Yes, It Would Have Been Amazing If The Washington Post Had Printed It.

I have an uncle I love dearly, but to say he is a Republican is an understatement. But one thing he has taught me politically is how email has become such an effective tool of transmitting political commentary.

This might be happening on both sides, but it appears to me, biased as I am, that the Right, and its supporters, have turned this strategy into a communications vehicle on steroids. It’s like the old shampoo commercial, and they email ten friends and they email ten friends and then, I have had the personal experience of having an email thrust in my face, printed out in ripe indignation as if it was a page of the Bible.

“How can you say that when Michelle Obama’s European Trip cost $100 million?”

Uh, well, I see your point Uncle Ken.

Today, I was forwarded an email with the headline

Amazing that the Wash. Post would actually print this. Amazing!
The Washington Post
August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Well, yes it would have been amazing. And let’s forget the rest of the entire email, let’s ignore the commentary in the email because clearly the commentary has value because this was printed in The Washington Post! A liberal paper in Washington DC printed this! You see how it works!

And clearly this Matt Patterson knows his stuff, look where he is a columnist for!

Well, google Matt Patterson and here is his site. Seriously, go see it.

Matt Patterson Online

And here is his contribution as a ‘columnist’ to The Washington Post. A single online letter to the editor from 2009

Now, Google Matt Patterson Washington Post August 18, 2011 and guess what you get? Hundreds of conservative sites linking to this remarkable article. But what you won’t get is any evidence that the article every actually ran in The Washington Post.

In fact, if you go to www.washingtonpost.com and search for Matt Patterson, you get nothing.

This is an example of what is remarkable about the Right’s echo chamber.

Here it echoed with a million plus links on Google, something that never was actually fired in the first place.

 

 

About James Boyce

James Boyce has been at the forefront of the digital revolution since the mid 1990s when he was involved in the start of Slingshot in Dallas, one of the country's leading digital agencies. At Slingshot, James was creative lead on the first html and the first java script banner on the web. Politically, James was Senior Advisor to John Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign, was executive director of The Patriot Project in 2006 and in 2008 served as Senior Online Consultant to Bill Richardson's Presidential Campaign. A frequent guest on MSNBC, Fox News and CNN, James is also proud of his associate with The Huffington Post. Email him at jamescannonboyce@gmail.com if you have comments or thoughts about this site or his posts.
This entry was posted in Media, Prop Mail and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Yes, It Would Have Been Amazing If The Washington Post Had Printed It.

  1. Philip F. Adams says:

    As Will Rogers one said”I Only know what I read, and I might add, one cannot even believe that which one reads any more. I know that where there is smoke, there is fire,
    and unless words no longer mean what they say, including who says them, We are
    truly in a great great pickel. I think it was Humpty Dumpty who said: ” Words mean
    what I want and make them mean” So, Who can you trust?Dictionaries “fix” words
    in their meaning and spelling and grammer. Maps, compasses, and Highway numbers
    help us to travel accurately. Music is pretty well “established” so that a tune written
    in the Amazonian Jungle could be well played in New York. So, who “fixes words for you?

    • The Right or should I say Far Right exists only in an echo chamber. We on the Left are free thinkers that would never follow the pact. In that regard, you Echo Chamber Neanderthals should look upon us as 1%ers.

      • James says:

        The don’t follow the pack? Well I guess that explains the march on wall street.

      • sam stubbs says:

        No one who follows political discourse in this country, right, left, or hermaphrodite, would EVER believe that a piece so nakedly TRUE, would EVER appear in the Washington Post, one of the many “progressive” (think Mussolini) rags of the Administration’s unoffical Pravada. When pigs fly.

        • Kelly Barry says:

          Truer words have never been spoken…. just wish they hadn’t been wrapped in a lie. Makes the real truth about Obama disappear because of the way in which it was presented… now the truth lacks credibility

          • John van Dalen says:

            JUST SHOW ME THE VETTING! What the hell were Obama zombies thinking when they voted? On what possible platform of accomplishment were they basing their confidence that the man had ANY QUALIFICATIONS EVEN TO BE DOG CATCHER?

        • Darrel Felkner says:

          BINGO… !

      • Dennis says:

        “We on the Left are free thinkers that would never follow the pact.”

        Now, if I can stop laughing long enough, I will ask you what “pact” you are following? Have you made a “pact” with someone or something? Have you ascribed to a particular “pact”? Or has your propensity for ‘free thought’ allowed you to rewrite the meanings given in Websters for “pact”?

        Or perhaps, you should simply eliminate that pesky damned word “thinkers” and follow the “PACK” of the socialistic Democratic Party whose desire is to create a state of governmental dependency never before seen in the world in what was once the freest nation in the world, and God willing, will be so again.

      • Sherylynne says:

        “We on the Left are free thinkers that would never follow the pact.” OMG!! Stop! Please…I can’t stop laughing! My sides ache SO badly, but I must say, it’s the best laugh I’ve had in a long time. First of all, you free thinker… the word is “pack,” not pact, which error already makes you a part of the pack! Another characteristic that you share with the “pack” would be short memory…pop question: who do you think participated in OWS…across the nation? You are so funny!

      • Kim says:

        Left, right, center… what does it matter? The real point is power – this is all about power. Whoever has the power to change the rules is in charge. Politicians start out caring about what they set out to change, but soon in office they realize the bigger monster – $$. $$ doesn’t care about left or right, only power. $$ makes people forget what their purpose was in the first place…
        The most interesting part of all, in these political debates is that the “People” voted him in. This tells me more about the people than I’d like to know….

        • Waldo says:

          And so many wonder why we need term limits?
          I think perhaps Mr. Crosby may have also attended college with Mr. Obama and spent too much time partaking in the cannibus or maybe some shrooms?

      • Neanderthal says:

        Michael,
        These mythical free thinkers that you speak of.. Would they be the Borg that occupied Wall Street? Or, some of the Pulitzer winning writers on the Huffington Post? It appears that the only requirement to be assimilated by the Borg is that you agree with them, knowing why, doesn’t seem to be a requirement, based on the numerous interviews of them.

      • Mark says:

        Michael Crosby, You really should write for The Onion. ROFLMAO!

  2. Ken, says:

    Dear James,
    I am a very conservative, retired submariner sailor. I belong to the John Birch Society too. But, on issues like this, I couldn’t agree with you more. I receive items like this so often. But, I always search sites that actually check things like this & also Google to see what else I can find. When the supped “original” source isn’t listed, one knows right away there is a problem. Many of the points are valid, but why attribute a writing/opinion to someone else. If you write it, man up & admit it. You have an interesting site here – one even an old submariner can enjoy.

    • John says:

      I consider myself a constitutionalist and a proud Tea Party member. I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s self-defeating to originate or relay these inaccurate postings, as they harm credibility of our cause.

      There is more than enough honest, accurate information right in front of our nose to support our belief that all Americans, and yes, the rest of the world as well, will benefit from the liberty and the free market system that our forefathers laid out for us. There is no reason to prevaricate.

    • Mark says:

      Sure you are Ken. Sure you are.

  3. swatkins says:

    If the Conservative Right could ‘run’ on the facts, they would not need to contine circulating partial and untruths to stoke the prejudices of the uneducated. I feel sorry for them. I feel more sorry for the people so ready to believe this ultraconservative propaganda.
    A Moderate from NC.

    • J Mac says:

      It happens once in a while, and when it does, it’s obvious. But we all know that LIBERALS are as pure as the driven snow, right? And they are all SOOOO smart that the rest of us just can’t see what reality really is, right? In fact, I’m soooo lost without them. LOL To have them here, every day, reminding us all that their guiding light and pure insight will save us all (and the planet) is a blessing that is simply too hard to describe. Ugh… I think I’m going to be sick……..

    • J Mac says:

      A MODERATE? What the @#$$ is a “moderate” but someone who either doesn’t have the guts to be a liberal or someone who takes wishy washy, on the fence positions on everything to avoid conflict and get along with everyone. Are you pro life? Pro 2nd amendment? Pro tax cuts? Eliminate cap gains tax? Slash govt. spending by trillions, not just reduce the amount of the planned increases as liberals have planned. You have to take a FIRM STAND AGAINST the insanity if you want this country to survive. Moderates are useless as are RINOs and liberals. Get a spine.

      • Jamie says:

        I think what people describe as moderates have taken a stand on all those issues, only they don’t stand the party line on all of them. Pro-choice/pro 2nd admendment/anti-tax for middle class/pro tax on corps and rich/anti war/pro military does not fit either the liberals or the so called conservatives these days. Moderates take stands much more personally, they don’t just follow whatever the radio/tv/email tells them they should follow. Die hard Democrats and Republicans are nothing but Sheople. You should learn to think before you learn to “take a stand”.

        • John says:

          No, it fits as stupid! Pro Choice on What? Schools??

        • David says:

          Thank you, Jamie for a voice of reason. Too many “followers” have relinquished their responsibility to think and analyze what is spewed forth by partisan politics. Intellectual inquiry has become a rare commodity. I am especially disappointed in “black and white” thinkers who refuse to even listen to opposing perspectives, or to consider any form of (that dirty word), “compromise”. The discourse on Capitol Hill is sad. How can we ever return to “loyal opposition” politics in such a vitriolic atmosphere?
          I am an independent who refuses to accept what have become “extremist” labels of conservative or liberal. Neither describes me as an individual.

    • Black Ops says:

      Contine ? And you talk about the `uneducated` ? Moderate is another way of spelling Marxist..“none so blind as those that will not see“.

    • Mark says:

      You have to Pass the bill to find out what is IN the bill.

  4. Joseph Artanis says:

    Hi I just wanted to let all of you know that the article in question WAS written by Matt Patterson, but it appeared in the American Thinker, not the Washington Post and indicated in the circulating email. So in short it is mostly ture except for the newspaper involved. You are free to draw your own conclusion.

    • Thanks for letting us know the origin of the article. We’ve all played the game telephone as kids, and learned that information can really change as it goes from one person to the next. Was this an honest mistake or did someone intentionally lie about the publishing? Regardless, the internet is a tool that can spread misinformation quickly, but also provide the means to fact check just as quickly.

    • G delta says:

      That’s right Joseph, the article should be judged on the validity of its content, not where it appeared. Liberals just hate to hear the truth!

  5. James Boyce says:

    Ken, thanks for your note and as a son and nephew and brother of Navy veterans, you are always welcome here.

    Joe, thanks for writing. I never had any doubt it was written and published somewhere, but Mr Patterson (and he may not have created the offending email mind you) is not a Washington Post Columnist, nor did the article appear in the Washington Post. The illusion that he is and it did is the core piece of misinformation at play here.

  6. Paul A. Jones says:

    To All,

    Think you should look at Matt Patterson site. He was published in the Washington Post http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2009/09/red_line_blues.html
    by way of the washingtonpost.com editors. Someone else changed the original message to appear that this particular piece was published. It was not the Conservative Right who are circulating partial and untruths to stoke the prejudices, but the other side of the isle. When I send out information I state links or copy the original article with the links just so the left can’t say that I am disseminating partial or untruths. The way the Progressive Left Socialist fight is to say the same untruth over and over and over agin until weak minds sy it must be true.

    I am an Independent who is sick of the lies that are spread by MSM to the uniformed.

    • James Boyce says:

      Paul

      you’ll note that in our post we did reference that Mr Patterson did indeed have one letter to the editor published in 2009 in The Washington Post, this does not, in our opinion, make him a columnist as it implies on his site.

      thanks for writing

      • Budsned says:

        I’ve been all over Matt Patterson’s website and nowhere does it even imply that he works for nor is a frequent contributor to the Washington Post, so put your distortion “implies” where the sun doesn’t shine. His website does list the many publications that his commentaries have appeared in as links – some go to only one article – some go to an index of articles. Being on such a list doesn’t “imply” anything. You’re as personally guilty of distortion as whoever crossed-up the publication information on the article in question – which could have been an honest mistake seeing that Patterson has been published in the Washinton Post. People are real quick to jump to conclusions and send their inaccuracies far and wide just as you just did with your “implies” comment.

    • Mark says:

      You are surely right Paul. We don’t fight the same way the left fights but we need too

  7. Mac says:

    James,
    I stand with those who want truth emitted. I enjoy e-mails that spark thoughts and opinions. I am a conservative and 35. For every other “out-there” e-mail I get from my older conservative co-wrokers, or my dad; I have to reply with links showing them that it is a farse. As I am glad that the older generation conservatives in my life are being active in political conversations on the WWW, they tend to treat a typed e-mail the same as their morning paper when they were kids.

    • Mark says:

      Yes Mac, us “oldsters” will never be as bright as you and your generation. Golly, this here box on my desk has letters from peole ALL over the world. Shazaam!

  8. James Boyce says:

    Mac: that’s a great point about the newspaper and e-mail; hadn’t thought about it, I am admittedly a progressive but I had a funny interchange with an Uncle brandishing an email that claimed Michelle Obama’s European trip cost $100 million. He was really upset and said “I mean aren’t you outraged that she spent $100 million going to Europe?” and I was like sure I would be if it was true. And he really just had never considered the idea that it might not be.

  9. Mike Adamec says:

    Typical liberal response from Mr. Boyce. Don’t deal with the facts of the article which actually was written by Mr. Patterson; but, rather, deflect and attack the fact that its publication is attributed to the wrong venue. It is a timeless tactic of Progressives. When the facts cannot be disputed, attack from the flank using any inane point that one can use.

    • patriotaz says:

      I don’t the article, itself, is being disputed–but the dishonesty that this ‘type’ of article would be printed in the ‘liberal’ Washington Post. This gave the article the flavor that the Washington Post was (perhaps) beginning to see the light in regard to Obama. That is the deception–not the article.

  10. James Boyce says:

    Mike

    Wait “when the facts cannot be disputed” Mr Patterson distributes an email far and wide claiming to be a Washington Post columnist, when he is not. And the title of the email expresses joy / astonishment something that the Washington Post printed this article when it didn’t.

    Did I miss something? So I write an article and I claim to be a Wall Street Journal columnist and that this article was published in the WSJ when it wasn’t, you’re okay with that? Really?

    James

    • GMBurns says:

      I had smelled a rat and found most of what Mr. Boyce reports myself. However, I also found that the original article was published on American Thinker in August 2011. The author probably had nothing to do with anyone claiming that the article was in the Washington Post now, almost a year later.

      However, on his website the author does claim to be a “guest columnist” for the Post, and since he apparently has only a complaint about the D.C. Metro trains published there, and that on their adjunct citizen’s blog, that is an exaggeration.

      It is a shame that what I consider a good article is now befouled by such dishonesty.

      Michael Burns

  11. Don Johnson says:

    James

    You ARE really a typical liberal. Mike is talking about the CONTENT of the article and the facts stated within the article, not the fact of who the columnist is or who he writes for. Try agian to respond to Mike now that your head is out of your ass.

    Don

    • James Boyce says:

      Don,

      First of all, you don’t know I am a liberal. Second, the article on this site has nothing to do with the content of what is essentially an email. The whole point of my blog post is that there is NO ARTICLE. I can’t respond to Matt Patterson’s email because I don’t have the whole email.

      And I probably wouldn’t anyway.

      James

      • Budsned says:

        A whole new problem is, you didn’t bother to investigate before running off at the mouth. There certainly was/is an article and it is quoted accurately. It was published in “The American Thinker” Aug 18, 2011. Patterson himself did not originate the screwed up email that has been circulated – someone else did who saw the article, saw that Patterson has been published in the Washington Post among other places, put 2+2 together and got 5. Simple as that! Was he/she careless? Yes! Were you careless in your commentary? Yes!
        Yours is the typical liberal methodology – you don’t want to deal with the message, so you attack the messenger.

      • patriotaz says:

        This piece–The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson was truly written in the American Thinker. So Patterson did write the article in a conservative arena. The deception is not whether or not Matt Patterson wrote the article, but where the article was published. The reason this email,which is clearly a deception (lie), is controverisal is that it leads the readers to believe that an ‘elite, uber liberal’ newspaper printed it which gives it added credibility to reinforce the conservative point of view–”see, the Washington Post printed this article so we must be true about Obama”. I’m not saying I disagree with the article, I wholeheartedly agree with it–I just detest the deception about where it was published. That is is just WRONG!! and beneath how I believe Conservatives should behave.

        • Mark says:

          Not only is it wrong to put forth that the article was published where it was not, the motivation to make that up props up the Washington Post as a more legitimate source of information than where the article was actually published, The American Thinker. When the fact is the Washington Post publishes many ideas and commentaries that to not fit with reality. So this is really an instance of someone on the right (I suppose anyway) who thinks people should have more confidence on a left-leaning publication than a right-leaning publication and in his or her actions has actually help further that notion.

      • Bob Reynolds says:

        James, John Kerry, BILL Richardson, Huffington Post, tell us again you are not or don’t tilt 80 degrees left. Come on man, its the content not the spin, remember, a few more, point or link some of us to any of your blogs that even showed a little , fair and balance or perhaps in the liberal nether world a miracle happened and you woke up some morning and told the guy in the mirror, maybe , just maybe that conservative guy has a point. Better yet. Take 5 seconds of your time and write down all of obama’s accomplishments in his adult life, other than the claim, it is Bush’s fault.

        Bob.

  12. Don G says:

    What a blessed country we live in. Millions of people do not have the freedom or technology to discuss openly whether this is a brilliant piece of word crafting or sewage from the bowels of men.

    It is both. The use of verbs by the author clearly indicates their intention to incite negative emotion into those who identify with being conservative. The fact that there are lies and speculation sprinkled within truth is meant to add to the negative energy by making it “credible”.

    So let’s put on our independent thinking caps for a moment and ask ourselves the question – “how would this article read if we removed the verbs, the lies and the speculation?”

    Answer….. An article not worth reading. An article not worth discussing. Do something more productive with your time than pass around crap like this.

    I will be letting the person that forwarded this email to me know that he is a “sewage facilitator”, a title you can put on your email signature if you forwarded this to anyone.

    Signed,
    Libertarian at Heart

    p.s. James – You’re a liberal. You admit to being a “progressive” and your web site says this: “How the right wing is stealing elections, destroying our country and laughing all the way to the bank.” But because you appear to desire truth, we might get along.

  13. J Mac says:

    Hey Don G- (and all you others sitting on the fence, calling yourselves “progressives”..

    What exactly is a libertarian OR a “progressive” for that matter? Someone who wants to tax the hell out of people who earn a “lot” of money, yet supports payments to those who do nothing for it or are here illegally? Someone who wants to keep abortion legal (the wholesale slaughtering of unborn human beings) yet protests the death penalty for murderers? At least liberals have the balls to take a stance on issues, even though their arguments are more often than not based on fantasy, contradictions and hypocrisy. I don’t mean to slam you, but I’m really tired of people telling me they are libertarians! It’s like they can’t say the word “conservative” without offending some of their nut-case friends on the left. In my opinion, if you claim to be a Republican or Democrat, you’re a fool for being purely party affiliated. If you claim to be a libertarian or “progressive”, you want to get along with everyone by appearing to intellectually balance all aspects of an issue to “arrive”at the “well informed” position, regardless of the validity of your presentation. If you claim to be a liberal, at least you have the balls to take the heat, though you have no brains to examine the facts, and you certainly have NEVER taken any classes in either finance, economics or accounting, and you don’t know JACK about this country’s history OR the free enterprise system! That leaves those who claim to be a conservative. As evidenced by the person who started circulating this Washington Post article, you will always have those on any side who are overzealous. But by and large, their arguments hold far more water than any other organized political group out there, as ANYONE with an ounce of brains and who uses the New York Times as a bird cage liner (as opposed to reading it) can tell you. Oh… and verbs, adjectives, nouns, pronouns, adverbs, conjugations, or any other term you may want to add to the list, that article being circulated, regardless of who wrote it or where it was supposed to have appeared, is true. Liberals now know it as does every other American. PERIOD. Obama is a failure, as is the lamestream media for covering for him, and the liberal (oh… and progressive) establishment for electing him. I am always astounded at the stupidity of the left. They always wonder why this country is so screwed up yet look who they elect to congress. Add to those people the STUPID “Republicans” who keep electing RINOS. I suggest everyone ignore the media, dump their party and vote liberal or conservative.

    • patriotaz says:

      I’m confused–I thought the Libertarians were like 180 degrees apart from the Progressives. Are the Progressives now starting to call themselves Libertarians? Libertarians are strict Constitutionalist–Progressives want to rewrite the Constitution to suit their whims. Help–clarification needed please.

      • pish says:

        J Mac is showing his intelligence… Patriotaz – you are correct. Libertarian and Progressive are worlds apart. Libertarians want smaller government and to be left alone. As for Progressives, I still don’t undertand what they actually want…

  14. Burgundy Bob says:

    I am the grandad and my grandson keeps me on course. With the new internet age, we are all deluged with info some is valid and some is not – Isn’t this one way that Obama got elected – and it appeared that many young people grabbed on to this new way of getting their info and got caught up in the “Yes we can”, “Hope and change” etc. How many looked at what Obama had done??, very few obviously. For Matts article, I could care less if it was published but I can not find fault with the content . But of course the liberals will contest most of the content, but for me it rings true. Too bad that somebody tried to make it more “authentic” by indicating that it was posted in the Post

    • Jusy says:

      Thank you Burgundy Bob for making this point. What you said is so true! Whenever I receive an email containing information such as this one, before I forward it to any of my contacts I always do some research to verify if it is true. Like you, I knew the contents to be valid, but if I had forwarded this on, all I would have “heard” was that the email was not true b/c the author did not work for The Washington Post. The citizens of this country need to educate themselves and realize that there can be a lot of truth in an email that has a slight error in it. Be willing to search for the truth and not wait for it to be spoon fed to you. If they don’t one day we may lose the choice to vote for any President.

  15. Pingback: PROP MAIL: Jay Leno Said What? | Smoking Politics

  16. CMF says:

    What’s amazing to me is that I see many comparable emails circulated by presumably intelligent folks out there. In other words, as long as the content is consistent to their beliefs or political positions, they’ll disseminate the crap without any regard for it’s level of accuracy (or in most cases inaccuracies). See it all the time, even from my 89 yr old Republican mother subsequent to her receipt from someone she knows !! I will say, however, that she doe’s genuinely appreciate when I invalidate the various assertions via sites like this, factcheck.org etc…. Happy Holidays !!

  17. brs says:

    I landed at this site strictly see if the claims of the email were true. While I agree with the email I found the rest of the story suspect (and rightfully so). However, to attribute email and internet falsification strictly to Republicans is arrogant, foolish and just as misleading as that which you protest.

  18. Anne Hijme says:

    I love how you assume (or phrase in such a way that it seems-since one comment of yours stated other possibility) that Matt Patterson started the claim. It was probably someone else who saw his column on American Thinker and thought he should spread the word and putting Washington Post would make it more believable or inspire more people. I also love how you complain about a conservative email circulating around being falsify and not about the many liberal ones that are. You should help your side from misinformation as well [by the way like Ken found your site when double checking if it was actually from Washington Post which I doubt it was and obviously right]. On another note on his website he states himself as a commentator and columnist not for any particular place but that his work was publish in those various newspapers, etc like the Washington Post. If he was going to spread such an email, he would be an idiot beyond all belief (Though I guess we got plenty of those in this world).

    Of course there is always the liberal ones in the news that is represented as fact every single day. Like oh the Unemployment Rates going down how great President Obama is for doing so.(if it is then let’s think about everything it doesn’t include those who given up on searching for a job, ones who are underemployed[Have a degree and not employed in a position that uses it.], those who are part time who want to be full time, etc (Basic Macroeconomics). Side note I know all Presidents have fudge the numbers when it comes to this-but media doesn’t even point out what it includes. The news needs to be straight forward and not for any side (So yes Fox News you are bias not as equal as they claim). It is the NEWS not a political agenda push.

    On third and final note, I would love for you to point out the misinformation of the article. Yes it is put in strong bias language as Don G said, but doesn’t make it entirely inaccurate (You remember in Critical Thinking class you are just to change it to neutral like tones or consider the positive tones when analyzing the article). Almost every speech I hear him (And this is not counting the ones on Fox News) he is stuttering and saying ‘Uh’ and ‘Um’ and ‘Er’ yet proclaim as a great speech-man. Last time I was in speech class, that was considered terrible performance. Same thing with long pauses between words or repeating words. Another thing there is a big difference between book smarts and applying intelligence to create practical solutions. So even if he graduated top of his class, I haven’t seen intelligent moves on his part.

    It has many other great points such as the most common racism/sexism of today: Jobs like policemen, firemen, etc. lowering the standards so more woman can be in the job (which as a woman I find unacceptable. These jobs have requirements for a reason), which is applied to many schools cause they must have a certain percentage of what is considered ‘minority groups’. And census, jobs, schools, etc asking about race. It doesn’t matter. I don’t think of people based on where they are raised or color of skin. If you truly want to stop racism then ignore such factors; it isn’t important and doesn’t make you a better or worse person.

    Yes, I’m a Conservative Libertarian in my political views. I do not support Republicans (No Republicans aren’t conservative despite what news says; just like George W. Bush isn’t a conservative despite the news claim [he was a moderate of sorts if you don't believe me look up conservative values compared to what he supported] or Democrats I think they are both terrible for our great country.

  19. Holly says:

    Yes, you are biased if you think that only or mostly the Right sends this sort of email.

    I am biased on the Right, and of course I could say that I constantly see the Left just blatantly lying about events and data when something looks bad for its side, or to sway impressionable minds. I can also suggest that if it is more the Right than the Left employing this type of email communication vehicle (on steroids or not) perhaps it is because the Left owns almost all the other vehicles of communication (media) in this country and slants information in its favor practically as a matter of policy, while exhorting in disdainful disgust the uncouth, uneducated, ignoramuses who dare not agree, or anyone who might question the left’s “truth.”

    All we can do is ask of people to use their noggins and be discerning. Let the outcomes speak for the truth or not of whatever anyone says.

  20. Budsned says:

    Just for fun, why doesn’t everyone discuss the merits of the commentary article written by Patterson. Arguing over who is distorting what gets us nowhere. Somehow this country has to find a leader who can unite the country instead of divide it. Obama promised he’d unite it but has done more to divide the country than anyone in history. Patterson’s article makes some very interesting points about Affirmative Action and the results of it – not just about Obama, but other people who are victimized by this practice. Many of the students who are admitted to fancy schools because of the color of their skin only to fail miserably are truly victims of Affirmative Action, not beneficiaries.
    Can the liberals discuss issues in a substantive manner? I don’t see any of them doing it.

    • patriotaz says:

      “Can the liberals discuss issues in a substantive manner”? That’s an interesting question–my experience is ‘No’. I was having a wonderful online, idealogical debate with a progressive–we were debating back and forth sharing our facts and data. It was really very interesting and I must say I was enjoying it–until all of a sudden she started to attack my grammar (actually a spelling mistake). So, I guess the ‘fact’ is true that liberals/progressives start the personal attacks when they feel threatened of losing the debate. I ended my discussion with this progressive because when she made the personal attack, she lost all credibility with me and I didn’t want to waste anymore of my time.

    • Monty says:

      Discuss the “merits” of the letter? Seemed like an ill informed rant to me. Nothing more.

      Whoever sent the email was trying to sensationalize it by claiming it was an article published by the Post. That was false!

      • John says:

        Personal attacks are used by people of all stripes when losing arguments — not any particular group. It is unfortunate that people get so invested in “winning” an argument that they resort to insults when their ideas fail or they are unable to think quickly enough to make a convincing argument.
        Another irritating habit when losing an argument is to mount a new attack (different accusation) to avoid conceding that an opponent has made a valid point.

  21. DCTRJAY says:

    After doing some actual, genuine research, either Mr. Patterson is misinformed or does not want to be informed about the, “The Affirmative Action President” article which was never published in the Washington Post, New York Post or San Francisco Examiner but was published in American Thinker Magazine. Why is that not a surprise? Mr. Patterson refers to Pres. Obama’s pre-presidential life being, “ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores.” How does Mr. Patterson know what Pres. Obama’s grades and test scores were? The schools Pres. Obama attended are not allowed to give out that information.

    Mr. Patterson mentions, “along the way; a cushy non-job as a community organizer.” From what I understand, being a community organizer is a lot of hard work, a lot of knocking on doors and convincing people to get involved in improving their neighborhood and environment. Mr. Patterson mentions Pres. Obama’s, “brief career as a state legislator”, Eight years in the Illinois Senate seams like a respectable time to me. Of his time in the Illinois Legislature, Pres. Obama helped pass more than 800 bills, helped sheppard through a law that banned most gifts from lobbyist and personal use of campaign funds by state legislators and a law requiring police to video tape interrogations and confessions and yet, Mr. Patterson calls this, “devoid of legislative achievement”. Only 129 times out of 4,000 votes in the Illinois Legislature did Pres. Obama vote, “present”.

    Although I personally don’t care for the Rev, Jeremiah Wright, he has a right to free speech just like the rest of us. I don’t condone what Bill Ayers did, blowing up empty public buildings, but if you want to blame someone for Mr. Ayers not going to jail, blame the FBI under the Nixon administration for botching the investigation. As far as I know, Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crime and is free to move among us just as you or I.

    I could go on and on about all the other inconsistencies in Mr. Patterson’s diatribe, but I feel I would be wasting my time and my time is more valuable that this.

    • patriotaz says:

      One point about Obama’s experience and achievement–do you honestly equate “knocking on doors and convincing people to get involved” is experience in leadership? Com on, that’s a really big stretch!!!

    • pish says:

      And Illinois is just doing so well for themselves too… He only served 7 years by the way… And he voted present because he was a chicken 129 times.

  22. Yes, yes – I figured the WaPo byline was a phony. What’s hilarious, though, is the little blurb at the top of your page: “How the right wing is stealing elections, destroying our country and laughing all the way to the bank.” I’m curious: just what ARE you smoking with your politics?

  23. Kevin Kearns says:

    I received the Patterson E-mail today from a friend. I enjoyed every word of it. Obama has been given a pass on his past as well as the present state of affairs. I know–it’s all Busch’s fault.
    I then investigated the E-Mail because I had my doubts that the Post would publish it. Before I sent it around I wanted to make sure I got my facts straight. I know that’s hard to believe (a Republican getting his facts straight). I only wish I could give the rightful Author his just dues when I send this letter to all my friends.

  24. Chrostoph Thomas says:

    Great debate. This is a micro of the coming presidental election. Obama has accomplished nothing but add to the economic problems. He has to defend his record and he can’t. His tactic will be to distroy the other side by any means necessary. His allies on the left will do the best they can, but in the end it will not be enough, even with billions in the war chest. This place will come apart when he looses.

    This will be fun to watch from a distance. I’ll take a vacation out of the country that week. Maybe not come back until the dust (riots) settles.

  25. Randy Kathmann says:

    Indeed I’m sure Mr. Paterson is not a writer for the NYP, but the more remarkable aspect of this story is what no one commented on: that being the “facts” presented by this article (perhaps the word “political commentary” might be the better descriptive).

    Though the commentary is mostly political conjecture (that being there are few “provable facts” that can be unearthed about Obama (for example, because BHO’s college records have been sealed; and it seems no can validate much at all about his past, other that what he has written about himself (, i.e., has anyone actually eye-balled his birth certificate…….that in itself is strange enough).

    Personally, my belief is that Lincoln would have sounded like the same person with, or without his teleprompter had he had one! That “fact” in the article says it all about the charade created by this president and the political machine that made him who he is today.

  26. Pingback: Monty Pelerin's World » Obama: An Affirmative Action Gift

  27. Norma says:

    I’m a retired librarian. I do like to see things cited correctly. Matt Patterson does write opinion pieces that appear in conservative sources, like Washington Times, and Washington Examiner, but not Washington Post. The Affirmative Action piece appeared in American Thinker, an on-line collection for conservative and libertarian writers, and someone started circulating the rumor it was in WaPo probably mistaking it for Washington Times. That’s a bit like saying Fox News is ABC News because they both have the word News in their name.

  28. Barbara says:

    I just received this article in my email today. Although I agree with the sentiment of the piece, I too, have discovered it wise to check out the facts before forwarding on. Like many Americans, I am curious as to Obama’s academic standing, how he managed to enter and pay for his schooling, who his friends were as a student, his associates as an aspiring politico. If there is no skeleton, why all of the secrecy? Why the avoidance of the issues? I suspect that his closeted background is as lack-luster and deceptive as his public performance.

  29. Biker Bob says:

    I think the real issue here is that the conservative, republican etc groups are using the same tactics that the Demoncrap/communist have been using for years and now they are crying foul. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but this is Washington DC politics and they are all lying scum….. so what’s the problem? At least the “article” speaks the truth unlike the typical Demoncrap propaganda, ya know republicans want to kill and murder anyone not a Demoncrap!!!! But the hypocrisy there is the Demoncraps support baby murder, muslim honor killings and are the most anti Christian and anti white people in America! Liberalism is a Severe Mental Disorder.

  30. waltnich says:

    We’re talking Politics, for gosh sakes.
    Politics.
    It’s who you know not what you know.
    Perception is reality.
    Politics, just spin the perception and you are the master of reality.
    Politics.
    And you are trying to fien an intelligent conversation???

    The meaningful question is, what does this all mean for you and me?
    Think back to the summer before every election that elected a new Administration in the Fall.
    Reflect on the outgoing Administration; did you feel optimistic about your future? Did you feel upwardly mobile? compared to how you felt at the start?

    Escalate! It was Johnsons war.
    Nixon ended it.
    We couldn’t wait to put Carter in. I remember Optimistic times.
    Carter to Regan……….
    Regan to Bush………..
    Bush to Clinton………
    Clinton to Bush……..
    Bush to Obama……..
    Today……………………

  31. Harald Gruber says:

    What amazes me is that “conservatives” are vilified, put down, called names and made out to be liars, when “liberals” do the same, or more and are praised. i.e. Nancy Pelosi saying that 70% of Americans are for gay marriage. Baloney, 40% are. If it were possible to have some informed, factual discussion from a perspective other than, “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts!” it would be nice.

  32. Rachel says:

    I didn’t think this sounded right that this article would be in the WaPo…because the WaPo would never be that honest in their reporting. They are not journalists…they are cheerleaders and propagandists.

  33. John says:

    I’m with J Mac.

  34. Bill Hoidas says:

    Dude are you kidding? Yes both th right & left can be overzealous at times but it doesn’t get any worse than the Huffington Post & Media Matters!

  35. ouija says:

    It’s a fact of modern life and the effects of social media that we must now corroborate and double-check sources and purported facts, no matter where they come from, even directly from any news outlet. Journalism has collapsed spectacularly, and the temptation to fill our own echo chambers is great. I’m actually disappointed this didn’t run in the Washington Post. I would have had a little more respect for them. Oddly, in this case, the opinion piece was forward to my wife by her very liberal boss, who cited it as an example of the fairness of WaPo.

  36. Gar Alb says:

    Whoever wrote the article speaks truth. Whoever formulated the e-mail doesn’t. For the left patting themselves on the back for how high and moral they are… you can’t balance a budget, you’re spending future generations wealth (known as theft), you attack Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and call it clever, but you never call that a war on women, unless it coincides with your own personal agenda, and the desire the left has for centralized power and 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce government run healthcare, is totalitarian in nature, because you believe a King George is the answer.

    • Johnt says:

      Words have meaning. Moral, to some progressives, is flexible — like the Constitution. It changes to fit new rationalizations and for convenience.

  37. JR says:

    You know, it’s always so terribly sad to watch neocons squirm when they get busted. They can never simply say “Look, we know all our theories are just a bunch of warmed over lies and failed retreads, but at least you caught us!” No. I suppose that would be too painful. So instead they deflect. “Well, you ‘liberals’ are just as bad as we are!” That is what they can claim as their best defense? Seriously? It is wrong. It is untrue. It is a lie. Listen, teabaggers need to stop lying about their records and their opponent’s records and simply realize if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck! You are narrow-minded, largely racist, entirely brainwashed lemmings who listen to the Fox/Goebbels propaganda machine to tell you what to think. The last writer actually defended mental midgets like Palin & Bachmann and then tries to claim some semblance of credibility??? Calling them out isn’t a war on women – it’s a war on ignorance. Just as calling out Allen West isn’t a war on blacks – it’s a war on ignorance! At SOME point when will you drones realize that when you attack government, you attack America. You attack the Constitution. And you weaken the only body capable of defending against a corporate culture of greed that has already demonstrated it will rape and pillage you, lie to you and even kill you, as long as it enhances their bottomline. Corporations are NOT people. PEOPLE are people! Yet you people are destroying the very freedom you claim to want so desperately by supporting the very institutions who are determined to enslave you! Wake up people!

    • Johnt says:

      Apologies to the other John. I’ll change my moniker.
      Wow! Is this diatribe another example of original critical thinking? Is IT a quote from the Washington Post? I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere before …. or did I hear it in an Obama speech?

  38. Tom Fintel says:

    I received the letter at issue in my email, and like a good scout, I was trying to confirm whether or not it was genuine when I stumbled upon this site.

    Let me say that I am sick and tired of this kind of letter, but I am also revolted by the kind of debate and finger-pointing that follows such activities. I am tired of single-issue politics, and I truly fear for my country.

    I spent more than 30 years in the US Army – three years in combat – and another 16 years in the business world. I find our current political “discourse” more revolting than anything I saw in those 46 years – including the combat tours.

    The far right and the far left have disenfranchised me and the great majority of the American people who are willing to consider rational social, political, economic and military alternatives.

    No human being has a franchise on “the truth” – get over it, and get along, or you’re going to lose it all.

    A pox on both of your houses!

    Pendragon

  39. John Prescott says:

    You are all correct that the article did not appear in WAPO. If it had, it would not have been amazing, it would have been unique. (BTW, the article DID appear in American Thinker on August 18, 2011. It is not an Internet hoax.)

    So much for essentially irrelevant details; now let’s address a few critical questions:
    1. The article represents the author’s interpretation of indisputable historical facts; does it make any false ‘factual’ claims?
    2. Why was the article written; isn’t its premise supported by common sense?
    3. Wouldn’t YOU make similar assertions if an inexperienced employee at your workplace was suddenly elevated to president of the company?
    4. Why did AT (a fairly intelligent outfit) feel it was worthy of their bandwidth?
    5. And finally, why do you imagine so many people feel comfortable circulating the message if it doesn’t make complete sense to them (or to any rational observer)?

    • John Prescott says:

      ADDENDUM: After re-reading a few of the previous posts, I decided to correctly attribute the subject article to The American Thinker — and send it to “The World.” It makes perfect sense to me!

  40. Warren Hopkins says:

    I agree it is misleading to claim something that is not valid. Anyone who was interested can find information about Matt Patterson. Whether the article mentioned was really printed in the Washington Post is a poor attempt to prove something that doesn’t matter, who really cares! What matters is what he said, not where it was printed. There is a real different between fact, fiction and the truth. It it was printed in the Washington Post or the New York Times proves nothing.
    What we usually see in the media is opinion, fiction, and sometime clear lies masquerading as fact. The fact that unemployment claims are down next week proves very little. The real question is how many people are unemployed who want a job? If anyone believes this country can spend its way to prosperity by printing money has not studied history. The idea it might work this time is very scary, if not insane! The liberals have been in charge of the country since 2006. How have they done? Six year later it is still Bush’s fault, why not blame Herbert Hoover?

  41. Earl Bloom says:

    Too many of you can’t see the forest for the trees. What “is” important here is that “someone” told the TRUTH explicitly as it needed to be told. It is unimportant as to “who” said it. The focus by the responders is erroneously on the “who” not the important ‘what” in order to obfuscate the real message! The message herein is the epitome of ratiocination. Can “anyone” refute that with any Truth?

  42. okieindian@hotmail.com says:

    Instead of condemning the idiots on the right, why not compare them with the morons on the left. As a life-long Democrat from a family of life-long Democrats, I find it disgusting that Democrats have been destroying this country since taking over in 2007…(and blaming Bush??) I suppose that this blog will now defend the latest anti-American signing which stops Americans from speaking out against its “leaders” within an area to be designated randomly by those who are afraid to face opposition.

  43. Susan LeFebvre says:

    Up front-I am no fan of Mr. Obama. Enough of that. However, when I received the email with the text of “Affirmative Action”, I did go looking for the source. I didn’t want to pass it on to others without this information. So now that I have the story straight, I will forward it to others with the appropriate reference. I pursue making a case against the man, but want to do that as accurately as I can.

  44. Blake Morgan says:

    For many years the United States has been involved in a civil war; the Far Right and The Far Left. Normal Democrats and Republicans are not waging war except during election time. The people who are always trying to be heard all the time, before during and after elections, are Lefists and Rightists who never take a break and keep things stirred up with hate. Americans hating Americans was never meant to be. We elected a president and if you do not like him pick another. In four years if you don’t like him/her, pick another. In between please give the rest of we Americans a break and be still. Quit sending bogus shock emails that we have to look up because I really do not want to read them if they are from the left or the right. Incidentally, our kids believe what their favorite movie stars have to say. Would you really want your child to grow up and emulate their life styles. So, movie stars keep it in the movies because Democrats and Republicans really don’t care what your opinions are.

  45. Dawn says:

    The final word on this article is what Kelly Barry said. The truth about obama unfortunately wrapped in a lie so you forget the point of it all. Sad! The left is so darn busy calling people names and pretending that they are the intelligent ones that their ignorance becomes glaring. They are not only ignorant but blind as they chose not to see the truth. Sickening and hopeless people really!

  46. Peter Faletto says:

    Maybe you sir, should check your facts…his credentials are substantial. Just because you didn’t read his history and chose to do the same cursory check that many of us did doesn’t make the article any less worthwhile. He is a legitimate author and this piece did run. You are in the business…do your (home)work or become irrelevant.

  47. Pyronaught says:

    This type of email forwarding only works if a large enough percentage of the population agrees with whatever the message says. It’s a grass roots type mechanism, thus can not be controlled by either party. So it is not that Republicans are good at leveraging this type of political commentary, it’s that most people agree with the emails which have a conservative slant to them and are forwarding them. If liberalism appealed to more people then their messages would be getting forwarded, but just as liberal radio programs fail due to lack of listeners, their email chain letters fail too. Liberalism: the ideology of fail.

  48. Mark Sonnenklar says:

    I could care less where this was printed. It is well-written and right on. You talk about an echo chamber on the right. I live in Los Angeles. This is an echo chamber of the left. It is very easy for a liberal to never be exposed to conservative thought. It is next to impossible for a conservative to not be exposed to liberal thought in today’s media culture: NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. etc. It is pretty rich for a liberal to be talking about an echo chamber on the right. The irony is that your statement comes out of your own echo chamber, Mr. Boyce.

  49. Bruce Kaskubar says:

    Left, right, whatever. Boyce, your opening premise is (at least mostly) incorrect. Your errors in judgment regarding the big right wing false message conspiracy include these: (1) it is impossible to tell the difference between malice and incompetence and (2) the phenomenon is not restricted to the right.

    On the first error, you jumped to a conclusion of malice (or at least intent). In my experience, these cases are the other. The Patterson piece is real. The incorrect WaPo reference only required one person’s error or lie; hardly a conspiracy. The quickness to forward as 100% genuine is human nature and internet culture. I’ve tried educating senders of such things about searching first but they don’t. Their trust is apparently in their sources. And so it goes.

    On the second error, I see items of the same kind from both sides.

    Finally, is it possible that the potential for truth in such articles causes discomfort? Does moving the spotlight from the story, to the story behind the story, protect you from introspection? Is there satisfaction in discounting an entire message because one bit of it is incorrect? Would any of that be intellectually honorable?

  50. Yes, it would have been a great article if only Matt Patterson hadn’t stolen it from me. I wrote about the “First Affirmative Action President” in 2008 on my blog, PJ Fusco On The News. I’ve reprinted it there. So, he’s not only a fraud, but a plagiarizing fraud which means that stuff you see flowing down into the sewers after a giant rainstorm…that’s him in there with it.

  51. Rebecca says:

    I’m a conservative. As soon as I started reading the first few lines I knew it probably was not published in the WA Post. I hate when people do this type of stuff. Unfortunately people who spread lies without research are never from just one political party. I couldn’t believe a graphic a liberal made saying Obama made only one executive order. People were reposting it like crazy. Apparently they dont even know the president they voted for as the WHITE HOUSE website shows he has had over 140 executive orders.

    Let’s all do our research please.

  52. Will Hayes says:

    The only problem with the left’s response to the article is that they only attack the sourcing/author’s connection to certain publications. They can refute nothing from the opinion column. The left always argues ad hominem, as, intellectually, they can refute nothing.

  53. Frederick-The-Great says:

    Just a simple question for the “Conservatives” quoted above: Why is it I have not heard or seen lauditory exclamations for the eight years of George W. Bush?

    I have a friend who says the greatest mistake the Democratic party ever made was to win the ’08 campaign. He insists they should have allowed the Republicans to reap the rewards of “the Bush years”. That it wold have spelled the end of the Republican party.

  54. Jump Summo says:

    What’s amazing to me is that we with brains can’t do the one thing which will save this nation. Elect those who will put a cash bounty on Stupid. The liberals will run like cock roaches when the lights come on because there aren’t two properly functioning brain cells in any liberal mind. I suppose this has a lot to do with present day let anyone with a pulse and even some without one vote in our elections. The truth about Obama was out there before he was even elected to his first office. Anyone with a brain could find it. Put it right in front of them and their eyes glaze over as they deny it exists.

    Regardless of where he was born he was raised to hate America and financed by people who hate America. Donations via the internet? How untraceable is that?

    I’ve yet to meet a single Obama voter who actually read either of his books or bothered to google his name. Not a single one ever heard of Barry Soetoro. They think it’s funny that this sign exists. http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/ss/welcome_to_kenya_sign.htm Yes it’s a hoax but both BCs posted by Whitehouse.gov are fake too but the stupid people don’t care.

    Same people voted for Clinton for that matter. This makes them twice S-T-U-P-I-D BANG! CHA-CHING! It’s the only solution.

  55. Pingback: Obama: The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

  56. joe aguirre says:

    Are you going to comment on David Gergens article where he voices basically the same opinion? Or is that too close to the truth. It’s on CNN. He also wrote how Obama needs to stop lying about the Bain story he and his stooges in the media are shoveling out there to try and get you to ignore three years of failed policiesn fast and furious and billions given to democratic donors that just so happened to own bankrupted green energy companies. Let’s not get started on the phony “he saved the big three auto makers” Ford did not take a cent and this was more like giving ownership to the UAW for all the donations they have given Dems over the years.

  57. H whodaguy says:

    Look at his website. I did, here is the article. It’s True, he wrote it – believe it.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html

  58. Ted Savard says:

    The following article was written by Ted Savard, Abilene, TX 79602. Ted is fast approaching his 75 birthday and provides his honest opinion on the State of the United States of America, and its President Barack H. Obama. He has been a resident of Taylor County, Texas since April 1977. He is currently retired, but very concerned about the future of this country and the veracity of the current federal Administration!

    THE MODERN DAY “PIED PIPER”
    Most adults today may remember the legend (fairy tale) of the Pied Piper who in the 16th century led the children of the town of Hamelin, Germany, away from their homes using bright clothing and a magic, musical pipe, never to be seen again! The tale goes that with simple pied (multicolored clothing) and the vast skills of a musician he was able to take from the community what was most dear to them.

    Now consider that tale and think about what was going on in this country two years prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration in Washington DC January 20, 2009. To some, it may be somewhat of a stretch, however, our incumbent President has, since his first day in office, and the two years prior, did about the same thing as “the Pied Piper” with his, “Change you can believe in“, and other slogans. He was elected by more than 50% of the voting population, and the election resulted in a virtual landslide when viewing electoral college results. Just how could this happen? Barack Obama came up through the ranks somehow, student, lawyer, neighborhood organizer, State of Illinois official, and a first term United States Senator.

    Many Americans are still scratching their heads and asking the same question, how could anyone be elected to the most powerful office in the WORLD, with such a meager, resume and thoroughly untested in action? Well, ladies and gentlemen, he did it the very same way the Pied Piper lured the children away from Hamelin! I have from the beginning been accused of saying Mr. Obama is a very, very poor leader, but after five and a half years of listening and watching him perform I must admit that “he certainly has been successful in leading many Americans “down the road, out of town” to do exactly what he wants them to do. What skills must a person have to do this?

    Leadership, in my opinion, is a key element in this formula and selling is Mr. Obama’s forte. Having spent the past 60 years working in, and studying management, primarily with the federal government (Department of Defense), and followed by the next 26 years in the real estate brokerage and property management business I have observed all types of leadership from the Laissez-faire leader (providing little or no leadership) to the Autocratic Leader (something like Stalin or Hitler). My firm belief is that Mr. Obama’s style falls somewhere in between with a colorful strain of Narcissism mixed with a touch of what a Toxic leader may possess! He sometimes tops it all off with a sly smile and a song to seal the deal.

    *Just in case you wonder how he seduced so many freedoms loving Americans to blindly follow him read on. Listed here are some of the traits of a narcissistic (Pied Piper) type of leader who wants followers at any cost:

    1. Grandiose self view
    2. Pursues power at all costs
    3. Devalues and exploits others without remorse
    4. Easily bored, and often changes course
    5. Traumatic childhood a possibility

    *Now if you will indulge me take a look at what a Toxic type of leader looks like without the fancy colored clothing:

    1. Oppositional behavior
    2. Plays corporate politics
    3. A condescending/glib attitude-Look this one up!
    4. Causes workplace division vs., harmony
    5. Uses “divide and rule” tactics

    *If the narcissism becomes aggressive then the following may apply and the Pied Piper/leader further seduces more children:

    1. Superficial charm/Glibness- this really works!
    2. Pathological lying-Watching dated speeches discloses this trait
    3. Lack of remorse or guilt- A sweet smile or song covers this up!
    4. Shallow emotional affect-Genuine emotion short lived
    5. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions, BLAME BUSH!

    I love a good story, especially one that has a happy ending. Of course the jury is still out on this one, but indulge me for a moment longer. The stakes are very high. We have National Debt (almost 16 Trillion dollars) on the path of a runaway train. Failure to control our debt will result in the very country we love so much to die in bankruptcy. Real unemployment is over 10% with many of the people giving up the idea of getting a job. Businesses are operating in a “fog of the unknown and resulting despair” since it seems like the current US Administration is actually opposed to success as we know it.

    When Mr. Obama said, “there will be change you can believe in”, perhaps what he really, meant was, and as a result of his purposeful leadership style , ( inaction, and or ignoring essential daily activities such as cabinet meetings, hiding from the nations activities and press corps, poor international communication and cooperation, un-timely decision making or simply not taking action on issues that could come back to “bite him”, and just not present most of the time except to campaign); and as a result:

    ******************
    America will be severely reduced to less than before he came on scene, large government will foster a more indentured, dependent population, and an over abundance of stifling taxes, laws, and memos to rule (businesses and the people) as a tyrant and not as our president.

    ******************
    Americas allies, business and , security partners, and the world in general will, as a result of Mr. Obama’s actions or purposeful inactions, will defer to associate with us, or severely limit activities with us resulting in a slow and very painful decay of the USA in the world.

    What are we to do? Do we continue to follow the hollow drumbeat in “Pied Piper” fashion or turn off the music, and dialog that has persisted for the past five and a half years to lure us and this country over the cliff much like a bunch of rats. It will be up to you and all of the other voting Americans to get the problem fixed.

    Ted Savard, Abilene, Texas

    * Reference: Wikipaedia.ORG/Narcissistic_ Leadership

  59. Mikey, Md. native in Fla. says:

    Yeah, I got this email and googled it because I couldn’t believe the WaPo actually would print something so negative about the President.
    So I’m not surprized it’s fake.
    HOWEVER, I have seen stories in/on newspapers, televison stations and their online websites, that have later been “edited” to reflect their political slant on whatever the issue a breaking news type article might bring up.
    Take for instance where a man stabbed his ex or soon to be ex-wife, in Anytown, USA, (can’t remember the city’s name) that was stopped by a gun carrying legally armed citizen. The later “updated” version included everything the first article carried, plus various random quotes from citizens, yet it completely left out how the jerk was stopped by the man with a gun, who ordered the attacker to drop the knife.
    The newspaper most likely has a anti-gun political slant (most “journalists” are registered Democrats) so they most likely left that out “by accident” thereby “sanitizing” the story.
    My point is I don’t believe anything I read on the blogisphire OR the “news” media without digging into it.

    Mikey, Md. native in Fla.

  60. donald lee shea says:

    only if mr obama would release his records and we wouldn’t need all his BS

  61. Marquita says:

    I’m gone to inform my little brother, that he should also pay a quick visit this website on regular basis to obtain updated from most up-to-date reports.

  62. Hey there just wanted to give you a quick heads up.
    The words in your post seem to be running off the screen in Chrome.

    I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with web browser compatibility but I thought I’d post to let you know.
    The design and style look great though! Hope you get the issue resolved soon.

    Many thanks

Leave a Reply