Dear America,you would think it would be the progressives out front on this...
you would think it would be all about looking ahead, not back...
you would think it would be personified in ushering in a new era through election, by the people and for the people, celebrating the first black American president -- and thereby, catapulting America into a brand new world all over again, reveling in the New American Heritage Dictionary's definition of a more perfect union...finally.
But then again, maybe it's just me.
Having said that -- and purely upon the merits -- this girl could not vote for this president.
For the record, perhaps the only thing this girl appreciated of this man before he became president was what seemed to be a natural eloquence when framing his dreams and visions of one America, under God and according to the Rule of Law. This president was, and is, very good at it.
Until perhaps now.
No, now he is just making a mockery of both position and principles.
Here's the entire paragraph plucked from The New Yorker, the puff piece getting all the buzz, expressly written by David Remnick: On and Off the Road with Barack Obama --
Obama’s election was one of the great markers in the black freedom struggle. In the electoral realm, ironically, the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation. Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history. The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama’s drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters. “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.” The latter group has been less in evidence of late.
Let's regroup, shall we?
74% of the voters in 2008 election were white. Obama gained 43% of that voting share (McCain got 55%) . Last I checked, without that white vote of nearly half, Obama would not have been elected, or re-elected in 2012.
Perhaps equally telling, is what comes in the statements immediately thereafter:
"There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country, and sometimes it’s hard to disentangle those issues,” he went on. “You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government—that it’s distant, that it’s bureaucratic, that it’s not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments. But what’s also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states’ rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There’s a pretty long history there. And so I think it’s important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there’s some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans. The flip side is I think it’s important for conservatives to recognize and answer some of the problems that are posed by that history, so that they understand if I am concerned about leaving it up to states to expand Medicaid that it may not simply be because I am this power-hungry guy in Washington who wants to crush states’ rights but, rather, because we are one country and I think it is going to be important for the entire country to make sure that poor folks in Mississippi and not just Massachusetts are healthy."
The president continually holds the present day accountable according to the way it was, not the way it is -- "But what’s also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states’ rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There’s a pretty long history there."
"Obviously," he says. You could be one of those people -- you know, those who legitimately see government growing too big -- BUT that would just be plain wrong, or misguided, at best.
"The flip side is I think it’s important for conservatives to recognize and answer some of the problems that are posed by that history..."
Which is hilarious, considering that much of that "history" came at the hands and lawlessness of the southern, liberal, white democrat, coming at a time well after a Republican White president -- Abraham Lincoln -- took this country to hell and back on behalf of preserving civil rights for all Americans!
Before he was elected, this president was neither "red America" or "blue America," but imagining America to be the color purple. Moreover, whether or not he was On or Off the Road, Barack Obama didn't seem to be about black America or white America, at all -- for this was the very reason why America fell for him so hard and so fast. Obama lived the embodiment of two worlds, melded into a statesman over time and history and ultimately making way for an American milestone. (Or so we thought.)
Today, now more often off base and entirely off his inaugural message of unification and assimilation and affirmation of American ideals, in principle and in action -- this president leads by false premises and empty promises and now force, as this president declares allegiance to his pen and phone.
Here's an interesting turnabout, and seems to fit quite nicely with this discussion...
Courtesy of the Drudge Report, here's a link to an article on WND by Garth Kant: Liberal Icon urges Obama's Impeachment.
Telling WND, [Nat Hentoff] "firmly believed the president does not care about due process, the separation of powers, the concept of a self-governing republic or many other basic American ideals." And adding, "what Obama is doing now is about as un-American as you can get."
"Apparently he doesn’t give one damn about the separation of powers," Hentoff said.
Obviously, this girl added.
This is why, David Remnick, "Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history." Presidency by Executive Order is prohibitive; no matter the color of the skin, it goes against the character of who we are.
A good friend of mine, someone I see almost daily, said to me that she was soooo excited for Hillary -- feeling free to add, this country needs a woman president... that all things considered, it would be about damn time, blah blah blah... wouldn't she do a better job at it...blah blah blah.
And I just about bit her head off.
Oh the willpower it took.
I stopped for a few deep breaths and then...
promptly bit her head off.
It's like c'mon! ! Are you kidding me? You would settle for this "what difference at this point does it make" liar to reconcile the playing field, as if to give some kind of time and context warped feminine mystic a chance? Are you serious? A woman who decidedly chose to 'stand by her' man, over and over and over again, presumably for political gains under grotesque public shames -- as his philandering little billy played hide and seek with various cohorts? Or how about the Clinton's being drowned in controversies, even before taking the Oath of Office?
The thing is -- this gal couldn't care less about any of it; she felt it was just time for a woman and that this woman -- Hillary -- seemed to have paid her dues and earned it, no matter where the arguments on the merits were to lead. Woman to woman, hear me roar -- this makes me want to puke.
Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of women -- white, black, Hispanic, Asian, other -- voted for Barack Obama, too.
Some may have voted for him because he is a liberal, while for some, even better, because he is a progressive; but for some -- if we are going to be honest (including 95% of the black vote) -- they voted for him because he IS black -- and surely many because he was not an old white, conservative male, right girls?
And anywho, just like the president said -- "There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President...Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.” What's the big deal in that, right -- no harm, no foul.
[Something not covered in any stat, however, is taking into account how cute Obama is...now that would be telling, oooh baby baby, oooh baby baby...but I digress.]
Obviously, Michelle frowns upon us voting by sex appeal.
But just to clear up any lingering confusion, Mr. President -- when you say, with regards to some folks who really don't like you, that it's just because they don't like the idea of a black president -- you are clinging to a history shared with however many other stupid Americans. And that is simply placing ignorance before progress. Thanks for setting us up for taking us another fifty years back. [And how ironic, given this news broke on the Honorable Reverend Martin Luther King holiday.]
I happen to like the idea of a black president....even a black woman president -- as long as that idea comes with conservative principles, an honest track record, a solid plan for America's future, and clings to the Rule of Law, wholeheartedly -- without apology, without ceasing, and with a whole lot of Divine Providence leading the way. For without ALL of that coming together in one idea -- he's just another arrogant, shortsighted, empty, powerless man thinking he's in charge of the world anywhere from four to eight years.
Make it a Good Day, G