What the Carter Democrats are actually saying about conservatives’ thought process

Respondng to the Jimmy Carter / Liberal Media tsunami, Neil Boortz does something that conservatives so rarely do: he spells out the implied logic of the left’s position.

SO … NOW WE ALL KNOW THIS IS JUST ABOUT OBAMA’S RACE
September 16, 2009

And just who didn’t see all of this coming? Come on, folks! Having you been paying attention for the past 30 years? In virtually every state and community in this nation liberals have been blaming racism for any failure, miscalculation, controversy or outright act of corruption by black elected officials. There has been a standard operating methodology in place for all of the 40 years I’ve been doing talk radio:

1. Black citizen elected to office.

2. Black official runs into opposition to policy objectives or has a problem with corruption.

3. Black supporters and liberals blame the problems on race.

One-two-three. This scenario has been played out so many times in modern American history it would have been impossible to keep count. Now a black man has become president. Some fools thought that this would help our country move beyond racial division. Well——-perhaps it would have, if only evil white people had been smart enough not to object to anything this man might propose. But it didn’t work out that way, so now the left and the media are finding racists under every bed, behind every utility pole and on every street in America. Newsweek Magazine even ran a totally absurd story about racism in babies … putting a picture of a white infant on the cover with the title “Is your baby racist?” Read that story and you’ll find that the authors think that it would be horrifying if a white child were to ever express pride in being white.

Last year, before the election, some of us predicted that if (or when) Barack Obama became president that this would happen. We said that every time his policies met with opposition the left would start screaming racism. So what happened when we said that this would happen? Well … you guessed it. We were called racists. You just can’t imagine how surprised and shocked we were.

So .. here is what Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers, Hank Johnson, much of the Washington and New York press corps, Newsweek Magazine and the brilliant thinkers on the American left would have you believe of Americans right now:

• We would be more than willing to welcome cap-and-trade with open arms, even if we paid a thousand dollars or more extra every year for our energy use, if Barack Obama were only white.

• We would be dancing in the streets celebrating the dawning of government control of our health care if only Barack Obama were white.

• It would be just dandy if government bureaucrats rationed health care for our parents, as long as the president is white.

• We would jump at the chance of the government owning ALL of the auto manufacturing companies .. not just General Motors … if the president just didn’t have dark skin.

• We would applaud those ACORN workers giving tax avoidance advice to a pimp and his prostitute if the workers hadn’t been black.

• Most Americans—even ones that don’t pay income taxes now—would be more than willing to give 70% of everything they earn to the federal government when asked … so long as they are asked by a white president.

• We would have been thrilled, I tell you … THRILLED to have all of those Islamic goons being held at Guantanamo be not only released, but sent to be school resource officers at our local government schools, if only a white president put that plan in motion.

• It would be OK if a white president stood back and allowed Iran to build its coveted nukes … we’re only unhappy about that because a black president is doing it.

• Deficits? We don’t care about deficits! Make our children and grand children and great grand children pay through the nose for our president’s spending habits … just so long as the president isn’t black.

• Government pork? Like we actually care? Look … you folks in Washington can spend all the money you want—how about more studies of the mating habits of Polish Zlotnika pigs?—just make sure it’s not a black president who signs the spending bill into law.

• We wouldn’t care if all illegal aliens were counted twice in the next Census … just so long as the president isn’t black.

• Those Black Panther thugs who threatened voters in Philly? The ONLY reason we’re upset that they were given a pass is because Barack Obama is black.

• Every single member of the president’s cabinet could be a tax cheat as far as we’re concerned … just so long as the president is white.

• Forced unionization? Bring it on! We love card check! We love the idea of union goons threatening and intimidating workers to sign a card saying they want to belong to a union! What we don’t like is that a black president is pushing this idea.

• Single-party talks with that Gargoyle that runs North Korea? It’s about time we legitimized that little pipsqueak. We’re only mildly upset here because the person who is doing that happens to be black.

• More regulation of the finance sector? We could care less! For all we care you can nationalize the banks and decree that only the government can make home loans .. .and you can even apportion those home loans on the basis of race if you want to … just so long as the president is white!

• Minimum wage? Like we care about that? Raise it to $15 an hour if you want! Just give us our white president back.

Yeah .. the moonbat left really has us figured out, don’t they?

[end of article]

Boortz weakens his otherwise lively and to-the-point column with the term moonbat at the end. Since the (liberal) moonbats are themselves constantly calling conservatives “moonbats,” the term is without useful meaning and degrades discourse. One reason I rarely read Michelle Malkin’s site is her constant use of cheap name-calling of this nature.

- end of initial entry -

Paul G. writes:

I agree with Neil Boortz’s statements.

I think Carter’s statement becomes more true, though, if you replace “black” with “Republican”. If the Bush years taught us anything, it’s that conservatives will sit down and shut up for much longer when a Republican steals their liberties and ruins their country than when a Democrat does it.

If Gore or Kerry had won, you’d be seeing the same types of demonstrations. W. won, though, so conservatives didn’t want to seem disloyal when Bush launched an unnecessary war, mastercharged the economy into oblivion, added trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, and took over America’s mortgages. As you said with McCain, the damage that would have been done by him because he was a Republican would be nearly as bad as what Obama’s doing now (with at least as much opposition from the Left as there is now from the Right).

September 18

OI writes:

You write:

Since the (liberal) moonbats are themselves constantly calling conservatives “moonbats,”

Actually, the left refers to the right as wingnuts (from “right wing nuts”). Moonbats is indeed a term the right uses to refer to the left, not the other way around (at least, I’ve never seen the left use that term—only “wingnuts”). So he’s using it correctly.

LA replies:

Yes, thanks for the correction. The left call the right wingnuts, the right call the left moonbats. Very high level debate.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 17, 2009 09:17 AM | Send