A quick glance at the political landscape of the past week proves that sentiment has been long since forgotten.

First, it was former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, dishing dirt on the Bush Administration in his tell-all book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception. The liberal media rejoiced at the “revelations” that the Bush Administration lied to the American people about their true reasons for invading Iraq and the author’s assertions that Karl Rove and Lewis “Scooter” Libby were behind the Valerie Plame CIA leak.  

I will leave the debate of whether these revelations are true or false to others. 

My point of contention with Mr. McClellan is his timing. He had been a loyal Bush staffer since 1999 when W. was still the Governor of Texas. He was the Traveling Press Secretary for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. He was the Deputy Press Secretary, under Ari Fleischer, until July of 2003 when he was promoted to Press Secretary. He served in that position from 2003 until April of 2006 when he was unceremoniously forced out and replaced by (someone with infinitely more backbone and personality than he could ever wish to have) Tony Snow.

McClellan didn’t resign based on his beliefs or his sense of outrage that the American people were being lied to or any other concocted excuse he or the liberal media are trying to peddle. The facts are: He was forced to resign. He was kicked out for being woefully lacking the talents necessary to be an effective White House Press Secretary. 

Like anyone who has been in the limelight and against their wishes is forced to sit on the sidelines, McClellan was angry. 

The truth is he had been lied to by people within the White House. Only, it wasn’t about the reasons for going into Iraq or Valerie Plame, it was about his abilities to be an effective Press Secretary.

So, what was he to do? Spend his remaining years toiling in obscurity while remaining loyal and faithful to a man that, perhaps foolishly, elevated his career beyond his talent level? Or, exact some measure of revenge, reclaim the limelight (although for a brief news cycle), and cash in on his former job title? The choice was simple.

Late Saturday evening, the news broke that Barack Obama has severed his 20-year relationship with Trinity United Church of Christ by resigning as a member.

According to The Politco.Com:

Obama said he has “tremendous regard” for the church community, but said he could not live with a situation where everything said in the church, including comments by a guest pastor, “will be imputed to me, even if they conflict with my long-held, views, statements and principles.”

Once again, I have an issue with the timing of such a difficult decision.

Barack Obama would like for the American people to believe that this radical level of anti-American, anti-white person hate speech that has been spewed on multiple occasions from Trinity’s pulpit (and met with enthusiastic applause by its members) is something shocking or new to the Obama family. He would like for you to believe that this church has gone off the deep end in the last few months and has strayed from its former self.

Personally, I find that highly unlikely. 

I believe membership in this church was necessary to Obama’s early rise in Chicago politics. 

According to FrontPageMag.Com:

Nonetheless, it was here that Obama chose to make his career and here that, in 1992, he joined Trinity. With the controversy over his ties to Rev. Wright wrecking havoc on his political fortunes, the decision now seems woefully misguided. But in retrospect, and in the cold light of political calculation, it was the obvious choice.

Trinity allowed Obama to pad his still-thin résumé. An admitted agnostic, Obama could fortify doubts about his spiritual and religious commitments. A biracial politician looking to prove that he was authentically “black,” he could rely on Trinity’s Afrocentric gospel to convince race-conscious unbelievers. A community organizer with budding political ambitions, he could identify a constituency in the large congregation. At Trinity, Obama got religion – and a reputation.

Believe it or not, I’m willing to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it is true that he does not and never has shared in the beliefs of “black liberation theology” or the “black value system”—two ideological pillars of Trinity United Church of Christ.

But yet again, it begs the question, “Why now?” Why after 20 years of affiliating himself with this church would he choose to disassociate?

I won’t insult your intelligence by answering that.

Here is a more important question: What does the timing of these decisions by these two men say about their character?

Chew on that question for a while, and then remember the famous words of Frank Outlaw:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.