11:58 am
[...] Moran is glad the American election process takes sooooo long. Otherwise, how would we know who was the bigger fool? Obama is reaching the the pinnacle of [...]
2:00 pm
The fact is that Obama does not lie well. He is only good when spouting his canned speeches and cliches or when in a totally friendly environment. When confronted, his eyes, voice, and body language betray him readily. This is why his surrogates have to re-spin everything he says in order to tell us what he meant. They know the same is true, in spades, regarding Michelle.
3:50 pm
You know, I’m just getting sick of this Rev Wright issue. Big deal. He went to church and his pastor said some extremely outrageous things. That doesn’t mean he said them every Sunday. I agree with rex: even if Obama’s not clean, he’s NO Bill Clinton (or Hillary for that matter). Geez, guys, we could do worse than have to choose between a war hero and an educated, inspiring leader. Why keep attacking him like this? Calling him a liar with “canned speeches”? It just doesn’t make us look good. Talk about policy issues, guys. Grow up beyond 4th grade bullying.
6:41 pm
Excellent article! I just cannot fathom why the MSM is so enamoured with this fictitious liar—Barack Obama.
I guess it comes from shallow reporting and wanting to get big ratings agrandizing Obama.
Actually, having Obama in the WH would be extremely risky!!
http://whoisobama.homestead.com/fairytales.html
7:46 pm
If you think he is just lying about Rev. Wright. Check out the website MuslimsforObama08. In quotes in Obama’s history, he says “I was not raised in a religious household, my mother was detatched from religion.” Then following other links checking whether he is or ever was a Muslim, when talking to a Christian interviewer he said”My mother was a Christian from Kansas.” Why on Muslim site no childhood religion, but on Christian questioning always a Christian. I’m not a religious nut, just checking the Muslim side and found this strange. Then going on to other links Danielpipes.org he was enrolled in school in Indonesia as a Muslim student. This is interesting reading people. We need to wake up to this Hitler.If you are still in a state left to vote, if you cherish this country you will nominate Hillary. Stay with the devil you know than the devil you don’t. And I feel this man is the devil.
1:31 am
So can we also expect on of your learned posts on Clinton? The lies there supercede any other candidates. The list is long and goes back 35 years to the one regarding Bill’s campaign manager in Arkansas and ends with her most recent one about Obama and the war. Many in between that could include her 9/11 lie, her Bosnia lie, her Kusovo lie and the list does go on and on but you get my point.
I just think that if you expect any credibility at all you have to be fair since the person whose trust poll is the lowest of the 3 candidates reflect her pattern lying, she should also be included.
3:56 am
I have a whole bunch of Obama’s lies compiled. And we thought the Clintons’ lies were bad.
http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/baracks-hypocrisy-on-iraq-energy-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/
This Barack fellow is even scarier than the Clinton, in my opinion.
9:43 am
The one thing that has stood out with me and Mr. Obama is his total lack of humility—which leads him to lie. It is not possible for him to admit that he is wrong on a substantive issue because in his mind and the world of South Chicago politics he is perfect.
It is amazing that aobut 50% of the electorate cannot see that his is a demagogue and an easy liar…
11:14 am
Yes, the lies are bad.
Yes, Wright’s ranting is bad.
However, these both are red herrings. Since we can be 99% sure Obama agrees with the Trinity UCC teachings, we need to examine those. These center on Dr. James Cone and his Black Liberation Theology. If one inspects Dr. Cone’s seminal works, Black Power and Black Theology, and A Black Theology of Liberation, we run into the most troubling fact of all. Dr. Cone’s work is simply opposed to the idea of black people living in harmony with white people. Even if we grant the obfuscating claim of Cone’s proponents that his use of “black” and “white” are merely symbols for “oppressed” and “oppressor”, his work clearly fosters the idea that blacks should not cooperate with the “white system”.
The “Black Value System” championed by Trinity clarifies that Cone’s values are their values. It continually speaks of the “black community” and “black values”. Are these the ideas of one who would claim to unite the American people? Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt!
11:30 am
This is funny. If this is the best the Republicans can do McSame is in trouble. I’ll be glad when the civil war within the demacrat party is over so the media starts focasing on McFlipflop him self…
12:24 pm
By your metric, everybody in the damn world is “an easy liar”. Nobody has as a auto-fact-check system biologically attached to their brains! The question comes down to general reliability, the relative importance of the statement, and of course the intent to deceive. If a friend tells me that he worked out for an hour, and I come back with a surveillance video from the exercise club showing that he left 55 minutes after he arrived, I can accurately (I guess) call him an “easy liar”. On the other hand, I haven’t shown that he has a blatant disregard for the truth, and in fact the friend would remain trustworthy. He may have technically missed the truth, but still there was no intention to deceive, and in fact most people would judge that he had indeed told the truth in this instance.
But let’s say my fried was in fact with a mistress. He could still potentially claim that he had not lied about “working out for an hour”. Still his statement was misleading, and my trust in him upon learning the truth would be diminished. Most people would consider that he had indeed lied.
Trustworthiness can only be judged on a relative scale. Everyone tells the occasional white-lie, exaggerates, and intentionally misleads every so often. We judge people to be liars when their statements are consistently not reliable, when there is intent, when there is importance, and when the lie contradicts the truth to the extreme: that which is known as a “bald-faced” lie. So using my metric, which indeed is the common one, Barack Obama and John McCain are not liars. Hillary on the other hand, has reduced her credibility so much with a complete disregard for the truth, that she indeed can be accurately called . . . a liar.
cheers,