Maureen Dowd, "Hunting, Dear Sir? Delighted!": Politicians Lie? You Don't Say?

Politicans lie? You don't say?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hunting, Dear Sir? Delighted!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/opinion/dowd-hunting-dear-sir-delighted.html?ref=opinion), Maureen Dowd compares George H. W. Bush with Mitt Romney:

"Their political philosophies were not shaped by a passion for ideas as much as a desire to serve and an ambition to climb higher than their revered fathers. Pragmatism trumps ideology; survival trumps conviction. Both men, to the manner born in Greenwich and Bloomfield Hills, adapted uncomfortably to the fundamentalist tent meeting mood of the modern G.O.P., knowing their futures depended on Faustian deals with the right."

Dowd concludes her opinion piece by asking, "Who are these guys at their core?"

I've got news for you, Maureen: politicians lie in order to be elected. Some tell big lies. Some tell smaller lies. Some think that by lying they are nevertheless enabling themselves to serve the greater "good" as known to them alone.

Obama didn't lie? He pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, but it didn't happen.

He also promised, if elected president, to use the word “genocide” to describe the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks at the beginning of the last century. Obama failed to keep his word.

Obama is now claiming that he is Israel's best friend, and at a November 2011 Manhattan fund raiser, he declared (see: http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/11/30/what-did-president-obama-say-tonight-at-a-campaign-event/):

"I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration. And that’s not just our opinion, that’s the opinion of the Israeli government. Whether it’s making sure that our intelligence cooperation is effective, to making sure that we’re able to construct something like an Iron Dome so that we don’t have missiles raining down on Tel Aviv, we have been consistent in insisting that we don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security. And that’s not just something I say privately, that’s something that I said in the U.N. General Assembly. And that will continue."

"That will continue"? If so, why did New York Times columnist Roger Cohen yesterday warn Israel not to act against Iran (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/cohen-dont-do-it-bibi.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss):

"By contrast, a re-elected Obama would, as a second-term president, have room to mark his displeasure if Israel was to go it alone."

Yes, there should be real concern that Obama's ingrained animus toward Israel will manifest itself during a second term, when he is no longer constrained by the considerations of re-election.

Both Obama and Romney know the fate of presidential candidates who drop their public masks and reveal their "core," e.g. George McGovern and Barry Goldwater.

Such being the case, how do you choose between the two? I wouldn't worry too much. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent between now and November to convince you of their relative merits, but don't expect to see an Obama "Hope" poster from the 2008 campaign. Hope has gone by the wayside, as reflected by both these two candidates.