Sanctimonious Stone Throwers

By David Limbaugh

November 14, 2008

God bless Sarah Palin, and shame on elitists from both sides of the aisle who have denigrated, demonized and dissed her. I don't care how many "smartest people in the room" types offer pseudo-sophisticated analyses to prove she was a drag on the GOP presidential ticket. They are all manifestly and embarrassingly wrong -- and woefully out of touch -- which is par for the course for elitists.

Speaking of elitists, it's time to address their contempt for rural and southern America, particularly their ongoing smear of the South (and, truth be told, rank-and-file conservative Republicans) as racist.

For all the accolades Barack Obama is receiving, he should acknowledge a bit of egg on his face for invoking race with his failed prediction that his opponents would play the race card. "They're going to try to ... make you scared of me," he said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough; he's got a funny name.' You know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

Then there was Newsweek's poster boy for liberal smugness, Jonathan Alter, hypothecating a scenario in which Obama could lose because of racism. Alter said the following factors would have contributed:

--"Erosion in the critical I-4 corridor near Tampa and in the Panhandle, where the astonishing Republican margins among whites could be attributed only to race."

--"The transformation of the northern part of (Virginia) couldn't overcome a huge McCain margin among whites farther south. They weren't the racists of their parents' generation, but they weren't quite ready to vote for the unthinkable, either."

Alter then cited an earlier Newsweek story, which asked, "Is America Ready (for a black president)?" "The answer: only if Obama proved close to a flawless candidate, and even then, we won't know for sure until Election Day. That doesn't mean Obama lost because all, or even most, McCain voters allowed race to be a factor. But enough did to change the outcome."

While Alter said he didn't think his scenario would play out, it doesn't excuse his presumptuous, unfair and erroneous assessment of people he doesn't know.

But Alter's piece was no more offensive than a postelection story by The New York Times' Adam Nossiter, in which Nossiter echoed Obama's comments about rural America and some people's discomfort with his looks and name (read: race).

Nossiter wrote: "Fear of the politician with the unusual name and look did not end with last Tuesday's vote in this rural red swatch where buck heads and rifles hang on the wall. This corner of the Deep South still resonates with negative feelings about the race of President-elect Barack Obama."

But the South, gloated Nossiter, is no longer going to be a major factor in presidential politics because parts of the "'suburban South' ... have experienced an influx of better educated and more prosperous voters in recent years." Southern counties voting more Republican this year, he said, "tended to be poorer, less educated and whiter," as they have been "rural and isolated (and) less exposed to diversity, educational achievement and economic progress." According to the omniscient Nossiter, "Mr. Obama's race appears to have been the critical deciding factor in pushing ever greater numbers of white Southerners away from the Democrats."

Nossiter cited one political analyst saying "there's no other explanation than race" for Obama receiving a smaller percentage of the Alabama white vote than John Kerry did in 2004.

Oh? How about reasonable anxiety about Obama's alliances and gaps in his biography, not to mention that he made the mistake of revealing his socialism and contempt for rural, Bible- and gun-toting Americans when away from his teleprompter?

One might think the liberals' persistent demagoguery on race mostly for partisan gain would subside with the election of Barack Obama, but one would be wrong.

Prescient commentators predicted that if Obama won, there would be no letting up. They speculated that charges of racism might even escalate, as an emboldened left would begin an all-out war against conservative talk radio.

Lo and behold, before the Electoral College has even convened to formalize Obama's victory, the slanderous group e-mails have begun. I personally received a number of them today, one of which said conservative talk radio is "'All Hate All The Time' -- racist, homophobic, sexist."

Don't think they aren't methodically laying a foundation to strip conservative America of its most powerful First Amendment outlet, talk radio, so they can restore their coveted liberal media monopoly.

There's apparently no limit to the shameless tactics of those willing to use false and divisive charges of racism to vilify an entire group of people (which, ironically, is the pernicious thought process inherent in racism) who are probably truer to racial colorblindness than their sanctimonious accusers.

---

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

-----------------

I've been thinking, I've been hearing about how the color of one's skin shouldn't play a part in politics in today's enlightened society. But all I've heard is that Obama is the first Black President. I'm not disputing the fact, just wondering why the fact is getting so much play if it isn't important in today's enlightened society. Maybe it's only when race applies to Obama it's not important, but when speaking of segments of society it is? Can it be both ways?

As for Mr. Limbaugh's concern about Conservative Talk Radio, I have no doubt that the Liberals will try to shut it down. They couldn't make people listen to Air America, so if you can't compete against it, or change CRT through legislation or intimidation, shut it down. It's like little kids on the playground. The other kids won't let me win, and won't play by my rules, so I'll make sure they can't play at all.

I don't know how successful they will be at shutting down CRT. After all, freedom of speech is a part of a little thing we like to call The Constitution. Remember The Constitution? First Amendment in particular?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But, Liberals won't let a little thing like the Constitution stand in their way. I kind of doubt they'll be able to shut it down entirely. I think what will happen is that there will be restrictions put on CRT that it will have the effect of shutting it down.

I rather think if Congress attempts to gag CRT, the media will realize that unless they continue to be the pampered pet of the Liberals, they are next to be muzzled. If Freedom of Speech goes down the tubes, what will be next?

Just something to think about.