Posted on 09/26/2010 6:07:45 PM PDT by SanFranDan
During the 2008 election campaign I coined the phrase “Obamorons” to describe the uncritical cheerleaders of Obama–the people who would leap to his defense even if he drove a truck over his aged grandmother. Love-stricken TV host Chris Matthews comes to mind, complete with thrills running up his leg, as does English major Maureen Dowd, lifestyle columnist for the New York Times. The Times itself is a leading Obamoron outlet.
Well, the Obamorons are now in a mad fury, and this time the culprit is my cover story in the September 27 issue of Forbes. The story is adapted from my new book The Roots of Obama’s Rage. Let me just say that if the Forbes article so upset these guys, wait until the book comes out. It may prove extremely difficult for the Obamorons to digest; perhaps it will have to be administered as a suppository.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
“But what do you expect from a Catholic University English major who specializes in little sarcasms devoid of mental content?”
Ouch!
The book hits the stores on Monday -— meaning tomorrow.
:)
“Finally we have a key that actually opens the lock. No, Obama is not a Muslim. No, Obama is not a socialist. The truth is far worse.”
D’Souza obviously isn’t backing down. Good for him.
I suppose D'souza still feels required to say this nonsense publicly - but in fact, Obama sees EVERYTHING through the marxist/race prism. Anti-Colonialism's main pillars are socialism and race. Obama's so-called autobiography was full of race-obsession. His Chicago Church and Rev. Wright's theories were based on race. And anyone remember just recently that incident with the Cambridge Police?
I read every word of D’Souza’s article. It was the best analysis of Obama’s thought processes I have ever seen. Added to which, he’s a great writer. He’s under attack right now, but my money is on him to come out on top. He’s brilliant, capable, articulate—and he’s got the truth on his side.
I suspect he is both of those and a '50s anticolonialist also. They all fit together and reinforce each other.
I agree, but I am a bit uncomfortable with this response by D’Souza. His anger and thin skin come through a bit too clearly. This, I feel, detracts from the book because it makes him sound shrill and petty — someone with an obvious ax go grind.
I wish he had toned it down a bit.
I think the blatant racism is incidental to the socialist anticolonialist islamicism. Actually a Moslem identity would easily encompass all the other.
Yes it is good Dinesh is not backing down, but he really has no choice, otherwise he would be saying about his book even before it hits the market “never mind.” Not a good way to make sales.
True. Dinesh hit a double torpedo hit on the ss obama.
Definite must read.
Then there’s always the “attachment disorder” psycho theory—which fits this headcase even better than the anti-colonial hypothesis.
“I agree, but I am a bit uncomfortable with this response by D’Souza. His anger and thin skin come through a bit too clearly.”
There’s always the danger that it will come across like this when you stand up for yourself.
But it’s about time some conservatives stood up and said what they thought instead of being so worried about offending the major media. Calling them Obamorons was a great way to return fire.
Well there are two schools of thought on that. One is as you described—a somewhat toned-down, yet still factual and rational response.
The other is that the Left has become so hateful and irrational, the only thing they understand is strength and overwhelming force. If D’Souza responded with anything but both barrels blazing, the Left would interpret it as weakness, and attack all the harder.
When he lets them have it in stark, unequivocal terms, he gives them pause for thought. It’s fun to poke the tiger until it whips around and sinks its teeth into the poker, so to speak.
It’s an open question which is the right approach. Right now, I’m leaning toward no holds barred. That’s how the Left has been playing for some time. Maybe it’s a good idea for somebody as articulate as D’Souza to give it right back. Time will tell.
That’s a good way to phrase it. D’Souza seems uniquely positioned to understand Obama, and the MSM is in full-on panic mode. If D’Souza succeeds in blowing the lid off the anti-American roots of the Obama mindset, the MSM stands to lose it all. They’ll fight frantically to prevent that, but the facts are all on D’Sousa’s side.
The cultural parallel to the Left is the "bully". Thanks to their supporters in the MSM, the Left has learned to play the "bully" against every challenger -- believing they can cow them into submission.
But there is one way to effectively deal with a "bully": Fight back. They aren't ready for that! And they will retreat like the cowards they are...as soon as they know you mean business.
Damn right! Hit back! Hard!!
In my estimation, we're fast reaching the same point in the Left vs Right struggle as the East vs West struggle in 1989. Once the decline began, there was nothing anybody could do to stop the collapse of the Soviet Union. It crumbled before our very eyes.
The anti-American Left may be the next to crumble...
Gibbs is, of course a buffoon, and so his ignorance must be tolerated in the same sense one tolerates a bad cold - it's there and there's nothing anyone can do about it. But for the rest of the liberal media establishment to react this way is curious indeed. It isn't as if anti-colonialism has gone out of fashion; it informs the U.S.-is-to-blame pieties of nearly every liberal press establishment in the country. It has, in fact, become so internalized that its adherents scarcely recognize what they are promoting except in the vague sense of feeling morally superior to their designated political opponents.
Anti-colonialism has an interesting intellectual history. Bastard son of Marx, embraced by Lenin, adopted by the Critical Theory modelers, twisted out of recognition by Orientalists such as Edward Said (himself a fascinating example of the postmodern overreach of literary theory). It was anti-colonialism covered by a veneer of racism that brought Mugabe his stranglehold in Zimbabwe and what shreds remain of his international standing. Hugo Chavez is a proponent. So was Che Guevara.
The degree to which 0bama is able to move on this canon of thought is questionable, and I await D'Souza's book to see what he has to say regarding it. But it is hardly surprising to see it informing 0bama's education - it would be remarkable if it hadn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.