Conservative Common Man

Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta have a piece in Sunday’s Washington Post with a headline that seems intended to show that white people are racist and if somehow Barry O doesn’t win the presidency it can be attributed to racism. I, of course, assumed it was written by Juliet Eilperin when I read the headline, “3 in 10 Americans Admit To Race Bias.” The headline and the beginning of the article are for the benefit of those that just take a glance and then walk away with the prescribed sense of righteous indignation regarding race relations in the United States. The casual headline reader might reasonably get the impression that the deck is stacked against the propagation of Obamunism, although the casual headline reader probably doesn’t stop to think that he is actually supporting Obama’s version of Communism (Obamunism,) when he supports Obama. Ominously bleak first sentence:

As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Of course the libiots at the Post don’t discuss factors such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton promoting racism for profit or programs designed to maintain racial divides. Scholarships for minorities only, hiring quotas, and race-oriented organizations all work together to ensure racial divides will never heal. These factors contribute to the attitudes that the Post laments (before launching into its gleeful “Hope” for racism):

More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as “not so good” or “poor,” while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination. There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

Oh no, the racism fostered by race-hustlers and special programs designed to foster racism had the intended affect! Whatever will we do? Not to worry dedicated Obamunists, the Post says you can “Hope” for racism to carry you to victory:

His campaign advisers hope race may prove a benefit, that heightened enthusiasm among African Americans will make Obama competitive in GOP-leaning states with large black populations. But to win in November, Obama most likely will have to close what is now a 12-point deficit among whites. (Whites made up 77 percent of all voters in 2004; blacks were 11 percent, according to network exit polls.)

The article goes back and forth between whites being racist and that being a potential threat to an Obamanation and the “Hope” for Change” that racism may bring due to a bump, courtesy of race-only voters. The bottom line of this article (or unpaid campaign ad for Barack Obama) is that the glory of Obamunism may be realized thanks to the racism they decry.

Is it good for the state of race relations to depend on racism to elect a president? Probably not, but just like Jackson and Sharpton, The Obama Campaign (I would include The Washington Post in an unofficial capacity of course) pretends to oppose racism in order to foster racism as a means to their selfish ends. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this entire situation is that there are millions of voters that either share the goals of the vile or are duped by the vile.

Democrats are used to blindly voting against their own best interests as evidenced by:

• Union members consistently voting for the party that wants to flood the labor pool with cheaper (and illegal) laborers.
• Union members consistently voting for the party that opposes the growth of business and imposes suffocating restrictions on business (then blaming the business when it closes or moves.)
• Black people voting for possibly the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history regardless of the number of black children killed in carrying out the racist mission of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood pioneer.
• Religious people voting for candidates that fight for the extermination of babies for convenience. (Do supposedly religious people that vote for pro-abortion candidates ask God for forgiveness every day for the rest of their lives?)
• Democrats that drive and don’t like paying $4 a gallon for gasoline continue to support candidates that will fight (not admittedly, of course) to raise the price further and create shortages by preventing the access to and refining of our own oil, while advocating energy independence, naturally.

So it isn’t surprising anymore, to see people voting against their own interests. It is far too common for the people that complain about a situation to vote for and support the very candidates that are most likely to make the situation worse. Are Americans simply sadomasochistic?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS