Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Gratuitousness revisited

Rick Moran at American Thinker notices a poll from the New York Times and says:

Is it possible that Obama's recent spate of flip flops has so damaged his reputation as a man of principle that the voters now see him as something less than a savior of America?

If this New York Times poll is to be believed, that is exactly the case. By a 51-43 margin, voters now believe Obama says what people want to hear rather than what he thinks.

Now stay with us, this is going to be a little circuitous, more than a little non sequitus [sic], and hopefully on the cutting edge of being very gratuitous.

Now, it is neither surprising, nor shocking, nor appalling, nor extraordinary that a politician puts his finger to the wind before opening his mouth. And it is not new to those paying attention that Obama is just such a politician, his lying about being above such cynical political acts notwithstanding.

And while we are grateful that an increased number of voters recognize this, let’s address this from the opposite angle. Why? For the gratuitousness!

If Obama says what he thinks people want to hear, do you think he wants people to say to him what they think he wants to hear?

Why ask that question, you ask?

Because there was one brave candidate in the primaries who boldly stood on the principle that he would not stand for people simply telling him what they thought he wanted to hear!

His name?

John Edwards

And, well, based on that stand we mocked him in such a way so as to catch the eye of James Taranto and his Best of the Web Today. (scroll to the last item)

What can we say? He brings out the gratuitousness in us. (Edwards, that is, not Taranto)

No comments:

Post a Comment