By Mychal Massie
October 14, 2008
There's bamboozle and there's bamboozled – and then there is Barry Sotero, aka Barack Hussein Obama, the quintessential bam-boo-zuh-ler. But that notwithstanding, all indications are that on Jan. 20 of 2009, America's first Kenyan-American will be sworn in as president. To which I say, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," i.e., "let them eat cake" – because there sure won't be anything else of substantive fulfillment for Americans to enjoy. Voters are buying into his repeatedly vacuous mantra of "change" – and change they are going to get – but, excluding socialists, communists and Marxists, not a change they are going to be happy with.
Liberals are gaga over Obama's promise of change. The problem is, not enough of them are asking "a change to what?" Keep in mind, my liberal friends, not so very long ago conservatives bought into the campaign phrase "compassionate conservatism" – and many of us have lived with the hollow echo of those words in our ears ever since.
Obamanites hate President Bush – so be it – many true conservatives are not thrilled with him either, myself included. Reasons abound: No Child left Behind, his failed Medicaid prescription plan, his "see you at the signing" quip from Softa, Bulgaria, his assurance that Harriet Miers trumped all other's for the high court, his commitment to illegals, his refusal to pardon and/or commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, and his repeated willingness to thumb his nose at his base, which includes taking our money to bail out and pension those who should be on their way to jail.
But, don't learn from us – allow yourselves to be blinded by hatred, anger and the hollow promise of "change," which as yet goes factually and cogently unexplained.
The last time America bought into a campaign pitch for "change," candidate Jimmy Carter claimed to be "[the] leader, for a change." He also claimed his administration would be "not just peanuts." He was right – it wasn't "just peanuts"; it was change America deeply regretted, it was a change to double-digit inflation, near double-digit unemployment, 20-plus percent interest rates, oil crises (two of them to be exact), directives to turn down our thermostats, a 70 percent personal income tax rate, a scalded-dog retreat from nuclear energy, hostages he was unable to free (even though he talked tough), long lines at the gas pump, a double-digit daily "misery-index" (an index never measured before his administration and not again since his administration ended), meaningless Middle East "accords" from Camp David, and the ushering in of the current age of terror, thanks to his betrayal of Shah Pahlavi of Iran. But with that said, many will forever remember evening news shots of Carter – his sweater on, thermostat turned down, reading a book – because, as the press loved to point out, in the absence of any semblance of leadership, Carter was a voracious reader – oh, and he was smart.
Let's see how close the parallels come between today's agent for change and the 1976 version. Both Carter and his current incarnation are hollow shells that the media have deified as brilliant. And, not unlike the current race, the incumbent at that time was hated with a visceral vengeance, as was his predecessor, who had resigned from office.
History has a curious way of repeating itself, and those who do not learn from it are doomed to repeat the travails of its past. Rumors surrounded Carter's record in Georgia, as did allegations of racial epithets directed at his opponent for the governorship of that state. Rumors persisted about his brother Billy and alliances he had formed. But, Carter did have his momma going for him, and he never failed to remind America just how good she had "treated the nigras." And again, he was a "voracious reader," which equates with Obama's ability to read from a teleprompter.
If the majority of voters want an empty shell who can read from a teleprompter, based on their visceral contempt for President Bush, so be it. If the voters are willing to cast their ballot for an ignominious human being with a chronicled history of communist and anarchist alliances – who is a consummate charade – I say let them have their wish.
America has survived colossal failures in the White House before – and, despite liberals and those pining for some nebulous quantum called change that is occupied by Peter and friends in Never-Never Land, we'll survive Obama.
After America's last dose of "change," we had Ronald Reagan remind us on his watch "it [was] morning in America." Perhaps after the impending dose of Obama, a President Palin can wash away the stain of same.