Daily Dolt
ArchPundit
Tom Roeser is making a good case for people who think he has lost his faculties.
A few days ago, Roeser insisted
This is the first occasion in modern times when matters of a personal biographical nature have been responded to-not by the candidate nor his official surrogates-but by unofficial media sources. John Kennedy was obliged to go to the Houston Ministerial Association and outline his views on Catholicism.
As I pointed out then, Axelrod already addressed the claims and is an official surrogate as is Robert Gibbs who is certainly an official surrogate.
Today, the goalposts move:
So, So-Called Austin Mayor, chances are good that you and your fellows have been sucker-bait for Mr. Axelrod because they want to end the speculation without getting their guy on the record thereby preserving the candidate’s deniability.
It’s a bit hard to tell how Obama could credibly deny some super secret revelation since Axelrod discussed the issue, Gibbs sent out a long detailed denial and most of all, Obama has given hundreds of interviews and speeches discussing his religious faith. In fact, one particular speech, the Keynote to A Call to Renewal, specifically dealt with his past faith and is much like Kennedy’s speech to the Houston Ministerial Association.
But best of all, Roeser leaves himself open to criticizing Obama on the issue as long as he feels like it no matter the total and complete lack of evidence:
But sometime they’re going to have to answer it head-on as John Kennedy did. Then, even if Obama answers it satisfactorily, he and they will still have been responsible for a bonehead play–because by ducking and relying on CNN and other outlets to do their work for them, thus heightening justifiable cynicism that they weren’t telling the truth, they worsened their problem for themselves.
The final difference is, of course, that Obama has never claimed to be a practicing Muslim and there is no evidence that he ever was. On the other hand, John Kennedy was a practicing Catholic.
Roeser reveals a bit more about himself than he intended though:
Given Obama’s middle name I maintain there is more to this story than we’ve been told.
That’s the crux of his argument. But he isn’t a degenerate liar and racist. Just ask him.
Then we get this gem:
Also it is plain knowledge that the leaks came not from Republican sources but roundabout from the squinty-eyed son of a squinty-eyed FDR interior secretary, Harold Ickes. Sweet asked Obama’s press secretary if the rumor was leaked by the Hillary forces. No, of course not! Give me and all of us a break.
Evidence please? How is this plain knowledge? Little voices in Tom’s head?