Our miserable year

Faced with the likely general election choice between a sub-mediocrity who will keep us in Iraq forever and destroy conservatism and the messianic follower of a Farrakhanite, I am still hoping that the third choice, the crook, somehow pulls off a miracle and wins the Democratic nomination. You got a better idea?

- end of initial entry -

Steve D. writes:

In 1991, when Louisiana was faced with the choice between Edwin Edwards and David Duke in the gubernatorial election, one of the most popular bumper stickers was, “Vote for the Crook…it’s important.”

LA replies:

Yes, I paraphrased that a month or two ago.

Mark Jaws writes:

I respectfully disagree. An Obama presidency would—as you have said previously—put black America on unfettered display and shatter the multicultural fantasies of self delusional whites perhaps once and for all.

LA replies:

But I haven’t changed my previous position: As horrible as an Obama presidency would be, I still prefer that over McCain. But I would prefer Hillary over Obama.

Mark K. writes:

AL GORE

Mark Jaws writes:

Also—please ponder this. As a candidate for NYC mayor, Dinkins received 50% of the Jewish vote in 1989. But after the infamously anti-Jewish Crown Heights riots in 1991, less than 25% of New York’s Jews supported Mayor Dinkins in 1993.

Knowing how critical Jews are to the American political landscape, we should ask ourselves whose presidency is more likely to turn Jews away from the Left? Clinton’s or Obama’s? No doubt, the latter. If we could reduce the Jewish liberal to conservative ratio, which I believe now stands at least 3 to 1, we can make great progress in bringing about the Auster “majoritarian reconquista.” With his associations to Farrakhan and Farrakhanites, Obama may very well drive younger Jews out of the Democratic Party or at least splinter the party by irrevocably shattering the unholy alliance among blacks and Jews.

LA replies:

The esteemed Mr. Jaws writes in a manner that implies that we need to ponder and decide who would be better, Hillary or Obama. But that decision is entirely out of our hands.

Adela Gereth writes:

As horrible a president as the unforgivable McCain would be, I dread the chilling effect on traditionalism that an Obama presidency would have. We would be signaling not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world that the dominant American majority has lost confidence in itself to govern itself. With the preponderance of “hate crimes” being black on white, the lower IQs of blacks generally, their failure as a group to thrive even with massive ongoing governmental support and aid, electing a man to govern us who, though biracial, identifies as a black, could hardly be considered progress from a traditionalist cultural perspective. Indeed, it would be a distinct step backward.

Not only that, but I fear an Obama presidency would be the thin end of the wedge. Blacks (and leftists) would never be content with finally “having their turn” and having a black man as POTUS. If things went well during an Obama tenure in office, they’d point out that just one “black” president in 200+ isn’t enough to compensate for past racial injustice, disenfranchisement, etc., that if one is good, two would be better. And of course, if things went badly for him (and us), they’d point to the inherently racist American system/nation/culture as the culprit. Either way, he’d get the same free pass as president that he’s gotten so far as a candidate.

Frankly, I can’t stand the thought of four (or, God forbid, more) years of seeing little besides high-profile, angry or contemptuous black faces in the national media. The past couple of months have been a clear foreshadowing of what we have to look forward to if Obama is elected.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 19, 2008 09:32 AM | Send