Taking the {Race} Bait

The closer we get to the election, the more desperate the Dems become. And desperate times deserve desperate measures. They're already preparing conspiracy stories about why they will be victims on election day. 

So, they pulled out an old standard--the race card they hold in their back pockets for just such a moment of desperation. We're hearing it from all directions, sometimes subtle, sometimes not.

We've all seen Joe Biden telling a predominantly black audience (in a faux Southern dialect) that Romney and Ryan were "gonna put y'all back in chains!"

And Michelle Obama cites the Emancipation Proclamation in a plea to blacks. The implication being exactly the same as the Biden statement--that if you don't vote for our candidate, you black folks will lose your constitutional rights.

Then there's Joseph Lowry takes it up a notch at a rally in Augusta, GA:

“If Obama was white, there would be no question on who was going to win,” Lowery said.

Let's be clear: slavery was awful. We're all glad that it's no longer part of our lives. And involuntary segregation was awful too. No one's suggesting that we return to either. I personally find any implication that such is the intent offensive.

So, why does it keep happening? Because, as my friends have heard me say ad nauseum: behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. Liberal leaders cast the bait, and they snag their audiences, hook, line and sinker. They know that regardless of how illogical it is or how intelligent the audience, it's hard not to get emotional about the topics of slavery and segregation.

Just as union leaders must encourage tension between labor and management, civil rights leaders must maintain racial tension to justify their existence. I can't remember the last time I heard a conservative encourage racial division. Think about it.

But from the left, it's a tried and true strategy. If all else fails, cry racism. No one will argue, because if they do, they're just proving that they're racist, right? With political correctness run amuck, you can't fight it, right?

Come on, people. Just as women should be smarter than to get sucked in by silly binders comments, surely you understand that people really don't like Obama's policies...just like they didn't like Jimmy Carter's policies. 

It's not the color of his skin; it's the content--or lack thereof--of his character.

Binders, Schminders

Sarcasm is the only other language for which I claim fluency, so I love the snarky humor of someecards. And I swear I saw a someecards version of this the other day, but I just can't find it. Please use your imagination.

It's funny. I get it. But I also have a problem with it. Just to get my point across, I'm going to break some rules of web formatting best practices. I beg your forgiveness in advance, but:

LADIES, WE'RE SMARTER THAN THIS!!!

Ah, that feels much better.

Once we quit thinking with that chip that some folks work so hard to keep on our shoulders and use the organ with which we were actually intended to think, it becomes clear that in his haste to get the point across uninterrupted, Mitt Romney meant to say something along the lines of "binders of women's resumes." Consequently, the point he was trying to make was that he was willing to bypass standard hiring practices in order to give one class of potential employees a fast path to people who fill positions.

So, I ask you, if you were looking for a job, how unhappy would "being in a binder" make you if that binder was being held by a corporate or government exec who was walking it straight to HR and/or hiring managers who would need to see it in order for their organization to put you in the hiring process?

Just sayin'...

Too Polite?

Again, I'm incredulous. (There's a lot of that lately.)

First of all, rumor has it that as he walked off the stage, Obama thought he'd bested Romney. Oh, the power of narcissism.

In a radio interview, Obama's newest excuse for his poor performance in the debate last week was, “I think it’s fair to say I was just too polite."

As I said in a posting last Thursday, it appeared to me that Obama was anything but polite. Petulant and disrespectful, not making eye contact with his opponent? Yes. Lame? Weak? Yes. Perhaps he confuses weakness with politeness? Oh, no, PrezBo...big mistake!

Mitt Romney proved on that same evening that you can be firm while also being polite. You can meet your opponent's gaze and still be a gentleman. 

Obama promises that he won't be so polite in the next two debates. Good. An angrier, snarkier Obama juxtaposed against a courteously confident Romney is exactly what I'd like to see.

In Neal Boortz's 9/13 program notes, Boortz laments that he can't remember an election where the less likeable candidate has won. One polling factor that has not (yet) wavered is Obama's lead over Romney in likeability. 

Obama needs us girls to win. Women don't like bullies. We like our leaders strong yet diplomatic. Go ahead, BHO, get nasty...and then see how the numbers go...with less and less time to recover. 

Tick tock...

Tolerance...or Not

I'm a huge fan of someecards.com. Here's one of my favorites:

Have you ever noticed that those on the left seems to think that they have a monopoly on tolerance? To the point that they are down-right condescending about it....looking down their noses if they suspect that you might be more conservative, which, of course, means that you're not as enlightened as they are.

So, what happened today when an African American actress decided to post a Tweet supporting Mitt Romney: 

Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @MittRomney @TeamRomney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney

In spite of the fact that I'm staunchly Southern and somewhat conservative, I'm not a biggot. My liberal parents taught me tolerance, and the "N word" is not in my vocabulary. Therefore, I won't repeat any of the disgusting insults that were tweeted in reply, but they have been summarized at Twitchy.

And as I write this, the NBC Nightly News is discussing a story about an even more serious lack of tolerance. A 9th-grade girl in Pakistan was hunted down at her school and shot by the Taliban for daring to speak out for the rights of girls. So much for the peaceful religion...

I'm officially disgusted.

Best Explanation of Obamacare Yet

She's a doctor, a former nun, an army major. In one very long sentence, she explains Obamacare.

Take a look/listen...

Oh, What a Difference a Day--and a Debate--Makes!

I'll admit, I was a little concerned. You just never know how a live performance will go. Did I dare hope that Mitt Romney could turn in a stellar performance? Well, a girl  can hope. Did I ever dream that Obama would just phone it in? Never...even in my wildest dreams.

I sure wouldn't have wanted to be in the car with him afterwards...or having breakfast with him this morning. I'm sure he was angry. He sure seemed angry in his speeches today. (Really, PresBo? Romney doesn't want to be held accountable? If you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth? Really?)

Let's be honest...he's one of the most extreme narcissists we've ever seen in U.S. politics. You know that no one tells this emperor that he's naked! And of course, someone else must always be blamed. Eric Bolling was kind enough to give a rundown on The Five today:

• David Axelrod blames Jim Lehrer.
• Al Gore blames altitude.
• Michael Moore blames John Kerry's debate prep.

But in a surprise turn of events, Bill Maher--who has said some of the most obscene things against conservatives--tweeted it like it was...sometimes. Here are  some highlights:

• i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter
• Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney
• Obama's not looking like he came for a job interview, Romney so far does
• Barry: less looking down making notes (u look like you're hanging your head in shame) and more eye contact. Look at Mitt like he's a nut!
• Postmortem even worse than debate! Now we know what Romney looks like fired up. And what Michael Jackson looked like on the diprovan

It's interesting to hear what people observed when watching the same event. To me, Obama seemed petulant, disrespectful, scripted (but he didn't memorize the lines right), angry and like a bit of a bully. Although there's an ad out today basically saying that Romney was mean, Obama was the one who ran roughshod over Jim Lehrer--ignoring time limits and instructions...and giving Jim dirty looks if he didn't get to speak when he wanted to.

Romney, on the other hand, looked extremely presidential. He was prepared, confident, engaging, enthusiastic, respectful, intelligent, witty, and while he was a consumate gentleman, he held his ground and would not tolerate lies about his position or be bullied out of his due share of time. And I loved his line about his 5 boys and being used to hearing people say things that aren't true, and continuing to say it, hoping he'd change his mind. It was a relief to have someone finally call Obama out on his "tell a lie, tell a big one and tell it often" tactics.

I was never really a Romney fan. I liked Newt Gingrich but knew he'd never make it with all his baggage. I'm warming up to Romney. The more I see him, the more hopeful I become. Fingers crossed.

The Great Uniter or the Big Divider?

So, born in Hawaii, raised anywhere but the South, where does the Southern black minister inflection come from as Obama makes a speech full of race baiting? The Daily Caller explores a video of Obama from 2007. Read about it and watch it here.

Before that, in 2002 it was the division of class warfare. Again, The Daily Caller posts the video of Obama speaking with anger and disdain of non-violence.

And then, there was the 1998 audio where Obama speaks about redistribution and discussing "the 'working poor' on welfare are a political voting bloc that can be harnessed."

So tell me, people, wasn't "hope and change" supposed to include racial healing? Why did anyone think that? Why did anyone assume that a man who tries to whip up so much anger toward whites and conservatives and pits the have nots against the haves could bring any of those groups together?