Matt Welch, with thoughts on the president’s ongoing estranged (if he ever had a serious one) relationship with the truth.
When Carney confronted a White House spokeswoman with the falsehood, she conceded nothing. “As the President said,” she wrote, “we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions.” Just not all of them.
As such defiance suggests, this was no isolated slip of the tongue. The president, who promised in both word and style to usher in a “new era” of Washington “responsibility,” routinely says things that aren’t true and supports initiatives that break campaign promises. When called on it, he mostly keeps digging. And when obliged to explain why American voters are turning so sharply away from his party and his policies, Obama pins the blame not on his own deviations from verity but on his failure to “explain” things “more clearly to the American people.”
What is amazing is not that his approval ratings are so low, but that so many remain enthralled with such a huckster and charlatan.
I think the public is way ahead of the Mainstream Media on this. The mainstream media has largely given Obama a pass. THe public did, too, at first, but the people are beginning to arrive at the conclusion that he is neither competent nor honest. ONce that opinion hardens in people’s mnds, it will be very hard for the administration to change.
He’s still got 42% approval rating in Rasmussen’s poll. A lot of die-hard hope & changers may prop O up for the rest of his term.
That’s not enough to get reelected. Or to get anyone else reelected. He’s promising wavering Dems that he’ll help them this fall, but the record of Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts shows it’s a hollow promise.
He’s promising wavering Dems that he’ll help them this fall
Yep. He’s promising that the profits from selling pitch forks and torches to voters will go right into the reelection coffers of local Dems.
If the primary goal is to get socialized medicine in, as the thin(nish) end of the wedge to socialism in general more firmly established in the US, then it may be seen as acceptable that the price of that is losing control of the Congress.
It’s hard for some to admit they were suckered in by the glamour and the chance to ‘make history.’ Wasn’t it David Geffen who, when jumping on the O-Wagon early in the campaign, accused the Clintons of lying too much– too much even for politicians?
so many remain enthralled with such a huckster
It makes you wonder. Anybody sounding the alarm is a crank and a racist.
People don’t seem to realize that this country can be weakened to the point of destruction. Mr. O. is doing all he can. Good thing he’s a false messiah and mostly ineffective.
The “lie” in question isn’t a lie. The Obama administration has excluded many lobbyists from policy positions. It has been stricter in that regard than any other administration in modern memory.
As for the president’s approval ratings, if you plot presidential disapproval against unemployment in peacetime you find a nearly perfect correlation, whether the president in question is Carter, Reagan, Clinton or Obama. Obama’s approval ratings aren’t middling because “people are beginning to arrive at the conclusion that he is neither competent nor honest”; they’re middling because unemployment is high.
Rasmussen shows Obama’s total approval numbers matched or exceeded by his strong disapproval numbers — and the total approval vs. strong disapproval parity also exists on ObamaCare. Coincidence? Jim thinks so.
One could argue the unemployment numbers are so bad because Obama hasn’t been trying to address it. I think the unemployment numbers aren’t worse only because Obama hasn’t been trying to address it.
If ObamaCare passes or Obama is finally forced to drop it — whoa, Nellie.
The Obama administration has excluded many lobbyists from policy positions.
What a convenient statement. Since there are hundreds if not thousands of lobbyists for each and every ONE policy position this statement could not possibly be a lie. Yet it taste like it. Smells like it. Lying is intentionally misleading. Yep, that’s what this statement is.
“The Obama administration has excluded many lobbyists from policy positions.”
It is a lie from his campaign position. You can move the goalposts if you want but it doesn’t change the lie.
“…then it may be seen as acceptable that the price of that is losing control of the Congress.”
That might be great for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, but the pawns on the chessboard might have a different opinion about having their political careers cut short.