Jonah Goldberg just can't resist playing the hard-right, Republican race card, just one more time, on Obama. His latest article starts right off with the blatantly racist title, "Skin color is all that's new about Obama."- It can be said equally as accurately that skin color is all that's new about Goldberg, and I don't even know what color his skin is, and I don't care. Obama's skin color is some kind of obsessive issue with Goldberg, but he doesn't see that Obama had no more to do with his skin color than Goldberg did with his own skin color.
Did you know that McCain is a white man? During the primaries, we heard to the point of exhausted disgust that Hillary is a white woman and that Obama is a black man. I don't remember being reminded on a daily basis or it ever being mentioned that McCain is a white man. Has anyone noticed that, since we've never been told that?
Goldberg writes, "The oldest word in American politics is 'new.' Only in that sense is there anything new to Barack Obama."- Aside from that statement making absolutely no sense at all, the only thing new about Obama, which Goldberg is completely unaware of is that he is the first black man in American history to be nominated for and run a successful campaign for the presidency of the United States, the first man to change a pattern of all white presidents in over 200 years. Goldberg doesn't think that's new.
In the title, Goldberg refers to what's new about Obama. In the statement above, he refers to what's new to Obama. The one is objective, it's about Obama, the second is subjective, it's what's new to Obama. Goldberg, an accomplished writer, confuses his perspectives.
Goldberg writes, "The Bill of Rights, lamented the progressives, inhibited what the government can do to people, but it failed to delineate what it must do for people."- The Constitution doesn't inhibit, which means to restrain from what someone is trying to do. It actually forbids and makes it illegal for the government to even try to prevent us from having what the Bill of Rights guarantees as our rights.
Actually, the Constitution does delineate what it must do for the people. In the very first sentence, the Preamble, the law of the land is spelled out that the government is to "promote the general welfare."- Goldberg associates Obama's "spreading the wealth around"- with socialism or radicalism. Well, spreading the wealth around is promoting the general welfare. That's according to the requirement set forth in the Constitution.
Goldberg got both of those wrong.
Goldberg writes, "Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama - all their ideas sprung forth from the work of John Dewey, the most important liberal philosopher of the 20th century."- It is impossible for Goldberg to justify using the superlatives "all"- and "most important"- in describing where Obama got his ideas. It's just possible that Obama had an idea of his own. Apparently Obama being a black man, as Goldberg is so constantly aware of, prevents Obama from having any ideas of his own. Not even one tiny, little, original idea. The all inclusive "all"- of his ideas must come from someone else. And, there are philosophers of the 20th century, as or even more, important than John Dewey.
Goldberg got both of those wrong, too.
Goldberg quotes Obama, "Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."-
Goldberg then writes in mind-numbing defiance of the obvious, "Note: If Obama wins next week, all three of his preconditions will have been met."- Goldberg is unaware that Obama is only running for the presidency, that if he wins, he will only be able to take back the White House, that other people besides Obama must win in order to take back the Senate and the House. They are all three separate political entities and separate physical locations. Obama can't occupy all three if he wins, as Goldberg seems to think.
Goldberg got that one wrong, too.
Goldberg gets paid good money to write this crap, full of semantic errors, factual errors, errors in the use of superlatives, and a failure to understand how the three branches of government are filled by more people than just the president.
Reading the articles written by the volunteer writers here at OEN, it seems that it's left up to the people who gladly volunteer and gladly accept getting paid nothing who are the most committed to providing the most accurate commentary and also providing the corrections necessary to keep the well paid writers, such as Jonah Goldberg, from getting away with their awful drivel.
And, yes, "most committed"- and "most accurate"- are superlatives, used appropriately, in stark contrast to the writing of Jonah Goldberg.
