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: 1660
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:

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.

So you're using some 'search engine' that spits out some impossible to verify output? What kind of crap is this?

Oh, I forgot. Any search engine that spits out web stuff without URL's is a crappy search engine. The boring, 10-times regurgitated piece that you posted doesn't even identify an author. Or... did it just emerge via spontaneous generation?

See what's happening? You posted some stupid piece of nonsense unreferenced and with no author and now you find yourself completely incapable to defend your activities and are showing yourself for the dirty asshole that you are.

And if you are paying $129 for that crappy engine well... have you heard of those Nigerian treasures, waiting for someone like you to pick?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Obama's formulation is profoundly insulting

What is HighBeam Research?

More than 60 million articles – all in one online library

Who uses our articles, journals, and online reference library?