Don Davis

Lee Surrenders To Grant, Obama Retains Slavery

Filed By Don Davis | July 21, 2010 7:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment
Tags: Barack Obama, comedy, election 2010, humorous blog post, negotiations, politics, Republicans, Satire, Snark

WASHINGTON, DC, April 10, 1865 (FNS)--The Civil War ended yesterday with the surrender of General Lee's Confederate Forces to Ulysses S. Grant, the Union Commander, at Appomattox.

Although most observers are generally happy with the surrender, many of President Obama's most loyal supporters are livid with the Commander-in-Chief because of the concessions he made in order to obtain the future support of the Southern Senators who will rejoin the body when the next Session begins.

At a media event this morning, Press Secretary Dick Timoneous expressed the President's hope that the formerly Confederate Members of Congress are looking forward to changing the political culture and steering the Nation in a better direction:

"It's time for the opposition to realize that what really matters is putting America first. The President is certain that by offering some concessions now, Southern Senators will look beyond their own parochial interests and do their part to move this process forward."

Ohio Congressman Zebidiah Kucinich summed up the anger from the left: "We won the war, for God's sakes, which is a mandate if I ever saw one, and yet the first thing the President orders when putting together surrender terms is to take the issue of ending slavery off the table.

It makes no sense, especially when we know that these former Confederates will never support the President's agenda. To make it even worse, we know the President will make more concessions later on down the road in order to try and get any opposition votes he can."

Reached in Charleston by telegraph, former Confederate Senator Beauregard DeMint told this reporter that: "Appomattox will be Obama's Waterloo! He can never be allowed to destroy the foundation of our Southern economy--and if he tries, we'll use the 10th Amendment to protect the interests of our States...and Freedom."

Disaffected leftist voters, who were already upset over Obama's failure to close the Union detention facility at Andersonville, as he had promised he would during his Presidential campaign, have become even more vocal recently as the Union Army has appeared to block Administration efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that has caused thousands of urgently-needed Black soldiers to be discharged during the War.

All of this, combined with the President's recent actions in failing to end slavery, have led to an "enthusiasm gap" between voters in the President's Party and those on the other side, emboldening his opponents in the upcoming midterm elections.

Southern voters, who have seen the end coming for some time, have been organizing into "Coffee Parties" in an effort to protect their economic interests--but they chafe at the notion that there is a racial component to their concerns.

In a recent speech to an enthusiastic Kentucky crowd, Senate candidate Roger Weightman ("Old Flintlock") Paul was heard to say: "Our only interests are in protecting the agricultural economy of the South, and the Constitutional values that were handed down to us from our God; that requires us to keep slaves in places like Mississippi, but it has nothing to do with racism."

Members of the crowd, sporting the robes and hoods that have recently begun to take over as the preferred uniform of the "Coffee Party", echoed Paul's comments, including a large, florid, gentleman who appeared to be using laudanum at the time of our interview; he chose to remain nameless, but told me this about the slaves he had met: "Slaves are uppity, but not as blacks. They're elitist. They think they're smarter and better than everybody else. That's what they were taught. It's like they're Harvard men."

Political strategists, including Senator Sumner of Massachusetts, have urged the President to become more bold in his negotiating tactics, and to take more control over the weekly media cycle: "The President is enormously popular when he gives speeches, he clearly has a mandate, and now that the telegraph can quickly spread his message there is no reason why the Coffee Party, who, after all, represent a minority of the Nation, should be allowed to drive every single element of the political conversation--especially if all the President ends up doing is watering down the abolition of slavery to the point where nothing is accomplished at all."

In a related story, pressure continues to mount on the Administration after the unprovoked firing of an Agriculture Department official who was "framed" by Confederate media interests; the official, who gave us an exclusive interview in Washington yesterday, reports that she has already been told that she could make enough money suing for wrongful discharge to purchase her own "Seward's Folly" if she wanted--in fact, the act of suing for wrongful discharge, currently a novel legal concept, may become known as a "Sherrod Suit" if the former official chooses to move forward with this new form of litigation.


Recent Entries Filed under Entertainment:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


just in case it needs to be said: this is not a suggestion that obama somehow doesn't like black people.

it is a suggestion that obama might not have been as politically bold as lincoln, given the same circumstances--and considering that this administration isn't exactly jumping up to the bar on issues like doma or dadt, i guess that's not exactly a surprise.

Great posting. The sad part is the president has shown no political courage since being in office. He has bowed to every whim of the Republicans who even after caving still don't support his legislation. President Obama should actually stand up and fight for what he promised. Sadly he has not.

the crazy thing is that it's to his political advantage to have those fights, and for some reason he just seems to shy away from these great opportunities.

i do not understand how "candidate obama" hasn't more effectively carried over to president obama...and it seems to that the american people are ready for him to take them to the next step--but you gotta inculcate some huey long into this guy before we're gonna see him "pulling from the front" as well as he could be.

Mr. Davis,
“Southern voters, who have seen the end coming for some time, have been organizing into "Coffee Parties" in an effort to protect their economic interests--but they chafe at the notion that there is a racial component to their concerns.”

"Members of the crowd, sporting the robes and hoods that have recently begun to take over as the preferred uniform of the "Coffee Party", echoed Paul's comments, including a large, florid, gentleman who appeared to be using laudanum at the time of our interview"

Is it your intention to equate all people from the south to Klan members or just tea party members?
The person from the tea party who recently posted an article like this was roundly denounced as a bigot by the press. All things being fair shouldn’t you be also?
Or is it somehow more righteous when people from the left stereotype our opponents?

We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory shall swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of nature. - Abraham Lincoln

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.- Mahatma Gandhi

obviously we aren't trying to say all southerners joined the klan...but guess what?

it is an historical fact that southern voters (well, non-voters, if you read the history from the klan's side...) did, in large numbers, join the various klans that sprung up--and in fact, that movement continued to grow right through the 1920s, when many observers believe the klan's membership peaked.

the large, florid gentleman with the 19th century drug habit?

well, it just happens that that (slightly altered to fix the context) quote was from rush limbaugh, and he was talking about how uppity barack obama was at the time he said it.

as for ron paul...he himself has been quoted as saying the feels the 1964 civil rights act should not be applied to the owners of private businesses; that it is ok for private businesses to choose to racially discriminate, that the market will provide the "check and balance" we need to control man's urge to discriminate against another.

he wrote a letter to the local paper in bowling green, kentucky, a few years back to make the same point, so this isn't something i just made up out of thin air, either.

and yes, the tea party community, after much public abuse, has now "kicked out" from their organization (can one tea party group even do that to another?) one obviously racist group...but are you here to suggest that they "got the guy", and that the effort to advance racism from within the tea party community will now somehow come to an end?

there is lots of evidence to suggest that's not true, and, obviosly, time will tell if that's true or not.

see, here's the thing: this may be satire...but it is fact-based satire, with a real historical underpinning, and while that may create lots of discomfort for some readers, it doesn't change the historical realities that do lurk just under the surface of this story.

my apologies--i meant to say rand paul feels the civil rights act should not be enforced upon private businesses, not ron paul.

oops.

I have voiced some of this before in other posts. For the record, politically I am an independent that leans right of center. I’m conservative on financial issues and liberal on most – though not all – social issues. Now you know where I’m coming from.

I enjoy debate and seek opinions from those on both sides of an issue. When an opinion is filled with invective, be it comparing those on the right with the Klan or posting a billboard in which Obama is pictured next to Hitler and Stalin, you’ve lost your ability to sway me. Those who do so come across as irrational, zealous soldiers with no desire to move their agenda forward but only to win the adoration of the lemmings. This is not to suggest that such bomb throwers lack intelligence but do think tolerance for the opinion of those who are rational and have valid points on “the other side” are worthless and should be painted with the same brush as the equally invalid zealots who oppose you. And make no mistake – there are valid points to be heard from one’s opponents.

Politics is about compromise and thus, refusing to “hear” your opposition with serious intent is a foolhardy. However, do not think you’re alone. Shawn Hannity’s opinions are equally diminished every time he misleads, outright lies or labels all of us who support same sex marriage and other such issues as immoral or otherwise insults us just because he thinks he's the absolute authority.

If all you seek is the company of lemmings, so be it. Otherwise, put away your empty wine bottles and gasoline, put on your ears, and give me something rational to consider if you want the support of those of us who refuse to simply and blindly march off the edge. Especially as one who has experienced true discrimination almost daily for years, if you insist on telling me I wear a white robe because I don’t agree with corporate welfare or a $13 trillion dollar debt, do you really think I want to stand with you? [BTW .... I may not drink "coffee" with them but I do partake independently at times when they suggest a good blend.]

first, i would commend to you my response above to deal with the issue of how this posting does indeed have a full fact-based background, even as it is satire.

i have to go, but we'll have more to say about the intellectual vacuity of the tea party, at least so far, tonight.

so what is the intellectual "thrust" of the tea party?

i think it's fair to say that the tea party folks want to fight deficits, "do something" about immigration, "defend america", and "take back our country", whatever that means.

there seems to be an enormous interest in stopping socialists, and fascists, and there seems to be considerable intellectual concern regarding the 10th amendment.

birth certificates also seem to be a major topic of the signs that appear at these events.

so how much credence should i put in the philosophy of a group that doesn't laugh "birthers" out of the room?

do you think i should be concerned when i hear talk about the 10th and states' rights and i recall the history of jim crow...and i hear the same arguments coming from some of the same people?

"take back our country"?

whose country?

arizona's? texas'? georgia's?
the white man's country?

and who took it, anyway?

was it those democratic fascists, who force kindly old tea party folks to accept that dirty socialist medicare?

(by the way, is there anything funnier than watching a tea party activist argue, in the same sentence, that government should both stay out of health care and "keep their hands off my medicare"?)

so what's the tea party solution for immigration?

"secure the borders...build a fence!"

we assume the promoters of fence technology aren't considering the power of ladder and fence-cutting technology...and we assume no one is planning on fencing off airports...or canada...all of which makes me think the solution needs to be quite a bit more thought out than it is today.

tea party folks seem to be happy to give up their own 4th amendment protections for this effort--and i assume that's because they figure, particularly in arizona, that they aren't exactly the skin color that is most likely to provide arizona police a reason to be suspicious.

either that, or they don't mind being stopped, just as often as alleged "illegal mexicans", to have their papers checked, which i simply do not believe.

and now, let's talk deficit.

"cut the waste out of government!" "end those earmarks!" "cut taxes!" "fewer regulations!"

that's the tea party economic plan...and it's a giant load of crap.

you can cut everything government does, except defense, social security, and medicare/medicade, and you'll still have a mighty big deficit.

so what does the tea party suggest to fix that?

not a word.

how does the tea party choose to fix our health care mess?

not a word, except health savings accounts, which have only been successful in singapore, as a small part of a larger system.

bp?

"drill, baby, drill!"

so put all this together, and you tell me: are the real lemmings on this side of the fence...or are they more familiar with the word "lipton"?

and while we're having a moment...we're judged by the company we keep...so who's keeping company with the tea party?

palin, bachmann, gohmert, glenn beck, limbaugh, joe arpaio, dick armey, tancredo, the john birch society, stormfront...in other words, every one of the most insane people in american politics are lined up behind the tea party.

that's not the company i'm inclined to keep--and if you know anyone who believes the things those folks are saying, then you might want to check them for lemming fur.