Roland Martin (CNN) Claims the Republicans Are Desperate.

Martin uses four rather limp bullet topics to stake his claim that Republicans are desperate.  First he opines that the McCain campaign is “no longer about issues but about attacks.”  His second point used to support his straw hat is that Rep. Michelle Bachmann apparently referred to some of Obama’s views as anti-American.  Third, Martin makes a desperate reach for logic by claiming “[o]thers accuse him [Obama] of socialism and having a racial agenda.”  Talk about desperate, follow his sly syllogistic basket weaving. Martin says, McCain has “slammed Obama as essentially being a socialist.”  Ouch? Apparently, Martin believes that Obama is feeling [slammed?] insulted by the label therefore, Martin concludes that Republicans are desperate. What?

Regardless of the nonsensical logic, why would Obama be insulted by being referred to as a socialist? His policies are socialistic, are they not? Take the Obama “tax cut” for example. You know, the smoke and mirror talk for dummies—Obama’s plan will give 95% of working Americans a tax cut—yeah, that one. Is it not socialism that about 40% or more of those folks will be getting a check from Uncle Sam? Socialism is by definition, the argument that wealth should be owned, regulated, and shared by the community. Obama simply wants to continue being the community organizer. Sorry, Martin, your guy is a socialist. Now, since that description is accurate, why is it so difficult for Martin to accept that some folks feel that socialism views are anti-American views? How is possible that socialism is a favorable American view? America has always stood for capitalism—not socialism therefore, socialism is anti-American. If you’re from Mars, you’re possibly anti-American as well. There are definitely some folks in Congress that have socialistic views—very similar perhaps and in support of the same Obama socialistic views. If you have traditional American capitalistic values and opinions, then it is quite normal, fitting, and appropriate to refer to those Congressional socialistic views as anti-American. But then, Mr. Martin, you would not want to agree because you apparently are not in favor of capitalism. What troubles me is that you feel compelled to attack Republicans in general simply because Obama’s views are exposed. Aren’t issues and views often inextricable?

Then Martin says that Newt Gingrich suggests if Obama is elected, the Rev. Wright policies will be put in place.  However, Martin emphatically states that Gingrich has no clue as to what those policies are, or might be. Don’t most Americans already know what Rev. Wright is about? Of course we do.  There again, views and policies are often inextricable. If Rev. Wright preached racism and hate for twenty years, then Mr. Martin, isn’t it fair for Mr. Gingrich to conclude that Rev. Wright’s policies would undoubtedly be fraught with racism and hate? I believe most Americans agree with the logical concern that after having been in Rev. Wright’s church for twenty plus years, Obama’s policies might be inextricably linked to some of Rev. Wright’s views and policies. Ouch? Is this really a desperate attack,  or is it simply contemplating issues?

If the preceding two premises are the best that a nationally syndicated columnist can conjure up to reach such a silly and invalid conclusion that Republicans are Desperate, then I may indeed, have a blog career ahead of me.

We’re not yet finished. Let’s cast a little more light on the Martian like thinking expressed in the column. Did you notice above that Martin deals the race card himself from the bottom of the deck when he claims in his blog that others accuse Obama of having a racial agenda? Ouch! Please someone point out to me where in Martin’s blog is there anything written whatsoever to support his ludicrous statement. The only racial inference I found is made by Martin himself where he zealously accuses Republicans of wanting to “tar and feather” (Wikipedia) Obama. Ouch! Who’se doing the attacks? Republicans, I don’t think so.

Wikipedia. (n.d.). tar and feather. Retrieved from wikipedia: wikipedia.com Also during the 19th and 20th centuries, many African Americans were subjected to this treatment as a form of punishment or harassment.