Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Obama the Trickster Snubbed

Obama the Trickster
July 13, 2009
By James Lewis
American Thinker

Remember when Obama slyly gave Hillary the single digit salute in a campaign speech, and his fans in the audience laughed their heads off?

I've been thinking about that inspiring moment in American politics. I can't imagine any other president doing it, ever. Lincoln wouldn't have done it to Douglas; Jefferson wouldn't have dreamt of doing it to Madison. Even Bill Clinton wouldn't have done it, at least in public. Dick Morris wrote a book describing Bill Clinton clowning it up in the Oval after lying to the public about taxes. But even Clinton got his malignant yucks in private.

Obama is an even bigger trickster; it's part of his show-off narcissism. He's Playing the Dozens with us, except that the voters don't get it. He needs to be seen giving Hillary the big insult. That's the real meaning of that long bony finger to his honorable Democratic primary opponent. It might not be your dream or mine, but some kinds of people go "What a kick!" when they diss people in public.

So here's the question. If Obama the Trickster just loves to stick it to middle class America -- why do you think he nominated Sonia Sotomayor? That's a serious question. This administration is just filled with racial anger. So why would Sotomayor be its first Supreme Court nominee?

The Trickster's at it again...

Read more: Obama the Trickster

From America's Right: VIDEO: Sen. Jeff Sessions' Brilliant Questioning o...(Sotomayor)

At points during this entire confirmation process, I've wondered more than a few times why we should even be questioning this woman. It's not as though she's just going to stand up and say: "You got me. I let matters of race and personal bias get in the way of my interpretations of the law."

She's saying what she has been coached to say. She's saying what she needs to say to get confirmed. As Americans in the Age of Obama, we should be used to this by now -- after all, our president is the master of directly controverting previous statements and saying what he needs to say in order to advance a certain agenda.

Why should we be surprised that his nominee would do the same thing, making statements diametrically opposed to her own prior statements without offering any explanation for the sea change?

Why even bother asking her questions at all? We already know that this woman, this judge, will not tell us the truth. It's not as if we're going to learn anything new.