The beginning of the end for Obama, and the beginning of a new Reagan Revolution?

I have a dream. I used to think it was more of a fantasy, but now I think it just might be possible. For the first time in my life, I see a realistic chance that blacks who should be Republicans but aren’t (namely those who are employed, hope to someday be employed, have kids who are employed or hope to someday have kids that are employed) will actually become Republicans.

Here’s the scenario. Hillary Clinton rallies to take the Democrat nomination from Barack Obama, thanks in large part to her campaign’s racial attacks and Obama’s racist pastor. Most people start to realize that there is no way the American people as a whole would ever elect a man whose spiritual advisor has been advising him in this manner for 20 years. White Democrats start supporting Hillary in the same percentages as black voters support Obama, causing Clinton landslides in most of the remaining states.

Black Democrats become so outraged that most of them won’t vote for Clinton in the presidential election. John McCain (unfortunately the only Republican in position to benefit from this, but he’ll have to do for now) wins a landslide victory.

Feeling abused by the Democrat party, blacks begin to re-evaluate the situation. They realize that they have been used by Democrats for at least the last 40 years, and some begin to notice that the Dems have done absolutely nothing for them. Some even begin reading up on their brothers who have been saying the same thing for years. Assuming they just get to the ones I have on my bookshelf, they would find the following:

They read J.C. Watts Jr. explain that conservatism is not a color, and that most blacks truly are traditional conservatives.

They learn from Walter Williams that more liberty really does require less government.

Thomas Sowell teaches the fatal flaws of Democrats’ economic policies.

Clarence Thomas inspires with the stories of his struggle and how traditional conservative values made him into the successful man and person that he is today.

And Larry Elder shows how the left controls blacks by limiting the subjects that can safely be discussed in America today. Speaking of Larry Elder, he’s got a very funny column today on how Obama can bring America together: Here.

As a result, many blacks come back to the party of Lincoln, to the party that is in line with their religious beliefs (unless they attend Barack Obama’s church), to the party that tries to be as color-blind as is humanly possible, to the party where anyone can make it if they are willing to work for it, to the party that appoints qualified blacks to real positions of power, to the party that actually supports their hopes and dreams and knows how to make them happen, and to the party of Ronald Reagan, whose policies did more to improve blacks’ upward-mobility than any president in American history. Assuming John McCain does nothing that would alienate the entire black community (like legalizing gay marriage or trying amnesty again), the Republican party would be in a position to dominate for at least the next 40 years and would actually be more conservative than it is today.

By then Hispanics will be the majority in this country and we will have to teach them that they are in the wrong party as well.

Hey, dreaming is free, right?

More Liberal Racism – Obama’s pastor

The Geraldine Ferraro story is not going away, as overt internal racism threatens to rip the Democrat party to shreds. I only wonder why it’s taken so long. You would think that a party that has focused on identifying people by race and treating people in different ways based on race for the last 40 years would be well known as a racist party.  Thank God for Fox News, which actually reports the story when libs say stupid things.

Take Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright. This guy is an absolute racist hatemonger, and he’s been Obama’s pastor for 20 years. This guy performed Obama’s marriage. It would be absurd to say Obama’s views have not been informed by the man.  In fact, he says so himself in this video.

Powerline has a good take on the ramifications in: The Audacity of Hate 

Obama has also said that Wright ”is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.” But who takes spiritual guidance from hate-spewing old uncles?

Meanwhile, Eric Deggans takes offense to Ferraro’s statements in “Ferraro’s Race Argument isn’t insulting to Obama; It’s Insulting to Democrats.” The best part of this whole story is how silly liberals are getting over it, and how they are at each others’ throats. Deggans actually calls Ferraro a “so-called progressive.” I couldn’t have said it better myself, but for another liberal to say it for me is the icing on the cake. Then this nugget…

There are more females than black males serving as governors, Congresspeople, and cabinet members. I wonder how any of them would feel about people who said they got their jobs because they were female? (And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale’s ticket because she’s female?)

If you read my post yesterday, you know that Ferraro in fact does agree that she got her spot because “Fritz wanted a woman.” The whole thing just illustrates how thin-skinned these people are, and now we’ve got liberal women and liberal blacks killing each other in print and on tv. It’s awesome!

He finishes with the line: “Frankly, Ferraro’s assumption that people like me voted for Obama because he self-identifies as a black man is less insulting to Obama and more insulting to me.”

Too funny. Personally I’d be a lot more worried about people thinking I voted for Obama because I agreed with his socialist stances on the issues. Self-identification is somewhat understandable. Idiocy is not.

Newt Gingrich is correct, as he nearly always is: She said something that probably was true 

Gingrich ridiculed the controversy over Ferraro’s comments as part of “the politically correct left” and asked, “Are we now going to say that nobody is allowed to notice that Senator Clinton is female and nobody is allowed to notice that Senator Obama is African American…are we not allowed to be honest?”

Mickey Kaus gets is correct: Psst!–Ferraro Was Right 

If Obama were white, he wouldn’t embody hopes of a post-racial future. Duh!

That pretty much says it all.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal points out that Obama seems to enjoy playing the race card: Obama and the Race Card

Already, prominent Obama sympathizers, such as Harvard’s Orlando Patterson, are detecting racial overtones where none exist. In a New York Times op-ed, Mr. Patterson said a Clinton political ad designed to question Mr. Obama’s readiness as Commander in Chief contained a “racist sub-message” because none of the people depicted in the TV spot are black. Counting people of color in an ad about national security is hardly consistent with the Obama theme that “race doesn’t matter.”

We suppose some of the current back and forth is due to the diversity preoccupations of Democrats. But it bodes ill for an honest fall campaign if Mr. Obama and his allies are going to play the race card to blunt any criticism. A campaign in which John McCain couldn’t question Mr. Obama’s policies, experience and mettle without being called a racist is not what the country needs. Or wants.

Democrats have repeatedly touted the diversity of their party’s White House hopefuls. And it is true that a Clinton or Obama Presidency would make gender or racial history. Americans of all backgrounds can take satisfaction in watching the country field its first black Presidential candidate with a chance to win. But voters also want their would-be Presidents properly vetted, by the media and by each other. To that end Mr. Obama would do better to focus more on answering his political critics with specifics and less on questioning their motives by crying wolf on race.

And that is exactly what Obama wants. He hopes he can avoid talking about serious issues because there is no way he would ever become a nominee if his ideas were to undergo scrutiny.

Do I really have to agree with Geraldine Ferraro?

This is what happens when you’re a Democrat. For the first time in her public life Geraldine Ferraro, the former running-mate of Walter Mondull (who lost to Ronald Reagan in one of the largest landslides in American history), finally voices an opinion that is 100% accurate. Democrats respond with outrage and Ferraro must resign her job on the Clinton campaign. And these people wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

In comments to the Torrance (Cal.) Daily Breeze, Ferraro said,  “If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for — for Hillary?  If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in?  Absolutely not.”

Ferraro is angry that the Obama campaign is accusing her of being racist, as she should be. She was also very upfront about her own candidacy in 1984, saying, “In 1984, if my name were Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro I would never have been the nominee for vice president.”
   

Is it really controversial to say that a young candidate with no experience, who has never governed in his life, who has no achievements in almost three years in the Senate, who has expressed no specifics on his plan to govern the country, who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate this year, and whose spouse hates America… is it really controversial to say that no woman with that resume would ever sniff getting nominated for President by a major party? Is it even controversial to say that no white person would get nominated with that bio? Seriously, name me one nominated candidate in the last 100 years who was less qualified to be President of the United States. There are none.

Barack Obama is so uniquely un-qualified that he makes Hillary Clinton look experienced in comparison. As my wife pointed out, Obama could easily point out that Hillary would not be in this position if she hadn’t married a president, been cheated on multiple times, moved to New York and become a moderately more active senator than Obama has been.

This is a liberal fantasy: affirmative action in a presidential election. How long have they fought in favor of race-based (racist) policies that ensure that unqualified people get the opportunities they “deserve”? Now we have it on a large scale.

It’s not like it’s a big deal, just the presidency of our country.

   
   

Democrat voters: sexists, racists or both?

Thanks in part to Rush Limbaugh and his loyal listeners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still battling as liberals search their souls over the question of whether they are more racist than they are sexist, or vice versa. So far the racists have the nod.

Now I would never vote for either Clinton or Obama, but it has nothing to do with gender or race. I just don’t tend to vote for brain-dead liberals who are barely qualified to run for a local school board seat. But give me Condi Rice and I’d vote for her in a heartbeat over any of the three candidates we have to “choose” from.

Yesterday’s results in Mississippi mirrored results in most of the other states we’ve seen recently, which are downright frightening. 40 % of blacks said race was a key factor in their decision, compared to 23% of whites. 90% of blacks voted for Obama, 74% of whites for Clinton. Obama won 60/40 among people who said race was a factor. Nationally, Obama is winning 80% of the black vote, while Hillary is winning just 53% of the white vote.

Also, you have to factor in the 8% of Democratic primary voters who are registered Republicans. Rush Limbaugh’s chaos strategy, termed “Rush the Vote” by some in the media, has certainly resulted in more white voters voting for Hillary than would otherwise be the case. So we see that blacks are more likely than whites (even in the deep South) to base their votes on race. Or as we would call it in less PC days, liberal blacks are bigger racists than liberal whites.

On to gender. Nationally, Clinton beats Obama 50-45 among women, while Obama  wins 53-40 among men. So it appears as if liberal men are slightly more sexist than liberal women, until you figure in the fact than Obama receives over 80% of the black woman vote. Accounting for that, I’d guess the men and women are pretty equally sexist.

Back to Limbaugh, his strategy of encouraging listeners to vote for Clinton in order to keep the Democrat race going was pure genious. Clinton and Obama are destroying each other, and spending loads of money that the eventually winner would have had to spend against McCain.