Kathianne
08-17-2012, 02:02 PM
Why? Article that follows:
Definition of ANTINOMIAN<!--INFOLINKS_ON-->1
: one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2
: one who rejects a socially established morality
— antinomian adjective
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-obamas-betrayal/2012/08/16/f165cc14-e7d9-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html
Obama’s betrayal
By Michael Gerson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/michael-gerson/2011/02/24/ABocMYN_page.html), Published: August 16 <!-- For AP News Registry --> The Washington Post <!-- /For AP News Registry -->
<!-- /byline --> <article> In the innocent, bygone days of February, President Obama told NBC News that the campaign would get negative against him, but provided this assurance: “I think that you will be able to see how we conduct ourselves in the campaign. I think it will be consistent with how I conducted myself in 2008 and hopefully how I have conducted myself as president of the United States.”
Not since Gary Hart urged reporters to follow him around because “they’d be very bored” has an assurance been more of an indictment. The Obama campaign has targeted and intimidated Republican donors on an Internet enemies list. It has engaged in the juvenile mockery of Mitt Romney’s singing. It has suggested, without evidence, that Romney may have committed the felony of falsifying Federal Election Commission documents. It has speculated, without proof, that Romney has avoided paying taxes. When Joe Biden engages in racially charged hyperbole (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/14/biden-romneys-approach-to-financial-regulation-will-put-you-all-back-in-chains/), he is awkwardly but accurately reflecting the spirit of the 2012 Obama campaign.
...
Obama’s defenders assure us that everyone does it. But not everyone does this. It is one thing to exploit a misstatement; another to exploit a tragedy. It is one thing to mischaracterize a federal waiver; another to accuse an opponent of being the Angel of Death.
For the Obama campaign, this is not an aberration; it is a culmination. The demonization of Romney is a main element of its strategy, pursued by Obama’s closest associates and former employees, not by loosely affiliated partisan groups. Deniability is not even remotely plausible, but it doesn’t remotely matter. Even when exposed, the Obama campaign never retracts, never apologizes — convinced that the news cycle will quickly erase inconvenient memories.
It seems to be working, at least for the moment. Obama’s recent polling gains are mainly explainable by Romney’s rising negatives, particularly among independents. Even as political journalists point out distortions by the Obama campaign, they tend to praise its boldness, coordination and momentum. And each new controversy succeeds in distracting attention from Obama’s economic stewardship.
...
The Obama campaign is veering toward antinomianism. Since it regards its own motives as pure, it feels it can dispense with the normal rules of accuracy, civility and decency. So we get the political methods of Spiro Agnew combined with the moral self-regard of Woodrow Wilson. It is not an attractive mixture.
Speaking in Canton, Ohio, a week before the 2008 election, Obama said (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/politics/27text-obama.html?pagewanted=print), “Some of you may be cynical and fed up with politics. A lot of you may be disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what has been asked of Americans throughout our history. I ask you to believe.”
I am admittedly a sucker for rhetorical idealism. But it can’t be a small thing, a typical thing, a trivial thing, to ask for belief and then betray it.
</article>
Definition of ANTINOMIAN<!--INFOLINKS_ON-->1
: one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2
: one who rejects a socially established morality
— antinomian adjective
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-obamas-betrayal/2012/08/16/f165cc14-e7d9-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html
Obama’s betrayal
By Michael Gerson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/michael-gerson/2011/02/24/ABocMYN_page.html), Published: August 16 <!-- For AP News Registry --> The Washington Post <!-- /For AP News Registry -->
<!-- /byline --> <article> In the innocent, bygone days of February, President Obama told NBC News that the campaign would get negative against him, but provided this assurance: “I think that you will be able to see how we conduct ourselves in the campaign. I think it will be consistent with how I conducted myself in 2008 and hopefully how I have conducted myself as president of the United States.”
Not since Gary Hart urged reporters to follow him around because “they’d be very bored” has an assurance been more of an indictment. The Obama campaign has targeted and intimidated Republican donors on an Internet enemies list. It has engaged in the juvenile mockery of Mitt Romney’s singing. It has suggested, without evidence, that Romney may have committed the felony of falsifying Federal Election Commission documents. It has speculated, without proof, that Romney has avoided paying taxes. When Joe Biden engages in racially charged hyperbole (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/14/biden-romneys-approach-to-financial-regulation-will-put-you-all-back-in-chains/), he is awkwardly but accurately reflecting the spirit of the 2012 Obama campaign.
...
Obama’s defenders assure us that everyone does it. But not everyone does this. It is one thing to exploit a misstatement; another to exploit a tragedy. It is one thing to mischaracterize a federal waiver; another to accuse an opponent of being the Angel of Death.
For the Obama campaign, this is not an aberration; it is a culmination. The demonization of Romney is a main element of its strategy, pursued by Obama’s closest associates and former employees, not by loosely affiliated partisan groups. Deniability is not even remotely plausible, but it doesn’t remotely matter. Even when exposed, the Obama campaign never retracts, never apologizes — convinced that the news cycle will quickly erase inconvenient memories.
It seems to be working, at least for the moment. Obama’s recent polling gains are mainly explainable by Romney’s rising negatives, particularly among independents. Even as political journalists point out distortions by the Obama campaign, they tend to praise its boldness, coordination and momentum. And each new controversy succeeds in distracting attention from Obama’s economic stewardship.
...
The Obama campaign is veering toward antinomianism. Since it regards its own motives as pure, it feels it can dispense with the normal rules of accuracy, civility and decency. So we get the political methods of Spiro Agnew combined with the moral self-regard of Woodrow Wilson. It is not an attractive mixture.
Speaking in Canton, Ohio, a week before the 2008 election, Obama said (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/politics/27text-obama.html?pagewanted=print), “Some of you may be cynical and fed up with politics. A lot of you may be disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what has been asked of Americans throughout our history. I ask you to believe.”
I am admittedly a sucker for rhetorical idealism. But it can’t be a small thing, a typical thing, a trivial thing, to ask for belief and then betray it.
</article>