
Erik Rush
Upchuck City
June 30, 2008
No, this is not
a review of an upcoming
Spike Lee film; rather, the title of this offering is a reference to
what the town of Unity, N.H. became on Friday June 27, when Democratic
presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Company
descended upon the microscopic New England town in an effort to convince
the latter senator’s supporters to back Obama. Hence the reasoning for
choosing a place with the name "Unity.”
Perhaps Clinton
supporters and those voters who are on the fence as regards the
individual for whom who they might cast their vote saw the event as
either an expected political maneuver or an exercise in magnanimity on
the part of both Obama and Clinton. Others such as this columnist, who
oppose both – and are not yet sufficiently numb to the effluvia of
falsehoods and deceit that emanates unremittingly from the two Democrats
– viewed the exercise as a transparent, vapid retch fest of the highest
order.
It is apparent that the
central order of business amongst Clinton and Obama fans – judging from
the hoots, clucks and grunts of reaction from the
Quest for Fire crowd in the stands outside of Unity Elementary
School – is ending the war in Iraq. It is also apparent that they have
long since wholly accepted the boilerplate misdirection and obfuscation
that marks every oratory and press release coming out of the Clinton and
Obama camps: Questions such as what is to be done when Iranian forces
and al-Qaeda swarm unchallenged into Iraq and Shiites begin butchering
Sunnis go unasked, let alone unanswered.
The wimpification of
American foreign policy is a phenomenon that had its genesis in the
Democrat Party. Granted that it has taken its toll on Republican
administrations, during the time between John F. Kennedy’s presidency
and Gerald Ford’s, far Left elements that had insinuated themselves
within the Democrat Party implemented their "rot from within” strategies
in numerous areas. The next Democrat administration – Jimmy Carter’s –
subsequently compromised American credibility, integrity and power in
the area of foreign policy to a degree from which it has not yet
recovered, and perhaps never will. Inaction with regard to known threats
from radical Islam, most notably during Bill Clinton’s presidency, quite
literally paved the way for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United
States.
Like Richard Nixon, who
was painted as the foul Republican creature responsible for the Vietnam
War despite the fact that it was started and escalated by Democrat
administrations and that Nixon actually removed our forces from that
country, George W. Bush has been successfully cast by the far Left as
the foul Republican creature responsible for our problems with radical
Islam. In the eyes of Democrat voters, our current President cavalierly
orders ignorant patriotic youth overseas to be blown into steak tartare
while he sits in the Oval Office and giggles. We need to turn tail and
run again even if it means emboldening our enemies further, because war
is just terrible, horrible and icky, and besides – this one is just a
case of military masturbation for the sole purpose of Bush’s
entertainment, as was Vietnam for Nixon.
"‘This was not a pat on the back for Barack Obama from
Hillary Clinton. This was a bear hug,’ said Kevin Madden, former
spokesman for GOP candidate Mitt Romney.”
– FOX News, June 27, 2008
Actually, it far more
resembled Clinton sticking her tongue down his throat. As Obama sat
smiling and relaxed but unmoving, Clinton showered him with accolades
peppered with gloom-and-doom prophecies surrounding Republican nominee
John McCain. She offered the patently preposterous claim that McCain and
Bush are two sides of the same coin, which "doesn’t amount to a whole
lotta change...”
Guess she just had to
get the "change” line in...
Then it was Obama’s
turn. John McCain will keep American troops in Iraq until the next cycle
of the cosmos ends, Obama intimated, extend corporate welfare and tax
breaks, and so forth; again, one might swap out McCain for Bush and the
accusations would be identical, which is of course holds dark irony for
dedicated conservatives.
And Hillary? Well, he’s
admired her as a leader, learned from her as a candidate, and he’s proud
to call her his friend.
"She rocks...”
– Sen. Obama on
Hillary Clinton, June 27, 2008
Like, gag me with a maggot...Totally!
As far as being a friend goes: Would that be the sort of Clinton
"friend” that gets thrown under the bus, winds up in prison, or is found
dead of high-velocity lead poisoning in a park with a gun in their hand?
In what is becoming
known as typical fashion, at one point Obama slipped verbally, saying
they (he and Clinton) "needed” the people present. Then, presumably not
wanting to appear too "needy,” he corrected himself and said that while
they did need the people in a practical sense, they really needed
them to be unified for the sake of the party, to play nice, "just get
along” – that sort of thing.
Clinton
definitely needs some of Obama’s millions approximately ($200 million at
present, with more on the way given that he’s not taking federal funds)
to help pay down her campaign debt. Toward the end of the primary race,
she infused her campaign with a substantial amount of her own cash.
Wherever she winds up, Clinton does not want that lodestone following
her. Sen. Obama definitely needs her supporters, a significant portion
of those blue-collar white Democrats and Independent voters who it is
speculated are wary of Obama due to his errant speech concerning them
and his connection to black nationalists and other questionable
characters.
A
marriage made in hell if there ever was one...