President Obama Presents Vision for America, Media go Racist.

He needs all the help he can get.
And lots more.

The “principled” media lost all sense of racial sensitivity and real bipartisanship as they reported on President Obama’s incredible debate performance last night. Their reports damned his performance by failing to give proper weight to the great handicap with which he has to deal every day, through no fault of his own. They thus became racists of the worst kind, elevating faux bipartisanship over real racial sensitivity. Have they already forgot that it is racist to say anything derogatory about President Obama? Sadly, having become briefly ensnared in the web of blatant racism they may do it again. And again. If so, the compulsion may eventually become irresistible.

Shortly after last night’s debate, I received the following personal letter from my friend, Barack.

Friend —

I hope I made you proud out there explaining the vision we share for this country.

Now we need to go win this election — the most important thing that will happen tonight is what you do (or don’t do) to help in the little time we have left:

Thank you,


“Paid for by Obama for America”

Proud indeed! Despite the heavy burden under which President Obama struggles to do his best for us, he lived up to my highest expectations. He explained his vision for the country with transcendent clarity and forcefulness. He could not have explained it better even by crawling off the stage screaming “Down the toilet we goooooo!” Even Chris Matthews was enthusiastic.

Our cloistered President disapproves of bad news so it’s unlikely that anybody on his staff slipped him a copy of the Matthews meltdown tape. Joe Klein, who usually has far more pleasant things to say about President Obama than about Governor Romney, wrote a piece entitled Obama’s Debate Strategy: Unilateral Disarmament?  It concludes with this:

But I must admit, once again, to being mystified. Did the President send out his body double to this debate? Because if that were the actual Barack Obama out there, I’m not sure he could communicate well enough to be an effective President in a time of trouble, to say nothing of winning a second term.

Alas, that would not make President Obama joyful either; not because it’s substantively wrong, but because it’s . . .  well, you know.

About danmillerinpanama

I was graduated from Yale University in 1963 with a B.A. in economics and from the University of Virginia School of law, where I was the notes editor of the Virginia Law Review in 1966. Following four years of active duty with the Army JAG Corps, with two tours in Korea, I entered private practice in Washington, D.C. specializing in communications law. I retired in 1996 to sail with my wife, Jeanie, on our sailboat Namaste to and in the Caribbean. In 2002, we settled in the Republic of Panama and live in a very rural area up in the mountains. I have contributed to Pajamas Media and Pajamas Tatler. In addition to my own blog, Dan Miller in Panama, I an an editor of Warsclerotic and contribute to China Daily Mail when I have something to write about North Korea.
This entry was posted in Begging, Brutality, Campaign contributions, Choom gang, Democracy, Democrats, Dep't of Information, Elections, Governor Romney, Health Control, Humility, Humor, Obama, ObamaCare, Opinion, Politics, Racism, Romney, Satire, Snark, Torture, United States, White House and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to President Obama Presents Vision for America, Media go Racist.

  1. boeke says:

    I take exception to this statement of Dans:

    “Once burdensome regulatory uncertainty, and burdensome regulations themselves, are reduced, they will likely invest in job-producing expansion. ”

    I’ve started and run several small businesses and “burdensome regulations” were NEVER a consideration. The biggest considerations were always sales and capitalization. After that it was getting the right employees.

    “job-producing expansion” is always a function of sales. Usually, if you have sales in hand you can get needed capital. There’s an astonishing amount of capital around just looking for good businesses.

    Regulations only come into play if you have a business specifically playing close to something with lawful questionability or something specifically to exploit someone elses regulatory problems. For example, if fracking companies are suffering under regulations that restrict the amount of fresh water they can use and you have an excellent way to recycle produced water you can start a company to post process their produced water. But the incentive works the opposite of what concerns you: you hope that the regs stay in place or get tougher. Only your customer hopes to end regs so he can fire you and save money. So the regs actually create new companies and jobs.

    • joe barton says:

      Hey Boeke,
      I read your comment on Dan’s post; Economic Theory, Reality and President Obama
      I really liked that a lot. Expressed well. That’s the kind of stuff I’d like to hear coming out of the mouths of the Dems and Obama. The conservatives manage to get their beliefs on supply side theory heard constantly and present it like it’s unquestionable fact. We rarely hear the other side. As someone who has never really studied economics, I would guess that both sides have validity but the points you made seem more convincing, especially on the more important points and in the bigger scheme of things.

      I also liked what you had to say here. I’ve heard other business men say the same thing. I’ve heard Thom Hartmann makes the argument that regulations can sometimes grow the economy by creating a need for new businesses/industries to service those regulations. Although I can also see the other side that some regulations can add burdens/costs that can hurt businesses that are struggling. That why I think it’s very important to be wise about them.

      I also think that Dems/libs should offer Republicons a deal; we give them the decision making on regulations in exchange for letting the entire deficit-causing/non job-producing Bush tax cuts expire like they were supposed to last year. Immediately on the wealthy (who can afford to pay them especially when they are sitting on record wealth and not investing) but in gradual steps on the lower brackets. I wonder how many people on both sides would go for that.
      I can hear the libs screaming but, consider this: the economy is so weak, this might be a good time to try that. Plus, I don’t think we can say with absolute certainty that the right is wrong (heh heh) about that. If they are, then it will become apparent and we will have proved our case, thus giving us more leverage.
      On the other hand, the evidence on the tax issue is overwhelming that those minor tax increases would have little if any negative effect on the economy, especially if we combine them with balanced spending cuts. This is the approach that produced a surplus in the nineties. This might actually help the economy grow by eliminating that ‘uncertainty’ the right claims is holding the economy back.
      I think it would be a good deal for both sides. What do you guys think?

      I also liked Dan’s post (Economic Theory) and thought it was one of the most interesting i’ve read of Dan’s.
      I’m interested in Dan’s years at Yale and would like to ask him some questions about that. I’ll save that for nest time.

  2. Joe,

    There is another problem with the “racism” “racist” meme. Racism does exist; I consider those who vote for or against a candidate because of his race to be racists.

    However, by using the terms to refer to everything from lynch mobs to those who disagree with President Obama’s policies to those who prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate, the terms forfeit all meaning. It’s like cussing. Yet it has become the “new normal.” It is at least high time to find more reasonably descriptive cuss words.

    • joe barton says:

      I’m glad you made that point. The term ‘racist’ puts everyone in the same boat with those who engaged in the worst atrocities committed by mankind. Slavery, genocide, lynching, etc. That’s why that term is so damaging and why I think it should be used judiciously and with great restraint.
      But,as far as racial attitudes go, everyone actually falls along a spectrum with ‘deep hatred’ on one end and ‘complete color-blindness’ on the other. I agree, “It is at least high time to find more reasonably descriptive cuss words.” The person who expresses the belief in some racial stereotype, whether positive or negative (like we all do, whether we admit it or not), doesn’t belong in the same boat as Adolf Hitler.

      You said “Racism does exist; I consider those who vote for or against a candidate because of his race to be racists.”

      I cut Black folks some slack on that considering their history in this country and the fact that, even though society has come a long way as far as racial attitudes go and government has instituted anti-discrimination laws to protect the rights of individuals, Black folks still suffer from more subtle forms of discrimination.
      What would help a lot towards that is to improve the terrible conditions that cause many of the problems in poor Black communities. Newt was on the right track about this but just missed the target. He said that we should pay kids to clean the toilets at school in order to teach them the value of work by rewarding them with money. Even though this contradicted his famous declaration that “Right wing social engineering is just as bad as left wing social engineering,” and Newt’s particular idea about cleaning toilets was particularly stupid (that’s something their parents should be doing at home in exchange for an allowance), a much better idea would be to pay kids for attendance, good grades and improving their grades. We could also have classes in the early grades that teach kids all of those values that conservatives correctly say are necessary to succeed in life. That’s the kind of right-wing social engineering that I think would work.

      One last thing, My wife read my previous comment and pointed out that, in the part where I ‘defended’ Sununu, that I made it seem like I thought Obama was a loudmouthed obnoxious bastard. I said:

      “Now Sununu is one obnoxious loudmouthed bastard but, I gotta say, I’ve been getting the exact same impression of Obama.”

      What I meant to say is that, in regard to Sununu’s charge that Obama is “lazy and detached”, I’ve been getting that same impression.

  3. Joe Barton says:

    Dan, I’m mystified that so many people think Romney won that debate. Going into this debate I was really worried that Obama might do very badly. I have never really heard him give a very good and strong defense of Dem/ liberal principles. And of course he continued that trend last night. The worst thing he did is what he didn’t do. Romney left himself open for so many devastating rebuttals but Obama didn’t take advantage of most of them. Worst of all he didn’t even bring up Romney’s 47% slur.
    But as poorly as he did he was way better than Romney. I thought Romney was awful.

    It’s pathetic that almost all of the media and the public put almost all of the emphasis and importance on style and almost none on substance. It should be the other way around! But even looking at style, what was everyone thinking? That he was aggressive? He was aggressive with very little substance. That shouldn’t be enough to win. He wasn’t convincing on almost anything he said, even though he acted as if he was.. He made many assertions without citing any sources besides himself. He gave no details on his tax plan, as always. He contradicted so many of his past statements, like he always does. He said he was going to do two opposite things simultaneously. He painted himself into yet another corner. He was a joke. I’ve already heard the fact checkers taking him down.

    And as far as style goes (which should matter least not most) they talked so much about the expression on Obama’s face and where he was looking and reading so many things into his body language as if that’s the most reliable way to tell what he’s thinking and whether he’s winning the debate. Meanwhile, I thought Romney came across as hyper and almost manic. He seemed very phony. He had a stupid looking forced smile on his face. Not that that should count for much either, but why didn’t anyone else see that? Am I wrong? I don’t think so.

    We humans are still a bunch of primitive childlike jerks. We give so much value to aggressiveness whether or not there is any intelligence behind it.
    Plus, I don’t know why conservatives are so happy. The things they want the most is, in this order:
    Tax cuts for the rich
    Service cuts for the mooching non rich.
    Tax hikes for those moochers so they ‘have more skin in the game.’
    Absolutely no compromise with the Socialist Party (that would be the Dems)

    He just said he wouldn’t do any of those things! What do you say, Dan?

    • Joe,

      The only explanation for the MSM reaction is obviously racism. President Obama performed just as flawlessly as he usually does these days. KKK hats and gowns will be issued to members of the MSM in advance of the next debate so that everyone will realize their biases. Some thought had been given to making them carry crosses as well, but the religious symbolism was deemed too offensive.

      More seriously, you say

      I don’t know why conservatives are so happy. The things they want the most is, in this order:
      Tax cuts for the rich
      Service cuts for the mooching non rich.
      Tax hikes for those moochers so they ‘have more skin in the game.’
      Absolutely no compromise with the Socialist Party (that would be the Dems)

      Tax cuts for the rich? That depends on one’s definition of “rich” and the purpose of tax cuts. Many small to moderate size businesses are owned by individuals, partnerships or other entities taxed as individuals rather than as corporations. Once burdensome regulatory uncertainty, and burdensome regulations themselves, are reduced, they will likely invest in job-producing expansion. I see that as good and Governor Romney’s approach appears to be consistent with these goals. I have heard very few if any conservative demands that taxes on the filthy rich be reduced so that they can fondle even more of their money in their Scrooge McDuck like vaults.

      Service Cuts and tax hikes for the poor? With the substantial increases in food stamps, even ObamaPhones and other species of welfare no longer requiring recipients to try to find jobs, incentives to work and pay taxes have decreased. Even when plenty of jobs are available, people need to want to be employed.

      Compromise I haven’t heard many conservatives demanding no compromise with the other side. That was something The Won did in 2009 with Democrat majorities in both houses (ObamaCare, for example) and came to regret with the current Congress. House Speaker Boehner was criticized for yielding too much. He seemed substantially more willing to yield than were President Obama and his Democrat majority in the Senate. Compromise requires good faith bargaining on both sides, not just one.There has to be compromise for there to be gradual change rather than revolution — compare British conservatism that led to gradual change and French refusal to compromise that led to radicalism and to the French Revolution.

      • joe barton says:

        Hey Dan,

        “The only explanation for the MSM reaction is obviously racism. President Obama performed just as flawlessly as he usually does these days. KKK hats and gowns will be issued to members of the MSM in advance of the next debate so that everyone will realize their biases. Some thought had been given to making them carry crosses as well, but the religious symbolism was deemed too offensive.”

        Oh brother. Yeah, but seriously, It bothers me the way liberals throw around the ‘racism’ charge so freely. One should be very restrained about making that charge. It is a very devastating charge and it would be very unfair to label someone like that if the charge were not true. Plus, making it seem like there is more racism than there is doesn’t give the civil rights movement and the country the credit it deserves for changing attitudes so dramatically and so quickly. The fact that this charge is so serious is a reflection of the values of this country. I think this country has become one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world. And you know, come to think of it, the President is Black! When used unfairly the racism charge stifles debate and makes it more difficult to solve problems. That’s not to say that racism doesn’t exist or that the racism that infringes on people’s rights should be tolerated. But the left shouldn’t be so free with that charge. Save it for when it really matters.

        Humans are complex, some racial tension is inevitable. People should be free to express themselves There are plenty of Black/non-white people who have a less than ‘politically correct’ view of other races. I think that forcing people to bottle up their thoughts, gripes or opinions actually makes things worse. We should be more tolerant of ‘opinions’ because it’s good to know what and how people think. Thought/speech control can be counter-productive. For those who are against racism, living your life the way you think everyone should is the best way to affect racism.

        To the consternation of my liberal friends I have defended the Tea Party against charges of racism. I am a very avid consumer of conservative media and I know and understand the right very well. I can tell that racism is not what’s driving the right these days. I tell the libs, ‘don’t forget how they treated Bill Clinton and John Kerry.’ Early during the Tea Party movement I pointed out that these are the same people who were big Alan Keyes fans. And sure enough Herman Caine became the leading Republican contender for a while. And they looove Allen West.

        All that being said, with this ‘Obama Derangement Syndrome’ being fomented by the politicians and talking heads and their political correctness about not being politically correct, they sure are making it easy for the left to label them as racists. Just recently, three examples. Rush Limbaugh playing the ‘Obamaphone’ lady tape over and over and over again then doing his (I would ordinarily use the word ‘exaggerated’ but it seems almost impossible to exaggerate) impression of her over and over again. Newt Gingrich with his (I can’t find the right adjective) remarks about Obama’s ‘rhythm”, need to sleep and penchant for basketball. And Sununu calling Obama lazy and detached.

        Now let me defend all three of them. I would say that after listening to Rush for over twenty years and knowing him as well as any ditto-head, he probably has some level, but not a lot, of racism, like we all do. I’m pretty sure he’s not a fervent racist. But what motivates him to do stuff like that is the satisfaction he gets from irritating the left. (That’s why I love giving his fans a taste of his own medicine)

        Oh Newt, he is, if not anything else, so entertaining. I think Newt might have a mental disorder.(I’m half serious) He can be so off the wall sometimes and his social ‘filter’ seems to not be working half the time. But I recently heard some tape of him, from some years ago, saying some surprising things about the plight of poor Blacks in this country. In a very thoughtful manner he described many of the difficulties faced by young poor Blacks, expressed a sincere concern about it, said that more effort should be spent on doing something about it and even said that government can and should be playing a role in helping people to help themselves! Wow. Ever since then I’ve been much more forgiving of Newt.

        You might have heard Sununu’s recent interview by Andrea Mitchell where he called Obama, among a string of outlandish insults, “lazy and detached.” A surprised Mitchell calmly asked him if he might want to reconsider that description but Sununu just raised his already very loud voice and scolded her for irritating him with that question. Now Sununu is one obnoxious loudmouthed bastard but, I gotta say, I’ve been getting the exact same impression of Obama. What really bothered me was one of the previous dozen insults he jammed into his five minute diatribe on Obama. He bellowed “‘Obama has absolutely no understanding of foreign affairs.” Really John? Absolutely no understanding? Not even a little? Not even some understanding but a misguided one? Of foreign affairs? You know John, he was born in Kenya and he did live in various countries around the world including that very exotic one called Hawaii which eventually became our 57th state (or was it 56th?). And he did graduate from Columbia (even though not a single person remembers him) and Harvard where he was given the position of editor of the Law Review only because he was black. Then he became a US Senator and has been President of the United States for almost four years. I was just wondering, John, if you might want to reconsider that description. Whoa! Jeez! John! I’m sorry! I didn’t mean it! Honest! I’m really sorry! You know, come to think of it, his mother was a porno star so what you said does seem to make sense after all.

        My point, Dan, is that a little racial sensitivity might not be too bad a thing after all.

  4. Dan, you are so very good at satire. I wish I could have written this post. I think you missed you calling.:-).

  5. Pingback: Opinion Forum » President Obama Presents Vision for America, Media Go Racist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s