The Washington Post on Obama...Finally!
As I’m sure you know, the Washington
Post Newspaper has always had a reputation for being extremely liberal, so the
fact that their Editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in
their newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of
itself. Finally, the truth about our radical President’s agenda is
starting to trickle through the ‘protective walls’ built by our liberal media.
Matt Patterson (columnist for the Washington Post, New York
Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Government & Society
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an
inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of 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 cliches, 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.
Here's Matt's website. http://mattpattersononline.co...
Part of it is a rehash of a Post article by Norman Podhoretz. But... This is what my research has turned up'
Matt Patterson is editor of Labor Watch and Green Watch at CRC, and the 2011-2012 Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Matt's columns and commentary have appeared in some of the nation's top newspapers and political sites, including the Washington Post, New York Post, Washington Examiner, American Thinker, and FOXNews.com. From 2009 to 2010, he was a Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute. Previously he served as research assistant to Charles Krauthammer and political coordinator for the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign.
Top Opinion
-
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/04/20 18:20:47
+26Well, hey, Washington Post Editorial Staff. You endorsed that man. You and your buddies in the media put him in there. Are you not indulging in the same thing for which you now criticize your fellow liberals? You saw to it that such an unqualified man got into office, and take no responsibility for the revelations that now follow.
It orginaly appeared on the conservative web site American Thinker on Aug. 18, 2011 under the title "The Affirmative Action Preident" by Matt Patterson.
It has been resurrected and is making the rounds in an e mail claming (falsly) that it was published in the "liberal news paper" The Washington Post.
The inaccurate attribution makes this (SH) post pointless B/S
The, now two, (thanks to ebi below) debunking pieces I've seen on this are dated Dec.20 2011. this has made the rounds before.
Good link, thanks for the effort.
I'd rather know the truth and lose the debate any time.
The SNOPS article on this subject supports your position 100% - until you get past the big blue licence plate that takes up the entire middle of the page, (I can see how you missed it).
Below the plate the article contenues; I'll just quote the rest of your link, " despite the mention of the Washington Post We found no evidence that this item was ever published in either the print or the on line version of that news paper"
The author goes on to say it may have been an honest mistake.
I really do appreciate that you made the effort to really check it out, seems like most people won't.
Which author, the fraud that falsely claimed the original "Patterson" piece was from the Post, and some how news worthy because of that (non) fact, and who remains anonymous ?
Or Patterson himself ? Or the neoconservative, Podhoretz who is also quoted ?
Anonymous ?, Patterson ?, or Podhoretz ? And what good points ?
I "didn't speak to that" because the source is fraudulent and not worthy of the dignify cation; and finally, "Oddly" I didn't notice any "very good points" , perhaps you could point out one or two ?
You don't know what happened to ebi510, do you ?
If you want truth look up what Thomas Sowell says about obama
What we also should stop to think about is the mindset behind this legislation, which is very consistent with the mindset behind other policies of this administration, whether the particular issue is bailing out General Motors, telling banks whom to lend to, or appointing “czars” to tell all sorts of people in many walks of life what they can and cannot do.
The idea that government officials can play God from Washington is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is being pushed with new audacity.
What they are trying to do is to create an America very unlike the America that has existed for centuries — the America that people have been attracted to by the millions from every part of the world, the America that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.
Advertisement
This is the America about which Michelle Obama expressed her resentment before it became politically expedient to keep quiet.
It is the America that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright denounced in his sermons ...
What we also should stop to think about is the mindset behind this legislation, which is very consistent with the mindset behind other policies of this administration, whether the particular issue is bailing out General Motors, telling banks whom to lend to, or appointing “czars” to tell all sorts of people in many walks of life what they can and cannot do.
The idea that government officials can play God from Washington is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is being pushed with new audacity.
What they are trying to do is to create an America very unlike the America that has existed for centuries — the America that people have been attracted to by the millions from every part of the world, the America that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.
Advertisement
This is the America about which Michelle Obama expressed her resentment before it became politically expedient to keep quiet.
It is the America that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright denounced in his sermons during the 20 years when Barack Obama was his parishioner, before political expediency required Obama to withdraw and distance himself.
The thing most associated with America — freedom — is precisely what must be destroyed if this is to be turned into a fundamentally different country to suit Obama’s vision of the country and of himself. But do not expect a savvy politician like Barack Obama to express what he is doing in terms of limiting our freedom.
He may not even think of it in those terms. He may think of it in terms of promoting “social justice” or making better decisions than ordinary people are capable of making for themselves, whether about medical care or housing or many other things. Throughout history, egalitarians have been among the most arrogant people.
Obama has surrounded himself with people who also think it is their job to make other people’s decisions for them. Not just Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, his health-care advisor who complains of Americans’ “over-utilization” of medical care, but also Prof. Cass Sunstein, who has written a whole book on how third parties should use government power to “nudge” people into making better decisions in general.
Then there are a whole array of Obama administration officials who take it as their job to pick winners and losers in the economy and tell companies how much they can and cannot pay their executives.
Just as magicians know that the secret of some of their tricks is to distract the audience, so politicians know that the secret of many political tricks is to distract the public with scapegoats.
No one is more of a political magician than Barack Obama. At the beginning of 2008, no one expected a shrewd and experienced politician like Hillary Clinton to be beaten for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States by someone completely new to the national political scene. But Obama worked his political magic, with the help of the media, which he still has.
Barack Obama’s escapes from his own past words, deeds, and associations have been escapes worthy of Houdini.
Like other magicians, Obama has chosen his distractions well. The insurance industry is currently his favorite distraction as scapegoat, after he tried to demonize doctors without much success. Saints are no more common in the insurance industry than in politics or even among paragons of virtue like economists. So there will always be horror stories, even if these are less numerous or less horrible than what is likely to happen if Obamacare gets passed into law.
Obama even gets away with saying things such as that we need a system to “keep insurance companies honest” — and many people may not see the painful irony in politicians trying to keep other people honest. Certainly most of the media are unlikely to point out this irony.
Makes me wonder who would work so hard to misslead us and why ?
Who wrote this piece of Sh** story? You or Norman Podhoretz? You are both liberal political flunckies. You probably couldn't find your way out of a phone booth with a compus even if you helped each other read it.
Not one mentiion of his handlers, no mention of the fact he is now and allways has been not eligible to even run for President, let alone act like one.
I could write a better story than the fiction you dreamed up out of failed policies like "Affirmative Action" and, "It made White people feel good?" If that's true for you, speak for yourself.
I write Science Fiction and Political Science fiction. In my story, he'd be "President for Life, and Ruler of the world, by now.
And, he's full of "Empty Narcissism" ??? Where'd you get the, "Empty"?? His whole life has been Narcissistic. He will destroy anyone who gets in his way, or, I should say, He won't soil the lilly-white palms of his hands -- he'll have one of his Chicago "New" Black Panthers do it for him. Or, maybe some Islamic Jihadist...
THIS WOULD HELP . . . We know where he came from, who influenced him, what his agenda is, and how he intends to implement his plans. Somehow, someway, we need independent, expert forensic examinations of all Obama's birth records IF stored in the Hawaii Department of Health and in the hospitals where he was supposed to have been born. The absence of this information, I'm sure, would guarentee placing Romney in the White House.
MAYBE IF CONGRESS WOULD LET THE PRESIDENT DO HIS JOB? TO CLEAN UP THE MESS LEFTOVER FROM THE LAST REGIME''''' REPUBLICANS DRAGGING THEIR FEET , THATS RIGHT HOUSE OF CONGRESS''''' OBAMA SHOULD OVERRIDE
THE CONGRESS. THE ECONOMY COULD TAKE A DECADE TO RECOVER. IF HOUSE REPUBLICANS WOULD STEP UP TO THE PLATE, AND WORK WITH THE PRESIDENT
INSTEAD OF WASTING TAX DOLLARS, QUOTE: STATEMENT FROM MY 92 YEAR OLD FATHER (WWII) VETERAN.
http://www.google.com/search?...
...but none at washingtonpost.com:
http://www.google.com/search?...
Dave