King’s Obama Comments: Why the fuss?
Nathan Greene
Post a Comment
By Emily Geiger
So, I see there are a lot of bloggers who are essentially calling Steve King a quack over his comments that islamofascists would likely be happy if Barack Obama were to be elected president.
But why are these liberal bloggers so upset about King’s statement? Obama has said he would sit down and talk to these types of radical people around the world, so why wouldn’t they be happy if he is elected president?
And why wouldn’t liberals be happy that Obama wants to work with these radicals? Maybe liberals know deep down that radical islamofascists are irrational and cannot be reasoned with. Maybe they don’t want the public to know that their guy, Obama, has a completely naïve and unrealistic foreign policy.
So, King made reference to Obama’s dreaded middle name. So what? Like it or not, a candidate’s nationality and family background are relevant to a presidential race. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t have the constitutional limitation that the president must be a natural-born citizen. Even if Obama gives no other outward indication of sympathy to islamofascists, his name will make them think he might at least be a little more sympathetic to them than his Anglo predecessors. Or, to put it in Obama-speak, I should say that these radicals would have “hope” in Obama, that he would “change” the dynamic of U.S. foreign relations. Does that make it more palatable?
I know liberals have a problem with facts and truths, but come on! Stop being intentionally blind! Of course I’m talking to the people who deny the existence of campaign disclosure reports linking them to out-of-state gay activist money, and people who can’t read a footnote at the bottom of a TV ad, but I guess I like beating my head against the wall.
Reader Comments