It is supposed to be unthinkable to suggest that Obama bought votes by promising “free” stuff. Any Republican mentioning such a thing has been vilified by the media. Also, the race card has been played by liberals at any suggestion that Obama received a preponderance of black votes based on his eagerness to provide government entitlements. How, then, does one explain Detroit’s City Council member JoAnn Watson?
The city of Detroit is facing its own financial cliff and in desperate need of a solution. Council member Watson unabashedly demanded that Obama provide a bailout as payback for voting for him. “Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson.
It seems that for Watson, “exercising leadership” is synonymous with acquiring “free” government money – as a quid pro quo (a favor for a favor). The façade of voting for the best candidate to run the country has been stripped away by Watson’s personal display of “leadership”. Obama’s bribe for votes must now be paid – or what? Will Watson demand a re-call?
The White House, so far, seems to have no intention of bailing out Detroit. Watson must have missed the nuance in Obama’s remark to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev about having more flexibility after the election. That flexibility allows Obama to do whatever he wishes, or not do as the case may be, and paying bribes or keeping promises is optional.
In any event, the honesty from Councilwoman Watson is somewhat refreshing, at least until the full reality behind the remark sinks in.
David J. Hentosh