Once again, another liberal ragazine is offering hate speech.
I am a New Yorker, but the “New Yorker” ragazine does not speak for me.
Their most recent cover shows Barack and Michelle Obama in a ridiculously unflattering light. Barack Obama is wearing a turban, and Michelle Obama is holding a machine gun. In the background is a picture of Osama Bin Laden, along with a burning American flag.
The picture is designed to play into the fears of those who see Obama as a closet Muslim who hates America. The unsophisticated reaction is to see this as an attack on the Obamas. This is not the case. The New Yorker is to ragazines what the Jayson Blair Times is to newspapers. It is an elitist liberal bucket of arrogance that only a John Kerry leftist could love. It is “sophisticated,” or as normal people would describe it, smug, arrogant, condescending…liberalism at it’s finest.
This cartoon cover is trying to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd. While the Obamas were right to criticize it, the real people who should be enraged by this cover are republicans. Anybody that votes for John McCain is doing so because they are ignorant, uninformed bigots.
The stage is already being set to demonize anybody that votes against Barack Obama.
Chris Matthews of Hardball has done everything but purchase Obama’s trips to the toilet on Ebay.
Here are some facts, devoid of emotion.
The democrats are the party of slavery and the KKK. They currently have a Klansman sitting in the Senate, as well as another man who drove over a bridge, left a woman to die, and is lionized by women because of abortion.
Most Dixiecrats did not become republicans. A precious few of them did.
Willie Horton was brought to the American people by Al Gore.
John F. Kennedy, considered a God by Black America, did nothing for them. He was happy to delay Civil Rights legislation in exchange for foreign policy concessions.
George W. Bush, despised by liberal blacks, has had more blacks in his cabinet than his phony predecessor.
Rudy Giuliani’s crime crackdown in New York City benfitted all people, including blacks.
Democrats have always talked about inclusion but trapped blacks in a culture of dependency that has decimated black America. Republicans are terrible at public relations. If they ever learn to stop being afraid of themselves, black America will love them.
The goal of the New Yorker, and liberals in general, is to paint all republicans as racist.
The choices are simple. Either vote for Obama, or be labeled a racist and an imbecile.
There are two things that need to immediately be accepted. If these facts are not accepted,, there is no reasonable dialogue.
The first absolute truth is that if Barack Obama gets elected President, racism will not have ended in America. Eliminating affirmative action outright, and declaring all of our ills solved will not…and should not…happen.
The second absolute truth is that if Barack Obama does not get elected President, this in no way means America is more racist than ever.
Liberals who claim that America will not elect a black man need to look in the mirror.
Yes, Barack Obama performed horribly in late primary states such as Kentucky and West Virginia. Yes, many of those voters confessed that they would even vote for Hillary Clinton over a black man.
Those voters are democrats.
Many people look at black republicans and call them Uncle Toms, and not “authentically” black. They throw Oreo cookies at them. They take people like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Clarence Thomas, and denigrate them.
These people are democrats.
Many people have taken black Americans and tried to murder them. These people overwhelmingly were democrats. Whether it be the redneck with the shotgun or the young gangbanger with a blade, it is not white collar investment banker republicans that are trying to kill black people for sport.
Republicans have made it clear that they will vote for a black conservative. Liberals say that these republicans are lying. The evidence suggests otherwise. It is democrats voting against their own nominee in late primaries.
The Clinton campaign engaged in disgusting race baiting, using the excuse that they were just toughening Obama up for the inevitable republican racial onslaught.
There is no republican racial onslaught. We will not be hoping for Obama’s death RFK style. That would be liberal Hillary.
We will not be accusing Obama of playing the race card. That would be Bubba Bill Clinton.
We will not be threatening to castrate Obama. That would be liberal Jesse Jackson.
We as republicans are the party of John McCain.
John McCain is one of the finest human beings to ever seek the White House in any era.
That is why people are looking at John McCain.
I did not say this about Bush Senior in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996, or even the Dub, who I absolutely love and proudly voted for twice. George W. Bush won me over after getting elected.
John McCain is a hero. He is one the greatest Americans alive today.
The reason why McCain is not coasting to victory, in addition to a tough GOP year, is that Obama is a tough opponent with fine qualities of his own. The reason why Obama is not coasting to victory in a big democratic year is because the same is said about John McCain.
Two good men are running for President. This is not about race.
Barack Obama is wrong on taxes, wrong on trade, wrong on oil drilling, and wrong on Iraq and the War on Terror. On every issue that matters, Obama is wrong.
In tough economic times, one does not raise taxes. This approach was tried by liberals in 1990, and agreed to by a republican President, who was fired two years later when those same liberals turned on him. There is nothing racial about a blue collar man wanting to keep more of his money.
Show me a serious black Presidential candidate that supports supply side economics and a hawkish foreign policy, and republicans will vote for that candidate en masse.
Obama wants to heal divisions with our allies, but is against free trade deals with nations such as Colombia that are resentful at American protectionists. He has thumbed his nose at South Korea, a long time ally.
American workers benefit from free trade. Protectionism and trade wars cripple everbody. This is not racial. It is economic.
Most importantly, there is not one serious republican intellectual or political operative that has any stomach for hitting Obama below the belt.
Whether it is the Republican National Committee, the Republican Governors Association, the Republican Jewish Coalition, or myself as the Tygrrrr Express, we despise racism.
We have no patience for any “B. Hussein Obama” rhetoric. It is deplorable.
We know that Obama is not a Muslim. He has said that he is a Christian, and that is the end of the subject. As for Americans that do not know the truth, I would love to find out whether these uninformed people are liberal democrats or even more liberal democrats. We know that they are not republicans because that would be the page one story in the Jayson Blair Times. The breakdowns are being suppressed. We know the questions are being asked. Polling is sophisticated.
Barack Obama is a good, decent man whose personal story is an inspiration. He grew up without a father, and for most of his life, without a mother as well.
Therefore, when he talks about personal responsibility, he is cognizant of how black America is bleeding. Yet if a white American said those words, it would be considered racism. After all, white America cannot speak about such things.
To paraphrase Barack Obama, yes we can. Yes we can, and yes we should.
We support John McCain because winning the War on Terror and lowering taxes helps all Americans.
We disagree with Barack Obama not because his skin color is different. We disagree with him because his policy prescriptions are the same as George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
Barack Obama is a good husband, a good father, and an overall good human being. He is also a liberal. As a conservative, I say this disqualifies him to be President.
The New Yorker wants to exacerbate tensions. Republicans must not back down.
After John McCain gets elected, there should be a role for Barack Obama. If he truly is committed to faith based initiatives, he and Mike Huckabee can help religious outreach together, in the same way that former Presidents Bush and Clinton came together for Tsunami relief.
Republicans want no part of the racial gutters. We want lower taxes and dead terrorists, and will vote for the candidate that provides this.
The democrats cannot win on substance. The only thing they can do is spread bile and hatred.
What Jesse Jackson and the New Yorker did to Obama is one version of black on black crime. Those tactic are beneath the dignity of Barack Obama, and those who disagree with him.
Barack Obama himself said, “If I lose this election, it will not be because of race. It will be because I failed to convince the American public that my ideas were right.”
It may also be because John McCain is beyond worthy.
Democrats keep justifying racism under the guise that republicans will do it anyway. Republicans need to stop cowering and attack democrats who spread racism.
Republicans are not interested in spreading racism. We want to spread liberty, freedom, and democracy.
Others may disagree about these issues, but they are actual issues.
There is no room for poison and hatred, be it the KKK, Jesse Jackson, or the New Yorker.
I condemn below the belt attacks on Obama’s patriotism and religion, and enthusiastically support John McCain based on his life and his policies. I represent mainstream political republicanism.
Barack Obama and John McCain are both good men. John McCain is the better man at this time in history for this particular job. He should win for that reason alone.
eric
I think this whole thing backfired on The New Yorker.
Good for them.
In their attempt to bring attention to the ridiculous claims about Obamas patriotism that come from the right they forgot that most people will just look at cover and take from that what they will.
Oh God, you guys have to be kidding! You don’t like the New Yorker either! Jesus H Montechristo! What do you guys read?
I mean, look, I don’t just read The Nation, for example. If I did, I’d go insane. I subscribe to Sciam, Discover, and all sorts of other apolitcal stuff. I’ve subscribed to the NY’er in the past, and Atlantic Monthly – and the National Review (sorry, but it ain’t what it was anymore), the best conservative periodical probably ever. If I had the money, I’d get the CSM too.
Don’t you guys take in any culture outside your immediate interests? Does it all have to be politically bent your way if bent at all? Did it ever occur to you that you see all things in the political and miss out on the sociological, scientific, cultural stuff? I know you like sports and music, and that’s great – so do I. But to bash the NY’er, I’m sorry, is just plain low-brow.
If you guys read more stuff like the NY’er, you’d know that they didn’t make that cover to “play into the fears of those who see Obama as a closet Muslim who hates America.” They did it to GOOF on those people. And to goof on people silly enough to fall for the whole democrat/republican passion play in the first place.
And to prove my point – Today’s democrats and republicans are not yesterdays. This is 2008, not 1964. You’re assertion that somehow things remain the same, Eric, is completely out of place and time. Silly nonsense. The New Yorker is a classy, smart magazine. The jokes on anyone who doesn’t get it. If you think todays GOP is tyhe same as 40 years ago, then you have some high piles of political history books to read.
Conservatives will never win over erudite liberals until they are as erudite as them. No insult intended. There’s nothing wrong with not being erudite. I’m not very erudite myself. But I don’t hate people for being erudite. I try to understand them all.
JMJ
“They did it to GOOF on those people. ”
And it backfired.
Erudite ?
Yea, I could read Newsweek also but why ?
Why would I want to give my money to any establishment that goes against my political beliefs ?
Theres plenty of learning to be done without being subjected to political activism in the form of journalism
It might have backfired. We shall see.
To answer your questions in order…
Yes.
I wouldn’t put Newsweek in the “erudite” catagory – try again.
If you want information then weigh the CBA and decide for yourself.
(Your last comment proves my point)
Don’t you guys read anything other than rightwing bs and sports and music???
JMJ
I read a wide range of things, and I have never like the New Yorker. It doesn’t mean I am not erudite. I’m not, but that in and of itself is not an indicator of it.
Now, I need to get back to my NRA monthly and check out the home run derby I tivo’d last night.
I miss Omni. That was good reading.
“It might have backfired. We shall see.”
It already backfired.
People are all lit up without realizing the real context and intent of the point.
JMJ;
“(Your last comment proves my point)’
What ? The one over on the other thread where I blasted you with my own research proving I am much more learned on a subject than you are without having to read The New Yorker ?
I love it when liberals try to act all educated and snotty by using extinct words such as “erudite” which simply means “informed” or “learned”.
And then try to act as if it has some special meaning other than the simplest of meanings that its truly associated with.
lets get one thing straight.
And this applies to all liberals.
Knock it off !
You actually look dumb as opposed to trying to project this educated appearance when you claim that people are somehow less informed or educated than you just because we choose different forms of info.
And in a personal application to jersey I have to say that you make me laugh my ass off when you get this way because for the last year you are the one who has become famous for not relying on any educated material to prove your points, but rather you have relied on emotion and the hope that others will take your word for it based on some false premise that we are all supposed to trust you.
And get another thing straight.
We all have computers and so the amount of resources available to make an arguement is endless.
Its silly to think that anyone who dissagrees or makes an opposing arguement is somehow less learned, unless of course he thinks his opinion is far more viable in proving or making any case.
And yea, timbudd, I do miss OMNI.
And Jersey. I had no idea that there was such a thing as right wing music and sports
:-)
Wow – great article and a reminder for those who still think that the Democratic party is the party for minorities. We know that it’s always been the party for keeping minorities victims. At any rate, what a laugh I got from JMJ’s response!!!
“Conservatives will never win over erudite liberals until they are as erudite as them. No insult intended. There’s nothing wrong with not being erudite. I’m not very erudite myself. But I don’t hate people for being erudite. I try to understand them all.”
Obviously, that smugness we find so repugnant in most Liberals is born of a deep sense of inferiority. In JMJ’s case, he at least recognizes it as he fumbles to emulate the worst in society.
Nice try at the ol’ bait n’ switch, Faultlineusa. You just proved my point again. That was about the most adolscent attempt at reverse psycology I’ve ever read. Let me know when you get out of high school and then maybe we can debate like adults.
JMJ
What point would that be ?
Faultlines blog defintly provides reading material that should be the envy of all you “erudite” folks out there.
“Should” being the key word. Of course we realize that the smugness of the left would never allow that to happen
Form over substance has always been the trademark of libs.
God forbid I ever make a grammatical or spelling error on a lib blog.
It quickly turns into a question of ones intelligence.
And when the libs own grammatical or spelling errors are pointed out they quickly claim it to acceptable due to artistic license and part of their on line persona.
Seriously, its funny.
You guys really need to get over yourselves.
I doubt it “backfired.” Let’s be honest hear I bet this will be one of their best selling issues ever. XM channel POTUS reporter Rebecca Roberts (daughter to Cokie and Steve) accurately referred to the New Yorker as one of these magazines “admired by many but read by few.” All this controversy will bring them attention and more readers.
My reaction to this whole thing is what has happened to our sense of humor. Yes this was intended to be a swipe at Republicans but it was meant to be humorous. This is another case of people being offended way to easily (on both sides). To quote Shakespeare “Much Ado About Nothing.”