THE WASHINGTON POST ATTACKS OBAMA

[NOTE: The following would of little interest if I had written it. In fact I already have written it –– dozens of times. The remarkable thing is that finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek, both recognized as highly liberal, have seen fit –– at long last –– to print an article attacking President Obama  –– a newsworthy phenomenon in and of itself. The unpleasant truths about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media. ~ FreeThinke]

___________________________

I Too Have Become Disillusioned

By Matt Patterson ~ columnist for The Washington Post, The New York Post, The San Francisco Examiner [lightly edited with emphasis added by FT]

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 –– nearly devoid of his attention in fact, 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;" an actual real-life 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 could such a man have been elected president?

Not content to wait for history ... Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken anti-American  like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom 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, perhaps, but certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make ... 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, 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 –– ideas that have failed over and over again for a hundred 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. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. 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 held responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a 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.

~ § ~

Remember please the foregoing was published in The Washington Post. That makes it extraordinary. Frankly, even I thought some of it excessively condemnatory. I also wonder how Mr. Patterson could know that President Obama’s grades were unremarkable, since most of us who do not respect the president’s political philosophy and worldview have complained for years that his academic record has been officially hidden from public view? Let us pray this new, cruelly critical approach will not serve merely to increase the sympathy vote for the foundering fiasco now occupying the White House.

~ FreeThinke