What Barack Obama and Milli Vanilli Have in Common
Barack Obama is all image and no substance, writes Bob Owens. And forget "change." He's just lip-synching the old liberal standards.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Fresh off of impressive wins in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, Illinois Senator Barack Obama seems poised to ride his campaign mantra of “change” to the Democratic presidential nomination, with a very real possibility of becoming America’s first black president. His rock star — excuse me, “Barack star” — hype aside, however, he is running a campaign on ideas and ideals firmly rooted in old-school, well-monied, liberal culture.
Obama’s political background is cryptic, and perhaps purposefully so. Recent attempts to find some substance in his legal and academic background have come up empty. His record of voting “present” while in the Illinois Senate instead of taking a position on tough issues is well-known. Democratic focus groups that wildly favor Obama over Hillary Clinton could not list a single legislative accomplishment for the senator, and instead admitted of Obama that “you don’t get the substance. You only get froth and apologies.”
To date, Obama’s masterful rhetorical skills have wooed voters across the political spectrum, but for those of us who grew up in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we may well be advised to start considering Obama as the “Milli Vanilli candidate.”
You remember Milli Vanilli, don’t you? Or are you still trying to forget?
Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus were the faces of the duo that achieved considerable pop music success with such songs as “Baby Don’t Forget My Number,” “Girl I’m Gonna Miss You,” “Blame It on the Rain,” and “Girl You Know It’s True.” In 1990 they won the Grammy Award for Best New Artist.
Too bad these two models/dancers didn’t actually sing any of the songs on their album. They were a fraud, lip-syncing for the less attractive actual talent. Morvan, Pilatus, and Arista records were subsequently named the defendants in more than two dozen consumer fraud cases and stripped of their Grammy as a result.
Unlike Milli Vanilli’s Morvan and Pilatus, Barack Obama still has his Grammy. What he lacks are new ideas and substance that extends beyond his less-than-original campaign phrases.
Despite the uniting messianic figure that he plays on stage and in front of the cameras, Obama’s actual voting record has established him as the most radical leftist in the United States senate, to the left of Joe Biden, self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, and the epitome of nanny-state limousine liberalism, Ted Kennedy.
Far from being a centrist, Obama is a radical on hot-button issues.
Though he tries to talk about it as little as possible, Obama is a strong gun control advocate, and has stated his support of a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. His recent comments that he will not take guns away from hunters is purposefully duplicitous, glossing over the fact that he supports a permanent ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines, like those commonly used in hunting, target shooting, and for self-defense.
Obama’s economic policies? Says Larry Kudlow:
Obama voted against the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, justifying his anti-growth stance with the old class-warfare saw about tax cuts for the rich. Of course, these are the very same tax cuts that spurred economic expansion, created record job growth, and reduced the deficit as revenues flooded the Treasury.
The young senator also voted against repealing the death tax. He dismissed it as a “Paris Hilton tax break” that would give “billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses.” Try telling that to the owners of farms, ranches, and small businesses who are forced to sell their legacies because of this tax.
He swings a nice protectionist bat, too. He has voted against free trade (CAFTA) and U.S. energy independence (drilling in ANWR), and has opposed lifting a $0.54 per gallon tariff on Brazillian ethanol. “Ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices,” he claimed. Nonsense.
He’s also strongly opposed to personal retirement accounts for Social Security reform, and prefers instead that the government stewards your money. As Amanda Carpenter wrote in Human Events, “When speaking out against various tax cuts, Obama has likened the ‘Ownership Society’ — which entails such things as personalized Social Security accounts, health savings accounts, and school choice — to ’social Darwinism.’”
The George W. Bush way has been to work toward ending the multiple-taxation of savings and investment — to lower taxes and put the people’s money back in the people’s wallets. It’s all about capital. Simply put, the economy can’t grow without capital to fertilize the soil of new technologies, jobs, and businesses. But Obama scoffs at such notions.
Like almost everything else, Obama’s economic stance isn’t new — and it isn’t “change.”
For all the hype, Barack Obama is making his way though the Democratic nominating process by merely lip-syncing old liberal standards borrowed from those who came before him. When potential voters begin to notice the lack of originality behind the hype, the “change” candidate may find his fall to be just as meteoric as his rise.
Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
32 Comments
Sphynx:You clintonites crack me up. You are so busy falling for the Clinton allegations that he has no bite with his bark that you never actually stop and do research. Of course he’s not going to go into details during the Pep Rallies he’s been holding. He’s there to woo, just as Clinton is, who’s sole contribution to positions is to degrade Obama’s.
Obama doesn’t need to waste people’s time at these rallies with his details, he has web sites full of his details for those actually interested in seeing his plans. When his campaign started it almost fell apart because he was ‘too professorial’ (which I guess only those of us who have been supporting him from his very beginning seem to know). People who want details will find it soon enough. His Country Tour isn’t about giving you details unless it’s specifically asked of him, and when it is, he has given details. It’s about getting votes. That’s what it’s about for everyone in the race. It’s about making an impression, about cosmetics of the campaign, it’s about getting people in the spirit of it so that when they go to the ballot box to vote they remember who actually made them want to vote again.
After the past couple of elections where the only candidates were a list of options that let you pick the lesser of evils, and not Greatness at all, I’m glad that for the first time in decades, people are excited not only to go run out and vote, but to have a definitive candidate in mind when they do, one who has brought a merging of America into a realization.
Feb 15, 2008 - 2:07 am rana karimzadeh:Försvenskade imamer - nej tack!
Feb 15, 2008 - 4:17 am David Thomson:Om den senaste diskussionen kring imamutbildningStöd våra protestkrav - underteckna vår namninsamling!Vi vill framföra våra protester emot Lars Lejonborg, den svenska regeringens högskoleministers planer när det gäller imamskolor. Våra krav består av:- inga statliga pengar till religiösa verksamheter och i synnerhet de islamiska rörelserna- principerna för ett sekulärt samhälle som finns i den svenska grundlagen ska gälla även för invånare med annan härkomst- islam liksom andra religioner är en fri - och privat val för vuxna människor därför bör all inblandning av imamer och islamiska rörelser i offentlig verksamhet förbjudas
http://nej-tack.blogspot.com
“When potential voters…”
The middle of the road voters will solidly reject Barack “Barry” Obama. At this point in time, Obama is substantially counting on the guilt tripped pseudoeducated white vote. This sort of silliness can be pushed only so far. I am not rejecting Obma because he is a half black candidate—but because he is utterly unfit for the highest office in the land.
Feb 15, 2008 - 6:28 am Jon C:Only those who, for whatever reasons of their own, have not taken the time to look closely into both Barack’s record and his policy proposals would buy this argument.
Obama, in fact, has more substance in both his legislative record in Illinois combined with Washington and provides better and broader policy information than any candidate out there. Start here: http://barackobama.com/issues
The Milli Vanilli candidate? Come on….
Feb 15, 2008 - 6:36 am Irishspacemonk:If your idea of change is taking America in a direction that leaves millions unable to get access to healthcare, that gives seniors ready to retire the option of poverty or working another 20 years, if your idea of change is another 100 years of Iraq and trillions of dollars in debt, then yes, Obama isn’t going to strike your chord and make you want his kind of change. However, to insinuate that he’s lip syncing is just plain stupid. Give an example of where you’ve actually gone out and made change in a community, forgoing a big salary? Right, you write a blog and b!tch.
Feb 15, 2008 - 6:55 am newton:Those Obama-defending whiners should just wake up and smell the rat poison. Don’t you see that he’s swooning crowds with talks about “hope” and “change”? Take the frosting out, and there’s no cake!
All he’s doing is DECEIVING people into voting for him. Of course, people will follow him, because too many potential voters are so truly uneducated and ignorant to their core about civics, to say the least. The politically illiterate voter will be Obama’s best friend.
Then, they will be taken to the “Promised Land”. When they see they got nothing but fluff, it will be too late: they will see that he’s nothing but a Pied Piper who took them all for suckers.
Keep listening to his melody: I ain’t jumping off the cliff with you.
Feb 15, 2008 - 8:06 am Webutante:Great piece, Bob. Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been looking for the beef and can’t find any anywhere either. Or what I have found is rancid.
Barack will decimate the economy, attempt to curtail Second Amendment rights, and try to throw away gains made over the past 7 years in Iraq.
Here you’re mostly preaching to the choir, but how do you convince people, especially women who don’t have a clue how things really work, especially capital formation, and are swept away in emotion and maya? Barack appears to be an androgynous kind of guy who appeals to a naivety that is outside of reason.
Feb 15, 2008 - 8:11 am Sphynx:Newton, do you have anything at all to back that up with?!?
His record seems to be at opposition to your allegations. Every single time he’s ever made a promise, he’s gone through with it. The exact opposite behavior of Clinton who has made promises to 3 groups I belong to and once the promise was made, not another word about it. I’ll be glad to point out precise broken-promises of Clinton if you can give even the smallest shred of evidence that Obama has no intent of keeping his promises.
Webutante: How exactly are any of his plans going to ruin the economy? Oh wait… you can’t find his plans you say, so you must be talking out of your ass. There’s a reason Churchill said “The biggest argument against Democracy is a 5 minute conversation with an average voter.”
Feb 15, 2008 - 8:33 am Bill Bradley:Bob has done a great job of demonstrating how the far right is unprepared for a non-anti-Hillary campaign.
Feb 15, 2008 - 8:42 am Jeb:When he says (and you repeat) that the Bush tax cuts created record job growth and reduced the deficit, how is anyone supposed to take anything that follows seriously? These are patently absurd statements. You have to go back no further than Clinton to see higher job growth and deficits skyrocketed after the tax cuts. At least “spurred economic expansion” is abstract enough that it can be argued (from both sides).
Feb 15, 2008 - 9:00 am mishu:Well, Jon C, there are certainly a lot of items listed in his url there but still very little substance. Just a lot of catch phrases. Consider the economy:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
“Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.”
Just what does that mean? He’s going to have meetings? OOh yeah!
Of course, you must pay lip service to “Clean Technologies”. Say the word “green” and everyone will just breathe easier.
Here’s some substance and it’s doozy:
“Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.”
Yep. You want to ensure inflation keeps rising. Things costing too much? Hey, just print more money! Same old Keynsian tripe.
Feb 15, 2008 - 9:10 am NH:Ha! That comment at the beginning is the best!
Feb 15, 2008 - 10:04 am Boris:I’ve been saying it for a while now — Obama is a hollywood creation to sell to the dumb masses. He’s totally malleable and of no substance of his own.
“Here you’re mostly preaching to the choir, but how do you convince people, especially women who don’t have a clue how things really work, especially capital formation, and are swept away in emotion and maya? Barack appears to be an androgynous kind of guy who appeals to a naivety that is outside of reason.”
Wow, that’s some great insight. No wonder Republicans are doing so well in the sexist moron demo.
Feb 15, 2008 - 10:11 am David Thomson:The pro-Obama commenters sound something like Ron Paul fanatics. I guess they had to go somewhere. This may be a sure sign that the end is near.
Feb 15, 2008 - 10:38 am pch1013:The end of the Ron Paul campaign, anyway.
Feb 15, 2008 - 11:06 am smg45acp:It is maddening. Obama is basically LBJ failed liberal policies all over again. Only repackaged in a younger man. He talks the same exact things and throws in the words “hope” and “change” and people are stupid enough to follow.
The second factor that buoys him is that people are excited about having a black president. And that would be a grand occasion and truly a great moment for America. But like the young woman that’s so excited about having grand wedding she overlooks finding a groom worthy of marriage, I see the same thing here. So many people want a black president so bad that they will latch on to anyone that is even half sane. Even some one they truly disagree with and know has destructive policies.
Also look for the “Bradley factor” if Obama gets the nomination.
Feb 15, 2008 - 11:54 am David Thomson:“Also look for the “Bradley factor” if Obama gets the nomination.”
Bill Bradley is simply wrong to think only the “far right” is concerned about the Obama phenomenon. The reality is that the middle of the road voters will ultimately be the ones to reject him. Conservative voters only represent about 40% of the electorate. You still need to add another 10.00001% to win on election day.
Feb 15, 2008 - 12:44 pm Bob:For those interested, Mona Charen just published a new column about Obama that really explains his lack of substance. Check it out Here .
Feb 15, 2008 - 1:31 pm GOP crony:Does the Obama phenomena remind anyone else of that 70’s movie character “Chance the Gardener” whose simplistic musings about “planting the seeds and it will grow” were assigned deep meaning by the media the until he became a presidential advisor and talk show star?
Feb 15, 2008 - 2:51 pm jrdroll:“Irishspacemonk :
If your idea of change is taking America in a direction that leaves millions unable to get access to healthcare, that gives seniors ready to retire the option of poverty or working another 20 years,”
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.
That’s a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.
Feb 15, 2008 - 3:06 pm Bill Bradley:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-seniors_N.htm
Actually, David, the “Bradley factor” has nothing to do with me, as the other guy is my cousin and this particular Bradley, Tom Bradley, is a guy for whom I was the opposition research guy.
But things get confusing in ideological politics.
The “Bradley factor” refers to people pretending they will vote for a black guy and secretly voting against him, as happened with Tom Bradley’s 1982 California gubernatorial campaign, in which the Field exit poll showed him winning by 10, yet he actually lost.
It may be that Obama would lose to John McCain, someone who I know and like. Because McCain, too, appeals to independents and moderates.
But you were yammering away against McCain, on my site and elsewhere, not that long ago.
Had the far right choices for president won the nomination, the outcome in November would not be at all in question.
>David Thomson :
Feb 15, 2008 - 3:52 pm David Thomson:“Also look for the “Bradley factor” if Obama gets the nomination.”
Bill Bradley is simply wrong to think only the “far right” is concerned about the Obama phenomenon. The reality is that the middle of the road voters will ultimately be the ones to reject him. Conservative voters only represent about 40% of the electorate. You still need to add another 10.00001% to win on election day.
Feb 15, 2008 12:44 PM
“Actually, David, the “Bradley factor” has nothing to do with me, as the other guy is my cousin and this particular Bradley, Tom Bradley, is a guy for whom I was the opposition research guy.”
I am very well aware of the original meaning of the “Bradley factor.” It was my impression; perhaps incorrectly, that smg45acp was employing tongue in cheek humor at your expense. A high number of white yuppies are desperately seeking any excuse possible to support Barack “Barry” Obama because of their feelings of racial guilt. Somehow I strongly suspect that you are among this group. Senator Obama is a joke and there in no way in hell that a white man with such a pathetic resume and shallow grasp of the issues would ever be seriously considered for the top political office in the United States.
Rudy Giuliani was my first choice—and don’t recall him ever being described as a member of the radical right. I am a pragmatist and now strongly support John McCain. In many respects, he is a lesser of evils. Senator McCain, however, also has his head on straight regarding the threat of Islamic nihilism. I will not have to hold my nose to vote for him!
Feb 15, 2008 - 5:41 pm kpeyser:The Obama campaign feels more and more like a cult. It seems totally centered around the wonderfulness of being an Obama worshiper and experiencing the cult of Obama. It reminds me of the original EST from the 1970’s run by Werner Ehrhard, who himself used to be in Scientology.
At some point Obama will be forced to make known in detail what his position will be on taxes, Iran, Israel, Iraq, federal budget deficits and school vouchers. I am afraid hope, good vibes and change seem like vague and ephemeral hot air slogans in a balloon that will be punctured in the fall by McCain.
Cults do not last long and often have ugly endings.
Feb 15, 2008 - 6:25 pm Jim Rockford:Obama has shown ZILCH ability to win working class whites, or white males who are not the yuppie-rich status obsessed guys Larry David parodies.
Beating Alan Keyes is not experience in beating Republicans. Obama has ZILCH experience explaining his hard-left policies.
His gun ban? Lose him the South and West. His plan to tax America to give to Africa/Asia/Latin America? To the tune of 800+ billion USD? A sure fire loser in a recession. His Global Warming plans to sign Kyoto — and kill Detroit’s jobs? A total loser. His plan to sign on to the ICC and have Marines and Soldiers and Sailors be prosecuted by IRAN and other loony enemies of the US? Insane politically. As is his plan for “reparations” for Slavery which is an election-killer.
His REFUSAL to say the pledge of allegiance and wear the lapel flag pin (because he’s “against the Iraq War”) is ten kinds of stupidity. It signals uncommitted voters and patriotic values voters that Obama only “loves his country when it agrees with him.”
More to the point he offers the broad, mostly white middle and working class nothing but pain, including substantial economic (loss of jobs, high taxes to pay for foreign aid and “reparations” going only to Blacks), cultural (loss of gun ownership, disdain for patriotic symbols) along with insistence on getting a “loss” in Iraq because of Bush. Even during 1968 voters were not willing to lose in Vietnam and voted for NIXON.
Dems weaknesses are structural — they rely on Larry David style yuppies and Blacks/Latinos/Feminists. That’s the party. Al Gore reckoned gun control lost him TN and thus the White House. Obama wants to ban hand gun ownership.
Feb 15, 2008 - 10:22 pm Paul B:I love the stink of fear coming from the right. If “lack of specifics” and vagueness are political liabilities, then Obama is fortunate that his opponent will be the very senior senator from AZ, who is not exactly known for being a policy wonk. As for bed-wetting about the alleged lack of “new ideas” - again, compared to McCain, Obama is the New Idea Express. And since the “old ideas” so hated by the hard right are supported by a majority (and in some cases a supermajority) of this country’s population (on health care, worker’s rights, social safety net, the environment, etc) according to the multi-decade Pew study released last year, there is no NEED to generate “new ideas” - just proudly and eloquently defend the “old ones.” Obama is doing just that, and people who never thought that politics could mean anything to them are showing up and voting for the guy. It’s shaping up to be a blowout - so we’ll see lots more flaccid and pathetic posts from the right between now and November.
Feb 16, 2008 - 5:01 am C Smith:The Republicans simply paint Obama as “Hugo Chavez goes North”. Turn the election into a referendum on the Nanny State. If the American people want to import a European disaster, well, why not?
Feb 16, 2008 - 6:31 am Edmund Jenks (MAXINE):Pro Obama?
Campaigns like Milli Vanilli (fakes it)!
Yesterday, during the second hour of the Michael Medved show, Michael alleged that he suspected that faintings had been staged at least six Obama campaign rallies.
He felt that after seeing and hearing several video’s showing the faints he suspected that they were staged because:
1) The “faint” would always happened next to the stage.
2) Barack Obama showed calm and stated the same words over and over in each of the six occurrences - “Make some space for her. Make some space for her.”
3) The “faintee” was ALWAYS a woman.
4) Each of the occurrences (6) when shown together all felt the same and process like.
We, at MAXINE would like to see what Michael Medved had seen … we were only left with Michael’s radio account and the playing of the audio of a recent Obama campaign stop from Santa Barbara, California.
—-
After I posted this, comments came in with links to comparative YouTube videos and the information does create some valid questions. Certainly, this is an issue that requires investigation and a response … this cuts to character. We already know where HE currently stands on - - - substance!
Original Posting:
http://tinyurl.com/2u6baw
Feb 16, 2008 - 7:47 am John:If the Obama campaign resembles anything right now, it’s the David Dinkins mayoral campaign in New York against Giuliani in 1989. The idea was simply by voting for Dinkins you would create a “gorgeous mosaic” of peace, love and understanding that would bring the city to new heights after the decaying final four years of the Koch administration. Plus it made guilty white liberals feel good about themselves by electing an African-American mayor for the first time. But what they ended up with had a weak leader beholden to his party’s special interest groups who not only could do nothing to stop the slide, but did nothing to members of those groups when even greater problems occurred under his administration. And even then, most of the guilty white liberals in New York still voted for Dinkins in 1993, arguing that there was nothing on Gaia’s green Earth that could turn New York around from its downward spiral.
Obama is more charismatic than Dinkins, but with the aid of the big media outlets, any Democratic nominee can attain that status through fawning press. They managed to make Jimmy Carter into the magnetic “Face of the New (Liberal Democratic) South” in the run-up to the 1976 election, and we know how that turned out — Carter gave his “malaise” speech three years later, and the not-feeling-as-guilty white liberals still supported Jimmy in 1980 after Teddy’s flame-out, arguing that there was nothing on Gaia’s green Earth that could turn the United States around from its downward spiral.
Barak’s record is such a blank he may fare better than either Carter or Dinkins by not being as beholden to his party as Dave nor as anal-retentive about his governing style as Jimmy, but I doubt it, and the current supporters an Obama Administration would appoint to key government roles really do believe the Kos/MoveOn/netroots rhetoric, and for both foreign and domestic policy, that is a scary future to contemplate.
Feb 16, 2008 - 8:39 am william:John, your post on Dinkins was spot on. I live in NY. In terms of personal character and dignified bearing, Dinkins was the very model of a modern mayor. I fell for it the first time he ran against Giuliani. But Dinkins simply did a bad job. He had the presence of a leader but not the substance. He was not the man to take on the squeegee men at traffic lights, the panhandlers on subways, the homeless camped out in Grand Central Station, the drug dealers in Bryant Park. The list goes on. Dinkins had the liberal view that until the wealth of America was equitably redistributed, crime was inevitable and, in some sense, a just punishment for America’s crimes. The election of Dinkins was supposed to diminish racial animosity in NYC but, as I remember it, as the crime rate went up, there was more distrust between the races. I think it is fair to say that in terms of character and temperament Giuliani is less deserving of the Kingdom of Heaven than Dinkins. But it must be admitted that Giuliani did a far better job as mayor than Dinkins. In Obama I see someone similar to Dinkins. Obama will not take on the international squeegee men like Chavez or Mullah bin Moron. Indeed, there is some part of Obama’s consciousness that thinks the evil in the world is nothing more than an understandable reaction to American arrogance and that a gentle leader like himself, just by his very presence, will cause much of the hostility to America to dissipate.
Feb 16, 2008 - 6:23 pm tanstaafl:There is something very aggravating (actually many things) in Barack Obama’s post SOTU SOTU.
here
Feb 17, 2008 - 7:53 am readyhelen?:I will sit this election out before I will vote for Barach Obama. I’m a Democrat and he’s a whiner. I’ve been to New Orleans since Katrina - just wait until the whole country is turned into New Orleans with it’s whining demands. Obama will be powerless to stop it.
May 7, 2008 - 2:27 pm O-NO:Women make up over half of this country’s population and we have supported it from the first day someone stepped off the Mayflower. It’s our turn. African-Americans are about 12% of this country’s population and many Americans have already fought and died for them. They need to get in line and wait their turn.
Obama is a great orator, another great orator was Hitler (He too mesmerized the crowd) and He promised change….and change there was!!!
Jun 7, 2008 - 3:28 am