America today

Howard Sutherland writes:

America today is truly a weird and wonderful place. If the pundits who are saying his North Carolina win ices the Democratic nomination for Obama are right, then we have the bizarre spectacle of blacks and white Leftists at places like Duke and Chapel Hill joining forces to, in effect, elect a Republican president!

Then again, thinking ahead has never been a strong suit of either group.

LA replies:

So you’re sure Oba Man can’t win?

I agree Hillary is vastly the smarter choice for the Democrats if they want to win. But I don’t see an Oba Man victory as impossible, especially given the fact that the recent revelations, which should have sunk him, have not done so.

Howard Sutherland replies:

I’m not 100 percent sure, because of the all-pervading weirdness of this campaign so far, but I still think it unlikely. The Republicans’ going with McCain, the closest possible thing to Bush, after Bush’s presidency has become so widely unpopular, is weird—even if the fraud of open primaries has a lot to do with it. The Democrats’ going with The Obamassiah, if that’s what they do, is likewise bizarre if not out of character for race and diversity-obsessed liberals.

Can Obama win? I think only if McCain self-destructs or some terrible scandal is revealed about him—or a credible third party candidate with a lot of money challenges from McCain’s right.

Set aside for the moment the possibility of a powerful third party challenge, though. Even as far gone as America is, it’s still hard to imagine a majority of voters will vote for a half-black, half-foreign Democrat with the hardest Left voting record in the Senate who has openly consorted with racist black nationalists and unrepentant terrorists for so many years, and who will push as aggressively as possible for even more discrimination against the white majority and even more immigration. In addition to that baggage, Obama has nothing like the requisite experience to be president. Our two quite young presidents, T. Roosevelt and Kennedy, both had much more relevant experience when they came on the presidential stage. It is patently obvious to all but the most addled liberals that Obama is where he is only because he is a presentable black.

So Obama is the quintessential affirmative-action baby candidate, as his ungrateful affirmative-action baby wife is constantly—if inadvertently—reminding us. Most voters in American elections are still white Americans, and most of them are sick to death of anti-white preferences given to minorities. The Obamas are preference personified.

Mistress Hillary would push for most or all of the same disastrous policies and legislation as Obama, but as a white full-American she does not seem as alien as Obama—nor is she an affirmative-action baby herself.

Electing Obama president really would be saying America now is a totally different place from the country that declared independence in 1776; I’m not sure enough Americans are ready to take that symbolic step.

- end of initial entry -

LA to Howard Sutherland:

I just posted our exchange.

Re the first paragraph of your comment:

American today is truly a weird and wonderful place. If the pundits who are saying his North Carolina win ices the Democratic nomination for Obama are right, then we have the bizarre spectacle of blacks and white Leftists at places like Duke and Chapel Hill joining forces to, in effect, elect a Republican president!

I want you to know that this is one of the extremely rare occasions (maybe twice in the last four years) that I have left in place a split infinitive in a reader’s comment that I edited. There was no reasonable way to change it and leave your meaning intact.

Even for an absolutist, there are occasional grey areas.

HRS replies:

I guess that is a split infinitive, but only in form—not in spirit. I abhor split infinitives. My apologies and thanks for posting even with that blot.

LA replies:

> I guess that is a split infinitive, but only in form—not in spirit.

(Laughing)

That’s one of the funniest things I ever heard.

John B. writes:

Howard Sutherland’s remarks are the type-specimen of the blindness of anti-liberals. He writes:

Even as far gone as America is, it’s still hard to imagine a majority of voters will vote for a half-black, half-foreign Democrat with the hardest Left voting record in the Senate who has openly consorted with racist black nationalists and unrepentant terrorists for so many years, and who will push as aggressively as possible for even more discrimination against the white majority and even more immigration….

Most voters in American elections are still white Americans, and most of them are sick to death of anti-white preferences given to minorities.

It’s “still hard to imagine a majority of voters will vote for” Obama? Howard’s imagination is very limited. What he means is that it’s hard to imagine that a majority of whites will vote for Obama. That’s right: They won’t—and it doesn’t matter. Have the presidential elections of the last twenty years (at least) not made it clear? If the votes of whites alone had been counted, Bill Clinton, I’m sure, would have lost both of his presidential bids, quite possibly in landslides; the Democratic Party would be neutralized, even marginal. So, what? As Hillary Clinton herself now knows too well, non-whites have the vote. Within the Democrats’ nomination contest, she has been struggling to win the slim victories for which Republican presidential candidates now routinely fight. Ironically, she has been cornered into doing so for the same reason that, via her husband’s success, she emerged on the political scene: the black vote. Indeed, the situation is even worse in her case, for blacks are a much greater percentage of the Democrat electorate than they are of the electorate as a whole; every white vote that goes against her is a coffin nail. “Most voters in American elections are still white”? Yes—less than ninety percent of them; so it doesn’t matter whether “most of them” are sick to death of anti-white anything. In the face of the black voting bloc, they start out virtually ten points in the hole (even more, no doubt, if other non-white voting is considered). Fifty out of every ninety of them have to vote anti-liberal if they are to break even. The efforts of supposed wizards like Karl Rove are endlessly directed toward exploiting every element of electoral politics to scrape up that over-majority; and even when those efforts are successful, the results are terribly close.

Ron L. writes:

Both Mr. Sutherland and John B. make good points.

Assuming that whites have a spine and care about the issue of culture, national identity, and have a rational fear of anti-white discrimination, a huge majority of whites will vote against Obama. Whites still make up more than 70 percent of the electorate. If over 65 percent vote against Obama, he cannot win a majority. Sadly, we are left with John McCain who also seems to hate white America and is in no position to use the issue. American voters lack the foresight to vote for the GOP against Obama, when the GOP is split. Hence, the only people who will care about race are minorities. It is possible that only 55-60 percent of Hispanics will vote for Obama and Asians may be split (Filipinos and Japanese will never vote GOP), if they come to fear Obama.

I fear that the question comes down to which of the following will the narrowly elected Obama act like: the Kenyan Odinga; Jimmy Carter; or David Dinkins.

I’m going to be sick.

Mark G. writes:

John B. and Ron L. are correct. Barring a dramatic and unexpected scandal, Mr. Obama will win the presidency; a look at any of the the political gambling sites reveals the opinion of the people willing to put their money where their mouth is. As easy as it is to be dramatic about it, Pres. Obama will not be the end of the republic, just one of a thousand foolish steps up the ladder to secular heaven-on-earth.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 07, 2008 12:46 PM | Send