Posts
Apparently listening to those in his camp shaken by Mr. McCain's post-convention bounce, Mr. Obama has switched away from his "politics of hope", which had been focusing on positivity, and has bizarrely gone so far as to instruct his supporters to argue with their neighbors, not about legitimate things such as not voting for him because of race or party affiliation, but on much more questionable issues. He told them to tell their neighbors that he supported the second amendment, which prior to a recent flip-flop, is at best a deceitful statement, but in generally understood terms is simply false. He told them to tell them that he will lower their taxes(clearly Mr. Obama has simply abandoned the wealthy vote outside Hollywood), which may be technically true for poorer taxpayers, but especially in implied comparison to Mr. McCain is somewhat oversimplifying the issue. Not only does he want you to have a polite conversation with them about what for many people are two very uncomfortable topics, he wants you to "get in their face and argue". This is Mr. Obama's vision for America? Browbeating neighbors over questionable positions on wedge issues? Where is the civility Mr. Obama promised?
What is equally disturbing is that this was a irrational response to a bump in the polls for Mr. McCain following his convention and a slew of negative ads. Anyone who has the tiniest bit of experience watching politics knew it would be temporary, and it is in fact already over. How was Mr. Obama baited into going so very negative over a temporary situation? He has been allowing his frustration to show, which is really political immaturity. With cracks in composure already showing, it looks to be a long road to Nov. 4 for the politics of hope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree with Obama's Bolshevik tactics. Telling your followers, "I want you to argue with them and get in their face" is not a wise move. The reason it is not wise is that the more you argue with someone, and the more violently, the less likely they are to (a) listen to you and (b) adopt your position. All it does is increase feelings of anger and resentment.
Inciting others to anger and violence in the name of a leader is setting a dangerous precedent. It tells the people, especially the segment of his supporters that will follow blindly and without thought, that it is okay to use violence -- whether of words or of action -- when YOU KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT.
Perhaps the Revolution is coming after all... but it will not be of the wealthy rising up against unfair taxation, or of the Second Amendment defenders. It will be a revolution of the poor masses overtaking the wealthy, a la France, 1793. They will use violence and a righteous anger toward the wealthy, buoyed by the belief that wealth is a zero-sum game.
To use hyperbole as example, what if some lunatic follower takes Obama's words too far? He's going to get in their face, all right. He car-bombs the neighbors because they have a McCain-Palin sign in their yard.
=====
I dislike Obama asking his followers to lie (or tell half-truths, or however you want to say it) on his behalf. It is one thing for politicians to lie; I fully expect them to do that. But asking other people to lie for you is going too far.
Post a Comment