Mind Games in the Presidential Race
May 9, 2008 Political
John McCain, the MSM’s and Democratic selection for the Republican party, has been the subject of debate because of his age. While Howard Dean stated that the Democrats would not take this up as an issue that has not stopped some of them from chiming in. Jack Murtha, the unindicted criminal who is three years older than McCain said that McCain was too old to be president by stating that it was no old man’s job. B. Hussein Obama recently complained about a factual statement by McCain that the terrorists would rather see Obama win. Since this was stated by terrorists it is not a lie. Obama indicated that McCain was losing his bearings which the McCain camp took as a veiled shot at the candidate’s age.
Is age an issue in this campaign? Certainly there is a minimum age requirement for the office of President but there is no maximum age limit. So why are people able to make statements about McCain’s age? Ageism is a form of discrimination so why is it tolerated. Imagine for a moment that a prominent Republican Congressman had made the statement that Hillary Clinton should not be president because she is a woman by saying “this ain’t no lady’s job.” Or imagine this same person said that Obama should not be president because he is black by saying “this ain’t no job for a black man.” The howls of misogyny or racism would be heard from coast to coast. But members of the Democratic party make a crack about age and it is quite alright. It is ironic that Murtha would say it given that he is ancient. It is also strange that age never seemed to be a problem for Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the last century. To be fair, Chuck Norris also made an issue of McCain’s age and he was just as wrong as Murtha.
What about this age issue? Is it a concern? Has John McCain lost his bearing ? I might argue he lost his bearing a long time ago with regard to conservatism but I somehow don’t think that is what Obama meant. It is true that as we age our minds get a little slower and we forget things and of course we are more susceptible to brain diseases that result in a decline of brain function. McCain though, seems to be in pretty good shape and except for a few gaffes it does not look like he has lost any of his mental function.
There are those, especially when the general election rolls around (if the Democrats ever figure out who is running), who will make a big deal out of the gaffes and attribute them to decreased mental capacity. These would be the same people who excuse Hillary Clinton’s lies about sniper fire as a mistake. Hillary says that she told us something that she knew to be different from what actually happened and she has even written about it. Does she have decreased mental capacity because she can’t recall if she was shot at or not? The media and those on the left never attributed it to her age and decreasing brain function. Many could not compel themselves to call her a liar opting to say she simply “made a mistake.”
Now Hillary is 60 so there might be people who say that she is declining. In fact, Bill Clinton said as much (when he was trying to excuse her lie) when he said that when people get to be 60 they will forget things when they are tired. Obama though, is a mere babe in the woods compared to these two. Certainly, his mental capacity is not in question and he has the most sound mind for the job.
But wait! Obama has told us that he started attending Pastor Wright’s church 20 years ago when he was 26. He also told us that in 20 years he never realized that Wright was a racist. It took this man 20 years and public outcry to see that his pastor was an American hating racist with crack-pot conspiracy theories about the government inventing AIDS to get rid of blacks. Good thing his mind is sharp or it might have taken 40 years.
Obama’s sharp and well tuned mind did not prevent him from insulting many Americans by saying that they are bitter and as a result cling to religion and their guns while hating outsiders. If we are to believe that Obama did nothing wrong in his land deal with Tony Rezko then his sharp as a tack mind did not keep him from making a deal that had red flags flying all around it.
John McCain was tortured at the hands of our enemy for nearly seven years and he can go toe to toe with either of the other two in an intellectual battle and not get bested (I bet he could go toe to toe in a fist fight and beat them both). To make his age an issue does an injustice to the elderly in our society.
There are plenty of problems with John McCain but his age is not one of them.
Sources:
WSJ
My Way News
Give the Brother a Break
Mar 8, 2008 General
Robert Downey Jr has a role in a new movie entitled Tropic Thunder. According to the Daily Mail, the movie:
The film centres[sic] on a group of pompous actors making the most expensive Vietnam war movie ever made.
Fed up with their self-involved cast, the film’s makers drop them into the jungle to take care of themselves, where they get caught up in a conflict they don’t realise[sic] is real.
However, all is not well in movie land because Downey Jr plays the part of a black man. He wears black make-up and a wig to play the part of a black actor.
Oops, that does not sit well with groups that want to know why a white man is playing a black person. Was there no black man to fill the role? This is over the line and cannot be tolerated.
My question; Who the hell cares? Their profession is acting and their job is to make people believe something that is not true. In this case Downey Jr looks like a black man and therefore he is making people believe something that is not true.
Why are there never concerns when black guys wear white make-up and play white people? Why are there no concerns when a woman plays a man or vice versa? It seems to me that this is much ado about absolutely nothing as is the flap over a white actor on SNL playing the part of Barack Obama, who incidentally is half white.
If this movie used Downey’s character to portray stereotypes of blacks and showed them unfavorably then there might be an issue but still, that issue never arises when people like Eddie Murphy wear white make-up to see how good whites have life. Murphy is a comedian and what he did was funny though it made fun of typical white stereotypes.
I wonder if this will pass without the race baiters making a big deal about it. If there is any way whatsoever that Sharpton and Jackson can play this for face time on some camera, somewhere, we will be in for another diatribe about the racist whites.
BTW, Jack Black is in the movie (just his name is ironic) and his hair is bleached blond. Should we protest that a blond actor was not found to play the part?
The Phantom of the Oprah
Jan 21, 2008 Political
Oprah Winfrey has been very vocal in her support for B. Hussein Obama. In her first venture into the political scene, Winfrey campaigned for Obama at several events and he is the only candidate that has appeared on her show. Winfrey has been paying a bit of a price for her support of Obama and has been labeled a traitor by women who think she should be supporting Hillary Clinton.
This kind of thinking is very dangerous for the political scene because it places emphasis on a physical characteristic rather than on policy issues and qualification for the job. Winfrey is in a particularly difficult position because if she supports Clinton she will be labeled a traitor by the blacks who support Obama. Race and sex are not supposed to play into the selection process and picking a candidate based solely upon those, or any other characteristics, is a silly way to select leaders. Imagine what kind of uproar there would be if famous male supporters of Hillary were labeled traitors by other men who think a male should be president or if whites were labeled traitors for their support of Obama.
Think of how ridiculous it would be if the supporters of other candidates did the same thing. The elderly and Vietnam vets would label other elderly or VN vets who do not support McCain as traitors. Balding men would label as traitors those who do not support Thompson, evangelicals label other evangelicals as traitors for not supporting Huckabee, trial lawyers would label other trial lawyers as traitors for not supporting Edwards, those who have been divorced several times would labels others with that history as traitors for not supporting Giuliani and successful businessmen would label other successful businessmen as traitors for not supporting Romney.
Ron Paul supporters already label anyone who does not support Paul as a traitor.
These examples are just as ridiculous as concentrating on the fact that Obama is black or Hillary is a woman. Of course these are barriers that have never been broken but electing someone just to break that “glass ceiling” (as Hillary calls it) is not the correct way to select leaders. If one is a liberal there are many reasons to vote for Clinton or Obama and if one is a Conservative there are plenty of reasons not to vote for either of them. The color or sex of the candidates does not fit into this equation.
In order to see how invalid the idea of support based upon color or sex is one only needs to ask the question; is it OK to oppose Clinton because she is a woman or Obama because he is black? Would a person who said that he will not vote for Clinton solely because she is a woman be labeled a sexist and would a person who says that he would not vote for Obama solely because he is black be labeled a racist? If the answer is yes (and we know the answer is yes) then support based upon those two items is just as wrong.
This country is ready for a woman president and it is ready for a black president and there are plenty of both who would do a great job. These two just are not the ones.
Whoopi, Sharpton is Back in the News…
Oct 10, 2007 Uncategorized
I don’t usually agree with Whoopi Goldberg because her views run counter to mine. She usually takes the wrong position on issues (she would think the same of me) and I find it difficult to listen to her most times. I think she is a talented actress and has done some good work but her antics with regard to our elected leaders has overshadowed her talent.
Having said that, I agree with what she said on the daily gab fest known as The View. She was discussing Al Sharpton and his demand that Isiah Thomas apologize to the woman that Thomas was recently found guilty of sexually harassing. Sharpton gave Thomas until Friday to apologize of the master race baiter will be out with his minions protesting. I find it interesting that Sharpton is taking a black man to task but that is beside the point here. It is none of Sharpton’s business. This was a matter between Thomas and the woman and the court that decided the issue. Sharpton has no say in the matter and should keep his mouth shut.
Goldberg, to her credit, discussed this and then said that Sharpton needed to apologize to the Duke lacrosse players. Goldberg indicated that she would take up the sign of protest once Sharpton made things right with the Duke players. She should not hold her breath because Sharpton has a history of running his mouth, accusing people, and inciting riots and then walking away as if he did something good. Sharpton is responsible for the deaths of people (coincidentally, all eight were Jewish) and he has never apologized. He refused to apologize to the guy who caught up in his support of Tawana Brawley and her admitted lies about being raped. The court ruled against him in the lawsuit and he paid the man a settlement decided by the court but he refused to apologize.
Sharpton never went to Duke but he was interviewed about the case and he made it clear that the woman deserved justice. He made it clear that the prosecutor must have a good case or he would not prosecute it. Sharpton did not presume innocence, he took the side of the woman even though there were gaping holes in her story. This transcript of his conversation with Bill O’Reilly makes it clear.
Al Sharpton sent Whoopi a letter stating that he owed no apology because he did not go to Duke and he took no position in the case. This is refuted by his interview with O’Reilly where Sharpton says he is on touch with the local NAACP and that they are advising people what happened. Sharpton says that we do not know what other evidence there is so we should wait before we try to discredit her. He dismissed the evidence that showed the boys could not have done it (DNA) and said we should proceed and let the court do its thing. We are supposed to discredit witnesses if they are lying so that cases get dropped quickly and lives do not get ruined.
Sharpton also indicated that he had apologized already. He told Whoopi he did not take a position and that there was no need to apologize and yet, he got all over Chris Wallace for asking if he would apologize and he told Wallace that he already had on his radio show. He either lied or wanted to make people think he apologized but his admission that he did leads me to believe he thought it necessary at the time.
Now it is not? Why did he not say that he had already apologized like he did to Wallace?
Once again, this guy is a waste of flesh and oxygen and he needs to keep his nose out of other people’s business. It is amazing to me that someone has not popped him by now. God knows if he can incite people to kill for him he can anger some to go against him.
UPDATE: I read this in the comments at Breitbart (linked above):
Duke Case (black victim, white defendants):
“We have to assume the DA knows what he’s doing.â€
Jena 6 Case (white victim, black defendants):
The DA is a racist.
Hmmmmm………
That is all we need to read…
Tags: Al Sharpton, Commentary, Duke, race, Whoopi