Obama: You just don’t get how great I am
If you’ll all excuse a drive by posting by a really busy guy:
Obama told Charlie Rose today that his biggest failing as President was that he didn’t spend enough time communicating how successful he is to the spooked herd of sheeple roaming the American countryside which constitute the voting (or polled) public. You see, he’s been doing a bang up job as President, he just hasn’t worked hard enough to let you know about it. But don’t let me tell you, take it from him:
“The mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”
President Obama said he’s fallen short in “explaining, but also inspiring” the American public, which is why he has been spending more time traveling the country.
He continued, “It’s funny – when I ran, everybody said, well he can give a good speech but can he actually manage the job? And in my first two years, I think the notion was, ‘Well, he’s been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where’s the story that tells us where he’s going?’ And I think that was a legitimate criticism.”
Get it?
Now of course one can make a convincing argument that Obamacare, the largest give away from the rich and middle class to the poor since LBJ, is a huge PR problem. After all, it’s always been more unpopular than popular yet the Democratic Party has spent the past 50 years winning votes by giving away other people’s money in just such fashion. As George Bernard Shaw once said to inadvertently indicted his own Progressivism, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
So what’s the disconnect here?
Explaining away the rest of the tangible numbers over the past four years as him not spending enough time with the American public on his knee might prove to be a bit more difficult.
Category: Politics
Lets see I have been told that “thug” is a code word…and is obviously racist. Hell I had someone try and tell me that “in a coon’s age” was racist. No it isn’t it refers to the animal a raccoon which lives up to 17 years…damn.
Okay I will just say that I love me some watermelon and fried chicken…I am a cracker from Missouri. If that makes me racist…well I guess I will have to be racist because of my love of those nasty racist foods!
@ 101 JPJ
Careful there, you might prefer white meat chicken over dark, and well – certain liberish types could confer that as evidence erasing all doubt that you just might be a racist.
Hondo LOL! In fact LOL with all you guys who played along! 🙂 The PC Brigade, like anonymoose, make me sick. He’s so intent on finding unPCness he’s blinded to any and everything else. Honest Injun…oh Shi’ite, I did it again, I was making a play on words with my obama/banana remark. I meant nothing racial by it. There are plenty of words I could have used otherwise.
Does this mean we can’t have any more “monkey business” lest someone take offense?
Or are Oreos now verboten? And let’s not even get into black ice (and yes, boys and girls, I’ve heard it referred to as “clear ice” so as not to offend.)
And blacktop. Can’t have that–EVER.
Go ahead an look at some yearly statement of some of these companies, profits don’t lie.
Yup–Exxon/Mobil makes a profit of about $40 billion on revenues of $450 billion. That comes out to about 9 percent. Pretty shitty if you ask me, especially compared to banks which have profit margins in the 30-plus percent range.
Also, I’ll trust Hondo @41; since June 2009, gas price has increase 85.33%, while in the same time period, oil price has increased only 22%. I’m all ears for a better explanation.
Not true. In January 2009, the average pump price was $1.81/gallon, and crude price was $43.91/bbl. In June 2009, gas price was $2.74/gallon, and crude was $69.13/bbl. Today, the average price is $3.43/gal with a crude price in June of $90.73/bbl, which is down from the post-2008 peak in March of this year of $117.79/bbl and gas nationall at that point was $3.97/gal.
So no, you fail.
Oh, and before you think that $40 billion in profit on revenues of $450 billion is a lot, consider this, anon–in that same year, the federal government got over $105 billion in taxes, for doing nothing more than sitting on their asses with their hands out.
@101, I was called a racist for using the term “calling a spade a spade” and in the context I was using it in I wasn’t even talking about a person. On a side note the “N” word, I believe, originated as Latin for the color black.
What color is a spade? I do believe that Bettle Bailey had a comic about this years ago…
I’m surprised insipid hasn’t come by to do his usual “swoop and poop” yet.
He must be having a blast down in the Castro, or Soho, or Dupont Circle, or Provincetown, or wherever he’s been cruising around in those assless chaps of his.
Maybe the Occutards wherever insipid dwells needed him to pirate a wi-fi connection or something.
Oh, wait, he’s probably working on some big “discovery” info for that top drawer, white shoe law firm… Is “white shoe” racist?
No. 109: — EVERYTHING is. “. . . looks like a nail . . . ,” etc.
@ 106 Twist, you hit the nail on the head. Black in Latin is “niger” which evolved into “negro”, Spanish for ‘black’. It pays to be both Hispanic AND Catholic!:)
Ya know, it’s sad that things have come this far, or things have turned out this bad.
@96Well hell’s bells…and here I was thinking I was the only flaming racist at this site. Anonymous, I promise I’ll try to work in a banana reference next time I post a piece about our affirmative action president. How about comparing the Obama economy to a rotting blackened banana, hmm? Got that Insipid?…Insipid? Insipid…are you out there, Insipid? Anyone? =========================================================== I love the fact that so many take umbrage that I engage in this blog at all, but also are convinced that if I don’t show up it is out of cowardice. Criticizing Barack Obama is not racist. Calling him an affirmative action president IS racist. There is nothing that I see that is racist about the above blog. I recognize that calling someone racist is a heinous charge. I do not make it haphazardly. You earned the charge. The above post, along with your statement that you would do bodily harm if I made the charge to your face, as well as two blogs referencing me since, indicates that the charge stings. Only charges that have the germ of truth sting. People have leveled lots of charges against me on this blog. That I am uneducated, that I am poor, that I am racist, that I am lazy, that I am a flamboyant faggot. None have stung because they are not true. Mostly I enjoy these insults. It reveals more about those that make them then it does about me. It shows that class warfare is perfectly OK as long as we’re deriding the poor. It shows that homophobia in Conservatism is doing just fine. While I do not find the blog racist, I do find it stupid While “Obamacare” has been unpopular because of misinformation about the law, all the provision in it, with the exception of the mandate, are popular. Also, since April there has been an eight point uptick in the laws popularity, thanks mostly to the favorable SC ruling: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/10/1108277/-WaPo-ABC-poll-Support-for-Obamacare-nbsp-increasing Rest assured, “Obamacare” when fully implemented will be as popular as its doppelganger “Romneycare”. This is the real reason why Republicans are so desperate to… Read more »
[…] Well, it actually will not be me breaking it down for you, but rather one of the great military veteran commenters in the comment thread of this post at This Ain’t Hell: Obama: You Just Don’t Get How Great I Am […]
Apparently BO loves them Republican ideas so much that he continued the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Doctrine – adopting them as his own and expanding on the original policies. That is why there is concern in MSM that BO & Dubya are joined at the hip and in a way – a 3rd Bush term. The Bush policies have been given legitimacy – despite outcry my MSM during his tenure in office – as a Presidency that has become too powerful and not beholden to checks and balances.
People will have differing opinions about Dubya being a good, average or awful President – however, BO whether intentionally or not – has ensured Dubya a significant place in history for Presidential historians to examine and write about – his policies LIVE and are embraced by current administration.
insipid: no, clueless one. The posts you reference as showing “that the charge stings” merely demonstrate you don’t recognize very obvious satire and/or hyperbole.
insipid: no, clueless one. The comments and articles you reference as showing “that the charge stings” were very obvious satire and/or hyperbole. Your comment 112 above merely shows you don’t recognize such obvious satire and/or hyperbole – because you view the world through the lens of racism, used on all who disagree with you.
Look for something hard enough, and you’ll find it – even when it’s not there at all. Prejudice works that way, too.
@112, Daily Kos? You cite Kos? OMO, you are too funny, sip. Too funny.
“There are three Republican Senators who have insured children thanks to the law that they voted against”. Bullshit, representatives, the executive branch and Senators are exempt from Otaxacare, it doesn’t apply, they have their own “Cadillac” plan.
“and that they post their balance sheet”. Much like the government posts your “balance sheet” for Social Security?
Face it, sip, or stupe, you’re just a 100%, totally dependent on government, clueless discovery clerk.
And, yeah, Otaxacare is really just another take from one group, give to another group, government giveaway program.
Yes, I cite Daily Kos and folks on this board have cited Newsmax and Hotair and Firewall as their “sources”. When they do, I actually go through the trouble of debunking their points. It’s easy to do because your sources, unlike mine, are full of shit. The source of the Kos article is the Washington Post. It’s fairly straight-forward poll results. Here is another source which says the same thing.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/trackingpoll.cfm
I’m sure the Kaiser Foundation is also part of the grand liberal conspiracy.
It is obvious you do not understand the PPACA. The provision I was referring to was the young-adult provision that allows children to remain on their parent’s coverage until the age of 26. Representative Joe Walsh has a 24 year old daughter on his health plan thanks to the PPACA. Senator Scott Brown also has a child on his health plan as well as Senator Bob Corker. Furthermore, when the PPACA goes into full effect we will be able to buy into the same “Cadillac Plan” that Senators and Congresspersons have.
I never stated that I had a SSI “balance sheet” I maintained and I do maintain that SSI is an insurance program.
I work for a private firm. I am a white single, male who make more than 50k a year. So I do, happily, pay income tax. You live in a fictional world. You are referring to a fictional insipid, a fictional President Obama and a fictional PPACA.
insipid: no, clueless one. The comments and articles you reference as showing “that the charge stings” were very obvious satire and/or hyperbole. Your comment 112 above merely shows you don’t recognize such obvious satire and/or hyperbole – because you view the world through the lens of racism, used on all who disagree with you.
Look for something hard enough, and you’ll find it – even when it’s not there at all. Prejudice works that way, too.
=============================================================
Ahhh, the it was a “joke” and you’re too stupid to “get it” defense, made popular by renowned racist Rush Limbaugh. This defense is usually accompanied by hand-wringing over “Political Correctness”. In order for satire and hyperbole to work there has to be an element of truth to it. There is no truth to the “Affirmative Action President” pejorative.
What has been hysterical- and ironic- is the insistence on so many members of this board that elections are affirmative action programs. I looked it up there have been only three black governors elected in the 173 years since reconstruction and one of them was elected as Lieutenant Governor. They are David Patterson of New York, Daval Patrick of Massachusetts, and Douglas Wilder of New Jersey. There have been three Black Senators elected in that time frame and one that was appointed. They have been Ed Brooke of Massachusetts (the only Republican on this list), Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, Barack Obama of Illinois and appointed Senator Roland Burris of Illinois.
So, counting President Obama there have been exactly 5 times in the past 173 years where a black person has headed a ticket and was elected to State-Wide or National Office. I have to admit, if elections are “affirmative action programs” then you are absolutely correct about government inefficiency. Elections have to be the worst affirmative action program ever!
No, the “Affirmative Action President” statement was racism, not satire or hyperbole. Given the paucity of black elected officials, it was irony- and a cruel one.
(sigh) I was expecting to see that all of the ususual pack of yapping jackels would be here ganging up on Insipid today. Most of those cranky and ditzy, old geezers must be on their meds this weekend for a change. Maybe there will be a delay, just until their meds wear off …, or until their nurses take their bed pans out from under them, ya think? Tune-in again later, folks.
“So, counting President Obama there have been exactly 5 times in the past 173 years where a black person has headed a ticket and was elected to State-Wide or National Office.”(insipid)
Is there a reason that you’re not pointing out Congressman insipid? For instance, it would hurt your point.
There will be a further day. I just noticed that it’s time for their afternoon naps.
@119- Are you intentionally omitting the other half of Congress (and its nearly 140 black elected members since 1870) in order to “support” this theory of yours? Surely, there’s another (valid) reason…….
@!20- NTBCWTOB – Your trigger finger-fu is strong. 🙂
I will also assume, Insipid, that it was an oversight on your part with regards to the exclusion of Hiram Revels (1870) and Blanche Kelso Bruce (1875)- both Republican Senators from Mississippi.
@ #119 – Don’t assume that I share your, um, eccentric opinions, dude.
I was just taking some of the heat off of you to make it a fair fight.
But hey, if you like to play with these dimwits as much as I do,
I’ll butt out.
He also appears to be ignoring elected black Lieutenant Governors – who in many states run for election in their own right vice as part of a ticket with the governor. There have been a number to date:
Oscar Dunn, LA, 1868
Myrvin M. Dymally, CA, 1975
George Brown, CO, 1975
Douglas Wilder, VA, 1985
David Patterson, NY, 2006
Michael Steele, MD, 2009
Jennifer Carroll, FL, 2011
And there are probably a few I missed.
No “oversight” Ros. I only counted State Wide and National Offices because those are the offices in which a black person MUST rely on a significant portion of white votes.
The two Republican Senators from Mississippi were not elected, they were appointed as part of Reconstruction. It’s the same reason why I didn’t count Roland Burris as part of the 5.
While there are examples of predominantly white areas electing black members to Congress (Alan West is an example) those are anomolies. There are many more examples in which black people ignore skin color to vote for a White person. George Voinovich was elected Mayor of Cleveland twice- an impossible feat without a significant portion of the black vote. Likewise the black population voted overwhelmingly for Ted Strickland for governor against African American Ken Blackwell. Kind of destroys the whole “Blacks will vote for any black face they see” thesis doesn’t it?
I wasn’t “ignoring” them. I specifically used the words “headed a ticket”. I’m sure the vast majority of people- even the politically astute ones- would not be able to tell you their Lt. Governor if you put a gun to their head.
insipid: “heading the ticket” is not a valid reason for exclusion in state elections. In the US presidential election, the Pres/VP candidates run as a team. In 18 states, the elections are separate, and voters vote for governor and lieutenant governor separately.
Did you also exclude state Attorneys General and Secretaries of State (generally an elective office at the state level) and other statewide elective offices (public service commission, utilities commission) for a reason?
I believe it is a valid reason. People generally vote for the Governor or President and consider the VP or LT. Governor as an afterthought, if they consider it at all.
Yes, I excluded Secretaries of State and Treasurers for a reason. Time. I have a life outside of arguing with you. If you want to do the research, go right ahead. If i had Mitt Romney’s ten thousand dollars I’d bet that you find that black people get elected in proportions far less then their percentage of the population in State-wide elections. This fact remains even if you count Treasurers and Secretaries of States and Lt. Governors.
The facts do not support you. It is not an advantage to be black and run for office either in State Wide or National Office.
I don’t believe you have a life outside arguing with us, surely you jest.
So, Insipid, Rush Limbaugh is a “renowned racist.” Please make some factual citation of an instance of Rush Limbaugh’s racism. Factual, mind you.
Adn by the way, your President just pulled the “too stupid to get it” routine. That’s what the whole thread is about. Or didn’t you notice? Oh look…..a squirrel!
insipid: I believe what you’re doing is called “jumping to conclusions based on cherry-picked data.” It’s a dangerous practice, but it’s often done by those who are lazy – or those with an agenda. And you’ve already admitted that you haven’t done adequate research. So while you may “feel” the facts support your argument, you don’t yet know that they do.
Different subject: referring to me, you say “the facts don’t support you”. Precisely what facts would those be, and what thesis was I arguing regarding affirmative action and elections? You might want to re-read what I’ve said above. If you do, you’ll find I’ve taken no position above on that issue. What I have done above is to (1) point out omissions in your examples, and (2) state that some claims of “racism” are the result of people looking for racism where none exists.
The omissions are obvious and documented above. And while sometimes claims of racism are indeed accurate, many claims of “racism” are BS and are due to hypersensitivity or ignorance. One example: the term “black hole” is not racist to anyone with anything approaching normal intellect, yet I’ve actually seen published accounts of one fool claiming – seriously – that it was a racist term. And there have been multiple instances of objection by the ignorant to a proper English term for “miserly” which is close in sound to the proverbial N-word. In fact, that term predates the N-word by centuries; it apparently was derived from an Old Norse verb meaning “to fuss about small matters”.
@133- Rik I can give you examples of Rush calling President Obama “uppity”, i can give you examples of Rush Limbaugh saying that PBO and Oprah are only successful because they are black, i can show you this site:
http://newsone.com/16051/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/
But my guess is that you’ll just move the goal posts. It is a statement of faith that now the only REAL racism is reverse racism.
What is reverse racism? Is that something like overcompensating for one’s racism by doing something to make oneself appear to not be racist? Otherwise, it makes no sense.
@135 Snopes shoots down a lot of those quotes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
Perhaps if you put some thought into where you are getting your info from and did some critical thinking you might learn to spot bullshit.
@134 Hondo- In what world does “all elected Senators, Governors and Presidents” constitute “cherry picked” data? At best you can say that my numbers were incomplete. But so what? Even if you completed the numbers do you honestly believe that they will ever show it to be an advantage to be black and run for State-wide or national office? While I can’t bet you 10,000 dollars, I can bet you my vote (and I live in a swing state!) that the percentage of black’s winning state-wide office is less than half their demographics. In fact, I’ll go further and bet it’s less than 100 people total. That’s including all that you claim I left out- Lt. Governors, treasurers and Secretaries of State. If you find there to be more than 100, In State-Wide and National Offices, I’ll vote for Mitt Romney, if there’s less you’ll vote for Barack Obama. If elections are truly “affirmative action programs” as John Lilyea put it, this should be an easy win for you.
While I do, somewhat, respect your defense of a fellow blogger (and perhaps friend) your statement that I was looking for racism is false. I have not leveled that charge against everyone criticizing President Obama. I made it at poetrooper. I did not accuse him of racism for using the word “black hole” or miserly. I accused him because he called President Obama an “Affirmative Action” president. He used it as a pejorative to foster the notion that President Obama was only elected because of his color. It was absurd, it was false, it was racist. He was elected in spite of his color, not because of it.
It looked like Snopes was unable to verify three of them. But maybe you’ll believe your own lying ears and eyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-9myZDuMI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Eecj_tyEc
Insipid indeed. I’m still waiting, but not holding my breath. No, the “goal posts” of objective evidence don’t change. Your inability to give concrete examples to support your accusations – and then yourself shifting the goal posts with weasle-words like “reverse racism” – are consistent with the lack of intellectual curiosity and adherence to rigid dogma of the left. Please, support your arguments with facts, not bullshit dredged up off of that moron’s paradise called YouTube. Have a nice day, and try to think of something original. Ciao!
I gave you concrete examples. Calling Barack Obama “uppity” is racist. Saying that his programs are about “reparations” is also racist. I posted from youtube so that you could hear it with your own ears. The Snopes article, far from refuting his racism, actually substantiated much of it. So your argument is that “he’s only a little racist?”
I only mentioned “reverse racism” to ridicule the notion that it is nearly as prevalent as actual racism.
The “rigid dogma” and lack of intellectual cutiosity is characterized by those on the right not the left. The evidence i found is not original. Much of it has been around for years, but it is conclusive. Rush Limbaugh is a racist. I have given you undeniably racist statements and if you can’t accept reality, well, that is also a trademark of the modern day Right-wing.
Insipid I too could post a youtube video explaining how the source of many of the racist quotes stemmed from a Wikipedia page. These quotes were obviously the ones that Snopes pointed out that they couldn’t find the original source, just sources claiming that they were from Limbaugh without proof. All of your videos were edited, which makes them half truths. Personally I don’t listen to Rush, nor do I care to. My father does, and I dread having to endure listening to talk radio when I’m in his vehicle. However, you’re being an Ass. Snopes has no reason to lie for anyone, and in fact they strike down claims made about everyone regardless of political party. Calling Rush a racist when (from my internet searches today) he supports black men who share his political views is down right retarded. In fact he refutes/explains some of those very quotes, but hey don’t let facts get in the way of your rants.
insipid: Yes, you are cherry-picking your data. You are also being inconsistent in how you define the data you cherry-pick. The senior official running for office from a given party in a particular election is said to “head the ticket”. US Senators are elected every 6 years; the POTUS, every 4. Therefore, US Senators only “head a ticket” in their state every other time they run for office; the other half of the time, the party’s Presidential candidate heads the ticket. Similarly, Governors only “head the ticket” when they run in years when no US Senator is running and no Presidential election is held. If you want to consider the gubernatorial candidate as “head of ticket”, then that displaces those running for the US Senate from that role when a gubernatorial election is held at the same time. But it’s one or the other – not both. More properly, US Senators run for election to statewide office. The same is true of governors, as well as lieutenant governors in the 18 states where they do not run as the linked-at-the-hip same-party running mate of their party’s gubernatorial candidate. Ditto for elected Secretaries of State, elected Attorneys General, Public Service Commission members, and anyone else running on their own merit for any statewide public office. So your inclusion of governors and US Senators in your count, but excluding all others, is logically inconsistent if your intent is to focus on those “heading the ticket”. Sometimes they do – and often they don’t. Hell, in some odd-year state elections neither a US Senator nor a gubernatorial candidate is “heading the ticket”. That happens in any state that elects it’s governor in an odd year to a 4 year term, but also has 2-year terms for other state offices elected during those odd-year elections. Virginia is such a state. Regarding “cherry picking”: yes, you indeed are doing that. You are including elected Federal Senators as being “elected statewide”, but deliberately excluding all other categories of statewide elective office other than governors. You appear to be deliberately restricting your data to categories you know… Read more »
Sip, your Kaiser poll only left out one important note, who was sampled. There is no breakdown on who was sampled, how many dems, how many republicans, how many independents. It only says 1,239 people were sampled, and that the sample was “weighted to balance the sample demographics”, whatever that means. Does it mean the typical oversampling of dems?
But then, it’s not surprising that you would cite them, Kos, or the WaPo. What’s next, DU, Fire Dog Lake?
What is most entertaining, though, is your insistence that you’re always right, always balanced, and what you say is always true, because you’re a leftist. You need the help of a mental health professional, you’re delusional.
None sense. You find what your looking for because it’s all you know. What you call “racism” is an intellectual straight jacket designed to stifle dissent and deflect criticism. People like you are either the one in the jacket, or the the Nurse Ratcheds of the world handing them out to gullible True Believers. Mmmmmmm. Highly edited YouTube videos that lead with a conclusion don’t prove anything. YouTube is a great, howling wasteland of puerile obnoxiousness, not a credible source of information. Snopes? They hardly back your position. Sorry. Good Luck with that rigid, unyielding dogma!
Polling oversample weighed toward Dems, yet Choombama & Mittens are deadlocked at 47 to 47…
so white he makes “Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/10/picket-rep-emanuel-cleaver-condemns-racist-attack-/
That might be nothing more than a passing reference to baked goods by Liberal media types. Then again, it might be an actual example of an ad hominem attack based on Mitt Romney’s Caucasian ancestry. Some people would call that racist. I’d just call it rigidly dogmatic, mean spirited, and intellectually sterile.
Rik, you’re just having the typical whiny hissy-fit because I called you on your bullshit. Seven out of ten comments Snopes confirmed. It’s not me “looking” for racism that is the problem, it’s your ignoring it because it fits your political agenda. You willfully blind yourself to the obvious, no quote, will ever be good enough, no source will ever be good for you because you’ll only believe whatever fits your pre-ordained world-view.
Well, i’m tired of playing your game. Here’s media matters, yes, meida matters deal with it:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/10/13/limbaughs-colorblind-history-of-racially-charge/155659
I know it’s the bugaboo of the right, but it’s NOT because they take the right out of context, it’s because they are factual, accurate and they are completely in context, so you can’t deal with them.
Some of the low-lights from the article:
“[I]n Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.”
“Obama’s entire economic program is reparations.”
“NASCAR people understand that’s a little bit of a waste. They understand it’s a little bit of uppity-ism. First ladies have not been known to hop their own 757s four hours ahead of their husband when they’re both going to the same place.”
Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man.”
“Obama has disowned his white half … he’s decided he’s got to go all in on the black side.”
Spin it like a top, cry liberal media, but it’s all on tape. The man is a racist. Deal.
Repeating myself, you really do believe that the left is always spewing the truth, much like you. Delusional… Media Matters is “factual, accurate and they are completely in context”????? Maybe in that parallel universe that you inhabit, but not in the real world.
Seek help, it’s probably too late, but maybe you can be helped.
@143- The thing speaks for itself, there has been one black person elected Presdident and less than 10 elected Governor and Senators. It defies logic to argue that something that is so obviously a disadvantage in governatorial and Senate races would suddenly be an advantage in other State-wide races. Again, my bet is still on.
Your argument concerning Catholics would be interesting IF I were arguing that it is an advantage to be a Catholic running for President. As you pointed out, it is not. Nor have I ever argued that. THEY are arguing that it is an advantage to be black and seek higher office.
That’s what they are aruing when they say “Affirmative Action President”. They’re saying it is an advantage to be black and run for elected office. It is obvious from the most superficial glances that it is not. Besides President Obama there is one black Governor and not black senators. The case for elections being “affirmative action programs” is just not there.