The President’s Truth Problem
The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive.
- Ol’ Yeller passed away in a sudden and unexpected way.
- Michael Jackson had an impulse control issue with children.
- Janet Jackson experienced a Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction.
- Joe Biden’s brain assumed room temperature some time ago.
- It wasn’t a war against Libya; it was a limited kinetic operation.
So it’s fair to say, euphemistically, that the President has a truth problem.
While it’s considered poor form to attack a Democrat President’s honesty—LBJ possibly excluded and maybe Bill Clinton—as Mark Steyn has observed, President Obama’s truth problems are getting harder and harder to ignore.
He [Obama] cautioned the justices — “an unelected group of people” — not to take the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
What are the excuses for the President?
The White House Press Secretary, himself a euphuism for the President’s go-to media apologist, settled on the usual suspect: the President’s comments were taken out of context/he misspoke.
Attacking the President’s truth problem is considered by some to be attacking the President (or, of course, racism), a potentially counterproductive political strategy. After all, as the President might say about himself, he’s still viewed as likable enough.
This leads to one plausible way ahead: address Obama’s record. That is, ask people if they are better off than before, and if so, in what way? Obama’s record of epic fails (unemployment, the debt, energy, foreign policy, national security, health care) must be challenged non-stop.