I was puzzled by Obama’s almost immediate denials that he had been in any way in contact with the Governor’s office. Why? Because for the last month it was simply understood, both by his own admission and by David Axelrod’s interviews, that his own preference for his Senate replacement was probably made known to the Governor. And fittingly so. Of course, there would be nothing wrong about Obama simply saying, “I am surprised as the next person, since I have discussed my replacement as would be natural with a governor of my own party responsible for the appointment, and I never detected anything out of the ordinary on his part.” Why instead the unbelievable denial of any communications that in turn earns the more unbelievable “misspoke” on the part of Axelrod? …I wish Obama well in governing us in times of peril, but I also wish he would just stop the stuttering in ex tempore settings, and come clean the first time.
I believe Obama does not "come clean the first time" because what other people think is more important to him than the facts of reality. Such an orientation — social metaphysics, as Ayn Rand calls it — would make one likely to lie. Truth or falsehood are beside the point if what matters most is what people think the truth is.
It turns out that Obama’s statement that he had no contact with Governor Blagojevich is not true, as a photograph shows him shaking the Governor’s hand one week before Obama made that statement.
Obama’s initial reactions are often wrong. His initial response to the flaps about Reverend Wright and William Ayers was to lie. It took him a week on vacation in Hawaii to condemn the Russian invasion of Georgia.
And don’t forget this odd gaffe:
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.
The death toll was 12.
Obama’s first reaction to the Blagojevich scandal was that he was "saddened." Now, I ask the reader: did you feel sad when the story broke earlier this week? I think most people felt emotions such as anger, disgust and contempt. Who would feel sadness?
There is an inauthenticity central to Obama’s character that bears watching in the years ahead. I hope that someone close to Obama who is in touch with reality makes it his job to tell the President how he should react to events. It has become obvious that Obama has trouble at first getting it right himself. Obama is not psychotically detached from reality. He can be persuaded of the truth; it just seems to take him some time figure it out. And yes, it is a little unnerving to think that a man who is even slightly out of touch with reality is the man in charge of the nuclear football.
The MSM refuse to examine Obama’s shaky relationship with the truth. Ed Morrissey noted on his internet show, if that’s what it’s called, that no president has been under such an ethical cloud before he even took office. The media are determined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, the opposite of how they treated President Bush. I hold George W. Bush in low esteem — I believe his compassionate conservatism has done tremendous damage to freedom in America — but I do think he is an honest man, (at least for a politician). Far from being corrupt, he is a devout Christian, and that’s his problem: he has been too faithful to his morality. For eight years now the media have assumed the worst of Bush, trying to catch him in scandals from Enron and Halliburton to supposed torture and wiretapping and the trumped up Plame affair.
It is stunning to watch a free press in a free country act like Pravda in the old Soviet Union and produce propaganda that supports the regime in power rather than investigate the facts. However, we can take heart in this: A is A. Politicians and the press can ignore the facts of reality, but that does not make them go away. We will see this in the coming years as this era of massive new interventions into the economy fails to make anything better.