Monday, August 25, 2008

Obama's Racial Issues

Saw these links at the Vodkapundit.

No doubt Slate is proud of moron Jacob Weisberg's piece. Not that there is any reason for Barry to lose, like his complete lack of experience, complete communist stance on money redistribution or any of that pantheon of other reasons that conservatives cringe about. Nope, it's just about race.
If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Not sure why the victim thing is relevant, but I'm sure if blacks were asked about who victimized them you'd get at least a similar reaction with whites as an antagonist. But any how, there is little doubt that race is a factor. You'd have to be blind or stupid to ignore it. Of course, Weisberg seems to completely forget the reversal of his topic, how many blacks will vote for Obama just because he's black and against McCain because he's white. Funny how that dichotomy seems to always be left out of the equation.

The best part is the "think of the children" canard.
Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
What a pile of horse-shit. I love the fact that Obama will somehow cleanse the historical legacy of slavery, segregation and racism. How is that exactly? Those are things that definitely occurred, just having Barry as President won't make that go away, nothing will. And if your children are growing up thinking equal opportunity is a myth, then maybe you have no one to blame but yourself. A presidential election isn't about salving some pretended wounds, its about choosing the person right to direct our country for the next four years. That person is chosen by the majority, not by some made up contention that someone's children need some little push to have good self esteem.

The other link in that post is worth reading as well. George Will throwing darts at Barry "renewable resources" Obama.
Obama is (this is part of liberalism's catechism) leery of nuclear power. He also says -- and might say so even if Nevada were not a swing state -- that he distrusts the safety of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for storage of radioactive waste. Evidently he prefers today's situation -- nuclear waste stored at 126 inherently insecure above-ground sites in 39 states, within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.

But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing. Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon Jan. 20, 2009.

That bit cracked me up. I'd say it is funny, right up until I think about it and realize its true. Then, I get worried. Read the quotes from Will's piece. They have a creepy dictatorial tone.
Obama recently said that he would "require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term -- more than double what we have now." Note the verb "require" and the adjective "renewable."
Require? He's not going to be king, so how is he going to require that we have this? Maybe he could legislate it with the assistance of a democrat controlled congress, but that still isn't his requiring.
Obama has also promised that "we will get 1 million 150-mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years." What a tranquilizing verb "get" is. This senator, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and is going to get a million consumers to buy, these cars. How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both -- billions of dollars of tax subsidies for automakers and billions more to bribe customers to buy cars they otherwise would spurn.
Again, this is another dictatorial statement, though you could take it more lightly if you remove any association with other statements.

I also don't see how Barry thinks this is going to work. Here in the Northeast these battery cars work, but they don't ever get mileage like that. And a plug-in car just moves the tail pipe somewhere else. Will goes on to discuss that. Personally, I won't drive one of these things. I don't like how they drive and I've seen them in the snow and I just don't want to end up that stuck that often.

Oh, and just a last stolen link to add from Vodkapundit. Here is Green Ego and Ham from Watchman's Words.

Heh. Got to love them when they do it well.

No comments: