Is Obama an "Affirmative Action President?"
usamamasan1
Posts: 4,695
Just read a very interesting article by Matt Patterson (columnist for the Washington Post, New York Post and San Francisco Examiner). Thought I would share with this community to get your thoughts. For the record, I think affirmative action is wrong and adds to discrimination by not giving qualified people what they have earned on their own merit.
August 18, 2011
Obama: The Affirmative Action President
By Matt Patterson
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events
Update:
Author's Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons:
1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why?
2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:
"'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"
3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance? To me it all adds up to affirmative action.
August 18, 2011
Obama: The Affirmative Action President
By Matt Patterson
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events
Update:
Author's Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons:
1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why?
2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:
"'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"
3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance? To me it all adds up to affirmative action.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
He's President now and that won't change. Even if the premise is true (not saying it is by any means) how is it different than someone getting elected because of their name? Or someone elected because they were X's vice president?
no.
is he the "white guilt" president?
no.
was he the better option than the mccain/palin ticket?
absolutely.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
unfortunately we can't revise history.
i'll do ya one better.
in hindsight, should any president since fdr actually have gotten their party's nomination? i can make a case for no.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'd say there were FAR more votes against him because he's black. The McCain/Palin ticket was so reprehensible, that it's shameful that they got as many votes as they did. Should have been a landslide for Obama/Biden.
I think there were FAR more votes against him because he was a democrat. I can't imagine a large demographic of people that voted for McCain that would have voted for a white democratic.
i think one could point to affirmative action programs and say that without them we may not have seen an African American president.
I think people could make their own judgments of the man and I for one am glad that people got past all of the silly things that still keep a candidate out of the running like past drug use, past associations, and even the color of one's skin. things that happen 20-30 years prior to running are the past. They don't always have to tell us about the future. Jesus, i look at what I was doing and saying 20 years ago and think who was that guy...even 10 years ago...people change...past associations are just that...He certainly isn't my cup of tea but I can see why people support(ed) him and I don't think it had to do with race.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Actually, W earned a MBA from Harvard. Flew fighter jets for the Air Force. Won the Presidency of the United States, then won it again.
If he wanted to be as big of a loser as you say, he could have just been a teacher... they don't do shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU
How does one's Dad pay for them to fly fighter jets for the AF?
Sounds like a bitter "professor" to me.
Thanks for posting.
Thank you, teachers!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
WOW!!! this guy nailed it in my opinion...but I don't feel any better about myself..I didn't vote for him.
Godfather.
I also think that a huge part of his election was a direct result of the color of his skin and nothing to do with his ability to do the job.
Godfather.
Ha, is that right?
Perhaps another huge part of his election is that McCain couldn't even run a campaign and picked a running mate with an IQ of 12. That or Obama is black.
A huge part of the election had to do with the economy. Prior to October, 2008, McCain and Obama were pretty much neck and neck, much like G.W. and the previous two elections. Obama's numbers jumped when the economy went down the serious pooper about 4 weeks before the election. This wasn't about race, but about Obama coming across as more effective and confident with how to deal with the economy and McCain's poor brain functioning being exposed.
"Hey! Teachers!! Leave those kids alone!"
and why you have to denigrate teachers in this thread is beyond me. but hey, whatever floats your boat...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The answer to your W question is NO. Dan Rather had that one wrong. And got canned.
Further, you certainly did not address any of my points like how he paid 100k (yes 100k) for his stake in the Rangers and turned it into a Presidency. How he fleeced the City of Arlington and simultaneously got people to love him. How his ineptitude as a President was so plainly obvious that even 9/11 couldn't help him in the end. How he and his predecessors reduction in state funding directly led to the death of thousands in New Orleans. We don't even have to get into the illegal war mongering and no-contract sales to his friend's companies do we? At this point it is hard to process how anyone could still like him and claim that Obama was an "affirmative action" President and be taken seriously.
On top of that each one of your responses to my posts seems more like an attempt to start an argument based on right vs. left-wing talking points ("bitter professor", "affirmative action", and so on), rather than a reasoned discussion about the article presented, the poor points it made, and a connection to the posts made about it. So let me try again. You could find and replace every Obama in this article with George W., and replace black with white and that's what makes this article stupid. It's lazy, uniformed, garbage. There's plenty to pick on Obama about (selling out to corporations, lobbyists, etc.) without breaking it down into something so crass and ignorant.
Um, no. Living below sea level and a very large hurricane directly led to the death of thousands in New Orleans.