2008 General Election:posted by: Political Pyro
August 28, 2008 at 8:40 am
Years ago, one of my college professors laid out a map of Paris on an overhead projector and then aligned with it a map of the constellation. The result was a near perfect fusion of monuments and stars in an uncanny synchronicity that awakened students’ eyes to the possibility that Paris had been built as a monument to the Heavens. The map of Paris was in fact a map of the stars with as much architectural perfection as the great pyramids or Stonehenge. Was my professor’s revelation accurate?
 
No. My political science professor was a master of deception. He played with our minds only to prove to us that despite our relative intelligence, we can be played.
 
A map of Paris with thousands of dots will undoubtedly match up to a map with billions. To prove his point at the end of the great head game, he simply moved one of the maps over an inch to show that they aligned again.
 
Politics is about deception. More accurately, it is about winning, and deception is a vital key. 
 
Recently, political master, Bill Clinton, said the following:

“Suppose for example you’re a voter and you have candidate X and you have candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom will you vote?

This is the kind of question that I predict — and this has nothing to do with what’s going on now — but I am just saying if you look at five, 10, 15 years from now, you may actually see this delivery issue become a serious issue in Democratic debates because it is so hard to figure out how to turn good intentions into real changes in the lives of the people we represent.”

Clearly, Bill Clinton is referring to Obama and McCain although within the same breath he denies it. What was the point of saying this in the first place? Many pundits have been wondering. My initial thought was that Clinton actually wants McCain to win so his wife can run in 2012.
 
But, with deeper analysis, I note that McCain in this scenario is "Candidate Y" and Obama is "Candidate X". Is it possible that Bill Clinton was comparing Barack Obama with Malcolm X
2008 General Election:posted by: Political Pyro
August 2, 2008 at 3:17 pm

In an election year that has become increasingly dull since the departure of Hillary Clinton, it seems that the fun is actually getting ramped up again with the introduction of Steve Schmidt into the McCain campaign. Schmidt was one of the architects (along with Karl Rove) of the 2004 George W. Bush re-election campaign that produced some of the sleaziest most entertaining moments in modern campaign history.

It seems Schmidt’s presence in the campaign is lighting a much-needed fire under the asses of the McCain camp the way Maggie Williams did for Hillary with the "kitchen sink". But with the mainstream media so firmly in the tank for The Messiah, providing him with 24-hour non-stop coverage, what else is the man to do for some airtime?

Bob Herbert wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times, Running While Black, slamming the newly invigorated McCain campaign for its latest political ad, "Celebrity". While trying to be critical of McCain’s new tactics, Herbert merely solidifies my earliest assumption that Obama and his media minions have been playing the race card all along. Only now, they are becoming more obvious about it. Here is the opening paragraph to Herbert’s piece:                                           

Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates.

Gee, Bob, I wonder why everytime you have a black man running for office, any and all criticism of the man is immediately associated with racism? This is getting old…
 
Now, from the hapless but increasingly venomous McCain campaign, comes the slimy Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. The two highly sexualized women (both notorious for displaying themselves to the paparazzi while not wearing underwear) are shown briefly and incongruously at the beginning of a commercial critical of Mr. Obama.

 
You’ve got to be kidding me, Bob. The first thing you think about when you see those two women are the fact that they don’t wear panties? And did you just use the word "slimy" in reference to two women without underwear? The innuendoes are really flying out there, Bob.

Dude, close the laptop, grab your jacket, and procede to the nearest bar. You’ve got some serious internal issues. I suggest you start off with four Martini’s and just keep pounding them till all this blows over. Did you pick up on my subliminal message for you in the previous sentence? That’s right, better find an ATM… 

Personally, my first assumption was that Barack Obama was being associated with two of the most untalented, undeserving, empty-headed media morons to ever gain America’s attention. They make Ed McMahon look like Laurence Olivier. Not until I read Bob Herbert’s piece did I even consider that "Celebrity" was actually invoking Blazing Saddles: "Hey! Where the white women at?"
 
                         
 
For those of you out there as slow as I am in picking up on these subliminally toxic suggestions, I have devised a short quiz based on the Rorschach theme (picture association in this example) to sharpen up your thinking skills…
 
The Rorschach inkblot test is a method of psychological evaluation. Psychologists use this test to try to examine the personality characteristics and emotional functioning of their patients. It has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to openly admit to psychotic thinking.
 
I have decided to use Steve Schmidt because I’m guessing, unlike Barack Obama, he isn’t hyper-sensitive about who he is and probably has a sense of humor…
 
What Am I Implying Here??? 
  
 
 
  1. I am racist. I hate white people.
  2. Bald men are eeee-vil.
  3. Steve Schmidt is gay. Those are his lovers.
  4. All three pictures are of the same guy. Good days, bad days.
  5. Lord Voldemort needs to see his dentist. Therefore, so does Steve Schmidt.
  6. Barack Obama is gay. I don’t know why, he just is.
  7. Fasten your seatbelts. The McCain campaign is about to kick some serious ass.
You decide…
2008 General Election:posted by: Political Pyro
July 31, 2008 at 12:29 pm
John McCain recently revealed in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that he supported the proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would ban "preferential treatment" on the basis of "race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin." Barack Obama immediately fired back saying he was "disappointed" in McCain’s position.
 
"You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they’re all too often designed to drive a wedge between people," Obama said speaking to a conference of minority journalists.
 
With this statement, yet again, Barack Obama displays his concern with speeches over action — design over finished product. The sinister intentions of the architects of this referendum are about as relevant to the law as what they had for breakfast that morning or what color tie they were sporting. The truth of the matter is, Senator Obama, the proposed amendment advocates total equality — something you do not advocate as you pander to the minority voter.                                                                
 
As a white man, I do not pretend to understand first-hand the hardship of minorities. However, what I do understand is that poverty and hardship have no racial preference. The white perception of "leveling the playing field" more often than not results in a growing resentment toward a privileged few who are given preferential treatment with college loans or government jobs based on sex, religion, or skin color.
 
White resentment can be thought of as a social purgatory between the heaven of total assimilation of all Americans and the Hell of racism and segregation. White resentment is often confused with racism, yet resentment toward the preferential treatment of minorities is not usually harbored by high-powered lawyers or brokers living in New York City or Washington D.C. They are harbored in trailers in Kentucky or Arkansas, or in modest homes in the suburbs by working-class whites simply trying to make ends meet. Their frustration comes not from money (or lack of), not from some irrational disdain for dark-colored skin, but from the lack of equal opportunity. The divisive wedge, Senator Obama, is not equality for all but the antiquated notion that some people are more deserving than others. That wedge is Affirmative Action.

 
White resentment, the product of Affirmative Action, is partially founded by an elite media culture who insists that so-called blue-collar whites are all racist (which is why they supported Hillary Clinton), when in fact, they are not. It is impossible to disprove a negative — they have no badge to flash and prove this. So when these voters in West Virginia and Kentucky are immediately branded as racist because they do not support Barack Obama, and Obama never bothers to defend them against the media smear tactics, the resentment begins to intensify. Perhaps they are even one step closer to becoming the full-blown racists they are already accused of being. Apparently, this is of no concern to Barack Obama, but if the country can learn to come together since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, surely we can grow apart again just as fast.

Another cause of white resentment is hypocrisy. Barack Obama says he believes a constitutional amendment to bar preferential treatment by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin is "divisive". Yet after six months of using his own race as a weapon against such stalwart Democrats as Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro (who have spent their entire political lives fighting for racial equality) by inferring that their comments in opposition to his candidacy were racist, he has shown us time and time again he is far more concerned with winning the election than he is in healing the racial wounds in America.

Hypocrisy also exists in Black Entertainment Television, Ebony magazine, Obama’s black separatist church, and the Congressional Black Caucus, leaving many white Americans scratching their heads as to why an unqualified black candidate should be given the keys to the White House simply as a token of our apologies for the last 200 years when "the playing field" already has an incline like the side of the Matterhorn.   

Jesse Jackson popularized the term "African-American" in the 1980s, and by doing so drove a wedge between black people and the rest of America who were clearly on the road to healing. To advocate the construction of a mental wall — or hyphen — that separates black Americans from the rest of the country is the sort of action one would expect from a race hustler who makes his living by stoking the fires while pretending to fight to extinguish them. Such divisive actions are even more deplorable when advanced by a presidential candidate willing to stoke the fires in order to quench his thirst for power by winning the White House.
 
To his credit, Barack Obama spoke out against Jesse Jackson’s miserable failures as a model for young, black Americans by lashing out at unmarried fathers who shun responsibility and desert their families. But by continuing to restrain the rest of the nation in verbal shackles anytime we speak out against his candidacy, by allowing his opposition to be labeled as racists, and by allowing other forms of discrimination to be used against his opponents (think about his silence toward the sexism used against Hillary Clinton, or his continued use of the word "confused" when referring to John McCain), Barack Obama continues to show us that he isn’t interested in equality at all.
 
Barack Obama has used his historical candidacy as the self-proclaimed unifier to do nothing but pick at America’s racial scab anytime it benefits his quest for the White House. Sexism and ageism be damned. The calendar-driven Barack Obama only speaks out against racism, and only then if it helps him win the White House (And it happens to be Father’s Day. Or he’s busted over Rev. Jeremiah Wright.) while the rest of the nation remains enslaved. By continuing to ignore the plight of the rest of America, Barack Obama is showing himself to be nothing more than another "black candidate" with the same black centrist goals — Jesse Jackson in a brand-new suit.
 
This country is much too diverse for Jackson/Obama-style tunnel-vision politics. The presidency is too important to hand over to a self-serving race-baiter promoting the agenda of just a precious selected few. This type of hypocrisy is the root of white resentment in America, and Barack Obama simply couldn’t care less. Onward to the White House.