Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 21, 2009

A week ago today, I commented on remarks made by someone who is fast becoming number one on my “Dumbest Senators Since Joe Biden Left The Senate” list – Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat. You’ll recall that it was Whitehouse who, from the Senate floor, accused Republicans of voting against so-called “health care reform” to ensure a huge and humiliating defeat for President Barack Obama. (Not that the President needs the help of Republicans to suffer humiliation). In the eternally resonating chambers of Senator Whitehouse’s coffee-can mind, opposition to ObamaCare couldn’t possibly be attributable to genuine disagreement with Democrats – it can only exist because GOPers are determined to see Obama go down in flames one way or another. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with wanting what’s best for the United States.

Yesterday, Senator Whitehouse – once again from the Senate floor – ripped a page (or three) from the book of modern liberalism and illustrated why Democrat appeal is dropping like a cinder block from the Chrysler Building. This disgraceful and pathetic excuse for a United States Senator borrowed some carefully selected phrases from the well of tolerance and acceptance as he demonstrated, in no uncertain terms, why it is that modern liberalism is the great divider.

According to Whitehouse, those of us who support Senate Republicans in opposing ObamaCare are, in effect, cut from the same cloth as the Obama birther fanatics, right-wing militia types and Arayan Nation backers. We are desperate, he says, to bring this President down because We The Intolerant could not accept his ascendency to the White House. It’s not about his politics. It’s because he is black.

Kerry Picket from the Washington Times writes:

After explaining why absent GOP members who did not vote for the Department of Defense spending bill was tantamount to a “no” vote, he went on to say that Republicans and their supporters just want to “break” the momentum of President Obama.:

“Voting ‘no’ and hiding from the vote are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it. It was clear the three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.

They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.”

I approached Senator Whitehouse following his speech on the floor, and his responses to my questions were puzzling, to say the say the least. Mr. Whitehouse said he stood by his speech, but would not admit that he was accusing anyone who was against the health care bill as racist. He did reiterate that birthers are part of the group that is against the bill and are attacking president However, when I asked the Senator from Rhode Island what he meant by describing those who do not support the bill as “aryan,” he responded “No, I didn’t say that….again, pay attention to the speech.”

According to the transcript above, Mr. Whitehouse did say what he seems to be denying. Perhaps he should pay more attention to what he says on the floor.

Senator Whitehouse is a disingenuous weasel (or is it better to say he is a genuine weasel?)

This is critically important. Clarity is key here.

What possible reason could there be in mentioning “Aryans” and “right-wing militia” groups if not to suggest that Senate Republicans are influenced by these groups and taking their cues from them? Why on earth would it be necessary for this tiny little man (who couldn’t piece together an argument for two and two being four without hurling personal attacks) to mention “birthers” and “fanatics” if not to tie them to Senate Republicans?

Are Democrats seriously this dense? This pathetic?

No one can peddle non sequiturs like liberals.

Are there Aryans in this country?


So what?

There are also child rapists and murderers who supported Barack Obama. There are horrible people who threw their support behind this President. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

What kind of stir do you think would be caused if a Republican from the Senate floor said:

They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President George W. Bush. The anti-war freaks, the Marxist fanatics who want to see America brought down, the people running around in left-wing university-backed socialist groups and global warming nutbags, it is unbearable to them that President George W. Bush should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.

Incidentally, I couldn’t care less whose shoes are parked under the Oval Office desk. Whether it is Barack Obama or Linus Van Pelt, any Chief Executive who supports the kind of damage he is trying so hard to inflict on this country, you’re damn right I want to “break” him.

But not because he’s black.

wordpress statistics


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: