Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Washington Post actually printed this about Obama....

The Washington Post actually printed this about Obama....
Obama: The Affirmative Action President
by Matt Patterson
(columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's
most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian
looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like
Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard � because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if
these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.

Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clich�s, and
that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.***Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.*

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. *When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.*

When was it printed?

Wow!
Talk about dead on the money.

Thanks for posting Terry....Going to share!!

8/18/2011 from what I can tell.

The GOP could have run Ronald Reagan, with Abe Lincoln as his running mate, in 2008, and they would have lost. The only way the Dems could have lost in 2008 was the Bundy-Manson ticket. They probably could have run Carter again, and won. A tanking economy, complete financial meltdown, crash of the mortgage/construction industry, years of mishandling the Iraq War (the results of the surge not being apparent), the perceived corruption surrounding no-bid contracts for Halliburton, etc....

Hopefully, history will look back at the election of Obama as an aberration. An unqualified cypher of a candidate, without enough of a track record to even attack. He was a candidate of the circumstances. The WAPO article is right-on, in that it points out the "pass" he was given on issues of substance.

I'm sure he could have written a book, but was cut short.

I do have an answer to one of the questions:


Because left-leaning, numbnutz rags like yourselves GAVE HIM A PASS! YOU ignored all the signs and shrugged it off as propoganda from the right. Where were you in Nov 08?

Thanks for the post Terry.

Needs to be widely reprinted.... Especially come November....

Well, if it's in the WP in must be true. Do you think they are getting many calls from devoted readers (libs) expressing their displeasure with Mr. Patterson's assessment of Barry?

That is pretty much the truth. The nation wanted change, and boy did we get it.

I was amazed back then that his lack of credentials did not get a rasied eyebrow. Palin had at least done some wheeling and dealing as governor. Seems being a governor was sufficient to get several other folks elected in the past.

the article skips the real issue, which is hussein is a plant, a construct, designed to do maximum damage to America in the shortest amount of time.
The underlying support of hussein by folks like Soros and those on Wall Street, was from the beginning, all about opening the bank, and allowing the well connected to loot the America Treasury.

My mistake, it was on the American Thinker that it was published.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html

"How do you feel now that you've read this article Dave?"

"I feel.... like there is sunshine in my heart, I'm so happy inside. It is beautiful, it made me cry."

Hammer meet nail....

+1

That being in the Post is amazing.

Al Bundy & Marilyn Manson?

that's because it wasn't....and never will be

cuts a little too close to the bone for the WaPo

No, but that one would at least have been a contest.

Matt Patterson really isn't saying anything new. During the campaign lots of people were saying what he is saying, but few people were listening. It's not much comfort to say, "I told you so."

So, TLee, are you saying it wasn't in the WaPo? Or was it in the American Thinker and the WaPo and the SF Examiner? (What a name -- SanFrancisco Examiner -- kinda scares me!)

Steve.