28 Comments

1. CTRepublican:

Simultaneously, he doesn’t believe Ahmadinejad or Hamas, thinks their religious principles are baloney…

Roger, you’ve made that assertion a number of times and not once provided an iota of proof. Would you care to?

May 9, 2008 - 9:35 am 2. srlucado:

Whatever the theory (and I pretty much agree with your assessment), your conclusion is correct.

While I can imagine a worse man for our times, I can’t imagine a worse one as a potential President of the United States of America.

A naive, messianic socialist. Not exactly the cure for whatever ills America may have.

Scott

May 9, 2008 - 9:54 am 3. Mike K:

In a way, the comparison with Kennedy works here. I remember when he ran and a girl I knew at college, a very sensible level-headed girl whose father had left her a fortune to inherit when she was 21, went to an on campus rally (at USC). I saw her later. She had been bowled over by his charm and good looks. She didn’t hear a word he said (just as well, as it was most banal generalities).

I don’t know if McCain can win. A lot depends on whether he can break through the wish fulfillment going on. Kennedy was elected and Khrushchev took one look at him in Vienna and decided to go on the offensive in Cuba. If Ahmadinejad sees Obama elected, he will think the 12th Imam really did come back. Here is a guy with an Islamic name as US President. If you want to know what happens next, read Tony Cordeson’s analysis of an Iran-Israel war.

I think we can survive an Obama presidency. Fortunately, I’m 70 years old and it doesn’t matter that much to me but it does to people I know.

May 9, 2008 - 11:16 am 4. Mike K:

That’s Cordesman in the comment above.

May 9, 2008 - 11:17 am 5. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Barak Obama and Cindy Sheehan are both largely media creations, having captured the groupthink of MSM leaders a few years ago and reaped a continuous forest of dead trees and a galaxy of TV coverage to their benefit. Neither has much in the way of accomplishments, though both are glibber than average and never are short of quick remarks or at a loss for the last word.

Neither has much in the way of character, either, though they do have principles, largely those of the world left and defeatist in regards to American interests. Obama in his speeches is quite adept at concealing this, though his Senate voting record would be revealing if his fawning media jivemasters ever directed anyone’s attention there.

Sheehan has run out of use as a media club against the Bush administration, and the MSM has dropped her – the quixotic contest for Nancy Pelosi’s House seat won’t go anywhere. Not so for Obama – the progressive media sees its first chance in decades to put a real lefty in the White House and will essentially join forces with his campaign committee through November.

Scott’s right: Obama’s Not exactly the cure for whatever ills America may have. In fact the small glimmerings of foreign and domestic policy that peek through his campaign smokescreens give good reason to think he’d add to those ills wholesale.

One may hope that Pajamas Media might help provide the illumination that MSM has shrouded. The question remains – should such illumination reveal inconvenient truths about Obama, will MSM then turn on Pajamas and corrupt its brand in the way they’ve succeeded in tarring the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth – as pure calumnists, instead of investigators of fact?

May 9, 2008 - 11:18 am 6. changehappens:

I’ve had the same interest in understanding his beliefs. You could be right as there is ample evidence for opportunism in Obama’s background.

I think more likely is Obama’s unshakable belief in his own analysis and justifications explains his evasions, misdirections and contradictions. He is an opportunist but so are most politicians. Have you noticed how he sneers at those like the ABC debate team when their questions and statements offends him? Then how eloquently praised and reinforced Rev Wright shortly before shooting him in the back? In Obama’s world its all good. It all makes sense.

Self-righteous is one buzz word to describe him. It also fits him like a glove when he sits in the pew. Jimmy Carter suffered from this conceit so its not unheard of in past presidents.

May 9, 2008 - 11:27 am 7. David:

Interesting observation Roger. On the other hand I think Michelle is drinking Wright’s Coolaid completely.

May 9, 2008 - 11:27 am 8. Lem:

Roger, you’ve made that assertion a number of times and not once provided an iota of proof. Would you care to?

Im not going to speak for Roger but lets go over an Obama religion quote.

“… they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Why would Obama lump religion with things he says he opposes like guns, racism and xenophobia? Unless he has in his real hart some contempt for it too.

The danger is that Obama may believe that evil (quite the topic in religious circles) is a fantasy.

BTW ñ I have a prediction.

In the (hopeful) event of an Obama loss (yes in the general.. duh) watch the democrats make a pit stop to change those primary election rules faster than the time it took Speed Racer to go from hit to flop.

To think that the Clintons may have handed Obama the means to beat Hillary is a tragedy of mythic proportions.

May 9, 2008 - 11:32 am 9. SteveBrooklineMA:

I doubt Obama thinks that about Ahmadinejad or Hamas, though I think the theory that Obama doesn’t have much respect for religion has some merit. Why would he think that Ahmadinejad or Hamas are insincere? Isn’t it possible to use religion for power and to be sincerely religious at the same time?

May 9, 2008 - 12:02 pm 10. David Thomson:

“Since it’s all a schuck, the Islamofascists can be reasoned with.”

Excellent point. It may very well explain part of the reluctance of the leftist community to take the Islamic nihilists seriously. “How can anybody really believe that stuff?” is the way they perceive the phenomenon.

May 9, 2008 - 12:06 pm 11. dclydew:

As far as I’ve been able to figure, it appears to me that most American politicians who claim some sort of Religious connection seem to be more likely to exploit that religious connection, rather than have it guide their decisions.

At this point, I’d rather have an ethical and honest atheist than yet another idiot climbing up the cross to get ahead in politics.

May 9, 2008 - 12:14 pm 12. Charlie (Colorado):

CT, Roger is making an argument here. He says “he has a theory”, then follows it with “therefore” and “since” followed by his inferences. Not exactly a Socratic syllogism, but clear to most literate people.

Know any?

May 9, 2008 - 12:33 pm 13. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Ralph Peters:

One of the most consistently disheartening experiences an adult can have today is to listen to the endless attempts by our intellectuals and intelligence professionals to explain religious terrorism in clinical terms, assigning rational motives to men who have moved irrevocably beyond reason. We suffer under layers of intellectual asymmetries that hinder us from an intuititive recognition of our enemies.

Paul Reynaud (prime minister of France in 1940):

People think Hitler is like Kaiser Wilhelm. The old gentleman only wanted to take Alsace-Lorraine from us. But Hitler is Genghis Khan. (approximate quote)

May 9, 2008 - 12:48 pm 14. Neo:

This piece makes your point .. and a bit more ..

THAT PROVED TO BE a problem for Obama when he ran for the Senate in 2004. His Republican opponent was the bombastic, erratic and quite possibly insane black conservative Alan Keyes. Obama crushed him in the general election, but says it was harder than it looked.

“[A]s the campaign progressed, I found him getting under my skin in a way that very few people have. When our paths crossed during the campaign, I often had to suppress the rather uncharitable urge to either taunt him or wring his neck,” Obama writes.

How did Keyes do this? By questioning Obama’s Christian faith.

“Christ could not vote for Barack Obama,” Mr. Keyes once said, “because Barack Obama has voted…in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.”

It touched a nerve in Obama and he was by his own account tongued-tied, irritable and tense during their debates. Keyes prodded Obama on the question of biblical literalism.

How could Obama believe the Bible’s proclamation that life was sacred and yet support abortion rights, Keyes would ask? Obama gave “the usual liberal response” about separation of church and state.

“[Y]et even as I answered, I was mindful of Mr. Keyes’s implicit accusation — that I remained steeped in doubt, that my faith was adulterated, that I was not a true Christian,” Obama complains.

Well, it wouldn’t have annoyed him that much if Keyes wasn’t onto something.

May 9, 2008 - 12:50 pm 15. TerryeL:

It seems to me that intellectuals like Obama think of most things in terms of economics and class structure. That means that religion is just one more means of escape.

Therefore they tell themselves if some really smart guy got in the White House and he appealed to these crazy people in just the right way he could make them see how silly all this jihad stuff really is and they would just be happy to sell oil.

May 9, 2008 - 2:00 pm 16. PoliticalExile:

I don’t think anyone understands Obama. Thats not unexpected given he doesn’t stand for anything. Usually when I’m confused by something, I just go with my gut. My gut tells me he’s an America hating Marxist.

May 9, 2008 - 2:28 pm 17. tioedong:

Obama joined the church for fellowship. I don’t have a problem with that (as a doc, I often counsel my lonely patients, even atheists, to do the same, and send the non believers to a UCC or Unitarian church).

But the main problem is that he doesn’t take God seriously. Again this isn’t a problem: look at all those Catholic Democrats who justify voting for partial birth abortion since they need the votes of the “feminist groups”.

Politicians who spout religion are a pain…as the saying goes: The more they spoke of virtue, the more we checked our wallets”.

McCain takes God seriously,in an old line Episcopalian way…the same way that Washington and Jefferson and the founders did…as the guider of history…not as a sugar daddy but as someone to help them be strong and honest in their daily lives. But watch the press spin this as weird…

May 9, 2008 - 4:37 pm 18. freetotem:

Obama came of age and completed his education as postmodernism came to power in academic and other elite circles. He is both product and beneficiary of that philosophy. Facts do not matter in postmodern philosophy, because there are no facts, only “narratives,” language we can recognize from the Duke rape case hoax and the learned professors there who contemptuously brushed aside mere facts in favor of the “metanarrative,” which in that case was that white males are always guilty. Stanley Fish, late of Duke, popularized the notion that “there are no truths, only power claims.” Whoever makes the most effective power claims wins, and that is all that matters, not naive notions of “truth.”

Obama believes only the narrative is important, and he is very skilled at making power claims in the language of postmodernism. His appeal among the young and the academic elite also largely derives from their fascination with his “narrative” and their disdain for realities and facts.

May 9, 2008 - 5:08 pm 19. Barrett:

Terrye,

I do not think Obama is an intellectual. If he was, he would be tormented by his lack of consistency and coherency. He would also have a grasp of basic economics versus his appeals to his “sense of fairness” for making economic policy.

Regarding Roger’s point, Obama has no faith, and, if he does, it is certainly not what I would consider a Christian faith. I don’t think Jesus would subscribe to black liberation theology (which is just a political philosophy wrapped in the cloak of religion).

Consequently, Obama does not understand that the Islamists really believe that Allah has called them to pursue world domination. Because his faith is not real, he projects that on others. He thinks that Ahmedinajad uses religion to manipulate people just as Obama would. It is a gross miscalculation.

Obama’s is naive and it will get a lot of people killed if he is elected. In addition, his intellectual deficiency in economics (shown in his economic illiteracy – Charlie Gibson revealed this) will have a horrific impact as Obama, if elected, raises taxes and drastically expands government entitlements with the help of a Democratic Congress.

May 9, 2008 - 8:22 pm 20. Dick Stanley:

Barry is fascinating, whether you believe he’s the messiah or a schuck. But I still agree with VDH that he’s headed for a McGovern result. Sure he’s got the blacks and the credulous young. But so what? He sure ain’t got anyone over fifty who’s not already a Dem, and that’s a lot of people. They won’t be able to get their minds around a “President Obama.” The day after the election will be a good time not to live in a large inner city.

May 9, 2008 - 9:03 pm 21. neobuzz:

Roger,

If you would like to better understand Obama, try reading TRAPPED IN THE MIRROR by Elan Golomb. This book will help you understand why Obama has chosen both Michelle as his spouse and Reverend Wright as his mentor. Cherchez la mere.

Neobuzz

May 9, 2008 - 9:26 pm 22. Tom W.:

As far as I can tell Obama believes in nothing except Obama and Michelle Obama.

Look how he transformed himself into a Malcolm X clone when the polls called for it. Look how he says the most rancid, contemptuous, vicious stuff, just like John F. Kerry, but in a more reasonable tone.

Look how he trumpets his difference, as he makes rotten deals with the teamsters and consorts with American-hating ministers, professors, intellectuals, authors, and pundits.

He’s a snake, more amoral than the Clintons, even. If anything he envies the mullahs and Assad because of the absolute power they wield.

Obama emphasizes his religion but doesn’t seem too put off by the horrific atrocities committed by Iran, Syria, Hamas, the janjaweed, al Qaeda, North Korea, China…

McCain doesn’t present himself as being particularly religious, but he burns with a sometimes messianic rage at evil doers.

We need a president who’s not afraid to identify evil, and who knows that the way to deal with it is to destroy it, not drink tea with it.

May 9, 2008 - 9:49 pm 23. Michael Smith:

Itís not just religion, but the entire field of ideas, that Obama doesnít take seriously. He speaks in nothing but what Ayn Rand called ìfloating abstractionsî, that is, abstractions that donít actually refer to anything specific in reality and can mean whatever they need to mean at any particular time.

For instance, consider his use of the term ìunityî. When he utters a call for ìunityî to blacks, it means ìletís all stand together against the white oppressorsî. When he uses the term with whites, it means, ìyou can make up for your past racism by agreeing to give us things nowî.

Sticking strictly to ìfloating abstractionsî is also the key to the root of Obamaís appeal: it allows him to pitch socialism with a straight face, as if the twentieth century never occurred and socialism didnít fail in spectacular fashion all over the world. Since socialism is the animating philosophy of the Democratic party, Obama is the most effective leader that party could possibly have. His ability to help evade socialismís record and make it appear to be some bright, shiny new ideal will rally the most of the party once he gets past Clinton.

With the media firmly in his pocket and the party base energized, I see Obama easily overcoming McCainsí ability to attract moderate Democrats. I see him winning and the Democrats with strong majorities in Congress.

The American people will then discover that what Obama has actually ìunifiedî are two seperate but similar groups: one is the group of anyone and everyone who has a grievance they want government to ìsolveî at the taxpayerís expense; the other is the anti-war, pacifist, internationalist leftists that want America humiliated, defenseless and subject to international control. Then we will witness the termination of a war against those who threaten us and an intensification of the on-going war against the taxpayers and the businesses that employ us.

May 10, 2008 - 7:14 am 24. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

As Barrett said, Obama does not really seem to be an intellectual..indeed, he shows less signs of true interest in ideas even than John Kerry, whose “intellectuality” was much overrated.

He does, however, *appeal* to a lot of self-defined intellectuals, many of whom place a very high value on glibness with words.

We probably need to think about retiring the word “intellectual,” or at least greatly restricting its meaning, and reviving the medieval “clerk” and the Greek “sophist.”

May 10, 2008 - 7:59 am 25. Captain Hate:

I’m all for retiring the word “intellectual” because of its misuse as Orwell anticipated. Half of the self-described “intellectuals” only wear loafers because they’re too dumb to tie shoelaces and it describes their defining characteristic. Don’t get me started on Kerry.

May 10, 2008 - 8:43 am 26. Charlie (Colorado):

I do not think Obama is an intellectual. If he was, he would be tormented by his lack of consistency and coherency.

Oh, God, wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?

May 10, 2008 - 4:20 pm 27. heather:

Roger, in my opinion, your analysis is correct.

And he shares this incredible naivete with most of the West’s cultural elites. I think this derives from some 60 years of wealth and security, such a coddled life that, when the Ayatollah Khomeini demanded the head of the Shah, we simply did not take him seriously. He will be a disaster of a President, and weaken the USA, perhaps beyond redemption.

In a weird way, this decadence is preparing these cultural leaders for the coming future. They have embraced the anti semitic narrative about Israel, and so , when the Iranians drop the Big One on Israel, the predominate feeling will be relief that that ’shitty little country’ isn’t going to cause us any more problems.

May 10, 2008 - 7:43 pm 28. Nahanni:

If you look at the history of the man and his words, actions and deeds you will see the answer.

The man has much in common with Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Khomeini and yes even the “H-word”.

All of them played on their countrymens hopes and fears in order to obtain power. All of them created a “religion”. Stalin and Mao created a totally new “religion” where the state replaced the church and they were the “God”. Hitler used elements of different religions and twisted them to suit his purposes. Mussolini used the pride of Italians in their ancient history to create his own little Roman Empire complete with Roman emblems. Khomeini twisted a religion into a tool to achieve supreme power-he was proof of the adage “Even the Devil can quote scripture to suit his own purposes”.

And if you look into all of their eyes you will see a dead soul staring back at you.

The one thing that has struck me about the Obamaniacs is how much they remind me of the members of the People’s Temple.

May 11, 2008 - 6:01 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: