They Say: "Republicans are nothing more than racists."
They Mean: "We can't run on issues or we lose. Hurling accusations is the only way we have to defeat them. Besides, maybe it will distract from our own racism."
They Say: "Republicans are your enemy. They want to see you swinging from trees."
They Mean: "PLEASE don't vote for them! If we don't carry your guaranteed vote in our pocket we lose!"
They Say: "Black conservatives are self-loathing Uncle Toms."
They Mean: "Uh-oh. If black Americans start listening to black conservatives we're screwed."
They Say: "Herman Cain is not an authentic black man."
They Mean: "OMG HERMAN CAIN IS SO AUTHENTIC HE MAKES OBAMA LOOK LIKE A SALTINE! Quick, let's do all we can to discredit him!"
They Say: "Republicans talk down to black people."
They Mean: "That's our job, dammit."
They Say: "Tea Party Republicans are only pretending to like Herman Cain so they can hide their racism and convince you to vote for him while he entertains them with minstrelsy."
They Mean: "Hey, they're stealing from our playbook! We already tried that with Obama!"
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
GOP Establishment, By All Means Continue To Trash Cain
It's pretty clear who the GOP establishment wants for the nomination. They want Romney.
They may not have wanted him at first, but they certainly wanted what they consider an "electable" candidate, and they began hunting for one the minute the race began.
Early in the race, it was Pawlenty vs. Bachmann, with establishment critics on either side prepared to call one or the other "the one to beat", depending on who emerged on top. When Pawlenty dropped out, the spotlight began to shine solely on Bachmann. You'd never have realized others had begun running.
When Bachmann showed that she was unable to handle herself with grace and aplomb during debates, the new "golden boy" upon whom the race centered became Rick Perry. Then Perry, who was always seen as soft on illegal immigration, made that completely uncalled for "you don't have a heart" comment, regarding those who opposed his support of the DREAM act, and that pretty much killed him.
Yes, liberals, it was his embrace of the DREAM act and his left-esque defense of it that sank his campaign, not that stupid rock. So you can shut up about the rock now.
So without Pawlenty, Bachmann or Perry, the only establishment choice left that has any momentum is Mitt Romney. Now, it's clear Americans don't want Mitt Romney. They just don't. And it's not hard to see why; he's not a conservative. He doesn't stand for what we believe in, and up until this race he's pretty much been a liberal in conservative clothing. No, we don't care about his religion. We don't see anything necessarily creepy about Romney's approach to his Mormonism. But we definitely don't want a man who created the diagram upon which Obamacare is based, who seems to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming (and would continue the attempt to force America to "go green"), who is pro-TARP and would be open to more bail-outs and who seems to be just as much an empty suit as Obama.
But the establishment wants him because he's "electable", whatever that means. So, in the absence of other "electable" candidates, Romney is their man. You hear RNC member after RNC member (the latest is Karl Rove) showing their support of Romney by trashing the only man who's beating him: Herman Cain.
Cain has polled ahead of Romney now in three major polls, and also won the Florida Straw Poll, which is also known as Presidency 5, in which Romney was a distant third. That's incredibly impressive for a man who's never held elected office. Hell, it's impressive for anybody. But all you hear from GOP leaders is Romney, Romney, Romney, and why Cain isn't our man.
Their complaints against him are ridiculous. "He's never held public office." So...holding an elected office is a guarantee you'll do a great job? Then explain Obama.
"He has no foreign policy knowledge." This is based on his flubbing of the question about the "right of return". Here's a question: if anyone had asked Obama about that before they'd asked Cain, do you think he would have been able to give an intelligable answer? Also, I think Cain can be counted on not to commit multiple offenses and breaches of protocol with visiting British dignitaries and the freaking Queen, will not bow to foreign dictators, refer to languages that don't exist, etc. If we can allow Obama to be president with his joke of a foreign policy, I think we'll be okay with Cain, who will at least listen to the experts, as he has said on numerous occasions.
"There are issues with his 999 plan." Any time I hear someone attempt to discredit the 999 plan, their reasoning seems very vague. The plan is there at his website and it makes sense. It's written in plain English a layman can understand. Why are people acting like it's a big mystery? And why, since the plan is laid out in point form on the site, do the criticisms sound almost intentionally vague? Also, why is no one suggesting another, better plan?
"He's flubbed some debate responses/interviewer questions." So far, Cain has not uttered a campaign-derailing comment like "You don't have a heart" or "If you turn the 999 plan upside down, the devil's in the details." His "flubs" are no worse than anything Clinton or Bush, Jr. said on the campaign trail. You know, those two-term presidents?
I suppose it isn't all that surprising that the "movers and shakers" within the GOP want another RINO to be nominated. Most of them are RINO's themselves, and have utterly failed to grasp the fact that a majority of Americans want to see a genuine conservative in power this time, and not just another power-seeker we're all told we should vote for. They continue to believe that the only way to win elections is to be "moderate", which means "Liberal lite". To them, we can only run people who seem to appeal to liberals, not understanding that as long as an "R" comes after a politician's name, a liberal is never going to vote for them.
Because they can't really defend Romney, they instead trash Cain. At first I was upset by this, but now I think I'd rather they kept at it. After all, they praised Pawlenty, Bachmann and Perry. Now every time another establishment GOP'er comes out in support of Romney (or trashes Cain), Cain's poll numbers go up. If they started praising him now I'd be worried.
Some say that Cain has peaked too soon, but in all honesty, this is not like the peaks we saw for Bachmann and Perry. They had the support of the GOP establishment. Cain, like so much else he's done in his life, has succeeded in his consistent lead in the polls entirely on his own. America has finally come to know Herman Cain, and they like what they know. And the more attempts there are to take him down, on both sides, the more his numbers continue to rise.
So, establishment hacks? Keep it up. Talk up Cain's lack of experience, this idea that 999 is unclear or hurtful, and keep building up Romney. You'll badmouth Cain right into the White House.
They may not have wanted him at first, but they certainly wanted what they consider an "electable" candidate, and they began hunting for one the minute the race began.
Early in the race, it was Pawlenty vs. Bachmann, with establishment critics on either side prepared to call one or the other "the one to beat", depending on who emerged on top. When Pawlenty dropped out, the spotlight began to shine solely on Bachmann. You'd never have realized others had begun running.
When Bachmann showed that she was unable to handle herself with grace and aplomb during debates, the new "golden boy" upon whom the race centered became Rick Perry. Then Perry, who was always seen as soft on illegal immigration, made that completely uncalled for "you don't have a heart" comment, regarding those who opposed his support of the DREAM act, and that pretty much killed him.
Yes, liberals, it was his embrace of the DREAM act and his left-esque defense of it that sank his campaign, not that stupid rock. So you can shut up about the rock now.
So without Pawlenty, Bachmann or Perry, the only establishment choice left that has any momentum is Mitt Romney. Now, it's clear Americans don't want Mitt Romney. They just don't. And it's not hard to see why; he's not a conservative. He doesn't stand for what we believe in, and up until this race he's pretty much been a liberal in conservative clothing. No, we don't care about his religion. We don't see anything necessarily creepy about Romney's approach to his Mormonism. But we definitely don't want a man who created the diagram upon which Obamacare is based, who seems to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming (and would continue the attempt to force America to "go green"), who is pro-TARP and would be open to more bail-outs and who seems to be just as much an empty suit as Obama.
But the establishment wants him because he's "electable", whatever that means. So, in the absence of other "electable" candidates, Romney is their man. You hear RNC member after RNC member (the latest is Karl Rove) showing their support of Romney by trashing the only man who's beating him: Herman Cain.
Cain has polled ahead of Romney now in three major polls, and also won the Florida Straw Poll, which is also known as Presidency 5, in which Romney was a distant third. That's incredibly impressive for a man who's never held elected office. Hell, it's impressive for anybody. But all you hear from GOP leaders is Romney, Romney, Romney, and why Cain isn't our man.
Their complaints against him are ridiculous. "He's never held public office." So...holding an elected office is a guarantee you'll do a great job? Then explain Obama.
"He has no foreign policy knowledge." This is based on his flubbing of the question about the "right of return". Here's a question: if anyone had asked Obama about that before they'd asked Cain, do you think he would have been able to give an intelligable answer? Also, I think Cain can be counted on not to commit multiple offenses and breaches of protocol with visiting British dignitaries and the freaking Queen, will not bow to foreign dictators, refer to languages that don't exist, etc. If we can allow Obama to be president with his joke of a foreign policy, I think we'll be okay with Cain, who will at least listen to the experts, as he has said on numerous occasions.
"There are issues with his 999 plan." Any time I hear someone attempt to discredit the 999 plan, their reasoning seems very vague. The plan is there at his website and it makes sense. It's written in plain English a layman can understand. Why are people acting like it's a big mystery? And why, since the plan is laid out in point form on the site, do the criticisms sound almost intentionally vague? Also, why is no one suggesting another, better plan?
"He's flubbed some debate responses/interviewer questions." So far, Cain has not uttered a campaign-derailing comment like "You don't have a heart" or "If you turn the 999 plan upside down, the devil's in the details." His "flubs" are no worse than anything Clinton or Bush, Jr. said on the campaign trail. You know, those two-term presidents?
I suppose it isn't all that surprising that the "movers and shakers" within the GOP want another RINO to be nominated. Most of them are RINO's themselves, and have utterly failed to grasp the fact that a majority of Americans want to see a genuine conservative in power this time, and not just another power-seeker we're all told we should vote for. They continue to believe that the only way to win elections is to be "moderate", which means "Liberal lite". To them, we can only run people who seem to appeal to liberals, not understanding that as long as an "R" comes after a politician's name, a liberal is never going to vote for them.
Because they can't really defend Romney, they instead trash Cain. At first I was upset by this, but now I think I'd rather they kept at it. After all, they praised Pawlenty, Bachmann and Perry. Now every time another establishment GOP'er comes out in support of Romney (or trashes Cain), Cain's poll numbers go up. If they started praising him now I'd be worried.
Some say that Cain has peaked too soon, but in all honesty, this is not like the peaks we saw for Bachmann and Perry. They had the support of the GOP establishment. Cain, like so much else he's done in his life, has succeeded in his consistent lead in the polls entirely on his own. America has finally come to know Herman Cain, and they like what they know. And the more attempts there are to take him down, on both sides, the more his numbers continue to rise.
So, establishment hacks? Keep it up. Talk up Cain's lack of experience, this idea that 999 is unclear or hurtful, and keep building up Romney. You'll badmouth Cain right into the White House.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Liberal Projection
The Liberal Position on Obama: "If you don't support Obama, there can be no question you're a racist. Oh, yes, we know that every now and then one of us conscientiously objects to something he says or does, but they still support him, because they're not racist. The only reason to not support him is race."
The Liberal Position on Cain: "If you support Cain, you're a racist, because you don't support Obama. You want to replace Obama with another black man, a black man who dances your dance and says what you want to hear, so therefore you prefer him to a black man who doesn't dance your dance or say what you want to hear. And that's racist."
Could this be a better example of liberal projection? The reason they support Obama is apparently the reason we're supporting Cain. After all, does anyone think liberals would support Obama if he were exactly the same kind of man and the same kind of president, but had run as a Republican?
We care about issues. They care about race. They project, therefore, their own thought process onto us. We couldn't possibly be supporting Cain because of his stance on the issues. It must be race. Except we're racists. So therefore we support Cain because we're hiding our own racism and we enjoy his "mistrelsy". What?
So, let's get to the heart of the matter. Obama (who is half white) is an authentic black man because...he...stands for black issues? Like...universal healthcare? Big government? Socialism? High taxes and increased gov't spending? Yeah, those sound like issues near and dear to the hearts of black Americans. Of course, Obama also responds with great understanding when addressed with concerns about his lack of attention to America's black population, as follows:
Just how is Barack Obama an "authentic" black man? Oh, that's right, because he's a Democrat, and everyone knows the Democrats have always been the champions of equal rights for black Americans.
Always.
So Obama is "authentic" because he...dances the Democrats' dance and says what they want to hear.
Herman Cain, however, is not authentic. Because...he's successful, self-made and doesn't sit around blaming "The White Man" for keeping him down. In fact he refused to let himself be kept down. He did things black people were told they couldn't do, succeeding in mathematics and business despite being told he shouldn't bother. He made something of himself with no help from "whitey", and certainly no help from Democrats, who would have offered him social assistance in order to keep him poor and dependant on them.
In other words, Cain is living the dream Martin Luther King fought for. And that...somehow makes him not authentic.
Oh, wait, actually it's because he is running as a Republican and supports the Tea Party. We all know the Tea Party is racist. They can't stand the thought of a black man in the Oval Office, which is why they're...totally supporting the idea of a black man in the Oval Office. It's just a black man who agrees with their positions on lower taxes, smaller government, job growth, etc. Okay, that settles it. They must be racists.
It is time for Black America to wake up. They have been handing their votes to Democrats for decades now and what has it gotten them? Sweet f--k all, that's what. "But they got a black President!" Yes, a black president who couldn't care less that while unemployment has risen for everyone across the country, it's near double for blacks what it is for whites. A black president whose response to his own poor performance in actually helping the community he claims to care so much about is to literally tell them to "stop grumbling." A black president who routinely rolls over and does the bidding of the white men who pull his strings; name a single issue Obama appears passionate about that isn't also a long-time Democratic "progressive" talking point?
Black Americans, listen. Obama may share your skin color but in what other way has he earned your vote? Name a single thing Obama has done that helped you? Has your life improved under his leadership at all? Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Are you worse off?
Herman Cain also shares your skin color, and he wants to help. Unlike Obama, whom the Democrats pushed on us transparently so they could cry "racist" against any nay-sayers, Herman Cain has beat the odds to get where he is and has had no help from the establishment on either side. He is in the race because he cares about America, and all her people, of all colors. And it's a message that is resonating. Maybe it wouldn't have if Cain had run in 2000, or even 2008. But now people are understanding; we can't just keep putting our support behind the same old "electable" candidates just because the establishment SAYS they're electable. Cain is a true grassroots presidential contender who can, and will if he's allowed, make a real difference. The fact that he also shares your skin color can be thought of as a bonus if you want to think of it that way, but in a much more important way, Cain has already earned your vote in a way that Obama simply never will.
And please, for the love of all that's holy, stop worrying about feeling like an Uncle Tom just for voting for a Republican. First of all, this Republican is one of you in every way he can be. Second, the only reason any of you feel this way is that the mainstream media, Democrats all, have told you that you should. In no way is this true. It's far more "Uncle Tom-ish" to keep voting for Democrats year after year because your parents did and you keep being told that's what you should do--by WHITE Democrats. I know, I'm white, too. The difference is, I'm not suggesting you should vote for Cain, or anyone, because they're black. I'm saying vote for Cain because he stands for your issues and will actually help you. Just that now the only reservation you would have had (should he be nominated) is gone; you won't be voting against the black man. You'll simply be picking the better of two.
Realize what more black Americans are realizing all the time; the Democrats don't give two sh-ts about you and have done nothing to help you. All they care about is your vote, which they feel they own. They are the modern day plantation owners. It's time to emancipate yourselves from their condescending rhetoric.
Raise Cain. He's the authentic black man, and more importantly, the authentic American.
The Liberal Position on Cain: "If you support Cain, you're a racist, because you don't support Obama. You want to replace Obama with another black man, a black man who dances your dance and says what you want to hear, so therefore you prefer him to a black man who doesn't dance your dance or say what you want to hear. And that's racist."
Could this be a better example of liberal projection? The reason they support Obama is apparently the reason we're supporting Cain. After all, does anyone think liberals would support Obama if he were exactly the same kind of man and the same kind of president, but had run as a Republican?
We care about issues. They care about race. They project, therefore, their own thought process onto us. We couldn't possibly be supporting Cain because of his stance on the issues. It must be race. Except we're racists. So therefore we support Cain because we're hiding our own racism and we enjoy his "mistrelsy". What?
So, let's get to the heart of the matter. Obama (who is half white) is an authentic black man because...he...stands for black issues? Like...universal healthcare? Big government? Socialism? High taxes and increased gov't spending? Yeah, those sound like issues near and dear to the hearts of black Americans. Of course, Obama also responds with great understanding when addressed with concerns about his lack of attention to America's black population, as follows:
“I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We’ve got work to do, CBC.”Yeah...real concern for the best interest of black Americans there. Don't focus on how things are getting worse for you, just support me.
Just how is Barack Obama an "authentic" black man? Oh, that's right, because he's a Democrat, and everyone knows the Democrats have always been the champions of equal rights for black Americans.
Always.
So Obama is "authentic" because he...dances the Democrats' dance and says what they want to hear.
Herman Cain, however, is not authentic. Because...he's successful, self-made and doesn't sit around blaming "The White Man" for keeping him down. In fact he refused to let himself be kept down. He did things black people were told they couldn't do, succeeding in mathematics and business despite being told he shouldn't bother. He made something of himself with no help from "whitey", and certainly no help from Democrats, who would have offered him social assistance in order to keep him poor and dependant on them.
In other words, Cain is living the dream Martin Luther King fought for. And that...somehow makes him not authentic.
Oh, wait, actually it's because he is running as a Republican and supports the Tea Party. We all know the Tea Party is racist. They can't stand the thought of a black man in the Oval Office, which is why they're...totally supporting the idea of a black man in the Oval Office. It's just a black man who agrees with their positions on lower taxes, smaller government, job growth, etc. Okay, that settles it. They must be racists.
It is time for Black America to wake up. They have been handing their votes to Democrats for decades now and what has it gotten them? Sweet f--k all, that's what. "But they got a black President!" Yes, a black president who couldn't care less that while unemployment has risen for everyone across the country, it's near double for blacks what it is for whites. A black president whose response to his own poor performance in actually helping the community he claims to care so much about is to literally tell them to "stop grumbling." A black president who routinely rolls over and does the bidding of the white men who pull his strings; name a single issue Obama appears passionate about that isn't also a long-time Democratic "progressive" talking point?
Black Americans, listen. Obama may share your skin color but in what other way has he earned your vote? Name a single thing Obama has done that helped you? Has your life improved under his leadership at all? Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Are you worse off?
Herman Cain also shares your skin color, and he wants to help. Unlike Obama, whom the Democrats pushed on us transparently so they could cry "racist" against any nay-sayers, Herman Cain has beat the odds to get where he is and has had no help from the establishment on either side. He is in the race because he cares about America, and all her people, of all colors. And it's a message that is resonating. Maybe it wouldn't have if Cain had run in 2000, or even 2008. But now people are understanding; we can't just keep putting our support behind the same old "electable" candidates just because the establishment SAYS they're electable. Cain is a true grassroots presidential contender who can, and will if he's allowed, make a real difference. The fact that he also shares your skin color can be thought of as a bonus if you want to think of it that way, but in a much more important way, Cain has already earned your vote in a way that Obama simply never will.
And please, for the love of all that's holy, stop worrying about feeling like an Uncle Tom just for voting for a Republican. First of all, this Republican is one of you in every way he can be. Second, the only reason any of you feel this way is that the mainstream media, Democrats all, have told you that you should. In no way is this true. It's far more "Uncle Tom-ish" to keep voting for Democrats year after year because your parents did and you keep being told that's what you should do--by WHITE Democrats. I know, I'm white, too. The difference is, I'm not suggesting you should vote for Cain, or anyone, because they're black. I'm saying vote for Cain because he stands for your issues and will actually help you. Just that now the only reservation you would have had (should he be nominated) is gone; you won't be voting against the black man. You'll simply be picking the better of two.
Realize what more black Americans are realizing all the time; the Democrats don't give two sh-ts about you and have done nothing to help you. All they care about is your vote, which they feel they own. They are the modern day plantation owners. It's time to emancipate yourselves from their condescending rhetoric.
Raise Cain. He's the authentic black man, and more importantly, the authentic American.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Leftists: Ideology First, Race Second, Sex Third, Everything Else: Doesn't Matter
Yesterday I wrote an entire post about my support of Herman Cain and the only time I mentioned race (other than to tell potential race-baiters that my use of the term "spades" as in "he has it in spades" was not a racial joke and not to make it into one) was to say that the Democrats wouldn't forego the race-baiting in the 2012 campaign even if Cain were to be the nominee, because they feel they own the black vote.
If anything, the fact that I wrote a pretty long piece about my support for a black man and never mentioned his race as a reason to support him or not support him should show where my head is where race is concerned; it's just not a factor. I'd be an idiot to think it wouldn't be brought up by the mainstream media during the campaign (it already has) but it doesn't affect who I support one iota.
But to Democrats it's a trump card; sorry, it's THE trump card. Why are critics of Obama called racists? It's not because they are, but rather it's because the Democrats are obsessed with race, and for them, all that mattered about Obama was that he was a leftist, and he was black. For a true leftist, it's ideology first, race second, sex or sexuality third, and everything else hardly even matters. Why else would they run a man with literally nothing remotely presidential or leadership-ready on his resume?
I've written many times about how I feel that true racism today is mostly on the left, so when I hear a right-winger suggest that we wouldn't get behind Herman Cain if we were really racists, I wonder why they don't address the reasons why the party of true widespread racism DID get behind Obama. But it hit me as I was thinking about it that while today's left is just as racist as it's ever been, it's a different kind of racism. Rather than the kind that lynches them or burns crosses on their yards, it's the kind that says people of color should all think, act, talk, dress and vote alike, or that black people can't succeed without white man's help, or that black people who are able to speak eloquently and have good hygene are somehow exceptional (as if most black people are not those things), or that any person of color who would ever consider voting Republican is a traitor to his or her race, because Democrats are supposed to own their vote.
All of the above are truly racist positions, and they define leftist views on race to a T. But they aren't about hating black people, per se. Instead they are about considering people of color to be a sub-class of human who have their uses, but need to be kept in their proper place.
So why would such a group willingly follow a black man? Simple; they're NOT following him, nor is he acting like a leader. He also isn't acting in the best interests of black Americans. Everything Obama's done since taking office is basically "Force legislation through Congress that the left has been trying to enact for decades now, while totally ignoring the black community he claims to care so much about." Obama's policies aren't about advancing black America. They're about advancing LEFTIST America. Socialist America. He pays lip service to the idea of supporting the cause of black Americans, but nothing he's done since taking office suggests he really cares about it. Poverty, single parenthood, wellfare, food stamp use, etc., all have risen among black Americans under Obama's watch. And it's not just "racist" right-wingers who've noticed; Maxine Waters herself, and many of the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus, took Obama to task over his total shafting of black Americans.
Now, I'm not saying Obama SHOULD focus on just black Americans. He's president of the country, not president of its black population. I mean, it's not that he doesn't care about black America; he doesn't care about America as a whole. But this proves that Obama was not campaigned or elected by people who give a rodent's hirsute hindquarters about black Americans or their plight. Obama was not elected because the Democrats want to advance people of color in America. He was elected because the left can now do what it's always wanted to do, and claim that any opposition to it is due to racism.
Which is exactly what they're doing.
In effect, this makes Obama the ultimate Uncle Tom; he's sold out his people for the leftist cause. He's allowed himself to be the black face the left puts on all its actions so that it can keep playing the race card every time they face reprisal. He's joined those who are doing all they can to keep black people in their place, and if he ever starts actually thinking for himself (that is, coming up with a thought or plan that wasn't straight out of the leftist playbook), the left will turn on him in a hurry. Heck, they've already done that every time he was forced to concede to the Republicans on any issue. Not only that, but Obama got where he is entirely because of white people. I've said before that establishment Democrats are just as white as establishment Republicans, and have actually done less to show they care about black Americans.
Leftists cannot fathom that right-wingers love Herman Cain because we feel like he's one of us, or agree with his stance on the issues, or think he's got some good ideas to get this country back on track. They can't fathom that because that's not how they think. They look at Herman Cain and they see A BLACK MAN. A black man who IS A REPUBLICAN! And then they lose their head. Policies? Positions? Ideas? Motivations? These do not matter. And it gets worse. Cain is a self-made black man who took responsibility, worked hard and made something of himself, never demanding a hand-out from white America or whining about how his personal journey was harder than it should have been because of his color. Clearly, this man does not know his place. And that terrifies the left.
Because we're supposed to be racists, a meme the left will flog until the end of days, leftists struggle to come up with a reason we love Herman Cain that makes sense alongside the racist meme. But it DOESN'T make any sense; supposedly we love Cain because we're trying to hide our racism. Projection?
I'm afraid it can't work that way. The left hasn't claimed that we're the kind of racists they are, allowing that black people have their uses as long as they know their place. They started off claiming we HATE black people and that the only reason we oppose anything Obama does is that we can't handle the idea of a black president. You can't claim on the one hand that we hate black people and then also claim that we're getting behind a black man now so that we can hide the fact that we hate him. In what universe does that make sense?
If we really were the kind of people the mainstream media would have you believe we are, we'd laugh at Cain's attempt to ingratiate himself with us, mock him and then throw our support behind the KKK.
If we were the kind of people the left truly are, then we would politely scoff at his efforts to become president, pat him on the head and advise him it would be in his best interests to keep voting for us despite how little heed we pay anything he says. Just like the Democrats did with every black presidential candidate they've ever had who threatened to be even slightly more than a puppet for the hardline left.
If anything, the fact that I wrote a pretty long piece about my support for a black man and never mentioned his race as a reason to support him or not support him should show where my head is where race is concerned; it's just not a factor. I'd be an idiot to think it wouldn't be brought up by the mainstream media during the campaign (it already has) but it doesn't affect who I support one iota.
But to Democrats it's a trump card; sorry, it's THE trump card. Why are critics of Obama called racists? It's not because they are, but rather it's because the Democrats are obsessed with race, and for them, all that mattered about Obama was that he was a leftist, and he was black. For a true leftist, it's ideology first, race second, sex or sexuality third, and everything else hardly even matters. Why else would they run a man with literally nothing remotely presidential or leadership-ready on his resume?
I've written many times about how I feel that true racism today is mostly on the left, so when I hear a right-winger suggest that we wouldn't get behind Herman Cain if we were really racists, I wonder why they don't address the reasons why the party of true widespread racism DID get behind Obama. But it hit me as I was thinking about it that while today's left is just as racist as it's ever been, it's a different kind of racism. Rather than the kind that lynches them or burns crosses on their yards, it's the kind that says people of color should all think, act, talk, dress and vote alike, or that black people can't succeed without white man's help, or that black people who are able to speak eloquently and have good hygene are somehow exceptional (as if most black people are not those things), or that any person of color who would ever consider voting Republican is a traitor to his or her race, because Democrats are supposed to own their vote.
All of the above are truly racist positions, and they define leftist views on race to a T. But they aren't about hating black people, per se. Instead they are about considering people of color to be a sub-class of human who have their uses, but need to be kept in their proper place.
So why would such a group willingly follow a black man? Simple; they're NOT following him, nor is he acting like a leader. He also isn't acting in the best interests of black Americans. Everything Obama's done since taking office is basically "Force legislation through Congress that the left has been trying to enact for decades now, while totally ignoring the black community he claims to care so much about." Obama's policies aren't about advancing black America. They're about advancing LEFTIST America. Socialist America. He pays lip service to the idea of supporting the cause of black Americans, but nothing he's done since taking office suggests he really cares about it. Poverty, single parenthood, wellfare, food stamp use, etc., all have risen among black Americans under Obama's watch. And it's not just "racist" right-wingers who've noticed; Maxine Waters herself, and many of the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus, took Obama to task over his total shafting of black Americans.
Now, I'm not saying Obama SHOULD focus on just black Americans. He's president of the country, not president of its black population. I mean, it's not that he doesn't care about black America; he doesn't care about America as a whole. But this proves that Obama was not campaigned or elected by people who give a rodent's hirsute hindquarters about black Americans or their plight. Obama was not elected because the Democrats want to advance people of color in America. He was elected because the left can now do what it's always wanted to do, and claim that any opposition to it is due to racism.
Which is exactly what they're doing.
In effect, this makes Obama the ultimate Uncle Tom; he's sold out his people for the leftist cause. He's allowed himself to be the black face the left puts on all its actions so that it can keep playing the race card every time they face reprisal. He's joined those who are doing all they can to keep black people in their place, and if he ever starts actually thinking for himself (that is, coming up with a thought or plan that wasn't straight out of the leftist playbook), the left will turn on him in a hurry. Heck, they've already done that every time he was forced to concede to the Republicans on any issue. Not only that, but Obama got where he is entirely because of white people. I've said before that establishment Democrats are just as white as establishment Republicans, and have actually done less to show they care about black Americans.
Leftists cannot fathom that right-wingers love Herman Cain because we feel like he's one of us, or agree with his stance on the issues, or think he's got some good ideas to get this country back on track. They can't fathom that because that's not how they think. They look at Herman Cain and they see A BLACK MAN. A black man who IS A REPUBLICAN! And then they lose their head. Policies? Positions? Ideas? Motivations? These do not matter. And it gets worse. Cain is a self-made black man who took responsibility, worked hard and made something of himself, never demanding a hand-out from white America or whining about how his personal journey was harder than it should have been because of his color. Clearly, this man does not know his place. And that terrifies the left.
Because we're supposed to be racists, a meme the left will flog until the end of days, leftists struggle to come up with a reason we love Herman Cain that makes sense alongside the racist meme. But it DOESN'T make any sense; supposedly we love Cain because we're trying to hide our racism. Projection?
I'm afraid it can't work that way. The left hasn't claimed that we're the kind of racists they are, allowing that black people have their uses as long as they know their place. They started off claiming we HATE black people and that the only reason we oppose anything Obama does is that we can't handle the idea of a black president. You can't claim on the one hand that we hate black people and then also claim that we're getting behind a black man now so that we can hide the fact that we hate him. In what universe does that make sense?
If we really were the kind of people the mainstream media would have you believe we are, we'd laugh at Cain's attempt to ingratiate himself with us, mock him and then throw our support behind the KKK.
If we were the kind of people the left truly are, then we would politely scoff at his efforts to become president, pat him on the head and advise him it would be in his best interests to keep voting for us despite how little heed we pay anything he says. Just like the Democrats did with every black presidential candidate they've ever had who threatened to be even slightly more than a puppet for the hardline left.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
All Aboard the Cain Train
Okay, I'm a Herman Cain supporter again.
I've always liked Cain. I always felt he was the only man in the race who was in it for America, and not for himself. I never lost that sense of him. What lost me was his pathetic show of ignorance when it came to a crucial matter; foreign policy.
I'm no expert on foreign policy either. I wouldn't have known what the "right of return" was either. But then, I'm also not running for president (and couldn't legally do so until a year from now anyway). I kept hoping, after Cain's poor performance in that area, that a candidate would emerge who was everything Cain was, as well as more prepared to lead America on the international scene.
Such a candidate has not emerged.
I've asked myself many times over the last few days since Herman Cain's stunning victory in the crucial Florida straw poll what's a larger concern; a president with a detailed resume full of national and international experience who will, without losing any sleep, consistently do what is best for his continued presidency at the expense of the American people, and fail to make any real change, or do we want a tough, smart man who really knows what's best for this country (ei. his 999 plan) who will NOT compromise with self-serving Democrats, who will NOT just roll over and take it when the media makes up lies about him, who will NOT pander to special interest groups and/or unions, and who WILL stand up for America, and average Americans?
Having taken into consideration who's running, and leaving out anyone conservatives seem to WISH would run (like Sarah Palin or Chris Christie), I have to say that Herman Cain is truly the only one I really want to see get the nomination. There are others running I would settle for, like Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum, but I would be settling. I wouldn't be happy with any of them.
Mock the idea of debates-as-American-Idol all you want; the fact is that if you can't perform well on that stage, you can't perform well as president. And Bachmann is performing very poorly. Rick Perry started off well, but I'm becoming more convinced than ever that Perry cannot win this unless he changes his position on immigration, and pronto. But instead he's doubling down on it. Mitt Romney? Are you kidding? I've said before, and I'll say again, that if Romney wins the nomination we may as well not even bother having an election at all, and just hand Obama another 4 years. Can Romney get conservatives to come out in droves to vote? Can he sway independants? In both cases I'm convinced the answer is no. A Romney campaign will be just like John McCain's; there were no votes FOR McCain in 2008. There were only votes AGAINST Obama. I know of no one who really wanted a President McCain. All we wanted was to ensure we wouldn't get a hard-left socialist in the White House.
And while I'm at it, let me say that I'm not really that fired up about a Palin presidential run, and don't want Christie to run at all. I love Sarah Palin. I love everything about her. But I'm not convinced she could run a solid campaign and actually defeat the ongoing smear campaign the left has running 24 hours against her. There are right-wingers the left hates, there are right-wingers they are afraid of and then there are those they hate AND are afraid of. Sarah Palin definitely fits into the third category, whereas I'm convinced even George W. Bush only fits into the first. The anti-Bush smears were awful, but the smears against Sarah Palin were and are the most reprehensible thing I've ever seen. They wanted you to think W. was stupid. They want you to think Palin is sub-human.
As for a Christie presidential campaign, there are exactly two things I like about Chris Christie, and two things only; he's willing to stand up to unions and he's willing to speak the truth as he sees it plainly and not pretty up his speech with PC bullshit. No one can accuse Christie of talking like a politician, and there's little doubt that his unwillingness to cater to unions has helped clean up New Jersey. Unfortunately in all other matters, Christie doesn't at all speak to the conservative base. He's spoken out in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque, he believes in anthropogenic global warming, he's for raising taxes and the debt ceiling, and I may be wrong but I also believe he's pro-choice. No, I do not want to see a President Christie, and every time he denies that he'll run, my first thought is "Good!"
Unlike Christie, Cain is a true conservative, and won't hide that fact. He also has the two factors I like about Christie in spades (no that's not a racial joke, and if you try to make one out of it, you're pathetic). Also unlike Palin, he seems able to rise above the smears. Not one smear against him has stuck, and a large part of that is that Cain (unlike Bush) actually--gasp!--RESPONDS to the smears against him but it's the way he responds that I like; he laughs at them. His stance for most is that the leftists who make the smears don't really believe those things themselves, but are afraid of his momentum and are trying laughable ways of bringing him down. And the Florida straw poll results show that he might in fact be right; both about his momentum and about how afraid he's making the Obama campaign.
Some are suggesting that running Cain against Obama in 2012 will take the race issue off the table. I say they're fools if they believe that because race will NEVER stop being a campaign issue for Democrats. They are convinced that they own the black vote, and will do all they can to hold on to it. They call white Republicans racist, but for Cain they'll bring out the "Uncle Tom" hat and try to make him wear it. Heck, they already are. I say to them: good luck. Cain doesn't wear the smears as well as Palin did. I'm not saying the Palin smears were or are true; most of them are provably false and those that aren't amount to little more than salacious gossip. But for some reason she had a really hard time fighting them off, and there are even conservatives who believe the smears against her (one website I saw claimed that her record as governor was littered with controversy, which is completely bogus; one of the reasons McCain picked her was she was a solid conservative with a remarkably sterling record).
Cain? I have yet to encounter even the most hardline leftist who can really say something against him other than vague "this man is a joke" rhetoric they lob against any conservative. Yes, there have been "Uncle Tom" smears. Yes, Jon Stewart tried to claim doesn't like to read (with a routine that would have been unquestionably racist to the left if it had been, say, Dennis Miller making the same sort of joke against Obama). But Cain seems to rise above it. None of it seems to affect his popularity, none of it has slowed his momentum even a hair. Now that he's won the Florida poll, maybe the media will start treating him like a serious candidate and we'll see some real effort on the part of the MSM to take him down. I say bring it on; I think Cain can take it and make them look ridiculous for trying.
Add that to the reasons I support him. While the Republican establishment continues to try and convince us that we should go for an "electable" candidate like Romney or Perry (or Christie) when we know they mean "someone who's not a real conservative because we stupidly believe people like that can't win", we the people have been waiting for a candidate who really speaks for us, who listens to the average American and who is not just concerned about getting elected and keeping his position, who has common sense solutions that will work. Cain is that man.
And to all of those who hem and haw and say "the presidency is not an entry-level position", I repeat what Cain says: "We've had career policitians in power for the past twenty years. How's that working out for you?"
PS: Besides, Cain may not have held elected office before, but he brings more real world experience with him than any president before him. Obama barely ever worked in the private sector; he lives in a different reality than most Americans. It's Obama that's the entry-level president, not Cain.
Monday, September 26, 2011
It's Becoming Clear: When it Comes to Slagging Conservatives, the Left is Losing its Touch
During the 2008 campaign, so much negative was said about Sarah Palin that even people who would ordinarily have supported her, if even half a second of news coverage had actually been about her views, record or planned policies, believed she was stupid.
Meanwhile, the press allowed Obama to get by with having known associations with Tony Rezko, William Ayers and the explosively racist "minister", Jeremiah Wright.
The 2008 campaign trail was a mud-slinging fest, or at least it was from one side. The McCain/Palin campaign, and by extension ALL Republicans and conservatives, were painted with a broad brush as insane, dangerous, angry, stupid, racist, sexist, facist Islamophobes who want nothing more than to impose a Christian theocracy in America and who deserved to be crushed.
And it worked. Obama became president and Sarah Palin, on whom most of the attacks were focused, ended up having to resign even as Alaska's governor, due to a concerted effort to destroy her with baseless "ethics violations" charges.
So...what happened? This month, TWO Palin-bashing books were released; Joe McGinnis's The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin and Deer in the Headlights: My Time In Sarah Palin's Crosshairs by Bristol Palin's baby-daddy Levi Johnston. No, I'm not going to link to them. If you're really that curious, google them.
But what's funny is I'm sure most on the Left expected these books to be massive best-sellers and would further bury Palin as an American pariah. After all, the reason Palin's two books, Going Rogue: An American Life and America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag were such best-sellers just has to be because Americans were just rubber-necking at the train-wreck that is her life, right? It certainly can't be because they wanted to read what she has to say. But she's a controversial figure, and that sells. So certainly books that trash her will sell too, right?
Wrong. The Rogue isn't even in the New York Times's top 50 (whereas Going Rogue topped it for weeks) while nobody even knows or cares that Levin Johnston wrote a book about anything. Even LEFTISTS of all people have been critical of McGinnis, while barely even ackowledging Johnston.
And there's good reason. McGinnis's book is a collection of unsourced, unverifiable yellow journalism that could grace the page of National Enquirer, and in fact many of the stories McGinnis collects initially appeared in the Enquirer. The Rogue is less a gritty exposé of Palin and more like a novel about the Palin the left WISHES existed. I've said before that the "journalists" of the left went after Palin with both barrels, determined to shame her on the National stage, and when they couldn't find anything to smear her with, they started making stuff up or taking very minor public gaffes of Palin and blew them up as if only a moron could possibly make such blunders.
You know, like pronouncing the word "corpsman" as "Corpse-Man", claiming to have visited "57 states" or signing the Royal British guestbook with the date of 2008 in 2011. Oh, wait, my mistake; those gaffes were committed by our genius president Barack Obama, the man who is reportedly so cool that there's nothing about him one can mock.
Palin's "gaffes" include supposedly believing America was founded in 1773 (when she was actually talking about the year of the Boston Tea Party, and was correct), supposedly believes we're allied with North Korea (when she actually meant South Korea, whom we are allied with, and immediately corrected her mis-wording without being prompted), or believing that Paul Revere warned the British (which he did).
But the left wasn't content merely to blow her very minor (especially when compared to genius Obama) gaffes out of proportion. They also managed to legally obtain tens of thousands of Sarah Palin's personal emails, which they were certain would blow the lid off the Palin family and expose Sarah Palin for the fraud they were all certain she was. The emails revealed nothing scandalous whatsoever. So many attempts to tear her down and she was still standing proud. I would imagine that many leftists were hoping that Joe McGinnis would finally deliver the crushing blow that would destroy her.
And this is what they got. That's the vaunted liberal establishment known as the New York Times slamming McGinnis's book. When even the New York Times is as unkind as that to a liberal writer trashing a woman the left loves to hate, you know you've lost. I gotta say I'm surprised. Oh, I'm not surprised that McGinnis's book amounts to salacious gossip intended to do no more than cement in the minds of people that already hate her that Sarah Palin is a fraud, a liar and a creep. That much was obvious the moment it was announced that McGinnis had managed to rent a home next door to the Palins. But McGinnis is no idiot, so I at least expected that he would manage to produce something that somebody, ANYBODY, could take seriously. I expected leftist establishments to be behind him 100% and to repeatedly assert that Palin's cover had been blown, and that anyone who doubted she was stupid, evil, narcissistic, hypocritical, etc. would now be "proven" wrong.
Instead, they recognize McGinnis's book for what it is. They realize that you can't just write down a sordid collection of rumors, many of which contradict each other, source them all to "a friend of the Palin family" or "someone who knew them well", etc. and expect anyone to believe it. You can't postulate that Palin was promiscuous while also stating that she was so sexually repressed she would barely let her husband touch her, or simultaneously claim that Palin is a fake Christian while also saying she is setting up a theocracy, or that everyone who knew her was aware of her promiscuity and drug use, etc., while also stating that it was a well-kept secret.
McGinnis's book, however, isn't even close to the only example of how the left's smear tactics are beginning to fail. The Tea Party continues to grow, despite the doubling down on Tea Party smearing the left is currently engaged in. Right now leftists look like the little boy who cried "racist!" as more and more average Americans realize that the Tea Party isn't a Klan-like group but is in fact the true voice of America. While Democrats in national and local Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. behave like a bunch of thugs, or petulant children, more and more people are understanding that the Tea Party is right; that they are not some racist group trying to get rid of Obama, but are instead a group thoroughly disgusted with the current state of congress and the actions of this administration, and are dedicated to getting rid of ALL those who are causing the current problem, including not only Obama, but anyone connected with this reprehensible party, black or white.
The insults are no longer sticking. The left can gang up on one woman, but when they try to apply the same tactic to literally EVERYONE who opposes them, their mud-slinging looks more and more hollow, and more and more people are understanding that the smears of the left aren't based on anything approaching reality, but are the schoolyard taunts of a failed administration that is scared they're actually going to lose.
Meanwhile, the press allowed Obama to get by with having known associations with Tony Rezko, William Ayers and the explosively racist "minister", Jeremiah Wright.
The 2008 campaign trail was a mud-slinging fest, or at least it was from one side. The McCain/Palin campaign, and by extension ALL Republicans and conservatives, were painted with a broad brush as insane, dangerous, angry, stupid, racist, sexist, facist Islamophobes who want nothing more than to impose a Christian theocracy in America and who deserved to be crushed.
And it worked. Obama became president and Sarah Palin, on whom most of the attacks were focused, ended up having to resign even as Alaska's governor, due to a concerted effort to destroy her with baseless "ethics violations" charges.
So...what happened? This month, TWO Palin-bashing books were released; Joe McGinnis's The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin and Deer in the Headlights: My Time In Sarah Palin's Crosshairs by Bristol Palin's baby-daddy Levi Johnston. No, I'm not going to link to them. If you're really that curious, google them.
But what's funny is I'm sure most on the Left expected these books to be massive best-sellers and would further bury Palin as an American pariah. After all, the reason Palin's two books, Going Rogue: An American Life and America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag were such best-sellers just has to be because Americans were just rubber-necking at the train-wreck that is her life, right? It certainly can't be because they wanted to read what she has to say. But she's a controversial figure, and that sells. So certainly books that trash her will sell too, right?
Wrong. The Rogue isn't even in the New York Times's top 50 (whereas Going Rogue topped it for weeks) while nobody even knows or cares that Levin Johnston wrote a book about anything. Even LEFTISTS of all people have been critical of McGinnis, while barely even ackowledging Johnston.
And there's good reason. McGinnis's book is a collection of unsourced, unverifiable yellow journalism that could grace the page of National Enquirer, and in fact many of the stories McGinnis collects initially appeared in the Enquirer. The Rogue is less a gritty exposé of Palin and more like a novel about the Palin the left WISHES existed. I've said before that the "journalists" of the left went after Palin with both barrels, determined to shame her on the National stage, and when they couldn't find anything to smear her with, they started making stuff up or taking very minor public gaffes of Palin and blew them up as if only a moron could possibly make such blunders.
You know, like pronouncing the word "corpsman" as "Corpse-Man", claiming to have visited "57 states" or signing the Royal British guestbook with the date of 2008 in 2011. Oh, wait, my mistake; those gaffes were committed by our genius president Barack Obama, the man who is reportedly so cool that there's nothing about him one can mock.
Palin's "gaffes" include supposedly believing America was founded in 1773 (when she was actually talking about the year of the Boston Tea Party, and was correct), supposedly believes we're allied with North Korea (when she actually meant South Korea, whom we are allied with, and immediately corrected her mis-wording without being prompted), or believing that Paul Revere warned the British (which he did).
But the left wasn't content merely to blow her very minor (especially when compared to genius Obama) gaffes out of proportion. They also managed to legally obtain tens of thousands of Sarah Palin's personal emails, which they were certain would blow the lid off the Palin family and expose Sarah Palin for the fraud they were all certain she was. The emails revealed nothing scandalous whatsoever. So many attempts to tear her down and she was still standing proud. I would imagine that many leftists were hoping that Joe McGinnis would finally deliver the crushing blow that would destroy her.
And this is what they got. That's the vaunted liberal establishment known as the New York Times slamming McGinnis's book. When even the New York Times is as unkind as that to a liberal writer trashing a woman the left loves to hate, you know you've lost. I gotta say I'm surprised. Oh, I'm not surprised that McGinnis's book amounts to salacious gossip intended to do no more than cement in the minds of people that already hate her that Sarah Palin is a fraud, a liar and a creep. That much was obvious the moment it was announced that McGinnis had managed to rent a home next door to the Palins. But McGinnis is no idiot, so I at least expected that he would manage to produce something that somebody, ANYBODY, could take seriously. I expected leftist establishments to be behind him 100% and to repeatedly assert that Palin's cover had been blown, and that anyone who doubted she was stupid, evil, narcissistic, hypocritical, etc. would now be "proven" wrong.
Instead, they recognize McGinnis's book for what it is. They realize that you can't just write down a sordid collection of rumors, many of which contradict each other, source them all to "a friend of the Palin family" or "someone who knew them well", etc. and expect anyone to believe it. You can't postulate that Palin was promiscuous while also stating that she was so sexually repressed she would barely let her husband touch her, or simultaneously claim that Palin is a fake Christian while also saying she is setting up a theocracy, or that everyone who knew her was aware of her promiscuity and drug use, etc., while also stating that it was a well-kept secret.
McGinnis's book, however, isn't even close to the only example of how the left's smear tactics are beginning to fail. The Tea Party continues to grow, despite the doubling down on Tea Party smearing the left is currently engaged in. Right now leftists look like the little boy who cried "racist!" as more and more average Americans realize that the Tea Party isn't a Klan-like group but is in fact the true voice of America. While Democrats in national and local Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. behave like a bunch of thugs, or petulant children, more and more people are understanding that the Tea Party is right; that they are not some racist group trying to get rid of Obama, but are instead a group thoroughly disgusted with the current state of congress and the actions of this administration, and are dedicated to getting rid of ALL those who are causing the current problem, including not only Obama, but anyone connected with this reprehensible party, black or white.
The insults are no longer sticking. The left can gang up on one woman, but when they try to apply the same tactic to literally EVERYONE who opposes them, their mud-slinging looks more and more hollow, and more and more people are understanding that the smears of the left aren't based on anything approaching reality, but are the schoolyard taunts of a failed administration that is scared they're actually going to lose.
Friday, September 9, 2011
President O-BLAME-a
So while the pageant of lies
Still rolls from your tongue
Don't blame me for your Kingdom come
When you're willing to render
The the guilt you concede
When truth is your reason
THEN lay the blame on me
When you unveil a conscience
And with peace you agree
When love is your constant
THEN lay the blame on me
--Ed Roland, Blame
Has any president ever spent so much time blaming his predecessor? And for as long?
There's no doubt Obama didn't have a perfect economy and 8 years of peace handed to him the way Bush did. But, heck, Clinton was handed an unfinished war, a weak economy, etc. Many of the things Obama has been handed. Did he spend an inordinant amount of time blaming Bush Sr.?
Now, I'm not praising Clinton. He was not a good president. But he was A PRESIDENT. He wasn't a martinet put into a position he was uniquely unqualified for who then spent his entire first term blaming his poor performance on his predecessor. He may have been a leftist, who, if left to his own devices, would have crippled the economy almost as bad as Obama, who almost certainly would have introduced the same kind of healthcare bill, and who is most certainly guilty of ignoring Al Quaeda activity which lead to 9/11.
Bush Jr. wasn't a good president, either. Unlike Clinton, I believe he is a good man, but a good man and a good president aren't the same thing. His spending, in the name of "compassionate conservativism" and his expansion of government are unforgivable, and almost certainly contributed to the recession. Of course Congress is chiefly to blame for that, but let's not get into that here.
My point is that while neither man was a good president, at the very least they behaved like they were president. Bush could have pointed fingers at Congress all he wanted, and he partly would have been right to do so, but he shouldered the blame himself. Clinton also didn't waste time pointing fingers. When Clinton was in charge, right-wingers may not have liked him, or agreed with his policies, but they never accused him of acting like anything less than our president. Okay, maybe during his trial, when he danced around his guilt, but I'm talking about his performance in office.
Obama doesn't act like he's president. He acts like he's king. His every speech, his every action since obtaining office is to act like he can do no wrong, and if something is going wrong, it must be SOMEONE ELSE'S fault. It's Bush's fault, or it's congressional Republicans who are at fault, or it's Sarah Palin's fault, or, hey, it must be the Tea Party's fault! It's ANYBODY'S fault but mine!
Seriously, this has got to be some kind of record. I'm not historically studied enough to know if any president has ever blamed his predecessor at all, but I feel like I can safely say no president in living memory has ever done it this much or for this long.
During his first 100 days, okay, I can understand why so many people were still saying "give him a chance". After all, he hadn't been in office for even half a year, yet. I still get gaulled by the fact that the same people yelling "give Obama a chance" were the same people who were calling for Bush's head during HIS first 100 days, but all the same, it's true; you can't judge a man's performance based on 100 days in a job.
But the "give him a chance" cry was still going strong one year into his presidency, as was the "it's not Obama's fault; Bush left a mess and he's still trying to clean it up" cry. As if Obama was the first president to "inherit" a large deficit, a failing economy and an ongoing war. People blame Bush's war and spending for Obama's inherited problems, but during the first two years of his presidency, Obama's spending eclipsed Bush's (and pretty much every other president) and he engaged us in TWO new overseas conflicts (Afghanistan and Libya), before the first one was won. Liberals also (wrongly) blame the "Bush tax cuts" for increasing the deficit and worsening the economy, but Obama has extended them. So at what point will he stop saying that literally every problem that's occurred during his presidency is the result of his predecessor, or Congress, or the Tea Party?
After last night I'm convinced the answer is "never". No blame must touch The Golden One. We're nearly three years into his presidency. THREE YEARS. That's almost a full term. Can we expect that the "hope and change" we were promised on the campaign trail would be evident by now? YES WE CAN! But we're worse off than we ever were under Bush. Why is that Bush's fault?
At this point, a majority of Obama's supporters, even the "give him a chance" and the "he inherited this" crowd are forced to admit that Obama can no longer blame anyone but himself and his own administration for the US's current state of affairs. But a few diehard supporters in the media and within his administration are still trumpeting the "it's someone else's fault" meme, and from his speech last night it's clear that Obama will continue to flog that dead horse for as long as anyone echoes it, or as long as he can convince himself that people still believe it.
Don't buy it. Anyone thinking of voting for Obama in the next election, I caution you to think hard. HARD. Don't let fear of a "Republican theocracy" (you know, that thing that's never happened despite generations of Christian Republican presidents) or whatever it is you're afraid of make you decide that as bad as Obama is, he's less scary than the alternative. Remember how angry you were that Bush earned a second term and ask yourself what Obama's done during his first term that's made him more deserving of a second than Bush. And for the love of God leave skin tone out of it! Nobody but Obama's camp cares about skin tone, because they know that's all they have left to run on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)