Why John McCain Lost – Obama Supporters Are Thugs

Share

Regular Pink Flamingo readers have probably noticed that I have a tendency to sometimes hold a piece, working it sometimes for weeks.  This is one of  those.  I’ve been playing with it for maybe 2 months.  I’m glad I did.  I think after the attacks aimed at not only Sarah Palin, but also her family, we are beginning to understand how utterly vicious, unprincipled, and completely lacking in dishonor the Obama – Soros Machine is.

We hear a litany of reasons that John McCain lost last November.  Conservatives blame it on the fact that he was too “moderate”, yet a goodly number of people who identify themselves as “conservative” voted for Obama, thereby disproving that theory.

The primary accusation given is that John McCain had one of the worst campaigns in history. He ran a decent old fashioned campaign.  The problem is his campaign manager was not to peachy keen on joining the 21st Century.

There were those who said he had no charisma.  Obama sucked it all from the room.

Bush ruined it for all Republicans.

The economy, the crash, the war, etc.

Sarah Palin was a terrible choice (not).

She was a walking ethics violation.

“…Mr. Obama has been known to reward people who have successfully smeared Governor Palin. As I have previously reported, as a candidate, Mr. Obama was very involved in the so-called “troopergate” witch hunt against Governor Palin. He made an initial call to the troopers union in Alaska, and his campaign chief of staff, and now White house adviser, Pete Rouse, reached out to old friend, and former co-worker, Alaska Senator Kim Elton, who then started ram-rodding the so-called investigation through. It was Mr. Obama and Senator Elton’s intention to create an “October surprise” to take down Governor Palin. Senator Elton openly bragged about it….”

But – you never hear anyone discussing the real reason John McCain lost.  I think it is connected to several other back stories:

The conservative world is damning Colin Powell for his comments about Rush Limbaugh.  There is something in the back-story that has bothered me since the moment Powell endorsed Barack Obama.  And the liberal world is damning Rush Limbaugh because of his comments about Colin Powell.

I have the same question about Powell as I do Bill Clinton.  Why is he so quiet?

John McCain is an honorable man who ran one of the most honorable campaigns – ever.  His opponent is one of the most dishonorable men who has ever run for office – anywhere – since, say Nero or Caligula.  His campaign was dishonorable, dishonest, and his supporters were the same.

There is a very good reason John McCain lost.  It wasn’t because he was not conservative enough.  It wasn’t because he did not have the best campaign manager.  It was because John McCain is a man of honor and refused to stoop to the tactics that were used on him.  Hillary Clinton was defeated the same way.

Barack Obama conducted the most corrupt, vicious, and almost evil campaign in history.  He dealt in lies, duplicity, and half truths, relying on the stupidity of his mindless followers, telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.

John McCain on the other hand, told the truth.  It is a rather damning commentary on our culture, isn’t it?

From The American Thinker, Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote:

“…As he witnessed his mother’s infuriated response to the bullies attacking him, he became the observant bystander.  What did he see?

Act I:  Bullies gang up on Saul and taunt him for being short, chubby, not athletic, whatever.

Act II:  Mother takes the bait and gets into the game, screaming at the boys for hurting little Saul.

Act III:  The boys react to Mother from the safety of the street and the protection of their numbers, by intensifying the bully tactics.

Act IV:  Mother becomes so infuriated and out of control that she finally screams threats and near-obscenities at the little boys, who have just magnificently played the adult for a real fool.  Mother is in complete disarray; the boys stroll off down the street laughing victoriously.

Saul Alinsky later used this very play for the foundation of his politics of ridicule, specifying that the strength is not in the ridicule.  The strength of ridicule is always, every single time, the “enemy’s reaction.”

In his childhood play, Mother was the enemy engaged by the ridiculing youth.  As soon as the children gathered and began taunting little Saul, Mother appeared at the window like clockwork.  Mother’s reaction emboldened and added great worth to the bullies.  They got to see her emotional meltdown every single time.

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength,” wrote Saul Alinsky in his own middle-age….”

Share