Thursday, November 04, 2010

Thought it was because of his middle name?

Ronaldus Magnus used to say, "There you go again, Sam" when responding to another stupid question put forth by the always pesky and mostly irritating Sam Donaldson of ABC News.

I'm tempted to invoke RWR here in responding to Eugene Robinson's idiotic op-ed in today's Wash Post.

I am not a member of the Tea Party, and don't purport to speak for the movement. But unlike Mr. Robinson, I seem to have a better grasp of the obvious. So, to help this misguided MSM-er, provided here are simple answers to the questions he poses.

Why is the Tea Party upset?
Maybe they don't like left-handed smokers? (OK, just kidding). To paraphrase James Carville: "it's the ideology, stupid."

I ask myself what's so different about Obama, and the answer is pretty obvious: He's black.
Well, technically he's only half-black; as he points out in this piece, Barry's on-food-stamps mother was white. But those like Mr. Robinson are the ones who keep score of such things. Besides, what color are Nancy (green with sparkly red shoes), Barney (rainbow), Harry (milquetoast) and Uncle Joe (does Botox have a color)?

Take it back from whom? Maybe he (Rand Paul) thinks it goes without saying, because he didn't say.
Maybe context of Paul's speech would useful to study. Tea Partiers want to take back the government from liberals, whatever the color of their stripes.

I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all this Tea Party ire?
The better question is what is it about the Tea Party that provokes and sustains MSM misinterpretation and disdain? Critics such as Mr. Robinson -- not the Tea Party -- are the ones who have to get over skin color. Pigment fixation is on the Critics side of the argument and thus they'll see it everywhere they look. Why is it so hard for the MSM to understand that?

What makes some people feel more disenfranchised now than they were, say, during the presidency of George W. Bush?
For starters: how about doubling the amount of National Debt in 18 months that occurred under W in 8 years.

Bush was vilified by critics while he was in office but not with the suggestion that somehow the government had been seized or usurped.
Really!?! What planet was Mr. Robinson living on from December 2000 until Jan. 2009? Ever hear of a "hanging chad"? Ever read historical references to the Supreme Court decision "... that 'gave' the election to GWB....." Ever hear of Dan Rather and the Air National Guard personnel files? (We can't even read Barry's writings or see grades from his Harvard Law Review editor days.) Ever see the Comedy Central's series, "That's My Bush!" or the cartoon series "Lil' Bush"? Did he ever hear of the movie, "Recount"? Didn't he ever hear Algore introduce himself as "once the next president of the United States"?

Naw, GWB was never "pursued by a lavishly funded effort that tried its best to delegitimize his presidency."

But why would this concern about oppressive, intrusive government become so acute now?
How about for the 300 million of us who presently have healthcare plans now facing the prospects government mandates, insurer-of-choice uncertainty and indisputably higher costs? How about czars telling us how much salary is too much to make? How about meddling in everyday life from the trans fat in our foods to the light bulbs we use?

If the truth be told, it's probably because GWB went to Yale and BHO went to Harvard. (So did W for his MBA, but we're talking football here).

Critics like Mr. Robinson will continue to underestimate (and lose to) the Tea Party if they refuse to see it's not about race. They should remember: The first of the 12 Steps is to admit you have a problem.