See other Editorial Articles
Title: First thoughts on the election
Source:
The Occidental Observer
URL Source: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.co ... al-FirstThoughts.html#thoughts
Published: Nov 5, 2008
Author: editorial staff
Post Date: 2008-11-05 12:39:12 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 291
Comments: 27
It would seem to be the worst of all possible results—an Obama presidency and much larger Democratic majorities in Congress. What can't be erased is the picture of adoring white faces in the crowd at Grant Park in Chicago during Obama's victory speech. They were the faces of people who had just been granted racial deliverance. Hanging on his every word, on the verge of tears of joy. Granted, these pathetic white people do not represent the majority of white people. The CNN exit poll data indicate that 55% of whites voted for McCain, including 57% of white males and 53% of white females. In the 2004 election, 58% of whites voted for Bush. The only white age group to vote for Obama was the 18–29 year old category—a category still under the sway of the educational system and filled with youthful idealism. 54% of them voted for Obama. Quite a few of them will grow out of it by the time they are 30—much sooner if they begin to see that the job market is stacked against them and that the Obama administration is pushing quotas. But the bottom line is that McCain could not hold Bush's advantage among whites. This is doubtless due to the extreme unpopularity of the Bush administration—an administration that not only gave us the disastrous neocon war in Iraq but also did absolutely nothing to win the affection of its base by standing up on issues like immigration. And McCain campaign labored under the economic crisis that, in the public's mind at least, was linked to the Bush administration. There is no question that a lot of white people put their economic fears ahead of anything else. In an economy where good jobs with good benefits are increasingly difficult to find for working people, one has to sympathize. This is another area where the Bush administration did nothing to help its natural constituency. Nevertheless, the Republican Party remains a white party. Whites represented almost 90% of Republican votes cast in this election. Minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama (95% of blacks, 66% of Latinos, 61% of Asians) (The LA Times says only 30% of Latinos voted for McCain — this despite McCain being the Republican poster boy for amnesty for illegals.) So much for Karl Rove's idea of expanding the Republican vote by favoring mass immigration of non-whites. In fact, the big change between 2004 and 2008 is that much higher percentages of minorities voted for Obama than voted for Kerry (88% blacks, 53% Latino, 56% Asian). This shift in the direction of the Democrats is quite a bit greater than the shift among white people. Even though whites were less racially polarized in this election, there is little question that the Democrats have become the party of the minorities. And the electorate itself was less white (77% in 2004, 74% in 2008). The clock keeps ticking. In a previous editorial, we suggested that if Obama were to achieve a landslide victory, it would lead to immediate and drastic change desired by the far left. The landslide did not materialize, and no one is suggesting a mandate for drastic change. We suspect that the new administration will tread lightly and attempt to retain its white constituency by not openly advocating quotas or other issues that needlessly alienate whites. That is perhaps their best strategy for retaining power for two terms. But such a strategy must go up against increased expectations among blacks and other minorities that their time has come. The problem for Obama and the Democrats is that white discrimination against blacks and Latinos is pretty much irrelevant to their achievement patterns. Group differences in IQ and impulse control are far larger contributors, and Obama's election is not going to change these traits. So in the end, the only way that Obama can satisfy his black and Latino constituents is to get results by implementing programs like quota-style affirmative action and transfer payments that will alienate whites in droves. A true post-racial leader would fight discrimination while working to convince blacks and Latinos to accept their lower socio-economic positions as an inevitable outcome of a free market. But quite obviously, the probability of that happening is right up there with pigs flying and hell freezing over. In the end, we think that in the long run Obama's election will indeed contribute to the racial polarization of the country. Our day will come.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
#2. To: X-15 (#0)
Interesting. He writes a racially polarizing article, but doesn't want racial polarization? Perhaps he might look to W as a possible reason obama was (s)elected. How many left the repukes because of him? How many decided that it would be a frosty day in "hell" before they ever vote for another repuke? If obama was white, he still would have won.
If he were white with his background and his refusal to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate when his own grandmother said he was born in Kenya, he would never have even gotten as far as state senator, let alone President. A white man as stupid as he seems to be might get a job as a janitor in the state house somewhere but that's about it.
And mccains medical records? How about smirks .mil records. Cheneys medical records? IIRC, they werent released either. It's always been about style over substance. At least from the '60s to the present. And omama has style, mccain doesn't. There weren't too many pro-mccain people. They were just anti-obama. And I bet a sizable majority of the whites that voted for obama were not for him, but were anti-bush. Doesn't matter. This country is done for. edit to add: Since you brought up obamas birth cert., wouldn't it make sense that mccain would have brought this up if there was something to it? If the election was legit, that is...
You are wrong about McCain and W. They both released their health and military service records. Obama is the only presidential candidate in the past 3 elections who refused to release his medical records. 1. Al Gork did it in 1999. articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/16/news/mn-44497 "Gore’s Health ‘Outstanding,’ Doctors Say" 2. W released his medical and service records in 2000 and 2004. www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT....texas.records/index.html 3. Kerry released his medical and service records in 2005 www.boston.com/news/natio...military_medical_records/ 4. McCain released his medical and service records on May 07, 2008 and May 23, 2008 elections.foxnews.com/200...rds-detail-commendations/ deathby1000papercuts.com/...-obamas-dont-tell-policy/ "Barack Obama Medical Records:The Unreleased Medical Records and The Mainstream Media Double Standard" Barack Obama's missing medical records “No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.” –New York Times, on John McCain in May 4 2008 “Missing Records” Many were the words written about John McCain and his medical records. That he delayed in releasing them, that his health records were crucial to the public’s right to know. After McCain released nearly 1200 pages of medical records–the Arizona Senator not only had war-related injuries, but also bouts with skin cancer–the Mainstream Media complained that reporters were not given enough time to go through McCain’s records: they were given three hours to look through them. Three hours is far less time than it would take those same reporters to go through Barack Obama’s medical records that have been released. Because there are none. The Obama campaign has stated that no medical records will be released. Instead, a one-page undated letter from a doctor will have to satisfy reporters on that issue. The Mainstream Media’s curiosity has been satisfied: there have been no calls for Barack Obama to release medical records. The New York Times on Barack Obama in May: The letter is the first publicly released information about Mr. Obama’s medical history or current condition. The six-paragraph, one-page statement summarized the senator’s health for the last 21 years and was signed by Dr. David L. Scheiner, who said he has been Mr. Obama’s primary care physician since March 23, 1987. The undated letter was released less than a week after Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, released his medical records. A spokesman for Mr. Obama said his campaign would not make Dr. Scheiner available for a telephone interview.” –New York Times, May 8 2008, “Obama’s Doctor, Praising His Health, Sees No Obstacles to Service” Legion were the stories written assuring readers that “Barack Obama is in excellent health”. That’s great, then why not release the records? Other presidential candidates have assured the MSM that they were in “excellent health”, too. It depends where your starting point is. I would say, yes, if you’re looking at the history of say, presidential candidates or candidates for high office. In the past, White House physicians have been known to lie; candidates for president or nominees have been known to evade the truth, distort the facts, or lie. You’ve got Woodrow Wilson with a stroke and his wife allegedly running the affairs of the country; you’ve got Franklin Roosevelt who may or may not have been told how deathly ill he was in his last term, and certainly nothing was told to the country about it; you’ve got Kennedy every which way not acknowledging that he had Addison’s disease; you had [Thomas] Eagleton who had to leave the [Democratic] ticket in ‘72 because he didn’t tell [George] McGovern about his past history of electric-shock therapy and depression; and there was [Paul] Tsongas in the mid-1990s and the fact that he had a recurrence after they had maintained that he was cured of cancer. –Lawrence Altman, Covering Candidates’ Medical Records Barack Obama stands alone in the last three elections as the only candidate to not release medical records to the public. Gore did it in 1999: Gore’s Health ‘Outstanding,’ Doctors Say Bush released medical and service records in 2000 and again in 2004: Bush releases his Vietnam-era military files Though there were some questions, Kerry released records in 2004: Kerry allows Navy release of military, medical records The MSM interest in George Bush’s records was so intense in 2004, it lead CBS News and Dan Rather to report on forged records–though they weren’t identified as such until the blogosphere pointed out the forgery. What is in those medical records? DBKP does not pretend to know–most likely nothing of interest. But we can’t report that: we don’t know. No one but the Obama campaign knows and they’re not saying. The medical records join Obama’s college and university records as parts of the candidate’s past that is off-limits. We won’t address the senator’s birth records: that’s another subject. The refusal to release the medical records–as well as other information that Joe Sixpack has to provide–only leads to suspicions that only the Obama campaign can quiet. The refusal of the Obama campaign to release records any American has to provide to secure employment is a puzzler: Obama promises “change” and “hope” and transparency. The Obama campaign can demonstrate its commitment to transparency by releasing those records most American have to pony up every time they are interviewed for a job. by Mondo Frazier
Well, all Obama refuses to release are the medical records that would show us whether he is actually healthy or not--not that I actually care all that much except that I think he has some mental issues like Narcissistic Personality Disorder--; his college records which would prove to us that he is either the genius he wants everyone to believe or the average man who got where he is through connections, not brain power; thesis paper; Selective Service Registration, and a CERTIFIED COPY OF ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Obama isn't releasing a LOT of stuff but there are a couple of things there, especially that birth certificate, that he should be compelled to produce if he wants the chair at 1600.
Too late, Bubba Clinton set the precedent when he refused to release his medical records or answer any questions about his trip(s) behind the Iron Curtain back in the early 1970's. The MSM couldn't raise any questions about personal background after that shameful chapter in their history.
bump
Are the neocons gone yet?
That's it, neocons belong in the political dumpster.
There are no replies to Comment # 27. End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIn the end, we think that in the long run Obama's election will indeed contribute to the racial polarization of the country.
#13. To: PSUSA (#2)
(Edited)
If obama was white, he still would have won.
#17. To: James Deffenbach (#13)
(Edited)
If he were white with his background and his refusal to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate when his own grandmother said he was born in Kenya, he would never have even gotten as far as state senator, let alone President. A white man as stupid as he seems to be might get a job as a janitor in the state house somewhere but that's about it.
#18. To: PSUSA, James Deffenbach (#17)
And mccains medical records? How about smirks .mil records.
#19. To: scrapper2 (#18)
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#19)
Obama isn't releasing a LOT of stuff but there are a couple of things there, especially that birth certificate, that he should be compelled to produce if he wants the chair at 1600.
#25. To: All (#22)
#26. To: X-15 (#25)
#27. To: hondo68 (#26)
Replies to Comment # 27.