Washington Post writer speaks his mind...finally!

[JD Barleycorn]

This just came in from my uncle (Green Beret, Korean/Vietnam War veteran, Vietnam POW, father of a LColonel, so go fuck yourselves) and I pass it on to you..

>> WASHINGTON POST WRITER HITS OBAMA
>> Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal, timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by our liberal media.
>> ___________________________
>>
>> I too have become disillusioned.
>> 7/20/12 By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
>> Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of 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 the 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 a 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 liberal Dom 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 so 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 the mselves 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 none the less 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 Teleprompters 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.

I think he hits it right on the head.

[Dawgs]

Sorry, just checked on Snopes. Was never published by the post. Wish it was.

[JD Barleycorn]

Not a problem. This is not the Washington Post but a writer who has written for the Washington Post. Like it says in the byline.

[i'va biggen]

the disillusionment of JD allows him to hate while telling all others who disagree with him they are racists....

[Dawgs]

I haven't seen him call anyone a racist, where's that from?

[CJ7]

one of many chain emails JVD soaks in and passes on to like minded to reassure him all is well in la la land ...

[timpage]

Another bogus post from Barleycorn. Although, even if it were true (as the post implies) that this op-ed was published by the Washington Post (it wasn't) or if this Patterson clown worked for the Washington Post (he doesn't), so what? Proof that the Post is an outstanding paper that, unlike all the conservative rags you mullett-heads rely on for your propaganda, allows divergent viewpoints to be published in their paper? The NYT regularly publishes anti-Obama op-eds from various conservative wonks. Not Patterson, of course, because he is a whack (he works for the Washington Examiner, that bastion of credibility) and a complete partisan that nobody takes seriously except loony-tunes like Barleycorn, Whirlygig and the rest of the nuts on this board.

Now, tap-dance Barleycorn and parse the meaning of the title of the OP. You didn't really mean to imply that Patterson worked for the Post, did you? Or that this nonsensical op-ed that simply parrots the propaganda line that is being promulgated for the sheep like you by Rush and the rest of your conservative entertainment industry idols, was actually published in the Washington Post....did you?

BTW, here's what the Post had to say about this tool last year when this stupid shit first came up:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...YsnM_blog.html

Now, fuck off Barleycorn. Back to the shallow end of the pool.

[JD Barleycorn]

The title says it all; Washington Post WRITER hits Obama. Never said the Washington Post wrote this. It was a writer who writes for the Washington Post. That paragraph at the top is not mine. So don't lay that on me. You like a good flogging don't you dirty girl.

Doesn't even change the tone of the article. When the color barrier was broke in professional sports they didn't just grab some black player and sacrifice him. They found a great player who would advance the game. Too bad the democrats didn't do the same. Can you really imagine if the democrats had a good black candidate (they don't) who would love this country and do the right thing? The history books would be talking about him or her forever. Not this clown. Obama's performance could hinter black democrats for years.

[Old-T]

OOPS! That's 2 for 2 today.

Dirty Tricks, stretching the truth, or more suscintly, intentionally misleading (dare say we "LIE") by JD. The opening paragraph sure LOOKS like you are taking claim of it. And since the article points to the liberal nature of the Post and implies that "look, even the liberal rag is now anti Obama", I'm sure you intended no deception. Yep. Yea. Of course.

Now a show of hands: Who is surprised by this? Come now, at least ONE person must find this dubious honesty by the OP to be a surprise, no?

Oh, and for the author--no matter who he is--the answer why Obama got elected is truly simple: People were disgusted with the Cheney/Rove dictatorship, and not willing to have Clinton-2. It was in many ways a win by default.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Dawgs

I haven't seen him call anyone a racist, where's that from?

If you don't support Obama, you're a racist. Err'body knows that.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

This is beautifully said. Wish I'd have worded it this way.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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.

Couldn't be more true.

[CJ7]

~~~~~~~~~~ [[[[[[[[[[ Twilight Zone music playing inn the background ]]]]]]]]]] ~~~~~~~~

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Dawgs

I haven't seen him call anyone a racist, where's that from?

He wants to murder and rape all Muslims...not sure in what order though! LOL

WTF does that make him?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

If you don't support Obama, you're a racist. Err'body knows that.

No, when you're a racist, you're a racist.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

If you don't support Obama, you're a racist. Err'body knows that.



This is beautifully said. Wish I'd have worded it this way.




Couldn't be more true.

You trying to get JD to come to Houston? Lots of sucking up...

[IIFFOFRDB]

Thanks for posting it again MIKE. No truer words have ever been SPOKEN!

OH, thank you to...