Bitter Barack

The latest of Obama’s verbal gaffes is just more proof positive that he is not the candidate for change and hope. He is just another run of the mill, lying sack o’ crap politician that will say/do anything he can to get the job he wants. Unfortunately, the mindless masses that flock to see him are starstruck by his teleprompted eloquence and ear to ear commercial-ready grin. This group of brainwashed lemmings happens to include the mainstream media which puts America in a conundrum.

Straight out of a story line from Kim Possible, Barack plays the evil villain set to take over the world. He brainwashes the communications industries and sends his hypnotic rants all across America. The liberal left soaks up the message like a sponge, but even worse, many people in the middle of the political spectrum are also mesmerized and fall victim to Obama’s falsehoods and verbal manipulation. The conservative right, already fighting a multi-front internal war, is left with the task of trying to prevent the loss of its country to lies, deceit and certain wanton governmental waste and inefficiency. What happens in the end? We won’t know until November.

Obama is taking much deserved heat for his comment about bitter small-town Midwestern voters that supposedly cling to guns and religion for comfort. He made this comment while in the home of a billionaire in San Francisco during an invitation-only event for the megarich. Here’s the quote:

“And it’s not surprising then they 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.”

The thing that drives me crazy about this is that Obama’s defense has been nothing but distraction and distortion. In my opinion he is effectively hammering home the point that the Right is out of touch if we think that people aren’t bitter. It’s not the bitterness thing that we are complaining about, it’s the clinging to guns and religion thing. What I’m specifically complaining about is that Obama is a lying slime ball and much of America is buying his snake oil.

Fortunately, lots of people are writing nnd talking about this. Even ABC has had something to say, which might just be a sign that the Obama teflon is wearing down. Allow me to quote Ed Morrissey, he sums it up much better than I ever could:

Let’s break this statement into its component insults:

• “[T]hey cling to guns…” Cling to guns? Americans have “clung” to guns since the founding of the Republic. It’s such a core value to this nation that its founders placed it second on the Bill of Rights, right after freedom of speech and religion. Speaking of which …
• “or [they cling to] religion …” People don’t become religious because the economy hits a few bumps in the road. Obama may have chosen his religion based on politics, but most people follow a religion out of a deeper sense of spirituality. I can’t think of a more condescending and contemptuous analysis of religious dedication than this statement.
• “or [they cling to] antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…” Small-town voters are bigots and xenophobes; there’s no other way to read the first part of this statement. The second part, about them being “anti-immigrant”, is a non-sequitur. They may be anti-illegal immigrant, but that’s a far different issue. Obama offers no proof that small-town voters are xenophobes, but the Frisco audience didn’t demand any, either. It’s part of their own bigotry that makes them see middle America in those terms.
• “or [they cling to] anti-trade sentiment …” And this is just jaw-droppingly hypocritical. This comes from the same candidate who opposes the Colombian free-trade agreement and wants to throw NAFTA out the window. Who’s clinging to anti-trade sentiment? Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Big Labor.

Amen Ed.

Primaries vs. Elections; Let’s Be Consistent

We are all aware of the laws that prevent the media from releasing voting results before the polls close. The reason is the fear that voters will remain home if they learn that their candidate is losing by a large margin; or they might stay home if their candidate has a large lead. “Why should I take a long lunch / go out in this rain / leave the comfort of home to stand in line if my candidate is winning/losing by so much already?”

I think this is a great law. It keeps the press out of our hair for a short (albeit sweet) amount of time. It lets voters vote without worry. Exit polls may provide some influence, but in my experience most people don’t value exit poll results.

Why can’t we expand this concept across a much larger timeframe? I’m talking about during the primary process. But not just one day’s worth or one state’s worth. I’m talking about the entire primary process. Here’s my idea:

Let’s not release the results until the actual party conventions.

Why is this a good idea?

1. Each party member in each state will be allowed to vote for the candidate they want as opposed to having to choose from only the remaining candidates as dictated by previous primaries. In other words you will be able to vote for the person that best represents your values, not just for the one that pisses you off the least. For example: I’m in Texas and I’m a Mitt Romney supporter. Thanks to the current system by the time I got the chance to vote my candidate wasn’t even on the ballot. I don’t think that’s fair.
2. By not knowing who is leading the delegate count each candidate will be forced to campaign continuously and spend their money wisely if they want it to last. Hmm… that sounds like something most Americans have to do every month.
3. The financial difficulty of entering a long and expensive race will certainly deter and potentially weed out candidates that currently join the races for ego and/or local popularity reasons. Politicians will think twice about entering the campaign if its going to cost them so much. A pleasant side effect of this would be the much celebrated death of the ten candidate primary ‘debate’ circus that we all had to endure.
4. The national party conventions will actually mean something.
5. The media will be forced to cover other issues because they won’t know who is actually winning and won’t have a singular candidate to prop up and promote.

Of course, the easier thing to do would be to move to a single national primary day and stop all of this ridiculous state posturing and jockeying for position. I think it is incredibly unfair that states far away from where I live have predetermined who I can vote for, especially given the differences between the issues I face in Texas on a day to day basis versus whatever is going on in Iowa, Ohio or New Hampshire.

A national primary day just makes sense.