Aug 07 2008

Barry The “Cable Guy”

Published by at 8:11 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

Watch out America, we have a Democrat Elitist trying to reach out and ‘connect’. And it is an ironically hilarious attempt. We now have the new image of why we should support Obama because he is, underneath his Harvard Degree and Gaffe-prone fluid prose, just “Larry The Cable Guy“:

The Obama model is really quite simple…Barack Obama is the Cable Guy. Whatever it takes to “get ‘er done” he’s going to do. What Obama is not is an ideologue. In fact Barack Obama may well be the least ideological presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower. Obama plays the cards he is dealt. Like any good gambler knows, when the cards change you adjust or you lose. Barack Obama is proving to be a very good gambler.

Being a Southerner and country loving boy I love to watch city-slicked elites try and ‘connect’. There is a lot of Larry the Cable Guy in Obama. Like the mythical Larry, Obama thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread and can save the world. The fact they are uneducated/inexperienced and incompetent characters never impedes either of them from giving out words of silly wisdom to everyone around. A few Obama like examples from Larry:

1. A day without sunshine is like night.
2. On the other hand, you have different fingers.
3. 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
4. 99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.
5. Remember, half the people you know are below average.
6. He who laughs last thinks slowest.

Obama has had many of his own:

1. “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
2. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
3. Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

They both have inflated egos built upon very little foundation and achievement. I am sure both would buy into the Obama Tire Inflation Energy Plan! Personally, I would pick Larry over Barry at the moment. He seems more geniune.

31 responses so far

31 Responses to “Barry The “Cable Guy””

  1. Terrye says:

    BTW, I read that information at Ann Althouse and she got it from a story done in the NYT or somewhere recently. It was just background stuff. Go look it up, it was a couple of days back.

  2. Terrye says:

    Here is one link to information about Obama and the Harvard Law Review.

  3. BarbaraS says:

    Barry got his position there because he was black. He was an affirmative action beneficiary.

    I don’t think so. I think he got that position because of influence from some prominent families. I think he was being groomed to be a presidential candidate. The pattern is clear. He was editor of Harvard Law Revue but never submitted a paper. He was state senator in Illinois for eight years but for the first seven when republicans controlled the state senate he accomplished nothing and no one ever heard of him. The last year when dems controlled the state senate he got credit for numerous bills that he never worked on. He took credit for others’ hard work cavalierly. His people used egregious underhanded Chicago politics to eliminate his opponents for his first run for state senator and later for senator from Illinois. He was chairman of foundations but never made any large decisions. He was a figurehead all through law school and on into political life. He never accomplished a thing on his own. He is a sleeper backed by powerful comunists like the Ayers family. He is a muslim who never refuted islam and its nefarious workings. He spent 20 years in Wright’s church because Wright preached the ideas Obama believed in. He has jettisoned everyone from his past hoping the electorate will forget them. He has walked through life with all these gifts handed to him on a silver platter. He is a narcissistic idiot with no background for the job to which he is aspiring. Heaven help us if this muslim/marxist/taliqueh practicing empty headed naif becomes president.

    We should all look at Venzuela and take a lesson from them. They elected a socialist who is turning the whole country into socialism. Who would have thought a country could change so because of one man.

    If Obama wins and has a dem congress there is no limit as to the laws they can pass. We will be royally screwed. This will happen because the public is so dumb and uneducated because of the dems’ educational practices and I don’t see any cure for it. The public is more interested in Paris Hilton and Britney Spears lack of panties than in the workings of the government. But that fact will not stop them for voting about something they know nothing about and they will be ignorant of the harm that they do..

  4. VinceP1974 says:

    Here’s info on Barry being a charity case when he was selected for the Review.

    So Breschau asshole.. I expect a retraction that I’m a racist.. that is if you care about your reputation.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/05/obama-mythical.html

    [just copying the middle section of a larger article]

    To begin with, the NY Times 1990 article on Obama being elected President of the Harvard Law Review casts the first troubling clues that all is not what it appears to be.

    “Until the 1970′s the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

    That system came under attack in the 1970′s and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.”

    There is the Achilles heel. The former high standards which all previous Presidents of the Harvard Law Review had been forced to meet – grades, papers, etc.- no longer existed by the time Obama was elected. Instead, the post was selected on something different than grades, papers, etc. It was selected on race. Obama was the ‘right’ race. He was black. Now of course, that doesn’t mean Obama did NOT have intelligence – but what it makes clear is that by the time he was elected, Presidency of the Review no longer proved he DID. Indeed, at the very moment of his election, the proof of his intelligence was so missing that his predecessor at the job refused to confirm it. Of course, the predecessor trode very cautiously and carefully in his statement issued after Obama had just been elected – but the meaning was clear.:

    “Mr. Obama succeeds Peter Yu, a first-generation Chinese-American, as president of The Law Review. After graduation, Mr. Yu plans to serve as a clerk for Chief Judge Patricia Wald on the of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

    Mr. Yu said Mr. Obama’s election ”was a choice on the merits, but others may read something into it.”

    Mr. Yu’s words are ominous – ‘others may read something into it.” Clearly, Mr. Yu clearly can’t say he’s one of those ‘others’ recognizing ‘merits’ to instead mean ‘race’. After all, Yu sees which way the PC winds are blowing and he certainly doesn’t want them howling in his face by saying Obama got his post for something other than his intelligence. At the same time, however, Yu’s unease at the choice of Obama is telling for what Yu does not say, as for what he does. For instance, Yu does not cite Obama’s grades nor does Yu cite Obama’s legal writings. Yu says nothing about them at all – and the silence is deafening.

    Reading the NY Times further reveals other telltale signs that Obama did not possess the intelligence for that position. As with Mr. Yu’s painfully parsed statement, the signs are noticeable more for what they do not say, than for what they do.

    We begin with a brief explanation of the legal world Obama claims to belong to by reason of his intelligence. That world is defined by 3 inescapable proofs of such intelligence. They are: (1) high grades, (2) prestigious organizations (i.e, the Law Review) and (3) clerkship with a judge.

    We will begin with the first and most obvious sign of intelligence – grades.

    Obama doesn’t have them. Oh, he’s given the aura of possessing them – but when one looks closely at that aura, it disappears like smoke before your eyes. For instance, not once has anyone, ever, at any time, produced those grades. In no publication, either Obama’s or anyone else’s, has any cite been made of that average – was it a 4.0? (Straight A’s?) Was it even higher – 4.3? (A+) (And today’s high school seniors are graduating with 5.0.) Okay, how about a 3.9 or 3.8? No. The answer is none. Never. At no time have Obama’s grades ever been cited. And that is damning. Because as any person who’s ever graduated from elementary, high school or college will tell you, their grade point average is so close to their identity as to be the identity itself. Therefore – for that ‘identity’ to be invisible as is the case with Obama, is quite revealing. In plain words, if someone doesn’t mention a high grade point average, it’s for only one reason – there isn’t a high grade point average.

    (2) prestigious organizations

    Yes, Obama was elected President of the law review. But, as I’ve already cited, this election came when the qualifications of high grades had been eliminated. Therefore one has to look at the other reasons for that election – which necessitates looking at how Obama was elected.

    As the NY Times article cites, “Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review’s 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.” In other words, 80 people got together and in a wearying all night session in which fists were banged on the tables and the air was loud with ‘we have to get a BLACK in this position, it’s 1990, for crissakes and we haven’t got one” – the weary people in the early morning hours, exhausted, worn out and unable, unwilling to fight any longer simply chose the only candidate they could think of to be President of the Review. Obama.

    And if you think I’m laboring too much on the PC reasons for Obama’s election, the NY Times itself describes the vicious political background against which Obama was elected.

    “…Mr. Obama was the most prominent minority student on a campus shaken by racial politics. A group agitating for greater faculty diversity occupied the dean’s office and sued the school for discrimination; Derrick Bell, a black law professor, resigned over the issue.

    The law review struggled to decide whether affirmative action should factor into the selection of editors, and how much voice to give to critical race theorists, who argued that the legal system was inherently biased against minorities.”

    Well, it is clear the committee choosing the President of the Review did ‘factor in’ affirmative action. And it is just as clear they didn’t factor in his grades. Nor did they cite his papers written. In fact, there was not a mention of either. Instead, the committee abandoned them altogether and went to something completely unrelated – politics. In citing Obama’s qualifications, they pointed out that he had worked the political wards in Chicago before he came to Harvard. You may well ask – what does this have to do with grades or legal acumen? The answer is – nothing. And the answer gets even more troubling when one then realizes that after Obama was elected to President of the Law Review, he wrote no papers. That’s totally unheard of. Writing no papers for the Law Review is like taking a class in gymnastics without even putting on your leotards to work out. The whole reason for existence of the Review is to write a paper. And yet the very President of it writes none.

    (3) clerkship with a judge

    This is a shocking failure of Obama’s that he did not clerk with a judge after graduation. The fact that it is a shocking failure is evidenced by the embarrassed committee admitting it up front so as to beat others to it.:

    “The president of the law review usually goes on to serve as a clerk for a judge on the Federal Court of Appeals for a year, and then as a clerk for an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama said he planned to spend two or three years in private law practice and then return to Chicago to re-enter community work, either in politics or in local organizing.”

    “..usually goes on to serve as a clerk”. This polite sentence means ALL Harvard Law Review presidents serve for judges after graduation. Even Obama’s predecessor, Mr. Yu, did that. Indeed, Yu cited his clerkship with a judge so fast you almost thought it was part of his name. And in a sense, it is. There’s a reason why ALL graduates who clerk with a judge trumpet their clerkships instantly in your face. Clerking with a judge is the sign of a law graduate’s intelligence. Bar none. That’s why it’s on their resumes, why it’s the first thing they talk about in conversation “ah, yes, when I clerked with Judge so and so,” etc. It is so prestigious it’s the first thing other attorneys cite when they discuss that particular person – ‘Ah yes, HE clerked with Judge so and so”, etc. In short, clerkship is the shining golden symbol that this attorney is smart. Why? Because judges do not pick stupid people. Why not? Because the clerks oversee the papers for the judge, help write them, do the bulk of research for them, etc. The judge then stands on that work in reaching his decisions, rendering his judgment. Thus, if the work produced by that clerk is faulty – which it will be if the clerk is stupid – than the judge pays for it with his own career, his own reputation. And of course, no judge will do that. Which is why no judge will hire a stupid clerk.

    Which thus brings us to the unstated but painfully obvious sign of Obama’s lack of intelligence. Despite holding the staggering position of the Harvard Law Review – NO judge, not one, not a single one, offered a clerkship to Obama. It wasn’t because Obama wasn’t free for the asking. As he made clear in his statement upon accepting the position of President of the Review, Obama eagerly made his availability known by declaring that he would be practicing law for ‘two or three’ years after leaving Harvard. I.e., he was open for the clerk’s position. Except – no judge gave it to him. None.

    And Obama painfully admitted he knew this would happen. While other graduates went on to clerkships with judges, the Court of Appeals, even the Supreme Court, etc. or even to prestigious top flight law firms which take only the best of the best, Obama admitted he was not in line for any of that. He would be going for something else. The same ‘something’ which had landed him the title of President of the Harvard Law Review – but not the benefits of such. Once the glitter and glisten of that title had worn off, the bare reality beneath was that Obama was nothing a politically glib individual able to talk well in abstract – but not produce in concrete. And the judges had recognized that fact by refusing to give him a clerkship. The brutally competitive law firms had also recognized that by not giving him a position at their firms. Therefore, there was only one venue open to him – politics. As the NY Times put it, Obama would be returning to Chicago to “re-enter community work, either in politics or in local organizing.”

    Such then is the smoke and mirrors of Obama’s vaunted ‘intelligence’. To this day, he has blown that smoke skillfully in the faces of the liberals to lull them into not asking questions – much the same way the ancient Kings of France blew smoke into the faces of their hunting birds to quieten and lull them into inaction. The terrible problem is that modern bloody birds of prey like Ahmadinijad, Chavez and the Taliban, etc. are not lulled by smoke. To the contrary, these terrorists have mastered the art of blowing their own smoke into the world’s face to lull it into submission and inaction. Such years of mastery means these terrorists will make short shrift of the untested Junior senator from Illinois’s huffing and puffing. Obama’s smoke will be blown back instantly into his face by the hot breath of their hate and insane contempt for human life.

    Which will leave Obama with only his intelligence to defend him – and us. Unfortunately, as the above arguments sadly prove, Obama’s intelligence itself appears to be smoke. Thus leaving us with a potential Commander in Chief able to defend this country with — what?

    For this country’s safety, we must pierce the smoke of Obama’s ‘intelligence’ at the earliest possible moment. If Obama’s smoke of obfuscation obscures long enough to gain him the White House, that fatal smoke could be blown away only to reveal a greater smoke rising from the ruins of America – a deadly smoke which next time will surely dwarf the ghostly clouds which broiled up from the burning buildings and planes on 9/11.

  5. ivehadit says:

    Great work, Vince! and great posts here.

    Like I said, Bresch is gonna be sorry if he continues to back this o. He is NOT who he thinks he is. Book it.

    NObama. Now or ever.

  6. VinceP1974 says:

    it’s funny how uninformed the leftists are on so many things

    and the more ignorant they are… the more likely they are to lash out at people who are not ignorant by demonzing them.

    The Left is so hostile to anyone finding out the truth about them that they let nothing stop them in their attempts to silence it.

    Look at the language that idiot used against me… he knew nothing about Obama.. and I did.. and yet he acts as if he knows his shit.

    he’s a moral idiot

  7. breschau says:

    Vince:

    You have no idea how much it grates me that I’m actually responding to you now. But, you did just post a couple thousand words up there (by far the longest post I’ve ever seen from you) so I feel I have to.

    And no, I don’t apologize for a damn thing.

    First off, thanks for finally agreeing to be my “fucking personal research assistant” (your words). I find it interesting that you didn’t bother to look anything up until after I accused you of being a racist. Defensive much?

    Second, let’s remember that my issue was with you saying that Obama became President of the Harvard Law Review “because he was black”. So, let’s go to your money quote:

    “That system came under attack in the 1970’s and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.”

    There is the Achilles heel. The former high standards which all previous Presidents of the Harvard Law Review had been forced to meet – grades, papers, etc.- no longer existed by the time Obama was elected. Instead, the post was selected on something different than grades, papers, etc. It was selected on race.

    Try reading that again, and let’s focus on facts. The *fact* is that the Presidency was “chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition”. No mention of race there, or affirmative action, or anything else. Nominees wrote an essay, students voted on it, winner takes all.

    The phrase “it was selected on race” is an *OPINION*, thrown in by noted wingnut crazy-person Pam Atlas. This is the same Pam Atlas who was sure that Rachael Ray was a terrorist sympathizer because of a scarf she wore in a Dunkin Donuts commercial. *That* is who you want to base your learned opinion on? Really?

    I don’t care about what he didn’t write in the Harvard Law Review. He was an editor, not an author. His job description never included writing.

    I don’t care if he didn’t follow the usual career path after graduating. Oh no, he actually tried to help out poor people by becoming active in Chicago — well, let’s string him up now.

    I care about your accusation that Obama became the President of the Harvard Law Review simply because “he was black”, and for no other reason – for which you have provided no actual evidence, just opinion from a far-right wingnut website. Keep trying kid.

    And yes – you’re still a racist dickbag, but now I can increase that to “ignorant racist dickbag”. Congrats.

    Oh, and Terrye: if you have a link where “the folks at the Harvard Review said themselves that Barack got the job because he was black”, please provide it. Because the one you did provide doesn’t even mention it. (And please don’t take the intellectually lazy and dishonest tack of asking me to “prove” something that doesn’t exist. I’m assuming anyone reading this blog with an IQ over 90 can see why that’s sleazy.)

  8. VinceP1974 says:

    > I find it interesting that you didn’t bother to look anything up until after I accused you of being a racist. Defensive much?

    Uh hello.. everything i said originally could be found in the thing i quoted… that is becuase, obviously, i had read it long before this day ever came.

    >The phrase “it was selected on race” is an *OPINION*, thrown in by noted wingnut crazy-person Pam Atlas. This is the same Pam Atlas who was sure that Rachael Ray was a terrorist sympathizer because of a scarf she wore in a Dunkin Donuts commercial. *That* is who you want to base your learned opinion on? Really?

    Pam is not the author.. therefore your irrelevent political assault on her is dismissed. It’s clear you let politics rule your mind and judgement and not truth.

    You’re intellectually dishonest and bankrupt.

    Now go think up some more names to call people .. you’re obviously excluded from your own sanctimonious judgments you cast on other people.

  9. Terrye says:

    breschau:

    The Harvard Law Review is not a popularity contest. It is not about who people like. If you are going to cite that position as a reason to vote for Obama because it proves he is a leader, or a legal scholar or has some great gift of some kind…then the position should bear that out. And it does not. Obama has never written anything original. He did not publish anything noteworthy. The only thing he ever wrote about was himself.

  10. breschau says:

    I do hate repeating myself, but let’s try again:

    Terrye: if you have a link where “the folks at the Harvard Review said themselves that Barack got the job because he was black”, please provide it. Back up your statements, or admit that you made them up.

  11. WWS says:

    Let’s make a counter-argument about McCain:

    McCain only got tortured in Vietnam because he was white!!!

    oh wait, that doesn’t really work so good for Obama.

    (but I’ll bet Obama had a really bad hangnail once, and I’ll bet it really smarted. That counts, doesn’t it???)