That's politics, plain and simple. Always has been, and probably always will be. Politicians don't get up and speak what they think; they say what they think you want to hear. As a result, their speeches are vague. They often speak of results and not the steps to get to the result. Speeches aren't tailored to effectively communicate the individual's idea; they're tailored to effectively communicate something vague enough that the majority of people will agree with it.
If any one person were to get up and publicly speak their views on a variety of topics in an honest manner, then they likely would not be elected by a majority vote. It's just how politics work. Does a teleprompter cause this? No. Can it be used to allow a person who doesn't passionately believe in something to effectively speak on that particular topic? Sure, but so can printed notes, note cards with handwritten notes, or notes on your hand.
You wouldn't get up in front of a class to give a speech on which you are being graded without preparing for it. And, in all likelihood, you wouldn't give the speech without notes (assuming it were allowed). Passionately believing in the topic and having knowledge of the topic isn't going to change that. You're going to want to prepare a speech in a structured manner, and you want to give that speech in a structured manner. Notes, via teleprompter or otherwise, give you a better chance of achieving that goal. Politicians are being "graded" by the number of votes they receive and their approval rating after the election. You don't leave something like that in the hands of impromptu speeches, just as you wouldn't leave your semester grade to extemporaneous ramblings of knowledge that may or may not have a coherent structure.
Don't disagree with any of that, not at all. I guess the main point of what I was feeling is better conveyed outside of being specifically related to the teleprompter. That just happens to be what got me onto the broader subject of Obama and his authenticity (or lack thereof in my eyes) in general.
The thing is, most politicians are taking what they
generally believe or what their
basic philosophy is and putting it into "political speech" format. The
essence doesn't change at it's core. It's still there, it's just put on paper in speech format and varies to some degree from it's center in order to make it appealing to as many voters as possible....no question about that.
However, to me, Reagan could take what was in that political speech, or more specifically what was the heart of the
motivation of that speech, and also sit down and speak about it in layman's terms. I don't think speaking from the heart would have been dangerous for him to do in an interview. He wouldn't have had to guard his words and ideas so much for fear of being "found out" or revealing his
true beliefs or intentions.
To me, and this is my opinion only, I don't think Obama could do that. I don't think the guarding of his words wouldn't be so much for fear of accidentally saying something in the wrong way or slipping with a "bad sound bite", but rather, he couldn't do it because if the motivation and essence of what he actually believes came out, he'd be in trouble. As I mentioned above, every politicians "public version" of his philosophy varies slightly from reality. But I suspect Obama's is nearly unrecognizable from what he sells to voters and what his core beliefs and philosophies are.
To me, that's the difference. Obama supporters can roll their eyes when it comes to the Jeremiah Wright situation, but to me, that still tells me as much about Obama the man as anything he has done (right on par with the budget he's sent to congress, which should tell us a lot).
If you can sit under the teachings of Jeremiah Wright, and do so regularly and
willingly, actually endorsing him as a leader and your personal spiritual teacher along the way....you have some seriously misguided views and stances on America and Americans.
Why do people go to the churches they go to? It's because they place their trust in the message and the theology that is being presented. Unfortunately most pick one that simply doesn't offend them or one that agrees with their own sovereign self. So in order to sit in a church and listen to the message for 20 years, you simply must agree with the foundation of the message. If it conflicted with your beliefs or with the theology that you submit yourself to, then you would leave. I would not be comfortable in a Mormon church. It would take me one or two sermons in that church to determine that the influence of what was being said was not from a source of theology that I lend any credibility to. So I would not go back. No hard feelings, nothing malicious about it, it just simply wouldn't make sense for me to stay there.
Yet, for 20 years, there he sat. Listening to this man insult and blame whites for any and every bad thing (from HIV to liquor stores in black neighborhoods), blame Katrina on the government, and all kinds of other things that should be and are considered wacko fringe theories. Anyway, I think Obama, more than any politician I've read about, hides who he is and what he believes from us, the people that elected him.
By the way, the above section about Wright has just about zero to do with "religion" or a stance on "God". It's more about hate, blame, and responsibility. It just happened to be taught in a church.
135 Replies
25220 Views