The Same Debate...

As I came to the table this morning and began to eat my daily breakfast of cheerios and strawberries, I came across an article written by one of my most loathed (and ironically favorite) columnists, Leonard Pitts. Leonard Pitts is known for his boldly liberal articles where he usually accuses a conservative politician, talk show host, or (if this week has not drug up the latest conservative to blame) community, accusing them of blatant racial discrimination. His ability to find the racist motive behind every problem in the entire history of mankind is still amazing to me. The latest column titled “A different kind of debate” Pitts describes his thoughts of the Republican candidacy of the upcoming 2012 presidential-election. A link to the article is provided below.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1478213.html

Pitts makes known his wish for Sarah Palin to run for the Republican candidacy. The very next paragraph he states, “I know you’re waiting for the punch line. Maybe you figure I think you’d be a weak candidate who would pave the way for President Obama’s easy re-election.” Pitts predicts the matter in which the reader is interpreting his column. More so, (because his article is directly aimed towards Sarah Palin) he predicts the matter in which Palin will interpret the column. He goes on to say, “That’s not it, No, I want you to run because I believe a Palin candidacy would force upon this country a desperately needed moment of truth. It would require us to finally decide what kind of America we want to be.” In my response to Mr. Pitts’ article, my intention is in no way to defend Mrs. Palin, but to expose an often used (and too often successful) tactic to demonize anyone who dares to think differently than him or has the audacity to speak out against President Obama’s ideas of change.

His argument stands on his distaste for Palin. He begins with calling her the “avatar of the shameless hypocrisy” and goes on to accuse her of being a “process of stupidification creeping like kudzu over our national life.” Continuing throughout the article referring to her as a “school kid who failed to study for the big test” or the “latest iteration of an anti-intellectualism.”

Pitts obviously presents no argument for Palin’s “stupidification” or why our country would be forced to “decide what kind of America we want to be” if she was nominated for the presidency. We just get a nice big pile of “hate Palin” puke in our laps by the end of the article. I, for one, did not know there were multiple types of America’s, as if we had a list to choose from like browsing through a Home Owners magazine. No, we have one United States of America; a country where our founding fathers understood the corruption of man, and imbedded in our Constitution the principals that were endowed by our Creator before any senate, parliament, or presidential seat even existed.

There are two mistakes Pitts often makes in his judgments; one, he continuously rights as if everyone reading agrees with him. It is almost as if he is writing to his followers rather than trying to persuade the people of a different belief. Therefore, he has free reign to assume whatever he wants, and continuously rants too often without a legitimate cause. The second problem is that he often underestimates the will of his adversaries. One example would be his opinions of the “so-called ‘tea party,’” where Pitts has made known his opposition to the gatherings. Let me remind Mr. Pitts of a gathering that occurred near 240 years ago that was one of catalysts for our inevitable revolution, where many peopled met and protested against a tyrannical government (similar to our own presently).

Pitts seems so desperate to degrade Palin and glorify Obama that he crutches on the simple concept of Teleprompters. He goes on to say, “Mrs. Palin, if Obama is an idiot for reading a prepared speech off a teleprompter, what are you for reading your notes you’ve inked on your hand?” Pitts obviously misunderstands the often used attack against Obama and his use of Teleprompters. Palin is not referring to Obama’s “lack of memorization” skills. No, that is irrelevant. She is referring to Obama machine. The machine that uses his charismatic features and attributes to change our country to what they see best, contrary to our Constitution. It frightens me to think of team O brainstorming a speech to think of ways they might tickle the ears of our citizens into blindly following, like an ox to the slaughter. The even more frightening thing is its working.

I agree with Leonard Pitts on a certain degree. We will certainly be forced to make a decision the next election, regardless of who runs against President Obama. If the candidates are running for the presidential seat that the founding fathers originally intended the presidential seat to be, then no, America will not change its principals. But if we choose to send our politicians of to DC without accountability, then what will they do with the very document that limits their control? As Thomas Jefferson said, “If men were angels, then there would be no need for a government.” Jefferson understood that while all men are created equal, all men also equally have the potential for corruption. I have yet to see evidence of Pitts’ understanding of this wisdom.

I encourage Leonard Pitts to not make the same mistake our country made on Election Day November 2nd, 2009. Do not take the mindset that giving someone a chance to run our country and to see what happens is a good idea and will bring prosperity to our nation. A little league base ball player is never drafted to pitch for the Yankees, a freshman is college is never expected to perform heart surgery, do not play Russian roulette with America.