No doubt the time will come when America will elect another president from a minority group, but when that time comes we will elect that person based on his or her policy, not fear and desperation, as was the case in the election of Barack Obama. This is what the Congress understands so clearly in its overwhelming opposition to the president. If we want a functioning government with the executive and the legislative branches working together on behalf of the American people we have to put Barack Obama out of office.
We all long for the time when the American electorate will disregard race as a factor in all elections; it's a noble and elevating concept. But my friends, today we find ourselves in a situation of disastrous decline with a nonfunctioning government that threatens the very survival of the country.
All that stands between us and a government functioning as the well-tuned machine it is capable of being is the defeat of Barack Obama. We can’t hold 320 million people hostage from the promise of America for the sake of one man fate thrust to the forefront prematurely. We must defeat Barack Obama to survive and to keep the noble notion alive that the day will come then any American can rise to become president of the United States.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Horace -
...this presidency thing with Obama is decades ahead of its time. The country simply is not ready for Barack Obama.
I said precisely the same thing at our county convention when I was an alternate state delegate for Hillary. I said that while Obama's the future of the Democratic party, the nation wasn't ready for him yet. If he could have served as VP for eight years, the nation would have been ready for him and accepted him as we should...and we would have had sixteen years of sensible government.
But things didn't work out that way, and the choice is now between four more years of deadlock (a significant amount of which is due to racism) or four years of looney-tunes government by Romney, who would allow the war on women and immigrants and unions and individual rights to proceed that much further.
Barack's a good man, and I can readily understand why he had to make many of the decisions he has...and he has guts. I think it would have been much better if Hillary had been president first, but that's not the hand that has been dealt us. Come November, I will gladly vote for Barack Obama...and hope like heck that he wins.
2 - Dr Dreadful
I always thought that America would elect a black man as president sooner than it would elect a woman, and so it proved.
3 - Arch Conservative
Oy vey. Another "when it comes to Barack Obama and his misunderstood greatness, it's all about racism," discussion.
Obama is a thin skinned,narcissistic empty suit who doesn't even have a set big enough to fully commit to advancing the warped degenerate big brother agenda coveted by those who support him.
All across the nation people are slowly but surely waking up and realizing how utterly useless the man is.
That's my two cents. Cue the inane bullshit about racism and blaming everyone but Obama from Glenn and the other die hard Obama apologists.
4 - Horace Mungin
Arch commented on his delusions about the American president and about his discontent for people who post here, but he didn't say anything about my article; he could have placed that very unplasant post elsewhere with the same results. I'm wishing him luck and chanting that he'll pay attention when he walks - he needs his head, his brain is in it?
5 - troll
...has anyone referred to Romney as our latest Great White Hope yet?
6 - Arch Conservative
Horace you claim you believe Obama's policies are the wrong policies for the nation. I agree with you there. But you also seem to be implying that there is some sort of epidemic of racism among the American people preventing him from being a successful president. That is ludicrous for if that were true he would never have been elected in the first place.
Barack Obama is a politician and like most politicians he is narcissistic, callous and self centered in his quest for personal power and recognition. He however takes these ugly attributes to a new level as far as I'm concerned and I have a personal loathing for him.
That being said I take no great joy in Romney being our only alternative. There are mountains of evidence that make it painfully obvious that both major political parties have long been selling this nation down the river. It's sad to see so many people blindly subscribing to the Dem v GOP paradigm when there is no real meaningful difference with regard to the damage each has done and will continue to do to this nation.
Like many Americans I fear for this nation, I fear for my children, I weep for the loss of the middle class as both big government and big business take turns
tearing away pieces of the soul of this once great nation and it's people.
Neither party is made up of "good men." What will life be like for my children and grandchildren? What will it take to keep us from sliding completely into that deep dark abyss? These are questions that no one seemingly has the answers to.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch's comment #6 makes it obvious that he really isn't paying attention.
Arch - you claim there's no meaningful difference. When it comes to corporate ownership of political parties, thanks to the Republican fantasy of Citizens United, you're at least partially right. BUT there's radical differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the rights of people: the rights of women (access to abortion, equal pay) and the rights of LGBT's (gay marriage, Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell).
Also, the Dems want cuts in military spending, but the Republicans oppose ANY cuts in military spending. The Dems want the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes (Romney paid 13.9%, remember?), but the Republicans want to cut taxes for the wealthy even further than Dubya OR Herbert Hoover...never mind what happened after each of those presidencies and the grand failure of austerity in Europe today.
No, Arch, there's a LOT of difference between the two parties...as long as you're willing to open your eyes and see it.
Arch, the ONLY reason you're wanting to say there's no meaningful difference is that you can't stand the thought that your favorite sports team - the GOP - really is that much worse than the sports team you love to hate - the Dems. You're not thinking in terms of who's better for the American people - you're thinking in terms of which one is YOUR team, and which one ain't. And that's the biggest reason for the intransigence of both sides today.
8 - Igor
Sadly, the republican party IS racist.
Just look at who they are. Aside from a few impotent tokens, they are lily-white and racist.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
I don't think that most of them are strictly racist...but they certainly tolerate racism till they're caught at it.
10 - Dr Dreadful
You're right, Glenn, Archie's #6 does show that he isn't paying attention, or he would have realized that the views expressed in the last two pages of the article are not Horace's own, but Horace's imagining of a remarkable speech Romney might give to win the presidency.
Not really surprising. Conservatives have never been that great with empathy.
11 - Horace Mungin
Arch, I've been chanting for years now, but seldom has what I charted for come about so rapidly - thank you for giving attention to the content of my article. You were nudged by the Universal Force. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, nam-myoho-renge-kyo, nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
12 - Igor
It was a good article, Horace. Well spoken and honest.
13 - zingzing
there's a huge difference between the parties, although maybe not so much in the realm of economics, as using politics to manipulate economics is about as easy as using a condom to cut a steak (shrug). socially, the dems are ok, while the republicans are a bunch of retarded gorillas. internationally, the dems are ok (but just squeaking by ok), while the republicans are a bunch of roid-raging sociopaths.
14 - RJ
Ah, the speech that would make Romney president requires him to praise Obama over and over again.
Sorry, no.
15 - Dr Dreadful
The actual speech that would make Romney president:
"You are all feeling veeery sleeeepy... all 230 million of youuuuu... you will vote for meeeee in Novemberrrrr..."
16 - Horace Mungin
RJ, please read the speech part of the article again. No where in this imaginary speech is there is admiration or glorfication of the president expressed by the speaker (Romney) - only a recitation of some facts; 1. The president is a citizen (By the way, that's the only way we've done it in this country) 2.The president is a patriot who loves America, 3. the president is a verrrry smart man. 4. The president has a lovely family, 5, the president has a uniquely American story. Nowhere in that is there praise for the president. You've mischaracterized the truth in the speech for praise and you overlooked the part of the speach what would get Romney over the hump. and that is the part where he talks about a deadlock government; a situation that would be remedied the moment this president is out of office - convince the voters of this and Romney is a shoe-in.
So, my dear brother,(in the sense of fellow human being) I urge you to read the speech again and find that this is what it says - I mean come on man, its right there in B&W.
17 - RJ
"Nowhere in that is there praise for the president."
Well, other than the praise for his vast intellect and how wonderfully patriotic he is and how delightful his family is and what a superb American story his life has been, you're right, there's no praise at all.
/s
18 - Glenn Contrarian
RJ -
1. The president is a citizen (By the way, that's the only way we've done it in this country) 2.The president is a patriot who loves America, 3. the president is a verrrry smart man. 4. The president has a lovely family, 5, the president has a uniquely American story.
All those applied just as much to George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, JFK, and Eisenhower. But because they apply just as well to Obama, well, THAT's obvious evidence of bias on the author's part...
...at least in your eyes.
19 - RJ
Pro-tip: You do not win elections by giving speeches praising your opponent. This is such a simple fact that even a child could grasp it.
I suppose John F. Kerry would have won in 2004 if he'd just delivered a major speech about how Dubya was a brilliant super-patriot with an awesome family and a wonderful life story. Right?
20 - Horace Mungin
I'm asking you all to please post a definition of the word "praise."
21 - Glenn Contrarian
Actually, RJ, if you knew as much history as you think you do, you'd know that party presidential nominees generally DO give speeches praising the opponent, or at least not demonizing them.
Why? Because they want to (1) look presidential, and (2) lure voters away from the other guy (which can't be done by, say, literally calling the other guy a lying sack of crap).
Oh, they'll say what's wrong with the other guy's policies, sure - but they generally will NOT denigrate the other man's character, much less his heritage or family. That's how both Obama and McCain ran their campaigns in 2008...
...and that's how Reagan ran his campaigns, too. The closest he got to insulting Mondale (or was it Carter?) was "There you go again". Gotta give Reagan credit - he used to full effect the old saying that diplomacy is the art of telling your opponent to go to hell and making him look forward to the trip!
=========================
And the attacks on the other guy's character? Presidential candidates don't need to do that - they've got THOUSANDS of surrogates to do that! Why would a presidential nominee sling mud when he's got so many who are eager to do that for him?
Bear that in mind while I remind you that Romney swears up and down that he pulled over the car and cried tears of joy when the Mormon church stated (in 1977, IIRC) they'd finally start allowing blacks to become ministers. Can you say, "crocodile tears"?
The above unprovoked attack on Romney's character was NOT approved by Barack Hussein Obama nor was it approved by Obama's campaign in any way. But it WAS brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Obama surrogate - yours truly!
22 - RJ
Romney's religion stopped discriminating against blacks 35 years ago.
Obama's church was a black nationalist anti-American conspiracy cult when he was an active member (and a major donor) four years ago.
I strongly encourage leftists such as yourself to make Romney's religion an issue in this campaign. It gives conservatives an excuse to remind everyone about Obama's church, and that Obama chose to to be married by (and have his kids baptized by) a man who thinks the racist Louis Farrakhan is awesome.
23 - Glenn Contrarian
RJ -
35 years ago - that's 1977, which is just what I said, isn't it?
And the claptrap about Obama's church is simply that - claptrap, bovine excrement fed to you by your right-wing pundits...because if it had been, it wouldn't have had any white members, now would it?
But don't let little things like common sense and facts stop you from posting such stuff, now....
24 - RJ
"if it had been, it wouldn't have had any white members, now would it?"
By that logic, if Mormons were actually racist against blacks pre-1977, there wouldn't have been any black Mormons before then, right?
Oops. And oops.
Just a reminder: Obama's pastor of 20 years blamed the USA for creating AIDS. Obama titled his more recent autobiography with a quote from one of this guy's sermons.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
RJ -
The Mormons were never a "white nationalist" movement, so your claim is not at all logical. That, and if you'll remember, McCain's pastor and advisor John Hagee claimed that Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans because the city was going to hold a pro-gay rally.
And if you want me to, I can come up with all kinds of stuff by the most powerful religious figure in the GOP in the past forty years - Jerry Falwell. And let's not forget Mike Huckabee.
Okay? You wanna sling mud, RJ, I can do that - and thanks to your boys in red, I've got a LOT more ammo.