A yes vote for Obama means you support a Neo-Marxist anti-white racist. Really. — Ed.
To show the empty “logic” that Jack Cafferty of CNN employs in hispolitical commentary all one need do is check out his September 16 Political Ticker blog poston why the race for the White House is so tight in the polls. Reason:the country is filled with racists. Yes, folks, if you are votingagainst Obama (and no matter who or what you are actually supportingand why) it must be because you are a racist. It isn’t because you stand against what Obama stands for, it has to be because you are a racist.
This delusional, preconceived notion is becoming the excuse du jourwith Democrat supporters that have lately seen a dawning hint thatMcCain may just win this election. And, that is really all it is, too.An excuse. An excuse that ignores all the warts and obvious problemswith Barack Obama, his record, and the fantasy stage show that is hiscampaign.
Here is what Cafferty posted:
Will race be the factor that keeps Obama from the White House?
Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about.
The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t bemore well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a partof Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remainclose. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.
Time magazine’s Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in theroom. He says Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights backagainst the McCain-Palin campaign attacks.
Let’s devastate this absurd argument line by line…
His first line after the initial question claims that “nobody’stalking” about the race factor in Obama’s bid for the White House. Whatplanet is this guy watching the campaign from, anyway? Nearly everysingle pundit, political maven, and news caster has brought up the raceangle since the day Obama announced his intention to run.
Since day one it has been claimed that Obama’s run for president isan “historic” one. Well, what does “historic” mean if it isn’t becausehe’s the first black man to win the nomination of a major politicalparty to run for the top job? It sure isn’t because he’s male or aDemocrat. In case Cafferty isn’t aware, there have been more than ahandful of male Democrats that have run for the White House in the past.
On top of that, Obama has thrown out the race card dozens of times,himself. Where Cafferty gets the crazy, uninformed idea that “nobody”is talking about race is anybody’s guess. All Jackie would have had todo was Google Race plus Obama and my guess is he’d get more than a hitor two!
Now, paragraph two is so free of reason and logic that it bogglesthe mind. And it serves not only to make his argument absurd, it showswhat a failure he is as a political analyst.
Cafferty says that the difference between the two candidates”couldn’t be more well-defined.” That is a fair statement. Then hefollows that with a lie so brazen that it chokes in the throat.
Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy.
Cafferty just plain lied here. McCain has an actual record ofchallenging Washington. He’s done it for decades and raised the ire ofhis own party by being the “maverick” too many times to mention. Obamahas talked a lot about change, sure, yet he has no history… not onescintilla of a record… of ever having changed anything. He’s neverchallenged the Senate. He’s never challenged his party. He never evenchallenged the status quo of corrupt Daley machine politics of Chicagowhen he was in state government back in Illinois. In fact, hebenefitted quite handsomely from that corrupt system.
Then Cafferty, employing his Einstein-like powers of observation, gives us this trenchant analysis:
Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.
First of all, Einstein, the electorate itself has been closely hewnin half since the Clinton years — heck even since Reagan realignedpolitics in this country. So, that reason alone could easily accountfor the close split in the polls today. But to ascribe it solely torace, while at the same time offering no real proof, demonstratesCafferty’s utter lack of understanding anything in this campaign orthis country.
Further, his sheer astonishment is based on a central assumptionthat also proves he has no capacity to understand American culture andpolitics and should, therefore, never be taken seriously as a politicalcommentator. Cafferty’s amazement that anyone could possibly want tosupport McCain is based solely on his assumption that Barrack isclearly 100% right on all points. This assumption is so blindlypartisan that it admits not one shred of understanding that there trulyis a substantive difference between the philosophy behind Republicanthinking and that of Democrats. It assumes that Democrats are all 100%correct in their political philosophy and that Republicans are merelyracists for not following along.
Are there people who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black? Surely there are. Is it the predominantreason that millions won’t vote for him? What proof of this is there?Further, there were many millions who didn’t vote for Obama in theprimaries for the reason that he isn’t a woman. Did Cafferty attackevery femenazi for their assertion that people should vote Hillarybecause she was a she and not a he? If so, I’d like to see it.
Cafferty completely misses the salient fact that millions ofAmericans stand against Barack Obama because they feel his ideas areanti-capitalist, anti-military, pro-Eropean policies that pull againstAmerican exceptionalism. They see his terrorist pals, his racebaitingpastors, his wife who isn’t proud of her country and they wonder whythey should vote for such a person?
Cafferty is so blind to the real reasons that people vote the waythat they do that he simply blows off the whole closely split politicalbalance with the shadowy excuse of rampant American “racism.” Thisfailure of Cafferty’s totally discredits him as a political observer.
Now, it is perfectly possible to assume that the “other” half of theelectorate is wholly wrong in its thinking as Cafferty clearly does,and still be an effective political analyst (Michael Barone and BritHume are prime examples of this). For example, the philosophy behindthe Democrats has long ago strayed from what it once was to aphilosophy closer to a Euroesque amalgam of socialism, and populism.Democrats ceased being truly American in their thinking many decadesago. So, yes, they are horribly wrong. But to discount that those ideasexist and are a major player in American politics is simply absurd. Sodiscounting that “other” side that it interferes with your ability tosee the whole of the electorate dooms serious political analysis.
This, in truth, is where Cafferty has ended up. He so hatestraditional American conservatism, so despises and discounts theRepublican Party that he can’t even admit that many millions ofAmericans hold to those principles and will vote that way because ofthem. To Cafferty, no one is voting McCain because they adhere toRepublican principles, they are just racists against Obama.
Lastly, in his final sentence, Cafferty uses someone else’s words tocement for us the fact that he has none of his own to offer.
Cafferty’s thinking process makes him completely unfit to be apolitical analyst. And his blog post serves as a prime example of why.