Saturday, November 8, 2008

change.gov

One of the more interesting parts of this week has been observing the varied reactions to the news of Obama's victory. Fox News was somber, but congratulatory, and recognized how historic the event really is. The Republicans appear to have been completely divided in this election, much in the same way the Democrats were when Eugene McCarthy decided to challenge the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson (both were Democrats).

Part of the Republican party, dare I say the more centrist conservatives, are blaming Sarah Palin for their defeat. This charge is being led by the McCain staffers who are making claims such as that Mrs. Palin was not aware that Africa is not a country and that she could not name the countries involved in NAFTA (you know, those three that are in North America). Full disclosure: I think Palin is not very bright, and I fear a country that has her as a leader, but not knowing that Africa is a continent is a pretty heavy charge. Despite the fact that our public school systems are not in the best shape I think you'd have a tough time finding a high school student who is not aware of Africa's stance in the continent/country relationship.

The other half of the Republican party has rallied around Palin. In fact it seems that more than half of the party is rallying around Palin. A recent poll indicates that 64% of Republicans want Palin to run in 2012. This would be the religious right that didn't think McCain was conservative enough.

Nonetheless, the reactions have been favorable towards Obama (for the most part). It seems to me that the country realizes that he is the president for the next four years, no matter what, so it's time to make the best of it. Though, this certainly is not a unanimous reaction, there have been reports of hate crimes across the country in connection with the election, and there have certainly been some pundits who are ready to attack.

One in particular, the ever devisive Ann Coulter, published an article in Human Rights (oh, the irony) called "The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain." It shouldn't be shocking that she has published a largely offensive article deriding the opinion of most Americans (at least the voting Americans). But the article goes beyond what I expected in the first week following the election. Especially after Fox News didn't even get too mixed up in the hatefulness this early on (though I'm sure it's not far behind).

The article opens, "Last night was truly a historic occasion: For only the second time in her adult life, Michelle Obama was proud of her country!" 

She continues:
After Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election, Hillary Clinton immediately announced that, henceforth, she would be known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton." So maybe Obama can now become B. Hussein Obama, his rightful name.
Her rampant racism and bigotry never fails to produce a little gasp within me, how could anyone be so stuck in a 1930's mentality I wonder, but I will probably never have a satisfactory answer. She not only continues her hateful pursuit of a Crusades-esque reform in America, she begins calling people out on their racism, while saying some blatantly racist things:
This was such an enormous Democratic year that even John Murtha won his congressional seat in Pennsylvania after calling his constituents racists. It turns out they're not racists -- they're retards. Question: What exactly would one have to say to alienate Pennsylvanians? That Joe Paterno should retire?

Apparently Florida voters didn't mind Obama's palling around with Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, either. There must be a whole bunch of retired Pennsylvania Jews down there.
I'll continue in a moment, I just have to throw this quote in for good measure:
Roll that phrase around a bit -- "liberated from Mr. Reagan's coattails." This is why it takes so long to read the Times -- you have to keep reading the same paragraph over again to see if you missed a word.
Is she trying to say don't read the paper because it's above you? I'm confused. Moving on.

She then throws out her hopes of a Palin presidency:
Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as "The One" these days.

Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator," Sarah Palin is destined to give birth to a new movement. That's why the Democrats are trying to kill her. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved somehow, too.
And then she shows her disdain for the democratic process, when it doesn't follow her personal ideology:
After showing nearly superhuman restraint throughout this campaign, which was lost the night McCain won the California primary, I am now liberated to announce that all I care about is hunting down and punishing every Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries. I have a list and am prepared to produce the names of every person who told me he was voting for McCain to the proper authorities.

We'll start with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Then we shall march through the states of New Hampshire and South Carolina -- states that must never, ever be allowed to hold early Republican primaries again.
Sure she's joking around a bit, but really, take a look around Ms. Coulter, the Moral Majority's time ruling America is ending. And I, for one, am glad. I'm also glad that there are pundits like her to continue to support Palin, and that there is deep divide running through the Republican party, maybe the other side will have a chance now to correct the errors that the rights domination of politics over the last couple of decades have inflicted on the country. I'm not a fan of knowing that my younger brother has only known a country at war, and that the generation of young people who are currently in high school are completely desensitized to the concept of "war," it's all they have ever known. I also don't like living in a country where the continued plummeting of the stock market and the economy at large is leaving no one safe to feel "secure" in their employment, that our parents generation is losing their retirement funds, losing their hopes for social security, and without proper health care coverage will probably work their way into their graves. She mentions Obama's tax hikes on the "rich." That is not me just quoting her, she puts "rich" in quotes. There are no quotes needed. If you make over a quarter of a million dollars every year you are indeed rich. And it's time to recognize that. A tax hike on someone who makes, say 30 grand, is not helping the country. It's not providing a stable economy, it's not providing people the opportunity to prosper and put money back into the economy, in that simple cycle of monetary flow that is called capitalism. The quotes around "rich" are a perfect metaphor for what she does not understand, and what can potentially change throughout the next four years, and beyond.

But, please, continue your squabbling, it can only benefit President-elect Obama and the new Democrat controlled congress in four years. Your service to your country is appreciated, the left is no longer listening, so please, continue to be the clever that will ensure a Democratically controlled legislative and executive branch for the next eight years.

2 comments:

Patrick Roberts said...

If Palin runs for President in 2012, at least she has name recognition going for her... but that may not work in her favor

Dustin said...

It could go either way. She is a savior to many at the moment, a symbol of how the RNC could regroup. For many centrists within the party and for more left leaning voters she is a symbol of something completely opposite. There is a lot of baggage tied to a Palin run at the presidency right now.