Wednesday, June 04, 2008
When The Affirmative Action President Thoroughly Disappoints His Base
- And He Will - How Will They React?
It's January 2009 and The Affirmative Action Candidate has become the Affirmative Action president, sworn into office perhaps with his hand upon the Koran and wearing the accepted and traditional Muslim wardrobe of his Islamic religion.
But I digress...only to again poke a stick into the eyes of his Cult Followers.
A fantastic piece in Monday's Wall Street Journal, a short article titled, Don't Expect a Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy, written by Timothy J. Lynch and Robert S. Singh, analyzed aspects of how The Affirmative Action Candidate - should he somehow gain entrance to the White House (he won't) - would handle the Bush foreign policy.
Their WSJ piece brings up several issues that have the potential to infuriate Obama Cultists should their candidate occupy the White House.
...The departure of [President George W.] Bush will hardly leave the nation's foreign relationships in tatters. Despite much American introspection, Euro-liberal sniping and Latin American leftist fantasizing, the quantity and quality of America's formal friendships have endured, if not actually increased, since 2001. Eighty-four governments, out of a world total of some 192, are formally allied with the U.S.
As for the non-stop euphemism of the "illegal occupation of Iraq" - a false term proffered only by the most simplistic dullards within the Pacifist crowd - if U.S. forces are "occupying" Iraq (they're not), then how do faux pro-Military Democrats supporting forces exiting Iraq justify the presence of U.S. Military troops still "occupying" Bosnia and Kosovo some twelve years after being dispatched there by Bill Clinton? And please, no faux claims from Lefties leaving comments using the excuse that there's no violence in Kosovo and Bosnia because you've already determined it's a matter of "occupation", not violence or risk. Besides, you still lose on citing no violence of risk in Bosnia and Kosovo; the fact the Troops are there is indicative of the propensity of risk and violence.
A President Obama would risk too much with a precipitous withdrawal, especially if it was just to fulfill an early campaign pledge that was adopted to establish blue water between him and [Hillary] Clinton than to reformulate the war on terror. Mr. Obama's opposition to the Iraq war is empirical - "it didn't work" - rather than ideological.
Mr. Obama is capable of changing his position to reflect events on the ground. He is not dedicated to a peacenik vision of immediate withdrawal. He will not desert Iraq if doing so puts U.S. national security at risk.
The desire to get rid of George W. Bush will not make his replacement any less vociferous and committed to the current president's pursuit of American prosperity and security.
As a Romanian proverb reminds us: "A change of leaders is the joy of fools."
If his Cultists believe that, as president, Obama will prematurely pull Troops out of Iraq, thereby enabling a massive and bloody genocide on his watch, they are in for a shocking surprise.There is no more joy of fools than what is currently being experienced by those who thoughtlessly and uncritically support Obama. If his Cultists believe that, as president, Obama will not co-opt successful Iraq strategy and claim victory or positive results for himself, they are far more naive than I ever imagined.
An Affirmative Action presidency presents an interesting and percolating Petri dish of a brand new strain of Liberal Double Standards.
Will the "war is always wrong" crowd - the primary and most prevalent virulent bacterial culture that are his supporters - treat him as they treated Bush? We know the answer. They will do what they do best, which is completely bending over backward, inventing new self-rationalization and self-serving political justification while furrowing deeper into their state of denial that what their candidate is doing is the best course of action to take; in other words, he's doing just what Bush has done (Horrors!). Where were they when Bush was doing exactly what The Affirmative Action president may indeed do? They were too busy fomenting Hatred to notice or support what was the right action all along.
An Obama-Clinton ticket is a dream team that McCain should have no problem beating, but being the "piss on his own party" that McCain is, he'll f*ck it up and lose.
I may have mentioned in the past that a couple of friends of mine are very very liberal in their politics. It doesn't interfere with our friendship. They're not haters, the disagree with Bush's policies as much as I disagreed with Clinton's politices. In the end, we agree to disagree. It's when someone refuses to civilly agree to disagree when it becomes personal attacks.
Glad you liked the post.
An Obama/Hillary ticket I would imagine would turn off a large number of supporters on both their camps. If we could only get them to implode this year. But then we still have the problem of The MAVERICK rubber stamping RINO ideology as you so astutely note.
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.