Barack Obama - What You See Isn't What You Get - Part 1

My questions about Barack Obama, the image he projects, and the real man behind that image have become more important to me, as what we see in the campaign ads and his campaign speeches doesn't match with the reality of who he is. A few cases in point:

1 - Barack Obama points his finger at “greedy Wall Street” and the banks that have failed or are about to fail as the cause of the present financial meltdown. But as he points his finger, three others are pointing back at him. Many of those banks would never have gotten involved in risky mortgages if he and others hadn't sued many of those same banks for lending discrimination, so-called “redlining”, and forcing them to lend to those incapable of paying back those loans.

I find that rather hypocritical, don't you?

2 – In the October 2008 issue of Town Hall magazine in an excerpt of an interview by Michael Medved, Obama biographer David Freddoso paints Barack Obama as anything but a reformer, and repudiates his claims that he will 'reach across the aisle' in bipartisanship once he gets into office. His actions over the years speak louder than words, and he has been neither a reformer or bi-partisan. Says Freddoso:

The carefully crafted media image of Senator Obama is a great lie. There is, in fact, nothing in his career to point to him as someone who bridges partisan divides for the sake of positive change. This is quite clear from his record in how he's dealt with the machine politics of Chicago, how he's essentially served as an enabler of some extremely corrupt politicians in that city, how he has championed the same old systemic corrupt arrangements that have existed in Washington, and existed in Springfield, and in Chicago, including the various forms of corporate welfare, the special advantages that certain lobbyists seek. Senator Obama has been right in the center of that for his entire career. There are so many cases of it. The pattern is completely unmistakable.

And it is that pattern that disturbs me, since it is readily recognizable, yet ignored by the millions of Obama supporters. He is also very good at saying much, but meaning little, a way of being able to appear to promise something to the masses, yet never really coming out and saying exactly what. Such an ability does not fill me confidence. Apparently it is likewise with others as well. Freddoso continues:

...[A]nother of his biographers, David Mendell, refers to Obama's “charming lack of specificity.” So this is something people in Chicago have noticed for quite a while – that he is able to talk about issues as though he's taking everybody's side. And people want to listen to him.

In fact, when you look at Obama's legislative record, he's really not ideologically open-minded. He tends to take a position that is far left and sticks to it, even when the members of his own party, even when other liberals aren't willing to follow him there.

However, there has been one area where he's been quite clear, leaving little ambiguity as to his intentions.

3 - By now everyone has heard of Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher from Ohio and the question he asked Obama during a swing through his neighborhood. The question was nothing Joe had planned and, despite claims from many Obama supporters, he wasn't put up to it by the McCain campaign. (It's unlikely they could have even if they wanted to unless they had some means of forcing Obama to walk past Joe's yard.) Obama's answer to Joe's question about taxes on small businesses shows his socialist beliefs unfiltered. It was a crack in the image Obama has worked so hard to craft, and one that should give anyone a reason to question the rest of Obama's claims and campaign promises.

Pam Meister interviewed Joe the Plumber, one of her first questions being about what Joe asked Senator Obama.

Initially, I started off asking him if he believed in the American Dream and he said yes, he does – and then I proceeded to ask him then why he’s penalizing me for trying to fulfill it. He asked, “what do you mean,” and I explained to him that I’m planning on purchasing this company – it’s not something I’m gonna purchase outright, it’s something I’m going to have to make payments on for years – but essentially I’m going to buy this company, and the profits generated by that could possibly put me in that tax bracket he’s talking about and that bothers me. It’s not like I would be rich; I would still just be a working plumber. I work hard for my money, and the fact that he thinks I make a little too much that he just wants to redistribute it to other people. Some of them might need it, but at the same time, it’s not their discretion to do it – it’s mine.

And as most of you out there know, Obama stated outright that he intended to “share the wealth”, meaning a plan to redistribute the hard earned money of working people and give to those he believes are worthy of the fruits of someone else's labor. It will be the return of LBJ's horrific welfare program, the so-called War on Poverty, the one that trapped far too many people in poverty for over two generations. Unfortunately, poverty won that battle. It wasn't until President Clinton ended “welfare as we know it” and got people off the public dole and into jobs that the Great Society madness ended. Now Obama wants to undo all of that and return us to the days of generational dependence on welfare. How is that progress?

NOTE: I had originally planned this as one very lengthy post. Instead I decided to break it up into a number of smaller posts, each one covering two or three topics. Part 2 will be posted on Monday.