Continuing in the vein of Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, and others, “the Root” has done everything but call Palin and the tea partiers nazis, though there can be little debate that they desire to do so and would do so with ecstasy if there was any proof. Consider the article‘s opening salvo:
It does not take a pollster, partisan or psychic to see a harbinger of things to come in Massachusetts voters’ choice of a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. If Barack Obama’s next three years in the White House are anything like his first, he will surely be a one-term president.
And for black America, that’s the good news.
Because if history is any guide, the truly awful news is that the smart money is on Sarah Palin to replace Obama in the White House.
Foreshadowing a Palin presidency is a perfect, gathering storm of economics, politics and tribalism, which is not to suggest that Obama is an innocent bystander in his reversal of fortune.
The so called liberal progressives are certainly tripping over the facts of wildly unpopular bailouts, record-setting deficits, outright marxists and maoists in the white house among other things in their mad dash to reach for the race-card. They are so blinded by their zeal to pin this all on “conservative racists” that they have no concern for truth, and would have black men and women run for their lives from a hockey mom. Does anyone think it condescending that articles like this tell “black folks” who they should run from? As if they need to be told, like children that “the evil tea party people are coming for you, because they hate Obama, and Obama is black, therefore they must be racists.”
Add to this some ignorant economic analysis:
Even before the recession hit, there were more maids, cashiers and waitresses in the United States than factory workers, and, when inflation is accounted for, workers have not had a raise in almost 40 years. The trillions of taxpayer dollars showered on Wall Street has produced record profits and fat bonuses, but has done nothing to loosen clogged credit lines. Lending in October of last year was down nearly 15 percent from the previous year—and the White House refuses to launch a New Deal-like jobs program, or provide any substantive relief to borrowers who are in over their head on mortgages, student loans or credit cards.
According to a recent Bloomberg News poll, only 8 percent of consumers say they plan to spend more in 2010, and with the circulation of cash slowing to a snail’s pace, you don’t need Paul Krugman to answer this question: If nobody’s lending, and nobody’s spending, how does your economy grow?
They fail to realize that unconstitutional government bailouts and explosions of spending are what cause inflation. In short, inflation is the government’s fault, and the logical connection then is that government is to blame for the assumed fact that workers have not had a raise in 4 decades. If Obama does launch more raw-deal styled spending, rest assured that inflation would accelerate its consumption of the earnings of the average worker.
Only 8 percent plan to spend more? That’s GREAT news. We as Americans have been spending way too much, maxing out credit cards, indulging the “must have now” syndrome that has taken over our culture. Further, citizens, unlike the government cannot extend their own credit lines or print more money to spend (it’s called counterfeiting, and the Federal Reserve is a master at it). Hugo Chavez’s government just stole 50% of the wealth in Venezuela in their quest to gain more money for Chavez to spend. Inflation is theft.
And now we get to some good ole fashioned libel a la racism:
A protracted stagnation will likely produce competing responses from voters in 2012, both of them bad for Obama. Polls show that African Americans continue to overwhelmingly support the president even though the unemployment rate for blacks is nearly twice the national average. That won’t change much, if at all, in the next three years. But will the laid–off African-American workers, who have exhausted their jobless benefits, turn out to vote in Gary, Ind., Detroit, Cleveland, Philly and Tampa with the same enthusiasm, and in the same numbers, as they did in 2008? Black New Yorkers certainly didn’t turn out last year for Bill Thompson, the African-American Democratic mayoral nominee, who lost narrowly to Michael Bloomberg, the Republican incumbent. Voter turnout was the city’s lowest in almost a century.
The only reason Obama loses the Black vote is that “they stay home?” Are you serious? There are many Black voices that decry the socialist march of Obama’s policies. Are they really implying in this article that Blacks should support a candidate merely because the candidate is black and liberal?
Conversely, while the economic climate is likely to leave the country’s most reliably liberal voting bloc demoralized and disengaged from an electoral process, this same dispossession has historically energized white, conservatives—particularly when cast in a racial hue. Consider the post-Reconstruction era, or the post-civil rights era, or even South Africa’s Afrikaners who responded to a fiscal crisis by electing the National Party which introduced apartheid in 1948. Today, you can see a populist, scattershot backlash, emerging in the form of the Republican-led “tea-bag” protests, South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson’s heckling of Obama and the rock-star sized crowds generated by Palin’s book tour.
Large numbers of ALL people are demoralized by the catastrophic events that have taken place since that cold January 20th in 2009. Now because they have voiced loudly these concerns instead of “shutting up and getting out of the way” as the elitists get out their socialist mops to “clean up,” they are automatically racist segregationists ready to burn crosses and prepare hanging trees? Guess they missed the 9/12 march on DC, or perhaps more likely, they didn’t miss it but they could not process the fact that there were black men and women taking a stand against the anointed “post racial” president. Did they really mean to imply that Scott Brown’s election was the front of a movement that would usher in Apartheid?
But it gets better:
On the same show, NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell said: “There’s an anger out there, and I have not seen it since my very first campaign which was George Wallace. There is an angry subtext because of economic dislocation.”
Like the defiant, segregationist Alabama governor, Palin, the former Alaska governor, speaks the language of the white Southern and suburban voters who fear that the American way of life is under attack from an out-of-touch, Godless, effete and multiracial big-city crowd. With her folksy charisma and parochial values, Palin is the latest in a long line of demagogues —from post-Reconstruction governors in the Deep South to Father Coughlin in the ‘30s, from Reagan to Lou Dobbs—who’ve emerged to redeem, or reclaim, the land from Northern carpetbaggers and uppity Negroes.
I think Palin would have a very real case for libel here. Palin has never condemned Obama & company for their race, has never advocated segregation, and has not behaved or spoken in a way that would lead any thinking person to conclude that she is a racist or a segregationist. Perhaps we should remember that it was Obama, who singled out the sole African-American supreme court justice as the one he didn’t think was- of all things- qualified for the position…
And now, that racial insanity has subsided, it is time for one more good suspension of common sense in the analysis of Scott Brown’s election:
…the problem is not, as much of the media alleges, that Obama and the Democrats have overreached. They haven’t gone far enough. Scott Brown, the Republican candidate in last week’s Massachusetts election, tellingly, made health care “reform” the focus of his triumphant campaign, traveling the state in an old, GM pickup truck, arguing, quite accurately, that the Senate health care plan would cost Americans more money, not less. According to one exit poll, Obama voters who opted for the Republican candidate Scott Brown in Tuesday’s election, said, by a margin of 3-to-2, that the Senate health care proposal “doesn’t go far enough.” Eight of 10 voters in the state continue to want a public option.
Again, are they serious? Brown’s campaign was against health care “reform.” 9/12, and other patriotic groups funneled money to his election because he promised to fight against it. They just can’t fathom that Ted Kennedy’s seat went to a man who pledged to use that seat to kill the legislative monstrosity that Ted helped to form. But then, this is the MSM, they were all “in the tank” for Obama. MSNBC still has that annoying “tingle up their leg” and cannot bear to see this president fail, or his agenda fail, because as his media arm, they would lose credibility… too late…
Sourced 1/25/2010. Quotes above claimed as a fair use critique of this article: http://www.theroot.com/views/how-barack-obama-paving-way-palin-presidency?GT1=38002
Just words: Conversation with a “conservative”
Posted by americana83 on September 26, 2009
I got the opportunity today to go to a local tea party, the “Common Sense Tea Party” in Kenton Ohio. I got to talking to a man who described himself as a conservative. I previously overheard him complaining about the tea party. He was complaining about Bush, and I did agree with him, that Bush had made some gross overspending and wasn’t really a fiscal conservative. He continued to complain about why all this protesting was going on now. I made the mistake of mentioning ACORN, and he launched into a diatribe about how insignificant ACORN was up for billions of dollars of stimulus money, which he refused to believe. He then redirected the conversation to Haliburton and Cheney’s “assassin squad” and accused me of supporting torture. I said sarcastically, “sure” and then when on to say that no right-thinking person embraces torture. (The Iranians and Al Quaeda and other must have been rolling on the floor laughing when the “torture memos” were released and circulated by the ACLU).
I then asked him what he meant when he said he was “conservative,” and what beliefs he had (I suggested a few: low tax, smaller government, pro-life, etc). His only response was that he believed “everything should be made to be recycled.” I said, oh, you mean conservationism, and said that I agreed that recycling is good. So not getting anywhere beyond that, I asked him, well, what politicians in Washington are most in line with your views. He said, “Al Franken.”
Some other beliefs proudly proclaimed by this “conservative”
He was only here because there had been a statement released that people would be allowed to address the crowd. He left shortly after they called anyone who had emailed them to get ready to speak.
It is important that we not be deceptive when we use words. This man called himself a conservative and claimed to be fed up with both parties, yet was constantly touting Obama’s agenda, and pushing him to move faster and go farther. He slammed the participants and adamantly defended ACORN, and its lawsuit against the young couple that has almost single-handedly brought to light their whole criminal enterprise.
Whatever your values are, whatever beliefs you hold, always be open and honest, and strive to use truthful language. Deceptive language only causes confusion and loss of credibility. One other thing I learned quite a while back is that labels are inadequate. McCain was called “right wing” and “conservative” but in reality he was neither of those things: he was a centrist, not subscribing to many of the tenants of American conservatism (small government, global warming is a hoax, low taxes, gun rights, free speech- see the McCain-Feingold Act).
Anyone can use a label. Before you accept it at face value, dig deeper.
Posted in communism, deception, Election 2008, news, Ohio, politics, social spending, taxes, Travel | Tagged: 912, Bush, centrist, commentary, Common, conservative, conversation, Glenn Beck, Kenton, liberal, mccain, Ohio, party, Sense, tea | Leave a Comment »