Obaman double talk

The more I read about the Candidate of the Past and the more I see him in action, the more he creeps me out. Truly, I get the heeby-geebies now whenever Barack Obama starts talking. It's not merely the messianic complex of the man and the cultish adoration of his emotionally-unstable followers. Those things are creepy. But they are not nearly as creepy as Obama's ability to appear to be saying one thing while actually saying the exact opposite of what he appears to be saying. It's like watching a badly-dubbed foreign movie. At first you just notice that something is amiss. Only later, when the characters start shooting at each other, do you realize that what you thought was friendly repartee was actually a grave insult against the protagonist's mother.

There lie gaping chasms between Obama's rhetoric and the reality of his positions on a host of issues. In the most recent dead-tree edition of The Weekly Standard, Ed Whelan explores the CotP's rhetorical gap on judges and the Constitution. To select one example (of many), Obama says of his relativistic Living Constitution theory, "I confess that there is a fundamental humility to this reading of the Constitution and our democratic process." That's akin to me reticently confessing my breath-taking good looks, my astonishing athletic prowess, my extraordinary charm, and my side-splitting sense of humor. Not only are none of those confessions true, they are not confessions. They are, in fact, the opposite of confessions. Ordinary people, not well practiced in Obaman double-speak, call that type of talk "bragging."

UPDATE: As it turns out, TWS has made Whelan's essay available online. For those who care about the courts, this is a must read.