The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for the ‘Gerry Rough’ Category

Barack Obama: Victorious Victim of History

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2009

By Gerry Rough

Barack Obama: Victorious Victim of History

You’ve heard it countless times by now.  You’ve heard it spoken so many times it is beginning to grate on your nerves, and you’ve even begun to think that it was just your opinion and no one else’s that the election of President Barack Obama was something far less than a real election.  There was something wrong about his rise to power, but you perhaps cannot as of yet put your finger on it.  It is vague and undefined, but it is definitely there.  There is there there, and you know it.

You are not alone!  And as Glenn Beck has so eloquently put it recently, we surround them!  There are, in fact, six – count them, six – very good reasons why conservatives should question whether Obama’s ascension to power was a real bona fide election based on popular will, or whether it was something far less as we shall shortly see.  The long and the short of the 2008 election has yet to be written, but one thing is abundantly clear for all to see, especially our liberal friends who refuse to acknowledge the reality of what happened out of shear political blindness.  The meteoric rise to power of President Barack Obama was not the result of a desire for change in the American electorate, personal popularity or even the proverbial ‘cult of personality’ so present in our modern 24-hour news cycle culture.  It was the direct result of political forces that were beyond his control, and ultimately forces he will likely never master based on his first sixty-plus days in office.  For so it is that without these unseen forces working on his behalf to elect him, it would have been impossible for him to rise to the office he now claims to have won by popular election.  Indeed, as we shall see shortly, if even one of these forces had not been present, John McCain would have won the election, and America’s future would have taken a dramatic turn in a different direction than it is now moving.

As it stands now, the election of 2008 was the perfect storm in American political history, one with so many firsts it is difficult to imagine that an election like the one just witnessed by this generation will probably ever happen again in our history.  But even more than all of the firsts that were present in this election cycle, all of the political forces lined up in a way rarely if ever seen in the history of political theater.  The sheer cumulative magnitude of these political forces made victory a certainty beyond reasonable doubt for one candidate, and one candidate alone.  To wit, if an Oscar Mayer Wiener had been the democratic nominee, the wiener would certainly have won in this political climate, and indeed there are many who would argue that that is precisely what we got that fateful night November last!

Perhaps the most visible of these forces was the American media, who by virtually every objective standard by media watchdog organizations, well known pollsters, and even the dubious public who was forced to watch the train wreck of an election run amok, have concluded universally that the media virtually rolled over for the democratic candidate.  Even the Obama campaign itself has even admitted media partiality when confronted with the bias question by stating that, “We deserved it,” a tacit admission of media complicity.  It was Democratic Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania who acknowledged the same when he went on record as calling the media irresponsibility regarding Barack Obama a “national disgrace.”  And it was Hillary Clinton who spoke to the wind in her calls for the media to confront Obama as a real presidential candidate, and stop covering him as a celebrity.  Entire books and videos are now in the works or already published documenting the media complicity in the Obama election.  There were even post-election polls that had upwards of 70% of Americans who agreed that the media willfully worked to elect Obama – and yes, the wording was carefully chosen.  It just doesn’t get any worse than that, unless, of course, you happen to live in a banana republic.  If Barack Obama had been given the scrutiny that every other candidate had been given, he would never have risen to the nomination, let alone the presidency.

As regards campaign cash, the advantage of the Obama campaign put McCain at a severe disadvantage from the start, one from which McCain never recovered.  But remember here that it was candidate Obama himself who broke the campaign promise to receive only public funding for his campaign.  The McCain campaign actually kept the promise and took the public funding, despite countless Republican observers who told him to do otherwise.  And while the cash advantage of the Obama campaign was generally 2 to 1 as late as October, reported a staggering 3 to 1 advantage in television advertising in the final stretch, an advantage only dreamed of in political circles, especially in a presidential campaign.  The magnitude of this level of cash advantage is staggering, and although not completely out of the question to overcome (there are many examples of this in political history), in the greater context of this election cycle, there was in effect no chance for McCain to overcome this enormous advantage.

Yet another advantage Obama had during the presidential campaign was that the outgoing president George W. Bush was nowhere to be seen during the primaries or the fall months leading up to the November election.  And here the poll numbers tell the story.  As late as October, 2008, Bush’s approval numbers were universally in the 20s.  This is devastating to a presidential campaign for the party in power.  In McCain’s case of course, Bush was a virtual millstone around his neck, making him the elephant in the room that no one was talking about.  In fact, it was rather something of a strain for the McCain campaign to ignore the sitting president.  Normally, of course, the party who holds the White House has an enormous advantage going into the fall election.  Imagine if you will, what can be gleaned from the power of Air Force One landing at a local airport: the symbolism, the majesty, the Office of the President, irrespective of the office holder.  This O reader is the greatest of political sins: that we should endure a presidential election cycle having turned an iniquitous eye to such an event!  O what needless pain we bear!  And that, O friend, is exactly what conservatives were asked to bear for this election cycle.  The enormous advantage of a sitting president was nowhere to be found, and it was excruciating to witness up close and personal.  A president with approval ratings in the low- to mid- 40s would have easily propelled McCain into the White House.

Another major force that propelled Obama to victory was the issue of the Bush Administration’s defense of itself in the face of withering democratic opposition.  The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush was the presidential ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ while his political enemies simply did what every political enemy does: they defined him and his presidency from the very beginning.  A quick overview of the major events of the Bush presidency tells the story.  When the Florida recount mess emerged so early in his administration, Bush took the high road and tried to reconcile himself to democrats who refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of his presidency.  When the WMD were not found as expected, Bush again did not hold the democrat’s feet to the fire for their own complicity in the entire WMD debacle, even, mind you, when there were WMD actually found that were never documented by either Sadam Hussein or the UN weapons inspectors.  And what of the Katrina debacle when Bush was accused by democrats of ignoring New Orleans because of race?  It is both inexcusable and inexplicable that a sitting president would ignore his political enemies and allow them to define him in this way; it is nothing less than political malpractice of the highest order.  In the end, it was not the administration who defined itself, but the opposition.  And that, O political junkie, is yet another axiom of politics that should never be ignored: you either define yourself or your enemy will do it for you.  George W. Bush, for all of his positives and negatives, never really quite got the memo on this important truism of electoral politics.  What Bush’s presidency needed was the political killer instinct that was not there, and in the end it destroyed his presidency.  Had the Bush administration defined its political enemies rather than allowing its enemies to define them, it would have changed history and the election of 2008 without question.

On another front, Republican disarray during this past election cycle was so transparent it could not have been missed.  The story was covered extensively in nearly every media outlet, complete with howls of incompetence and the party of “democrat light.”  Even after the election the party disintegrated further with the usual finger pointing and recriminations too many to count.  The Sarah Palin debacle during the last week before the election only made the collapse of the party more intense and noticeable.  It was not as though the reproach was unearned, however.  The fact is that the Republican Party had been in decline for a number of years, and it was just now coming to its inevitable conclusion.  The generic polls that measured whether voters were more likely to vote republican or democrat were heavily in favor of democrats long before this election cycle.  Even the self-identified conservative versus liberal polls had conservatives in the decline for several years prior to the 2008 election.  By that time, of course, it was simply not enough to call yourself a republican any longer and assume that the voter actually knew the difference between the two parties.  The public and the conservative movement had lost the stomach for “republican light” policy, and the republican brand name had been so badly tarnished that by 2008 the party had become a mere shell of its former self, with conservative policy a la George W. Bush now seen as the problem, not the solution.  Time and time again we have learned that democrats cannot win the White House without the help of their republican counterparts, and this election was no exception.

By the time the financial crisis hit in mid-September, the cement of history had already hardened on a given candidate.  While it is true that McCain had up until then defied political gravity and continued to lead in the polls after the Palin nomination, the magnitude of the weight of history and its cruel consequence could not be cast aside so easily, even with another historical first that Sarah Palin represented.  History is not so kind to those who attempt to thwart its predetermined path, and the financial crisis was history’s way of putting the final roadblock to the McCain juggernaut.  In the end, the financial crisis that determined the outcome of the election really brought all of the other forces of nature, of man, of politics and of history herein mentioned to a final climactic doom that only the almighty himself could have changed.  Perhaps up until that point, McCain had victory within his grasp, but it was fleeting at best.  The weight of the forces arrayed against the McCain campaign was simply too great to have any other outcome: destiny would not be denied its place no matter the cost.  By the time of the financial crisis in September, Barack Obama had become without doubt simply ‘good enough’ to get rid of the republicans, and America would have to wait for its next leader one more presidential election cycle.

Make no mistake: liberals can take no comfort in the Obama victory, for he did not earn his place in history, nor did he show himself to be worthy of that favor based on his first two months in office.  He has shown himself to be nothing more than an incompetent dupe who has seized power and knows not how to lead a nation, to give of himself to further his cherished cause, nor to cultivate the skills of others toward a common goal he has set for his presidency.  He has shown himself to be weak at every major turn of his presidency – a trait that will certainly destroy both him and his party and embolden his enemies foreign and domestic.  He has sought to lay the blame for his mistakes on his political foes rather than take any responsibility for his own actions, and he has shown not a single instance of any ability to bridge the partisan divide in Washington, to say nothing of his callous and wanton capacity to twist the truth to his liking at his whim, even when it is transparent to friend and foe alike.  The only accomplishments of President Barack Obama so far have been to unite the Republican Party and a growing coalition of conservative democrats and independents against him, the political appointment of inept members of his own party purely for payment of political debts rather than demonstrated competence to accomplish the task given them, and spend his way into so much debt that even his political allies – his fellow liberal democrats and the European Socialist Democracies – have urged caution that he may be straining the financial system beyond the breaking point.  Small wonder that the whispers of callous incompetence are growing louder each day from the halls of Washington.  Perhaps for democrats it makes no difference whether Obama in reality won the election or whether he was really the victorious victim of history and political forces that simply handed him the keys to White House, but for the rest of us elections really do mean something, and they really do have consequences.

Posted in Gerry Rough, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

America’s Racial Divide: Same Words, Different Worlds

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2008

The issue of race relations in America and how to deal with it has now taken on a far different life than anyone could have imagined. Perhaps now there will finally be a conversation on race that America really needs.

But the racial divide between Black and White America is far different than anyone is really willing to admit, far different than many of us even know about. We certainly want to get this issue behind us as a nation no doubt, but getting from seeing the problem to seeing the solution seems elusive at this point.

And that, in my view, is because the races aren’t talking to each other. It is not because of animosity or hate, what I see is something really quite different. I see Black and White America talking literally two different cultural languages: on the one hand, there is the language of struggle, inequality and victimization.  On the other hand is the language of forgiveness, equality, personal responsibility.

Both are valid, of course, but there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of recognizing both equally. We either emphasize one or the other.  And which language you emphasize determines the outcome of the way you interpret your world.

The real problem with interpreting Jeremiah Wright’s seemingly racist and anti-American diatribes is that they make a false assumption that is baked into the cake. The assumption is that all things being equal, the interpretation of words and meanings should be equal to both races. But that is a demonstrably false assumption.

The problem is that African Americans were not brought here by choice, they were brought here as slaves.  And that, my friends, changes everything.  What that means is that we as a nation do not have a shared set of beliefs, we do not have a shared history, and we do not have a shared understanding of ourselves as a people. No. For African Americans it is different.  

Theirs is a culture of struggle. Theirs is a culture of difference. Theirs is a culture of injustice and victimization.  And because their shared heritage is so much different than the rest of us who were brought here because we chose to be here, that difference has had a profound impact on how we see our different worlds, and how we interpret the same words from the pulpit on Sunday morning. 

So when Reverend Jeremiah Wright launches into a sermon sound bite about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he is decidedly not talking at all about World War II and the justification to drop the atom bomb.  Absurd history lesson though it is, it is a language that Black America understands, a language they respond to instinctively. What he is talking about is something completely different. He is speaking to the wound in the Black soul, the ache in the conscience of a people, the sense that one group of people is forcing its will upon another.  And this is why Reverend Wright’s congregation stood up and cheered.  It was not because America was unjustified in its attack on Japan, it was not because America is a bad country, and it was not because the congregants hate America. No most certainly not!! It was a narrow interpretation of events that helped make a broader point that Reverend Wright was making: the injustice of one group forcing its will upon another.

The comparison was inarticulate and hopelessly apples and oranges to white Americans, but African Americans have learned not to interpret the text of a sermon the way white Americans do. What they understand all too well is a sermon’s subtext: what they hear behind the words themselves. White America understands text, Black America understands subtext. And that was the point of Reverend Wright’s sermons. He was speaking to something the rest of us can only glimpse, to something exclusively Black in its scope.

When a Black minister speaks, African Americans hear something quite different than merely text. They hear what speaks to the meaning of being Black in America, the meaning of being misunderstood, the meaning of being the victim, the meaning of being the ‘other’ that just doesn’t seem to break through no matter how hard they try to speak to others about their issues. Black America has a different history, a different identity, a different and unseen struggle that others cannot really quite understand in their terms. For Black America lives in a different world than White America, and no matter how loud they shout it, no matter how hard they try to be heard, their voices never really come through. White America is trying, to be sure, but ultimately they cannot hear the voices that a history of slavery, injustice, and oppression has silenced.

Gerry Rough

Posted in Gerry Rough | Leave a Comment »

Hate: The Past That Refuses to Die

Posted by iusbvision on February 20, 2008

You would think that perhaps those to whom no one listens to any longer would simply get the message and just go away. Perhaps they would even die off so that the rest of us could move on without the weight of them slowing us down as a nation. 

Recently we found that it just isn’t going to work out that way. I speak of the racist and hateful legacy that America wants to forget, the legacy we are tired of hearing about: the hate mongers among us. These are the haters who recently set fire to a mosque in Tennessee. According to the Associated Press, the fire was set in a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee at nearly 5:00 a.m. 

When the fire was finally put under control, it became clear that this was no ordinary electrical or accidental fire that simply happens without notice. According to the president of the center, the graffiti included the words “white power” and “we run the world”.

While on the one hand the incident in Tennessee is easy to see as another holdover from the racist past, on quite another level it speaks to who we are as a nation, and what we must do to continue moving forward against the legacy of hate. For if we do nothing, we all suffer; not just people of color.

The white supremacy movement in America has a long and checkered history, especially here in Indiana. The modern Ku Klux Klan was actually reborn at the time of World War I, and became so powerful that by the early 1920s, it was essentially impossible to be elected to public office in the State of Indiana if you were not a member of the Klan. What changed all of that was a major scandal involving the Governor. Once the scandal broke, of course, within a few short years the Klan in Indiana had nearly ceased to exist.

They are now all but defunct with just a few local members, and even now, as a national movement, they only number at most a few thousand. And that’s being liberal; the fact of the matter is that the Klan and the white supremacy movement are essentially dead. They do still have rallies on occasion, and they do network extensively with other white supremacy groups, such as the Aryan Nations, White Aryan Resistance, etc, but white supremacy as a movement is basically a cultural enigma.

So why, pray tell, are they still around? Didn’t the loonies get the cultural memo? Well, yes they did; they just decided to ignore it, that’s all. And therein lies the problem with cultural movements that are so deeply rooted. They sometimes take on a different life of their own when they die out, staying around when everyone else has abandoned the movement.

We are talking about prejudice, after all, not just another bad idea. And prejudices are hard to break because of where they come from. All of us have a sense of ourselves and people who look like us and talk like us. Let’s face it: we all like being around others who think the way we do. So when we are around others who are not like us, we notice. They are the ‘other’ in sociological terms; they are not part of the group that we feel most comfortable with. In Social Psychology, we refer to it as our Social Identity: the identity of the group we belong to.

With white supremacy, of course, it is the ultimate identity group because race is so easily identifiable. Mix in a history of slavery and civil war with a given social identity and you have a mix that is not easily forgotten. People just don’t give in to popular notions so easily when something is so personal.

So where do we go from here with an issue that is so enduring? You probably guessed it. We move forward, we move beyond race, and we find ways to think of the ‘other’ as someone who is just like us. We move forward with ideas that don’t reference the old ideas that tear us apart along racial lines. We simply keep going. Sometimes we will make our mistakes, sometimes we will even become angry with others who are not part of our group, but we still keep going and becoming ever more vigilant against hate. Our children and grandchildren will figure it out better perhaps, but just keep moving. We owe it to them, and they will thank us for it.

Gerry Rough

Posted in Gerry Rough | Leave a Comment »

Watershed Moment: Hillary Clinton’s Existential Dilemma

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2008

Ah yes. Barely had the ink dried on my last article in these hallowed pages when at last one Hillary Clinton did what we all had expected her to do: she acted like the Hillary that she is.     

Hillary Clinton finally put the race issue into the presidential campaign and succeeded in dividing the Democratic Party along racial fault lines. Thanks, Hillary, right on queue. Worse yet, she did it even better than we expected; she has now succeeded in alienating even liberals from her own party, the very ones mind you, that were planning to endorse her.     

That’s astounding, folks, and staggering in its implications. Imagine that! A mere taste of racial politics directed against another liberal and they scramble like cockroaches when the light comes on. Nay who would have guessed it; who among us would have dared to think it possible: liberals who get squeamish when they are on the receiving end of racial bigotry, the same treatment Republicans have gotten for decades.     

Hell’s bells folks, Hillary’s politics remind me of an old spoof named, The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati: Frankenstein gives me the shakes. And Count Dracula’s driving me batty. But they’re not on a par with the worst one by far: the cockroach that ate Cincinnati.  Oh he must have needed a seltzer It’s amazing how much he got down. For lunch he’d just chew up a suburb or two. And for dinner he ate the whole town (burp!). And so today we mark another milestone in American political history, the melding of racial politics and scorched earth strategy. Congratulations Hillary, you have successfully coined a new political term for the American lexicon: the Liberal White Witch.    

Oh but Hillary isn’t finished just yet with racial politics, not even close. She is now openly courting Hispanics, further alienating the black vote, indeed to the exclusion of it to overcome the very disparity she herself has created. The very vote that made her husband the “First Black President,” and helped give her the chance to become the Democratic nominee is now being shunned for another constituency to make up the difference. But now the stage is being set for Hillary’s final contribution to American political history, the destruction of the very democratic coalition that brought her to power.    

Hillary Clinton’s own scorched earth strategy has now come to fruition as two choices; and both of are them bad. On the one hand, if she picks Barack Obama as her Vice Presidential running mate, she cannot win in November, and she knows all too well why. If she chooses Obama, she only keeps the black votes she needs to win in the blue states. She doesn’t get any additional votes to bring her across the finish line, either in the Electoral College, or the popular vote.     

In order to win, the Democratic nominee must win additional states from the Republicans in order to get elected; and Obama is from Illinois,  already a blue state in the Electoral College. In the end, then, she really gains nothing; she only keeps what she already has. But she cannot win with the current Democratic coalition intact; she must expand her party’s coalition.       

She is now forced to do so because of who she is running against: John McCain. McCain brings in new voters to the Republican camp, and if Hillary does not follow suit, and in a very big way, she will find her Democratic head served on the Republican silver platter on the night of November 4, 2008.    

But now the math gets really interesting. If Hillary Clinton chooses to expand her Electoral College vote by picking someone else as her Vice President, she loses the black vote. African Americans are now invested in Barack Obama; he is their candidate, and they will not be denied their place at the table having come this far. He represents something they have yet to see, a ceiling they know must be broken for their voices to be heard. And if Hillary decides to dash those hopes once again, she will find her head on that same Republican silver platter in November.    

And so the watershed moment in American political history is now upon us. If Hillary Clinton chooses Barack Obama as her running mate, she knows she cannot win the presidency. The Obama candidacy for Vice President will not allow her to win in the Electoral College; she must expand her democratic base or she will lose the election to John McCain. If she chooses to win the election, the democrats will lose the black vote for a generation or more, and probably permanently. Never again will the black vote be as solidly Democratic as it has been for the past two generations. 

Gerry Rough 

Posted in Campaign 2008, Gerry Rough | 1 Comment »

Lazarus Come Forth: The Rise of John McCain

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2008

John McCain, the man who would dare question Republican Orthodoxy, will soon take the mantle as the Republican nominee for the presidency, despite being left for dead only a few short months ago. But Mac is back with a vengeance, and it will no doubt come as a complete surprise to those who have derided him as the political equivalent of a heretic; he has challenged the odds, toughened his message, and some say he has even defied gravity.     

For an orthodox republican, he has shown a flagrant willingness to challenge the accepted party line when it seems to suit him. Worse yet, he has even shown that he believes what he says and votes on principle of all things. Shocking! This is but a foretaste of things political to come, the trade winds that will guide the McCain juggernaut to victory in November.    

The bottom line is that the McCain juggernaut is now unstoppable, whether it currently looks that way or not from the media who refuse to tell the story from an insider’s cultural perspective. Despite the talking heads on television who have told us that McCain’s victory is the result of his reliance on the independent vote to carry him to victory, the real story that is not being told is that both conservatives and evangelicals who vote in republican primaries are also quite practical: they really like winning. And that more than anything is driving Republicans to rally behind McCain, a nominee who can carry them to victory. Further, even though the current topic of conversation is about the fracturing Republican Party, it is assumed in conservative circles that this is only a temporary detour on the path to November.     

As Republicans, we assume it will all work out in the end. For Democrats, by contrast, the fractures are much deeper. There is the sense of real division. When Democrats come together, they don’t assume anything; they just make it happen anyway. This is one of the many differences between Republicans and Democrats as separate subcultures.    

But John McCain’s victory in November will take place for two basic reasons. The first of these is the issue of electability, the one reason for his eventual election that dwarfs all other considerations. The fact is, McCain can appeal to both Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, Independent, Libertarian, and even Hispanic. Even the networks have begun to report on this story. It is more than just an oddity that he is a genuine war hero — as opposed to the fraudulent John Kerry kind we saw in 2004. It is certainly notable that he was right in his criticism of the war in Iraq, even when it was political suicide to do so.     

And it is more than just another day at the political office that it was John McCain who teamed up with Senator Ted Kennedy to push through comprehensive immigration legislation, despite the blatantly false accusation that it was an “amnesty” bill, which it was obviously not but was demagogued to death by conservative talk radio. It is still more than just coincidence that he is for lower taxes, which he voted against only for the reason that there were no corresponding spending reductions — an obviously Republican position despite his detractors who deride him for wanting to — gasp! — cut spending.     

Add to this that he is pro-life and pro environment, meaning that he believes global warming is real, wants nuclear power plants and plans to invest in energy independence technologies, and you have a presidential candidate who is right in line with a clear majority of Americans on these and other important issues. Put another way, McCain doesn’t need the polls to inform his political judgments; he already takes the most popular positions on all of the major issues that challenge this generation, and that makes him virtually unbeatable, at least in regard to substance. The novelty of electing our nation’s first woman or African-American is quite another matter.    

The other major issue that will lead McCain to victory is the issue of expandability.  John McCain can do something that no other Republican candidate can do; he can expand the party with liberals, moderates, Hispanics, and independents. He has a wider appeal than any other candidate, save that of Barack Obama. McCain has seen correctly that the party must expand in order to survive, not just appeal to the base. And this sets him dramatically apart from Hillary Clinton, who has successfully alienated her own core constituency to the point of being completely unelectable. The McCain strategy of expansion is the future of American politics, not the politics of exclusion, and it is McCain alone who can carry that torch better than any other candidate.

Gerry Rough 

Posted in Campaign 2008, Gerry Rough | 5 Comments »

Are Liberals Ready to Nominate A Black Candidate?

Posted by iusbvision on January 12, 2008

So there I was, watching the election news that Barack Obama had just been declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses. It was a stunning achievement: America’s first African American to win a state primary or caucus that could catapult him into the Presidency.

African Americans had, of course, run for president before, but none, up to now were ever really considered serious candidates to actually win the contest. They were either too polarizing or too narrow in their political appeal to be considered a nominee who could succeed.

Not so with Senator Barack Obama. This is a candidate worthy of the name, not just another pretty face, and certainly not the token of yesteryear to make Democrats feel good about themselves. This guy is for real!

But as I thought about the issue further, it became clear all too soon that there was another question that needed to be asked about the possibility of a black candidate for president. Just what is it that Hillary Clinton is going to do if she continues to lose in the New Hampshire primary and beyond? Will she go negative? Will she trash her competitors, or will she just simply roll over, play dead and support the nominee like the good Democrat that she is?   

These are not questions to be so easily cast off. These are indeed the questions that liberals are going to have to wrestle with and wrestle they most definitely will, like it or not.

You see, if truth be told, Hillary Clinton is not going to play dead for an African American out of party loyalty. Forget the color of his skin, the party affiliation of his heart, or the fact that Barack Obama represents the hopes of so many Americans black and white alike. Forget all of that. Hillary Clinton is indeed the quintessential Hillary Clinton that America has grown to loathe these past wonderful years, and she is not the candidate you would choose in the running for the favorite personality of the year. No, she is most certainly not.

Barack Obama is about to learn what conservatives have known for a generation or more. Hillary Clinton will stop at nothing to get what she wants, and she will in the end flatten him like a pancake in the process. Nay children, Hillary Clinton is not the kind of politician who will roll over for anyone, black or white. If you are in her way, you will pay. That’s reality speaking, not political affiliation.

You see, it is really quite simple when you think about it. Did Hillary ever stand up for those that were victimized by her own husband? Did she ever stand for the oppressed and wounded women that she claims to represent while hubby was groping and exploiting his way toward his next conquest? Do you remember, O black America, what happened to Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, and anyone else who stood in the way of the Clintons before? They were called trailer park trash; they were called liars; they were called every vicious name in the political book by the Clinton attack machine.

And do you really think, O black America, that the Clintons will let an African American stand in their way?  I think not!!  Get ready for Hillary to show America what democrats do with those who stand in their way, minority or not.  Mark my words, folks, you heard it here first, or at least second anyway: Barack Obama is about to get a lesson in hardball liberal politics, while conservatives sit this one out and watch it happen from the sidelines. 

If black America thinks for a moment that Democrats are tolerant, they will get a rude awakening in the next few weeks as to how far that “tolerance” really goes. And they will learn very quickly that it is skin deep indeed. So the question of the hour is not ‘Is America ready for a black President.’ The results from the Iowa caucuses are a resounding “Absolutely yes!”   

Liberal and conservative whites alike have wanted and dreamed it for decades now.  White America has wanted for a generation or more to get the race issue off the table once and for all, to move forward, to get on with the American experiment with this issue behind us. But the question facing liberal democrats in this election is much more appropriate: Are liberals ready to nominate a black candidate?  Not if Hillary Clinton has anything to say about it. Liberal “tolerance” is about to be relegated to the trash heap of history, right where it belongs.

Gerry Rough

Posted in Gerry Rough | Leave a Comment »