4um: Obama's formulation is profoundly insulting

Title: Obama's formulation is profoundly insulting
Source: Sun-Journal Lewiston, Me
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 18, 2008
Author: Obama
Post Date: 2008-05-18 15:31:58 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 1651
Comments: 79

Obama's formulation is profoundly insulting

Barack Obama was caught saying something he believes.

At a San Francisco fundraiser, away from the prying eyes of the press, Obama reflected on why small-town voters in Pennsylvania and the Midwest seem resistant to his appeal. He said those areas had lost jobs for 25 years. Therefore, people "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti- immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama has apologized for his phrasing while defending the substance of his statement. And why not? He was retailing an article of left-wing orthodoxy going back centuries: that the working class is distracted by religion and other peripheral concerns from focusing on its economic interests and embracing socialism.

Versions of Obama's insight have been expounded by a world- famous 19th-century economist (Karl Marx), by a 1960s New Left philosopher (Herbert Marcuse) and by a best-selling contemporary liberal writer (Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?"), among many others. It's such a commonplace that Bubba- friendly Bill Clinton wrote in his memoir that Republicans wanted to undermine confidence in government so voters would be more receptive to "their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns."

At bottom, this is a profoundly insulting point of view. Consider Obama's formulation. He makes it sound like no one would be a hunter or a Christian absent economic distress, that economic circumstances drive people into such atavistic habits. Has he considered that some people simply enjoy hunting? And view the right to bear arms as a guarantor of American liberty? As they used to say, "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

The assumption is that only liberal attitudes are normal and well- adjusted: If only these small-town people could earn more income, get an advanced degree and move to a major metropolitan area, they could shed their chrysalis of social conservatism.

Obama prides himself on his civility, but it has to go much deeper than dulcet rhetoric. A fundamental courtesy of political debate is to meet the other side on its own terms. If someone says he cares about gun rights, it's rude to insist: "No, you don't. It's the minimum wage that you really care about, and you'd know it if you were more self-aware." But Democrats have an uncontrollable reflex to do just that. Since the McGovernite takeover of their party, they have struggled to work up enthusiasm for Middle American mores. (Since 1980, only Bill Clinton managed it, which is why he was the only Democrat elected president in three decades.)

When the liberal reflex is coupled with a Ivy League-educated candidate who seems personally remote and uncomfortable with everyday American activities, it's electoral poison. After the likes of Al Gore and John Kerry, Republicans had to be wondering, "Could Democrats possibly nominate yet another candidate easily portrayed as an out-of-touch elitist?" With Obama, Democrats appear to be responding with a resounding "Yes, we can!"

Obama brings a special measure of arrogance to the standard liberal critique of Middle America. His candidacy has always been characterized by two paradoxes. How can he be so hopeful at the same time he and his wife, Michelle, portray America as a sink-pit of despair? And how can he claim to be a uniter when he's an orthodox liberal who has risked little or nothing for bipartisan outreach?

Now, we know. Obama defines hopefulness as liberalism, specifically liberalism as embodied by himself. Only with Obama's election will America be redeemed from its harrowing false consciousness. We will be unified, not by Obama reaching out to conservatives to hammer out compromises, but by conservatives shedding their bitterness and becoming Obama liberals.

This is the underside of hope: arrogance fading into a secular messianism based on the fallenness of everyone who disagrees with Barack Obama. And it's small-town voters who are deluded?Rich Lowry is a syndicated columnist. He can be reached via e-mail at:

Blacklisted by History

by M. Stanton Evans

In standard histories of the so-called "Red Scare" of the 1950s, Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) is depicted as a lying bully who falsely named helpless victims in the U.S. State Department and other government bureaus as Communists or Soviet agents. Lying and baseless charges of subversion were the supposed essence of McCarthy's method. History has judged him such a loathsome figure that to this day, some fifty years after the Army-McCarthy hearings, people hurl the term "McCarthyism" to attack any perceived witch-hunt. But now, in Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy, veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans shows not only that this portrayal of McCarthy and his cases is mistaken -- but that virtually everything else that we've been told about McCarthy and his "era" is false.

Evans has spent more than a decade researching this book - poring over vast amounts of data that were unknown to the American public in the 1950s and that corroborate the case McCarthy was making then. Indeed, many of those people McCarthy named as Communists show up in the official records that were suppressed at the time -- and yet most of these individuals are still regarded as McCarthy's victims. And, while McCarthy is often accused of being a liar, Blacklisted by History exposes how the senator's opponents were covering up or even actively falsifying the factual record, and in some cases lying to the public.

Relying almost exclusively on primary source documents buried in U.S. government archives -- including troves of previously unexamined FBI files, formerly missing State Department records, telephone intercepts, and heretofore unknown data from congressional investigations - M. Stanton Evans has unearthed the hidden history of America's backstage Cold War. His astonishing findings reveal that McCarthy understood, far better than his opponents cared to admit, the insidious forces that posed a very real threat to American society and institutions.

A groundbreaking book based on exhaustive research, Blacklisted by History is much more than a look at the McCarthy era -- it is revealing investigation into how our view of history can so often be distorted.

I Googled the headline and came up with your precious URL. My service simply doesn't give them to me, but nevertheless, the validity is dead on.

Aha, so you were ashamed to let everyone know who the author of this crap was - Rich Lowry of the National Review and the Foxcrap News. Why did you hide it?

From the free Wikipedia: Lowry was born in Arlington, Virginia. He regularly appears on the Fox News Channel. He has guest-hosted on Hannity and Colmes on Fox & Friends, and is a guest panelist on Fox News Watch.

Look at the 'laws' that the quislings in D.C. have passed the last few years...back to George HW-NWO Bush.

You know what? They are leftist rats and were here to infest, disrupt and destroy.

Oh, and I never stated that I was a PhD. I could not overcome the disgust and join the commie party, which was a precondition for a PhD candidacy at that place and time so... I guess I'll die with just a graduate certificate.

LOL - I just stumbled upon a nice picture of the boy genius whose article you posted at the top of this thread.

You much prefer Amerika's OWM-World Socialism to your native Communism, so now you're here supporting an elitist racist Establishment-Marxist crack/cock smoker.

Being an Obama-bot makes you a leftist supporter, ergo, a socialist. Not to mention a piss poor researcher.

You were wrong alright. We just got a glimpse at the level of dishonesty with which you are attempted to manipulate the millions of innocent readers who visit this site.

To post crap written by a Hannity and Colmes and Fox and Friends and National Review contributor and HIDE IT???? It's unforgivable, my friend. But I caught you and your dishonesty has been fully exposed now.

So you paid $129 for crap. Then, you misled everybody by posting a thread were 'Obama', not Rich Lowry was listed as Author, today's date was entered for an an article that's more than one month old, provided no verifiable reference and NEVER indicated that the author was associated with the National Review and the Fox News.

why are you going after the messenger rather than debating the merits of what the author had to say? if you think what the author wrote is crap, then say why you think it's crap.

Did you look at the top of the thread? I absolutely wish to know where (and when) the article came from.

a vast rightwing conspirator posted on 2008-05-18 16:10:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit #2. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#1)

HighBeam research, dude. No url available; I've already told you this but it obviously hasn't set in yet.....

Spring for the annual fee before Obama confiscates your coin and redistributes it to the needy. __________________________________

Dr. JT seems to be hiding something. The content, by the way, is pretty pedestrian. Nothing to talk about. Yes, some people who lose their jobs get bitter. Some go on shooting sprees. No news there.

The news was that Dr. JR is peddling some worthless article and he seems to be hiding the identity of the source - a Fox News and National Review contributor. When he is politely asked to reveal the source of the text, he gets a bit nervous.

For the 12th time, the service I use didn't provide me the author, or his affiliation other than the source of the article. Subscribe and I'll be proven correct.

As if Barrack Mohammed Hussein Obama the Elitist-Racist-Marxist-Zbig-Establishment POS that you knob polish daily is SOMEHOW 'worse' than wretched Moloch-Murdoch's Faux News...you should apologize to Christine and then go suck on a tail pipe until you've made the world just a little bit better.

And, again, if this is the case, then they are not worth the subscription. They could be feeding you quotes from Osama without you knowing and you may end up at Gitmo for the rest of your life because you spread Alqueda propaganda even though you were innocent.

Notice the distractions? What happened to the topic? And how is it that I, a lowly community college "graduate" can see the topic derailed?

Someone tried to stir the pot once more, posting a month-plus old article, coming from a fabricator of propaganda on a stupid issue - Obama claiming that people who lose their ability to earn a living get 'bitter'. Then, someone added that Obama also called someone 'sweetie'.

By the way, I never claimed being a PhD. The author of this thread made that accusation.

gets a bit nervous? you're just being silly. JT explained to you several times that HighBeam doesn't provide the URLs to the articles. then when you asked him to provide it, he did. there was no dishonesty. so you don't like the author. fine. again, debate the merits (or not) of the content of the article.

Well, it isn't the works of Marx, but it does have more credibility with anyone engaged in serious debate.

the article is an OPINION by Rich Lowry. he is giving his opinion of Obama's comments and point of view. and, by the way, there isn't a journalist or commentator alive who couldn't be labeled a fabricator of propaganda by someone (s)! i suppose you've never posted an article or opinion piece a month or older? you're grasping at straws and getting hysterical, vast.

And so is his suggesting that my wife was a man, that I was overcome with white guilt... I don't pay attention to all the ad hominem charges because they don't mean a thing. And all because he was unwilling to reveal the identity of this piece's author and possibly the date.

Now, can anyone tell me what was wrong with Obama stating that some of the people who lose their jobs get 'bitter'? I know that Hillary, after researching the topic, claimed that people who lose their jobs get 'energized' and then vote for Hillary. But I am willing to hear what is so terribly wrong with the observation that some of the people who lose their jobs don't feel good about it. My company is in the middle of a massive outsourcing campaign and, I can tell you, I see people bitter even BEFORE they lose their jobs.

Of course, everything that I write is my opinion. And I do post opinion pieces and I also identify their authors, I post links to their work and I enter the correct date of publication, when known.

Is there a difference between opinion and propaganda? Yes, there is. Propaganda are communications disguised as opinions but meant to serve the interests of the state or of an institutional party. Examples of propaganda are the retired generals secretly coached by the Pentagon and then dispatched to various media outlets. I suspect that most of the Fox News contributors are propagandists, serving either the GOP party or the Bush regime. It is important to identify them as the authors of their work.

I see that JT is now suggesting that I was 'a mole'. If he doesn't believe in what he states, than he is dishonest. If he does, then his cognitive abilities are not up to some minimum standard.

By the way, I have to agree that this entire discussion is a waste of everyone's time. There's nothing to learn from this thread, other than the fact that JT is either dishonest or maybe a little bit slow and this is not something worth learning.

Note that, while he and the monkey I filtered out who seems to be his sidekick are calling me all kinds of nice names, I do not call him a FRetard, or a Bushbot, or a Dittohead and I do not suggest that he is sexually attracted to German Shepherds of the male persuasion even though any of the above would be a legitimate suspicion, knowing what we know.

Hey monkey pig, I'll gladly tell you exactly what you are and to your face you eff wad.

you're right because it's degenerated into ugly name calling which i believe you started by calling JT 'a dirty asshole' and accusing him of intentionally misleading. if you'll recall, you got the same treatment with your 'Breaking Hard: Ron Paul Supports Obama' thread and i'm sure you didn't appreciate that.

Being dismissively called a "sweetie" for asking a very important question would piss me off too. Moreso, because I am a man and I do not want another man to use that term on me.

Evidently he didnt want his precious photo op to be disturbed. He had MORE IMPORTANT things to do. What does that tell me? That tells me he doesn't give a rats hiney about anything except getting his hand shaked and to be patted on the back.

The babe Obama called 'sweetie' specifically said that she was NOT pissed or upset or anything. It was the busybodies watching over our public correctness that bitched about it.

I did not 'start' this. I called him a dirty asshole AFTER he called my wife a 'he', in other words calling me a HOMO.

You're welcome to my password and acct name for an hour just to validate the URL bitch you took to an extreme.