No Such Thing As An Opinion!

Reader Request: Why did voters change their preferences from 2006 to 2010? PART TWO: 2008 elections. The troubling election of Barack Obama PART 3 of 6


In Part 2 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I investigated the circumstances during the prelude to Soetoro's 2008 election.

In Part 3 below, I will outline points 1) to 6), the first six troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.



THE TROUBLING ACTIONS OF BARRY SOETORO


Soetoro has lied about many, many things.  After reading the list below, it should be obvious to you that his words are often worthless.


Why does he lie so often? Well, perhaps he simply says whatever lies he needs to in order to get elected.  It's that simple.

If his lies are so successful that he develops a cult-like following of tear shedding individuals (perhaps "individual" isn't the best word to use to describe someone who ignores rationality and supports Soetoro), even better.


If you investigate the timing of his flip flops on the many issues I will list below, you will notice that he changed many of his positions
right after he beat Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination, as soon as his opponent became John McCain.

Why would his position suddenly change? Well, in order to beat Hilary, since Democrats were the ones nominating him, he wanted to pretend to support the most popular Democratic positions. The more liberal ones.  Once his opponent became McCain, the entire electorate were now the ones voting, and hence
Soetoro simply pretended to support what he needed to in order to become more palatable.

Of course, the public doesn't know what Soetoro
really believes.

So, back to the list.  Where to start? There are so many troubling actions committed by Barry Soetoro pre-election.  I will list them below in no particular order.



1) Pretending to be against NAFTA and for the middle class

In February 2008, he railed against NAFTA and its effect on US unemployment and the outsourcing of American jobs.

Also in February 2008, it was
reported that aides to Soetoro privately assured Canadians that Soetoro actually had no intention of ending NAFTA!

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! 
And people actually voted for him! 


2) Soetoro's 2001-2002 Illinois Senate votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act

There are times when an abortion fails and the baby is born alive.  A nurse, Jill Stanek, had complained that such babies weren't being treated humanely...that people were just letting the babies lay there for hours to die in soiled linen.

As a result, the
Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced.  At the federal level, it was passed by unanimous vote in the Senate (which is of course an extremely unusual event in Congress).

However, Soetoro (who wasn't a member of the federal Senate at that time) actually
voted against the Illinois State version of the bill!  If you read the transcripts of the debate (audio here), it appears that Soetoro was less concerned with assisting a helpless child than he was concerned with the rights of the mother and the potential liabilities of the doctor:

"...one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and
what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation".

"...I suspect
and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."

"...it's important to understand that
this issue is ultimately about abortion and not live births."

Shouldn't Soetoro's cold stance immediately raise red flags?


What does one's stance on abortion have to do with the Act? Once a birth occurs following a failed abortion, the birth has already occurred! How much does abortion have to do with it at that point?


And Soetoro
coldly discusses "burdens" and "liabilities"...what about appearing to treat the child/fetus humanely? This is outrageous!

Worse, Soetoro later
lied about his position on the issue (suggesting that even he knew that his actions seemed cruel):

"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.
That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

So, Soetoro claimed that he only voted against the state Act because it lacked a provision that the federal Act contained. 


When it was shown that Soetoro lied, that the state act indeed
did include the federal provision, Soetoro's campaign admitted their lie:

"His campaign yesterday
acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate..."


3) Soetoro was ranked by the National Journal as 2007's most liberal of all 100 Senators

Here is the ranking. For Soetoro to be the most liberal of all 100 Senators, that means, to put it nicely, he is not a moderate.  It means he's in the minority, the extremes of the bell curve (although to be fair, having a minority position on something hardly necessarily means that the person is an extremist.  Some of my own positions are often not held by the majority; at least until others become aware of my logic behind them.  Unfortunately for Soetoro, however, most liberal policies are illogical.  Much of my site exposes this).

Now, given that
only about 20% of Americans identify as liberal, and given that even fewer people would identify as being among the most liberal, it seems reasonable that a very small minority of Americans, perhaps 5%, might identify with Soetoro's brand of liberalism.

So, perhaps 5% of Americans share Soetoro's views, yet about 50% of voters voted for him? Somehow he got elected! Did he dupe everyone? Or did people dupe themselves?



4)
Soetoro's flip flop regarding public financing

If a candidate accepts
public financing, it means that he/she will receive federal money to be used for the election campaign.  But acceptance also means that there will be a fund-raising limit put on how much money he/she can receive from the private sector.

During an interview
, Soetoro said that he would accept public financing if McCain did.  One reason given was Soetoro's desire to limit the amounts of money McCain would raise from private sources.

In June 2008, Soetoro
suddenly flip flopped again, stating that he would not accept public financing, even though McCain kept his word and agreed to accept public financing!

If that wasn't bad enough, Soetoro
bizarrely put a spin on the story by claiming that since his website was accessible by the public, and since he was accepting donations on his website he was, in effect, accepting a parallel type of public financing!

Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! And people actually voted for him!


5)
Soetoro's flip flop regarding telecom immunity

Under Bush, telecommunication companies assisted the Administration in their wiretapping efforts.


There was talk of passing a new law that would grant the companies immunity from legal action resulting from their actions.

 
In October 2007, Soetoro spokesman Bil Burton said:

"'To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.'"


In mid-2008, Soetoro
suddenly decided to support legislation granting legal immunity to the telecoms!

Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! And people actually voted for him!


6)
Soetoro's flip flop regarding withdrawal of troops from Iraq

In January 2007, Soetoro
offered legislation that set a deadline for all troops to be pulled out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. That date was before the election even occurred!

In September 2007,  Soetoro then suddenly
refused to pledge that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. So, Soetoro changed his stance from being out of Iraq in 2008 to potentially being out of Iraq sometime after 2013! Five plus years is not a subtle change.

In July 2008,  Soetoro
again flip flopped and said that on his very first day in office he would begin the process ensuring that all troops would be out of Iraq within sixteen months of his taking office.

Embarrassingly for him (is "embarrassing" a strong enough word?!), in July 2008, Soetoro then began to
waffle on his position, saying that he could "refine" the troop withdrawal plan.  Imagine that! Did he think so little of the mental capacity and the memory of the American people that he didn't even bother to wait longer than a few weeks before changing his position yet again?

Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! 

And remember that Bush's position on the war in Iraq was one of the main reasons for Bush's unpopularity!
And even though Soetoro flip flopped on an issue of such importance to the electorate, people actually voted for him! 


In Part 4 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I will outline points 7) to 11), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.



HTML Comment Box is loading comments...

 

 

Make a Free Website with Yola.