My Problem With Barack Obama

Satchel

2,500+ Posts
Is well stated in the following by Leonard Pitts:

GOP’s nasty ‘tar baby’ politics

By Leonard Pitts Jr.
[email protected]

Ladies and gentlemen, here he is, “your boy,” that “tar baby,” the president of the United Sates, Barack Obama:

Ahem.

The first title was bestowed upon Obama by political commentator Patrick Buchanan on Tuesday, the second by U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn on the Friday before last, the third by the American electorate in November of 2008. If the first two seem to cancel out the third, well, that’s the point. One hopes they will help the president understand something he has thus far refused to grasp about his political opposition.

Namely, these people don’t want to be friends. They don’t want to compromise for the greater good. They don’t want to solve problems unless by problems you mean his continued tenancy in that mansion on Pennsylvania Ave.

They have not been coy about this. Rush Limbaugh said it (“I hope he fails”) when Mrs. Obama was still picking out a dress for the inauguration. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in November that, in a time of war and recession, his number one goal is to deny Obama a second term.

Yet somehow, the Obama brain trust, a term herein used advisedly, always seems caught off guard by the ferocity, velocity and fury of the response to him. They were surprised at the verbal and physical violence of the healthcare debate, surprised at the hardiness of the birther nonsense, surprised by the stiff defense of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Now, they are surprised the GOP would rather see the U.S. economy go off a cliff than surrender the aforementioned tax cuts for rich folks. So the debt ceiling gets raised in exchange for cuts to services for the poor, who shortsightedly failed to hire lobbyists.

It is time Obama quit being surprised by the predictable, time he understood this is not politics as usual, not Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill snarling at one another by day and having drinks by night, like that old cartoon where the sheepdog and the coyote punch a time clock to signal the beginning and end of their hostilities. It is not Bill Clinton living in a state of permanent investigation, nor even George W. Bush being called incompetent all day every day.

No, this is a new thing, repulsion at a visceral, indeed, mitochondrial, level. Obama’s denigrators are appalled by the newness of him, the liberality of him, the exoticness of him and, yes, and the blackness of him.

“Your boy?” Really?

Sure. Why not. Didn’t Rep. Lynn Westmoreland call him “uppity?” Didn’t the ex-mayor of Los Alamitos, Calif., send out an email showing the White House with a watermelon patch?

See, here’s the thing: If, as is frequently said, Obama represents America’s future, what do they represent?

You know the answer. Worse, they do, too.

Still, what matters here are neither their feelings nor his. No, what matters is homeowners dispossessed of their homes, workers who can’t find work, sick people who can’t afford health, American soldiers on patrol in hostile places.

The president is a basketball fan, so surely he knows it is sometimes necessary to throw an elbow on your way to the goal. This is one of those times. His instinct to compromise, to work with the opposition to solve problems, is admirable.

But Obama needs to understand: As far as they are concerned, they have no problem bigger than him.


Read more:The Link -nasty-tar-baby-politics.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1U NO89Kd8
 
Well, upset, (perceived) racial remarks aside, even though every Admin can't comprehend their policies are wrong, Obama and team need to check their ******* egos at the door to work through this ****. If he would listen to virtually everyone in the world, he'd realize that his policies are in fact failures.

It serves the country no good to have McConnell say his biggest priority is to get Obama out of the WH. But it does the country worse to have an obstinate ideologue who thinks he's smarter than everyone else in the WH. While I don't particularly agree with McConnell's tact I can certainly understand where he's coming from. Obama is a buffoon. Is that somehow a racist term?
 
Reading the thread title, I thought for a minute that Satchel was going to surprise me, but no, no surprises.
 
Again, It is time Obama quit being surprised by the predictable, time he understood this is not politics as usual, not Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill snarling at one another by day and having drinks by night, like that old cartoon where the sheepdog and the coyote punch a time clock to signal the beginning and end of their hostilities. It is not Bill Clinton living in a state of permanent investigation, nor even George W. Bush being called incompetent all day every day

No, this is a new thing, repulsion at a visceral, indeed, mitochondrial, level. Obama’s denigrators are appalled by the newness of him, the liberality of him, the exoticness of him and, yes, and the blackness of him
 
Obama’s denigrators are appalled by the newness of him, the liberality of him, the exoticness of him and, yes, and the blackness of him
________________________________________________

its election time again and greg davis is calling the plays for the dems. predictable play #1...race card.
 
I would submit that Obama is neither black nor white, but "grey," if you will. The racism argument falls apart there since we can't really just disagree with 1/2 of the guy's genetic makeup right?

So I guess all of us white folk that vehemetly disagree with his policies really only disagree with the black 1/2 of him, at least that is how it appears to be in the eyes of the idiots.

So, does the fact that I am white, would be very pleased if Herman Cain was the nominee, have a teenaged daughter that has dated two black schoolmates and think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are two of the most despicable humans on this earth make me a racist?

That racism argument is so lame it really doesn't deserve a retort, but here I am taking the bait.

Hmm?
 
His instinct to compromise, to work with the opposition to solve problems, is admirable.

But Obama needs to understand: As far as they are concerned, they have no problem bigger than him.
 
It's a pretty self-serving to insist that the Tea Party's refusal to compromise is based on race-hatred rather than political values. It's a position that one can only hold if he believes the opposition is thoroughly disingenuous--that the opposition devotes itself to political arguments only to mask the hatred seething below the surface.

This way of thinking is its own sort of refusal to compromise. By poisoning the terms of discussion, Satchel (and Pitts) obviate the need to have to deal with the relevant political arguments about the issues that face America.

The truth of the matter is that compromise is always a function of political reality, and that reality is always changing. To deny the new political reality of the Tea Party, and then to accuse them of refusal to compromise according to the terms of the old political reality, is the very essence of refusing to compromise.
 
he has failed regardless of the color of his skin. anyone can see that unless you are just licking his boots. time to check your ego at the door and not take his failure so personal.

In reply to:

 
I see many of you are very upset that I have a problem with the President. It appears Leonard Pitts may be on to something.l
 
we have a problem with his policy not his skin color. surely you can understand that.

but we know when in doubt use the race card and name call, that is how the left rolls.
 
No doubt the opposition of most conservatives is based upon ideology.

Nevertheless, anyone who thinks that race has not exacerbated the antagonism, and that racial fears have not been exploited by some in the conservative movement, is not facing reality.

One example of many: Newt Gingrich stating that the President has a "Kenyan anti-colonial world view." This is ridiculous. His world view is consistent with most mainstream Democrats (probably a little more hawkish and a "realist" than most Ds though). The only reason to repeat this claim is to exploit racial fears.

The birther nonsense is another example. I realize many who post here hold this view, and probably don't consider themselves racist. And its possible that it is just plain old garden variety conspiracy tin hat stuff. But it would not have the same traction were it applied to a white President with one immigrant parent.

Again, I accept that the majority of conservatives would react the same way to a white President with similar policies. Many would not though. And some of those that would react the same are not above exploiting a little racial fear to gain a political advantage.
 
The reason that Gingrich called Obama "anti-colonial" is because his father was publicly anti-neocolonialism. And then Obama had a book called something like Dreams of My Father (?). In that book Obama states how he has adopted his political views from his father without really describing what those are.

I don't know that Obama has really put anti-neocolonialism into his policy decisions. I think some of his actions can be reasonably interpreted to stem from that. Who know other than he himself.

But again the issue isn't race at the core. It is ideology.
 

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top