I don't understand this hypocrisy! How do they get away with this?

Just because Obama wasn't

Submitted by griff on August 3, 2008 - 11:40am.

Just because Obama wasn't born elitist doesn't mean that he hasn't become one. I don't understand how so many can become so enthralled by such a pompous and self-righteous egomaniac.

well let's see they elected

Submitted by pollchecker on August 3, 2008 - 2:53pm.

well let's see they elected Reagan...a movie star...then they elected the ORIGINAL Elitist....G HW Bush. Next they elected Clinton which by your own words would qualify. Then they were stupid enough to elect GW Bush TWICE! So it's not hard to figure out.

I mean get over it Grif. One of these people is going to be the next POTUS....GW Bush, Dick Cheney, John McSame McCain, Barak Obama, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader.

Ok, so as STEVE MARTIN would say EXCUSE ME if I choose what I believe the lesser of all the evils to support.

The definition of Elitist (www.dictionary.com):

1)The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2)The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class; Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
3)someone who believes in rule by an elite group

I have not heard or read anything that Senator Obama has said or written that would put him in that group.

However, every single word you used is definitely pertinent to both the Bushes and McSame....by both their words and their actions.

In fact Grif, the only pompous and self-righteous egomaniac I know of is currently POTUS....aka G W Bush.

And once again.....you contribute nothing useful. Just more of the same old negativity which has brought us to where we find ourselves today!

"And once again.....you

Submitted by almandine on August 3, 2008 - 4:44pm.

"And once again.....you contribute nothing useful. Just more of the same old negativity which has brought us to where we find ourselves today!"

Are you looking in the mirror, checker???

I find that the "elitist" moniker seems most appropriate when tied to Obama's talk of such things as "excessive profits, etc.", with regard to his intent to redistribute personally - or even corporately - acquired wealth... according to some formulation he has made. While I certainly won't fall into the "giver" category under such a scheme, I find it the height of hubris for him to determine that someone, or some company, who works his ass off to acquire some measure of wealth will be at risk of having it taken by force by Obama's tax man. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're gonna cite some apparently crooked CEO being paid gazillions even while the company tanks... but even there, who should decide incomes other than those involved in the business.

As for elitists, in general... Warren Buffett has more money than almost anyone - yet he drives his old Buick and still lives in the house he bought many years ago for $30K. Clearly, while what you have may make you elite... it's not how much you have but your attitude about it that determines whether you're an elitist. Buffett's not. Obama fits # 2 and #3 on your list: someone with a sense of entitlement who believes in rule by an elite (person or) group.

excessive profits? I don't

Submitted by pollchecker on August 3, 2008 - 8:42pm.

excessive profits? I don't have to site some obscure rich corporate fat cat. Look at the oil companies profits from the 2nd quarter...THEY ARE OBSCENE! I guess you don't call that excessive. And at who's expense? The American publics expense!

I think EVERYONE should pay their fair share and those at the top are not doing that. Even Warren Buffet admits that.

I still have not seen nor have you OR Grif presented any evidence that indicates Obama falls into any of those definitions. It's all someone's personal opinion. But I do know what an elitist is. I grew up around them. And AGAIN the only Elitists I see are GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McSame.

And as to what I contribute... well how about the truth? How about asking valid questions that neither you nor Grif have presented or addressed? How about keeping the focus on what's important and not the disinformation and propaganda. I believe from the general feedback those are not negative things.

However, once again, I don't see either you nor Grif, wrting any blogs or contributing anything but complaints and insults. Neither of you addressed the intial question of the blog, but instead just seemed bent on taking me on. It's nothing new from Grif, but I'm honestly surprised at you.

So, if you want to talk issues, how about starting a thread about something you would like to see addressed? I'll happily contribute. But once again, I don't see anything substantive here. Nothing new....Just the same old, same old.

So you don't like the candidates? SO WHAT! Get over it. It's nothing new. It is what it is! Don't vote. But give the rest of us who want to participate and prevent John McSame from taking control of our country. Then we can have some REAL conversations about issues.

Now....would anyone else like to talk to me about the hypocrisy of having one set of rules ok for the lie, cheat, and steal REpublican Genuises of Propaganda and one set for everyone else? Or perhaps discuss the class warfare that is going on?

I believe the word ELITIST

Submitted by almandine on August 3, 2008 - 9:35pm.

I believe the word ELITIST was the thrust of your title and part of your article... the path was long, wide and tangential... only you throw the crap the other way.I fully addressed your elitist topic... you take umbrage because the reply wasn't to your liking. ANYONE running for Pres has a very hefty ego... and in this case Obama is the one. What I gave in reply was one exact reason that Obama - in contrast to at least one other who has made his way by the sweat of his own brow - IS elitist... he thinks his redistribution mantra is the best thing since pockets on pants and will sell above all others - especially to those getting the checks.

As for excess... in the last quarter... the amount of federal taxes paid by Exxon... the latest oil giant corporate target... was 3 times the amount of their profit... which was 7 cents per dollar... and being a publicly traded corporation, their dividends truly fund those pension funds you chose to ignore. That's NOT disinformation or propaganda. I think - should you choose to study it better - you'll find that Microsoft made about 4 times as much profit per dollar and that, when polled, the majority of Americans think that a fair profit is about what Microsoft made. The absolute numbers boggle some minds, but when described in terms of profit "margin" there is no excess there. Go ahead, support stealing from the retired teachers, etc.

Looking back at my post, I see no indication of "taking you on" - just your idea about Obama's elitism. I thought that was what debate was about. His WORDS are "evidence that indicates Obama falls into any of those definitions..." he spoke them, not me - or even you. I realize it's just "campaign rhetoric" for the most part, but whatever amount of redistribution he really intends is too much for me... and that extends especially to his global poverty initiative, for which he would pledge US to provide .7% GDP to TRY to eliminate global poverty, when we are basically broke as a country, and where will that aid come from?

Unlike you, I didn't grow up around elitists... but I know one when I hear him talk... and Barak Obama fits the bill.

That's the issue I'm addressing.

the title which is usually

Submitted by pollchecker on August 3, 2008 - 10:26pm.

the title which is usually the subject is clearly about hypocrisy....and if you read past the first sentence, where just a few sentences later I wrote....So why is Obama an elitist and not George?

The truth is the word Elitist is only used 3 times in the entire blog and that is in the very beginning. Interesting what we single out and focus on.

Yeah... George fits the bill

Submitted by almandine on August 3, 2008 - 10:37pm.

Yeah... George fits the bill too. However... he's about gone and much of your post was intended as an implicit choice of Obama v. McCain. I focused on Obama. He's a more likely problem in my mind... given relative electability.

And again...the blog is

Submitted by pollchecker on August 4, 2008 - 9:49am.

And again...the blog is about the hypocrisy of the double standard. There apparently is one standard for the Republican party and another standard for everyone else including and regardless of whoever the Dem nominee is.

The blog is about how experience wasn't important in the past but is now. And on and on and on.

For instance, if the Dem nominee had a long history of telling politically incorrect jokes, the lie, cheat and steal Republicans would be crucifying him. Now they just make excuses for McSame's behavior.

That's the type of thing that I find totally intolerable.

There should not be one standard for the rich and another standard for everyone else but that's the way the Republicans have chosen to play this game and it's nothing new.

I was thinking about this

Submitted by pollchecker on August 3, 2008 - 10:11pm.

I was thinking about this phrase pompous and self-righteous that was used earlier. Since I dislike assuming intent, I decided to start with the dictionary.

Pompous -- full of pomp

Pomp --
1. stately or splendid display; splendor; magnificence.
2. ostentatious or vain display, esp. of dignity or importance.

I'm quite sure the blogger did not intend it in the first definition.

self-righteous -- confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.

Surely, that definition wasn't the one intended although I must point out that this reeks of our current POTUS....GW and his neo-con administration.

Perhaps it was meant in the 2nd definition....excessively or hypocritically pious.....

Here is the deal.....

Perhaps these are not bad qualities.....

Think about this....

Senator Obama was just another black kid from a single parent home. He dared to believe that he could work and study hard enough to graduate from high school and go to college. He dared to believe that these same principles would apply and he could graduate from college and go to law school. It's not like anything was just given to him like our current POTUS. How dare he be proud to not only graduate from college, but to continue onto Law School...Harvard at that. Do you know how many obstacles stand in the way of all that? How many people no matter their race would have just given up and settled for less. And that hard work continued on into Law School where he was the head of the Law Review. How dare this kid from some middle to lower class background dare to believe he could achieve all this? But it doesn't stop there, does it. He dared to believe he could teach others when he taught Constitutional Law. He dared to believe he could do more when he ran for State government. He dared to believe he could represent our country when he ran for Senate. How dare this nobody, this nothing special, just another black kid dfrom a single parent family...dare to believe he could become the first Afircan American to be POTUS.

And how dare he be proud of these accomplishments. How dare he step forward with his ideas of the direction America should take in these difficult times. It isn't perhaps that he understands how hard it is to come from a have not to be a have.

And it takes someone of great pomp (by either definition) to dare to believe in their ability to step up and lead. Most people don't believe in anything. And perhaps it takes someone a bit self-righteous to dare to believe that he can accomplish something good for this country, divided as it is. Goodness knows there too many people who are just standing around complaining that no one has a plan for our future.

You know what...call me crazy...but maybe this is exactly what this country needs to wake up today's youth from their sense of entitlement, and understand the value of hard work equals accomplishments. Maybe this is exactly what young kids need to see in our next POTUS? Someone whose sense of himself is based on hard work, someone who dares to believe that with hard work we can achieve more, someone who inspires us to hope again. How dare he!

Yeah, I know it's just politics and pretty words. But for a change, perhaps there is some valid substance behind those pretty words that can relate to the average Joe and that the average Joe can relate to. Personally, I would prefer the pretty inspirational words versus the hateful rhetoric and fear ridden disinformation that is the despare tactic of the other side.

yes, perhaps that is exactly what we need.. a POTUS with a valid reason to be pompous and self-righteous instead of the born with the silver spoon POTUS who thinks he is the "DECIDER", that we currently have.

For someone that demands

Submitted by griff on August 3, 2008 - 11:28pm.

For someone that demands solutions from everyone, you don't even insist that your candidate supply any. This post reads like a feel-good, rags-to-riches movie of the week, not a presidential resume. All emotion and no logic or substance. No fixes, and certainly no plan for our futures.

As we saw with FISA, it's best to focus on emotional issues like "racism" and buzzword issues like "class warfare" instead of diving into the real issues that are fundamental to a strong economy and a strong country. I see nothing more than naive, socialist utopian dreams - on a scale that would make Stalin cream in his coffin.

Obama was a Lecturer at the U of C, not a professor. And that means nothing to me, considering his every vote in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate has been unconstitutional. Perhaps what he speaks isn't necessarily what he believes. That would be a first, huh? Oh but he lies so well.

I'll look forward to your usual "you're just a republican" retort. Hide behind the partisan shield so you don't have to examine your hero too closely. I know you only reserve that right for McCain.

And you fancy yourself a part of the solution when all you do is pereptuate the insanity of the left versus right control system.

For someone that demands

Submitted by pollchecker on August 4, 2008 - 9:52am.

For someone that demands solutions from everyone

I Beg your pardon, but don't demand solutions from anyone, Grif. I don't expect solutions because this is the game of politics and real solutions won't be discussed until it is all over.

But you are a self-proclaimed cynic and all you do is go around calling people names and making nasty remarks. You don't offer anything else but your own self righteous opinions. That is the part that is hard to swallow. You consistently take threads off subject with some nasty, unwarranted remarks.

So you don't like my words....then why do you consistently read them? Please feel free to move onto something else because you have obviously have nothing constructive to offer here ONCE AGAIN!

Pollchecker, you are

Submitted by Belle on August 3, 2008 - 3:00pm.

Pollchecker, you are absolutely right in all you say. Our biggest problem with people today is lack of common sense and/ or intelligence. To stupid people intelligence is a threat, which is why OB comes off as elitest. In the first place they have no idea what the word means and will latch onto anything they hear to put the man down. In an interview I remember Michelle Obama saying she wished Barack would buy new shoes as the ones he was wearing were ten years old at least...snd lookkee at the $520 shoes the little excuse
for a man wears. Some people will never see the forest for the trees Persnally I really do not want an adulterer and a drug addict wife, sitting in the White House representing our country But there are none so blind as those who cannot/will not see.

Yes Obama is a very

Submitted by tropicaltaco on August 4, 2008 - 1:51pm.

Yes Obama is a very intelligent man but not an elitist by any measure. He skirts the real issues, yes and he has bowed down before the Jewish union. Had he played it any different he would now be joining the ranks of Kucinich and Paul.
What we need now is a lot more diplomacy and a lot less of the same old war and rumors of war crap from the bank controlled N.W.O. neo's who are the real elitist who use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the masses.
Face it, even though I wouldn't mind hanging out with old John, he's a fun guy at a party and all, but he is too old and too established in the status quo. It would be the neo's running things and propping him up as they do Bush, just more of the same.

I shudder to think of what will happen if we continue going in the direction we are heading. The world is watching and waiting to see what we Americans do. Ask the world who they want and it would be Obama.
We need to surgically remove the neo from conservative once and for all and everyone reading this knows that will not happen if John McCain becomes president.... Do you really want to stay the course Mr Griff ?
Though Obama wasn't my first choice, he's all we've got..

As we used to say, "Rejoice, rejoice, we got no choice"

I know I haven't always

Submitted by Michela on August 4, 2008 - 3:59pm.

I know I haven't always agreed with you before, Pollchecker, but I agree with you 100% this time. It is McCain who is elitist, not Obama. He is the one who got everything on a silver platter from birth. Obama had to work hard to get where he is today. He is to be admired, not called names.

Griff, doesn't want redistribution of wealth? Well, wealth has already been redistributed--from the bottom up. From the poor to the rich. If Griff is a Christian, and I think he is, then he should find nothing wrong with sharing the wealth with the least amongst us. Isn't that what the Bible teaches? Sounds to me like Griff wants to keep his wealth to himself. I bet he subscribes to the Repugnant mantra that God helps those who help themselves, and those who are poor are obviously poor because they're too lazy or too dumb. In other words, it's their own fault.

Obviously Griff has not lost his job or his home under Bush, but I know people who have. I, for one, don't want 4 more years of suffering for my fellow humans. The responses to your blog only go to prove how ignorant, self-centered, and blind Americans really are.

I hope you don't make a

Submitted by griff on August 6, 2008 - 9:39pm.

I hope you don't make a living as a psychic.

I am not Christian and I just went back to work after three months out, in which time I was considering walking away from my home. I have no wealth, nor do I want the government to hand me the fruits of someone else's labors.

What is ignorant is the blind faith that Obama is going to wave his magic wand and make everything better. He is a puppet, and he will dance on the same strings as the last President, and the one before him...and on and on.

The President has no real power. It's all a damned freak show. The real policymakers never see the light of day. This country was sold out from under us decades ago. All that remains is the hollow illusion to keep us all disracted and arguing and believing that we actually have a voice. We don't.

You people are really pathetic.

How about cutting out the

Submitted by pollchecker on August 7, 2008 - 9:45am.

How about cutting out the name calling Grif (at least in my blog)? It's really old. You can make your point without the crap!

Besides we have a great example of how powerless the POTUS in GW Bush, now don't we?

The Republican strategy

Submitted by Direct Democracy on August 4, 2008 - 9:56pm.

The Republican strategy under Bush has been, "If you think the other side is going to say something damaging and true about you, say it about THEM first even if it's NOT true."

That way, when the opposition takes it's shot it has all the impact of "Oh, yeah? Well so are you!"

And it works every time.

you're right. But it still

Submitted by pollchecker on August 4, 2008 - 10:33pm.

you're right. But it still doesn't address the hypocrisy of the double standard they display.

Actually, after having

Submitted by almandine on August 5, 2008 - 10:56pm.

Actually, after having thought about it... there is NO double standard. Its THE standard. Both camps throw as much shit at each other as possible... raving and ranting all the while about the other. In sum, they're just the same, leveraging anything and everything they can get their hands on. Talk is obviously cheap. So what... I don't believe 99.9% of that crap anyway. Do you?

For crying out loud, did you

Submitted by pollchecker on August 5, 2008 - 11:05pm.

For crying out loud, did you read anything that I originally wrote? Yes there is a damn double standard.

Bush in 2000 had less experience than Obama in govt. Experience wasn't important then. Bush was going to be the uniter, the one that was going to change Washington. All that was important then,but not now?

I can go on and on. It permeates everything they say! It's like the domino theory with one lie and double standard after another. I'm disappointed in your assessment.

Finally, I have not heard the Obama camp deliberately lie about or deliberately misrepresent something about John McSame! Too bad we can't say the same about John McSame's campaign.

Bush in 2000 had less

Submitted by woody188 on August 6, 2008 - 12:27am.

Bush in 2000 had less experience than Obama in govt.

I actually believe being Governor of Texas makes him more qualified than Obama. It's a leadership role in a large state with a large assembly.

Certainly Bush did a bad job as Governor. But I still see the position as being more closely Presidential than Obama's state government and Senate roles.

You know I don't like Bush and I'm not hot on Texas either so it's hard to say it, but I can still respect the position of the Texas Governor.

almandine, you can call me Mr. Spock. <(@@)>

The Texas governor is the

Submitted by pollchecker on August 6, 2008 - 7:00am.

The Texas governor is the weakest job in state govt. It is mostly ceremonial. As a native Texan, I don't consider it even remotely close to presidential and I believe GW has proven that.

Yeah, I read it... And I

Submitted by almandine on August 5, 2008 - 11:55pm.

Yeah, I read it...

And I also read on CHB: "Both sides slinging lots of mud in Campaign '08" and I read tons of other stuff which makes me ask: "which amongst all of you speaks with pure logic and without that tainting emotion?" Not that the question is more than rhetorical.

At least you're not screaming today. Thanks.

That's because I haven't

Submitted by pollchecker on August 6, 2008 - 8:04am.

That's because I haven't been listening to this duplicitous hypocritical crap all morning from the lie, cheat and steal Republican talking heads that makes me want to tear my hair out.

And interestingly enough...no one has answered the question.

So I will. The reason that they get away with it is because they know that no one will stand up and do anything about it.

Everyone is so ho-hum...so what...it's politics. There's nothing that can be done. Boo-hoo! Don't vote...they are all crooks.....and on and on and on!

And in the meantime...they continue the freaking lies and hypocrisy.

As I said....there's a certain amount of mud that is going to be slung but there have not been any deliberate out and out lying about McSame by the Obama campaign.

Too bad McSame can't say the same! He has proven to be a liar and unfit to be our POTUS....just another Bush Clone!

PS -- It's not mud slinging to tell the truth. If McSame lies about something, then it's our obligation to put the truth out there.

As my final comment on this

Submitted by almandine on August 6, 2008 - 10:40am.

As my final comment on this thread, I point you back to pstern's July 29 blog: "2008 Presidential Campaign: voters brainwashed by media hype and gossip?" There, s/he develops a look at issues instead of personalities/descriptions of candidates and wonders where all the discourse on the important topics has gone. I concur.

The honest reality is that

Submitted by pollchecker on August 6, 2008 - 1:11pm.

The honest reality is that people (IN GENERAL) vote emotionally and not logically.

The propagandists understand this principle and craft messages to prey on those emotions.

The bottom line is that people will vote for one candidate out of fear, arrogance annd/or intolerance for others. Another group will vote for a candidate out of hope for something better (whether it's an illusion or not) and/or disgust for past actions. Both can be applied to people on either side of the aisle.

This is why addressing issues at this point is totally useless. Because logic will not prevail, and the other side of the issue will turn the discussion into propaganda to play into these very emotions.

This is why people vote more when they are unhappy with the way things are going, than when things are going well.

It doesn't address the hypocrisy though...and it's that constant doublespeak that drives me to CAPITALIZATION (har, har).

Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments

Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name.

User login

Blog Information Profile for dougthompson

Home