When you catch someone lying for the first time, the proper evaluation of the situation is to say, “That person is lying.” You do not say, “That person is a liar.” You would be wrong to do so, as that person has from all appearances engaged in atypical behavior.
However, if the person repeatedly lies, is repeatedly advised that they are lying, and doesn’t change their behavior, you ultimately and reluctantly have to conclude that the person doesn’t merely lie a lot. You’re forced to conclude that the person actually is a liar. The person, as a liar, is the sum of his or her choices to serially lie. Why that person is a liar is irrelevant to accurately identifying them as one.
Similarly, when you catch someone stealing for the first time, the proper evaluation of the situation is to say, “That person has just stolen something.” You do not say, “That person is a thief.” You would again be wrong to say so.
However, if the person is repeatedly caught stealing, you ultimately and reluctantly have to conclude that the person doesn’t merely steal a lot. You must instead conclude that the person is a thief — the sum of his or her choices to steal. As with identifying liars, determining why a person is a thief is not important.
Finally, when you see a president take an action that is clearly against the best interests of his country and its people for the first time, the proper response is to say, “He is not acting patriotically.” You do not say, “He is not a patriot.” You would be wrong make that assertion, as he is from all appearances engaging in atypical behavior.
But Rush recited eleven instances in just the past two years and four months (the first one is conceivably subject to some debate, but the other ten really aren’t) where Barack Obama has acted against the best interests of his country, the best interests of its people, and/or its founding principles (which in essence comprise what the Founders saw as the country’s best interests). What’s more, Rush didn’t even get to the Obama administration’s clear determination — by their actions, not their words — to increase this country’s dependence on foreign energy, or its EPA-driven economic war on the state of Texas.
What do you say about a person who repeatedly commits acts that are against the best interests of his country and its people, is repeatedly told that he is doing so (e.g., in the November 2009 and November 2010 elections, as scores of those who largely agree with his actions were cast aside in favor of those who do not), and doesn’t change his behavior? A reasonable person can conclude that the person involved doesn’t merely commit a lot of unpatriotic acts. A reasonable person can conclude that the person is not a patriot. As with lying and stealing, determining why that person is not a patriot (e.g., antagonism, profound ignorance, being controlled by other forces, etc.) doesn’t matter.
As Rush said, Barack Obama is the sum of his choices, and there have been enough of them for reasonable people to arrive at the belief that Barack Obama is not a patriot.
Therefore, Herman Cain, when asked whether the president is a patriot, acted as a reasonable person when he said, “No.”
Where’s the comparable mountain (or even molehill) of evidence which would demonstrate that Herman Cain is even remotely wrong, and that the sum of President Barack Obama’s actions would instead demonstrate that he is a patriot?