Share This Page

The real Obama exposed

| Saturday, Oct. 13, 2012, 8:59 p.m.

And what do the Obama administration and campaign do in response to the American electorate overwhelmingly responding to Mitt Romney's newly consistent show of leadership? Why, attempt to smear him, of course.

The Republican presidential nominee has been showcasing his presidential timber in excellent fashion as of late. First, in the Oct. 3 debate, then again in last week's foreign policy address.

Heretofore, Romney had been successfully smeared by the Obama horde and its media friends as rich and mean, impersonal, cold, unkind, uncaring — all the things that he is not. Romney's decency and intelligence, his sincerity and patriotism, his command of facts, his leadership came through resoundingly from the start of the debate and then at Virginia Military Institute.

And while Romney's been acting presidential, Obama's been acting petulant. And his acolytes have been making excuses ever since. Or smearing Romney as a “liar.” That clearly was the Democrats' lead talking point as Obama hack after Obama hack after Obama hack took to the Sunday morning interview show circuit Sunday last.

But in the process, they all rode right past the shortest route to the truth and reality — Obama has been overrated as a candidate, puffed up by the press and the true believers, isolated by choice and never seriously challenged by anyone around him.

Barack Obama never has been in a fistfight and didn't want to start one at the Denver debate. He didn't want to be at that debate and his narcissism told him he shouldn't have to be.

Obama didn't call out Romney on “all the lies” Romney told, said presidential Rasputin David Axelrod. Oh, why was that? Axelrod never explained but promised Obama would be better prepared for this Tuesday's second debate in Hempstead, N.Y.

But Obama didn't call Romney out because Romney's statements weren't lies at all. Obama knew in his heart that most of the genuinely hard-nosed, naked lies in the campaign were being told by his own advisers — Axelrod, David Plouffe and Stephanie Cutter.

There were some man-on-the-street TV interviews taped with undergrads on the campus of the very liberal University of Wisconsin at Madison the day after the debate. The question was something like, “Do you think President Obama should have been allowed to use a teleprompter at the debate with Romney?” The consensus was yes and a couple of people indicated they thought he had used one.

Every student seemed to take the question seriously — this at a school that claims intellectual selectivity in admissions.

They probably were all Obama voters.

Richard W. Carlson, a former U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles, is vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.