I was watching television the other night, and someone was interviewing people on the street about the presidential election. More than one respondent stated that they would be supporting Obama because "he can bring us together." You have to hand it to Obama for being a grand master at pulling off this unity sophistry.
Indeed, Obama is so good at this scam that he has John McCain believing it — or afraid to state otherwise for fear he'll alienate this presumed longing of the people for unity, harmony, bipartisanship, civility, hope and utopia itself.
So as a small public service, I figure I ought to do my part to debunk this myth, mostly pointing to Obama's own words and actions. Does he really pass his own test for ushering in an era of harmonious ecstasy?
While McCain is busy excoriating North Carolina Republicans for pointing to Obama's dubious relationships, Obama is wasting no time proving that he will reciprocate with no such courtesies.
Anytime someone criticizes Obama, he responds with outrage at the mere suggestion that he is subject to criticism. He has intimidated John McCain into bringing the proverbial knife to a gunfight, while he's arming himself with rhetorical grenades and rocket launchers.
Obama, for example, has set up a Web site to refute alleged smears against him and calls some of the accusers "liars" — not the kind of truculent and aggressive language one would expect from a man promising harmony.
In a recent speech, Obama delivered one pugnacious barb after another directed squarely at McCain. Let's review and examine a few of them:
"I honor . . . the service of John McCain, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine."
Are these not gratuitously combative words? Does it promote harmony to accuse someone falsely of something he can't disprove? When has McCain denied Obama's accomplishments?
"While John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign. It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year."
What's this? Is the great unifier demonizing President George W. Bush in the full-blown spirit of Bush derangement syndrome? Moreover, if he's saying McCain stood with Bush 95 percent of the time, is it not fair to ask whether Obama stood with the divisive, pugilistic Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 95 percent of the time or more?
Keep in mind that I have no problem with Obama challenging McCain's claim to independence or his specious attempt to morph the "maverick" into George W. Bush, nor do I take issue with Obama's inevitable siding with his party's destructive leadership 95 percent of the time.
But I do think Obama's remarks and actions speak volumes about the authenticity of his claim to be a unifier. If he is siding with liberal Democrats almost all the time, doesn't it stand to reason that he can't possibly represent a unifying force?
When Obama says, "It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs . . . policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt," he's not uniting. He's deliberately dividing with class-warfare rhetoric.
Are these the words of a unifier: "There are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies . . . but change is not one of them"?
Even the Obama-worshipping New York Times acknowledges that both McCain and Obama are on a path to a "slash and burn affair" despite McCain's and Obama's assertions that "they intend to elevate the political discourse."
The Times notes that Obama's campaign has "displayed an aggressive streak . . . hitting Mr. McCain hard." It reports that in a conference call, "Obama's advisers on several occasions referred to Mr. McCain as being 'confused' about some key Middle East questions, a statement some took to be a veiled reference to his age and acuity."
And then there is Obama's blistering rhetoric against McCain on Social Security, also containing unmistakable references to McCain's age and acuity: "You know, John McCain has proposed a series of debates, and I'm looking forward to having them. But when it comes to Social Security, he might want to finish the debate with himself first." Ouch.
I've barely scratched the surface, but for any who still believe Obama represents harmony, I ask you to consider how he would go about promoting harmony if he calls for surrendering in Iraq against the wishes of millions of Americans and at the expense of our fallen soldiers or if he continues to support partial-birth abortion.
Impossible — as well it should be.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.