I'm not a big fan of Sean Hannity, but he definitely ate this guy's lunch. What's more important, however, is the mentality of too many of our youth; aka the "leaders of tomorrow." If this mentality prevails in the rising generation, is there anything but anarchy in our future? The "free love" hippies of the 60s and 70s are the Progressive bureaucrats and international corporatists that are "transforming" America today. Left unchecked, their misguided and entitlement-minded progeny will "lead" the nation "forward" into outright anarchy or social justice and economic tyranny tomorrow. Have a look
Friday, May 4, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
"Romney Effect" Boosts Economic Outlook
Of course, Obamanites will protest: "Wait a minute, if you're going to blame Obama for the recession (which of course was ALL Dubya's fault) then you've got to give him credit for the run-around...er...I mean turn-around!"
WRONG-O DONKEY BREATH! We Americans are a resilient bunch. The recovery was inevitable from the day the Federal Government lost their grip and screwed the pooch in the first place. We ALWAYS pick ourselves up and move on. No thanks necessary to FDR, GW Bush, BH Obama, or anyone else. It's just a matter of how we do it and how long it takes. And for that, the Washington frat boys deserve far more of the blame!
"Okay!" they bray, "Then what the crap has Romney done to deserve any credit? He's just a candidate, and a lousy one, at that!"
Excellent question! To which I answer, 'Absolutely nothing...yet. Which is far more than Obama has done to help the situation.'
But here's the truth. Obama and Democrats, with a fair dose of help from big government Republicans have done just about everything wrong since Obama took office. Even before that, both the growth and explosion of the housing bubble which precipitated the recession, can be laid squarely at their feet. Dating back to Jimmy Carter and accelerated by William Jeff, the affordable housing initiatives forced lenders (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) to extend copious amounts of credit to people who clearly, were unqualified. Of course, the banks resisted at first, but with Uncle Sam holding out an open checkbook and promising to back the risky loans, they figured, "what the hell?" That's kinda like handing a shot of whiskey to an alcoholic and acting surprised when he drinks it! So the party was on.
Washington is notorious for making all the wrong decisions when it comes to "managing the economy" which they have no business doing in the first place. That's why the best results accrue when they DE-manage; like Reagan deregulation, de-taxation, and de-federalization (aka privitization) or Gingrich/GOP style welfare reform and budget reform.
The prospect of de-management or UN-federalizing the economy via the repeal of Obamacare, reduction of federal agencies and programs and constructive tax reform as is portended by the prospect of a conservative administration under President Romney, has markets hoping for better future outcomes and hence, beginning to move again. It is, indeed, the Romney Effect!
A Shameless Plea for Followers
 |
| Bruce Ackerman, Blogger |
Read a few of my articles and if you agree that, whether or not you agree with my conclusions, the expressions are at least civil, rational, fair-minded, and engaging, please follow my blog and share both my commentary and your own thoughts about it with those in your online circles.
Your participation will encourage my commentary, which will in turn, hopefully, stimulate ever more constructive dialog and ultimately, influence. Let us reason together!
In Liberty!
Bruce Ackerman
The Rational Conservative
Thursday, April 5, 2012
The Irony of Santorum's "Success"
Rick Santorum has enjoyed an almost incomprehensible wave of support in the GOP Primary over the last 2 or 3 months. But the bloom is clearly off the rose and Rick's popularity is going the way of so many of his predecessors in the on-again/off-again fight for front-runner status against the indomitable Mitt Romney.
In hindsight, the Santorum factor isn't as inexplicable as it first appears. Santorum's strength came not from his own conservative virtues, but from the "vices" of his competitor anti-Mitts. Rick Perry torched himself with poor debate performances and a serious illegal immigration faux pas. Herman Caine became embroiled in allegations of sexual scandal. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann fell to ridicule from the left and a lack of personal gravitas, and late-comer Jon Huntsman never got off the ground. Ron Paul doesn't play ball in the Mitt/not-Mitt tournament and stands apart with a loyal, but too-small constituency to factor in the contest.
Newt Gingrich, alone, offered voters a quasi-viable not-Mitt alternative to Ricky. With the appeal of "big ideas" (code for big government solutions) and a big mouth for debate, Newt captured the imagination of the anti-Mitts and flared into front-runner status for a fleeting moment. But he soon withered under the heat of scrutiny when his big negatives were exposed as well. And yes, you can credit Romney for shining the light on the dark side of Gingrich's moon in a great practice expedition for the Obama contest.
So Santorum rose again; like a Phoenix out of the ashes of his self-destructed brethren (and sister). But it was only after all the other options burned out. Let's face it, where else were the anti-Mitts to go? Ricky has made the egocentric assumption that it was a warm pro-Santorum wind that blew him into contention, and not the chilly anti-establishment backdraft. But he is wrong! Santorum is now the victim of the very voters he courted so successfully. Having campaigned as the quintessential "Not Mitt" candidate, that's now ALL he has going for him, and the voters are beginning to see that it's a a few thousand straws short of a bale.
Former Senator Santorum is now sinking fast even in his home state of Pennsylvania where some polls have him trailing the Gov. Pundits are pushing him to get out, if only to save himself for a future Presidential bid. But I predict that in or out; win or lose in PA, Santorum is a sunken dinghy. He's a candidate with limited appeal; mostly to those who care ONLY about social issues and the trappings of moral courage, but who lack the courage themselves to take a close look under the hood. Santorum is the real faux conservative in the race. Just look at his voting record.
In a future contest, if you stack Santorum up against likely GOP rivals like Marco Rubio, Governor Christy, or even Rand Paul, Santorum doesn't stand a chance. No, Santorum's days as a national candidate are numbered. And that's probably pretty rational, as well.
 |
| "Sweater Man" Sinks in Recent Polls |
Newt Gingrich, alone, offered voters a quasi-viable not-Mitt alternative to Ricky. With the appeal of "big ideas" (code for big government solutions) and a big mouth for debate, Newt captured the imagination of the anti-Mitts and flared into front-runner status for a fleeting moment. But he soon withered under the heat of scrutiny when his big negatives were exposed as well. And yes, you can credit Romney for shining the light on the dark side of Gingrich's moon in a great practice expedition for the Obama contest.
So Santorum rose again; like a Phoenix out of the ashes of his self-destructed brethren (and sister). But it was only after all the other options burned out. Let's face it, where else were the anti-Mitts to go? Ricky has made the egocentric assumption that it was a warm pro-Santorum wind that blew him into contention, and not the chilly anti-establishment backdraft. But he is wrong! Santorum is now the victim of the very voters he courted so successfully. Having campaigned as the quintessential "Not Mitt" candidate, that's now ALL he has going for him, and the voters are beginning to see that it's a a few thousand straws short of a bale.
Former Senator Santorum is now sinking fast even in his home state of Pennsylvania where some polls have him trailing the Gov. Pundits are pushing him to get out, if only to save himself for a future Presidential bid. But I predict that in or out; win or lose in PA, Santorum is a sunken dinghy. He's a candidate with limited appeal; mostly to those who care ONLY about social issues and the trappings of moral courage, but who lack the courage themselves to take a close look under the hood. Santorum is the real faux conservative in the race. Just look at his voting record.
In a future contest, if you stack Santorum up against likely GOP rivals like Marco Rubio, Governor Christy, or even Rand Paul, Santorum doesn't stand a chance. No, Santorum's days as a national candidate are numbered. And that's probably pretty rational, as well.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Official Endorsement: Romney (aka "Obama Light") for President 2012
Earlier in the contest I gave my support to the most ideologically pure candidate in the race, Ron Paul. Ok, I supported Newt for a little while, too, but forget that! Today, I'm formally switching my allegiance to Mitt Romney and asking all my conservative compatriots to do the same. What has led me to this radically "moderate" position? Nothing more or less than my deeply conservative ideals:
1. Although I believe Ron Paul is officially right about 97.8% of the time, and I support his libertarian fidelity to the US Constitution wholeheartedly, I don't believe he has the leadership skills to build a meaningful consensus for his ideas that would allow him to govern effectively and move national policy forward in a more conservative way. In fact, I can see a potential reversal of fortunes in 4 years if he were somehow elected. See my earlier blog post on this topic to learn more. Further, it's clear at this point that Paul has no chance of winning the nod. It's time to unite against Obama and the Democrats around the winner, as a matter of practical political strategy.
2. The most damaging influences on the current and future economy and our libertarian way of life in the US are the crushing debt, overreaching regulation, and out of control spending in Washington--especially on entitlements. The Federal Government has become too large and too unaccountable to manage. There is little political will on Capitol Hill to rein it in; yet if we fail to do so, our way of life will certainly come to an end.
Mitt Romney has consistently demonstrated a passionate commitment to individual and states rights and responsibility--and to using the FREE MARKET to solve economic and social problems, not by confiscating the wealth of the people through a top-down, dictatorial Federal bureaucracy. Mitt will facilitate economic growth by creating a regulatory environment that empowers individuals and businesses to pursue their self-interest to the benefit of all. That's conservative.
3. Mitt Romney is a proven LEADER and problem solver. He has been able, like perhaps no other recent politician in America, to reform and repair failing institutions and policies in both business and government, by reaching across ideological boundaries and building coalitions to achieve the right ends with integrity, transparency, and win/win solutions based on conservative principles.
He has also proven he can make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions in order to achieve the right result for the largest number of people. He has successfully repaired broken businesses and returned them to profitability and growth, has turned a state deficit into a surplus, turned a bankrupt and scandal-ridden Olympics into a proud and profitable international triumph on the heels of the 911 downturn, and created over 100,000 jobs directly; possibly millions indirectly. And yes, he devised a market driven healthcare reform solution for MA that empowered consumers, created more choice, not less, did NOT raise taxes, and placed RESPONSIBILITY for care on those receiving care. Though I'm not fond of the mandate, I understand it, as did the Heritage Foundation, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, among countless others at the time. This solution had broad bi-partisan support and despite numerous recent changes that Mitt would NOT have supported, is still very popular with the majority of the people in liberal Massachusetts. Mitt also used the VETO pen over 800 times in his state, to keep his heavily Democratic legislature in check.
4. Mitt Romney is a man of intelligence, reason, and sound character with a strong spiritual core. He's a person in whom we, the people, can have confidence. Were he the person of vacillating values and principles that his political adversaries portray, he could never have achieved what he has in his personal, business, and political lives. As one who shares his "peculiar" religious faith and who has worked closely with several ecclesiastical leaders therein, I know something of the depth of his commitment to Christian service; the personal care and concern he's undoubtedly shown to families in financial crisis, divorce, crises of faith, health challenges, death, and probably out-of-wedlock pregnancies and adoptions. Anything but aloof and impersonal, Mitt Romney is invariably described by those close to him as a deeply caring, cheerful, supportive, and helpful person--both empathetic and strong--both anchor and rudder. He has shown a lifetime of fidelity to faith, family, and country that projects a solid core of values upon which this nation can rely.
5. Mitt can win. I am a pragmatic conservative. While his competitors like to remind us that Mitt has failed to gain majority support among GOP Primary voters, they conveniently "forget" that their respective failures to do so are far more extreme. (See Election By the Numbers here.) They "blame" Mitt's organization and finances for his success, but aren't those the very virtues we'll need to beat Obama? And don't we want a candidate who has proven he can organize a winning campaign--or a winning SOMETHING--before we thrust him into the Oval Office? Mitt runs neck 'n neck with the President in poll after poll, sometimes edging him out and sometimes falling a point or two short, but almost always at least within the margin of error; and that's without ANY campaigning directly against Obama, and under constant bashing from the right and the left. Virtually "everyone" sees Mitt as the most electable GOP candidate, and were he to win the nomination, he'd make Obama look like an ignorant, inexperienced, petulant child.
6. Mitt proclaims a message of genuine hope and confidence in the American spirit, libertarian philosophy, and our "rugged individualist" way of life. He speaks of restoring this nation to her former greatness--not through any "BIG IDEAS" of governance, but by returning the power and responsibility for the future legacy of America to We the People, on the proven Constitutional principles that made us who we are. That IS the essence of America and the experiment in liberty that we represent. It's also pure conservatism.
Dubbed "Obama Light" by his political foes, I endorse Mitt Romney for President in 2012. But the monicker is a misnomer. Mitt's record is as stark a contrast to Barack Obama's as anyone in the field with the possible exception of Ron Paul. That makes him far more electable; and that's as rational as it gets.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
BruceNotes March 29th - By the Numbers, Waters, Obamacare & More
Maxine Waters Spills
I couldn't help but LMArmO this morning when I heard a clip of Maxine Waters saying, in the same breath, "There are too many unanswered questions [to rush to judgment] and I personally believe this is a hate crime," in an interview about the Treyvon Martin case.
Don't get me wrong, I'm taking no "political" position on this tragic case. A 17 year old kid is dead--completely unnecessarily, as far as I can tell. That's enough to make it a seriously damned shame no matter what the circumstances that resulted in Martin's demise. A young life representing all the promise of tomorrow, regardless of the past, has been cut down prematurely.
But it's inexcusable for ANYONE to trade on this horrible mishap for the express purpose of stirring up racial division as Waters, Sharpton, Jackson, the New Black Panthers, and others are doing. Worse, they were doing it before almost any of the facts were in. And now that it's clear that the story is not so "black and white," they seem to be hardening their position, instead of softening it, when the right thing to do for Treyvon, his family, and the larger picture of race relations in America, is to reserve judgment until all the obtainable facts are in.
I continue to be amazed at how archaic the view of these radical racial activists. You'd think we were still living in the sixties. They all seem to yearn for the 'good ole days' of Malcom X and Martin Luther King, despite the fact that thanks largely to those icons' efforts, the bulk of the country has long since left those old racial divisions behind. And that's rational!
Election by the Numbers - Two Can Play This Game
I admit to being pretty fed up with the Romney/Anti-Romney paradigm in the GOP Primary. Newt and Ricky keep sounding the drum that Romney has failed to get a majority of the vote--that over half the GOP electorate want someone else.
Well have they bothered to run those numbers on their own campaigns?! Here's how the delegats stack up at this point in time:
Romney: 565 Delegates out of 1028. That's 55% for Romney, 45% for Not Romney (a clear majority!)
Santorum: 256 Delegates out of 1028. That's 25% for Ricky, 75% for Not Ricky (halfway to 2nd base)
Gingrich: 141 Delegates out of 1028. That's 14% for Newt, 86% for Not Newt (not even on the field)
Paul: 66 Delegates out of 1028. That's 6% for Ron Paul, 94% for Not Paul. (completely outa town)
Popular vote totals are a bit tighter, but here's how it looks right now:
Romney: 4,127,917; Not Romney: 6,142,300; Total: 10,270,217; Romney 40% Not Romney 60%
Santorum: 2,850,546 Not Santorum: 7,419,671 Total: 10,270,217; Santorum 28% Not Santorum 72%
Gingrich: 2,212,001; Not Gingrich: 8,058,216; Total: 10,270,217; Gingrich 22% Not Gingrich 78%
Paul: 1,079,753; Not Paul: 9,190,464; Total: 10,270,217; Paul 11% Not Paul 89%
So after all this time, 72% of the voters want someone other than Santorum. Almost 80% want someone besides Gingrich (and he's been making the "not-Romney" noise the loudest). And about 90% of Republican Primary voters want someone other than Paul.
Although Romney has yet to gain a majority of the popular vote, he is clearly the candidate of choice for the largest plurality of voters and has a shorter distance to go to gain majority status, than Santorum currently has to reach Romney's present 40% endorsement. So let's stop playing games. Whether you love it or not, Mitt is the MAN. Let's get behind our guy and BEAT OBAMA to save this nation. That IS rational!
Obamacare...Don't Count Your Chickens...
The US Supreme Court appears to be poised to shoot down Obamacare. But I'm only cautiously optimistic. In America, nothing is that cut and dried. Yesterday, Justice Ginsberg and others seemed hell bent on preserving whatever they can of the embattled legislation, in the event the mandate, the primary funding organ for the law, is struck down. She framed it as a "wrecking ball vs. salvage operation." And clearly, she prefers the latter.
I had occasion to read a couple of additional sections of the so-called "Affordable Care Act" yesterday. Practically every line gives me new strains of agida! There's language in there that prevents private citizens from being self-insured, limits the amount of money you can put in an HSA, disallows some people from getting catastrophic insurance, and requires that catastrophic insurance includes co-pays for doctor visits which will necessarily drive up costs. And that's all on ONE PAGE! This thing is a HUGE federal micromanagement of every conceivable aspect of healthcare in America. And it's a bloody disaster waiting to happen. But what a boon for attorneys!
There is NO rational reason to salvage any of this intact. But the Court is likely to try. It's doubtful that we've seen the end of Obamacare. Even if the mandate loses and the law is dismantled, there's still plenty of fighting ahead.
I couldn't help but LMArmO this morning when I heard a clip of Maxine Waters saying, in the same breath, "There are too many unanswered questions [to rush to judgment] and I personally believe this is a hate crime," in an interview about the Treyvon Martin case.
Don't get me wrong, I'm taking no "political" position on this tragic case. A 17 year old kid is dead--completely unnecessarily, as far as I can tell. That's enough to make it a seriously damned shame no matter what the circumstances that resulted in Martin's demise. A young life representing all the promise of tomorrow, regardless of the past, has been cut down prematurely.
But it's inexcusable for ANYONE to trade on this horrible mishap for the express purpose of stirring up racial division as Waters, Sharpton, Jackson, the New Black Panthers, and others are doing. Worse, they were doing it before almost any of the facts were in. And now that it's clear that the story is not so "black and white," they seem to be hardening their position, instead of softening it, when the right thing to do for Treyvon, his family, and the larger picture of race relations in America, is to reserve judgment until all the obtainable facts are in.
I continue to be amazed at how archaic the view of these radical racial activists. You'd think we were still living in the sixties. They all seem to yearn for the 'good ole days' of Malcom X and Martin Luther King, despite the fact that thanks largely to those icons' efforts, the bulk of the country has long since left those old racial divisions behind. And that's rational!
Election by the Numbers - Two Can Play This Game
I admit to being pretty fed up with the Romney/Anti-Romney paradigm in the GOP Primary. Newt and Ricky keep sounding the drum that Romney has failed to get a majority of the vote--that over half the GOP electorate want someone else.
Well have they bothered to run those numbers on their own campaigns?! Here's how the delegats stack up at this point in time:
Romney: 565 Delegates out of 1028. That's 55% for Romney, 45% for Not Romney (a clear majority!)
Santorum: 256 Delegates out of 1028. That's 25% for Ricky, 75% for Not Ricky (halfway to 2nd base)
Gingrich: 141 Delegates out of 1028. That's 14% for Newt, 86% for Not Newt (not even on the field)
Paul: 66 Delegates out of 1028. That's 6% for Ron Paul, 94% for Not Paul. (completely outa town)
Popular vote totals are a bit tighter, but here's how it looks right now:
Romney: 4,127,917; Not Romney: 6,142,300; Total: 10,270,217; Romney 40% Not Romney 60%
Santorum: 2,850,546 Not Santorum: 7,419,671 Total: 10,270,217; Santorum 28% Not Santorum 72%
Gingrich: 2,212,001; Not Gingrich: 8,058,216; Total: 10,270,217; Gingrich 22% Not Gingrich 78%
Paul: 1,079,753; Not Paul: 9,190,464; Total: 10,270,217; Paul 11% Not Paul 89%
So after all this time, 72% of the voters want someone other than Santorum. Almost 80% want someone besides Gingrich (and he's been making the "not-Romney" noise the loudest). And about 90% of Republican Primary voters want someone other than Paul.
Although Romney has yet to gain a majority of the popular vote, he is clearly the candidate of choice for the largest plurality of voters and has a shorter distance to go to gain majority status, than Santorum currently has to reach Romney's present 40% endorsement. So let's stop playing games. Whether you love it or not, Mitt is the MAN. Let's get behind our guy and BEAT OBAMA to save this nation. That IS rational!
Obamacare...Don't Count Your Chickens...
The US Supreme Court appears to be poised to shoot down Obamacare. But I'm only cautiously optimistic. In America, nothing is that cut and dried. Yesterday, Justice Ginsberg and others seemed hell bent on preserving whatever they can of the embattled legislation, in the event the mandate, the primary funding organ for the law, is struck down. She framed it as a "wrecking ball vs. salvage operation." And clearly, she prefers the latter.
I had occasion to read a couple of additional sections of the so-called "Affordable Care Act" yesterday. Practically every line gives me new strains of agida! There's language in there that prevents private citizens from being self-insured, limits the amount of money you can put in an HSA, disallows some people from getting catastrophic insurance, and requires that catastrophic insurance includes co-pays for doctor visits which will necessarily drive up costs. And that's all on ONE PAGE! This thing is a HUGE federal micromanagement of every conceivable aspect of healthcare in America. And it's a bloody disaster waiting to happen. But what a boon for attorneys!
There is NO rational reason to salvage any of this intact. But the Court is likely to try. It's doubtful that we've seen the end of Obamacare. Even if the mandate loses and the law is dismantled, there's still plenty of fighting ahead.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
BruceNotes March 27th - Glass Acts and Throwing Stones
People in bullet-proof, tempered glass houses in elite political positions apparently get to throw stones. Monday was a day of open blinds on the class and character of two of our more imperialistic Presidential candidates: Rick Santorum and President Barack Obama.
Ricky Boy had yet another side of his core Christian character on display as he broke out the potty mouth with a NY Times reporter. In the tradition of Jeremiah Wright and Joe Biden, it was one of his more "presidential" moments. (ahem) Interestingly enough, instead of apologizing or expressing regret for allowing himself to be baited and losing his cool--using language unbecoming of both a shirt-sleeve Christian and of a US Presidential hopeful, Santorum chose to laugh it off and justify his coarse behavior since, after all, it was just a NY Times reporter and they apparently don't deserve the common decency and respect of other human beings. Does this say anything to anyone else about the character and decorum of the man? How's he going to explain this to his home-schooled Christian kids?!
PBO (pronounced PEE-BOE for President Barack Obama) gave us a glimpse into his duplicitous soul yesterday, as well, when in a presumed private moment, he assured a top Russian official, that after his re-election, he'll be far more "flexible" in negotiating issues like missile defense, embargoes, nuclear proliferation, and other matters with Vladimir Putin.
He speaks the truth! Without the political constraints of having to be reelected, PBO will be less accountable to the people than ever. Given what he's managed to accomplish in his first term in the march towards "transforming" America into a Euro-socialist autocracy, one can hardly imagine what horrors an unaccountable 2nd term might have in store. Keep a close eye on this campaign, and there's no telling what you might see when the candidates pull back the curtains for a momentary glimpse.
Another example of Obama's can't-help-myself transparency would be Barack's surreptitious yet shameless race baiting in the Treyvon Martin case when he craftily referred to Treyvon with this racially tainted comment: "If I had a son, he'd look like Treyvon." In a vacuum, the comment might be innocent enough. But in a context of racial tension spurred by the case, the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head, and frankly, Obama's history of close association with radical racist activists like Jeremiah Wright, and his similar rush to judgment in the Cowley-Gates incident in MA, the comment is layered with subtext that opens a window to Obama's racially tinged "social justice" ideology. Clearly, the president was suggesting that 'if he (Martin) didn't look like he could be Barack's son (black) this incident would likely not have occurred.' That's a profoundly divisive complaint coming from the first black American to be elected POTUS through a distinctively united "rainbow" coalition of voters in 2008. But I guess Obama just can't help letting his true colors shine through.
Ricky Boy had yet another side of his core Christian character on display as he broke out the potty mouth with a NY Times reporter. In the tradition of Jeremiah Wright and Joe Biden, it was one of his more "presidential" moments. (ahem) Interestingly enough, instead of apologizing or expressing regret for allowing himself to be baited and losing his cool--using language unbecoming of both a shirt-sleeve Christian and of a US Presidential hopeful, Santorum chose to laugh it off and justify his coarse behavior since, after all, it was just a NY Times reporter and they apparently don't deserve the common decency and respect of other human beings. Does this say anything to anyone else about the character and decorum of the man? How's he going to explain this to his home-schooled Christian kids?!
PBO (pronounced PEE-BOE for President Barack Obama) gave us a glimpse into his duplicitous soul yesterday, as well, when in a presumed private moment, he assured a top Russian official, that after his re-election, he'll be far more "flexible" in negotiating issues like missile defense, embargoes, nuclear proliferation, and other matters with Vladimir Putin.
He speaks the truth! Without the political constraints of having to be reelected, PBO will be less accountable to the people than ever. Given what he's managed to accomplish in his first term in the march towards "transforming" America into a Euro-socialist autocracy, one can hardly imagine what horrors an unaccountable 2nd term might have in store. Keep a close eye on this campaign, and there's no telling what you might see when the candidates pull back the curtains for a momentary glimpse.
Another example of Obama's can't-help-myself transparency would be Barack's surreptitious yet shameless race baiting in the Treyvon Martin case when he craftily referred to Treyvon with this racially tainted comment: "If I had a son, he'd look like Treyvon." In a vacuum, the comment might be innocent enough. But in a context of racial tension spurred by the case, the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head, and frankly, Obama's history of close association with radical racist activists like Jeremiah Wright, and his similar rush to judgment in the Cowley-Gates incident in MA, the comment is layered with subtext that opens a window to Obama's racially tinged "social justice" ideology. Clearly, the president was suggesting that 'if he (Martin) didn't look like he could be Barack's son (black) this incident would likely not have occurred.' That's a profoundly divisive complaint coming from the first black American to be elected POTUS through a distinctively united "rainbow" coalition of voters in 2008. But I guess Obama just can't help letting his true colors shine through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)