The Patriot Post® · The Great Obama Debate: Part II

When we left off at the end of Part One, you may recall that I was suggesting that if Homer wouldn’t constantly ballyhoo Obama’s intelligence on his radio show, he might not have to constantly deal with listeners questioning his own.

He went on: “Remember how appalling it was when libs all insisted that Bush (despite good grades at both Yale and Harvard Business School) was a moron? Did they advance their cause with these attacks? And as to the "Obama wants to wreck the economy” line, how destructive and idiotic is that? Can you imagine the president going to sleep at night and just hoping that the next day he’ll wake up to see the unemployment rate soaring? Oh, great, that’s a sure way to get re-elected!“ (I don’t think FDR wanted to destroy the American economy, but he did want to radically transform the nation. Which he managed to do by putting more and more people on the government payroll, thus guaranteeing that large blocs of voters would become registered Democrats. I believe that Obama would like to be re-elected in 2012, but I take him at his word when he said that he would rather be a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Based on his first year in office, I would say that just as you and I have a different take on the word "brilliant,” Obama and I differ when it comes to the word “great.”)

“The only way to appeal to the American mainstream (which is incurably sane) is to show them why Obama is wrong, not claim that he is a dullard, or a devious kamikaze on a mission of destruction.” (Most sane Americans don’t have to listen to your show or read my articles to know what Obama’s mission is. Everything from his America-bashing speeches in foreign lands to cap and trade, to the redistribution of wealth, to Cash for Clunkers, to trillion dollar pork-laden spending sprees, to lying about transparency and keeping lobbyists out of the White House, to bashing Goldman Sachs out of one side of his mouth while inviting them into his administration from the other side, to using the NEA as his personal PR firm, tells people everything they need to know about the man.)

“The beginning of this stupidity, I’m afraid, was Limbaugh’s battle royal over ‘wanting Obama to fail.’ I know, I know – Rush just wants the agenda to fail, to avoid a socialistic takeover, and so forth. But try talking to normal Americans who aren’t kool aid (or tea) drinkers – the kind who decide elections. Anyone who says he wants to see the president fail at a time of crisis has marginalized himself and his cause. Rush misspoke. He should have acknowledged it and dropped the line. Instead, he doubled down, suggesting that Obama himself wants the economy to fail in order to achieve total power. This is the same paranoid nonsense (which Rush doesn’t even believe) that characterized those who predicted Clinton (or Bush) would impose martial law rather than relinquish the presidency.” (I’m not about to defend Rush. I don’t even listen to his show. For all I know, he may be on opposite you. It was the MSM that tried to make a big deal out of what Rush said, mainly by twisting his obvious meaning. What Rush said and meant is exactly what most normal Americans believe in their hearts, and that explains the election results in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.)

“Republicans are doing well right now for the simple reason that we’re not Democrats. Sooner or later, the public will start focusing on us and the alternative we offer. I hope and pray that when the time comes, we don’t look like lunatics who clearly aren’t ready for prime time.” (That’s always my hope. But at this time, anyone who stands up against Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Barney Frank, ACORN, the SEIU, the UAW, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones, is aces in my book. p.s. I hope you enjoy “Liberals: America’s Termites” if you ever find time to read it.)

In his follow-up, Homer wrote: “By the way, the fact that you claim ‘I’ve never heard anyone question his (Obama’s) intelligence’ is stunning. On my radio show, that is the most common call we get – and we only take a few of those frequent calls in order to keep the subject matter diverse. I’ve also gotten impassioned emails on the subject. My assistant could forward some of them to you. You could also talk to him about the sick obsession (yes it is sick, and very possibly racist) that some people have to deny the President is bright.” (Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I didn’t mean to suggest that I never heard anyone question Obama’s intelligence. I hear them on your show all the time. What I meant to convey is that I, myself, have never received a single email or had anyone say anything to me about his intelligence, even though I am constantly berating Obama. But I attribute that to the fact I never focus on his intelligence in my work. On the other hand, you often refer to his brilliance, and, so, people who believe that wisdom and common sense are major ingredients when it comes to intelligence wind up taking you to task.)

“Concerning his experience at the University of Chicago, you ought to know that it’s famous as a center of conservative thought – remember the late Alan Bloom, Saul Bellow, Leon Kass (who worked with Bush), and many others from the U of C faculty? I spoke with Richard Epstein, who’s a member of the faculty (and a very well-regarded conservative legal scholar, you can look him up) who expressed only the greatest respect for Obama and his work with students.” (I find it hard to believe that Obama would be your idea of a great teacher. I very much doubt that a left-wing ideologue would employ the Socratic method. I doubt that when he lectured about Saul Alinsky, he gave anything like a balanced or objective picture of the madman and his ideas to his young, impressionable students. Furthermore, while I don’t believe that Prof. Epstein ever sat in on any of his lectures, I have every confidence that if he bothered to ask the youngsters what they thought of Obama, they would have assured him that the O man was one very cool dude.)

“The idea that he was ‘only’ a lecturer – not professor – at one of the world’s best law schools is laughable.” (I don’t know why it would be laughable. For one thing, you’re the fellow who referred to him as a professor when you were trying to establish his intellectual credentials. For another, a great many screwballs lecture at a great many universities, and the tokenism that has become a large part of American academia could well have played a role in getting Obama his slot. I can’t claim to know what he knows or doesn’t know about the law, but if one judges by his former associates in Chicago and his present agenda in Washington, I can only assume that it is long on ideology and skimpy when it comes to wisdom and an appreciation of the Constitution. If I were running a university, I wouldn’t allow someone who has stated that the failing of the Constitution and the Civil Rights movement is that they didn’t deal with the redistribution of wealth to proselytize the student body. Speaking of which, inasmuch as he has made that socialistic ideal the centerpiece of his presidency, why do you think it’s wrong for people to call him a socialist? What else would you call someone who is dedicated to expanding the federal government into every facet of American life and using the power of the state to confiscate wealth from those who have it and giving it to those who want it?)

“Obama remained a ‘lecturer’ because he could only work there part time, while very understandably pursuing big money and (less understandably) big power through his day jobs.” (And, God help us all, he finally got one that was way above his pay scale. Regards, Burt)