Ye-ah. It was the messianic thing that scared me off. I am blown away at the number of otherwise intelligent people who get glazed-eyed and evangelical when they so much as think of The One.
I stand by what I commented over at Barking Moonbat Early Warning System in response to the Mayor of London's piece in the Telegraph.
Telegraph article: "Barack Obama: Why I believe he should be the next President" By Boris Johnson
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/21/do2101.xml&posted=true&_requestid=83917
My response:
His opinion of Republicans:
“The recent collapse of the banking system, and the humiliating resort to semi-socialist solutions, has done a great deal to discredit - in some people’s eyes - the idea of free-market capitalism.”
I can buy that one… but that can’t be tied to President Bush, that’s the work of the Democrats in Congress since 1992, enacting a program started by President Clinton.
“His chief selling-point is his grasp of foreign affairs, and his staunch belligerence in the pursuit of American interests.”
And electing an American President who is belligerent in pursuit of American interests is a bad thing *why*, exactly?
His opinion of Obama:
“He seems highly intelligent. He has an air of courtesy and sincerity.”
“Unlike his opponent, he visibly incarnates change and hope, at a time when America desperately needs both.”
“Obama deserves to win because he seems talented, compassionate, and because he offers the hope of rejuvenating the greatest country on earth in the eyes of the rest of us.”
Notice the recurring use of the word “seems”. It is the operative word in most of his statements. In other words, this man admits he doesn’t actually KNOW what Obama stands for, he thinks Obama should win *because he makes a good impression*, because he SEEMS to want the same things those watching him want.
As Obama said of himself, “I am new enough on the national political screen that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views.” Or in short, seeing “Hope” and “Change” in Obama has precisely the same significance as seeing a herd of galloping horses in a cloudbank. And basing your vote on the perceived reality of said hope and change makes precisely as much sense as spending thousands of dollars putting fencing in a dome over your property, to keep the cloud horses out of your yard.
“He needs to stick up more vigorously for free trade,and we must hope that any ill-considered new taxes will be thwarted by Congress.”
Obama *claims* to be for free trade, but what he has actually SUPPORTED is its opposite, as in the free trade deal with Columbia. He *says* he opposes it because of concerns over the killings of union leaders there. But the free trade deal with Columbia wouldn't benefit *Columbia*, they already HAVE their end of the deal. What he's withholding is the benefits to AMERICANS. Stop listening to the sales pitch and actually read the fine print. With any other candidate, you’d ignore what he *claims* and look at how he VOTES. Why is Obama the sole exception to this rule?
And “any ill-considered new taxes will be thwarted by Congress”? With a Democrat majority? Did you think about just how ludicrous a statement you made here? You think about that one while I pick myself up off the floor and recover my composure. And thanks, by the way, I needed a good belly laugh.
“...and it is not really clear that he [Ayers] and Obama are chums at all.”
Well, I guess you could make that argument. But only in the same way that you could claim that Bush is not a chum of, say, Karl Rove.
“Huge numbers of voters, whether they admit it to themselves or not, will hesitate to choose Barack Obama for President because he is black. And then there are millions of white Americans who will undoubtedly vote Obama precisely because he is black...”
Okay, first you claim to read minds. If someone objects to Obama because of his past, or his lies, or his corrupt machine politics, that’s not the REAL reason they don’t like him, it’s *really* because they’re racist. Or at least, that's the case with "huge numbers" of them. Of course, the fact that I would happily vote for Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice or half a dozen other black conservatives before Ted Kennedy or John Kerry doesn’t signify, I’m still racist. Uh-huh.
Of course, you completely avoid the FACT that 92% to 97% (depending on whose numbers you use) of blacks are voting for him, that many of them say flat out that they are voting for him BECAUSE he’s black. But apparently, being openly racist is okay in your eyes.... unless you’re white.
But then, to put the cherry on top of this remarkable assertion, “If Obama wins, then the United States will have at last come a huge and maybe decisive step closer to achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, of a land where people are judged not on the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Okay, run that one by me again.... if a white person votes against him, it will be ASSUMED, with no evidence whatsoever, that it is because of racism, even though the spread among whites is fairly even. If a black person votes for him, either the black person’s racism doesn’t matter, or the black person isn’t REALLY racist, even though the black demographic support of him approaches 100%. And yet if he wins in spite of the *assumed* racism of whites and BECAUSE OF the documentable racism of blacks, this will mean he was elected not because he was black, but because he was a corrupt, opportunist machine politician with strong socialist leanings and a comfort zone that includes the company of bigots (Wright), racketeers (Rezsko), and terrorists (Ayers and Dohrn), in short because of his character.
Um, yeronner.... I think maybe you are late taking your meds.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/10/quote-of-day_16.html (3 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Ye-ah. It was the messianic thing that scared me off. I am blown away at the number of otherwise intelligent people who get glazed-eyed and evangelical when they so much as think of The One.
*shuddering*
A charismatic - indeed, meassianic - leader is necessary for a mass movement.
I am not sure that an Obama movement will actually form, but some of the ingredients are there already.
I stand by what I commented over at Barking Moonbat Early Warning System in response to the Mayor of London's piece in the Telegraph.
Telegraph article: "Barack Obama: Why I believe he should be the next President" By Boris Johnson
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/21/do2101.xml&posted=true&_requestid=83917
My response:
His opinion of Republicans:
“The recent collapse of the banking system, and the humiliating resort to semi-socialist solutions, has done a great deal to discredit - in some people’s eyes - the idea of free-market capitalism.”
I can buy that one… but that can’t be tied to President Bush, that’s the work of the Democrats in Congress since 1992, enacting a program started by President Clinton.
“His chief selling-point is his grasp of foreign affairs, and his staunch belligerence in the pursuit of American interests.”
And electing an American President who is belligerent in pursuit of American interests is a bad thing *why*, exactly?
His opinion of Obama:
“He seems highly intelligent. He has an air of courtesy and sincerity.”
“Unlike his opponent, he visibly incarnates change and hope, at a time when America desperately needs both.”
“Obama deserves to win because he seems talented, compassionate, and because he offers the hope of rejuvenating the greatest country on earth in the eyes of the rest of us.”
Notice the recurring use of the word “seems”. It is the operative word in most of his statements. In other words, this man admits he doesn’t actually KNOW what Obama stands for, he thinks Obama should win *because he makes a good impression*, because he SEEMS to want the same things those watching him want.
As Obama said of himself, “I am new enough on the national political screen that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views.” Or in short, seeing “Hope” and “Change” in Obama has precisely the same significance as seeing a herd of galloping horses in a cloudbank. And basing your vote on the perceived reality of said hope and change makes precisely as much sense as spending thousands of dollars putting fencing in a dome over your property, to keep the cloud horses out of your yard.
“He needs to stick up more vigorously for free trade,and we must hope that any ill-considered new taxes will be thwarted by Congress.”
Obama *claims* to be for free trade, but what he has actually SUPPORTED is its opposite, as in the free trade deal with Columbia. He *says* he opposes it because of concerns over the killings of union leaders there. But the free trade deal with Columbia wouldn't benefit *Columbia*, they already HAVE their end of the deal. What he's withholding is the benefits to AMERICANS. Stop listening to the sales pitch and actually read the fine print. With any other candidate, you’d ignore what he *claims* and look at how he VOTES. Why is Obama the sole exception to this rule?
And “any ill-considered new taxes will be thwarted by Congress”? With a Democrat majority? Did you think about just how ludicrous a statement you made here? You think about that one while I pick myself up off the floor and recover my composure. And thanks, by the way, I needed a good belly laugh.
“...and it is not really clear that he [Ayers] and Obama are chums at all.”
Well, I guess you could make that argument. But only in the same way that you could claim that Bush is not a chum of, say, Karl Rove.
“Huge numbers of voters, whether they admit it to themselves or not, will hesitate to choose Barack Obama for President because he is black. And then there are millions of white Americans who will undoubtedly vote Obama precisely because he is black...”
Okay, first you claim to read minds. If someone objects to Obama because of his past, or his lies, or his corrupt machine politics, that’s not the REAL reason they don’t like him, it’s *really* because they’re racist. Or at least, that's the case with "huge numbers" of them. Of course, the fact that I would happily vote for Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice or half a dozen other black conservatives before Ted Kennedy or John Kerry doesn’t signify, I’m still racist. Uh-huh.
Of course, you completely avoid the FACT that 92% to 97% (depending on whose numbers you use) of blacks are voting for him, that many of them say flat out that they are voting for him BECAUSE he’s black. But apparently, being openly racist is okay in your eyes.... unless you’re white.
But then, to put the cherry on top of this remarkable assertion, “If Obama wins, then the United States will have at last come a huge and maybe decisive step closer to achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, of a land where people are judged not on the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Okay, run that one by me again.... if a white person votes against him, it will be ASSUMED, with no evidence whatsoever, that it is because of racism, even though the spread among whites is fairly even. If a black person votes for him, either the black person’s racism doesn’t matter, or the black person isn’t REALLY racist, even though the black demographic support of him approaches 100%. And yet if he wins in spite of the *assumed* racism of whites and BECAUSE OF the documentable racism of blacks, this will mean he was elected not because he was black, but because he was a corrupt, opportunist machine politician with strong socialist leanings and a comfort zone that includes the company of bigots (Wright), racketeers (Rezsko), and terrorists (Ayers and Dohrn), in short because of his character.
Um, yeronner.... I think maybe you are late taking your meds.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>