Home
People don’t support Barack Obama because they think he’s a good leader. Quite the opposite. They support him because they think he will do what they would do if they were president. Obama supporters think they could run the country, and they want Obama to do it by proxy. They really believe that experience is meaningless, that their innate “intelligence” and “insight” is all they need to operate the controls of the world’s largest military and economic power. Some of them, of course, actually want to destroy the country just for the fun of watching it burn.
You can see this mania play out right here on Instablogs.
Recently one of Instablog’s most mendacious and shameless propagandists, who blogs without doing research or posting links in the manner of a charlatan, wrote a post disingenuously called “The Case Against Barack Obama.” But the only purpose of the post was to summarily ignore all the evidence against Obama and blindly further his cult of personality, under false pretenses.
The next time you’re in the mood to be amused, ask an Obama supporter a simple question: “What would you have to learn about Obama to cause you to stop supporting him?” They’ll give you the same type of gibberish that a Jim Jones supporter would have, right before drinking that fateful Kool Aid. Because anything they might name could happen tomorrow, and they they’d be stuck, wouldn’t they? Then it will become crystal clear now much Obama’s minions care about pesky, annoying little things like facts.
So in response I offer the case for Barack Obama.
I recently published a post in which I listed six specific promises Obama had made during his primary election campaign which he then repudiated as soon as he got the nomination, stabbing his liberal supporters in the back. In response, the liberal Daily Kos blog’s publisher has revoked his promise to donate $2,000 to the Obama campaign.
Now the New York Times reports on yet a seventh broken promise by Obama, and he hasn’t even been formally nominated yet. During the primaries Obama promised to quickly end the war in Iraq. Now, he’s going to “refine” his policies and do no such thing.
So it’s perfectly clear that Obama is just another lying politician. It’s just as clear that, by his own terms, there is no reason to vote for him. He’s totally unqualified for office, and his only argument in his own defense has been that he’s not just another lying politician, but represents “change you can believe in.”
However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for him, even if you’re a Republican. There are two excellent reasons to do so.
First, Bill Clinton. Democrats, idiots that they are, were overjoyed when Clinton was elected. But soon, the House of Representatives was back in Republican hands after a 50-year absence. Welfare had been abolished, the budged balanced, NAFTA enacted, capital punishment staunchly supported. These were all Republican pipe dreams. Bill Clinton actually did them. Clinton was then followed by an eight-year Republican presidency with a good portion of time seeing the party in control of Congress.
Second, Jimmy Carter. Just as in 1976, the nation is poised to enter a recession at the end of an eight-year Republican term. Just as in 1976, if Obama takes power he’ll get the blame for it. Just like Carter, he’ll be too soft for American tastes on our enemies, and just like Carter after four years he’ll be decisively repudiated and power turned back to the Republicans. In 1980, that meant 12 years of uninterrupted Republican rule.
The inevitable failure of the Obama presidency, both because of Clintonian betrayal of liberal ideals and Carterian incompetence with the economy and foreign policy, will usher in a whole new era of Republican dominance. His outrageous dishonesty, corruption and lack of principle (blind Clintonian ambition) will alienate his own party, divide it and lay waste to it. Along the way, the loathsome, racist institution of affirmative action will bite the dust, and the forces of American conservatism will be radically rejuvenated in a manner no other event could so effectively induce.
That’s the case for Barack H. Obama. And for the cherry on top, he’s on a sneaker! What more could you ask?
RSS 
The point is that all politicians don’t claim, being totally lacking in qualifications, that the only reason to vote for them is that they are a different, new kind of politician who doesn’t go back on their promises.
Would you take my advice as to who the next ruler of Pakistan should be?
Kim arent you tired of suffering this way? I guess not.
”Take” my advice means follow it, not listen to it. It’s amazing how the people of Pakistan, expressing such open contempt for the U.S., nonetheless want to tell the country who should lead it.
All the countries who hate America most want Obama to win. That’s the best possible evidence that he should lose.
http://publiuspundit.com/2008/06/they_want_to_destroy_us_so_the.php
Cuba, Libya, North Korea all want him. Enough said.
Bobette says the only reason not to vote for Obama is racism. THAT IS RACISM. Bobette, you are a racist.
I have lived and studied in America, I have had contacts with American politicians, and I know how much the level of awareness most Americans have to global issues. Of course people from Pakistan will want to have a sane person in the white house, when they have seen how the republicans have been behaving with one of their biggest allies on the war on terror, how they launch missile strikes on civilians in a sovereign state, with no regard for diplomacy or value for life. YES the general public has a contempt for the United States, the reason is Bush’s policies and the policies of the republican government. Their meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs, their supporting a military dictator, their disregard for public opinion among the many foreign policy debacles of this government.
I for one hope for a better and peaceful future with a sane Obama, and a sane political party at the helm of affairs in America. Go Obama, President of the USA 2008.
So let me see if I understand. Whoever manages to win an election therefore is qualified to hold office?
That’s easily the stupidest comment I’ve ever read on Instablogs. Your blind ideological frenzy prevents you from being even remotely conversant with actual facts.
Suffering because people disagree with me? Did Martin Luther King get tired of that? Should have have?
You’re an amazingly idiotic little freak, who never writes anything of your own but only publishes links to news stories. I guess YOU are afraid of standing behind anything and receiving criticism, so you assume all are like you.
Thank goodness we’re not.
If the only reason you can think of to vote against Obama is racism, you are about as ignorant and un-American as you can be.
The adjective constructions like ’amazingly idiotic little freak’ sound as though you were yelling at the top of your voice so as to be heard over the deafening noise of a deluge of dirty shoes hurled at you.
Could you try to be a little more civil in your selection of words unless, of course, you consider them ’un-Amercian’, in which case we wouldn’t insist.
Come to think of it, as you can see most of the commenters are ignoring the actual topic of this post, and you’re doing exactly the same thing. It’s about Obama’s switcheroo on Iraq and the possibility that he’ll be another Carter or Clinton.
Seems many can’t handle that topic so they want to change it. Not very constructive or civil, in my view. Are you one of those too?
Didn’t you read your own comment before responding to my comment, which sought a clear understanding of your conception of ’American’.
As for responding to your post, it appears to be an attack on a well-reasoned post of a fellow blogger, and like all attack it speaks a lot without saying much.
They can’t say he’s their best qualified candidate, or even that is his qualified at all.
They can’t point to his record of achievements for the country in the past, because he has none.
And they can’t name a single policy he’s going to pursue to improve the country when elected, because he’s changed all his proposals since he got the nomination.
It’s just plain pathetic, and indicative much more of a crazy religious fervor like that found in a cult.
Guess not. Just like you don’t think at all before you choose a candidate to support, needing no reason to do so other than blind hatred of George Bush.
If the country is governed on choices like that, it will surely perish.
Did it ever occur to you that your attitude towards George Bush is EXACTLY the same as HIS attitude towards others, which you claim to despise?
Aren’t you a really amazing hypocrite?
Silly me , well I hope you can find them. I checked his website and they arent sold there, so i would say try typing it into your browser and see what comes up. I will try to locate them for you and will keep you posted.
Will you, in return, let America choose Canada’s?
Isn’t it possible all those countries who hate America want Obama because they hope he’ll destroy America?
Yes, Kim. That’s true. And if it were not true, we wouldn’t hold elections for the highest and the most influential offices in the world.
Election is an exam and one who wins it is ’qualified’. And this exam begins with politics at local levels, like working for the downtrodden and underprivileged.
It is one of the wisest remarks anywhere.
The result was that both of their countries were totally destroyed by their ”qualifications.”
Wow. What ignorance.
In India, no political office has such unrestricted power as the President of United States, particularly in today’s era.
Voters in India are as purchasable as they are in the US.
Do you think all qualified doctors and engineers do their jobs equally well and no one messes up?
Aren’t there ’qualified’ bad doctors and engineers? Their being bad has no connection with their being qualified. Hope you understand that part.
By the way, why did you talk about India? Is it my-country-your-country thing? That doesn’t establish your patriotism but your clouded vision.
Meanwhile, you change the subject.
I didn’t ask about SAFE. I asked about whether Bush would be QUALIFIED to run India if he got the job. You know he wouldn’t, but you won’t admit it so you try to change the subject in a highly dishonest manner.
Clearly, you are not worth trying to talk to. All you want to do is complain about other people’s agendas whilst trying to blindly promulgate your own.
I hate that kind of hypocrisy.
I cannot replace popular judgment with my own. It’s that simple. In a democracy the electorate finally decides who runs the country and this indeed is the required ’qualification’.
And you seem to have misunderstood a lot here. I did not talk about Iraq invasion or Afghanistan. I only talked about the relative degrees of immediate accountability.
Hurling words like ’demented’ does not make you any better than you are.
I cannot replace popular judgment with my own. It’s that simple. In a democracy the electorate finally decides who runs the country and this indeed is the required ’qualification’.
And you seem to have misunderstood a lot here. I did not talk about Iraq invasion or Afghanistan. I only talked about the relative degrees of immediate accountability.
Hurling words like ’demented’ does not make you any better than you are.
PS: I wrote at wrong place in the first instance. Hence the duplication. Kindly excuse.
I cannot replace popular judgment with my own. It’s that simple. In a democracy the electorate finally decides who runs the country and this indeed is the required ’qualification’.
And you seem to have misunderstood a lot here. I did not talk about Iraq invasion or Afghanistan. I only talked about the relative degrees of immediate accountability.
Hurling words like ’demented’ does not make you any better than you are.
PS: I wrote at wrong place in the first instance. Hence the duplication. Kindly excuse.