Obama and the 57 States

Weekly Standard begins

By now you’ve seen the footage of Barack Obama ruing the fact that he hasn’t been able to visit all 57 states in this great union of ours. If you haven’t, scroll down a bit and read Goldfarb’s post on the matter. I’ll wait.

and continues…

Has Obama absorbed such expansionist designs to such an extent that he’s already counting his proverbial new chickens before they’ve hatched? Is he planning on adopting Canada? Perhaps he only has his eyes on the cool parts of Canada like Montreal and Toronto, and will let the remainder of our northern neighbor peacefully tend to its hockey playing and curling. And what of our neighbors to the south? Will we find ourselves in an Obama administration forced to refer to Haiti as Really South Dakota?

Now, if Obama actually supported the annexation of 7 new states, I would support him. However, his cowardice on immigration reform (allowing non-showhorse politicians like Ted Kennedy and John McCain to stick their necks out), his nativism on trade (opposition to NAFTA, DR-CAFTA, and the Colombian and Korean free trade areas), and his coalition’s hostility to latinos (as also reflected in latin wariness of him) makes that unlikely.

If John McCain used rhetoric as bigoted and hateful as Barack Obama, he would some comment about this is what you get with an affirmative action hire. Fortunately for political discourse in this country, John McCain isn’t a race-baiter in the way that Barack Obama is a race-baiter… or a baiter of other prejudices, for that matter.

Barack Obama should denounce his own divisive rhetoric on race and age, and in so doing help elevate politics in this country.

9 thoughts on “Obama and the 57 States”

  1. You know, I wish there was some marker in the clip here to suggest Obama were kidding, but there’s not, and that worries me just a bit … I mean, I think he’s joking, but can’t make a definitive argument that he is. (What also worries me as a Democrat is that Clinton’s not going to pull through, unfortunately.)

  2. Who exactly should we annex? After telling us who we should annex, tell us why this would benefit us?

  3. Seerov,

    We should annex the Mexican States [1], Cuba [2,3], and so on, in a steady process that would mirror the European Union’s absorption of central and eastern Europe. The first link should link to one of my posts that begin to argue why.


    Are any Obama supporters “insulted” [4] by your concerns? 🙂

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/04/12/the-manifest-destiny-of-the-american-nation.html
    [2] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2004/03/who_wants_to_be_the_51st_state.html
    [3] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B07EFDD153DE433A25756C1A9609C946397D6CF
    [4] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/08/insulted-by-reality.html

  4. I have seen the clip a few times. I think Obama is trying to make a joke using exaggeration.

    BTW, I am not voting for him – so I am not trying to cover up for him. There are 3 good reasons not vote for him: his proposed foreign policy, his proposed economic policies, his proposed domestic policies.

  5. I think his mind was moving faster than his mouth could talk. He probably *meant* to say “50 … 47 states, which leaves 1 to go. They won’t let me go to Alaska or Hawaii”.

    If AK and HI are out (either because five hours on a one-way flight is too much time away from arduous campaign, or because there’s no doubt which way they’ll vote), then he’s realistically campaigning in the 48 CONUS states.

    So, with “one to go”, 48 – 1 = 47. Not a gaffe, just a misspoken comment.

  6. Purpleslog,

    There are 3 good reasons not vote for him: his proposed foreign policy, his proposed economic policies, his proposed domestic policies.

    Could you say what these are?

    I have heard so many contradictory things on these from his supporters (He will meet with Iranian leaders. Except not personally, only through backdoor intermediaries. He will negotiate NAFTA. Except he’s obviously just duping gullible unionists. &c) I do not know where he stands or what his expected pattern of action would be.


    Obama’s statement was an error in word production, something most people do regularly and not a big deal.

    Jumping to ascribe it to Obama’s African ancestry would clearly be a bigoted slur.

    Similarly, jumping to ascribe word production errors on McCain’s part to age would clearly be a bigoted slur.

    The hypocrisy among many of Obama’s prominent supporters is surprising.

  7. I read your “argument” for annexing Mexico. I think this type of thinking is shared by many of the elites in the United States. I would support this plan if freedom of association was reimplemented and all racial preferences are done away with. Any other way will lead to a totalitarian state.

    If we look at the history of multi ethnic states, we see lots of death. Of course, I think it was Hagel would said something like “history shows us that people don’t learn from history.” We see this with socialist states as well. Leftists support socialism or quasi-socialism regardless of the history of failure that these states bring.

    In the former USSR, no one could say that socialism didn’t work—while standing in the breadline. The same will be true in the US. This is why in the near future we’ll see the implementation of “hate-speech” laws. This way, no one will be able to say that multi-ethnic states don’t work.

  8. Fair enough. Let me put a more thoughtful anti-Obama post together that will include policy stuff (anti-globalization, anti-capitalism, pro-taxes, pro-lawfare) and gut feeling stuff (e.g. he is a not-so-secret Marxist, he is building a cult of personality)

  9. Seerov,

    Thanks for the comment.

    It’s clear that affirmative action is a dangerous program that makes integration of new immigrant groups harder. It doesn’t prevented latinos from integration so far, however, so I don’t think it is show-stopper.

    Latino immigration into the United States appears to be on the same scale as German immigration a century ago. Like the Germans, the Latinos have a high rate of out-marriage, so the concern of the United States become a multiethnic country is minimal, especially compared to what we have done in the past.


    LOL! I had misread your comment — I didn’t see the “not” in “There are 3 good reasons not vote for him: his proposed foreign policy, his proposed economic policies, his proposed domestic policies.” 🙂

    Still, I’m curious because his positions are slippery enough I have no idea of his “true’ positions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *