The Case Against Barack Obama-Part 4
What is it about Barack Obama that makes him immune to criticism? Put aside for a moment the many, many allusions to his apparent divinity (you know the seven times he's been on the cover of Time magazine-as opposed to McCain's three-with four of those seven in which the photographer purposely angled or "fixed" the picture so that Obama would have a light behind him, so as to seem to have an angelic "halo" over his head) and his disdain for "answering" questions straight-on and then turn his opponents legitimate criticisms against them. Then again, has Obama even gotten any criticism? Has he ever been asked by the mainstream press anything less than, "Really, how great are you?" The answer, sadly and pathetically, is no.
He has greatly benefited from a mainstream media that has shown him a reference of omission, going to great lengths to hide his past from the American people. You can bet if his past was anything short of divine (besides what they have tried to embellish, i.e LIE about) they would tell you all there is to know. when anything even remotely newsworthy about his past does surface, conservative commentators that are invited on to far-left, liberal networks (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc) and are actually allowed to speak the truth of his past, (when they aren't double, or triple-teamed on a "balanced" panel) the covering up, embellishments, race-baiting (that is only brought up by the left) and lies by Obamacized liberal "journalists" is truly reprehensible.
Even the Clintons are not immune to the all-powerful Obamedia, especially Hillary.
During the Democratic primaries when her campaign accurately pointed out that Obama was lifting entire passages of speeches from Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick, her claims were mostly ignored, downplayed or even met with derision by the mainstream press. When she said in a debate against Obama, "change you can Xerox," she was booed by Democrats in the crowd. The booing was what the media focused on. A month earlier, Clinton was booed for criticizing Obama for not giving a straight answer about a vote in which Obama voted against a measure that would have capped at 30 percent interest rates charged to consumers.
"You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult to have a straight-up debate with you," she said, "because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern."
After the crowd's boos subsided, Obama gave the kind of response that has become typical of his campaign, asserting that Clinton was engaging in the "old politics" that he alone transcends.
Robert Novak documented this dishonest rhetoric, dated May 22, 2008:
"When one of the Democratic Party's most astute strategists this week criticized John McCain for attacking Barack Obama's desire to engage Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I asked what the Republican presidential candidate ought to talk about in his campaign. "health care and the economy," he replied...Obama embraced that formula once it became clear that he would best Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. He began pounding McCain for seeking the third term of George W. Bush. At the same time, Obama implores McCain in the interest of 'one nation' and one 'one people' not to attack him. The shorthand widely repeated by the news media is that the Republican candidate must not 'Swiftboat' Obama. That amounts to unilateral political disarmament by McCain."
So, ipso facto, any criticism of Obama is a smear. And because of his heritage, it's quite simply a racist smear.
That's the calling card of the desperate, paranoid left, especially when talking about the poor (because according to the left, only black people are poor-which Barney Frank recently pulled when attempting to excuse himself from any responsibility on the Freddie Mac/Fannie May fiasco. That says more about the racism of the left than the right) Whenever they don't have an answer for their own ignorance and/or incompetence, they roll out the phony racism charges.
Rich Lowry of National Review chimed in on this subject with a column in the spring of 2008:
"Here are the Obama rules in detail:
He can't be called a 'liberal' ('the same names and labels they pin on everyone,' as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can't be questioned ('attempts to play on our fears'); his extreme positions on social issues can't be exposed ('the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives' and 'turn us against each other'); and his Chicago background too is off-limits ('pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy') besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign."
On May 19, 2008, Newsweek magazine published the first salvo of pre-emptive strikes that would become the norm during this election season:
"The Republican Part has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities. The 2008 race may turn on which party win the lower and middle-class whites in industrial and border-states-The democrats base from the New Deal to the 1960s, but 'Reagan Democrats' in most presidential elections since then. It is a sure bet the GOP will paint Obama as 'the other'-as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots and hangs around with American-haters...Se. John McCain has explicity disavowed playing the race card or taking the low road generally. But he may not be able to resist casdoubt on Obama's patriotism."
Did you notice how the article attempts to disarm the GOP by admitting the facts about Obama, then using it as something the Republicans shouldn't and mustn't talk about? Discarding any discussion of his past as "politics as usual" or simply as ad hock racism?
Too bad Obama himself already played that card, in an attempt to disarm McCain as an "old-school politician," then playing the card himself.
The article embraces and accepts Obama's immunity claim uncritically. It equates legitimate criticisms of Obama with illegitimate smears, suggesting that all are equally unjust.
David Freddoso. "The Case Against Barack Obama: the Unlike Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate." Regenery Publishing. Washington, DC. 2008. p. 70-72, 77.
Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, sponsored by CNN and Univision, University of Texas at Austin, February 21, 2008.
Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, The Palace Theater, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, January 21, 2008.
Robert Novak, "McCain Stakes His Turf," Washington Post. May 22, 2008.
Rich Lowry, "Obama Rules," National Review Online. May 13, 2008.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVkMWIzOGQMzdmMzg4NWE0YzFINzQ0oTE0ZmQ0oDE=
Richard Wolfe and Evan Thomas, "Sit Back, Relax, get Ready to Rumble. Newsweek. May 19, 2008.
He has greatly benefited from a mainstream media that has shown him a reference of omission, going to great lengths to hide his past from the American people. You can bet if his past was anything short of divine (besides what they have tried to embellish, i.e LIE about) they would tell you all there is to know. when anything even remotely newsworthy about his past does surface, conservative commentators that are invited on to far-left, liberal networks (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc) and are actually allowed to speak the truth of his past, (when they aren't double, or triple-teamed on a "balanced" panel) the covering up, embellishments, race-baiting (that is only brought up by the left) and lies by Obamacized liberal "journalists" is truly reprehensible.
Even the Clintons are not immune to the all-powerful Obamedia, especially Hillary.
During the Democratic primaries when her campaign accurately pointed out that Obama was lifting entire passages of speeches from Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick, her claims were mostly ignored, downplayed or even met with derision by the mainstream press. When she said in a debate against Obama, "change you can Xerox," she was booed by Democrats in the crowd. The booing was what the media focused on. A month earlier, Clinton was booed for criticizing Obama for not giving a straight answer about a vote in which Obama voted against a measure that would have capped at 30 percent interest rates charged to consumers.
"You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult to have a straight-up debate with you," she said, "because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern."
After the crowd's boos subsided, Obama gave the kind of response that has become typical of his campaign, asserting that Clinton was engaging in the "old politics" that he alone transcends.
Robert Novak documented this dishonest rhetoric, dated May 22, 2008:
"When one of the Democratic Party's most astute strategists this week criticized John McCain for attacking Barack Obama's desire to engage Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I asked what the Republican presidential candidate ought to talk about in his campaign. "health care and the economy," he replied...Obama embraced that formula once it became clear that he would best Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. He began pounding McCain for seeking the third term of George W. Bush. At the same time, Obama implores McCain in the interest of 'one nation' and one 'one people' not to attack him. The shorthand widely repeated by the news media is that the Republican candidate must not 'Swiftboat' Obama. That amounts to unilateral political disarmament by McCain."
So, ipso facto, any criticism of Obama is a smear. And because of his heritage, it's quite simply a racist smear.
That's the calling card of the desperate, paranoid left, especially when talking about the poor (because according to the left, only black people are poor-which Barney Frank recently pulled when attempting to excuse himself from any responsibility on the Freddie Mac/Fannie May fiasco. That says more about the racism of the left than the right) Whenever they don't have an answer for their own ignorance and/or incompetence, they roll out the phony racism charges.
Rich Lowry of National Review chimed in on this subject with a column in the spring of 2008:
"Here are the Obama rules in detail:
He can't be called a 'liberal' ('the same names and labels they pin on everyone,' as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can't be questioned ('attempts to play on our fears'); his extreme positions on social issues can't be exposed ('the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives' and 'turn us against each other'); and his Chicago background too is off-limits ('pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy') besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign."
On May 19, 2008, Newsweek magazine published the first salvo of pre-emptive strikes that would become the norm during this election season:
"The Republican Part has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities. The 2008 race may turn on which party win the lower and middle-class whites in industrial and border-states-The democrats base from the New Deal to the 1960s, but 'Reagan Democrats' in most presidential elections since then. It is a sure bet the GOP will paint Obama as 'the other'-as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots and hangs around with American-haters...Se. John McCain has explicity disavowed playing the race card or taking the low road generally. But he may not be able to resist casdoubt on Obama's patriotism."
Did you notice how the article attempts to disarm the GOP by admitting the facts about Obama, then using it as something the Republicans shouldn't and mustn't talk about? Discarding any discussion of his past as "politics as usual" or simply as ad hock racism?
Too bad Obama himself already played that card, in an attempt to disarm McCain as an "old-school politician," then playing the card himself.
The article embraces and accepts Obama's immunity claim uncritically. It equates legitimate criticisms of Obama with illegitimate smears, suggesting that all are equally unjust.
David Freddoso. "The Case Against Barack Obama: the Unlike Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate." Regenery Publishing. Washington, DC. 2008. p. 70-72, 77.
Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, sponsored by CNN and Univision, University of Texas at Austin, February 21, 2008.
Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, The Palace Theater, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, January 21, 2008.
Robert Novak, "McCain Stakes His Turf," Washington Post. May 22, 2008.
Rich Lowry, "Obama Rules," National Review Online. May 13, 2008.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVkMWIzOGQMzdmMzg4NWE0YzFINzQ0oTE0ZmQ0oDE=
Richard Wolfe and Evan Thomas, "Sit Back, Relax, get Ready to Rumble. Newsweek. May 19, 2008.
posted by Northern Exposer at 12:56
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home