Skip to comments.Is Obama Really a Shoo-in?
Posted on 04/11/2011 10:05:37 AM PDT by IbJensen
In an article for the NY Post, my friend, historian Ronald Radosh, informed the world that NYU was hosting a six-hour conference devoted to "Academic Freedom in the 1960s." On the face of it, it sounds like the sort of boring event where most of us are relieved not to know any of the participants, thus freeing us of any obligation to attend.
But, according to Radosh, all of the speakers are leftists. Among them are historian Ellen Schrecker, who has argued that while many of those accused of spying for the Soviet Union during the Cold War were guilty, "they did not subscribe to traditional forms of patriotism" and because they were acting on behalf of a cause in which they believed, they weren't "betraying their country."
And let us never forget that Lillian Hellman once rushed into a New York cocktail party and breathlessly announced, "We've been invaded." She was referring to Hitler's double-crossing Stalin and attacking the Soviet Union.
Another speaker at the NYU event is Prof. H. Bruce Franklin, who wrote in his book, "The Essential Stalin," that "I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and butcher who jailed and killed millions But to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe .To these people, Stalin is one of the greatest heroes of modern history, a man who personally helped win the liberation of the people of China, Vietnam, North Korea and Albania."
Can you imagine how many years of scholarship it took this moron to conclude that the people in those countries are liberated? Not too surprisingly, the author's biography for the Stalin book describes Franklin as "a revolutionary who is also a professor of English." In which persona do you imagine Prof. Franklin engages his students?
Folks, these are the people indoctrinating your children. And what's more, many of you well-meaning ninnies have mortgaged your futures to help pay their salaries.
Closer to home, I recently received an announcement that the Writers Guild of America was hosting a panel discussion devoted to the topic of global warming. Not a debate, understand, but a five-member panel of pinheads who, even after the exposure of the East Anglia hoax and when even the most devout members of Al Gore's cult have begun referring to "climate change" to account for the cooling that has been taking place over the past decade, my guild insists on proudly proclaiming its ignorant fanaticism.
Recently, I was forwarded an article allegedly written by Dr. Walter Williams. After looking into it, I couldn't find any evidence that he was the guilty party. In a way, I was disappointed because I occasionally like to call out a fellow conservative just to prove that I value principles over partisanship. But in another way, I was sorry to think that someone I admire as much as Dr. Williams could be so goofy.
That being said, someone actually wrote an article, "No Matter What," which is being widely circulated, in which the writer contends that Obama cannot be defeated in 2012. He actually insisted that regardless of who the Republican nominee is, no matter what the unemployment rate is, no matter the price of gas, no matter the economy, no matter the situation in the Middle East, Obama can't lose.
He bases all this on what he regards as simple math. He begins by stating that blacks and college-educated women will vote for Obama. He adds that liberals, Democrats, Hispanics, union members, Big Business, the media, Jews, Muslims, American Indians, homosexuals and, finally, a majority of Independents, will also troop out on Election Day to deliver their votes.
To which I say, with all due respect, hogwash! It's true that blacks will bestow 90% of their votes on Obama. They'd also give 90% of their votes to Bill Maher, Joy Behar or Bugs Bunny, for that matter, if he had a (D) after his name.
College-educated single women will vote for Obama. If they're married, it's far less likely.
By separately listing liberals, Democrats and blacks, the author of the piece is counting the same people two or three times. As I understand it, unless they happen to live in Illinois or Minnesota, those clucks only get to vote once.
Hispanics did give two-thirds of their votes to Obama. But if you subtract California from the total, it's much closer to 50-50, and there's no reason to believe that Obama will do as well the second time around.
Union members, Jews and homosexuals, have all been accounted for under the headings of Democrats, liberals and college-educated women. It would be like my insisting that Obama is sure to lose because Republicans, conservatives, right-wingers and Tea Party members will all vote against him.
Big Business and the media supported Obama in 2008, but he was still trailing McCain six weeks before the election, and would have lost to the worst campaigner since Michael Dukakis if the economy had waited two more months before tanking.
When it comes to American Indians, I guess this fellow has a point because, as we all know, as the Cherokees go, so goes the nation.
While I don't know which tea leaves the fellow has been reading, every poll I've seen indicates that at least 20% of the Independents who went for Obama in 2008 have no intention of repeating that boneheaded mistake in 2012.
If whoever wrote "No Matter What" gets in touch with me, I'm quite willing to make a wager that Obama will be dethroned in 2012.
Finally, I certainly hope that Obama and Defense Secretary Gates mean it when they say that America will have no boots on the ground in Libya.
In what is possibly a related news item, the Pentagon recently requisitioned 200,000 pairs of moccasins.
Hopefully, people will wake up and see that the Democrats have taken us to the brink of bankruptcy and are planning on making it worse. Republicans have been doing the same, only slower.
The next time someone says to you "They want to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and poor." Just ask them the questions "Do you want your children and grand children to be indebted all their lives? Do you want them to have a worse standard of living than you do? Do you feel good about robbing your descendants so you can live better?"
Watch their response. In will be along the lines of "Oh, look! A tree!"
The time has come to question the conventional wisdom which asks the question: “Which candidate can beat 0bama?”.
The truth is my dog could beat 0bama.
The question becomes: “Who has the guts to turn around this socialist Rat/Soros agenda?”
On that score Palin and Bachman seem to be very strong contenders. .
he’d be the first shoo-in with a 43% approval rating I’d ever seen
He’ll be a shoe in if a strong conservative candidate doesn’t emerge, and by strong conservative I do not mean republican, because they are not.
This is likely this country’s last election IMO.
It’s get it right or die.
Yes he is a shoe-in for national Shoe shine boy. Hands down. . . .
Faulty logic because if any one of the premises is false, then the conclusion must also be false.
One could drop in any one of the other criteria sited by Mr. Prelutsky and the conclusions would all be false.
IMHO...he's spot on.
But let's make sure we eradicate the stain. We need a stellar candidate in place as the nominee.
And...to date....we don't have one.
Don’t leave out Trump in the mix. I like this guy if only because he says what he means. He has no reason to do otherwise and he’s a believer in this country. I believe that Obama will lose the election with minimal support from the American people. He has gotten us into a third war that will go on for years to come.
Palin and Bachman seem to be very strong contenders.
My thoughts exactly. However the slimer democrats will out to discredit both before long. They will be pushing a RINO like they did with McPussy in 08.
Wow, so that alleged Walter Williams article was a fake? My world makes sense again.
The only thing which can put Obama back in the White House at this point is the Republican Party self-destructing again, and they are pretty damn good at that.
Trump is all smoke and no fire, I’m sad to say.
I saw an article this morning that stated Hawaii cannot release a valid birth certificate to anyone, even the owner of such certificate. However, there have been a number of Hawaiian birth certificates posted on FR that were of the long form, not the Certificate of live birth. So in my opinion that is a bunch of cow fodder.
Trump, is just an opportunist with money. If he succeeds I’ll gladly eat my words. Time will tell.
This shoe will drop out. Look for reasons NOT to run seeping through. Spend more time with family, health, America isn't ready for a black president, I did what I could, etc. He won't say that he can't take a loss like a man because he isn't one.
I always believed that 0b0z0 won't run and I still do even after he announced seeking reelection.
Too bad passenger train stations and bus depots have been in free fall for decades. You could always get a shine.
Baraka Abu Moostew, or whatever his real name is, is a shoo in just like Carter was a shoo in for his second term.
Somehow, “shoo-in” has got to be racist...
Since a young Obama migrated from Africa to the United States he’s developed a taste for shoo-fly pie.
That reminds me of my house.
(Because it’s so different.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.