Finally, we know what Obama means by "change". Obama's own words from a Chicago Public radio interview in 2001:
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. . . (The Constitution) Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted. . . one of the. . .tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."
Glad we cleared that up eight days before the election. Thank goodness there's still time for the media to apologize to everyone they labeled as "right wing lunatics" for conjecturing that Senator Obama may be a marxist. I'm sure all the big news organizations will lead with this revelation tonight.
Also, should (God forbid) Barry win the election, can we have him hooked up to a lie detector on inauguration day when he swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States?
Showing posts with label The Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Media. Show all posts
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I Have a Bit of a Problem With the Way the News Is Covered
Via a new favorite Patterico:
I hold the media solely responsible for the ascendancy of Barack Obama. I've always had a mild disdain and aloof contempt for the likes of CBS, NBC, the New York Times, etc., but it has never developed into vitriol. I viewed these DNC mouthpieces from the perspective of an enlightened one. How could they hurt me? I bear the knowledge of the truth, what this country was, what it is, what it should be. I was firm in my principles and therefore confident that none of the trite rubbish they publish could affect me. I never imagined they could raise up a marxist like Barack Obama purely by their own machinations, while at the same time hiding his true identity. My naivete is gone, and along with it my detached amusement. All I feel now is complete, utter, hatred. I hate their smug condescension to the average American. I hate their pretense of objectivity. I hate their bold faced complacency in the collectivization of America. I hate their brazen distortion and suppression of facts. I hate their misrepresentation of opinion as fact. I wholeheartedly despise their gilded facade of professionalism. I take an unhealthy joy in every drop in ratings or circulation they endure. I just, unrepentantly, hate them.
I don't hate Barack Obama. I dislike him, and I despise his conscience misrepresentation of himself, but I don't hate the man. (FYI, I do and always have hated John McCain) I lay this all at the feet of the main stream media. Its one thing to be admittedly leftist. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion, but when you portray yourself as the objective arbiter of facts as you shoehorn a borderline trotskyite into the office of the Presidency while burying his true nature behind fluff pieces and pictures of him playing basketball, you aid and abet in the destruction of America as it was founded. That I cannot forgive. If Barack Obama is elected by an electorate with the understanding that he is a moderate, I shall become a swirling ball of seething hatred and vile repugnance. I pray it doesn't affect my objectivity, but I don't think I can supress this creeping revulsion that is wrapping itself around my soul. I fear that I won't be able to step away from the brink when socialism comes to America in an empty suit. Instead I'll willingly take the plunge into a deep, blood red, sea of frothing abhorrence. I'll be here blogging if you'd like to come along for the ride.
"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread. His "bright eyes and easy smile" struck me as contrived and calculated--maybe because I was supporting another candidate. Since then, I've never heard him say anything new or earthshaking, or support anything that would require the courage of his convictions. I only voted for him in this last race--because his opponent was a pinhead. And I've been mostly alone in my views. But maybe that's changing."This post has since been removed, I wonder why?
I hold the media solely responsible for the ascendancy of Barack Obama. I've always had a mild disdain and aloof contempt for the likes of CBS, NBC, the New York Times, etc., but it has never developed into vitriol. I viewed these DNC mouthpieces from the perspective of an enlightened one. How could they hurt me? I bear the knowledge of the truth, what this country was, what it is, what it should be. I was firm in my principles and therefore confident that none of the trite rubbish they publish could affect me. I never imagined they could raise up a marxist like Barack Obama purely by their own machinations, while at the same time hiding his true identity. My naivete is gone, and along with it my detached amusement. All I feel now is complete, utter, hatred. I hate their smug condescension to the average American. I hate their pretense of objectivity. I hate their bold faced complacency in the collectivization of America. I hate their brazen distortion and suppression of facts. I hate their misrepresentation of opinion as fact. I wholeheartedly despise their gilded facade of professionalism. I take an unhealthy joy in every drop in ratings or circulation they endure. I just, unrepentantly, hate them.
I don't hate Barack Obama. I dislike him, and I despise his conscience misrepresentation of himself, but I don't hate the man. (FYI, I do and always have hated John McCain) I lay this all at the feet of the main stream media. Its one thing to be admittedly leftist. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion, but when you portray yourself as the objective arbiter of facts as you shoehorn a borderline trotskyite into the office of the Presidency while burying his true nature behind fluff pieces and pictures of him playing basketball, you aid and abet in the destruction of America as it was founded. That I cannot forgive. If Barack Obama is elected by an electorate with the understanding that he is a moderate, I shall become a swirling ball of seething hatred and vile repugnance. I pray it doesn't affect my objectivity, but I don't think I can supress this creeping revulsion that is wrapping itself around my soul. I fear that I won't be able to step away from the brink when socialism comes to America in an empty suit. Instead I'll willingly take the plunge into a deep, blood red, sea of frothing abhorrence. I'll be here blogging if you'd like to come along for the ride.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
I Wonder Why The Russians Would Want Obama?
According to a new poll by Worldpublicopinion.org:
"The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York. . . On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks."
Yet according to some, like Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian, the United States must listen to the opinion of the world when electing our President:
"Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama. . . "
Can we poll Americans to decide who runs Germany, France, Britain, etc.? The free world doesn't elect its leader. America is the leader of the free world because of the sheer force of its cultural, economic, and military might. We can elect whoever the hell we want to because we're the one's who bankroll the military that's allowed you create your little socialist utopias (hah!) over the past 70 years. You want a say in who runs the most dominant country on Earth? Fine. Make your country the most dominant on Earth. Wait, I forgot. You're already trying with the EU, but alas, its socialist, so you can't compete. Yet you want us to elect a leader who will implement your failed policies? I suppose it is easier to drag us down than to build yourselves up.
"The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York. . . On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks."
Yet according to some, like Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian, the United States must listen to the opinion of the world when electing our President:
"Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama. . . "
Can we poll Americans to decide who runs Germany, France, Britain, etc.? The free world doesn't elect its leader. America is the leader of the free world because of the sheer force of its cultural, economic, and military might. We can elect whoever the hell we want to because we're the one's who bankroll the military that's allowed you create your little socialist utopias (hah!) over the past 70 years. You want a say in who runs the most dominant country on Earth? Fine. Make your country the most dominant on Earth. Wait, I forgot. You're already trying with the EU, but alas, its socialist, so you can't compete. Yet you want us to elect a leader who will implement your failed policies? I suppose it is easier to drag us down than to build yourselves up.
"If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.
Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for. . . "
Is this some sort of threat? What are you going to do? Dislike us more? I've been a dastardly Republican for these past 8 years, and I have to say your hatred/disgust/hysterics haven't bothered me all that much. I don't mind being despised by peacenik socialists, though it may bother my liberal countrymen who long for acceptance by the European elite. Boo f'ing hoo. Do you know how much I would love for America to renounce its role as leader of the free world? Do you know what a hassle it is? Do you know what its like to have the UN scold us while we bankroll them, even as they put 3rd world dictators who hate us on the Human Rights Committee? But who would take over our role? The Aussies are probably the only other country left with the balls to stand up to the thugs of the world, but unless/until they fill up that vast continent with people, they're not quite ready for primetime.
As much as I'd love for America to retire behind her borders and return to the isolationism George Washington preferred just so you'd finally realize what your economic situation is without the guarantee of American security, I know the world would go to hell in a handbasket labeled "Made in China", and Russia would eventually be knocking on Alaska's door from the Canadian side. So until your countries can grow up enough to take care of themselves Mr. Freedland, let's let the adults decide who leads (props up) the free world.
"If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it."
Once again, what are you going to do? Pull your 3000 troops out of Iraq? You're already doing it. Are you going to stop supporting America in the Security Council? Shall we allow Iran to acquire nuclear missiles? Just because the most popular boy wasn't elected class President? I'm going to say this in the clearest possible way, and I hope you hear it: You're an imbecile.
A Hick Response
I was contemplating commenting on this bizarre anti-Palin rant by some weirdly vindictive Canadian (well, that's not fair to Canadians, whom I can only hope aren't frothing at the mouth with this much anti-American hatred) that's been making the rounds on the blogosphere, but LILEKS has already dismantled it so thoroughly, that there's not much more to say, but a few comments:
LILEKS: "You know, at some point the contempt the author has for the hicks has to be answered in the same terms. People don’t vote for Republicans on social issues to give themselves 'self-esteem' because of their 'broken existence,' and it’s the usual stupid reductive economic-uber-alles groupthink that makes her say such stupid things. If they had better jobs, they’d support abortion, redefining marriage, and firearms restrictions! The question of 'what’s the matter with Kansas' was posed by someone who couldn’t figure out why Kansas folk weren’t asking 'What’s the matter with us?' It’s the same bitter-guns-&-God-clinger notion that dogs another candidate, and it’s contemptuous – I mean, for heaven’s sake, who the hell is she to say the people of Kansas have a 'broken existence'? It almost sounds as if she is proudly overlettered, suspicious of the non-urban, and frankly disbelieving of the 'domestic.'
It pains me, but here is the quote by Heather Mallick that LILEKS is commenting on:
"The conventioneers are nothing like the rich men who run the party, and that's the mystery of the hick vote. They'd be much better served by the Democrats. I know Thomas Frank answered this in What's the Matter with Kansas?; I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."
This is possibly my biggest problem with the intellectual left. They see lower class GOP voters as simpletons who have been bamboozled into voting Republican by GOP slight of hand with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. "You idiot, don't you know the Democrats will give you stuff for free?! If only you weren't such a homophobe, Democrats would own this country! That's the only possible reason poor, white trash, midwesterners could possibly have for not voting Democrat when we offer them so many handouts." Nothing pisses me off more than this "What's the Matter With Kansas?" line of reasoning. Did it ever occur to you that "hick midwesterners" don't vote for the party of entitlments because they have more pride than that? Maybe they don't vote for "enlightened liberals" not because they've been fooled by James Dobson into voting against their economic interests, but because they don't think its right to steal from their rich neighbor just because he's better off? Maybe they'd rather earn what they have with their ability and effort than have some Washington elite take pity on them and "graciously bestow" upon them that which is not theirs to give in the first place? Maybe they understand that in America everyone is responsible for themselves and they don't hate their neighbors for achieving more success?
How does it feel, Miss Mallick, to know that these hick Republicans you so despise are the backbone of the a country far greater than your own? How does it feel to know that you rise every morning to write your silly little column under the blanket of protection provided by young men from Kansas, not enlightened elitists from the upper west side? How does it feel to know that the opinions of a CBC hack are as inconsiquential to them as a folk music mocumentary? How does it make you feel to know that these hicks you have such contempt for wouldn't deign to spit on you with their chewing tobbacco?
I try to keep this blog relatively clean, Miss Mallick, but fuck you. You're far to stupid and ignorant to ever realize how much more integrity a poor Republican has than yourself. And if you ever manage to stop marveling at your nuanced enlightenment, you may realize how insignificant you are to them.
LILEKS: "You know, at some point the contempt the author has for the hicks has to be answered in the same terms. People don’t vote for Republicans on social issues to give themselves 'self-esteem' because of their 'broken existence,' and it’s the usual stupid reductive economic-uber-alles groupthink that makes her say such stupid things. If they had better jobs, they’d support abortion, redefining marriage, and firearms restrictions! The question of 'what’s the matter with Kansas' was posed by someone who couldn’t figure out why Kansas folk weren’t asking 'What’s the matter with us?' It’s the same bitter-guns-&-God-clinger notion that dogs another candidate, and it’s contemptuous – I mean, for heaven’s sake, who the hell is she to say the people of Kansas have a 'broken existence'? It almost sounds as if she is proudly overlettered, suspicious of the non-urban, and frankly disbelieving of the 'domestic.'
It pains me, but here is the quote by Heather Mallick that LILEKS is commenting on:
"The conventioneers are nothing like the rich men who run the party, and that's the mystery of the hick vote. They'd be much better served by the Democrats. I know Thomas Frank answered this in What's the Matter with Kansas?; I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."
This is possibly my biggest problem with the intellectual left. They see lower class GOP voters as simpletons who have been bamboozled into voting Republican by GOP slight of hand with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. "You idiot, don't you know the Democrats will give you stuff for free?! If only you weren't such a homophobe, Democrats would own this country! That's the only possible reason poor, white trash, midwesterners could possibly have for not voting Democrat when we offer them so many handouts." Nothing pisses me off more than this "What's the Matter With Kansas?" line of reasoning. Did it ever occur to you that "hick midwesterners" don't vote for the party of entitlments because they have more pride than that? Maybe they don't vote for "enlightened liberals" not because they've been fooled by James Dobson into voting against their economic interests, but because they don't think its right to steal from their rich neighbor just because he's better off? Maybe they'd rather earn what they have with their ability and effort than have some Washington elite take pity on them and "graciously bestow" upon them that which is not theirs to give in the first place? Maybe they understand that in America everyone is responsible for themselves and they don't hate their neighbors for achieving more success?
How does it feel, Miss Mallick, to know that these hick Republicans you so despise are the backbone of the a country far greater than your own? How does it feel to know that you rise every morning to write your silly little column under the blanket of protection provided by young men from Kansas, not enlightened elitists from the upper west side? How does it feel to know that the opinions of a CBC hack are as inconsiquential to them as a folk music mocumentary? How does it make you feel to know that these hicks you have such contempt for wouldn't deign to spit on you with their chewing tobbacco?
I try to keep this blog relatively clean, Miss Mallick, but fuck you. You're far to stupid and ignorant to ever realize how much more integrity a poor Republican has than yourself. And if you ever manage to stop marveling at your nuanced enlightenment, you may realize how insignificant you are to them.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Did Obama Ever Vet Himself?
Sorry about the light blogging as of late (especially at this critical juncture in the campaign), but work's been crazy and its College Football season, enough said.
Now some observations:
Sarah Palin is an out of the park home run for the McCain administration. He's simultaneously energized a lethargic (and frankly hostile) base and tricked the media into exposing its own biases. Take this slightly hysterical Politico piece today:
"On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
Would it be slightly uncouth of me to ask why the politico has never issued a sarcastic apology for asking these same questions to Barry Obama, who is a mere plurality away from the presidency? Oh, they never asked him those questions? No apology needed then, I suppose. I do wonder though, where are the pundits questioning whether or not Barry's children will take a back seat if he is elected? I mean, he'll be busy negotiating "spheres of influence" for China and North Korea in Asia, and say, the Pacific coast. Will his daughters suffer while Michelle tours the globe as Obama's "Labor Ambassador", imploring the workers of the world to "unite"? That's a full time job, ask Lenin.
Its almost as if the media is the sordid pit of chauvenistic sexism that they've always claimed the GOP was. (only if we're talking about conservative women, mind you. Liberal women are bravely shattering the glass/marble/plaster ceiling) In any case, at least I'll have to be a little less drunk to vote for McCain. Thank you Governer Palin.
Now some observations:
Sarah Palin is an out of the park home run for the McCain administration. He's simultaneously energized a lethargic (and frankly hostile) base and tricked the media into exposing its own biases. Take this slightly hysterical Politico piece today:
"On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
Would it be slightly uncouth of me to ask why the politico has never issued a sarcastic apology for asking these same questions to Barry Obama, who is a mere plurality away from the presidency? Oh, they never asked him those questions? No apology needed then, I suppose. I do wonder though, where are the pundits questioning whether or not Barry's children will take a back seat if he is elected? I mean, he'll be busy negotiating "spheres of influence" for China and North Korea in Asia, and say, the Pacific coast. Will his daughters suffer while Michelle tours the globe as Obama's "Labor Ambassador", imploring the workers of the world to "unite"? That's a full time job, ask Lenin.
Its almost as if the media is the sordid pit of chauvenistic sexism that they've always claimed the GOP was. (only if we're talking about conservative women, mind you. Liberal women are bravely shattering the glass/marble/plaster ceiling) In any case, at least I'll have to be a little less drunk to vote for McCain. Thank you Governer Palin.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Idiots Do Occasionally Live In Missouri (Hell, We Elected Claire McCaskill)
Monday, August 11, 2008
Camera Man "Unobjectively" Saves Marine's Life
I'm not sure how I missed this, but Fox News camera man Chris Jackson pulled a marine out of a burning Humvee that had been struck by an IED in Afghanistan. Could anyone see a CNN or BBC camera man pull a marine out of a burning vehicle? Just saying.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
But Americans Are Fed Up With Conservatism, Right?
The quarterly earnings of the New York Times have dropped 82% since this time last year. In a related story, I laughed.
Monday, July 21, 2008
All the News That Fits to Our Ideological Agenda
SHOCK: THE NEW YORK TIMES DECIDES NOT TO TELL THE OTHER HALF OF THE STORY!!
Via Matt Drudge, the NYT has rejected an editorial by John McCain in response to an editorial Barry Obama wrote about his position on Iraq less than a week ago. I'm personally flabbergasted. I can't believe the Times would risk its reputation of objectivity and even handedness. If they keep this up they might become known as left wing advocates posing as journalists. People might even believe that the last Republican they endorsed for President was Dwight Eisenhower.
On the other hand, I was surprised that the Iraq war was still going on. I never see anything about it in the Times anymore. I wonder why they don't want to talk about it anymore unless they get an editorial by Barry Obama('s staff)? A curious thought to ponder. They couldn't write enough about it in 2005. Are there no more Jack Murtha quotes comparing our soldiers to the imaginary Mongols John Kerry spoke of while he was in the SDS? I'd better stop there, if we delve into that, its enough for two or three more posts. Ah, you wacky libs. You're like the gift that keeps giving, or maybe the guy who keeps kicking you in the junk and taking your wallet.
Back to the point, I'm sure its just a matter of time before the Times corrects this error and regains its impeccable journalistic integrity. Otherwise people are going to begin to think they're just a mouth piece for the Democrat Party and that the NYT's whole reason for existence is to push a liberal agenda, not to report "all the news that's fit to print". But that's just crazy, right?
Via Matt Drudge, the NYT has rejected an editorial by John McCain in response to an editorial Barry Obama wrote about his position on Iraq less than a week ago. I'm personally flabbergasted. I can't believe the Times would risk its reputation of objectivity and even handedness. If they keep this up they might become known as left wing advocates posing as journalists. People might even believe that the last Republican they endorsed for President was Dwight Eisenhower.
On the other hand, I was surprised that the Iraq war was still going on. I never see anything about it in the Times anymore. I wonder why they don't want to talk about it anymore unless they get an editorial by Barry Obama('s staff)? A curious thought to ponder. They couldn't write enough about it in 2005. Are there no more Jack Murtha quotes comparing our soldiers to the imaginary Mongols John Kerry spoke of while he was in the SDS? I'd better stop there, if we delve into that, its enough for two or three more posts. Ah, you wacky libs. You're like the gift that keeps giving, or maybe the guy who keeps kicking you in the junk and taking your wallet.
Back to the point, I'm sure its just a matter of time before the Times corrects this error and regains its impeccable journalistic integrity. Otherwise people are going to begin to think they're just a mouth piece for the Democrat Party and that the NYT's whole reason for existence is to push a liberal agenda, not to report "all the news that's fit to print". But that's just crazy, right?
Monday, July 7, 2008
Ich Bin Ein Conceited Collectivist
Obama may be planning to speak in Berlin. I can already hear the media: "JFK! JFK! He's just like JFK!" Except that he's not. JFK was tough on foreign policy, queasy about Civil Rights, and cut taxes. Sound much like Obama? It won't matter to the media.
There's this bizzar myth about who JFK was that liberals have used to turn him into this statist martyr who would have built the perfect socialist society if only he'd lived. Now they've attached this to Obama. JFK reborn, the messiah back from the grave. Obama for his part seems to be playing right along. I don't know if he's being pragmatic or just incredibly pretentious and arrogant, probably a combination of both.
JFK was certainly no conservative, but he's definitely not Obama. We all - Mr. Obama included - would do well to remember that.
There's this bizzar myth about who JFK was that liberals have used to turn him into this statist martyr who would have built the perfect socialist society if only he'd lived. Now they've attached this to Obama. JFK reborn, the messiah back from the grave. Obama for his part seems to be playing right along. I don't know if he's being pragmatic or just incredibly pretentious and arrogant, probably a combination of both.
JFK was certainly no conservative, but he's definitely not Obama. We all - Mr. Obama included - would do well to remember that.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Has the Reccession Happened Yet?
So economic growth has picked up in the first quarter of this year. I'm bracing myself for the extensive media coverage this is sure to get.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
His Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather was in the US Army that stopped Napoleon at Waterloo
What are the odds that the media doesn't say much at all about this?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
If You Don't Vote for Obama, You Might Be A Redneck
I knew that eventually the media would begin implying that white voters who don't vote for Barack Obama are racists, but I didn't expect it to reach such a pitch during the primary season. These are Democrat voters we're talking about. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be the horrid racists? Well according to Rex W. Huppke's hit piece in Tuesday's Chicago Tribune, Obama's screwed come November because of white America's latent racism. Here are some excerpts I feel moved to comment upon.
Mr. Huppke takes us on a journey through Munfordville Kentucky, a town of 1600, 90% white. Our first racist is one "Terry Jordan, 47, who runs a year-round garage sale in front of an old filling station on Main Street" He explains why he's not voting for Obama: "It's his color." Of course, southern whites who don't vote for Obama are hick racists who run year round garage sales, here Huppke is just pointing out the obvious.
Obama's problem, according to Huppke, is that there are too many of them populating small towns across America. "The Munfordvilles of America — and there are many—present a troubling reality for Obama's campaign, as his lopsided loss in neighboring West Virginia showed. These are the places where lofty talk of transcending race is dragged to earth by a weighty reality that has nothing to do with Obama's position on the federal gas tax, Clinton's tenacity on the campaign trail or even the off-putting rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr." Of Course! Terry Jordan and Munfordville prove that racism is why Obama isn't winning a majority of the white vote. Only hateful ideology could keep them from recognizing Obama's transcending greatness. As Mike Rife, a white Obama supporter in Munfordville (how is that possible?) puts it "They won't vote for a black man. . . That's all there is to it. They just can't bring themselves to do it." Its not that they don't care for Obama's policies or the anti-Americanism of some of his acquaintances, nor is it that fact that Mrs. Clinton has been making a concerted effort to broaden her appeal to rural voters who are generally more conservative. Its that they're all racists. Except of course for Mike Rife, oh and Jack Bunnell, apparently the only two white Obama supporters Huppke could find in this town of 1600, I'm sure he talked to everyone. Rife says he "knows of no more than 10 other (I'm assuming white) people who, like him, will vote for Obama" Considering Munfordville is 90% white, I wonder if someone can get a hold of the election data for Munfordville and see if Obama won more than .008% of the white vote.
Huppke finishes off this section of the article with what I'm assuming is his explanation for the rampant racism in Kentucky: "Kentucky was a border state in the Civil War. It eventually sided with the Union, but much of the populace either joined or supported the Confederacy. Munfordville was the site of a major victory for the South, one that marked a high point of the Confederacy's westward push." Ah, of course. we all know that supporters of the Confederacy were motivated exclusively by racism, not loyalty to their home State, belief in State's Rights, or limited government. I'm sure that utter racism still permeates a border State where the Confederacy won a victory a mere 140 years ago. I'm at a loss though to see how West Virginia's racism can be linked to the Confederacy considering it broke off from greater Virginia in order to remain loyal to the Union.
Huppke begins the next section of his "news" article by quoting supposedly non racist townsfolk in Munfordville who explain there are "lots of factors" that lead the town into racism. So says Melody Chaney, "It's a matter of education, their upbringing and their background, peer pressure. There are lots of factors that contribute to this." But as Huppke explains, she is a "a financial adviser in Munfordville and a Clinton supporter," so obviously a racist and not to be trusted. Tim Carter though is an Obama supporter and is therefore trustworthy. He even "lives on a narrow, crescent-shaped road called National Turnpike, a block or so off Main Street, an area known as "the black part of town." We can only assume there are also some railroad tracks he lives on the wrong side of. "'He shouldn't even bother to fly over,' said Carter, who was born and raised in Munfordville and has spent 35 of his 56 years working in a nearby factory. (I'm amazed the factory hires blacks) He likes his town and says there's little friction between blacks like him and whites. 'People get along pretty well,' he said. 'The racist end of it, that will always be here. There's black people that don't like white people, and white people that don't like black people. But there's not much trouble.'" Hold on a second. We all know there are "white people that don't like black people," but what is this about "black people that don't like white people"? I haven't heard about this. If 7 out of 10 whites voting for Hillary Clinton demonstrates white racism, what does 9 out of 10 blacks voting for Barack Obama demonstrate? I'm sure Mr. Huppke is working on that article as we speak.
Moving on, in the final section of his "news" article, Mr. Huppke returns to his "Confederate racism" motif: "Webster Rogers, 23 and also black, said that in high school he felt welcome visiting the homes of white friends. But often he would spot Confederate flags hanging on the walls, reminders of differences that still linger." Mr. Huppke must have misquoted Webster here. There's no way that Confederate flag toting racists would ever befriend a black person, let alone make him feel welcome in their homes.
I'm sure a more prevalent attitude is that of Susan Horton. "I believe that (Obama's) a Muslim," said Susan Horton, 56 and white. She leaves her living room whenever Obama comes on the television. "I think that if he gets into office, there's going to be another bombing." I don't understand why she cares. They're not going to bomb Kentucky. They'll bomb an urban area with a high percentage of minorities, probably on one of the coasts. If she's a racist, she must think that's a good thing.
The citizens of Munfordville aren't done though. "He's not patriotic," said Brandy Trulock, a 21-year-old mother of two. "If you can't salute the American flag, I don't think you should be allowed to run for president." Clearly racist.
In the end, Huppke talked to eight residents of Munfordville. Four, if we include Susan, Brandy, and Melody, are whites who aren't voting for Obama because of racism. Two are white Obama supporters. Two are black men, one of whom for some reason thinks he has white friends in this awful parody of Maycomb. I guess we can assume Huppke found no black Hillary supporters. I feel he's already made his point with more than enough supporting evidence. I'd say eight is a pretty good sample of a community of 1600. Huppke however disagrees. He comes back to our original racist Terry Jordan as he "sells secondhand bluejeans, ceramic tchotchkes and anything else he can get his hands on, displaying his wares on a flatbed trailer and a few rickety folding tables." Terry, being perhaps the only genuine racist Huppke actually spoke to, is the best way to close out this "news" article by driving home the white hick racist theme. Its somewhat effective given what Terry has to say: "He's all Democrat, all Clinton and, if Obama wins the nomination, all for Republican John McCain. He doesn't trust Obama, has serious questions about the Muslim rumors and truly believes a black man will not survive long as president of the United States." However, Huppke betrays a detail we were as of yet unaware of: Terry, who is 47, "makes about $100 (from his garage sales) a week to supplement his $720 monthly disability check." Huppke got one thing right, he's "all Democrat".
Mr. Huppke takes us on a journey through Munfordville Kentucky, a town of 1600, 90% white. Our first racist is one "Terry Jordan, 47, who runs a year-round garage sale in front of an old filling station on Main Street" He explains why he's not voting for Obama: "It's his color." Of course, southern whites who don't vote for Obama are hick racists who run year round garage sales, here Huppke is just pointing out the obvious.
Obama's problem, according to Huppke, is that there are too many of them populating small towns across America. "The Munfordvilles of America — and there are many—present a troubling reality for Obama's campaign, as his lopsided loss in neighboring West Virginia showed. These are the places where lofty talk of transcending race is dragged to earth by a weighty reality that has nothing to do with Obama's position on the federal gas tax, Clinton's tenacity on the campaign trail or even the off-putting rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr." Of Course! Terry Jordan and Munfordville prove that racism is why Obama isn't winning a majority of the white vote. Only hateful ideology could keep them from recognizing Obama's transcending greatness. As Mike Rife, a white Obama supporter in Munfordville (how is that possible?) puts it "They won't vote for a black man. . . That's all there is to it. They just can't bring themselves to do it." Its not that they don't care for Obama's policies or the anti-Americanism of some of his acquaintances, nor is it that fact that Mrs. Clinton has been making a concerted effort to broaden her appeal to rural voters who are generally more conservative. Its that they're all racists. Except of course for Mike Rife, oh and Jack Bunnell, apparently the only two white Obama supporters Huppke could find in this town of 1600, I'm sure he talked to everyone. Rife says he "knows of no more than 10 other (I'm assuming white) people who, like him, will vote for Obama" Considering Munfordville is 90% white, I wonder if someone can get a hold of the election data for Munfordville and see if Obama won more than .008% of the white vote.
Huppke finishes off this section of the article with what I'm assuming is his explanation for the rampant racism in Kentucky: "Kentucky was a border state in the Civil War. It eventually sided with the Union, but much of the populace either joined or supported the Confederacy. Munfordville was the site of a major victory for the South, one that marked a high point of the Confederacy's westward push." Ah, of course. we all know that supporters of the Confederacy were motivated exclusively by racism, not loyalty to their home State, belief in State's Rights, or limited government. I'm sure that utter racism still permeates a border State where the Confederacy won a victory a mere 140 years ago. I'm at a loss though to see how West Virginia's racism can be linked to the Confederacy considering it broke off from greater Virginia in order to remain loyal to the Union.
Huppke begins the next section of his "news" article by quoting supposedly non racist townsfolk in Munfordville who explain there are "lots of factors" that lead the town into racism. So says Melody Chaney, "It's a matter of education, their upbringing and their background, peer pressure. There are lots of factors that contribute to this." But as Huppke explains, she is a "a financial adviser in Munfordville and a Clinton supporter," so obviously a racist and not to be trusted. Tim Carter though is an Obama supporter and is therefore trustworthy. He even "lives on a narrow, crescent-shaped road called National Turnpike, a block or so off Main Street, an area known as "the black part of town." We can only assume there are also some railroad tracks he lives on the wrong side of. "'He shouldn't even bother to fly over,' said Carter, who was born and raised in Munfordville and has spent 35 of his 56 years working in a nearby factory. (I'm amazed the factory hires blacks) He likes his town and says there's little friction between blacks like him and whites. 'People get along pretty well,' he said. 'The racist end of it, that will always be here. There's black people that don't like white people, and white people that don't like black people. But there's not much trouble.'" Hold on a second. We all know there are "white people that don't like black people," but what is this about "black people that don't like white people"? I haven't heard about this. If 7 out of 10 whites voting for Hillary Clinton demonstrates white racism, what does 9 out of 10 blacks voting for Barack Obama demonstrate? I'm sure Mr. Huppke is working on that article as we speak.
Moving on, in the final section of his "news" article, Mr. Huppke returns to his "Confederate racism" motif: "Webster Rogers, 23 and also black, said that in high school he felt welcome visiting the homes of white friends. But often he would spot Confederate flags hanging on the walls, reminders of differences that still linger." Mr. Huppke must have misquoted Webster here. There's no way that Confederate flag toting racists would ever befriend a black person, let alone make him feel welcome in their homes.
I'm sure a more prevalent attitude is that of Susan Horton. "I believe that (Obama's) a Muslim," said Susan Horton, 56 and white. She leaves her living room whenever Obama comes on the television. "I think that if he gets into office, there's going to be another bombing." I don't understand why she cares. They're not going to bomb Kentucky. They'll bomb an urban area with a high percentage of minorities, probably on one of the coasts. If she's a racist, she must think that's a good thing.
The citizens of Munfordville aren't done though. "He's not patriotic," said Brandy Trulock, a 21-year-old mother of two. "If you can't salute the American flag, I don't think you should be allowed to run for president." Clearly racist.
In the end, Huppke talked to eight residents of Munfordville. Four, if we include Susan, Brandy, and Melody, are whites who aren't voting for Obama because of racism. Two are white Obama supporters. Two are black men, one of whom for some reason thinks he has white friends in this awful parody of Maycomb. I guess we can assume Huppke found no black Hillary supporters. I feel he's already made his point with more than enough supporting evidence. I'd say eight is a pretty good sample of a community of 1600. Huppke however disagrees. He comes back to our original racist Terry Jordan as he "sells secondhand bluejeans, ceramic tchotchkes and anything else he can get his hands on, displaying his wares on a flatbed trailer and a few rickety folding tables." Terry, being perhaps the only genuine racist Huppke actually spoke to, is the best way to close out this "news" article by driving home the white hick racist theme. Its somewhat effective given what Terry has to say: "He's all Democrat, all Clinton and, if Obama wins the nomination, all for Republican John McCain. He doesn't trust Obama, has serious questions about the Muslim rumors and truly believes a black man will not survive long as president of the United States." However, Huppke betrays a detail we were as of yet unaware of: Terry, who is 47, "makes about $100 (from his garage sales) a week to supplement his $720 monthly disability check." Huppke got one thing right, he's "all Democrat".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
