Patterico's Pontifications

I know there are only so many patriotic thing one can say, but I just caught Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) doing a ChangeFest 09 piece where he intermixes Obama’s Inaugural speech with segments of Bush speeches where Bush is saying nearly the identical thing.
Obviously Obama has been hanging with Joe Biden too much.

Neo (cba5df) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:05 pm

Is the coronation and Ascension of Teh One over yet?

Has anyone been able to find out how the television coverage of this coronation compares to the coverage of prior ascensions?

JD (48009d) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:09 pm

Olbermonkey complaining about how slow the motorcade was rolling down Pennsylvania Ave. THAT was fun to hear.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:20 pm

The One mangling the oath of office . . . NEXT time (if, God forbid, there’s a next time) the teleprompter better be on.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:24 pm

A call for the end of petty recriminations in a speech peppered with them. And a new WH website containing them. And a smile for the Rev. Lowery’s low-rent race-baiting.

Change? No. Audacity? Yes.

Karl (2491e1) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:36 pm

I really cannot recall another inaugural address where a new President spent so much time ripping into the prior President. Post-partisan post-racial … cough … cough … bullshit … cough.

JD (48009d) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:43 pm

In the 4 hours after PE Obama became PotUS Obama, the stock market dropped 180 points (about 2.25%).

For tomorrow, I predict a further 200 point drop, and that is me being very, VERY optimistic…

Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:46 pm

The One mangling the oath of office

That was CJ Roberts flubbing, actually…

Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:46 pm

That is the change they were hoping for, Scott.

JD (48009d) — 1/20/2009 @ 9:53 pm

After listening ALL DAY to EVERY commentator go on and on about how NOW we have reached that “golden ticket” transcending racial barriers moment . . . now — NOW — will the collective left-leaning mainstream media please (please, please?) SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT RACE???

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:05 pm

Comment by Icy Texan — 1/20/2009 @ 9:24 pm

John Roberts is the one who screwed up. But, I guess if it will make the next four years easier to swallow then you can blame it on ‘Teh One’.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:08 pm

We will just blame you, and your inanity, Ed.

JD (48009d) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:09 pm

I don’t think personal insults will change the fact that Icy Texan was incorrect in his assessment, but I will just assume that you will be using them in lieu of any contrary evidence.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:15 pm

All you have brought in your comments was juvenile blather. I just figured I would return the favor.

JD (48009d) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:20 pm

The adj-rich Dana pointed out where the error was. But that does not excuse Ed’s inanity. Ed could be declared criminally inane for a myriad other posts he’s made.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:23 pm

______________________________________

NOW — will the collective left-leaning mainstream media please (please, please?) SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT RACE???

Well, if Obama were a Republican — a conservative — a lot of those same commentators of leftist orientation would be quite muffled in their enthusiasma. Some of them in private moments might even wonder whether diversity was all it was cracked up to be. A few also would be allowing phrases such as “sell out!” and “Uncle Tom!!” to pass between their lips.
______________________________________

Mark (411533) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:25 pm

I find it very interesting that the people who are amazed that a black guy could be elected President ARE the ones that voted for him. Those of us who are non-plussed by his race, seem to be the ones who opposed him.

Robert C. J. Parry (c08820) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:30 pm

I thought this guy was supposed to be bringing us all together?! Someone please let me know when the actual post-racial post-partisan stuff starts happening.

JD (48009d) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:31 pm

The same way they let fly with the sexist comments against Sarah Palin.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:33 pm

Yes, it is always informative when the party of inclusion attacks conservative women and conservatives of color. Just imagine if a black woman ever ran for POTUS on the R ticket. Talk about a left-wing witch hunt!

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:37 pm

The same way they let fly with anti-Mormon comments (one of them by TOM HANKS just a couple of days ago!) in the wake of Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:39 pm

Speaking of the media (do we have to?) ABC with Terry Moran on the 10 p.m. show did a story about a black family that can trace their history back to slavery who came to the inaugural. Between gushing praise of Michelle’s beauty and Barack’s wonderful speech and yada yada yada, that is. Their family’s name is McCain. Yes, ABC hunted down and found a family that had been owned by ancestors of John McCain!!!

How petty and mean and destructive can they get? Wow, good thing we didn’t elect that slaveowner! I HATE THE MEDIA!

Patricia (89cb84) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:46 pm

Michelle’s outfit reminded me I have to go to the dentist to get a crown fixed, so I guess something good came out of the day.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:46 pm

heh. I thought I was the only one who dozed off, P. Glad to see I was in such good company.

caltechgirl (0799cc) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:48 pm

Patricia – Michelle is going to keep that White House chef BUSY, let me tell you. If the media was gushing praises about her beauty they couldn’t have seen that fugly dress yet, or was it a shower curtain?

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:51 pm

I wonder how many years it will be before today’s 5th graders can be proud to be Americans.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:54 pm

In defense of my comment from 1/20/2009 @ 9:24 pm, I present the evidence, courtesy of a respected MSM journalist:

Chief Justice John Roberts is a man who has made very few public missteps in his life — but he appears to have made one when swearing in Barack Obama. After Obama stepped on the first line of the oath, Roberts then slightly flubbed the next bit–which then tripped up Obama.

You’d think two brilliant Harvard Law grads who are both serious students of the Constitution (and obviously know the words of the oath by heart) would nail this one, but, then again, who among us has made history standing before two million people on a freezing January day?

The oath as contained in the Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

But when Obama jumped in sooner than Roberts expected, Roberts flipped some of the words, saying: “I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.”

Here’s the transcript:

ROBERTS: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?
OBAMA: I am.
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
OBAMA: I, Barack…
ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
OBAMA: … that I will execute…
ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…
OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability…
ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

— While Ed from PA may have cause to question my use of the inflammatory verb “mangling”, I was NOT incorrect in my assessment, especially since Obama was the one that screwed up first.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:57 pm

______________________________

John Roberts is the one who screwed up.

Obama actually got things off awkwardly by stepping on the opening line spoken by Chief Justice Roberts. However, Roberts did garble the next portion of his text (by inserting the word “faithfully” at the end, instead of towards the beginning, of the next clause), although I’m not sure if that was due in part to his feeling some disquiet at how peculiarly clumsy Obama had been (since he’s known for his smoothness) in the first few seconds of the administering of the oath.

BTW, as a point of comparison, I watched a video of the text spoken by and between Reagan and Chief Justice Burger in the inaugural of 1981.
______________________________

Mark (411533) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:57 pm

John – They’re happy because Obama’s going to give them better sex ed classes. What’s not to like even though they don’t know what it all means.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/20/2009 @ 10:59 pm

^ Oops, my post above is redundant. I took so long watching a youtube video of Reagan and Burger, that I didn’t refresh this page before Icy Texan posted his entry.

Mark (411533) — 1/20/2009 @ 11:00 pm

Wait, wait, wait!!!

Keith “I sleep with a Obama blow-up doll every night” Olbermann said that Obama “stumbled” during the Oath of Office.

If it were ALL Roberts’s fault, would KO say such a thing?

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/20/2009 @ 11:05 pm

Roberts also said “to” instead of “of” in the portion of his oath that contains “president of the United States.”

I do have to wonder if there weren’t some so-called freudian slips involved—-“this Obama is going to do something TO, and not FOR, America!”—–since John Roberts may have been thinking, “sheesh, I can’t believe the guy who I’m administering the oath of office to right now is gonna be the next occupant of the Oval Office!!”

And, BTW, I’m sure Obama was thinking, “this guy contributed to screwing up my big historic moment, which is another reason why hell will freeze over before I appoint anyone but a leftwinger to the Supreme Court!!”

Mark (411533) — 1/20/2009 @ 11:18 pm

And to think that both those guys probably spent a good 30 minutes last night reciting that oath.

CJ Roberts is going to hate the cocktail circuit for the next few weeks.

Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/21/2009 @ 12:05 am

The most racist day in American history. MLK wanted people to be judged by the content of their character. But today was all about skin color.

Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/21/2009 @ 12:26 am

It was a historic day indeed with the inauguration of Barack Obama and now Obama will have to sit down and to tackle the problems facing the United States of America. The economy, oil, jobs and two wars will all be Obama’s focal points during his historic first 90 days in office. The changing of the guard will hopefully equal an end to the crisis.

How to Start a Business in California (901804) — 1/21/2009 @ 1:47 am

Kevin Murphy (#33), you may be correct in your guess that both men practiced on the previous day. They obviously didn’t practice together, though. Roberts started off with the same pattern Justice Stevens had just used with Biden (first pause after “do solemnly swear,” not after the oath-taker’s name), but Obama did jump in prematurely — and once the boat is rocked, it tends to continue rocking.

Still, Roberts — who had little else to worry about today except the oath, and who could certainly have read it from an index card had his pride and tradition not prevented that — shouldn’t have been knocked overboard by the first wobble. And Obama missed an opportunity when he repeated Roberts’ mistake (misplacing “faithfully”). If Obama had instead said the line correctly, he would have demonstrated his independence and self-confidence and erudition. (The oath is the oath, even when the Chief Justice gets it wrong; Ann Althouse’s joke (“So much for Roberts being a textualist) is apt.)

Patterico, to respond to your question, I actually listened to the entire inaugural on the radio; then read the address in print; then watched the whole thing again on the late-night cable-station replays. It’s very, very easy to critique the speech in its print form — the clichés and non sequiturs are more obvious, and the whole thing is less powerful. Watching it on TV, however, cloaks the speech in majesty and drama that it lacked on the radio.

Giving it all the benefit of the TV version, then overall, the inaugural address was oratorically better, I think, than Obama’s nomination acceptance speech in Denver or his election night victory speech, but still a notch below his keynote at the 2004 DNC — which remains, in my opinion, the single best political speech of the Twenty-First Century so far.

As for substance, it started with a fib (about him being humble), and no one can possibly know from his slender record (only significant accomplishment: getting elected) whether he’s serious about the rest of it, and if so, which parts in particular.

Beldar (60f496) — 1/21/2009 @ 2:35 am

I’ve had the last two days off, so I watched the whole thing live. Look, I didn’t want Barack Obama to be president either, but the majority of the voters disagreed with me. That’s life in a democracy.

The man delivered a great speech: well-crafted and magnificently delivered. If there were a few small things in it with which I disagree, on the whole it was a speech that a Republican could have delivered.

Most of us are afraid that he’ll be a bad president, policywise, but lighten up: today is his first full day on the job, and he hasn’t had time yet to succeed or fail.

Let’s face facts: unless he does something as stupid as President Nixon did, we aren’t going to unseat him before 2013. We tried that with Bill Clinton, and it didn’t work; our friends on the left tried that with George Bush, and that didn’t work. Even if we did manage to unseat him, we’d just get Joe Biden as president.

We need to oppose his policies where they are harmful, but not behave like the worst of the left.

The Dana who knows what the oth of office is supposed to be (3e4784) — 1/21/2009 @ 3:32 am

Mr Hitchcock described me:

The adj-rich Dana

Uhhh, please don’t say that I am rich with anything, or the Democrats will try to tax it!

The poverty-stricken Dana (3e4784) — 1/21/2009 @ 3:34 am

How petty and mean and destructive can they get? Wow, good thing we didn’t elect that slaveowner!

True, we didn’t elect that slave owner, Patricia. We elected the other slave owner.

Pablo (99243e) — 1/21/2009 @ 4:27 am

We need to oppose his policies where they are harmful, but not behave like the worst of the left.

I second that sentiment

voiceofreason2 not clever enough to think of multiple names! (10af7e) — 1/21/2009 @ 4:29 am

I, for one, am incapable of behaving like the worst of the left. No worries there.

I blame proper parenting.

Pablo (99243e) — 1/21/2009 @ 4:33 am

Ping, in lieu of trackback, specifically directed to comment #34 by Perfect Sense.

Beldar (60f496) — 1/21/2009 @ 4:41 am

Does anyone know if the DC sanitation workers were able to clean up all the semen stains on the Mall, and did they have to wear biohazard to avoid contracting any STDs?

Horatio (55069c) — 1/21/2009 @ 4:52 am

The trio is now complete – “Larry” Obama, “Moe” Reid and “Curly” Pelosi.

arch (84c50a) — 1/21/2009 @ 4:53 am

”
ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…”

‘especially since Obama was the one that screwed up first.’

Its right there in front of you, but you refuse to see it.

bsurd (06949e) — 1/21/2009 @ 5:25 am

In case you missed it, let me reprint what Dana just said.
I’ve had the last two days off, so I watched the whole thing live. Look, I didn’t want Barack Obama to be president either, but the majority of the voters disagreed with me. That’s life in a democracy.

The man delivered a great speech: well-crafted and magnificently delivered. If there were a few small things in it with which I disagree, on the whole it was a speech that a Republican could have delivered.

Most of us are afraid that he’ll be a bad president, policywise, but lighten up: today is his first full day on the job, and he hasn’t had time yet to succeed or fail.

Let’s face facts: unless he does something as stupid as President Nixon did, we aren’t going to unseat him before 2013. We tried that with Bill Clinton, and it didn’t work; our friends on the left tried that with George Bush, and that didn’t work. Even if we did manage to unseat him, we’d just get Joe Biden as president.

We need to oppose his policies where they are harmful, but not behave like the worst of the left.

Comment by The Dana who knows what the oth of office is supposed to be — 1/21/2009 @ 3:32 am
A Great American. Please follow his example.

Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/21/2009 @ 7:17 am

I think this is what may have upset “Mr. President-Elect” and thrown off his timing:

ROBERTS: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?
OBAMA: I am.

nk (bbe952) — 1/21/2009 @ 7:27 am

It was the Chief Justice’s revenge for Senator Obama voting against his confirmation. 🙂

The Dana who hopes that President Obama never gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice (3e4784) — 1/21/2009 @ 7:58 am

Nope. It was Justice Roberts calling Obama by his correct title and not the made-up-faking-dignity-of-an-empty-suit-poseur title.

nk (bbe952) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:15 am

I thought this guy was supposed to be bringing us all together?! Someone please let me know when the actual post-racial post-partisan stuff starts happening.

Comment by JD — 1/20/2009 @ 10:31 pm

None of the pundits I saw claimed that the election of Obama brought upon us a ‘post-racial’ America. Those that I watched claimed it was a step in the right direction. I cannot speak for everyone, but personally I voted for him because of his policies. I don’t believe he was elected because of his skin color, and if you disagree I would love to hear your opinion and maybe even some links (of actual data, not Ann Coulter wannabes spouting off).

The pundits on the right thought that winning the election was as easy as repeating (ad nauseam) Obama’s middle name, and you’re going to claim that you thought America was a post-racial society? I don’t see the logic in that statement.

The most racist day in American history. MLK wanted people to be judged by the content of their character. But today was all about skin color.

Comment by Perfect Sense — 1/21/2009 @ 12:26 am

Was any day that an African-American was sworn into the oval office going to be the most racist day in history? I disagree, for obvious reasons. Obama won the election because of his message. That he happened to be African-American and won the election is an added bonus. What I respected most about his candidacy is that he rarely acknowledged or discussed race. He won based on his message, and his ability to reach out to young and educated voters.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:25 am

As I watched this entire debacle all I could think of is that our country is so screwed.

Stan Switek (7cfd24) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:37 am

He won based on his message, and his ability to reach out to young and educated voters.

and 90% of black voters…

Pablo (99243e) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:42 am

Comment by Ed from PA — 1/21/2009 @ 8:25 am
You are taking a big risk, Ed, making such an annoying case about Obama. Look around you, these folks, (atleast some of them) hate the guy. And soon you will pay the price for being so —————–honest. But I praise your courage and wouldn’t want to be in your shoes when the hit starts in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and action!……

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:43 am

Yeah, that’s why you’re in such bad shape from hanging around here, eh lovey?

AKA Pablo (99243e) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:49 am

I see Ed never strays far from drivel. Baracky has been touted by himself and the media as being the post-racial and post-partisan since he took the lead in the primaries. That you were not paying attention back then, or did not hear those words yesterday, does not negate the fact that has been the grand template.

Ed – What race does Barack’s middle name refer to?

That whole “he rarely acknowleged or discussed race” comment made my mocha shoot out my nose. Good Allah.

JD (b79a6a) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:53 am

Emperor7, so Dana (and Conservatives) are great Americans when we do what 95% of Liberals never did for Ronald Reagan or George Bush?

Near monopoly on hypocrisy and cynicism.

Both Reagan and Bush were demonized from day 1 by the loons who thought the “Watergate Template” was their way of exercising Civic Duty.

You give none, you get none.

The Messiah better walk on water because if not I am going to spend every political breadth bad mouthing him to all my idiotic frems who bad mouthed Bush.

.. and so far, other than picking criminals to his cabinet and racists to give inaugural speeches….

Simba (48dd5e) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:00 am

JD, remember that, where BO is concerned, his fans only see what they wish to see.

We’ll observe a lot of that in the coming years.

Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:00 am

Comment by AKA Pablo — 1/21/2009 @ 8:49 am
Hey, how dare you try to impersonate Pablo? That is a ban-able offence.

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:02 am

Nothing post racial when all you do is talk about “History” at the fact a 50% white genetically and 90% white culturally dude become Pres.

As one of your own point out — nothing changed yesterday because for all of Barack’s Messiah BS he ain’t no descendant of slaves ….

… so for the Poverticians and Race Hustlers, we are same as we ever was.

Simba (48dd5e) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:03 am

we are in for a bumpy ride. obama messed up first, then roberts did. this is the one who made no errors during the campaign, but already, even before he’s been sworn in, many errors – richardson, geithner, hilaryto name a few. this was funny to see him make a mistake live and in person where he can’t blame anyone else, or throw them under the bus like so many of his other mistakes/errors. i think b hussein obama – it’s ok to call him that now – will be the rival to carter for bad, mistake prone presidents.

i live in england and it’s nauseating to see how everyone thinks he’s the one. i happen to be a Christian as well and went to a bible study where folks were talking about how excited they were as a result of him becoming the president. did any of them know his abortion record? were they aware he wanted to re-start paying for abortions in 3rd world countries all in the name of family planning? did they know he was an advocate of late-term, partial-birth abortions? no. they are now re-thinking their support of him.

once more americans see him for who he really is, not the msm or liberal bastions, who think he’s the savior of our world, but common every day americans, there will be huge buyer’s remorse. they will see him for the great speaker he is, with nothing else – an empty suit with nothing of credit to his name. just really good at reading stuff off a screen.

ktr (d30ef9) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:04 am

It will be Post Racial the day no one gives a hoot like me.

Simba (48dd5e) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:06 am

Comment by Simba — 1/21/2009 @ 9:00 am
Then go ahead. Knock yourself out. Nobody will stop you, neither will it make any difference. So let the blood shed begin! But count me out.

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:08 am

He’s going to continue to make everyone here look like a bunch of dumbasses. You guys don’t really need help on that front, but not being right about anything ever is going to look a lot worse under the Obama administration than it was under Bush’s.

Fuck all of you!

Levi from the University of Montana (508c7b) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:11 am

“he rarely acknowleged or discussed race”

How does one type this and not know that it is nothing short of being an objective, overt, and aggressive lie?!

JD (b79a6a) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:11 am

Hey, how dare you try to impersonate Pablo? That is a ban-able offence.

Nice dodge, lovey.

AKA Pablo (99243e) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:11 am

Levi – I can’t think of many better ways to demonstrate your immaturity.

Congratulations spud!

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:13 am

How does one type this and not know that it is nothing short of being an objective, overt, and aggressive lie?!

The only possible excuse is ignorance.

“Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said. “You know, ‘he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know, ‘he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

And, of course, that’s also a lie.

AKA Pablo (99243e) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:15 am

Alright … who is posing as Levi? You are cracking me up.

JD (b79a6a) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:17 am

Emperor7,

Point is you are a giant hypocrite and one of the many hyper cynical partisans who sits around calling for calm from his opposition when you were one of damn fools screaming bloody murder about 8 years ago at this time.

Only lightweights let you get away with that. Me, not.

Conflict does not bother me whatsoever. It is the only way to weed out liars, thieves, opportunists and cum-bags like you.

Truth to power beeyotch.

Simba (48dd5e) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:19 am

Simba – No need to sink to their level. As a wise man once said, the Left set the bar very very low. No need to try to play limbo.

JD (b79a6a) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:26 am

JD,

Polite does not end battles.

Simba (48dd5e) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:41 am

Comment by Simba — 1/21/2009 @ 9:19 am
Point of correction. I supported Bush twice. And like I said, count me out.

Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:45 am

To each their own, Simba. I am not always polite, but there are obvious lines I do not cross.

JD (b79a6a) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:46 am

Dana wrote:

Most of us are afraid that he’ll be a bad president, policywise, but lighten up: today is his first full day on the job, and he hasn’t had time yet to succeed or fail.

Sorry, Dana, I can’t help but be very nervous about the next four (or eight) years. Here’s what I wrote in response to a love2008 inquiry three days after last November’s election:

Hey LN, how did you feel to see your brother make history for your kids? Were you proud? Was it an emotional moment for you?

Comment by love2008 — 11/7/2008 @ 2:47 pm

love2008 wrote:

Hey LN, how did you feel to see your brother make history for your kids? Were you proud?

I don’t participate in ethnic pride. I have siblings, but Barack Obama is not “my brother.” If I were to be proud of Obama because he’s black and was elected President, that would be counterbalanced by the misdeeds and atrocities committed by African-American criminals and charlatans on a regular basis.

Was it an emotional moment for you?

Yeah, it was an emotional moment for me, because for the first time in my life, after watching the election of six Presidents, I felt like I was living in a nation in which a significant portion of the population worships a national leader like a god.

I have heard first-person accounts of life in countries like that. I have read histories of what happens when people are given that kind of adulation. It makes me sad to think it could possibly happen here.

Comment by L.N. Smithee — 11/7/2008 @ 3:55 pm

L.N. Smithee (2a74e6) — 1/21/2009 @ 10:03 am

It makes me sad to think it could possibly happen here.

Quite prescient, you were, LN. Now we know what it is like, first hand.

JD (b79a6a) — 1/21/2009 @ 10:08 am

L.N., thank you for your comments. Since we seem to be living in a nascent ethnocracy, your commentary is unassailable.

Oh, wait. It’s not the race the trumps all, come to think of it. It’s the politics. Ask Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Condi Rice, Ward Connerly, etc.

More seriously, I have noticed the same thing about the adulation over someone with a nanometer thin resume and emerging from the Chicago political cesspool. It worries me too. Jonah Goldberg’s book is worth your time.

And of much great concern to me is that Eric Hoffer’s book from the 1950s, “The True Believer,” seems to be very, very relevant right now.

Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/21/2009 @ 10:11 am

We are also under the reign of a theocracy, EB. Teh One told us that his religion informs his politics, witness his expressed position on same sex marriage.

JD (b79a6a) — 1/21/2009 @ 10:16 am

Thanks for the apology, Ed.

Anytime now.

Come on, you can do it.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/21/2009 @ 10:21 am

Icy – Don’t hold your breath. Acknowledging mistakes is not a stregth of the drive-by trolls.

JD (b79a6a) — 1/21/2009 @ 10:25 am

Ed from PA — whom I presume is not the gaffetastic Governor Rendell — wrote:

The pundits on the right thought that winning the election was as easy as repeating (ad nauseam) Obama’s middle name, and you’re going to claim that you thought America was a post-racial society? I don’t see the logic in that statement.

John Quincy Adams. William Henry Harrison. Warren Gamaliel Harding. William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Dwight David Eisenhower. John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Lyndon Baines Johnson. Richard Milhous Nixon. James Earl Carter. Ronald Wilson Reagan. George Herbert Walker Bush. William Jefferson Clinton. George Walker Bush.

Barack ******* Obama.

His name is “Barack Hussein Obama.” That’s the name that is on his birth certificate (presumably … but that’s another issue). It’s racist to mention it out loud? That’s a bill of goods that has been sold by the Obama campaign and the Democratic suckup media, and, unfortunately, many Republicans (primarily John McCain) bought. Michelle Obama rode to her beau’s defense in mid-February 2008, referring to opponents and pundits using his birth name as the “ultimate fear bomb …when all else fails [they say], fear the name and what that could stand for, because it’s different…”

Here’s what’s ridiculous about that charge; in making this smear of all people who dared to say “Hussein,” Michelle didn’t mention what his full name is, neither did any of his supporters, and to my knowledge, Obama himself only publicly spoke his middle moniker once during his campaign: In an interview later that February with ultra-friendly interviewer Tavis Smiley of PBS.

Obama: […M]y supporters understand, the day I’m inaugurated, this country looks at itself differently and the world looks at America differently. And if you believe that we’ve got to heal America and that we’ve got to repair our standing in the world, then I think my supporters believe that I am a messenger who can deliver that message around the world in a way that no other candidate can do.

Tavis: They would look at the U.S. differently for what reason or reasons?

Obama: Well, I think if you’ve got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that’s a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush, to start with…

Now, keep this in mind: The transcript of the Smiley interview has been online since last February on the PBS site for Smiley’s show. Under normal circumstances, there is audio of the interviews as well. The audio link for the Obama interview was mysteriously “unavailable” during the campaign. But you can hear the audio now — now that he’s been elected.

The Obama campaign successfully projected fear of his middle name onto his opponents when they themselves were more frightened of its possible effect than anybody else. If they weren’t scared of it, then instead of embargoing it, he would have embraced the name early in 2007 and put the whole issue to rest.

L.N. Smithee (2a74e6) — 1/21/2009 @ 1:32 pm

Simba wrote, among other things:

Polite does not end battles.

No, victory ends battles, and I assume that you are actually interested in winning.

Thing is, the techniques employed by some of our friends on the left against George Bush, as well as the stuff we tried against Bill Clinton, didn’t work!

In every presidential campaign since 1980, the candidate who was forced to go more negative (Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, George Bush, Bob Dole and John Kerry) all lost. In 2000, both candidates felt the need to go extremely negative, and, in a way, they both lost: George Bush lost the popular vote, and Al Gore lost the electoral vote.

We tried going negative against Bill Clinton almost from day one in 1993, When we ran against his policies, the big tax increase and the attempt to nationalize health care, we won the 1994 congressional elections. But when we ran against him personally, in 1996 and 1998, we lost. Our friends on the left kept tryiong to run against George Bush as a moron, as an illegitimate president, all of that bovine feces, and all he did was increase Republican congressional majorities in 2002 and 2004, but won him re-election in 2004.

And in 2008, when John McCain did something positive — the selection of Sarah Palin — he pulled even with Barack Obama. After the financial crisis, he was almost totally negative, not running for president but against Barack Obama, and he lost.

Going personally negative against President Obama might win you a few chuckles from those who already agree, but it doesn’t do much to persuade anyone else. Duplicating John McCain’s 46% isn’t a winning program.

Me, I’m interested in winning; the persistently negative approach, despite the common wisdom, really doesn’t have much of a track record of success.

The always polite Dana (556f76) — 1/21/2009 @ 1:48 pm

#74
I am waiting for the day when Obama accidentally dons a blue turban or beret. The end of days folks will swear Armageddon is near.

voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 1/21/2009 @ 1:53 pm

voiceofreason2 wrote:

I am waiting for the day when Obama accidentally dons a blue turban or beret. The end of days folks will swear Armageddon is near.

I’m still waiting for the people who take the Mayan calendar seriously to address that time is scheduled to end while Obama is in office.

L.N. Smithee (2a74e6) — 1/21/2009 @ 2:09 pm

The inauguration ceremony / after party looked like quite a get-together — i’m sorry i missed it

coffee (ddb4a6) — 1/21/2009 @ 2:58 pm

#7 Hey Scott, How’s that prediction coming along buddy?

As long as your happy to be wrong.

Oiram (27a7bf) — 1/21/2009 @ 3:31 pm

Via Hot Air,

According to TSO who was at the “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball”, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (that’s 14 Inaugurations).

Some background on the ball;

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

…but he managed to hit the hip Hwood type balls..Kanyae West after all has contributed so much more to America than those awarded Medals of Honor. This can’t have endeared himself to the very troops he will command. I know I’m greatly disappointed. Already.

Dana (137151) — 1/21/2009 @ 5:43 pm

A slight that will be remembered.

AD (ef385e) — 1/21/2009 @ 5:53 pm

Totally unbelievable.

According to TSO who was at the “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball”, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (that’s 14 Inaugurations).

Some background on the ball;

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

…but he managed to hit the hip Hwood type balls..Kanyae West after all has contributed so much more to America than those awarded Medals of Honor. This can’t have endeared himself to the very troops he will command. I know I’m greatly disappointed. Already.

Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/21/2009 @ 8:21 pm

Patrick, I liked the speech. The restraint, sober tone and the clear acknowledgment of the gravity of our current situation all struck me as completely appropriate.

He takes a clear-eyed view of foreign and domestic challenges — we are at war and the economy is badly weakened. At the same time, he is right to focus on the problem of diminished confidence. I think the “pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off” phrase will be remembered.

I liked his use of history. The American Constitution seems central to his political philosophy — unsurprising, considering his academic-legal background. He celebrates some things conservatives traditionally celebrate, too — hard work, responsibility, the “risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things.” He specifically credits the free market for its “power to generate wealth and expand freedom.”

He’s just very conscious that it requires a watchful eye and government willingness to intervene when the public interest demands it. He knows it can’t “favor only the prosperous.”

My reaction as someone who has spent a great deal of his professional life writing speeches was also very positive. Tone, diction, structure, the development of themes — I thought all were handled extremely well.

It’s just a speech, of course, but I think it set the right tone and constitutes a good start.

Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:01 pm

Comment by L.N. Smithee — 1/21/2009 @ 1:32 pm

So you’re claiming that the wingnut pundits weren’t trying to play on prejudice and fear when they repeated his middle name over and over again? Not buyin’ it, cookie.

Thanks for the apology, Ed.

Anytime now.

Come on, you can do it.

Comment by Icy Texan — 1/21/2009 @ 10:21 am

You disagreed with something I said, yet provided no actual evidence to back up your side, yet I am supposed to apologize? Remember, I claimed that Obama himself rarely spoke about his race. It is your job to prove me wrong by providing evidence (and lots of it, I said rarely not never) to the contrary. Otherwise, I will be expecting your apology sometime soon.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:02 pm

Tim,

Glad someone liked it. Maybe I was just tired when I watched the Tivoed version, but personally, I kept being struck at how bored I was. And I had enjoyed the whole lead-in to it, and was prepared to be impressed.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:06 pm

Icy Texan:

I think this may help with my case. You can read the entire story below, but the quote I would like to draw attention to:

Throughout his campaign to become the first black president, Obama rarely mentioned race unless asked, and he carefully avoided being branded the “black candidate.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_obama

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/21/2009 @ 9:40 pm

Ed from PA wrote:

So you’re claiming that the wingnut pundits weren’t trying to play on prejudice and fear when they repeated his middle name over and over again? Not buyin’ it, cookie.

You (and everyone who backed off using the The Middle Name That Shall Not Be Spoken when they normally would) have been duped and shamed into politically-correct self-censorship.

I have already explained that Obama ran away from his own middle name and convinced everyone else to as well at the threat of getting the dreaded “You’re a racist” finger pointed at them.

Why do YOU think he refused to mention his middle name, Ed?

As for your contention that he “rarely mentioned race unless asked,” that’s crapola too.

L.N. Smithee (2a74e6) — 1/21/2009 @ 11:36 pm

Seriously. O pimped that middle name routine over and over again. As you wrote, he sent his wife out with the same speech and manipulation. This guy played the race card like nobody’s business, up to and including yesterday.

Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/22/2009 @ 12:08 am

Re: Comment by Ed from PA — 1/21/2009 @ 9:02 pm

You disagreed with something I said, yet provided no actual evidence to back up your side, yet I am supposed to apologize?
— Actually, I was reacting to you disagreeing with something I said. The evidence I provided was a transcript of the Oath of Office ceremony, from the blog of Jan Crawford Greenburg of ABC news; a transcript that you, of course, can compare to actually watching the ceremony on YouTube. I further noted that left-of-center MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted the EXACT same thing about how the ceremony took place. Your assertion that I provided “no actual evidence” is flat-out wrong. I requested an apology because you wrote: “John Roberts is the one who screwed up. But, I guess if it will make the next four years easier to swallow then you can blame it on ‘Teh One’”, and followed it with this comment (addressed to JD, but regarding me): “I don’t think personal insults will change the fact that Icy Texan was incorrect in his assessment”. Both of those statements constitute declarative absolutes; ie: Roberts screwed up, Obama did not. This is NOT true.

Remember, I claimed that Obama himself rarely spoke about his race. It is your job to prove me wrong by providing evidence (and lots of it, I said rarely not never) to the contrary. Otherwise, I will be expecting your apology sometime soon.
— You seem to be confusing me with another poster here. My “Shut the fuck up about race” comment was, a) not directed at any specific poster to this blog (it was a rhetorical rant); and, b) not about Obama himself; I specified that I was talking about the MSM, not the candidate himself. But then, considering that he made his now famous speech on race in Philadelphia (somewhere relatively close to where you live?), maybe your question itself is really rhetorical.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/22/2009 @ 1:46 am

Okay, your link shows him mentioning his race once. Once, Smithee. You realize that I said ‘rarely’, and you have given me proof that he said it once. Do you know how many speeches Obama has given over the past two years? If you give me evidence that he mentioned his race once, then that qualifies as ‘rarely’. Thank you for proving my point.

I did not self-censor with regard to his middle name. I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Just as John McCain does not typically use his middle name when he is being introduced, neither did Barack Obama. He wasn’t trying to run away from his name, but naturally I don’t think he wanted to be subject to the prejudices of it either. So, when right-wing comedians repeatedly referred to him by his middle name it was quite transparent. How often do you refer to Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Carter, John Adams, etc by their middle names? Very rarely, right? So being called by a middle name is not a requirement as president, the those who were repeating it most definitely were doing so to play on the fears of the public.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/22/2009 @ 6:59 am

Ed – Can you state your criteria up front for what qualifies as not rarely?

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/22/2009 @ 7:08 am

The American Constitution seems central to his political philosophy — unsurprising, considering his academic-legal background.

You should warn people before you type such drivel.

I guess it is better that he chooses the American Constitution over the French Constitution …

daleyrocks – Ed’s definition likely will be ever changing. It will also exclude all of the references Baracky made to him having a funny name, not looking like the people on the dollar bill, being black, being half-white, and on and on and on. It will ignore all of the Rev. Hatey crap, it will ignore the speeches he gave on race, and every reference he ever made to same.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 7:26 am

Daley:

Obviously the definition of rarely is subjective, but how about more than once, for a start. Also, as you claim that the definition of rarely can change, so too can the definitions set forth when people of your ilk claim that it was a constant. So far we’ve come up with one concrete example of Obama directly referring to his race. That, sir, is not enough to convince me he was playing the race card. You’ll have to do better than that.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/22/2009 @ 7:37 am

The worst thing, for me, about this election is that my first-grade daughter learned that Obama is “the first African-American President” in her school. She did not know race before this. People were people who had different shades of skin and hair color to her. Like Anakin, Obi Wan Kenobi Cui Gon Jin and Mace Windu. My wife and I told her, and will keep telling her, that Obama is not African-American — he is American. It will never be the same again for her, though.

nk (bf9c84) — 1/22/2009 @ 7:46 am

See all of the references above. Google Barack Obama funny name and see how many times he said it himself. Go find out how many times he said “And did you know, he is black?”. That you choose to be aggressively ignorant of history does not give you the right to make statements that are aggressive lies.

nk – Same here. My 7 year old came home and told me that Barack Obama was the first African-American President. THen, she asked me what an Africn-American is.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 7:52 am

JD:

Bullshit. You are the one that has been aggressively lying about this. One hit on google does not equate to one mention of his funny name in a speech. Now you’re being intentionally obtuse. Learn how to use google correctly, then come back and we can chat.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:00 am

Ed, you are the one being obtuse. Henry III never explicitly told his barons to kill Becket. Obama’s catamites did not need to have the race card put in their 13 million emails, either.

nk (bf9c84) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:20 am

Folks – I will give this one to the judges. When Baracky repeatedly used the idea that he had a funny name, or that “did you know, he is black”, or when he said he did not look like those on the dollar bill, etc … was that, or was that not, a direct reference to his race? He said it in stump speeches, repeatedly. He said it in his speech in Denver, as did his wife. By virtue of his followers, we were told that it is racist to call him skinny, to point out that he is inexperienced, to note that his middle name is Hussein, a practically endless list of things that became racist to even mention. Yet, Ed proclaims that he rarely mentioned race. I guess that whole speech in Philadelphia following Rev. Hatey was not about race?

If I am the one the is being disingenuous, I will gladly admit it. I do not expect that Ed will do the same.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:28 am

My 7 year old came home and told me that Barack Obama was the first African-American President. THen, she asked me what an Africn-American is.

Comment by JD — 1/22/2009 @ 7:52 am
That JD, is very very sad. Hope you were able to give her the best answer.

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:33 am

lovie – We have you and your ilk to thank for such nonsense.

I told her Barack is an American, and that he is not an African-American President, he is the American President. nk and I think a lot alike on this one.

I did not even think about noting that he is the first half-white President.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:37 am

#98

JD, on the basis of this and other Obama speeches, I see his political outlook as rooted in classic American social contract theory. If you disagree, feel free to share your reasoning.

Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:39 am

Ed is not being obtuse, he is just being dense in his stupidity in denying that Barack “The One” Obama, Democrat Party candidate for President of the United States, consistently and consciencely, by himself and others within and without the campaign, did willfully deploy the “race-card” to trigger any residue of “white guilt” existing in the McCain Campaign.

AD (5bbccc) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:44 am

Comment by Tim McGarry — 1/22/2009 @ 8:39 am
Please define: “…classic American social contract theory…”

AD (5bbccc) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:49 am

Having his outlook be rooted in classic American social contract theory is not the same as your prior statement. You are being kind of Baracky with your words, Tim.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:53 am

It is impossible to prove a negative, and your side has not given me any sort of supporting evidence. I have given you plenty of time to come up with at least something. The best I got was ‘uherrrumm…. do a google search’. That doesn’t cut it in the real world.

You can make your ‘white guilt’ claims all you want but it doesn’t change a thing.

Let’s all play a game. Let’s try to determine in the following quote where a proved claim has been made (answer below):

Ed is not being obtuse, he is just being dense in his stupidity in denying that Barack “The One” Obama, Democrat Party candidate for President of the United States, consistently and consciencely, by himself and others within and without the campaign, did willfully deploy the “race-card” to trigger any residue of “white guilt” existing in the McCain Campaign.

Comment by AD — 1/22/2009 @ 8:44 am

Answer (no peeking)

This entire statement is ill-spirited opinion. None of it has been supported.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/22/2009 @ 8:59 am

Ed, you really are going to pretend to be that ignorant of what Obama did during the campaign? Unbelievable that you would even attempt it.

This piece alone illustrates enough to “support” AD’s statement and there was more.

SPQR (72771e) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:01 am

But, as your side is prone to note: feelings, not facts. Eh?

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:08 am

#107

OK, JD, it’s pretty clear that you’re not interested in anything beyond drive-by snark. Enjoy your day.

Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:08 am

Clearly, Ed, you read none of the above responses, and would not know good faith if it slapped you in the face.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:12 am

Seriously, SPQR? A hot air link? If I linked media matters on here what would you post in response? Get that hot air stuff where it belongs… in cyber-hell.

And, I did read the quote. He doesn’t mention race explicitely, does he? (answer the question. No, he doesn’t).

Also, How am I to know that that isn’t the exact same speech that was posted earlier in this thread? If it wasn’t and you can prove it, congratulations, that is 2. Still rare.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:12 am

Comment by Tim McGarry — 1/22/2009 @ 9:08 am

Tim, I think I asked a legitimate question; don’t I deserve an answer?

Ed, have you been living in a cave the last 18 months?

AD (5bbccc) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:12 am

Ed, you’ve rather clearly shown your bad faith with that comment.

SPQR (72771e) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:14 am

I asked for a clarification, Tim. Originally, you stated that

The American Constitution seems central to his political philosophy — unsurprising, considering his academic-legal background.

Then you stated

I see his political outlook as rooted in classic American social contract theory

in support of your first comment. I do not see how the second comments supports the first, and asked for clarification.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:15 am

Ed from PA, you’re apparently forgetting the bestest speech since the Gettysburg Address, perhaps ever, which was given, oddly enough, in PA.*

*(Void where prohibited, subject to local regulations, terms and conditions subject to change, all promises of not disowning are metaphorical and not to be taken internally)

Pablo (99243e) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:15 am

Ah yes, but that speech was in response to the Jeremiah Wright mud that was thrown about as McCain flailed in the polls. He had to address his race because the right was making it an issue at that point.

And, if I do say so myself, it was an amazing speech! 🙂

So, that does not really count. You can’t force Obama to address race with an attack, then ding him when he discusses it in order to defend himself. That would be truly moronic. You don’t want to be thought of as moronic, do you?????

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:21 am

So, that does not really count. You can’t force Obama to address race with an attack, then ding him when he discusses it in order to defend himself. That would be truly moronic. You don’t want to be thought of as moronic, do you?????

YEAH BUDDY YOU TELL THEM! CARRY ON THE LEVI JUHL TORCH! I AM THE GREATEST! THIS IS BASICALLY MY WEBSITE NOW I TOOK IT OVER

Levi Juhl from the University of Montana at Missoula (b4e63d) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:24 am

Ed, you apparently have no problem with being thought of as moronic.

When Baracky said in his stumps speeches, that he has a funny name, does not look like the people on the dollar bill, they will try to scare you about me, Did you know that he is black, etc … was he, or was he not, referring to his race. When he, and his wife noted same in their speeches in Denver, CO, was that or was that not, a reference to his race?

That you continue to argue this point simply highlights your dishonest character.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:30 am

Ah yes, but that speech was in response to the Jeremiah Wright mud that was thrown about as McCain flailed in the polls. He had to address his race because the right was making it an issue at that point.

Mud? What mud?

“I’ve known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.”

“They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Rev. Wright thinks that that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well I might not know him as well as I thought, either.”

“Those comments” were Wright saying what Wright usually says. Baracky found his back against the wall, not because of white racism, but because of the black racism of his dear friend and spiritual mentor.

And, if I do say so myself, it was an amazing speech!

If it wasn’t your speech, you don’t get to use “If I do say so myself”. But yeah, great speech I really liked this line:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother

That would be truly moronic. You don’t want to be thought of as moronic, do you?????

Ed, has anyone ever told you that you’re an idiot?

Pablo (99243e) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:33 am

lovie – We have you and your ilk to thank for such nonsense.
Comment by JD — 1/22/2009 @ 8:37 am

I think the best thing is to be truthful to your child. Tell her why they came to be called African Americans. Tell her about how they were bought from their mother-land, Africa by white slave dealers and sold into slavery. Tell her how they were regarded as one fifth of a human being. How they worked the corn fields and plantations. How they were abused, raped, murdered and treated like animals by some white supremacists. Don’t stop there, tell her about how they fought for their own place in the American project. How they began to rebel against racial injustice which at a time was not a crime. How they fought for their rights, even at the expense of their lives. tell her about the civil rights movement that lasted from 1955 to 1968, with the assassination of Martin Luther King. Tell her about civil rights activists that risked their lives to fight for black emancipation. People like Malcolm X, W.E.B Du Bois, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King… Tell her how in the past it was a crime to teach blacks to read and write. A crime punishable by death for both teacher and student. That they could not vote in an election till 1870. And that was only for the black male. Women only got their right to vote in 1920. Tell her about how Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery in America and signed the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION ACT in the 1860s. Tell her that is why it is symbolic that Barack Obama took the oath of office using Abraham Lincoln’s old Bible. Tell her how far we have gone in healing the evil of racism and the generational effects it has carried. Tell her that it is a historic thing that America was able to come together, blacks whites, hispanics, Asian, to deal a final blow on the structures of racism by electing the first AFRICAN AMERICAN President of the United States of America. Tell her what it means to those who know our history and who rejoice at our maturity. We have come of age. We are the nation of the free, the land of the brave. In America, all men are equal. In America, anyhting is possible.
JD, tell her the truth!
Looking at the presidency of Obama as the first black President of the US, without looking at it in the context ot black American history, diminishes the importance of this elction. Obama is not just another President who happens to be black. He is a symbol that this great nation has overcome it’s bloody past and is now ready to move into her great future, as one nation under God. That is why it is causing great celebration in America and around the world. That is why all those old black folks are weeping like children in public, because they know what this means to the black story.
Tell her the Truth!

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:34 am

JD:

And I am claiming that that speech was not given on many occassions. I said he rarely discussed his race (unless forced-Thank you Pablo for that reminder). You still have not given me any evidence otherwise.

So quit with the personal attacts and get to the facts. F-A-C-T-S, not feelin’s.

Ed from PA (5550d5) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:37 am

Excellent post, Emperor7!

Ed from PA (c313be) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:40 am

You can claim that from now until the end of time, but it will not make it true, Ed. That you choose to ignore and/or rewrite history is par for the course.

lovie – Should I tell her that they were sold into slavery by their African brothers and sisters? You are right, it was an important election. The first half-white half-black American was elected President.

If his election is so post-racial, why all the racist statements from his acolytes the last couple days?

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:42 am

More Obama race baiting.

But it’s everyone but Obama’s fault, because of all those people clinging to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them and anti-immigrant sentiment. Stupid crackers.

Pablo (99243e) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:43 am

There is no virtue in victimhood. There is only ‘hood. Drugs, violence, fatherless (and in truth motherless) children, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, illiteracy, no hope, no future. Victims have only one right and only one value — to re-enter the food pyramid.

nk (bf9c84) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:44 am

nk, daleyrocks, carlitos, et al. I am going to be in Chicago on Mon, Tues, and Wed, staying out by O’Hare. Would love to get together.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:46 am

JD, email me at njkritathotmail.com.

nk (bf9c84) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:48 am

“AD” and “JD” — related? Ah, the joys of anonymity…

What I had in mind was the influence of John Locke’s philosophy on the Founding Fathers and the writing of the Constitution. I also had in mind the fact that social contract theory enjoyed a revival in the second half of the 20th Century, particularly among American political philosophers, thanks largely to the work of one of Locke’s intellectual heirs, John Rawls. I heard a number of Rawlsian echoes in Obama’s speech. This isn’t particularly surprising, since Rawls taught at Harvard, where Obama received his legal education,

Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:49 am

If his election is so post-racial, why all the racist statements from his acolytes the last couple days?

Comment by JD — 1/22/2009 @ 9:42 am
It’s a healing process, JD. They will soon come around.

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:50 am

Comment by Ed from PA — 1/22/2009 @ 9:40 am
Thank you very much.

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:53 am

Comment by Tim McGarry — 1/22/2009 @ 9:49 am
No, JD and I have never met.
Could you provide a reference to a work by Rawls that would help me understand his theory?
I am afraid that my academic career preceeded his time in the sun, and I am unfamiliar with his work.

AD (5bbccc) — 1/22/2009 @ 10:05 am

No, we are not related, Tim. AD is on the west coast, me in the Midwest. If you do not believe us, feel free to confirm same with Patterico or DRJ.

I will leave it to the academic types as to whether or not your interpretation is accurate. I suspect that like Baracky once said, people see what they want to see in him. My view of the Constitution and the view that Baracky has enunciated previously do not really match up. Healthcare, for example. Somehow he believes it to be a right, me, not so much.

So, it appears that you and I, and Baracky and I, gave differing views of the role and expanse of the government, and how that fits into the Constitution. But I am just snarking at you.

JD (397a27) — 1/22/2009 @ 10:05 am

Emperor7,
Shouldn’t that explanation include the fact that they submitted to slavery and it was white people who fought and died to win their freedom for them. That they did not have the power to vote in equal rights and it was white people that voted in the voting rights act and the anti-discrimination laws? That there were many white people marching with Dr. King, at great risk to life, limb, and career? That many of those white folks were the Jews that are being smeared now by race baiting thugs like Jackson?

Please, lets be fair on this with blame AND credit.

Machinist (c5fc28) — 1/22/2009 @ 10:07 am

AD, here’s a link. Google has many.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rawls.htm

JD, I was just joking about you and AD being related. I don’t doubt your geographical statements.

Again, enjoy your day.

Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 1/22/2009 @ 10:10 am

Comment by Tim McGarry — 1/22/2009 @ 10:10 am

Thanks for the link. Gave it a quick read, and will go back for a more thorogh perusal.
But, my initial impression is that though Rawls is arguing for equal opportunity, he also seems to want to rig the rules to encourage equal outcome – which is the mantra of “Progressives” today.
I believe that to be counter-productive, in that the attempt to manage equal outcome leads to a diminishment of both opportunity, and productivity; and therefore, is harmful to the society at large.
It is this “Progressive” philosophy, that Pres. Obama has embraced, that I oppose.

AD (5bbccc) — 1/22/2009 @ 10:36 am

thorogh….NOT!
“thorough”.. need to consistently use spell-check.

AD (5bbccc) — 1/22/2009 @ 10:38 am

Comment by Machinist — 1/22/2009 @ 10:07 am
I don’t claim that my post was very comprehensive. I was only focusing on the significance of Obama’s election as it relates to black history in America. You are right. There are great white names that most be mentioned as we discuss this. Thank you for mentioning that.

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/22/2009 @ 11:30 am

Correction #142. “Most” should be “must”.

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/22/2009 @ 11:33 am

Ed from PA wrote:

Okay, your link shows him mentioning his race once. Once, Smithee. You realize that I said ‘rarely’, and you have given me proof that he said it once. Do you know how many speeches Obama has given over the past two years? If you give me evidence that he mentioned his race once, then that qualifies as ‘rarely’. Thank you for proving my point.

Yeah, swifty. I thought maybe you would say that, so I was prepared. Here are the facts, Ed:

On Wednesday, July 30, 2008, after Obama unexpectedly slipped in the polls following the ballyhooed European tour, and the McCain camp ran the silly but surprisingly effective “Celeb” ad saying the tour illustrated that he was more celebrity than leader (with brief clips of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton), Obama revived the “did I mention he’s black?” part of his June stump speech in the bellwether state of Missouri, tweaking it by changing it to say “he doesn’t look like the Presidents on the dollar bills…” He made those statements in all three appearances that day.

McCain spokesman Rick Davis responded by saying that the Obama camp was — echoing Robert Shapiro of O.J.’s “Dream Team” — “playing the race card from the bottom of the deck,” implying that somehow the their ads were racist. (Bob Herbert of the New York Times said that the “Celeb” ad was designed to stoke latent racism because it included blonde white chicks juxtaposed with Obama and phallic monuments, but because Herbert wasn’t part of the Obama campaign, I won’t blame it for the embarrassment that Herbert is.)

Robert Gibbs, then Obama spokesman and now his Press Secretary, said in response on Thursday, July 31 (bold mine):

“He was referring to the fact that he didn’t come into the race with the history of others,” Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. “It is not about race.”

Friday, August 1, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show, Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Senator who accompanied him on his Mizzou tour (and rumored possible running mate), tried to talk her way out of saying it wasn’t a reference to his ethnicity, insisting that Obama wasn’t accusing McCain per se of trying to scare people out of voting for a black man. She failed — even Joe’s lovely but scowling liberal co-host Mika Brzezinski (daughter of Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish version of Joe Biden) couldn’t buy McCaskill’s smiley spin.

When he finally addressed his change in tone, Obama was quoted in the St. Petersburg Times thusly on Friday, August 1, 2008 (bold mine):

In an interview with the St. Pete Times and Bay News 9 for Political Connections, Barack Obama brushed off the charge from the John McCain campaign that he was injecting race into the campaign (bold, italic mine):

“I was in Union, Missouri, which is 98 percent white – a rural, conservative. (sic) and what I said was what I think everybody knows, which is that I don’t look like I came out of central casting when it comes to presidential candidates. But that I think that what people are really concerned about, what they’re looking for is fundamental change on the economy, things that are going to help their families live out the American dream.

‘There was nobody there who thought at all that I was trying to inject race in this. What this has become I think is a typical pattern from the McCain campaign, whether it’s Paris Hilton or Britney or this phoney allegation that I wouldn’t visit troops. They seem to be focused on a negative campaign what I think our campaign wants to do is focus on the issues that matter to American families.”

So, that’s that, right? Everybody agrees, “NOBODY” thought he was injecting race into the mix now that he was sinking in the polls, right? Not so fast. Here’s his campaign chief, David Axholerod (sp? :)) on the same day (bold mine):

But Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, acknowledged on “Good Morning America” Friday that the candidate was referring, at least in part, to his ethnic background.

When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told “GMA” it meant, “He’s not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He’s new to Washington. Yes, he’s African-American.”

Axelrod made almost identical remarks on the Today show to Matt Lauer, and he twice did something that is indicative of his and Obama’s utilization of the MSM to launder Obama’s message and image: He twice made reference to reportage of Obama’s Missouri trip not suggesting that race had been used as a weapon. In other words, if the press doesn’t report he’s playing the race card, he must not be. But despite all of Obama’s spin, the record is clear; he’s not above the race card. It’s raring and ready to go, waiting for the call. When Obama gets into big trouble — like he was then — he’ll whip it out.

Oh, by the way — It was close, but Obama lost Missouri.

School’s out. Don’t be so gullible next time.

L.N. Smithee (2a74e6) — 1/22/2009 @ 11:42 am

I believe Obama has set back race relations 100 years as evidenced by the questions these kids are bringing home from school. Talk about creating a new branch of victimhood. The Black experience has been justified, folks. Don’t ask how much it cost. Or where the money came from.

I also did not know what social contract theory was, but whole-heartedly agree with JD, NK, SPQR and Pablo that Obama employed the race issue to manipulate, control, coerce and suggest.

His was not a clean election.

Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/22/2009 @ 12:08 pm

Emperor7,
I didn’t mean to be argumentative but you have seemed to me to be making an effort to be civil and reasonable of late, and this is getting to be a rather sore subject. I have much concern about the future but much of the carping I am seeing is petty and churlish. I will reserve my complaints until Obama does something bad. The old gentleman the other day, whining about white folks doing what is right has rather chaffed a raw spot, however. Most A-As today have never lived with legal discrimination, except in their favor. My folks came from West Virginia, a state that did not exist before the Civil War. The folks there did not want to leave the Union so they were treated as traitors. I grew up regarding MLK as one of our greatest heroes and my family and I always supported equal rights. I quit the best management job I ever had because I would not accept the owner’s racist preferences. To have the party of Byrd tell me I should feel guilt or shame over racism after the last Republican President selected the first A-A national security adviser and the first A-A secretary of state and we just elected an AA to the highest office in the land is hard to swallow calmly. What must we do? Acclaim him a Saint?

Sorry to rant. I join you in hoping for the best for our country. We shall see if we get progress or finger pointing and excuses from our leaders.

Machinist (c5fc28) — 1/22/2009 @ 12:16 pm

His was not a clean election.

Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 1/22/2009 @ 12:08 pm
Please my neighbor, give me an example of one “clean” election. Just one.

Emperor7 (1b037c) — 1/22/2009 @ 2:58 pm

Love, please. Step back from the win and see what 50% of America sees, along with a few Op-Ed writers.

We’ve never had a paid coup before. Ever. And such a 1-sided presentation of information from the media to the public. It got the win in… I just don’t see the shining glory, even if it is a black candidate. Mainly because of the unbelievable back story. That’s not meant as a compliment. The only kudos I can give to the Obamas would be their skills at pushing through the system to get good degrees and get situated. My respect for Michelle Obama ends right there. She lost me at I’ve never been proud of my country until now. Just wow.

Back in 00, I thought Al Gore had his day in court. I could never understand the anger: Bush got the electoral vote and Gore hand-picked his districts to ‘massage’ the numbers.

This thing with a Senator, no experience, shady past, no legislative record of any kind, projects and work alluded to, hustling opponents with litigation… Obama has the office, and the Office gets my respect. I’m very sad he’s there.

His decisions of just the last 2 days should have you looking at the safety of your immediate world; I know I am.

Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/22/2009 @ 3:27 pm

Vermont Neighbor, You make some good points but I must respectfully take issue with your contention that the election was a “paid coup”. Let’s give credit where it is do. This election was won for the Democrats by the venal republicans in the legislature and the unreasonable republicans who would not support any of the candidates who were not pure enough. Even someone I greatly admire and respect said “they are all the same” and would not support McCain. I guess the next four years will test that proposition.

There was massive vote fraud and financial crimes, and if the election was close then I might agree with you, but the election was a rout for the Republicans because the party alienated it’s base and gave moderates no reason to support them. They looked at the Democrats slurping at the trough and said “Why not me, too?” and joined them. The party supported the good old boys instead of candidates who lived up to the principles they claimed to stand for. The unlawful activities are a threat to our democratic elections in the future if they are allowed and accepted. They should have been properly investigated and prosecuted in the last elections when they started doing them openly and blatantly. Now that they have decided they need make no pretext of honest elections it will be much harder if not impossible to rein them in again, but this is not what lost this election and if we are to have any hope of coming back in my lifetime we must recognize our faults. The only times in my life the Republicans have gained power they took a solid conservative stand and articulated it clearly to the American people, heedless of what the MSM or Democrats would say. This honest and principled approach was such a shocking novelty to the public that they swept the Republicans into power. The current leadership of the party shows no sign that they even understand this concept of honor or integrity so I have little hope now, but a strong leader may rally support and force the party to tag along. That is our best hope. The only other road back is for the Obama administration to be a Carter type disaster, and I can not hope for that.

Machinist (c5fc28) — 1/22/2009 @ 4:22 pm

“It will never be the same again for her, though.”

Eventually someone was bound to tell her about the civil rights struggle.

imdw (688568) — 1/22/2009 @ 4:33 pm

Machinist, good points, much truth. I still stick with my summary based on the media’s bias, the massive illegal credit card donations, the Acorn votes… and the way this election was handled by the media. If presented fairly by TV and newspaper, we would have seen a MUCH more balanced run between two candidates. Flawed as he may be, McCain (or Palin w/ her party values) was the clear choice FOR MANY simply because of Obama’s machine background. I hope we can all agree on Obama’s unsavory Chicago background. If not, the media worked its tail off on thousands of hours of preferential reporting.

GOP, strayed from base. GOP, also bludgeoned by a media that provided no critical analysis of the opponent. Just fawning, deceptive, glossy movie star treatment. That, coupled with the funny money. No way was this election the usual rough and tumble. (Of course, can’t forget that the media made Bush their whipping boy years ago — from day #1.)

We have a bully media protecting Obama as their homeboy. And the bias isn’t going anywhere. Check the 94-2 vote backing Hillary. Crazy, crazy days.

Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/22/2009 @ 5:00 pm

Comment by imdw @ 4:33 pm

Racist.

Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/22/2009 @ 5:02 pm

EXAMPLE …..

Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:

“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees”

“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”

“Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft”

Headlines Today:

“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million”

“Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”

“Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”

“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration”

.

Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/22/2009 @ 5:10 pm

The press bias is not new. The press fawned over JFK and Clinton as well. Remember the old hands during the Clinton years lamenting because the press all knew about JFK’s cheating but covered for him, unlike the younger reporters? Remember the distortions about Ike, Nixon, and Reagan? Reagan in particular was a man of intellect, honor, and character, yet the press savaged him constantly. Remember the woman journalist writing how she wondered if she should give Clinton oral sex for saving a woman’s right to an abortion? The press might have been a bit less embarrassed about it now but they were no more biased than before.

Machinist (c5fc28) — 1/22/2009 @ 5:42 pm

Some day I’ll learn tenses…..or not.

Machinist (c5fc28) — 1/22/2009 @ 5:44 pm

#153

I would love to get links to those headlines, they’re devastating.

Keep it rielle…

Rielle (04db65) — 1/22/2009 @ 6:18 pm

I deleted a few of Levi’s comments but left a couple standing for the enjoyment of future would-be employers. His name has been edited for greater transparency and ownership of the comments, but I have otherwise left the comments untouched.

The hyperlink for the edited name at the comments from today I left standing makes for some interesting reading. Click here to see what I mean.

The next logical step is a page (I wouldn’t bother with a post that appears on the main page) collecting some of these links for the convenience of Google users. If I title the page “Levi Juhl” there’s a very good likelihood that it will be on the first page of results — possibly even the first hit.

After that step, I’ll go back to ignoring. We’ll let Google do its magic from that point forward.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 1/22/2009 @ 6:35 pm

Hey, Ed in PA. Thanks for — ONCE AGAIN — ignoring my point-by-point refutation of your bullshit.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:13 pm

Dear Patterico:

Well, much becomes clear after Google does its magic (along with your links). The fellow is just angry and trolling out of frustration over issues external to this blog.

Maybe he will wise up and just move along.

And it is a shame—being civil would let him have an interesting forum and point of view (though one with which I do not agree).

Thanks for trying to make the person accountable. That is always the toughest lesson for anyone: owning what one does.

I wish Mr. Juhl well. Just far away from me.

Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:24 pm

Comment by Patterico — 1/22/2009 @ 6:35 pm

But what does he really want or expect from his participation here? Troll infamy?

Dana (137151) — 1/22/2009 @ 9:30 pm

That is why all those old black folks are weeping like children in public, because they know what this means to the black story. Tell her the Truth! Comment by Emperor7 — 1/22/2009 @ 9:34 am

Those tears won’t be worth much in the long run if the goals and hope of the following writer don’t come to pass and aren’t a major part of the tangible lasting benefits of an Obama administration:

By Deroy Murdock, Scripps Howard News Service

Item: Amid crisp breezes and bright sunshine, Barack Obama took the presidential oath Tuesday afternoon, to the thunderous applause of his supporters, the cautious hopes of the loyal opposition, and the well wishes of all Americans.

Item: Three days earlier, four men were stabbed, one critically, at a Brooklyn party celebrating “Notorious,” the new movie about rapper Notorious B.I.G. He released the album “Ready to Die” before being killed in Los Angeles in 1997. Rapper Jamal “Gravy” Woolard — who portrays B.I.G. — was charged with misdemeanor assault and harassment against his wife last September, the New York Post reports. “She wouldn’t stop pushing me, so I snuffed her,” he allegedly said.

Question: Will Obama’s erudition and elegance finally eclipse the corrosive, often deadly scourge of hip-hop culture and the ghetto mentality that gnaw away like an army of starved termites beneath black America’s floorboards?

Until at least 2013, the whole world will watch a debonair black man whose studiousness and diligence transported him from a broken home to the world’s most famous house. He will share it with the magnetic Michelle Obama, his wife of 16 years. Just like her husband, the First Lady avoided the 50-percent black high-school dropout rate, graduated from an Ivy League university, and earned a Harvard law degree. The Obamas’ two lovely daughters know their father and enjoy him in their daily lives.

The Obamas are not alone among black Americans. Millions of blacks peacefully stay in school, commute to work, nurture their loved ones and improve their communities. Alas, industrious black Americans, particularly in the middle class, are virtually invisible in popular culture.

Ubiquitous rappers who too often celebrate violence, degrade women, and perpetrate offstage carnage overshadow such decent citizens. Rappers Milton Bruce Scott, Mac Minister, and C-Murder are among those convicted of homicide (although Mr. Murder faces a re-trial).

Like bumble bees buzzing from rose to rose, too many black men serially impregnate women who are not their wives, spawning a 67.8 percent black out-of-wedlock birth rate.

Obama’s daily presence in the White House finally may repel this foul tide. He also may unravel the “Acting White Syndrome,” wherein young black students who do homework and speak proper English are mocked by ghetto-oriented black kids for “acting white.” Light years more than white racism, this is the biggest cancer facing black Americans.

Obama himself told the 2004 Democratic National Convention that America must “eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.”

My two younger sisters and I endured this treatment at a predominantly black Los Angeles elementary school.

“Why you actin’ white?” I heard more times than I care to recall, usually uttered by pint-sized hoodlums who spoke exquisite Jive and seemed destined for middle-management in the Crips or their arch-competitors, the Bloods.

Let’s hope that Obama’s example leads young black Americans to stop obsessing about white racism, reject hip-hop and ghetto culture, and embrace intellectual achievement.

In this respect, President Barack Obama ironically could become a powerful force for socially conservative change.

Murdock is a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Mark (411533) — 1/22/2009 @ 10:03 pm

Machinist wrote:

Remember the woman journalist writing how she wondered if she should give Clinton oral sex for saving a woman’s right to an abortion?

That was “Kneepad Nina” Burleigh, formerly of Time and other magazines. On July 6, 1998, she told the Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz:

“I would be happy to give him [Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

In a Free Republic thread I authored in 1999, I detailed how Burleigh believed that she — at the time, a freelance writer working out of her home — should get government aid for child care:

Every Friday for the last six months I have engaged in a financial bloodletting ritual. I stand before an ATM wincing as the narrow metal slit spits out stacks of twenties. Then I hand over the fresh wad to the baby-sitter who has been tending my boy, Felix. Felix is 9 months old. He only weighs about 20 pounds. And in six months his child care has cost nearly $10,000.

It was recently reported that the infamous wage gap between men and women applies more to women with children. Now I know why. As I write this, Felix is pulling on my chair and trying to see what Mommy’s doing. He’s pretty darn cute. I love him deeply. But when he is underfoot, I can’t concentrate. And every single minute the baby-sitter is here distracting Felix so I can work costs me 16 cents.

She concluded with this paragraph:

The congressional attitude toward child care and working moms is a head-scratcher. Let’s see: Poor moms should get out of the house and work and the government will pay for their child care. And middle-class moms must stay home. Why not subsidize child care so all mothers can contribute to the workforce? If tax money pays for children to go to school, why shouldn’t it pay for child care?

Cute little Felix is 9 years old now. I wonder if he’s Googled his mom yet, and asked her why she’s referred to as “Kneepad Nina” or Nina “Kneepads” Burleigh. I wonder if she told him the truth when she answered him.

L.N. Smithee (a51df1) — 1/23/2009 @ 12:19 am

She was indeed the one.

Machinist (c5fc28) — 1/23/2009 @ 1:21 am

I just Googled “Levi Juhl.” The first thing I clicked on was a Facebook page for someone by that name, revealing a tall, gangly young man with a beard. Next was a “My Barack Obama” page in which Levi Juhl of Missoula, MT proclaims Obama had just LOST his vote because of his failure to stop FISA. That sounds like our boy. But the other “Levi Juhl” of Montana link pertains to a thing decidedly younger in nature: a passion for the card game Magic: The Gathering.

Levi Juhl of Butte, MT won a load of free “MTG” swag (apparently, recently) by writing an essay about why he should get it (bold mine):

The Grand Prize Winner:
Levi Juhl of Butte, Montana

His Plea:
Some of my friends and I once snuck out of all of our houses at 1:00am to go play a game of Magic in the woods. There were four of us, and it was about 45 degrees outside. We played with 100 life apiece, and the game took 5 hours. I got home about 20 minutes before my mom woke up. It was close…

Anyhow, we’re all hardcore MTG fans. We all live in a really, really lame town, Butte, Montana, and there is absolutely nothing to do here, and no way to get our collection any bigger. A guy occasionally buys a box of Urza’s Saga boosters, but for the most part, Magic cards in my hometown are rarer than a Black Lotus. We not only would like the free cards and stuff, but we NEED them. And thanks for making one hell of a card game, I’ve never been captivated by a card game as I have been with Magic. I’m 15, and I’ve been playing since the Ice Ages came out, and I only make 15 dollars a week allowance, and as I said, MTG cards are rare here. So instead of giving the stuff to some guy in a huge city that has a job and can buy his own stuff, give it to some kids that really need to bolster their collection. Thanks alot!

“Our” Levi famously remarked that he was able to ace “A’s” on book reports of works he never read. He called college “retarded” and “a pyramid scheme.” He also refused to disclose his age in several heated debates last year in which many of us (including me) argued that the positions he took seemed to be borne of either naivete, inexperience, or both.

If he is both the MTG guy and the Montana-Missoula guy, I am surprised … a little.* I always figured he might be a bright but headstrong teenager who didn’t know what he doesn’t know yet, but never would have figured he could be as young as 15. But if he is a mid-teens college student, that would explain the extremely obscene rants on the recent threads, which are — unlike his lengthy, rambling comments during the campaign — nearly illiterate. As then-standup comedy king Steve Martin once responded to a heckler, “Yeah, I remember my first beer.”

(*Of course, he could have just made up the stuff about playing MTG in the woods, and he might be a devious college senior. I’m just guessing.)

L.N. Smithee (a51df1) — 1/23/2009 @ 1:50 am

L.N.,

Those are all our boy. The MTG swag story is what had caused me to believe that we were dealing with a 15-year-old — and that the only way to get him to stop littering my blog with the “c” word and such was to call his dad, much as you might do with an unruly teenager in the neighborhood who is vandalizing your home in petty ways.

But I took another look at the post later and noticed that the game he referred to was a 1999 game. I believe this all happened in 1999, when Levi was 15. Now he is 24 years old and a student at the University of Montana at Missoula. He thinks “school sux” and is evidently not doing particularly well. This information, along with some painful pictures, is all available at his MySpace page — where we also learn about his drug usage, his inconsistent showering habits, his poor performance on exams testing rudimentary knowledge of 8th-grade subjects, and much more. He is proud of all of this and puts it out there on the Internet for all to see.

I think he is too young and stupid to realize, however, that repeatedly coming onto a site where he is not welcome and using ugly profanities resembles the behavior of a stalker. He has an unusual name and if I were to write a page linking his name to these comments (as his name has already been linked on this site) then future employers will likely find this information and have concerns about his juvenile and slightly disturbing stalkerish tendencies.

I have already taken steps to prevent his comments by putting several of his favorite profanities in the file of words that put a comment in moderation. I think this will improve the general tone around here anyway: if your comment (or anyone’s) contains any of several major profanities, it won’t appear until I approve it. I’ll still approve most such comments, but comments that have no purpose but to insult will appear more rarely.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 1/23/2009 @ 7:07 am

Well, at least we know the source of the person’s sneering anger, which has little to do with other people, or even political disagreement.

Maybe he will just move on now. But there may be a retaliatory onslaught today.

Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/23/2009 @ 7:46 am

Hmmm. I’m not sure of the facts, but when Patterico observes the following:

“..He thinks “school sux” and is evidently not doing particularly well…”

Then the venom toward me in several posts makes a bit more sense. I never did call him “stupid.” Why would I? Crude and immature, sure. But not stupid.

Or maybe just thoughtless for fencing with Patterico?

In any event, maybe the incident is Over. I hope so.

The era of Hope and Change is upon us, after all!

Eric Blair (3e2520) — 1/23/2009 @ 8:11 am

I think you’re confusing tnj with levi, Eric.

Right_sedFred (c313be) — 1/23/2009 @ 8:41 am

But what does he really want or expect from his participation here? Troll infamy?

Comment by Dana — 1/22/2009 @ 9:30 pm

Before I learned of the poor school performance, I had thoughts that the whole thing might be either a sociology experiment.

carlitos (05e522) — 1/23/2009 @ 9:20 am

Tick-tock, Ed.

Tick-tock

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/23/2009 @ 10:03 am

Icy Texan:

Are you posting as Smithee too? I missed your ‘point by point refutation’. The only thing we have is an appearance on the Today show and 2 speeches. You’re killin’ me, smalls.

Sounds to me like you’ve got little-man’s disease, and you have grandiose images of the tiny movements in your life.

Ed from PA (836625) — 1/23/2009 @ 10:57 am

The press bias is not new.

Machinist, all good points. In my view, the media helped hide the past of a radical Chicago reformer who was anything but a true reformer. IOW, I wouldn’t vote for Ayers or Dohrn b/c they’re radicals. And they ahppen to be white.

Obama’s ties with Wright, Ayers and Rezko. The questionable funds disbursed by Obama in connection with his Annenberg project, not too mention the fact that that enormous dollar-amount project did squat for Chicago’s schools. So, whatever affairs JFK had, however Clinton was loved in the 90s, Ike; FDR… none of these candidates had a past steeped in anti-Americanism.

Black radical James Cone said Wright’s church most embodies his teachings. That the white man has not evolved, and that if God is on the right side, whites will be destroyed. Jeremiah Wright’s teachings that the US created AiDS to destroy blacks is an important issue to any voter. Not according to our media. This is what print and TV news worked to hide. The cover-up of activist/organizer Barack Obama was enabled by the media. No previous president or candidate brought anti-Americanism to their platform. The media made sure Obama didn’t either.

In the end, it has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with ethics.

Vermont Neighbor (ab0837) — 1/23/2009 @ 12:34 pm

Re: Comment by Ed from PA — 1/23/2009 @ 10:57 am
Are you posting as Smithee too?
— I don’t pull troll-type shit.

I missed your ‘point by point refutation’.
— Do try to pay attention. It was #95 (Comment by Icy Texan — 1/22/2009 @ 1:46 am).

The only thing we have is an appearance on the Today show and 2 speeches. You’re killin’ me, smalls.
— Is this nonsensical blather directed at me? If so, why?

Sounds to me like you’ve got little-man’s disease, and you have grandiose images of the tiny movements in your life.
— It’s truly amazing how you libs resort, without reservation, to ad hominem attacks when you have nothing of substance to offer. Read my post, which is a substantive response to your previous post, and let’s have a debate on the ISSUES.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/24/2009 @ 1:24 am

Ed from PA wrote:

Icy Texan:

Are you posting as Smithee too? I missed your ‘point by point refutation’. The only thing we have is an appearance on the Today show and 2 speeches. You’re killin’ me, smalls.

No, Icy Texan is not me.

Not only aren’t you reading properly, Ed, you are being disingenuous, which is not surprising — you have to be in order to embrace Obama the way you have.

Since you obviously have to have it explained to you, read carefully this time around: You don’t play the “race card” all the time, only when it is needed, like a trump card or a joker/wild card. For example, If O.J. Simpson was caught on video being someplace else at the time when his ex-wife and her “friend” were butchered, that evidence alone would have exonerated him. How many times Mark Fuhrman used the “N-word” never would have been a topic of discussion. But of course, Simpson’s story didn’t pan out, and he was facing double-murder with special circumstances. Out came the race card, the strategy being to accuse Fuhrman — and all other L.A. cops — of racism. That did the trick.

Obama, having made his last prognostications of Republicans making his race an issue a month before, and seeing his chances of winning diminish despite McCain keeping far away from anything that may be interpreted as racist (to the point that mentioning Rev. Wright was grounds for instant termination as a campaign spokesperson), brought back the “They’re gonna make you afraid of me” lines to his stump speech. Of course, there was no racism to reference. No problem — Obama’s media lapdogs just invented McCain racism out of thin air.

To wit (partial list): David Gergen, a lefty CINO (centrist in name only), insisted on August 3, 2008 that “The One”, McCain’s web-only lampoon of the pompous and messianic nature of Obama speeches, was “‘code’ for “he’s uppity.” [Obama] ought to stay in his place.” I already detailed how on August 4, 2008, black Times columnist Bob Herbert said McCain’s “Celeb” spot was designed to subliminally make white people fear Obama has a massive black penis aimed at their innocent blonde daughters, to the predictable agreement of Keith Olbermann. (Leftist pundit Bill Press and blogger Joshua Micah Marshall made similar such noises). Also on August 4th, Slate.com’s Timothy Noah responded to a lighthearted Wall Street Journal article noting that Obama’s relative skinniness may turn off increasingly porky Americans by suggesting that the piece’s “too skinny” issue was “code” for “black.”

Noah, a white man, even recruited black journalist Michel Martin to read the WSJ piece to see if she took offense. She didn’t. Noah was nonetheless undeterred in making the allegation that any mention of any of Obama’s physical attributes was for the purpose of reminding everyone about the most obvious one.

To sum up: Obama used the race card, claimed he didn’t use it (although his campaign chief admitted he did), and accused the McCain campaign of falsely accusing him (which it didn’t). That allowed the MSM to jump in and pigpile, treating Obama as if HE was the victim, when in fact, McCain was. This pattern repeated itself when Governor Palin later made mention of his past associations with domestic terrorists, both of whom happen to be white. And that July day in Missouri got the snowball rolling even though he only made the “dollar bills” remarks three times — that’s all it takes when the self-appointed trustees of public record are pimping for you.

Feel free to say “So what?” again. If you’ve made it this far, I know you know that when you do say it, you’ll be lying to yourself.

L.N. Smithee (ab89f0) — 1/24/2009 @ 3:45 am

Wow . . . I really didn’t think he was this spineless.

Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:05 am

1/20/2009

Obama’s Inauguration

175 Responses to “Obama’s Inauguration”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out