As we near another Presidential election, it's time to resurrect some sage comments from the past...this one fron 2011, by a newspaper writer that, at the time, we all were aghast he had the onions to not only write it, but that the "Post" would publish it. Since it may not get another 'airing' in today's environment, allow me to bring it back from my files for your edification. For you conservatives, don't expect many comments from the toady folks on the left. They know this to be true, but with their heads in the sand, it can't be admitted.


I too have become disillusioned.

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
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 cliche
s, 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.