Skip to comments.RNC Day 3: Fear of a black incumbent (Smell their desperation!)
Posted on 08/29/2012 11:28:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ive covered national political party conventions since 1980. I know how amped-up the rhetoric can get on both sides. But I have never heard so much fear of an incumbent as Ive witnessed during this weeks Republican National Convention.
Every election we hear that this is the most important election in our lifetime, Sharon Day, who co-chairs the Republican National Committee, told delegates last night. This election is more than that. It is the most important election in our nations lifetime.
She compared GOP activists to the United States Founding Fathers: What they started, what they believed in, we must defend.
At breakfast this morning, David Rouzer, a state senator and congressional candidate from Johnston County, warned the North Carolina delegation, The United States is turning toward socialism. Were not going to let that happen.
In one-on-one conversations, party activists describe the prospect of President Obamas reelection in apocalyptic terms, predicting something approaching doom.
Trying to understand the roots of that fear, Ive been asking North Carolina Republicans how they imagine a second Obama term would play out. Nobody put it more starkly than Richard Littiken, a delegate from Sanford, 35 miles south of Chapel Hill, and the vice president of a family-run heating and air-conditioning company. I had been following the 43-year-old Littiken on Twitter (@Pyr8Pyr8), reading about his recent support for Pussy Riot, school vouchers and Todd Akin. (The latter is striking because Littiken is pro-choice. But I definitely believe that the media people jumped on him in an effort to put forth their preferred candidate, he said.)
So what does Littiken fear from four more years of an Obama presidency?
In short: He believes he will die prematurely if the president wins. And he fears hell be stripped of the weapons he might need to help wage an armed revolution.
Littiken has a type of cancer called medullary thyroid carcinoma. He describes it as terminal. Doctors have told him there are limited medical treatments. So the idea of Obamacare, a fairly controlled medical bureaucracy, is absolutely frightening, he told me.
Its worth noting that the Affordable Care Actwhich places tougher rules on insurance companies and provides for small-business tax credits, rebates for seniors to buy prescription drugs, and permission for states to expand Medicaid if they choosedoes not create a government-run health-care system. (Theres also considerable academic contention about whether national systems fare worse than our own when it comes to cancer care.) But Littiken nonetheless worries about stories he has heard. I met a lady in D.C. who had breast cancer, he said. Shes from Canada. She had to come to America to get treatment because she would have had to wait so long that she would have been dead by the time she received treatment in Canada.
According to a 2011 study by the non-profit Canada Institute for Health Information, 98 percent of residents who need radiation for cancer receive it within a clinically appropriate time frame.
Still, this is not about statistics for Littiken; its about his greater sensea sense that many Republicans have expressedthat Obama doesnt care about his welfare. Sarah Palins death panels, a distortion of the presidents vision for more deliberative end-of-life care, nonetheless maintains a hold on many conservatives.
Littiken told me that Obama once told a voter that perhaps her 105-year-old mother should be euthanized with a pill rather receiving a pacemaker. That comment, Littiken worries, portends what would happen to him. He would kill me off, the delegate says of Obama. I wouldnt be treated, so hed basically kill me off sooner. That got me pretty fired up.
The story, if true, would have been horrifying, so I decided to fact-check it. The woman is real; he name is Jane Sturm. During an ABC News broadcast, she asked Obama whether priority could be given to patients like her mother who displayed a certain joy of living.
I dont think we can make judgments based on peoples spirit, the president responded. That would be a pretty subjective decision. He stressed that end-of-life decisions are difficult. I dont want bureaucracies making those decisions, he said, and stressed that the current system sometimes does that by default. We often make these decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just cant afford the care.
Obama told Sturm that patients, families, and physicians need to make more informed choices: At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isnt going to help. Maybe youre better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.
Google Obama and take a pill, and youll find many conservative bloggers interpreting the presidents comment as Littiken did. When U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren, a California Republican, claimed on the House floor that the president would deny a pacemaker to a healthy 100-year-old, the Tampa Bay Times nonpartisan PolitiFact declared the statement false.
Just as important to Littiken is his belief that Obama attacks the Second Amendment rights of citizens. When I asked him how, he said, Im not specifically positive now, but cited Attorney General Eric Holders statements of support for gun control. Littiken himself owns a Sig Sauer P220 pistol.
Again, I went to PolitiFact, the fact-checking site that in 2009 won a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting. Gun talk has been almost anathema at the White House, it said. Obama signed a bill in 2009 that allows people to carry loaded guns into most national parks; in 2011, he largely avoided a discussionto the anger of many activistsabout strengthening gun laws following the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Obama received a failing grade from the nations preeminent gun control group, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
I asked Littiken why gun ownership was important to him. If free people dont have the right to possess firearms, then their government can do to them whatever they wish, he said.
How does a free people possessing firearms help keep the government in check? I asked.
Well, if the government decides to take away your rights, you can decide to take them back.
What does that mean?
In practice, it would have to be a revolution, he said. Im not saying were that close.
What would bring us closer?
Well, if Obamahe caught himself hereor any administration keeps encroaching our liberties, you have the choice to be a mouse and take it, or you can stand up for your rights. He cited the 2005 case Kelo vs. New London, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a city can use eminent domain to buy up a neighborhood for private redevelopment. He also mentioned the bailout and bankruptcy plan for General Motors, which was brokered by the Obama administration.
Preparing for armed insurrection is a serious matter, so later I asked Littiken if I had understood him correctly. If you look at some of the stuff that the Founding Fathers wrote, he said, they talk about [how] we need armed citizens to make sure that our government doesnt get too far out of control. If you go to the DMV, thats enough reason to not let the government have too much control. Before anyone takes up arms, things gotta get way worse than they are now. But when the government keeps taking your rights away, your civil liberties away, and then when the economy keeps deteriorating, when people cant put food on their table for their families and the governments coming in and taking their home from them because theyre having to foreclose on them, its just around the corner.
The next day, I told Littiken about my follow-up research. When I reported Obamas actual words to Jane Sturm, he responded, Im just telling you what my interpretation is. As for PolitiFacts report on Obamas gun-control record: Stuff hasnt happened yet, he conceded. Yet what happens when it does?
>> But I have never heard so much fear of an incumbent as Ive witnessed during this weeks Republican National Convention.
And LOATHING! Don’t forget loathing.
Fear and loathing. Yeah that about sums it up.
Sorry Barry Yeoman, your race card has been maxed out, and you are morally bankrupt. Go back to square one and come back when you have a rational thought.
Horrible ratings for the RNC night. So why all this poo pooing when nobody watched the show and we are just giving them attention. The 18-49 numbers are really bad. The overall are plain awful.
We fear his white half, too. Do we get credit for that?
Apparently Barry Yeoman is a credulous fool.
He actually takes Obama at his word.
Hey, Barry, how many lies does Obama have to tell before you start doubting his word?
Clearly Yeoman was not blessed with “critical thinking skills”. Anyone who has a modicum of intelligence can take any Obama speech or proclamation and examine it to discover:
- outright lies
- half truths
- phony strawman arguments
- clever deceptions
- not-so-clever deceptions
and the occasional self-evident truth thrown into the mix to confuse the “slow” people such as Yeoman.
And Yeoman just laps it up and believes it as if it’s the revealed truth.
We don’t fear his color, we fear his ignorance and hate his arrogance.
Ironic the origin of this article is from “The Weekly Independent”.
A plurality of “”Independents” must feel the same way then because a large plurality are voting for Romney.
I fear White Obama (Romney) just as much as I fear Black Obama.
We had an election.
You evidently missed that.
I'd pay good money for a clip of a past nominating convention where a speaker says "this election is not important at all. It has no bearing on the country whatsoever. Go on about your business."
You're talking about the Republican primary? No I was there. Voted for Santorum. Somehow between having too many conservatives that split the conservative vote, the GOP-E managed to get White Obama (Romney) to come out on top.
And now I'm going to vote third party.
Do you think Gov. Mitt Romney hates this country? Barack Obama does! Do you think Mitt Romney detests capitalism, the same capitalism that earned him $300 Million or more? Barack Obama does! Do you believe that Mitt Romney would stop Israel from defending itself or stand aside while Israel is destroyed? Barack Hussein Obama would! Do you think that Mitt Romney would raise taxes and impose more red tape and restrictions on job creators, thus stalling the economy? Barack Obama already has. Do you feel that Mitt Romney wants to destroy the oil, coal and gas industries in the USA, thus putting us in the thrall of Islamic potentates who wish us to become Muslims? Barack Hussein Obama is well on the way to doing so. I could go on for hours. Ive never had any love for Governor Romney, but when the choice comes down to either him or Barack Hussein Obama, a man dead-set on destroying my country, the country of my birth and whose uniform I proudly wore, there is no contest. And that is the choice. No third party or write-in candidate is going to be sworn in next January. I humbly request that you prayerfully consider your position vis a vis the coming election and do what reason and faith tells you is the right thing for the United States of America. Thank you.
I don’t care what color a jackass is, a jackass is a jackass.
Would Romney implement Gay Marriage. He did as Governor. even though there was no law for him to implement and his role as governor should have been as a check and balance. He made campaign speeches when running for governor about his support for traditional marrage. But once in Office he implemented Gay Marriage, he appointed homosexual activists to the judiciary. And he's even called on the Boy Scouts to put gays in leadership positions as the Presidential candidate.
Would Romney support Abortion. He did as Governor.
"Do you think Gov. Mitt Romney hates this country? Barack Obama does!" John McCain says Obama loves this country. I'm not sure either candidate hates this country. It's just neither has a clue what the country needs. And their policies are eerily similar.
"Do you think Mitt Romney detests capitalism, the same capitalism that earned him $300 Million or more? Barack Obama does!" Romney's capitalism was that of liquidating companies and laying people off. Might make him a good candidate to reduce the size of government. But I don't see any indication Romney understands what is necessary to fix the structural issues with our economy. Romney might be more of a numbers guy than Obama, but neither is a strategist.
"Do you believe that Mitt Romney would stop Israel from defending itself or stand aside while Israel is destroyed? Barack Hussein Obama would!" Would Obama? Obama has presided over countless drone attacks on terrorists including killing Osama. Israel said Obama had been very cooperative with them. Ed Kock just this week said both candidates are acceptable on Israel. And he'd been critical of Obama on Israel.
"Do you think that Mitt Romney would raise taxes and impose more red tape and restrictions on job creators, thus stalling the economy? Barack Obama already has." Romney did raise taxes in Massachusetts. If he is not promoting an economic plan to fix the economy, then he's going to have to do something. Don't be surprised if Romney agrees to taxes.
"Do you feel that Mitt Romney wants to destroy the oil, coal and gas industries in the USA, thus putting us in the thrall of Islamic potentates who wish us to become Muslims? Barack Hussein Obama is well on the way to doing so."Energy is one area where Romney scores better than Obama. But the U.S. has increased our oil production since 2008. Obama also approved some nuclear reactors though not as many as I would like. But I don't hear Romney advocating Nuclear. I hear him calling for a vague energy independence without promoting details of how he would get us there.
There is not enough difference in these two candidates. Romney is the candidate of Hope and Change this year, because I haven't heard much of a plan. But he is the same on Obamacare, he's the same on gay marriage (possibly worse), he's a big government liberal and he proved that with his record in Massachusetts.
There was only one comment to this article by a woman named “Jeanette” so I posted the following:
Jeanette, Im almost afraid to comment for fear of giving this piece more importance than it deserves. Do you think two comments add credibility to the article?
I just couldnt let your comment about especially if a black man is involved pass without comment. Im curious about why opposition to an incompetent, black, narcissistic, a**hole is suggestive of racism? Thats the implied criticism, right? You seem to be suggesting that criticism is racist because a black man is president.
Please help me here Jeanette, you are suggesting that we elected a black man president, but were racist? Im confused about where youre headed with your comment.
Your dig at FNC, strikes me as giving Fox News way too much credit for the situation that Obama finds himself in. Seems more probable to me that Obamas own conduct is the actual source of his problems.
Further, It would seem to me that there must be better reference sources than a drug impaired Hollywood-type named Aaron Sorkin. And, using a make believe Hollywood story to bolster an argument might not lead to your desired creditability.
I think HE would need a BRAIN to get a thought process!!
If it’s Obama, then yes I would fear it.
If it would be Walter Williams, then no.