Skip to comments.Obama on small-town PA: Clinging religion, guns, xenophobia
Posted on 04/11/2008 1:08:33 PM PDT by JRochelle
Mayhill Fowler has more from Obama's remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, and they include an attempt to explain the resentment in small-town Pennsylvania that won't be appreciated by some of the people whose votes Obama's seeking:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
That's pretty broad list of things to explain with job loss.
Thats why I'm voting for him in the primary May 6!
Unbelievable. We know this is how he really thinks, but what idiot actually says it out loud, in non-code? Apparently a democrat idiot.
Yikes....this needs more circulation!
Double standard @ work. Substitute the name of a Republican of any office, heck, he could be elected 3rd shift assistant men’s room attendant, and he’d be publicly crucified by the MSM and forced to resign for these comments.
Obama will get a free pass. Never see it anywhere but on the internet.
Obama needs to worry more about his AA welfare queens and kings in inner cities who do not want to have one single job in their entire lives before he expresses his stupid opinion on small-town Americans.
Obama is rehashing liberal talking points about small town America voting against their economic self-interests by being concerned aobut social issues. This is arrogance of the highest form. The Academic Left acts as if they know best for Middle America.
Well if guns were not a issue people wouldn’t cling to them Barack. It’s not their fault you and most of the people in your party want to take them away from the citizens.
That's what the left has been saying about conservatives for years.
liberals cling to their multiculturalism, identity politics, and responsibility avoidance
Darn right I’m going to cling to my guns. Especially once these fools get elected.
I think, for that matter, that I’ll cling to my religeon, too. It isn’t that I don’t have a job, it’s, well... I guess I just really like my guns. Also my religeon. I think Jesus is swell. Don’t leave life without him.
And all those people that are different from me? It seems like everybody is different from me. I try to hate all of them, but it’s just so much work. Besides, my God tells me to love them.
“...they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
I’m surprised he didn’t add the phrase “Typical white people.” at the end of his remark.
...at 4.8% unemployment we are 6% below the national average here in the Keystone State, but I see that Illinois is at 5.6 or just under 10% above the national average, so perhaps Obama is projecting. We know for example, the he hails from a "church" (clinging to religion) where "RICH WHITE PEOPLE" are routinely trashed (xenophobia) and his wife is constantly shooting her stupid mouth off, so apparently he has first hand experience with the phenomenon he describes.
We're getting clobbered with his idiotic (and misleading) adds about not taking money from corporations for the last four weeks. Maybe we're about to get a new TV series from the Obama Campaign: "Voting: so easy even a Lifetime-NRA, xenophobic Christian can do it!"
Or maybe: "It's 3:00 in the morning, but your gun-toting, chronically unemployed, knuckle-dragging husband is still out at his "Klan" meeting in Dillsburg. Barack Obama and his minister know what that's about..."
As an atheist in this little burg in central PA with only 500 people, employed with one--sometimes two--jobs since 1970, all I can say is I'm warming to the idea of voting for Hillary more and more every day.
remember folks - to Obama, counter-racism is not racism.
Obama is your typical Metro-Man probably never did a chore in his life and based on what I have read, his white grandparents where folks with money.
When I read this article and listen to his “platform”, he may as well call me “White Trash”.
You mean, like "typical white people"?
or "...RICH WHITE PEEP UHL!"
I really loathe Hillary but this Obama guy is trying to get me to hate him more.
Isn't it obvious Obama hates religion? No one would place religion in that list of "negative" things unless they totally disrespect believers.
Same goes for daring to oppose illegal immigration, in Obama's mind. And in supporting the 2nd amendment.
Obama did this in his "race" speech as well - referring to perfectly wholesome things like anti-crime sentiment as somehow being bad things resulting from capitalism.
Add to this his view of "babies" as a punishment.
Obama holds bizarre left wing views through and through. His view of small town America itself is frightening. Decent people are "clinging" to religious belief because of capitalism.
Funny, Obama watched Rev Wright rant like a clown for twenty years, but that brand of religion never troubled him.
Obama views all mainstream traditional views as diseases to be eradicated.
Obama, just STFU already, @sshat.
This guy will lose on a level we have not seen since Reagan beat Mondale.
This is beyond believable. I mean, this guy is in San Francisco dissing small towns in the midwest. Isn’t there some kind of constitutional requirement the President has to at least like America? These comments will mark the beginning of the end of his campaign.
Huffingtonpost.com is not welcome on Free Republic.
So Obama is now insulting small town America. Remember this in November.
Hey, don’t forget the “trick” that he learned, to not come across as a young angry black man - it makes (white) people feel relieved and accepting.
This is from his book about his father.
The only politician who would be worse that Obama as President would be Ted Kennedy.
I can’t think of anyone worse.
Job's are gone for decades...nothing has replaced them...someone needs to be blamed....
Sir Obama, (you ding dong) we, to this date, still are the most sought after place of employment and residency via our freedom because we STILL have both for the offering!
Does that not frustrate you to no end?
When Barack Obama gets elected they will have jobs mowing lawns and cleaning toilets for people like Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Michelle Obama and other black hate mongers.
We live in central PA. Obama wasn’t going to win here anyway, but this will just make it worse for him; his comments are those of a bigoted and ignorant person.
Something he learned at Harvard perhaps? Or some professor at Columbia told him this? It is right out of Richard Hofstadter's "paranoid style" theory, the standard Ivy League dismissal of all non-liberal opposition.
Sounds like more excuses to divert attention from the trash-mouth reverend. Gee, it couldn't be that they are just creeped out by the race-baiting former Muslim preacher?
Policywise, they're the same. In terms of the aparat they would appoint, no difference. But at least you could criticize Ted without being called a racist. [Understand, as a pigmentally challenged person, I'm only criticisizng the half of Obama which is white. That half is an ass.]
Typical white people?
Well said. LOL.
You are right, they are alike, but Teddy killed someone.
Thats the thing that makes him worse.
“liberals cling to their multiculturalism, identity politics, and responsibility avoidance...”
Liberals also cling to their own religion...specifically, the worship of “Mother Earth” and Environmentalism.
I can’t believe he’s getting away with this!
Is he on crack?
This is a mess of our own making.
John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights
May 26, 1776
[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. TGW]
It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?
But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembleda motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.
But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others?
Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own?
If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law?Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest
I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.
Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.
The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents
Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.
Your statement is a blatant attack on those who appreciate a once in a while taste of the bubbly, for the only difference between Ted Kennedy and Barrack Obama is personal definition placed on "happy hour".
Ted Kennedy with his skewering of the definition of "Happy Hour" shouldn't make him worse via his politics should it? LOL!
I think Obama is much more beatable. Really.
Hillary looks conservative next to this guy.
One of my rhetorical questions would be
from whence arises the right of the unpropertied to govern the property of its rightful owners?