Coburn: Obama Likes Programs That Increase Dependency Because Obama Has Benefited From These Programs

Oh, he went there.

Where are the transcripts?

Hot Air highlights his line, "It's a good think I can't pack a gun on the Senate floor," but I don't think that's the one that will get all the press.

arlier, in Langley, Coburn partially deflected criticism of President Barack Obama - and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke - by blaming the country's financial woes on Congress. He described his colleagues as "a class of career elitists" and "cowards," and at one point, talking about his frustrations, said, "It's just a good thing I can't pack a gun on the Senate floor."

But Coburn also said most members of Congress are good people with good intentions.

Responding to a man in Langley who asked if Obama "wants to destroy America," Coburn said the president is "very bright" and loves his country but has a political philosophy that is "goofy and wrong."

Obama's "intent is not to destroy, his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him," he said.

"As an African-American male," Coburn said, Obama received "tremendous advantage from a lot of these programs."

It should be noted he's not necessarily talking about Affirmative Action, though of course the mind goes there quickly. He seems to be talking about so-called "anti-poverty" programs that create dependency, maybe.

Was Obama a beneficiary of such programs? I really don't know if he was poor enough for them.

Although the liberal screaming has begun -- how dare he! -- the seem to once again gloss over a foundational question:

Is it true?

For if it is true, it may be impolite to say, but it is... true.

So, is anyone going to check on that?

Second, it should be noted that there is ample precedent for this question -- asked by the left.

Clarence Thomas has been attacked by the left for supposedly (probably) benefiting from Affirmative Action programs, but opposing them.

Why should Obama be immune from a similar analysis? If Obama is personally compromised on the issue, by being emotionally invested in it -- hey, I benefited, can't "pull up the ladders now" as the left said of Clarence Thomas -- why is it forbidden to ask about this?

If it is fair game to speculate about Clarence Thomas' affirmative action history, why is it an outrage to speculate about Obama's?

The left alleged Clarence Thomas was too "mean" about Affirmative Action, pulling up "ladders" he had already climbed himself.

Okay. Well then, is Obama maybe too emotionally compromised on the issue, having climbed them as well?

I need it explained to me why one question is fair game and the other is horrific racism not seen since Bull Connor.

Where are the transcripts?

By the Way: Coburn goes way off conservative message in conceding that an "African American male" would be the "beneficiary" of such programs, as the standard conservative argument is that the negatives of such programs outweigh the positives.

But perhaps he means to concede that of course there are some benefits, too.

posted by Ace at 03:32 PM

| Access Comments