Obama's re-election strategy? Convince folks that he is "more like Reagan than anyone else." This is much more than a strategy. It is an insult. Understand that Reagan and Obama have nothing in common, in terms of political ideals and national aspirations. In fact, the claim is so bizarre that one feels debate on this matter to be a waste of time. But, you know those libs, they will believe anything their leaders tell them. This is a perfect example.
Soooo, Obama is just like Reagan, but he couldn't manifest that likeness because of those dirty old radical liberals in his congress !!?? Wow. Did Willie Brown just admit that Obama is not even the leader of his own party?
Secretary Baker, made the claim that financial deregulation occurred more under Clinton than Reagan. No one on this very liberal panel objected. Case closed on that issue.
Then there was Adrea Mitchel's insistence that Obama's Tucson speech gave rise to a seeming legitimate claim that Obama was both Comforter and Chief . . . . you know, "kind a like" Reagan. Understand that Obama's speech was offered up at the Tucson pep rally/memorial, something that would have never been the case with Ronald Reagan. Unfair to call the Tucson memorial a "pep rally?" Well, did you know that Obama had folks print up and sell T shirts at this event? When was the last time you bought a theme shirt at a memorial for the dead? When was the last time you heard shouting, raucous chanting, folks with clinched fists saying, " oooo, oooo, oooo" at a [again] memorial for the dead? The fact that Obama lost 5 points within 48 hours on Rasmussen polling is evidence that his speech was anything but a "comfort" -- his approval rating fell from 52% on the day of the speech to 47% two days later.
Know this; Reagan would have never participated in such a rally/memorial. According to many within his Administration, Reagan had so much respect for hallowed traditions that he never so much as took off his suit jacket while in the oval office . . . . . not once in eight years.
Conclusion: you know a leader is in big trouble when he must be identified in terms of other, more popular, Heads of State. Understand that Obama is a walking, talking identify crisis. He is half white. Nothing wrong with that, of course, except for the fact that Obama came to a point in time, as a young adult, of needing to make a choice as relates to "black" or "white." After making that choice, he, then, had to figure out how aspiring black politicians should act (understand that he was raised a white kid, educated in the best of white traditions) . . . . so he moved to Chicago, attended a radicalized white hating "christian" church** for nearly 22 years, attached himself to many of the same goals found in Nation of Islam (based in Chicago) propaganda, committed himself to life as a community organizer, working for poor black people in the Chicago area and married an intelligent black woman who was so concerned for the need of increased black leadership within that community she wrote a research paper at Princeton dealing -- exclusively -- with the issue of educated blacks and their return to the black community "after college."
Think I am making things up, like liberals do? Not the case. Her paper is located on four PDF files. The title of the thesis is Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community and can be found here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Point of post: forget the similarities with Reagan. Obama is more like a moderately angry black man, at war with the white man's world as expressed up to this point in time. That is why he feels the need to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." That is why Michelle insisted (May of 2008) , "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."
m
No comments:
Post a Comment