Hat tip to LindyBill
The inimitable Jackie Mason guest-hosted on the Laura Ingraham radio talk show, and did quite a riff on Barack Obama. "Over the top" but fun. Here's a "edited for brevity" transcript.
Now the same kind of a story we have right now with Barack Obama. Two years in the Senate, but because he’s tall and he’s only slightly black, nobody knows how black, and everybody has a guilty conscience about somehow inventing a black President because there’s a collective guilt in the white population of America and because he doesn’t look like he’s going to hurt anybody, he doesn’t look like he’ll start a riot like Sharpton, and he’s doesn’t look like he’s obnoxious like Jesse Jackson, he sounds very respectful, and because he sounds respectful I can understand why you should make him a head waiter in a restaurant. Or maybe he should be a doorman. A doorman is also a job for a respectable looking person who accomplished nothing in his life.
Two years in the Senate, nobody could think of a bill that he ever brought up, nobody even mentioned an accomplishment that he ever created, all they know is that he wrote a book. Who wrote the book? Do you believe it was him? I doubt it very much. That’s beside the point.
Let’s be honest about it. He’s more of an invention of the press even than [Hillary Clinton]. If he was a tall white man or a short Jew, do you think after two years in the Senate having accomplished nothing that he would be the hottest candidate for the Presidency? It’s inconceivable that he would be. It’s exactly the opposite of what people think and like to say, that somehow if you’re Jewish or you’re black, the world is against you and it’s impossible to run for high office or ever to win.
That’s a great cliché, but it’s also a great fraud. You have every advantage if you’re black. I don’t want to belittle the fact that black people were always discriminated against and suffered great injustices in this country; they certainly have. But that’s in the past, that’s nothing to do with today. Let’s stop living in the past. The simple fact is if you’re black and you want to run for President, and if you’re tall, that’s enough. If you say hello without starting a riot, they’re ready to vote for you.
Let me tell you why this man is nobody and should be relegated to some back bench someplace instead of running for President. When you stop to think that not only has he accomplished nothing how he disagrees with himself, floundering about on every side of every issue in public. He’s a man of no conviction at all and I’m going to prove it to you with these sound bites:
<<< "I am somebody who has not embraced gay marriage. I’ve said that it’s not something that I think this society is necessarily ready for. It strikes me that in a lot of ways for a lot of people it may intrude in how they understand marriage. But I also think that we should create civil unions for gays and lesbians that allow them to have the same basic rights as all people." >>>
In other words, he’s slightly for it, almost against it, and wherever he stands, it’s somewhere in the middle of both sides so that you can’t say that he’s either for or against it. Some people would be against it but that doesn’t mean that he’s against it. On the other hand, he’s for civil unions which everybody is for anyway, so he’s safe on the civil union question. In plain English, he’s ducking and hiding on this subject.
<<< "We have to have some control over our Southern border. The very idea of a nation involves being able to define who comes in and who comes out and who’s a citizen and who’s not. We now have twelve million people here who came illegally, but many are rooted in the community, and have children who are citizens. We will not deport them. As a practical matter, we can’t unless we devote all of our law enforcement resources towards that." >>>
In other words, he doesn’t know where he stands on that issue. Do you see any real answer to that question? There’s no answer to the first question. There’s no answer to the second question.
His two most popular opinions are “on the one hand” and “on the other hand.” You could say this, you could say that, and on the other hand you could say either way. Therefore, I stand firmly on the side of being able to tell you that I got no opinion again. However, if I have an opinion you could interpret it this way. If you want to interpret it another way, it’s up to you. I myself know that I stand for something but I’m not going to tell you what it is because I’m running for President and I’m taking no chances. That’s what he’s really telling you.
<<< "Take the example of big government versus small government. My instinct is that the current generation is more interested in smart government." >>>
You hear this? So he doesn’t know if he’s for or against big or small government. He’s for smart government. Well, this is at least an answer. Do you know anybody who’s in favor of dumb government? He’s for smart government. That’s brilliant. For this we need a guy who’s an original thinker. You know how profound that is, that we should have smart government instead of dumb government? If somebody told you that, would you say this is a great President, I’ve got to vote for this guy – he wants a smarter government. There’s nobody else who wants this. We gotta vote for him. We gotta find him because if God forbid, he leaves, we’ll never find out the answer to this question.
This is a man talking about nothing and going nowhere, but only to the press is he a hero.
After the break:
We’re talking about the fakery of Barack Obama. I’m not trying to pretend that he’s a fraud or a fake like a Carter, who’s a miserable, sick human being. I’m just saying that he has no business being a candidate for President of the United States. If he wasn’t a tall black person, this would be impossible. I’m not against a tall black person but I want to use the same barometer of judgment for a tall black person as I would for a short Jew. Do you belong in this job and because of what?
<<< "I was among the two-thirds [for the Iraq war] when it was two-thirds for, but we got distracted in Iraq. We ended up, I think, pursuing a course that was based on faulty intelligence, fudged numbers, a shading of the truth, and we are seeing the results. So I have said repeatedly that it make sense for us to begin a phased withdrawal of our troops." >>>
There might have been faulty intelligence, but when was there fudged numbers? And when was the shading of the truth? What right do you have to make an accusation that was never proven by anybody? Who fudged the numbers? Who shaded the truth? It’s easy to make meaningless statements that sound very popular because the war is unpopular. What’s your position except for the fact that you can tell lies and imply shadings of the truth and fudged numbers that never happened? If you can’t prove it, don’t say it.
<<< "I will serve out my full six year term." — Early 2006 >>>
<<< "I would say that I am still at the point where I have not made a decision to pursue higher office but it is true that I have thought about it over the last several months." — Late 2006 >>>
In other words, you’re saying that you’re a liar, a rationalized liar. We don’t need another fake in the Presidency of the United States. We had enough with Nixon and Carter. We don’t need another one. Nothing he says makes sense on any level, and nothing he accomplished means anything. The man is a fake candidate who is an invention of the press just like Hillary Clinton is.
Message 23141790 |
