Skip to main content

The Venal Rhetoric of Barack Obama

As part of the endless PC "dialogue" on Prop 8 that I blogged about yesterday, I came across this gem that summarizes the loathsome disingenuousness of Obama's rhetoric in an easy-to-digest form.

As part of the discussion on why Obama's selection of Warren is so unacceptable, an Obama partisan writes:

obama was elected as a president for all the people, including conservative christians and those who have big unresolved "marriage issues" - you know, *americans*!


Yes! He is The One!

Now that WE have elected him, the seas shall slow their rise, and the planet shall heal! His tongue is dipped in the golden truth, as Oprah Herself noted!

All conflict shall cease! The sky shall open, celestial choirs will sing, and everything will be perfect! (The latter was Hillary Clinton's hilarious and very on-target dissection of Obama's ridiculous rhetoric).

But what's this?!? The same Obama partisan, a couple of paragraphs later, lectures the annoyed homos thusly:

if you are "hurting", you need to let obama & Us know how you feel about his choices re: warren & mcclurkin in a constructive way.


Ahhh.

"Us" = real Americans (who supported Obama)

"You" = filthy homos (who need to explain your perverted rage to we Real Americans so we can decide whether or not dignity should be granted in this instance, in exchange for more money and votes)

"constructive way" = Sit down and shut up, faggots.

Now imagine if the situation was reversed, and a President-Elect McCain was inviting Rick Warren to give his invocation. The same Useful Idiots covering for Obama would be releasing *outraged* statements in support of the LGBT community, noting the pain and suffering such a decision caused, and demanding social justice!

It's enough to make one vomit.

I used to get annoyed at political movements who did this (Bush's movement was identical, incidentally).

But now I am more annoyed at the LGBT leadership, who have transformed a large bloc of voters and political contributions into the abused spouse of the Democratic Party. Despite $80 million in Obama's warchest; despite delivering Obama his margin of victory and then some; despite endless advertising Obama did in the gay press; "we" have to explain to "America" why the selection of one of the country's most anti-gay voices -- from California, home of Proposition 8 -- isn't a good idea.

Here's a better idea. Let's pick up the phone and inform Obama that if he goes ahead with this, we'll stay home in 2012 and keep our pocketbooks closed.

Unfortunately, most queer politicos are in it for the money and influence, and not the principle, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Meanwhile, I'm recommending to LGBT people of all races and political backgrounds, to prepare for an administration that is half Clinton and half Bush. So much for "change."

Comments

Eric Dondero said…
Actually, more like half-Clinton, 1/4 Adolph Hitler and 1/4 Josef Stalin.
Eric Dondero said…
Bush fought Islamo-Fascism. Barack Hussein Obama is one.
Anonymous said…
"Bush fought Islamo-Fascism. Barack Hussein Obama is one."

Seriously? We're still on this "Obama is a Muslim" crap?
Bowly said…
My high school valedictorian's speech:

"Eighteen years ago I couldn't even spell education. Now I are one."

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...