Obama has been having these "memory problems" regarding his experience with the now-famous Reverend Jeremiah Wright:
"In the speech on race he delivered on March 18, Obama said: "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." Yet, in a March 14 posting on Huffington Post, Obama wrote: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach."
McCain isn't perfect either. Back in November, he said "Everybody says they're against the special interests, but I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to," when, in reality, Vennochi explains, "lobbyists or former lobbyists [have] raised money for him."
In fact, a USA Today/Gallup poll rated public opinion of whether candidates are "honest and trustworthy," and discovered McCain to be most trusted at 67 percent, Obama in second place at 63 percent, and Clinton, unsurprisingly, in last place with 44 percent.
The problem, though, goes further than the pointed confusion of facts. What does this dishonesty say about each candidate as a person? Are we willing to support and live under a president who is not even going to fulfill the basic moral duty of honesty? If they hide this small stuff, what other skeletons may creep from the closet?
I believe honesty to be the beginning of the moral life. As I read somewhere recently, if there is anything true about lies, it is that the second one is easier than the first. In the same way, the willingness to lie can lead to a greater openness to more serious sins in the future, which is a serious matter for all, including, with special importance, our president. The "trustability" of a president absolutely must be taken into account when we enter the poll booth, or we risk incalcuable problems in the years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment