But given a lot of other things that have come out (the “composite” girlfriend, his multiple sealed records), I suspect it’s a symptom of a wider problem.

A test: How many Obama voters got the president that he pretended to be in 2008?

Maybe your terms need recalibration.

Wanting smaller government is “radical.”

Believing that the deficit problem is mostly caused by a budget a trillion dollars larger (constant dollars) than it was ten years ago is “radical.”

The idea that economic growth comes from private business activity and not wealth redistribution is “radical.”

The idea that the Federal government has too much damn power over our lives is “radical.”

Heck, we already have people on record here stating that nationalizing our entire health care system is a “moderate” position.

A liberal looks at that political ad and wonders how any sane person couldn’t think an income tax for Texas was not a brilliant idea. Maybe even a larger one than California has so that Texas can prosper like California is.

In case I’m not being clear enough, I don’t accept your definition of “radical.” Unless in our current environment, not being a socialist has become the “revolutionary” position.

In that case, make the most of it.

The Democrats took the national legislature at the beginning of 2007, and all the marbles at the beginning of 2009. The first electoral response to their ideas was in November of 2010. The second installment will be this fall.

Then I can sit and listen to the liberal rationalizations for the next few years. It will be amazing how many Americans suddenly became racists between 2008 and now.

[youtube]7bK3hpcqPuM[/youtube]

It wasn’t a “book jacket written by somebody else.”

It was an online biography at a literary agency, which has such biographies supplied, by the agency’s own written policy, by the authors.

I have lost track of how many times that basic information has been supplied.

That the agency is ducking this is not surprising. They are dealing with a million-dollar client who could dump them for another agency in five minutes flat.

Obama is going to be running for president. Bush is not, and neither are any of the others on your list. A track record of lying about his own background, record, and positions is significant. If this were the only example, it wouldn’t be that big a deal. It isn’t. Pretending to be something he wasn’t was the only way Obama got elected in 2008. It won’t work in 2012. He’s got a real record, now.

That person also has to overlook their own history as they themselves have recounted on these pages.

All of those are excused, none of them count, apparently because they are Republican. So, we are left with the happy outcome that it’s only Democrat’s lies which violate trust. Maybe because it’s only Democrats which deserve trust.

Somehow that dust jacket doesn’t seem to be nearly the issue that the other people bring to the table. And it validates my point, that they haven’t found much against Obama. It was Christ who said that one should examine the log in their own eye before pointing out the mote in the other person’s.

Now that wasn’t hard, was it?

It’s like political glossolalia.

I loathe the internet sometimes. It is so hard to convey what is being meant.

Like now.