Right-Wing Ed Vs. Leftist Jackass – A Reckoning

Herein I shall attempt to respond, paragraph by paragraph, to the idiotic scribblings – titled ‘The Silent Issue That Could Doom President Obama In 2012 Election’ – of one Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News.

He begins:

There will be so many things to talk about with Obama vs. Romney from here to November, but the one that nobody will want to talk about very much in polite society, even in what has a chance to be the meanest presidential campaign for all times, is race.

…nobody except you and practically every other left-leaning political pundit in America, apparently.

It works against the President this time, in a big way.

…just like it worked against him in 2008. [sarcasm off]

Last time, there were just weren’t enough reasons for enough white voters to vote against the black guy, as much as they wanted to. This time there are plenty.

Yeah, last time around white voters only had a white war hero and Sr. Senator to vote for instead of a markedly unqualified Jr. Senator who had admitted publicly only a year prior to running for president that he didn’t have the experience necessary to do so.

And please don’t believe a single poll on this issue.

…because that would completely destroy this leftist narrative.

If there is one great truth about polling in this country, at least when it comes to race, is that people lie through their teeth. Mostly because they don’t want to look like some lousy, scummy bigot – even talking to an anonymous voice on the telephone.

Of course, if most people actually were “lousy, scummy” bigots, they wouldn’t give a crap who knew it. Just ask any skin-head or Black Panther member if they care what people of different colors – or even folks who look like them but don’t embrace their particular belief system – think about anything!

Of course this election will be about the economy, and Obama’s record on it, no matter how much broad-daylight looting of this country went on during the eight years of Bush-Cheney.

And even though there’s been more “broad-daylight looting” perpetrated by the Obama administration over the past three and a half years than during Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, all you damned white voters out there will just keep focusing on the here-and-now, as opposed to the distant past. Shame on you.

You want to know why George W. Bush is still the only living former President with an approval rating under 50%? It isn’t just because of all the Americans killed and wounded in a war built on lies in Iraq. It is also because of the economy Obama inherited from him, one nobody wanted to touch with a stick at the time.

So, we can trust the polls when it comes to gauging what the American public thinks about George W. Bush, but when those same people are polled about the job that Barack H. Obama is doing, that’s obviously just a race-based thing and any polling data relative to it should be dismissed out of hand. Uh-huh.

By the way, there’s a difference between being wrong about something and lying about it, which is a distinction that Mr. Lupica – like most every left-wing political columnists in America – has never bothered to work out intellectually.

As for the assertion that “nobody wanted to touch with a stick” the economy that Bush left behind, if that’s true, how come so many politicians on both sides of the aisle threw their hats into the ring in 2008? It seems to me that plenty of folks were willing to “touch” the economy back then, including Barack Obama himself.

Oh, and I also find it interesting that leftists in this country never mention how Bush inherited a buttload of problems from the Clinton administration, or the fact that the annual unemployment rate remained under six percent throughout all of Dubya’s first term, despite a trillion-plus dollars being sucked out of the economy immediately following the worst terrorist attack in human history… an attack that was visited – for the most part – upon the financial center of the United States, by the way.

Indeed, let us not forget that the average unemployment rate over the entire course of Bush’s presidency was only 5.2 percent. Not bad, considering 9/11, Katrina, the Democrat-caused housing bubble (see Community Reinvestment Act – Clinton-era) and a mostly Democrat-controlled Congress throughout.

Oh, Obama ran against the Bush economy once. But won’t be able to do it again, even though he’s sure going to try. He has to run on his own record this time, on the economy, on jobs. Does Romney have a better plan? He does not. His plan, his platform – and the reason Obama is in huge trouble against him – is as simple as Romney sounds sometimes on the stump:

He’s not Barack Obama in 2012 the way Obama wasn’t Bush in 2008.

Of course Obama will focus on the premise that he inherited a bad economy from George W. Bush. What choice does he have? He certainly can’t talk about his own economic record, because to do so would be to remind average Americans of just how inept he’s been at dealing with… well… EVERYTHING!

Mr. Lupica, you ask if Mitt Romney has a better plan with respect to our economic woes. Then you answer yourself with a resounding “he does not,” yet you fail utterly to back up that claim with any information at all. You simply blurt it out as a child might blurt out an obscenity after stubbing his toe, then you leave it hanging in the air, seemingly in the hopes that it will dissipate before it’s challenged by somebody with an IQ above room temperature.

While I won’t bother – for brevity’s sake – reciting the various aspects of Mr. Romney’s economic scheme at this time, I will at least provide a link (http://www.mittromney.com/jobs) to the page at his campaign website that addresses the issue… which is more than you were willing to do in support of your hollow declaration.

I will give you credit where it’s due, however. When you stated that Romney is not Obama, you were dead-on accurate. Indeed, Mitt is NOT Barack, and though he’s also not as conservative as Ronald Reagan or even Newt Gingrich, he’s clearly not a Marxist either… unlike some people I could name.

“There has only been one real plan from the Republicans, really for the last four years,” Mario Cuomo says. “Get rid of Obama. That’s it. Now they try to convince you that whomever you replace him with will be better, even though that should be an absurdly childish and stupid and perhaps even greedy notion.”

Unfortunately for you and your premise, Mario Cuomo isn’t running for president on the GOP ticket this year, so what he happens to think about anyone’s potential campaign strategy is entirely irrelevant.

Still: This isn’t ’08 for Obama.

That’s because more than three years of reality have a way of trumping the empty promises of even the most charismatic of narcissistic jackasses.

It means he’s not only NOT running against Bush, he is not running against old John McCain, a terrible candidate, or Sarah Palin.

Well, you certainly pegged “old John McCain” there, I’ll give you that. Still, I find it peculiar that evil, racist right-wingers like myself chose not to rally behind him, in spite of the fact that he looks just like us.

When it was over four years ago, even people who didn’t want to vote for a black presidential candidate – but did in the end – congratulated themselves on America finally putting a black man in the White House.

Previously in your article you opined that the racist, white voters permeating American society wouldn’t expose themselves as such to faceless poll-takers because they would feel too ashamed (or something) to admit their bigotry, even to complete strangers… yet when a person votes, they do so under a veil of COMPLETE anonymity. Reprimands, rebukes or reprisals of any kind need not be feared inside a voting booth, so why on Earth would someone who hates black people vote for one?

Oh wait, you must be talking about all those white LEFTISTS in America who pretend to care about the plight of poor, downtrodden African-Americans, but who really don’t give half a damn about anyone except themselves, and only support guys like Barack Obama because it makes them look open-minded to their equally self-absorbed friends.

It won’t work that way this time. Race won’t be the only issue, not in a world of these gas prices, not in an America with this kind of unemployment. But you better believe it will be a huge issue.

Yes, it WILL be a huge issue… to everyone like YOU who made it an issue the first time around, even though practically nobody on the right gave Barack’s skin color a second thought in 2008 and likely never will.

Two things that nobody will want to talk about so much in the months between now and November? Race and Romney’s religion.

I sure hope you’re right about that, because neither of those topics are germane to the election at hand.

But race wins that one every time, first-round knockout, just because race is always the main event in America, no matter how enlightened we like to think we are.

Hold on here… you JUST said that nobody will want to talk much about race or (Romney’s) religion – as if Mitt’s religion was more pertinent than Barack’s – during this election cycle, yet immediately following that statement, you frivolously claimed that the topic of race will inevitably win out over that of religion.

Here’s a question that you may want to ask yourself in the near future, Mike: Do I have any idea how f***ing stupid my opinions sound to rational people?

“You know what race does in this election?” an old Kennedy Democrat I know is saying on Thursday. “It takes Mormonism off the board. Gone, goodbye. So there’s that. And here’s something else that works against the President. Romney’s not picking a bad vice-president. His pick might not be very exciting. But it’s not going to be Palin.”

Well, that was certainly pointless. Ya know, just because a grouping of words technically constitutes a proper paragraph, that doesn’t make it an intellectually VIABLE paragraph.

Just sayin’…

Suddenly Barack Obama, four years later, is an underdog all over again. It is what he was when he took on Hillary Clinton, took on the Clinton machine, in the Democratic primary season of ’08. It is what he is against Romney right now, will be in the fall unless the economy comes back big.

Suddenly? I don’t think so, sparky. There’s nothing sudden about Barack Obama’s decline. It has come about slowly but steadily over forty months’ time, and only pointless Opologists like you have failed to notice that fact.

Maybe he thinks that Romney’s record at Bain Capital can save him, maybe he can rally his base in an election against a poster boy for the 1 percenters in this country like Mitt Romney, whose idea of being a regular guy in a debate is making a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry. And maybe he can save himself in the debates and with speeches, because this is a President who has told people more than once, “Speeches got me here.”

1-percenters? You mean like the President of the United States of America, who flies around the world (at taxpayer expense, no less) whenever he feels like it on the most sophisticated airliner in the world, has dozens of armed guards watching his back 24/7, commands the most awesome military force in human history, and can speak his mind to hundreds of millions of people, on multiple television networks, whenever the mood strikes him? THAT kind of 1-percenter?

Obama got a perfect storm last time: Bush and Cheney and Iraq and the economy crashing and McCain and the lightweight former governor of Alaska. He got people of color and he got kids. Except now the kids that he needs are coming out of college and can’t find jobs.

And they can’t find a job because Barack H. Obama doesn’t know shit about basic, free-market economics, and I seriously doubt that he even cares to learn about such trivialities. After all, when you’re primarily concerned with spending trillions of dollars that don’t belong to you, why would you bother thinking about the crushing debt that average college graduates face as they enter an economic landscape as hostile to them as the Great Depression was to their grandparents?

There were so many reasons to vote for Barack Obama, not nearly enough good reasons not to vote against the first black candidate for President. Not this time.

Ya know, I’m aware of the concept of a double-negative, but I don’t think I’ve ever been exposed to a triple-negative… until now.

5 thoughts on “Right-Wing Ed Vs. Leftist Jackass – A Reckoning”

  1. That article made me sick. (Not yours but the New York Daily News one.) Trying to toss race into this election and make it appear that if you don’t vote for Barack Obama you’re a racist is ridiculous. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, I feel he was voted in based on the content of what he had to offer and if he loses the election, it will be for the same reason. If this country wanted to vote an African American as President just to say they did, we would have had one a long time ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s