Fw: Washington Post on Obama - FINALLY!!!!!!

Subject: Washington Post on Obama - FINALLY!!!!!!

The Washington Post is historically one of the more liberal newspapers in the country 
Washington Post on Obama - FINALLY!!!!!!
As I’m sure you know, the Washington Post Newspaper has always had a reputation for being extremely liberal, so the fact that their Editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in their newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself.  Finally, the truth about our radical President’s agenda is starting to trickle through the protective walls built by our liberal media. 

Matt Patterson  (columnist for the  Washington Post, New York Post, San FranciscoExaminer)

Government & Society 
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.

How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor;" a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable 
Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what 
America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.

Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth;  it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. 
Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.
But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.

When you understand that, and only when you understand that,  will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense.  It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5084 - Release Date: 06/21/12


CharlieE said...

As I’m sure you know, the Washington Post Newspaper has always had a reputation for being extremely liberal, so the fact that their Editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in their newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. Finally, the truth about our radical President’s agenda is starting to trickle through the protective walls built by our liberal media.

Matt Patterson (columnist for the Washington Post, New York Post, San FranciscoExaminer)

I don't know if the sender of this message is stupid, misinformed, or both.

Matt Patterson writes for the Washington Times, not the Washington Post.

The Washington Times is a right-wing rag that is generally devoid of facts, news, or insight.

Avant Gardener said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
gruaud said...

Hey CharlieE, can't we come up with a better response than to attack where this was published or not?

gruaud said...

...and fake gruaud is back. The desperation is palpable. How about that DNC convention, confederates? The good guys are going to win again, count on it.

And this:

"The Washington Post is historically one of the more liberal newspapers in the country"

...Is demonstrably false. WAPO's editorial stance is extremely conservative and has been ever since the 90's.

CharlieE said...

Hey CharlieE, can't we come up with a better response than to attack where this was published or not?

Shall I respond to the spurious claim that Obama can't speak without a teleprompter?

Or the ridiculous notion that because he was acquainted with Bill Ayers that he's a terrorist by proxy?

Or the equally ridiculous idea that Obama has accomplished nothing, because the Republicans refuse to allow any of his proposed legislation to come to a vote?

I could mention those things, but instead I chose to attack the original sender's preposterous claim that Obama is such a bad president that the Washington Post would publish Matt Patterson's insight-free screed.

The Post has its faults, but it rarely publishes such poorly-written material.

The article didn't, as the sender claims, originate in a liberal paper, which would have been unusual. Instead, it originated in a paper known for kissing the butts of Republican politicians.

And that makes the article unremarkable.

Marc with a C said...

You know, for a guy with so few accomplishments (viz. going to Harvard Law and becoming president of the Harvard Law Review, working as an attorney as well as a community organizer, being a published author before becoming a politician, being elected to state senate, then U.S. Senate, then president), it's amazing how little he has been able to accomplish.

Like repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Killing Bin Laden.

Ending the Iraq War.

Passing the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Saving the American automotive industry.

But I do love that all these things are simply the result of him "getting a pass" from racist liberals who believe in race-gelding policies like affirmative action.

Hey, I've got a better idea, Matt. How about you and Obama settle your differences on the basketball court? Maybe then you can tell him all about how much he sucks without his teleprompter, between panting breaths and puffs from your inhaler.

Marc with a C said...

Or, shorter Matt Peterson:


ferschitz said...

Many here know I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but stating that the Washington Post (otherwise known as WaPOO) is "liberal" is a laff-riot. And yes, it's quite worthwhile to point out that this screed was published in the Moonie Times, which is about as fact-free & conservative ass-kissing as the Now Dead "Rev" Sun Myung Moon could make it.

This is also one of the most favorite red meat that the 1% loves to throw to its brain-dead "moranic" base: that somehow affirmative action is "liberal racism" on steriods or something. How bogus can you get? But conservatives LOVE to victimize themselves, esp in regard to some "n" word getting ahead.

That "n" word must surely ONLY gotten ahead because something was *taken away from* a much more deserving WHITE MAN and handed to that lazy stupid drug-taking nigger. Feel better now, conservatives?? That you cannot get ahead because someone else who's not whitey white white got somewhere that you didn't because of some nefarious LIEbrul plot??

What a buncha panty-waisted whining babies.

Grow up & grow a pair and start being the ersatz "libertarains" who stand on their own two feet that you love to brag about, instead of *constantly whining* about how some minority "took away" something from you & that's why you can't "get ahead."

Anonymous said...

Check your facts, CharlieE......Matt Patterson does not work for either publication. His works have been published in multiple newspapers. So before you start calling people stupid, you may want to look in the mirror.

gruaud said...

His column is utter bullshit, anon.

And you believe it.

The mirror is in your bathroom. Go look.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter that the Washington Post IS NOT a liberal paper. The fact that the writer said it's a liberal paper is all that matters. The fact is that the audience for this rwf, and pretty much all rwfs, are from a generation that grew up in a time where things couldn't be published without being factual. That's why this stuff works folks! Hey believe that it couldn't be written if it wasn't true.

Anonymous said...

Matt Patterson does not work for either publication.

How do you figure that he doesn't "work" for the Washington Times? He's a writer, and his columns have appeared regularly in that publication.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that Bill Clinton sure would be surprised to hear that the Washington Post is a liberal rag, as much as they tried to hound him out of office with that wanker Mike Kelly's continual screeds, one of the few people I've ever cheered the death of.

Anonymous said...

I just got this email today. My RWNJ friends must be behind the times.

Anonymous said...

And I got it - again - today. (March 2016.)

Mine was linked with another email(I got a two-fer!) that announced Newsweek's final edition with cover story being Niall Ferguson's screed "Hit the road, Barack"; a screed so full of fact-free bullshit Newsweek had to issue an apology. The email said the last Newsweek issue was printed in January of this year, thinking no one would look at the damn photo in their email and see the date was August of 2012.

As for Patterson, the WaPo said the closest he came to getting published in their paper was a simple letter to the editor on something that had nothing to do with politics. I don't know about the Washington Times, but I do know that Patterson writes for the ironically named website, American Thinker where this shitty screed first appeared.

Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.