Friday, July 31, 2009

Good Cop, Bad Cop

Barack Obama speaks to crowds and conventions as if he is speaking to a friend. He exudes a corona of charm, competence and trustworthiness

Whereas the snarling acolytes of Gramsci and Alinsky speak of revolution and destruction from within, Obama speaks of reconciliation and progress. All empirical evidence suggests that his sympathies lie with the far left, but he doesn’t sound like the far left.

Whereas rabid anti-Semites such as Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi cheer the work of Islamic terrorists, Obama presents himself as philo-Semitic and a friend of Israel. All empirical evidence indicates that Obama is more sympathetic to Islamists than he is to Israel, but he doesn’t sound like an Islamist.

Whereas William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn boast of their acts of domestic terror and contemplate how many millions of Americans will have to be eliminated after the communist revolution, Barack Obama says that they did ‘despicable things’ when he was only eight years old.

All empirical evidence suggests that Obama and Ayers are friends, colleagues and mutual supporters, but Obama doesn’t sound like a domestic terrorist.

Whereas the currupt Chicago Democrat machine leaks private details of Republican politician’s divorce proceedings, sells Senate seats and destroys anyone who gets in its way, Obama speaks of ethical government and “transparency.”

All empirical evidence suggest that Obama was part of, and benefited greatly, from that corrupt Chicago machine, but Obama doesn’t come across as a thug or a bully.

Whereas Black Liberation Theologists such as Reverend Wright scream about “white devils,” and shout “God Damn America,” Obama speaks quietly and respectfully and wants to be “post-racial.” All empirical evidence suggests that Obama is sympathetic to Black Liberation Theology, but he doesn’t sound like a Black Liberation Theologist.

In other words, Obama has always played the “Good Cop.”

The old “Good Cop, Bad Cop” routine works, because even though you know, intellectually, that the two cops are actually working together--that they want the same thing--that the whole phony dichotomy is worked out ahead of time in order to get you to confess—it works nevertheless, because when you are under pressure, and afraid, you will look to someone who presents himself as a friend and protector, and you will be grateful.

When Obama accused the Cambridge police department of acting “stupidly” he sounded, ironically and uncharacteristically, like the “Bad Cop.” For an instant he broke character and the illusion was shattered.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Obama’s Words

No one disputes that President Obama is an eloquent and persuasive speaker. Occasionally, however, he makes statements that demand careful parsing and exegesis. Sometimes, in fact, his statements are downright appalling.

Consider the following quote from his most recent press conference, in response to a question from reporter Lynn Sweet, concerning the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

President Obama:

“Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact.”

Let’s take a look at these words carefully. “Somebody” was in his home, but there was proof that “they” were in their home. Who are they? Is professor Gates Legion? Were there codefendants known to Obama that have not been reported upon? How many people were arrested?

The President seems to have a problem with pronouns: he frequently misuses the reflexive pronoun: “Michelle and myself…”

He also frequently utilizes the pleonastic phrase: “The reason is because…”

So one must ask: does the President so famous for his ability with words, know how to speak English?

Is this what he learned at Columbia and Harvard?

This may all seem pedantic and nit picky (it is) but I raise these issues because what, other than his ability with words, were supposed to have been his qualifications for the presidency?

Or was there another qualification?

Perhaps liberals are guilty of racial profiling.