Won’t Get Fooled Again

This song by The Who is not just the theme song for the television series “CSI”; or one of the greatest songs in music history. This song is the anthem of the 2008 Presidential Race.

The chorus of “Won’t Get Fooled Again” goes as follows:

“I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again”.

Will America be fooled again? Will the infamous words of George W. Bush: “I am uniter, not a divider” fool us again but this time from the self-professed “uniter” Barack Obama?

This week we learned that Barack Obama told an audience in Ohio that he would consider scrapping NAFTA if necessary as President of the United States. However, we learned that a month before the debate, his campaign contacted the Canadian Government to assure them not to worry because “the words are just rhetoric”. This reveals that he plans to keep the peace by lying to both sides. The only way this unites Canada and America is by sharing the commonality of both being lied to.

Senator Obama maintains that he was always against the Iraq War. Is he oblivious to the documented comments of him praising George W. Bush on the efforts in his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004? Does he really expect the people to believe that he would not have gone with the grain had he actually had a role of responsibility in the months after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks? Would he have used the excuse “I pressed the wrong button” when called to task for his discrepancies? Or would he have voted “present” and never committed himself to anything – much the same way he has over a hundred times, thereby leaving himself free to adjust his response to the most popular opinion.

The Obama campaign is claiming that he has the judgment of a president. Which one? More importantly, I might have great judgment when it comes to baseball. However, I would never consider applying for a job coaching the New York Yankees or any other professional baseball team. My experience playing baseball is limited to local recreational leagues. To my credit, I have one hell of a throwing arm. However, this would hardly qualify me to even consider applying.

However, a lack of qualifications has not stopped Barack Obama. He has next to no experience handling roles of major responsibility in government. He should stick to his own gut instinct from 2004 when he answered a reporter who asked him if he would be on the 2008 Presidential ticket: “I don’t have enough experience”.

How safe will America be with Barack Obama at the helm? How soundly will Americans sleep knowing that Barack Obama will be answering the phone at 3:00am? Will he continue to lose important documents because of his self confessed inability to keep track of papers? Will he neglect important responsibilities in the same way he has ignored Afghanistan as a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations?

Will Americans be satisfied with his answer should another Al Qaeda attack occur? “I was busy running for the Presidency”. “Good judgment” means nothing without the ability to stay organized and to multi-task. Good judgment also means nothing without the experience to support it.

Might the difference between “lying to the people” and “uniting the people” be as trivial as “denounce” and “reject” in this ambitious hypocrites mind? Might the difference between voting “for” and voting “present” be one of the same to Barack Obama? When he tells government leaders of major foreign countries to “not worry” because his words are just ‘political rhetoric”, what other lies is he telling the millions of people who send him money to propagate his mirage?

Americans, if you find yourself humming to the catchy tunes of the Obama campaign, stop for a minute and listen to the words. Then, go one step further and learn what the words, or “rhetoric”, really mean. The song sounds really good but the words don’t make any sense. Unlike “Won’t Get Fooled Again”.

Hopefully millions of Obama supporters will stop merely humming along and realize that they are being fooled again. Because, if Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States, the final line in The Who’s anthem will hold true: “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss”.

Related posts:

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Won’t Get Fooled Again

  1. Steve Cohn says:

    Hmm..So we have a bunch of folks ta ta ta talkin’ about Ca Ca Ca Canada…
    It was confirmed, denied, recomfirmed & denied again…and the video link you provided said BOTH Obama & Hillary campaigns had reached out to the Canadian government.

    And this happened a month ago before the debate and before the question was asked if either of them would cancell if Nafta wasn’t revised.

    The only facts that are undisputable is Hillary supported NAFTA while in the white house as first lady and again in her book. Her words. No one elses. NAFTA is a killer for her in Ohio and she needs to do anything she can to distance herself from it. If that means creating a scenario that questions Obama on his stance to take the light off her own support, that’s what she’ll do. I’m still not really sure who said what to who in Canada; I’m all ears though.

    Just a thought as I appreciate The WHo as much as anyone else, but “Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss” lends itself as a battle cry to vote for a guy like Nader. And that would leave the country like The Who’s stage after a concert.

    Rock On Doc!

  2. Steve

    Your claims on Hillary Clinton and her support of NAFTA when Bill Clinton was president have also been disputed and fact checked already and proved wrong here.

  3. steve cohn says:

    Hi Pamela,
    I’m a little disappointed you didn’t evoke some Who references..

    Below are a few quotes. Hillary supported it while in the white house and mentioned it was , and I’m summarizing here, a success for Bill and the American Economy.

    Now I know things change and it’s been a decade since it was rolled out, but to say she didnt’ support it isn’t 100% truthful. I’m not saying she ever said it the best policy ever, but she supported it. No doubt about that. To say otherwise isn’t truthful. As I said in other posts, awkward for her as she would have to say one of her husbands victories was a mistake (as our ecentric pal Ross Perot so enthusiastically claimed it would be..”sucking sound” as I recall he described it).

    I wish during the debate Russer(?) asked how would they fix it vs. would you end it.

    Below are some references. If they are incorrect, please correct. Thier sources are identified. Again- it shows support.

    1996: Clinton Said “I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth.” A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, “I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth,” she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. “That’s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about,” she said. [AP, 3/6/96]

    2002: Clinton: “We All Know The Record of The DLC, The Progressive Policy Institute And, Of Course, The Clinton-Gore Administration. The Economic Recovery Plan Stands First And Foremost As A Testament To Both Good Ideas And Political Courage. National Service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA. … All Of These Came Out Of Some Very Fundamental Ideas About What Would Work.” Clinton: “We all know the record of the DLC, the Progressive Policy Institute and, of course, the Clinton-Gore Administration. The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA. Investment in science and technology. New markets. Charter schools. The Earned Income Tax Credit. The welfare to work partnership. The COPS program. The SAFER program. All of these came out of some very fundamental ideas about what would work.” [Remarks of Hillary Clinton at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, 7/29/02]

    2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. “Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances.” [Living History, 182]

  4. Steve

    See the Comment Policy above: “Please include a link when quoting news in the comments. DO NOT POST FULL ARTICLES.” In the future comments without links will be moderated.

    Sorry to disappoint you – but FYI, I have a life and other priorities beyond this blog and arguing tit for tat with Obama supporters over who said what.

  5. coldH2Owi says:

    Hillary Clinton voted for Bu$hCo’s vanity war. Please don’t insult America’s intelligence by parsing that vote.

  6. Steve Cohn says:

    Pamela-
    Ouch. That last reponse seemed unlike your style. The friendly banter I tried to convey seemed to frustrate/annoy you.

    I didn’t think it was tit-for-tat when the facts are in question.

  7. coldH2Owi: I favor a complete and expeditious withdrawal from Iraq. Both of the good Senators under discussion do not.

    (In full disclosure: I hated feeling like I had to give the sitting U.S. President the benefit of the doubt when he pushed for invasion of Iraq and supported it on the basis claims that could not be proven to be 100% false, but I felt that respect for the Office was still warranted in 2003. I noted then that far more people adopted a position like that than now claim to have been totally against what subsequently turned out to be an indefensible decision.)

  8. coldH2Owi says:

    Darrell Prows: I did not feel the necessity to give anything to a man who did not win the 2000 election. Those who felt/feel differently have much to explain. If in fact many people today are not telling the truth about their beliefs several years ago, well, don’t that just take the cake. People are still dying every day in Iraq & we all need to somehow stop it.

  9. Granted. And saying repeatedly that Sen. Clinton cast the wrong vote promotes this how?

  10. Steve

    I’m testy today – sorry. I am knee deep in bookkeeping and Fin Aid for for my daughter. Ugh!

  11. coldH2Owi says:

    Darrell Prows:
    Accountability would be on my list somewhere. Lack of courage, maybe. This is what really concerns me about Sen. Clinton, the lack of courage when it counted. & before I’m accused of living in some “unreal” world, please stop, I’ve lived through too many wars in my relatively short life & I don’t want to live through anymore. Sen. Clinton had a great opportunity to truly lead the country, she chose not to, My granddaughters are suffering because of her vote & that is a great disappointment to me. I really don’t need Hilary, Warrior Princess, I get enough of that on my teevee.

  12. coldH2Owi

    We all would like to end the war around here, but here’s some stark truth, “her vote” didn’t start the war.

    She alone is not responsible for it. It wasn’t “her” idea to go to war there.

    We can’t end the war squabbling over who voted for the damn war 6 years ago. We can’t change the past – we can only effect the future.

    We can end it with a strong leader in the White House who is committed to bringing the troops home.

    Both Clinton and Obama are commited to bringing the troops home. Both will be good presidents.

  13. coldH2Owi says:

    Pamela Leavey:
    You’re right, either will be a whole lot better than what we have. What I’m concerned about is that the Dem. leadership has been so pummeled by the right that they (the Dem leadership) just keep letting the country get screwed. Talk about compassionate conservatism. I want retribution for the people I see on a daily basis on the street of the small city I live near who desperately need mental health care, the elderly who walk aimlessly through the Super WalMart, the native people on the Rez a few miles out of town. I’m afraid that both or either of these candidates will both want to reach across the aisle, rather than build a moat & not let those dorks get away with it. Since my first choice got one too many haircuts, I really hope Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, upon winning next fall, appoints him as AG & gives him what he needs to heal the nation. The President can then go about healing the world.
    Again, I agree with you about her vote. But I am, frankly, astounded by the bile Sen. Obama’s name brings up on this site & on Talk Left. I really had no idea, initially, about the hatred. I didn’t much like Obama’s vote on Ms. Rice, among other things. Anyway, we are going to win & we are going to elect a bunch of new Congress people & senators. I’m happy & excited. Then we’ll be accountable, a welcome change. Peace.