Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Keith Olberman is making a very strong case against Obama

In this video, you can see Keith Olbemann from GE controlled MSNBC unloading on Scott Brown: "In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

Now, in all fairness, we must note that while Brown is accused of being mean, his opponent, Martha Coakley, a state prosecutor, is undeniably guilty of keeping an innocent man in jail for two years. A truly objective observer would be torn apart between hurting Keith's feelings and voting for the cruel, immoral (and possibly criminal) prosecutor.

But lets ignore everything that Keith did not tell his listeners, and instead take at a face value what he did say. He continued his rant with the following explosive statement: "In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."

So, what's so special about this "time in our history"? Why is it, that the people in the most "progressive" state of Massachusetts, the state which is most pro-homosexual, pro-women, anti-racist and anti-violence ignored Obama's teary pleas to help his liberal policies, and instead voted for the "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman"? Just how horrible should president Obama and his policies be that the moderates and independents in Massachusetts would choose such Scott Brown? Why is it, when given a choice between an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman" and Obama's preferred candidate, people with a huge margin pick the "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman"?

Any takers on this puzzle? Liberals and "Progressives" are most welcome to explain this conundrum.

No comments: