Maureen Dowd and the Left: All Race, All the Time
More than ever, it seems that the only way to save our country from dissolution is to vote the leftists out of office and terminate their reign of power drunk error.
Amidst 18 months of racial paranoia, aggression, and calumny better left unsaid, New York Times pundit and wannabe member of The View Maureen Dowd weighed in/added to the strife. She wrote a column seeking to nudge the Obama administration into being even more racialist than it already is.
Its title, “You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing,” beggars belief. Every conservative intuited what Ms. Dowd desired before reading a single word. We knew it had to be something along the vapid lines of fashion, style, or toxic variations on themes involving sex and race.
Dowd advocates for the later in this instance. She begins with her conclusion:
The Obama White House is too white. … Obama lacks advisers who are descended from the central African-American experience, ones who understand “the slave thing,” as a top black Democrat dryly puts it.
Well, after a trip to see the real gibbering harridans of The View we find that not even President Obama himself understands the African-American experience. In answer to a question from one of the hosts, he said, concerning half of his relations:
We are sort of a mongrel people. I mean we’re all kind of mixed up. Now that’s actually true for white America as well, but we just know more about it.
What can one say in response to such gibberish? Most folks were either confounded or offended by his answer. This renders absurd Ms. Dowd’s earlier statement that he “appears completely comfortable in his own skin.”
Mongrel? That is a most interesting and bizarre term to use in reference to an ethnic group so sensitive that they are simultaneously repulsed and moved to donate by the exact same combination of syllables.
Obviously, had anyone on the right merely whispered “mongrel” in the same sentence as “black” they could never run for office again. They would be fired from whatever job they held. Yet for Obama the rules are different. He may say whatever he wishes. Racist is an insult reserved for Republicans.
Obama further elucidated his rampant hypocrisy when he later claimed not to be interested in “how we label ourselves” yet he clarified his own — and pervasive — racial obsession during the census when he marked the box reserved for “Black, African Am., or Negro” alone.
Perhaps his belief in nuance is not as devout as that of your average leftist. Ms. Dowd hopes it is otherwise, however. She recommends:
[Rather than] give Sherrod her old job back … [h]e should give her a new job: Director of Black Outreach. This White House needs one.
That is probably the last thing they need. A room containing only President Obama holds more racialist cheerleaders that any healthy organization can maintain, but such a make-work job is deleterious for America itself.
Extra overpaid bureaucrats devoid of talent and steeped in ideology will only make the present disaster worse. What we need most is an end to our “all race all the time” mindset.
If the left followed the lead of conservatives and simply treated their fellow citizens as individuals we might (finally!) get along with one another.
Yet the ongoing calamitous affair in Arizona highlights that the Democrats are vested in the balkanization of what was once unquestionably the greatest country on Earth. Al Gore’s notorious Freudian slip — he incorrectly translated the national motto of E pluribus unum as “out of one, many” — portended the future strategy of our opponents.
In answer to the question posed by our champion Dr. Hanson, it seems that only conservatives covet living in a post-racial society. Ms. Dowd and Mrs. Sherrod should realize that racial blindness is a conservative thing. They’ll never get it.
Democrats need to keep Blacks on the plantation (figuratively) where they can be controled, managed, exploited, & above all, vote as ordered.
They did this with other ethnic groups as well & now would like to do the same with Hispanics.
Democrats like to divide the country into hostile collectivities, all dependant on big gov’t. – and, in fact, the more groups, the merrier, hence radicalization of gays, women, etc. This is classic Leftist strategy.
Divide & Conquer.
But of course. Accusations of racism are a critical tactic to the scourging of Americans with undeserved guilt. Guilt can only be used as a political weapon if the target can be made to feel guilty about something. Our period of slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow years are just about the only things that blot the United States’s superlative national record.
Attempts to make Americans feel equally ashamed of “sexism,” “homophobia,” and so forth have fallen very, very flat. So expect the Left to keep lashing us with the racism flail until it crumbles in their hands.
Those who accuse seem to confuse guilt with shame. There may be many things in the country’s history to be ashamed of, but when one tries the ‘guilt’ accusation, I spell out clearly how they are quite wrong.
True, there can be no “guilt” in the present day, but that doesn’t mean powerful, misguided or opportunistic people won’t feel it and/or the feelings of others to their advantage. And their imposition on the rest of us through legal and political means is a disgrace. The truth, however, though there be no guilt, is that the legacy of slavery in the U.S. and the ensuing treatment of former slaves and their descendants is a sin of this country’s past. That sin has produced the current black culture in America, in large measure a hideous combination of depravity and grievance, which is a grave cancer in the body politic of our nation. The problem is that rather than seek to excise and cure this cancer by placing the reasonable expectations upon our black citizens that are normally imposed upon all citizens of a free society, it has become fashionable to indulge the depravity and the grievance, at an ever increasing rate, thus feeding the cancer instead of starving it. A patient who not only refuses to take necessary treatment, but rather ingests more and more of the cancer-causing agent, has a grim prognosis indeed.
It was obvious that Barack Obama was not going to get America past race. As matter of fact, there were a number of people like myself who warned that he was likely to do just the opposite. I calmly predicted that race relations would be set back minimally twenty years. Am I fantastically brilliant? No, I have merely studied enough leftist philosophy and history to know that race underpins everything in that worldview. Race card politics is the bread and butter of your typical left-wing activist. They have no idea how to behave otherwise. Employing the race card has also been unbelievably effective. Political success was often virtually guaranteed. One might be reminded of a fastball pitcher who refused to spend sufficient time developing other pitches. Everything is fine and dandy until they are older and lose a few miles per hour on their favorite weapon.
The Democratic Party is facing an existential crisis. Purple state voters increasingly are fed up of with racial guilt tripping. There is a good chance that the Democrats are finished as a national entity. They may generally win in the future only in the bluest of areas.
The Obama coalition of independents, young people, hyphenated Americans, elites and single women will not hold. I don’t believe there are enough in these groups to vote against their long-term economic interests. It will be interesting to see whether Obama faces a challenge in his own party and tend to agree with Gov. Rendell that he probably will.
I like our two party system and do not like when the extremists in either one pursue narrow interests that are deeply unpopular with the majority of Americans. Majorities are not always right, of course, but should not be ignored. Bring on the elections.
Countless voters initially in the 2008 elections didn’t think it was all that important. The economy seemed to be doing well—until the TARP crisis in mid October. Unfortunately, the die had already been cast. The choice was between lackluster John McCain and the “historically significantly” Barack Obama. The latter candidate offered one the added opportunity to prove they were not racists. Many of these same voters are now facing serious financial troubles. Some are even declaring bankruptcy. Only a few years earlier they thought their economic circumstances were secure for the indefinite future. The elections this November have the attention of the previously indifferent. They will be out for blood. The Democrats are in serious jeopardy.
The coalition will hold. In politics the question, unfortunately, is always the lesser of two evils. Why would Americans want to go back to the greater of two evils in order to solve our collective problems? As a college student I can tell you that on my campus admitting that you are a Republican is like admitting you have an STD. There are basically no Republicans on my campus or the vast majority of campuses and it will stay that way because Republican policy is not conducive in helping young people realize their educational goals. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Conservatism relies on an uneducated populace so that they are easier to persuade into voting against their own economic interests. They get the dumb ones all worked up over things like abortion and gay marriage while raping them economically. The Republicans have no plan other than to put lipstick on the same old Bush era failed economic policies of privatized profit and socialized losses. You see it is a lie when conservatives say they don’t like socialism. They love socialism when it replenishes the trough they feed at. They hate it when it is directed in other places besides their own pocket.
My and my energetic young friends will out door knock any Medicare sponsored, oxygen tank carrying teabagger any day of the week. I think you guys have a rough eight years ahead of you.
You show by your post here that you have not actually thought about this for yourself. You are just parroting what you’ve been force-fed by your leftist instructors. I suspect you’ll be stunned when you realize that the majority of Americans (yeah, that’s us) find your positions extremely distasteful, and are energized enough to vote anyone who promotes them out of office. Whistle as loudly as you like, you’re still passing the graveyard. (You probably don’t get that allusion either, do you?)
I suspect there are more conservatives and or Republicans on your campus than you imagine. The fact that it’s socially awkward to admit being conservative and that is your proof that Republicans don’t exist says more about your deductive reasoning than the politics of your classmates.
As a member of the far right I’m able to take some small comfort from this fact. In the end the right need not win for the left to lose. While the planet will enjoy a much happier, healthier existence with higher standards of living for all, the sooner and more completely the left is crushed as a political, economic and cultural force. If we of the Right lose this struggle at the ballot boxes or in the streets in the next couple of decades in the end the left still loses. Following the policies of anyone ranging from a hair left of center to Pol Pot ultimately and inevitably leads to economic collapse, starvation and tyranny this is as sure as the sunrise and time is the only variable.
No, there are concrete reasons why students find Democratic fiscal policy more to their liking than Republicans fiscal policy. I could name several but I will point out an important one. Every time a Republican holds the White House interest rates on student loans go up. When a Democrat is in the White House interest rates go down. As far as I’m concerned when interest rates go up on my loans under Republicans that’s the same as a tax increase. Republicans take money away from me, so I don’t vote for them. And overall, the Obama Administrations streamlining and federalizing of the whole student loan program is consumer friendly, whereas before you had conservatives skimming profit like leeches off the backs of students. Now the money the corporate goons took spa vacations with will be plowed back into the program to help where it is needed (i.e. education). You teabaggers like bending over for your oppressor. It’s in your nature. Not mine.
There’s no use debating with people who fan the false fires of their overheated minds with the wind that circulates in their own right-wing echo chamber. The bottom line is that when Democrats get out and vote they win because there are more Democrats than Republicans. So, all we have to do is outnumber you. That will be easy here in California where Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina will go down to defeat. Dems will probably take out 2 or 3 of the GOP congressional delegation too. It’s kind of sad for Meg though. If I had to have a Republican for governor of California it would be her. She’s a strong pro-abortion rights moderate in the mold of Christine Todd Whitman (former Gov. of N.J.). In many ways she is more liberal than Arnold. I actually like her. But when push comes to shove I vote for the real Democrat not the one in drag (sorry Meg).
It isn’t really a matter of perception than it is one of organizational fact. There is one small Young Republicans group on my campus but they are so much more, on so many issues, moderate than, say, the average PJM poster. They are pro-choice, pro-gay, etc. So, I wonder if what I see on my campus is really a matter of generational differences or evolvement? The Republican group, and I give them credit, goes a long way to put on a face that is inclusive and tolerant. If young people are the future and the Republican group on my campus represents what the future GOP might be like than I would say the nation is in store for great things! Soon the old guard will fade away and die off to be replaced by something new and better.
Praetorian, I’m sure you’ll be as persuasive out on the hustings as you are here.
“Every time a Republican holds the White House interest rates on student loans go up.”
Oh, how horrible! The students have to pay fair freight for the loans they’ve taken out on their over-priced health clubs!
Conservatism relies on an uneducated populace so that they are easier to persuade into voting against their own economic interests.
I suggest that you go and look up the meaning of “conservative”. It essentially means to follow tried-and-true historical methods, changing as little as necessary to deal with the situation. Conservatives want an educated population, so that they will understand the context of the arguments. Do not confuse “conservative” with either “Republican” or with “crony capitalism” (what you are actually railing against), neither of which we support.
Dude, put down the bong and remember you only drank the Kool Aid ’cause it got you into those liberal chicks’ pants.
Not gonna argue with you on that one.
Experience in the real world will show you the problem with your stance. I can only hope you and the rest of us won’t have to suffer for the rest of our lives in the misery your current politics could inflict on this country.
We may well find ourselves explaning to our grandchildren in whispers what it was like to be free, how it was to not be the proletariat in the USSR mold.
Voting for your own self-interest? Have you taken a serious look at the debt being piled up? Yes W’s was prety bad, Obama puts Bushes spending to shame. Somebody has to pay it. Oh, you think the rich will take care of that! Is that the self-interest you talk about? Everyone is going to pay higher taxes, no matter what some politician will tell you. In the real world, there is no such as a free lunch.
And humor me, have you talked to any recent graduates? Picking and choosing from all the job offers are they?
I think the conservative students on your campus are invisible to you because they’re pursuing a whole different curriculum. One would hope so anyway given that the inanity of your commenting history on PJM indicates you’ve completely missed any instruction or promotion of critical thinking in your educational experience. Really, how moronic is it to crow about a point or two on a student loan and point to the democrats as being the party that shaved them, when those same democrats will be taking vastly more in both relative and actual worth from your pocket when you join the work force through tax increases and deficit spending .
You and your friends are welcome to knock on as many doors as you wish because you need to get off campus and talk to people who work for a living. You have the whole real world thing backasswards financially and need to realize that at this stage you’re smugly beclowning yourself.
Joe College,
You haven’t even BEGUN anything of difficulty in your life to espouse such nonsense to the masses.
I too, like more than 100 million Americans have a degree as well – yet unlike you wouldn’t and don’t put on display my ignorance of an entire voting Party.
FYI: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Constitutionalists etc., are of a myriad of backgrounds.
You have A LOT of living to do, bub.
You sound terribly young and uninformed of the ways of the world..the real world.
You also seem to think that there is no way you could be wrong..sad really..I do hope you are a multimillionaire so that you can live in your cotton batting world and never come out to reality.
Praetorian? how very presumptuous and vane of you..
Praetorian Wrote:
“As a college student I can tell you that on my campus admitting that you are a Republican is like admitting you have an STD. There are basically no Republicans on my campus or the vast majority of campuses and it will stay that way because Republican policy is not conducive in helping young people realize their educational goals.”
Two Points from your confession:
**As a college student you are a parasite on the productive members of society and are being brainwashed into believing that you have value in the present — all your value is future potential, if that at all;
**There are no Republicans because their political philosophy (you must earn what you have) is a direct threat to your socialistic (parasitic) lifestyle and your prostituted professors.
You have no idea what you are talking about. My wife is a professor at a major research institution. There are TONS of conservatives on college campuses, but they keep their mouths shut.
TONS.
They don’t waste their time, or risk their careers, by jabbering with the likes of you.
There were precious few republicans when I was in college in the –gasp!–70′s or at least few would admit to being one. But you seem unusually intelligent, and I expect you can see past the overheated responses of people who hold themselves out as true conservatives, while opposing gay marriage, advocating felony penalties for pot, and insisting that the “small government” they profess to want should be able to invade yor bedroom and start any war it wants. Not to mention that for many of them, arguing is all about insults.
But seeing past all that (as one sees past the few nuts at an otherwise peaceful demonstration) is key. So as a favor, would you ponder these questions:
Q: If we are borrowing 40% or more of our budget now at rates of less than 3% on 30-180 day repayments dates, what happens when the chinese want higher interest rates to protect their Treasury Bills from inevitable depreciation–and we have to pay 6% or 8% or more to refinance the entire debt? (like when your credit card issuer raises its rates to 20% from 8% and you payment on interest doubles?)
Q: What happens to the 40% of the economy that was propped up by stimulus payments when we can’t borrow anymore because we can barely repay the interest as it is?
Q: As interest rates rise, and with an even greater percentage of the national revenue going to pay just interest on that massive 1.5 trillion dollar debt, what will be left for spending? What will we spend it on? Do we need an air force? A navy? We have protected the rest of the world for a long time? What do they do now? Who protects us?
Q: If taxes go up again to pay for the interest owed to the chinese, how high should they go? 50%? 60%? What will be the impact of such high taxes? Will you be able to buy a home? A car?
Q: If people don’t invest here, where will money come from to build plants etc? from the govenment? Where will it get the money?
Q: Do you want the government to grow? Why? Government businesses, like the Post Office and Amtrack–lose money, never fire anyone and have great benefits. Neither the FBI nor the CIA figured out 9-11 despite ample clues, but no one was fired there either. GM ought to have gone down: the government propped it up. Now almost any car better than GM cars (which used to make 90% of the cars sold in the US). Now GM is making a 41,000 car, the Volt, that even the New York Times says is essentially a subsidized lemon. The Nissan leaf is 10,000 less and a better car. The Volt is essentially what one gets from an overpaid, underworked workforce the government has seen fit to prop up. Don’t you think this will be true of all enterprises the government runs?
Q: Do you know of any socialist government that has not become practically insolvent trying to pass out subsidized favors to groups?
Q: Is it not painfully obvious that european governments have borrowed themselves into a situation that cannot last: and their birthrate in the states with all that subsidized free time is so low that the benefits cannot be maintained with one worker and three or more recipients?
Q: Who will pay for the benefits as the baby boom generation in europe ages? Will the smaller euro working populace pay for high benefits to older retirees or leave for greener pastures in less taxed countries? What then? Where will the money come from? Same question as to the US. And..if the muslim birthrate in europe is rising as the european birthrate is falling, what impact will that have as the muslim population hits 40%? 55%? Do europeans have any choice but to allow continued muslim immigration to handle jobs for whihc there are fewer europeans? What will France and Sweden be like in 20 years when 55% of the people there dislike the unbridled freedom that swedes for example, ahve become used to?
Q: And here is the real key: If individual freedom has been the core of western society, the bulwark against repression, what happens when the state is empowered to dispense favors, income, promotions etc? Will the State be fair as it was to Vietnam protestors who were spied upon, had their records stolen etc? To Joe The Plumber who had his records spied on and released? Will your politics affect your promotion, medical care and income?
It doesn’t matter what your politics are at ExxonMobil when you pull in to tank up: what about when you go to your govenment job? Check in to a governemnt hospital? Do you want that?
I do’t blame you for being repelled by the GOP for the past 8 years or so: it really lost its way, but the principles at stake are not the property of the GOP or the democrats. They exist apart from both parties. The issue is which one will best preserve them or at least, do them less harm.
Praetorian:
College student. Does not yet know how the world works. “Thoughtful” and “Articulate,” but without a sufficient database to back up his assertions.
Sorry dude, but with you, there’s no “there” there, yet.
Pretorian, are you aware that when you are insulting and ageist that you are making you and your own group look immature? And that to look immature means you also look as if you do not think things out in an adult manner? There is a potty-mouth element in many of the curent college kids (not so much working class), and I’m not talking about a sh** and a f*** here and there. What I mean is, there’s a culture of coarsened rudeness (your remark about oxygen tanks? I have no idea where that is coming from), along with an obsession with crude sexuality (comments about bending over, the ubiquitous “teabagger,” et.) that will keep anyone but your peers from taking you seriously when you discuss politics.
Give it a little thought. If your intent is truly to change minds, you are going about it the wrong way. And if your intent is to ridicule or demoralize, it will not work, as everyone has read Allinsky by now.
Didn’t mean to be so wordy. All my thoughts could have been expressed in fewer words: Grow up a little before posting on political sites. You’re embaressing others in your generation with your writings.
Well, David, I’m glad you remained calm.
Wow, how right you are , I have a wonderful 7 year old daughter who I have every intention of raising to see the only difference between people are the way they look that skin color is just that a skin color a different pigmentation. Then along came this new president who has unbelievably sent back race relations I believe to be more than 20 years. I teach my daughter that there are good and bad in every ethnic group. But now I have to teach her to be a little more careful and not so trusting because of the racist attitudes that are alarmingly more ugly than i can remember ever being. The president had a great opportunity to do a lot of great things and he flat out blew it. He is by far, his race aside; now more than ever have to accentuate that, the worst president ever I hope he is out of office soon and i hope it is before his term is up. Always God Bless the Children of every color.
When you have almost 10% unemployment, a GDP for the second quarter that actually went down to 2.4% (great going, champ), there are about 14 million people out of work, we spent over a trillion (with a “T”, champ) dollars on “stimulus” that stimulated nothing, you’re a laughing stock around the world, the Iranians and the North Koreans actually hold you in contempt and make jokes about you, and you’re looking at an inept reaction to an oil spill that almost destroyed the Gulf Coast, the only thing you have left IS the race card. The Democrats and Obama literally have nothing to run on. Do they even DARE bring up health care, which was always opposed by about 60% of the country and will push this country into insolvency?
And with people like Charlie Rangle and Maxine Waters about to go to TRIAL just before the elections, you can just bet that the Democrats will scream “RACISM” because you have two black people on trial in Congress for corruption. You see, according to the Democrats, African Americans CANNOT be racists and CANNOT be corrupt. Just don’t look too closely at the Reverand Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangle, Maxine Waters, or Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana (you know, they guy with the money stashed in his freezer). Nope, nothing to look at here, folks. Just move along and let the Democrats keep calling YOU the racist so that the mainstream media will be distracted from the real issues, like how this country is an economic disaster and an international laughing stock.
How’s all that “Hope and Change” working out for you?
Can’t wait till November
I honestly dont careanymore how many times the left calls me racist. Im gonna be a racist to them no matter what. Its a tool they use to distract people from the real issues, because if they did have to base their arguments soley on fact they would loose every time. we need to quit trying to convince these fools. they dont care. we need to start being as forceful as the left. we have the facts on our side, but it seems we lack the balls to use them. we seem to foolishly think that if we play nice we will win..WRONG thats not how it works. unfortunatly i feel its going to take us loosing the country in order for us to pull our heads out of our butts. and yes i include a possible civil war. Sorry i know people dont want to hear that, and i hope i am wrong more than any of you, but we let to much slide and we let our opponents determine the rules of the game. thats gonna cost us.
I grew up in a section of the City of Camden, New Jersey called “Cramer Hill”. In that neighborhood, you were decent to people until they gave you a reason to be otherwise. The leftists/liberals/progressives/socialists/democrats give reason and plenty of it. I want ALL elected conservatives to have the same attitude toward the democrats that they have had towards us: hard-nosed, no holds barred, no compromise, no “reaching across the aisle”, no including them in the debate, just crush them beyond recognition.
You ant seen nothing yet.
If we get a Republican house that acts responsibly the left is gonna howl. With all the leavers of power for 2 years the left have used the bigot card over and over. Cutting the federal budget 500 billion dollars, repealing obamacare and defunding community groups will be equivalent to reenacting the slave trade.
It will get worse.
I believe if we get a repub house/senate…anything…and i do mean anything that goes wrong with the things Obama has passed…will be chalked up to..”well America, things were going so good, then look what happened when you voted in a Republican majority”
The right will get all the blame, and they are such wieners that they will sit and take it without putting up a howl of their own.
The right need a James Carville of their own!!!
People know beyond a doubt and have it seared into their memories that BO has been a disaster to the country since Day One (when he signed an order permanently sealing all his records and made his first phone call and interview to muslim countries). The economic depression and broken racial relations coming shortly after have only gotten worse during the past year. Americans are disgusted by the preening, bowing, thin-skinned child in the White House and will make it impossible for him to run for another term (if he completes the current one).
You underestimate the critical thinking abilities of American voters when you say they’ll believe “everything was going along fine” until the mid-terms. You seem to have no idea how angry people really are at this man.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Nazi Germany
Maybe if we all stick our heads down into the sand long enough (or somewhere else that the sun doesn’t shine) we can force the laws of nature to change.
Hence, in the beginning God will have created man and woman to be equal.
During the time of the Tower of Babble, God will not make people different from each other or cause them to speak different languages to prevent them from getting together as a group effort to climb up into, and perhaps conquer Heaven.
Finally, God will not punish the sons of Abraham for gazing at his bowels by forever banishing them from each other’s presence and making the ring-leader brother different from and sub-servant to the other two brothers.
Are we trying to make ourselves post-racial or post-God?
Neither will work.
“If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Nazi Germany”
The left has been assuming this would be true, fact is, it is still a lie. Even after the next 2 elections we will continue to hear how racist we are because that is all they have.
“Maybe if we all stick our heads down into the sand long enough (or somewhere else that the sun doesn’t shine) we can force the laws of nature to change.”
Nah, if we stick out heads in the sand, the only thing that will happen is we’ll continue to get boned up the whazoo by Obama and his minions.
I’ve had enough of that already!
“If it weren’t for race cards,I’d have no cards at all,
Gloom,despair,and agony on me.”
With Apologies to the entire Hee Haw gang
Thank you for a good laugh. I am sure the folks from Hee Haw would not be offended but rather amused at your creativity. They would likely suggest you could have a lot of fun serving up some yummy liberal delights to create one of Grandpa Jone’s responses to the question “Grandpa, What’s for dinner?”
Here’s another one: Your race card has been denied and is in the process of being cancelled due to overuse.
The white man be angry in November.
The truly sad aspect of all this is that the “black” community is only bringing about a backlash upon themselves. The relatively few people that are seeking vengeance for perceived historical wrongdoings, or seeking to cash in on a movement and gain power, will only trigger a backlash against the entire group. Instead of fixing those things that are wrong with the “black” community and trying to integrate into U.S. society (as do most other ethnic groups in the country), they are seeking to separate themselves from it and be a distinct people. Unfortunately, by making this group synonymous with “threat” (e.g. the words of Al Sharpton, the “gansta” look, and the New Black Panthers) they only encourage the rest of us to look at the whole group with fear and loathing.
Race is the only card the Left and the Administration have left in their deck. They cannot run on their record this November, so they need to distract. I’m hopeful that most people see this for the scam it is.
I know I do. As a Tea Party member I laugh at the scream of racist.
There was another news story out there that says some far left black woman is saying using “Racist” to smear us is a good way to keep us Tea Partiers busy trying to rebut, as opposed to focusing on issues. I say we take her advice in the reverse, and ignore the screams and just keep hammering away at what we know are the real issues.
“Eyes on the Prize” as it were.
I also do not do political correctness. If you want me to call you you “African-American” then you must call me “Eastern-European American”, otherwise I’m white and you’re black.
It’s becoming more obvious every day, that with all Obama’s stellar qualifications for getting elected, the only certification that he legitimately carries is race.
Ya think he’s ever gonna give up his hole card?
And Dowd is also too white. How many blacks are on her staff?
How many blacks are in the upper echelons of the NYT, WaPo, LAT, ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCNPR, HuffPo, Kos, MM, CAP??? How many blacks are on Pelosi’s staff, Reid, Kerry, and every other white progressive in Congress?
If blacks are too dumb to read the fine print on their contract with elitist, white progressives then I could care less if they ever live a fulfilled life in the greatest nation on this planet. If they need the handouts from white progressives and the false racialist nudging and aggitation by white progressives to keep themselves satiated and on the plantation then they need something white progressives will never give them: pride.
Racism by individuals will never be and never can be eradicated. Claims that it can are LIES. Only used to manipulate a cowed population, willing to be abused.
Institutionalized, systemic state and corporate racism no longer exists in America. This nation is hyper race sensitive. I have just returned from 6 months living and working in Europe and despite the history of slavery in Europe that was “state” sponsored no such paranoia about racism exists. Why?
America is being intentionally torn apart by race mongers and ignorant citizens who will dance to what ever tune some one calls without thinking once about the meaning.
Worse, organizations like the NAACP the ACLU our public schools and our politicians are now fundamentally about race, which makes them racist by definition. We continually go back wards with regard to our understanding about race as though we can’t grow from understanding.
The truth is that so called leaders (J.Jackson, A.Sharpton et al) in the race based community are staying up nights thinking of new ways to stir up old hatreds for their own purposes.
The gist of this article can be boiled down to this: African-American, Hispanic-American, Japanese-American, Indian-American, all of these the result of diversity education, all these identities put in place by legislation foisted upon the nation by the Democrat party via the National Education Association. In the congress we see the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Two questions, First notice there isn’t a hyphenated American for anyone other than minorities, why no “White-American”? Second, why is there a need for these cauci associated with the Democrat party seeing that the party Democrat is the party so attuned to the needs of the minority?
15. AZsmitty – The race based cauci of the Democratic party are the mechanism that the “Uncle Toms” of the groups use to keep their members in line with the white agenda of Reid and Pelosi and Obama. They are an integral part of the plantation and keep the Rangel’s and others in power positions. It has nothing to do whatever with the real needs of the various minority communities. Look at black unemployment, black single parents, inner city schools, black ghettos, the DC Schools issue and about any other social problem we have. The agenda of the white side of the democratic party gets the spoils: teachers unions, autoworker unions, Wall Street Bankers (Goldman Sacks), trial lawyers and others. Some day blacks and Hispanics will wake up and see just how they have been mistreated and the results will not be pretty.
Good article.
Bernard, I have pointed out to people that the true “teachable moment” in the Sherrod case is that she freely acknowledges that she spent quality time “working through her racial issues” while as an employee of the USDA. While her jorney is perhaps admirable, the mindset and atmosphere is such that she was able to do so for apparently years, on our dime.
Think about that: she felt it was acceptable to play fast and loose with people’s issues, all based on their color, because she had “issues.” And nobody said a word. It must have been considered routine, acceptable.
Just how many Sherrods are there, all working for the US on our dime, playing games with the rules, because they have “issues” to work through?
The mind simply boggles.
Like every idea that comes out of Maureen Dowd’s head, this one doesn’t stand up to reason. It doesn’t matter how many Black Outreach Czars Obama appoints: it’s still impossible for him to win more than 100% of the black vote.
But there’s still a chance he can drive his white support closer to zero.
Do the math.
JPL17:
I agree 100%. You win the thread on grounds of relevance to the idiocy that actually spewed from The Dowd’s pen. To dig one level deeper though, the notion that Obama might need a Black Outreach Czar, for a group that votes 90% of the time down the democratic line, could only arise if one began to fear that the Black vote might be at risk of some erosion. Firing an ardent Black Nationalist for seeming to enunciate the Nationalist view point (just before she began to backslide towards socialist color-blindness) might be a reason to fear that erosion, nicht wahr?
The sad reality is that the left cannot allow racial harmony to flourish or even to be perceived to exist. Once there is no longer racial strife in this nation the leftists lose a very powerful weapon/motivator, leaving them only class warfare to fall back on. Once all Americans begin looking at one another without the resentment over wrongs committed by people long dead in the distant past we can then all begin to realize the full benefits that this great nation has to offer.
Does racism still exist? Yes, but not as pervasively as it once did. Instances of racism are so rare these days that when one occurs it is national news. Generally speaking most of what is presented to us today as examples of racism is ginned up nonsense. The debate of illegal immigration and the Arizona Law are prime examples of this.
The left needs racism to keep power. Without it they are forced to push their totalitarian agenda on its own merits. The left knows that the vast majority of Americans reject their ideology of authoritarianism; they realize that Americans believe in individual rights and without the subterfuge of ending discrimination the American people will not support the left. Without the politics of resentment the left no longer can hide their true agenda behind phony calls for social justice.
I agree with most of what you say, with one exception. Obama’s election is a prime example of how racist America still is. Were he not a black man, there is no way that he would have beaten Hillary in the primary, or McCain in the general. His lack of experience and his associations would have doomed any white applicant for the job. Widespread racism still exists, however whites are the recipients. I guess that is ok.
Unfortunately I cannot argue with what you write. You are of course quite right and we are all the poorer for it. Those who voted for Obama based on skin color should be eternally ashamed.
I was speaking of white on minority racism and should have made that clear. Mea culpa.
That was sort of a bizarre statement.
“We are sort of a mongrel people. I mean we’re all kind of mixed up. Now that’s actually true for white America as well, but we just know more about it.”
Where exactly is “white America”….?
He is making a huge mistake speaking like that. During the 08 campaign we knew that when he or his surrogates spoke of racism that they meant Republicans, John McCain or talk radio.
He was boxing in his opponents into a corner but now the election is over and there are new groups that have spoken out against him. Many are white and many voted for him but he seems to want to push them into the “white America” category which is code for racist or conservative or Tea Partier.
Even if they supported Barack Obama in the past they may find it terribly offensive to be singled out for their race when their concerns have nothing to do with race so they understand it as a cheap smear.
They may think to themselves “Hey…we supported you without looking at your skin and now when we have a disagreement all of a sudden the race knives come out”.
To them it might sort of be like “Gee…thanks a lot Obama. We are sure liking the underside of that bus.”
They voted for him to prove they weren’t racist anymore and now they come to find that they are more racist than ever.
Obama and his media cronies have made it perfectly clear.
They intend to scorch the earth with racial division if that’s what it takes to keep power.
Sorry white America.
“Ms. Dowd and Mrs. Sherrod should realize that racial blindness is a conservative thing. They’ll never get it.”
================
They don’t want or need to get it. For the left accusations of racism is their best tool for quelling arguments – at least in their minds. Their preoccupation with race is easy to understand if you understand how an unbalanced human mind works. It’s like a thief worried about his possessions at all times. In the petty world of the thief he sees all the world as thieves.
I think deep down Obama most likely hates white people. We certainly know how quickly he is to judgment – “The Cambridge Police acted stupidly” comment bears out how quickly he is to take sides in a race debate. One example only – there are many more but suffice it to say he makes snap judgments based solely on race. Based on what we’ve seen from this President how can anyone say he is anything but racist?
Rev Wright comes immediately to mind.
Racist?
Most definitely.
And for 20 years Obama sat in the pews of his ‘church’ and didn’t notice this tendency in his chosen preacher?
BULL CRAP!
Like it or not we have a racist occupying the White House.
Why is it so many physically attractive women can be so ignorant about things where only a little common sense should suffice, and this chick isn’t even a blonde.
The race pimps of the left are like an oncologist who, upon discovering a cancer in his patient, is determined not to cure it, but to preserve the cancer and even augment it so as to maintain his job eternally.
I believe it is self evident now that the accommodation of the leftists in our society, an accommodation which has culminated in their near complete capture of the national media, the national academy, and now all the levers of national power, has been catastrophic, and potentially lethal to the Republic. It may already be too late, but now a relentless rear-guard political war must be waged, not to simply regain lost political high ground, but to work towards the eventual destruction of the Left.
Accommodation with the left is simply a slow motion surrender. Eventually the drip drip drip of ever expanding socialist swindles normalizes the Leftist narrative in the minds of the public. Even sainted conservatives such as Reagan ended up supporting the expansion of the Federal Tyranny in the pursuit of political comity. That was wrong. The Left is taking no prisoners, time for conservatives to mirror the tactic. It works.
There’s a simple reason that the left is always screaming racism.
They cannot possibly justify their proposals with real logic or math, and they know it. Therefore, the only thing they have left is screaming racism at their opponents.
How our country got duped into elevating to the highest office a far leftist whose views are out of touch with those of the average citizen still perplexes
America wasn’t duped into voting for the Indonesian Imbecile. America CHOSE him, knowing full well what he was and what he would do to this nation. It was, while in the throes of a psychotic break from the credit crisis, that America decided to just end it all and vote for the Indonesian Imbecile. Nov 4th, 2008 was nothing less than a declaration of national suicide. America had decided to die.
Dumping on the american voter for his or her ignorance is delusional bitterness better suited to democrats. I am not an Obama supporter, but I remember how he was elected.
Let’s remember together, so we can luxuriate in the unbeleivable incompetence of the GOP and its head guys–the guys who helped bring us democratic control of all three branches of government:
ENDLESS BAD NEWS!!!!Paulsen howling for billions to prevent disaster; the economy sliding into a black hole; big institutions closing; house prices sliding backward; all after 8 years of George Bush who never bothered to call his own head of the SEC or FDIC to ask what the hell was going on in the housing market when 2/3 of Californians could not afford a median price house? Or “who is this Madoff guy?” or even “Gosh, do federally insured banks buy those dang derivitives?”
VOTING GOP MEANT FLEECING LOBBYISTS–NOTHING MORE! Bush couldn’t seem to call the big, fat, incompetent GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert to ask “since we control congress, can you take a minute from fleecing lobbyists to enact legislation allowing more nuclear reactors?” Or “Let’s extend the tax cuts to 2020?” Or even “wow you guys are sure legislating a lot of pork! How about a balanced budget?” And of course, Hastert himself was tooo busy porking to do anything constructive.
VOTING FOR JOHN McCAIN MEANT…WHAT EXATCLY?: what did the GOP offer to the people in 2008? Tired old John; an honorable military man 40 years before, but no more: afraid of his own shadow; with nothing to show as a legislator for 17 years except the speech crushing McCain-Feingold.
Unable to explain what he stood for, why capitalism was the best liberator of mankind, or why he was more experienced than Obama, he was a one dimensional guy, good on the surge, a no show on everything else.
So rather than bash the voters, bash the GOP that gave them such a marvelous record; and such an appealling candidate–who couldn’t explain what he was “for” or even what he was against. But then he was a “maverick” who only seemed to step up to pass McCain Feingold. Immigration? McCain was all in favor of amnesty. Pork? He was not exactly the leader against pork.
Maybe in 2010 and 2012 the GOP will offer something better. It used to have former vice presidents (Nixon, Bush I), former 2 term state executives of big states, with clear views (Reagan): all of them at least stood for fiscal control and so on. But 2008 just gave the voters a tired old senator who was part of the porkfest, and a 2 year gov. from Alaska.
Let’s hope its a better choice in 2012.
Don’t kid yourself. Everyone knew who the Indonesian Imbecile was. His biggest campaign rally was in friggin’ Germany. IN GERMANY! Americans understand, full well, that American Presidential candidates (or any candidates for OUR offices) are not supposed to be campaigning in foreign lands. None of this was kept secret. The Indonesian Imbecile often let it slip how he hated America, Americans, and American values. He called his “spiritual mentor” a guy who was screaming “G-d damn America!” just a week after 9/11, and America knew this. He named his “major” crappy book after the title of one of this despicable pastor’s sermons and then claimed that he knew just about nothing of Wright’s obvious hate of our nation and people … after having sat in his pews for decades. I could go on for pages and pages and pages with more specific examples, not to mention all of the things that the Indonesian Imbecile said or did that many were not totally aware. America knew who what the Indoensian Imbecile was and what he planned on doing. He only said “fundamental transformation” hundreds of times.
No, Smith, you have to understand that Americans knew exactly what they were getting with their votes on Nov 4th, 2008. They voted for exactly what they wanted, which was national suicide. If you don’t believe this, then you are the one who thinks Americans are dumb. I only said that many were thrown into an extreme psychological crisis by the credit crisis – which was obviously true – and that vote for national suicide was the expression of that pathology. But there is NO QUESTION, WHATSOEVER – that Americans voted for the Indonesian Imbecile as their ultimate act of penance (for the illusory white guilt that so many carry) and in an effort to just throw in the towel on America, at the same time, as the credit crisis and ensuing national psychosis drove people to this.
Terms like “indonesian imbecile” are not helpful and make you sound unhinged. Even if spending trillions we don’t have is enough to make a reasonable person unhinged at how it will be paid back, a trillion dollar debt is a time for clarity, not indulging in bilous name calling. Besides, calling our President–of whatever party–an “imbecile” is not a good thing. Its bad enough when the DixieChicks did it abroad, but its not much better here.
You are not entirely wrong: No doubt many sought to vote for the first AA President, one who himself thought that he might be “post-racial.” No doubt many heard what they wanted to hear and brushed aside the rather weird and alarming connections with Ayres, the pastor etc. Yes the speech in Germany was outright weird (since when does a US candidate campaign abroad?), abetted by a media that fawned all over him.
But I don’t blame the voters for hoping that Obama represented a solution to an awful lot of problems. He sold himself that way for the most part.
And he was aided by media that considers most of what he wants to do (health care, higher taxes) to be just fine-in fact the media is mystified that any normal person can find fault with it (e.g., the CNN reporter who harrangued a tea party demonstrator implying that he didn’ understand what was good for him). Nixon talke dover the emdia. So did reagan, The GOP hasn’t done that for 20 years. It’s lost its connnection with the people. Its become a Beltway party.
Amidst all this, one can’t overlook the context of 2008, when a community organizer with no trach record other than voting present was elected President. The GOP had given the US 8+ years of fleecing lobbyists, voting for pork, evading responsible action on immigration, deficit spending and acting as corrupt as the robber barons.
In 2008 the economy was tanking, the GOP had no idea what to do, and it hadn’t done one constructive thing domestically in 8 years.
So of course the voters voted for the new guy: of course they didn’t want another 4 years of the GOP. And for that I blame the GOP not the voters.
Voters raise kids, work hard, pay taxes and don’t have time to sit and parse political speeches all day.
The man that leaves his family, moves to Vegas, gets drunk every day for 8 years, blows the mortgage money, loses the house, links up with endless hookers, and never calls home can’t really complain when his family moves in with what seems to be a more responsible guy. The man has zero credibility in insisting that he is still the man to vote for.
It’ll be a long hard road back for the GOP. Let’s hope this time, they figure out that they have to stand for something other than their own reelection. They damaged the US in a terrible way. History’s judgment on people like Dennis Haster will be savage.
Terms like “indonesian imbecile” are not helpful and make you sound unhinged.
That’s what he is. He’s more Indonesian than American, as he did almost the entirety of his elementary chooling in Indonesia. That is where his personality was formed and where the deepest cultural ideas and feelings got ingrained in his personality. It is also very likely that he got Indonesian citizenship through adoption by Soetoro. THe only evidence we have been allowed to see all points to this.
As to the “imbecile” part, that much is self-evident. The Precedent is the dumbest person to ever sit in the White House, without any question, whatsoever. It’s clear that he didn’t break 920 on his SATs and his LSATs were probably just as pathetic. You can’t hear a guy talk about nonsensical notions such as “profit AND earnings ratios” without seeing that the guy not only doesn’t understand that “profits” and “earnings” are the same thing, but that he doesn’t even have the competency of just about every American 8th grader who knows that division or ratios are NEVER NEVER NEVER translated into English with “and”. That little gaffe was a clear indication that the Indonesian Imbecile was one of those kids who could never quite understand mathematical word problems and never was able to master even simple arithmetic with fractions. Anyone who still didn’t understand that was treated to an encore performance with the Indonesian Imbecile’s declaration that his health scare will “reduce premiums by 3000%”.
He is the Indonesian Imbecile. That is an accurate description of The Precedent. If you don’t like calling imbeciles “Imbeciles”, then fine, but to pretend that such an idiot has a brain does more damage than anything. The Indonesian Imbecile should be laughed out of any forum where he deigns to lecture those of us who can actually think. He should know that we all know how stupid he is, no matter what affirmative action college credentials he might have been given. Once you heard him try and mock conservatives (while trying to push the Porkulus through) saying, “What do you think stimulus is?!? Spending IS stimulus!!” you should have known how dangerous it was to continue to refuse to acknowledge the serious lack of brainpower that we have occupying the White House, now.
Smith, let me put it succinctly for you:
On Nov 4th, 2008, America made the most frivolous decision one could imagine during one of the most consequential of times that America has ever experienced. You have to find an explanation for this sort of irresponsible, self-destructive behavior that goes quite a bit beyond the idea that McShame was an awful candidate. In such consequential, and dangerous, times, the survival instinct usually pushes itself to the forefront and governs people’s behavior, brushing aside even large differences and disappointments. That didn’t happen during the 2008 election and America went with total and unequivocal frivolity, and near-certain death of the American creed. Even those on the right/middle-right who sat out (because they hated McShame) made the same choice as those who voted for the Indonesian Imbecile and Avenging Angel of the Third World.
“It’s like a thief worried about his possessions at all times. In the petty world of the thief he sees all the world as thieves.”
Spot on.
Do you remember Mr. Postracial before the election? Mr. “I don’t look like the old guy on the dollar bill”. Remember how he through that out several times and the McCain campaign did not touch it? He tried to play the race card BEFORE he was elected. Did anyone who had half a brain think it would get better if he won? The good news is that in the deck of race cards there is a Joker with the words TEA PARTY on it along with the American flag.
A Black guy and a White guy walk into a Bar;
Both are unemployed construction workers, and
neither is going to vote Democratic in Nov.
They will, if they’re union!
“A Black guy and a White guy walk into a Bar;
Both are unemployed construction workers, and
neither is going to vote Democratic in Nov.”
Black guy: “Hey, I’m entitled to slavery reparations, even though I’ve never spent one single minute as a slave. Buy me a drink.”
White guy: “Be glad to, even though I’ve never owned a slave for one single minute. Your skin color is good enough for me.”
Black guy: “Damn straight. Now buy me another drink.”
White guy: “But wait, I just bought you one already.”
Black guy: “One drink ain’t enough. When we leave here, you’re buyin’ me a house and new car, too.”
…yet our public square remains bound by the bands of a Jesse Jackson Mobius Strip when it comes to inter-group harmony.
Such a tedious crowd. I’ve not heard such yakking and angst on race (and other forms of identity politics) in decades as seems to be de rigueur in current times.
(Didn’t JJ, that jealous, jealous man, fantasize about cutting Obama’s nuts off ? yipes, not too much harmony there.)
The so called “higher educational” establishment is waters the weeds of divisiveness & identity politics every single day.
You’d think all these people would have something better to do but, alas alack, the current progressive machine is so fragile, so desperate for a raison d’être, that it would literally fall apart without constantly hyping how this group is being slighted, discriminated against, whatever, by that group.
Booker T. described race baiters/race hustlers in the style of JJ, Al, Barack, Jeremiah, Eric et al. and etc. over a century ago…
“There is (a) class of colored people who make a business of keeping the
troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their
troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their
wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.
Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances,
because they do not want to lose their jobs. … There is a certain class
of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because
as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of
making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make
themselves prominent before the public.”
– Booker T. Washington, Up From Slavery
(1856-1915)
Destroying the money supply by spending trillions of dollars that do not exist, with inflation covered up by exporting most of that money overseas, will in the long run do to the poor what inflation and upperclass greed did to the poor in Tudor England. Impoverish them more. Socialism and advancement of the poor have always been in conflict, because empowering government, historically addicted to destroying the money supply by inflation, hurts the poor the most. Consider inflation of the money supply, to be used for things that have no connection with creating market goods or generating a profit in the market (the only things to ultimately give money value, which derives its value exclusively from whatever consumable wealth resides in the market) to be a tax which is retrogressive. It hurts the poor the most. Where the poor are the “other” as they usually are (or in our case the Black and Brown “minorities”) such tactics, in the name of making the “other” dependent on strong government, is in essence racist in the extreme, at least in outcome if not in intent, because it empowers government on the economic backs of the minorities. Those who want all peoples empowered (especially the minorities) known today as conservatives, since this was always the American objective which even now we are trying to conserve, should then not put aside the fight against racism, but should start using it against the most extreme, and certainly masochistic, Anti-Black racists now out there, namely the socialists on the left such as the White/Arab Obama. (Though, I agree, he certainly “looks” Black). Hey, let’s start fighting back. You can’t win against Racism unless you fight against the Racists, and their masks now are off them, and let us hope forever.
The funniest and truest profile of Maureen Dowd was given by David Solway, i believe, right here on Pajamas Media, about 8 months ago. I was wise enough to print it out and have it available for anyone who wants it. This article by the master scrivener caused me to burst out laughing. This woman who would not hesitate to sell her brother into sexual slavery for the rest of his life, has had a great life at the rag that publishes her column. She is by far one of the worst pieces of garbage that ever came into this world.
Three months and counting….
Liberal Filth can’t give up race based insults, it a hate friendly zone for them, their natural habitat. Plus the filth don’t have to think.
Nobody seriously believes they want to get into issues, e.g., small deficits very bad, very much larger deficits not only good but actual salvation? Try arguing that one.
Cry me a river! Haven’t you heard the good news? Now that Barack Obama has been elected president, racism in America has ended. And we must turn our attention to the new racism — against whites. At least, that’s what teabaggers would have us believe.
This is the wing-nut golden oldie. Consider the commercial then Senator Jesse Helms ran in 1990, where it said “You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority, because of a racial quota. Is that really fair?” You guys have been playing the race card for a very long time. If that isn’t stirring the pot I don’t know what is.
Things have actually gotten worse. The idea that undeserving minorities are benefiting from an unjust system that discriminates against whites is perpetuated by the right ad nauseam.
With the election of that guy with the foreign sounding name, Barack Obama, conservatives are complaining about a whole shift in the balance of power in America, where women and minorities have all the advantages, and white men — the real Americans — just can’t get a break. Poor little old white man. Like I said, cry me a river.
With the election of that guy with the foreign sounding name, Barack Obama…
Sorry, sweet pea. Wrong again.
The complaint is about a marginally intelligent guy who holds a view of the Presidency as Emperor, with him having carte blanche to institute a personal agenda that he and his socialist cronies deem oh-so-much-wiser-and-enlightened than that dreamed up by those silly old guys a couple centuries (+) ago.
A narcissist who states the reason the Israelis are skeptical of his administration’s policy towards them is because his middle name is “Hussein”.
An individual who swore to uphold the Constitution but only wants to circumvent it, to re-invent it so as to create a dependent populace where he and fellow Marxists/Socialists/Progressives will be required to run the ship of state in perpetuity.
Redistribution of “wealth” (or anything else) doesn’t happen to be in his job description.
He could have any name and any skin coloUr but he isn’t entitled to re-invent America.
“He could have any name and any skin coloUr but he isn’t entitled to re-invent America.”
Oh yes he is because that is the kind of change we voted for. There are consequences to elections. You don’t like the consequences of the last election. Too bad. The interesting thing about the teabaggers is how cocksure they seem about their potential in November. The polls are very volatile to say the least, especially in the last couple of weeks. Bottom line is that Obama wins if he loses and he wins if he wins. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s gonna be a rough eight-years for you people. Godd thing you have the Pajamas Media sewage tank to swim in together. You’re gonna need it.
“He could have any name and any skin coloUr but he isn’t entitled to re-invent America.”
Oh yes he is because that is the kind of change we voted for.
Uh … no. You can’t vote to undo the Constitution. That’s not how things work. No matter how any vote goes, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land and the people you voted for are not entitled to shred it to bits. That’s the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy. The whim of the voter is not all-powerful in a Constitutional Republic, just as none of the branches of the federal government are even close to all-powerful. All the branches have strict limits to them, no matter your vote. But, I don’t expect you to understand this. You idiots got Congress in 2006 and immediately held 2 no-confidence votes on Bush, which have no meaning whatsoever in our governmental architecture. You idiots don’t even seem to know the differences between the individualistic US system and the collectivist, party-oriented, Euro parliamentary systems. No confidence votes in Congress. What a friggin’ joke.
But, details such as these have never gotten in the way of the left, who think that empathy should be the chief determining factor for judges’ decisions, with the rule of law having no weight in the face of such strong emotions. To you people, laws are nothing more than window dressing, anyway, as your Precedent has been showing people every single day since he slimed his ineligible butt into office.
To us in the Right, that’s an absolute barrier, the ultimate guarantee of America’s basis in freedom. To those over on the Left, such as Praetorian, it’s an obstacle to be finessed. That’s why they put such emphasis on nominations to the federal bench: they see the courts and their “power to interpret the Constitution” as their way around its constraints.
Unfortunately, many judges that reach the federal bench seem to feel the same way.
How we might clean that house remains a research problem.
Its not his Pigmentation its his POLICIES
Its not because he is Black but because he is RED
Its not because he is ‘POST’ Racial its because he is ‘MOST’ Racial
There Preatorian get it now?? But I am sure you dont.
Praetorian -
Without using lofty platitudes can you tell me EXACTLY what CHANGE and HOPE you voted for? If you can answer this SPECIFICALLY, you’ll be the first person in the history of the Democratic Party to do so. And please do not turn the question around (DON’T ANSWER THIS QUESTION WITH ANOTHER QUESTION), give us a real ANSWER. What exactly is this HOPE and CHANGE?
I’m expecting the same sort of emotional speech that I always get from a liberal/democrat/progressive, but maybe this time I’ll get an answer. A SPECIFIC ANSWER to my question.
Thank you Praetorian.
Racism does not mean what it used to mean. The great and evil art form that was perfected in the 20th century was that of bending words or concepts into something totally different from their original meaning, adding, deleting, or totally changing the meaning while retaining the emotional connotations of the original meaning of the words.
Today the term “racist” really just means people who are hostile to the “Progressive” agenda. It has long ceased to mean what the term originally meant, just like the term “Progressive” has.
Exactly, Anyone presenting themselves as anti-socialist is now labeled a racist.
Victor Davis Hanson’s quote speaks much truth. However, let us only put 1/2 of the blame for this insanity of exposing racism on the Obamas and BO’s administration, Maureen Dowd and her fellow liberal media people, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the rest of his ilk.
Some of the blame for this cry of racism belongs to us too. Why would I offer such a statement? It’s a simple answer: As long as we are not outspoken enough to defend who we are and what we represent in a society that still promotes freedom of speech and other liberties, we have played into the hands of those “who cry wolf.”
A lot of people just do not comprehend the fact that what exists today is an effort to overthrow this country: to overthrow our ideals, our democratic practices, our social, political, and economic systems. Crying racism is part of the ideological tactic. It makes people feel so guilty that they respond in a way that will assuage their guilt. They respond irrationally to irrationality. But the truth is that we have nothing about which to feel guilty at this point. We have, instead, to much to lose. We cannot afford a revolution in this country, one that will erradicate our democratic institutions and turn this country on its head.
People need to wake up now and to think straight. We have the ability to counter all the ways in which Obama acts. We have the ability to see through his democratic jargon all the way to how the issue of “racism” is spewed out. We can defend ourselves via knowledge, the pen, and our vote. It is essential that we think rationally about all that is happening; and that we are not swept into the insanity of the Obama administration tactic.
Bernard Chapin closes out his article:
“In answer to the question posed by our champion Dr. Hanson, it seems that only conservatives covet living in a post-racial society. Ms. Dowd and Mrs. Sherrod should realize that racial blindness is a conservative thing. They’ll never get it.”
-I guess conservatives, don’t so much “covet living in a post-racial society” as they’d like to draw attention away from Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, and subsequent republican pandering to former segregationists in the south. Strom Thurmond and former democrats ended up as republicans. Reagan tapped into this latent racism to win big in the south which remains a republican bastion.
Besides Mr. Thurmond, please name at least 4 other southern Democrats of the civil-rights era who turned Republican.
George Wallace, the man who barred the schoolhouse door to prevent integration didn’t. He was either a Democrat or “independent” in all of his elections.
Robert Byrd, the former Klansman, didn’t. And Democrats gave him a pass for decades.
John C. Stennis stayed a Democrat all his life, even after vociferously opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among others.
James Eastland was also re-elected numerous times with a “D” after his name, even after he attempted to block Thurgood Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court.
Richard Russell, Jr. also opposed and even filibustered civil rights legislation in the 60s… and by now you should realize… he was re-elected many times as a Democrat.
There, I have named 5 Democrats who opposed racial integration and civil rights for blacks in the 60s, and who remained Democrats. Can you name 5 of them who switched to the GOP? That’s a fair challenge, I name 5, you name 5. But I bet you can’t. In fact, I bet you’ll spin, attack me personally, and/or ignore this challenge.
I know historical facts don’t mean much to you people. You tend to believe whatever reinforces your likes and dislikes regardless of the truth. If you have the guts and want to learn the real history of the Democratic and Republican Party with regards to racism I would direct your attention to an excellent article by Lawrence Lewis at Kos (like I said, if you have the guts). Lawrence isn’t embellishing anything he is laying it out as it happened and how the two parties stand now. The GOP may, as he indicates, have blips of success, but long term the GOP embracing of racism will doom it in the end. That isn’t an opinion, it is a demographic fact (but I don’t suppose facts matter much anyway to you). However, I am hopeful, because even though I am an unapologetic liberal Democrat, I believe strongly in the two party system. It works well. What the GOP needs to do is marginalize the fringe and then stamp them out politically. The marginalization has already begun with the emergence of the tea party. It’s now up to the movers and shakers to finish the job.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/1/888775/-A-design-feature
I note that you can’t name any Dixiecrats who became Republicans, Praetorian.
Therefore, all you have there is spin, complete with a DailyKOS article to prove where you get your talking points from.
Doesn’t even rate a “nice try.” Go back to KOS, willya?
Trent Lott was raised a democrat as were most white southerners. He served as administrative assistant to House Rules Committee chairman William M. Colmer, a democrat, before running for his seat after Colmer retired, yes as a republican.
But the point is that Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” began turning southern white VOTERS to the G.O.P.. For over 100 years, white southern democrats resented and hated Lincoln’s party…..the party that freed the slaves and granted them status as human beings.
Reagan was even more successful in his use of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”……
Why did Reagan launch his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi?
What was Philadelphia Mississippi infamous for? (The murder of 3 civil rights workers; James Chaney, Andrew Goodman,and Michael Schwerner.)
Why did Reagan invoke “states rights” (the battle cry of segregationists) at the Neshoba County Fair on August 3, 1980?
No, Reagan didn’t go to Philadelphia Mississippi to woo black voters, that’s for sure.
Okay, Trent Lott makes two.
I named 5 Dixiecrats who didn’t switch to the GOP. You still owe me 3 names.
And I know you can’t give them to me; most Dixiecrats stayed Democrats, and the Democratic party never pushed them out.
You could be a man and admit that, or you can continue to spin. Knowing lefties, I confidently predict that you are gonna do the latter.
ConservativeWanderer, complains that I still owe him….
“I named 5 Dixiecrats who didn’t switch to the GOP. You still owe me 3 names.”
-No, the point I was making was making was “that (conservatives) don’t so much “covet living in a post-racial society” as they’d like to draw attention away from Nixon’s “Southern Strategy””. You conveniently left that part(the “Southern Strategy”) out, my conservative friend.
The Dixicrats were the beginning of the movement of southern segregationists from the party of Lincoln and his fight against “STATES RIGHTS”, to the republican party of Barry Goldwater who embraced the concept of “States Rights”……No, I don’t owe you, you owe me an explanation about overt racism as it exists in a new code language. The neo-racists don’t use racial epithets and stand in school doors, which is no longer fashionable. The public relations department of Dick Armey is too slick for that!
As I expected. More spin.
You cannot name 5 Dixiecrats who became Republicans because the vast majority of them stayed in the Democratic Party.
And because you don’t have the maturity or intellectual honesty to admit that you’re wrong, and that your talking points are wrong, you’re desperately–and transparently–spinning.
Keep it up, if you want to. Everyone–except perhaps the brain-dead lefties–have figured out what you’re doing by now, as well as why.
ConservativeWanderer,
“More spin”? The use of States Rights as a mechanism to appeal to racist tenancies is no spin my friend, and it seems to be something you have no answer for. You are very touchy about my argument.
“…The vast majority of them stayed in the Democratic Party”.
-This is the real spin however, for it’s NOT the old school segregationists that is germane to this argument. They were mostly retired or dead ten years after the Civil Rights Act they filibustered. It was their replacements like Trent Lott, who were once Democrats only to change to Republicans. Other famous racists such as Jesse Helms were indeed Republicans prior to 1964. Yes, States Rights appealed to almost all former segregationist voters after 1964. It took a a century for southerners to forget their hate for Republicans and Sherman’s march to the Sea. How else could they show their disfavor with The Civil Rights Act? I wonder if you are old enough and lived near Raleigh to remember his segment on WRAL news call “Viewpoint, with Jesse Helms”? This guy made no bones about his racism….
“Southern Strategy is no mere talking point and the immaturity and intellectual dishonesty is shown by those who cannot answer the thrust of my comments without obfuscation. Do you deny the fact of a “Southern Strategy”? Do you not see the irony of the Party of Lincoln embracing the concept of States Rights, which the GOP championed against during the Civil War?
Sorry, not in the market for red herrings today, Mr. Walters.
I asked specifically about Democrats from the Civil Rights era that had gone over to the GOP. That’s where I entered this discussion. You are the one continually trying to distract me with other concepts. And I am not buying it. An intelligent person would have realized that by now.
Now, either answer the question I posed when I entered this discussion, admit that you can’t, or shut up. Even this bulldog is getting tired of this.
“I asked specifically about Democrats from the Civil Rights era that had gone over to the GOP. That’s where I entered this discussion.”
-Lauch Faircloth former supporter of Gov. and US Senator Terry Sanford, Sen Faircloth switched parties to run as a Republucan. The point I am making which you try to deflect is that the former Democratic VOTERS made the switch, often times based on race which both Helms and Faircloth fed into. This is my statement:
“-I guess conservatives, don’t so much “covet living in a post-racial society” as they’d like to draw attention away from Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, and subsequent republican pandering to former segregationists in the south. Strom Thurmond and former democrats ended up as Republicans.”
If I wasn’t clear on this, let me clarify it now. I was speaking of segregationist VOTERS, who were the object of Goldwater’s, Nixon’s and Reagan’s “Southern Strategy”. So now, perhaps you can answer my question that was foremost at the head of the discussion you joined into.
Red herring? -Only if you are avoiding my premise that the Southern Strategy was established to gain the support of southern segregationists VOTERS. Let me add this. I am aware mostly of North Carolina and South Carolina politics of the past 40 years. Not ALL Republican voters in these states are racist, or were racist for that matter. Times are changing, but there remains a few of those dyed in the wool racist, and they almost always vote Republican. It is merely an observation.
More red herrings. Faircloth didn’t switch till 1990. We’re talking about those “Dixiecrats” who switched during the time around the big civil rights battles.
You clearly have trouble following a single line of debate or conversation without going off on all sorts of tangents. I, personally, have ADHD, yet even I am not as easily distracted as you seem to be. Have you seen a qualified physician about this problem?
ConservativeWanderer,
I find that when the argument devolves into something like:
“I, personally, have ADHD, yet even I am not as easily distracted as you seem to be. Have you seen a qualified physician about this problem?”
-It shows you have a problem addressing the subject of my posts: Republicans courted former segregationist VOTERS of the Democratic party. Let me break it down for you. I will type this s l o w l y……
Leading the change from the Democrats to the Republican Party was Strom Thurmond. In the vanguard of racist pandering, Strom Thurmond led by example. He switched to The Republicans just prior to the 1964 election in which Barry Goldwater championed “States Rights”. Four years later, Dick Nixon sensed the animosity of segregationist VOTERS in the south and launched the Southern Strategy. In an interview in 1970 Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips stated:
“The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. ”
Nixon won Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, states that had never been carried by a Republican in a long, long time. Ron Reagan took a page from Dick Nixon’s book and kicked off his 1980 post-convention presidential campaign with a rally at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site where three civil rights workers were murdered.
He carried all the south but for Carter’s home state.
The point is not about which politicians switch, but about how and why segregationist voters switched. I hope this clears up your inability to address the thrust of my posts, whcih is the Southern Strategy and States Rights and how it switched southern whites to the GOP.
You’ve already mentioned Thurmond.
You say he “led the charge.” Okay, who are the other Democrats that were charging to the GOP in the mid-to-late 1960s behind Strom Thurmond?
Clearly, you can’t answer that. That’s why you keep trying to change the topic. And I absolutely, positively REFUSE to let you. So either answer or shut the heck up.
“Okay, who are the other Democrats that were charging to the GOP in the mid-to-late 1960s behind Strom Thurmond?”-asks ConservativeWanderer again….
-Addressing the point I was making and stated as such:
“-I guess conservatives, don’t so much “covet living in a post-racial society” as they’d like to draw attention away from Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, and subsequent republican pandering to former segregationists in the south. Strom Thurmond and former democrats ended up as republicans.”
-It was the VOTERS who were supporters of segregation who saw it was “OK” to now be a Republican, by Strom Thurmond’s EXAMPLE. Do you get it now? Segregationist loving VOTERS. That’s your answer, I cannot be any more clear than that! Those “Negrophobe whites” that Kevin Phillips (-a Nixon political strategist) was talking about.
So, as anyone can see, it is YOU, my friend who is changing the topic, so unless you can address my original point…..
>>…..conservatives drawing attention away from Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and subsequent Republican pandering to former segregationist in the south (-the Southern Strategy was aimed primarily at these voters as a block)….<<
"either answer or shut the heck up."
Once again, you refuse to answer, and try to deflect the discussion.
Once again, I ain’t gonna let you.
However, this time, I am going to present an alternative history.
If, after I posed my question, you’d provided the evidence I asked for (highly unlikely, I’ve looked for it myself and it just doesn’t exist), or admitted that talking point was in error, I would have been more than happy to discuss the many other talking points you’ve been bringing up. In fact, you didn’t even have to specifically admit that it was wrong, all you really had to say was something like, “I’m having trouble locating that information, so I will withdraw that point until I can.”
All I wanted was for you to give me a substantive answer to my question. You steadfastly refused to, despite the many opportunities I’ve given you.
Therefore, I can only conclude that you really don’t care about the truth, especially when it gets in the way of your carefully scripted talking points. As such, I consider you the lowest form of life, even lower than the stuff I scrape off the bottom of my shoes after I walk in the neighborhood dog park.
Perhaps next time you’ll do the mature thing and admit that you can’t back up your talking points with hard evidence. Until then, you have my utter contempt.
ConservativeWanderer’
“All I wanted was for you to give me a substantive answer to my question. You steadfastly refused to, despite the many opportunities I’ve given you.”
-To the specific question….
“Okay, who are the other Democrats that were charging to the GOP in the mid-to-late 1960s behind Strom Thurmond?”
-I guess you are trying desperately to construct a straw man argument. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, he stated “We have lost the South for a generation”. As I stated, for god knows how many time, Strom Thurmond led the change of segregationist Democrats to switch to the Republican party. Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Richard Shelby, Lauch Faircloth and Thad Cochran were all democrats who became Republicans.
But it isn’t the point of my argument to list republican politicians who became republican. It was the segregationist leaning Democratic voters of the south who voted for these new Republican politicians locally, state wide and nationally. This is the “Southern Strategy” I keep referring to. The strategy Richard Nixon used to his advantage, when his aid stated:
“The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. ”
Are we clear on this now? I certainly hope so. Now can you address this sad phase in republican history? I think you’d rather forget it and obsfucate or otherwise blow smoke when some one does bring these inconvenient facts up.
As soon as I saw the title to Mr. Chapin’s article I had a feeling you would show up with all guns blazing. Thanks for revisiting the same old tired lefty talking points concerning race in your posts above. It’s a real stroll down memory lane.
I too work on a college campus and one of the things that always impresses me about (white) “liberal Democrats” is their sense of ownership over black Americans. It’s really sort of creepy. There is this proprietory attitude that they take (as say, Maureen Dowd does) that they know more about “being black” that someone who is African-American. They know the politics blacks should have, the social policies they should support and the attitudes that they should strike. I remember people whom you undoubtedly support denigrating Condi Rice in the most vile and racist terms because whe wasn’t “black enough” and was “a traitor to her people.” The many liberals who adopt this attitude demonstrate a rather sickening mixture of condescension, self-aggrandizement and contempt toward the objects of their “affection.” So much of their (your?) self-image is tied to maintaining the dependency of blacks on liberal apron strings that the idea of a really independent black man or woman frightens them. As much as you would like to resurrect the 50′s and 60′s in order to reinforce your sense of mission the fact is that those days are over. It is not conservatives who are stuck in a racist past but rather the left.
I’ll leave you with one other thought. The university where I work had a major dust-up about two years ago. A black woman with nearly two decades of seniority was employed there in an important upper-level administrative position. She was (and is) also a minister. At her church one Sunday she delivered a heated sermon on the “evils of homosexuality” with many unflattering allusions to the gay community. She called gays”sinners” and urged them to renounce their lifestyle. The gay community promptly demanded that she be fired and and black community demanded that she be retained. She was then placed on “administrative leave.” This led to the inevitable public meetings, marches and conferences calling for “the spirit of redonciliation and unity” and attended by all the usual suspects. However neither the gays nor the black community were backing off on this. Eventually she was allowed to resign after a big payout. The local powers-that-be then did everything they could to make the issue go away.
My question to you is – Where does the liberal conscience stand on events such as this? Which of these groups was entitled to the the proprietory favor of the “enlightened” left? Was this woman treated fairly or not? Was she the victim of racism or not?
chambers,
From the sound of it, you do not seem to have a high regard for black voters disdain for republicans.
“…….one of the things that always impresses me about (white) “liberal Democrats” is their sense of ownership over black Americans. It’s really sort of creepy. There is this (proprietary) attitude that they take (as say, Maureen Dowd does) that they know more about “being black” (than) someone who is African-American.”
What IS truly “creepy” is your clumsy attempt to link “liberal Democrats” with plantation owners of the past, perhaps to lure black voters into the republican fold….or at least to give them pause enough to stay at home on election day. (laughing) -It is condescending. Do you think they are not intelligent enough to understand their own self interest? Why do blacks overwhelmingly eschew the party of Lincoln (-you know the guy who championed the end of slavery , and fought STATES RIGHTS? -Yeah, that guy), and vote for democrats for the most part? Because they’re stupid?
It was 1964 that Barry Goldwater flipped the GOP, (the party that FOUGHT “States Rights”), to the dark side. Yes, we know that southern democrats were against civil rights. But the days of segregationist southern democrats were numbered when Hubert Humphrey spoke these words at the 1948 Democratic Convention: “To those who say, this civil rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of STATES’ RIGHTS and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!”
Too bad (for you) that blacks are NOT idiots. And perhaps you’d like black voters to be confused on this issue, by trying to draw the argument away from where it truly is. For the most part black voters understand well their self interest. It ain’t the folks espousing “States Rights” like Ronald Reagan did at the Neshoba County Fair on August 3, 1980 that stand for them. Yes, Philadelphia Mississippi, the site of the infamous murder of 3 Civil Rights workers. Reagan was, after all a master of theatrics, and knew well how to manage a backdrop for his stage. By 1980, most all former segregationists were REPUBLICANS.
Oooohhhhh! “Praetorian” is going to teach us a history lesson!
I work with history full time, twit. When you’ve actually learned some, come back and discuss.
Oh, and please lose the pretentious “Pretorian” user name, OK? Use something more apporpriate for you like, “Little Princess Tinymeat.”
“There, I have named 5 Democrats who opposed racial integration and civil rights for blacks in the 60s, and who remained Democrats. Can you name 5 of them who switched to the GOP? That’s a fair challenge, I name 5, you name 5.
But I bet you can’t. In fact, I bet you’ll spin, attack me personally, and/or ignore this challenge.” -says ConservativeWanderer
-Though it is nearly impossible to name each and every voter who was once a democrat and turned republican, I have laid out the method and the results of this overt pandering by the republican party to win an important voting bloc in the south. You spun, attacked me personally, but not yet ignored me. That has been ConservativeWanderer’s MO throughout this discussion. You, or no one else here can own up to the facts I’ve laid out. Better luck next time, but I think you know you are up against someone who knows facts! Put up or shut up my friend!
Praetorian,
I chose the foreign sounding name so that useful idiots like you would endlessly shout “racist!”. Unfortunately, I didn’t calculate that you would do it so much that the word would become useless. Thanks a lot. Now everyone knows that charges of “racism” are just shooting intellectual blanks. Go help the other side for a change.
Barack
Manny: wasn’t that the one where she was referred to as childless, unhappy, and shrew-like?
@36. David W. Walters//
The Democrat Party’s Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism
Also, don’t forget the plethora of “RACIST” gaffes the Democrats make constantly with nary a batting of the eye or tarring and feathering.
What do you think of those Lefty Union purple shirt thugs who beat on a black man and called him the “n-word”? No big deal to you, right?
Or, how Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice.
Or, how Leftist African Americans will call any black person who is in the GOP a “House Ni**er”
But, that’s all a-okay with you right?
-Read my post to chambers above….
-It ain’t “The Race Card” my friend, it’s the facts. You for State’s Rights? It’s code word that speaks against that darn’d Federal Civil Rights non-sense! So you’d have us believe black voters are stupid? This is what Ben Jealous is getting at. The Tea Party’s use of code when race baiting.
My goodness…Such sputtering demands a response. I notice that you completely ignore the vicious and RACIST (see – I can use caps for emphasis too) attacks on black Americans such as Ms. Rice, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele et al who have the perfidity to support Republicans. These attacks which are cheerfully “race based” are used with impunity by the progressive camp because they know that a compliant press will let them get away with it. You also seem to have a bit of problem with “States Rights.” Well the GOP has (in theory if not in fact) been for the last sixty years the party of small government. I must remind you that the our government under the U.S. Constitution is not a “democracy” per se but rather a “federal republic of states.” Like it or not the 10th Amendment is in the Constitution. The founders viewed the individual states as safeguards against the abuses of “overly powerful” central government. Surely even you must concede that the various examples of all-powerful central governments in the 20th Century (Germany, the Soviet Union Maoist China, Franco’s Spain) illustrate the wisdom of the Founder’s decision.
Your chief argument to “prove” that blacks should reject Republicans is “self-interest.” You use the phrase several times. This merely supports my point about the proprietory way that white liberals view African-Americans. To say that a group will only act in their “self-interest” is to say that they are incapable of any higher aspirations than acquisition and gain. (This is a common Marxist fallacy.) Modern liberal ideology (also dating to about 1964) maintains that the purpose of government is to “give things” to the governed. This is just another variation on the long-standing historical relationship between the patron and client. Liberals view black Americans as their “clients” in the way that, say, a Roman politician or Medici prince viewed his folowers. The patron is glad of the support but would never concede that the client is his social (or moral) equal. However the patron also knows that he has to keep the goodies coming to keep the client group in line. (You may recall the anecdote about the famous 18th Century British radical and mob orator, John Wilkes. A large group of his supporters had come to Wilkes house to serenade him for something he had said or done. Someone complimented Wilkes on the “number of friends you have.” Wilkes replied…”Tosh. These are not my friends. These are merely my followers.”)
In my post to “praetorian” I described the local case where the black university administrator (and minister) outraged with local gay community with her sermon on the “evils of homsexuality.” Like it or not client groups will not always have the same “self-interest.” The assumption of the left is that all of them can be led the same way. What happens when the self-interest of Group A clashes with Group B? We will be seeing a lot more of this in the future as identity-group politics increases its stranglehold on our civic life.
chambers,
“My goodness…Such sputtering demands a response.”
The “sputtering” reference cheapens your response to the thrust of my comments. It seems this is used to deflect the argument away from the premise that Lincoln’s party fought States Rights, only to find the party a century later using States Rights as a platform to pander to racism in a bid for former southern white democratic votes. The irony of this 180º turn never ceases to amaze me! Citing black republicans being disrespected is merely a smoke screen to shroud that premise I put forth.
I will reply to the comment that…..
-”Modern liberal ideology (also dating to about 1964) maintains that the purpose of government is to “give things” to the governed”.
-Yes, it was the intent of liberal ideology to give certain segments of our society the freedom that was being denied them, using States Rights as the mechanism of oppressive laws. Remember, Jim Crow Laws were instituted by states to circumvent the 13th and 14th amendments.
I cite States Rights because many Republicans are oblivious to this fact or are otherwise unaware of this irony. I don’t think MOST Republicans are racists, but dangerous racism still exists which you must address if you want the vast majority of blacks to seriously consider Lincoln’s party, theirs.
Without race and screaming “racist”, left/liberal Democrats will have nothing versus conservative Republicans with except the actual merits of their ideology… that’ll suck for ‘em.
Identity politics has already ruined this country, and it will continue to destroy it, till its a smoking ash heep, or a totalitarian state.
Of course, that is likely the Left’s game plane. They have a fantastic strategy.
Pushing sixty, Red Bush should cease to interest any one.
As galling and insulting as it is, the charge of racism 24/7 hasn’t put a single dent in the conservative/libertarian/republican coalition. We’ve only grown and got stronger.
There are more of us than there are liberals…
So, when you hear the shrill squeak of “RAAAAAACCCCCCIIIIIIISSMMMM!!!!!!” remember that squeak is the shriek of impotency.
There are more of us than there are liberals… and there are more of us now than there ever was.
Now, it begs the question of whether the Republican party has earned our vote, but thats a whole other issue….
It seems that on all sides there is a conflation of the terms racism and prejudice. They aren’t the same word, so why do we treat them as such? An oft touted example of latent racism in America is sometimes illustrated as when a white woman will clutch her purse all the more when a black individual makes the scene.
Am I the only one that understands this as prejudice and not racism? I mean, how is such action exalting her race, or diminishing the race of another? It is actually a superficial conclusion, and fallacious, to find a deeper link of true racism on the woman’s part toward the black individual, since the woman may only be responding to a demographic that includes black men, and not necessarily the class of all Black Men.
Well; In my neighborhood, the black women cross the street and clutch their purses tighter when they see a white man, and the white neighborhood is causing a drain on the police department because of all the police activity for drive by shootings, robberies, and drug dealing in the streets.
And the white neighborhoods are blighted and the housing values are plummeting. Anybody that makes any remark about the white people are immediately labeled racist by the local media and the populace.
It’s all Abraham Lincoln’s fault!
A President who is half-black/half white, but pretending to be wholly black, is not “post-racial”. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is actually the most racially-obsessed Administration I’ve ever seen .
I read today that the RNC cancelled a function headlined by Andy Breitbart. Andy is a hero of journalism. If true, this is an outrage and another indicator that the establishment Republicans are as full of it as the Democrats.
Before Breitbart stood up the left was in full tilt boogie pushing the “Tea Parties are Racist” meme. He threw the train off the track almost single handedly and got slandered as a slavery advocate for his feat. Kudos to Andy Breitbart!
The x factor in all of this is a number we can probably never determine. The negative reaction to Obama has been strong by conservatives and some independents. Much of the reaction has to do with his policies, but x% has to do with his race. Blacks (Shirley Sherrod being the current poster child) know this, but probably tend to see the number as x squared, and respond accordingly. Try to remember how you FELT, and some of the sputtering you did when GWB was getting lambasted in the middle stages of the Iraq adventure.
It is a joke to think that conservatives are somehow post racial, as the title of this article implies, because it is clear that Fox/PJM etc know that race is still a hot button issue; why else the draping of TWO motley, complete non-entity Black Panthers over the face of American media for a week or month? Can you say Willie Horton? C’mon, be honest; we all know that it is a wedge issue which works BOTH ways. No benign neglect on display here, that’s for sure.
Conservatives are against socialism except when it comes to price supports for criminals aka The Drug War.
David W. Walters,
I seem to recall the Left was FOR States Rights when it came to the Raich medical marijuana case. And in fact the Left was correct in that case.
If States Rights is a dog whistle the WRONG DOGS responded.
We’re arguing States Rights as it applies to circumventing the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Not medical marijuana.
I forget where I read this, but some brilliant mind suggested a response to accusations of racism from the Left. The accusation is meant to derail your thought process by putting you on the defensive… no good person wants to be thought racist, and most will attempt to prove they aren’t. That doesn’t matter, it is beside the point. The accusation is itself nonsensical, and further discussion is fruitless… a bit like Godwin’s Law.
The better tactical choice?
Make a counter-accusation of child molestation. Right then and there, point your finger at your accuser, and demand to know why they engage in that filthy perversion. Just make something up, hinting that you “know all about them”. I’ve done it twice now, and the results are hilarious.
Shirley Sherrod talked about the white farmer acting “superior”. As I see it, the problem is not white people acting superior but black people acting inferior. When black people demand to be held to lower standards than whites and asians in college admissions, job hirings and promotions, etc., they are demanding to be treated like inferiors. Why should black people be surprised when some people treat them as such?
If the ‘white farmers’ were actually trying to act superior to the black ‘public servant’, they would not have let her help them in the first place. They would have waited for a white person to work with.
The only response to Obama, Maureen O’Dowd or the multitude of the left wing race baiting “hordes” is BULL**IT. There isn’t any reason to respond any other way than to show them the multitude of racist behaviors by the left.
These leftist “race-baiting” creeps, white and black, are the enemies of America and have to be politically and publicly DESTROYED. They have become their own worst enemies since the advent of ever present Video Cams and recordings of the RACISM of the left.
jgreene,
“There isn’t any reason to respond any other way than to show them the multitude of racist behaviors by the left.”
-Why can’t you answer a direct question? (The use of States Rights as a mechanism to appeal to racist tenancies among former segregationists of the Democrat Party to woo them to the Republican Party)
Praetorian : Venal; corruptible: “A large praetorian bureaucracy, filled with ambitious, possessive . . . and often sycophantic people, makes work and makes trouble” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
Don’t be too hard on old Mo. She suffers from neurosyphilis dementia and is unable to comprehend what she writes.
So what’s the context of the tape?
On the unedited clip, she acknowledges a personal racism that led her to refuse, as a government official, to offer a white citizen service equivalent that she regularly offered black citizens.
In the full tape, it is revealed that she now tells this story as a part of her personal journey to spurn racism in her conduct as a public official, recognizing the error of her ways, and the media has spun this as a tale of redemption.
OK, we can forgive the sinner.
But does that mean that, after this revelation, we must all agree that she any longer deserves to hold a government job?
I believe that the best way to ensure future racial harmony is to eliminate the difference between the races.
Toward that end I propose that I be allowed to father at least one child each with the following women:
Halley Berry
Odette Yustman
Linda Park
Parminder Nagra
It is like Warren Beatty said in Bullworth: “Everybody’s got to keep f@#$%^g everybody till we’re all the same color!”
I’m willing to do my part.
Well I am proud to one of the mongreled masses. I totally agree with this article. I honestly just want EVERYONE to be treated as individuals and be responsible for their themselves. I don’t want to be classed by race or politics – I want to be classed by ACTIONS. If you are a jerk or a moron and you display those qualities to me – regardless of your race or political leanings, EXPECT me to discriminate against you. W.C.C.
Yes David, it is telling. Its telling that it is you who is ignoring the truth. His quote, ripped right off the Maddow transcript.
“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.
But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?
I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don’t in any form or fashion.” Rand Paul on the Maddow show.
Apparently Paul is the only adult in the room. He’s talking about freedom and the responsibilities that comes with freedom. He’s talking about tolerance, and not using government to tell others what to think. Even if what they think is repugnant. Yes, its telling when I campare what Paul says and what your implying what he means. But that’s all you got. Not truth, but implications and innuendo.
In Paul’s answer to maddow’s question:
Maddow: “Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?”
-and this was the telling part of his answer……
Paul: “I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.”
He seemingly approves the right of private business to SAY they wouldn’t serve black people, because of free speech. So, he would have freedom of speech trump the Civil Rights Act!
You said of Rand Paul: “He’s talking about tolerance, and not using government to tell others what to think.”
-But how else was this nation able to finally end the very things Paul claims to abhor by any other means but by Federal Statute?
“-But how else was this nation able to finally end the very things Paul claims to abhor by any other means but by Federal Statute?”
Eventually enough good people will stand up for what is right. I know, not fast enough for you, so you impose on others freedom. And really, doing it your way only captures the sheeple. Of course, whether we do it you way or mine, your not going to eliminate the problem. So why impose your will on others at all, because you can?
———
David – “He seemingly approves the right of private business to SAY they wouldn’t serve black people, because of free speech. So, he would have freedom of speech trump the Civil Rights Act!”
Paul – “I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.”
So lets see, you say “He seemingly approves..” Paul says “but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.” Telling isn’t it. The truth is there, but sometimes people only see what they want to see.
Maybe this quote will help. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I know quite a few fine young men who take that the quote to heart. Apparently your not one of them.
wilky,
The truth is there, and it is in the line above this particular line you wrote….
>>So lets see, you say “He seemingly approves..” Paul says “but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.” Telling isn’t it. .<<
When Paul says: "…..but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way……"
-He is inferring that the Civil Rights Act infringes on free speech, don't you agree?
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I know quite a few fine young men who take that the quote to heart. Apparently your not one of them."
-I am old enough to remember asking my dad what the sign with an arrow pointing down hallway, "Coloreds Only" meant. It was in the Sears building in downtown Fayetteville, N.C. We lived at Ft. Bragg, where housing and schools were integrated. Dad was 1/2 Lumbee Indian and didn't like segregation much I guess. He explained it to me. "Some folks think colored folks ain't good enough to use the same bathroom as you." he told me.
Freedom of speech? It is part of the constitution I swore an oath to uphold. But forcing people to piss in a nasty restroom, while reserving a clean one for others is also against the constitution I fought for.
First, my comment(#58) was in response to your comment #67. How it ended up at #58 I don’t know. That’s why I kept using the word telling.
Paul is on the record for having a problem with only one of the ten provisions in the Civil Rights Act, and it wasn’t anything about states rights but rather the restriction on the individuals liberty, as disgusting as it was.
“When Paul says: “…..but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way……”
-He is inferring that the Civil Rights Act infringes on free speech, don’t you agree?
No, if you go back and read the full qoute you noticed that the preceding paragraph he said “But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?” He’s asking where is this going. And notice that you left out the most important part of the qoute, “..we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized..” Something that freedom requires.
Look David. I’m disgusted the way my parents generation treated African Americans. But if a racist opens a business there is an economic opportunity for someone to open a similar business thats open to all. The racist will get some customers but will eventually go out of business. I know the racist would never get my dollars, and I don’t think anyone with a good conscious would give the racist theirs. If this had happened, a ground up or organic process, there would be a lot less of the race baiting thats going on right now. Instead, we did it top down and imposed on others freedom. While the intentions are noble your faith in government is misplaced. Wasn’t it governments that put Jim Crow laws in place. Doesn’t our federal government pick and choose winners today, for example tax laws. Your faith in government is far far greater than mine. Government is a necessary evil and both sides use it to push their idea of freedom on others, at the others expense. This is why I believe a limited government is the fairest government.
Wilky,
……as to Paul’s comment:
>>“When Paul says: “…..but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way……”
-He is inferring that the Civil Rights Act infringes on free speech, don’t you agree?<>He’s asking where is this going………“..we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized..”
-But making black people go down that crappy looking hall to take a leak in a bathroom I’d only guess iss not up to the same standard as the one my dad took me to is more than “boorish and uncivilized behavior”. -It’s wrong and some things DO take a federal law to remedy. That’s only my opinion though.
I don’t mean to infer from my many post here on Mr. Chapin’s article that all or even most of Republicans or for that matter, Tea Party members are racists. No, but I merely wanted to point out an “inconvenient truth” (-i know you’ll hate that term) that remains out there that rarely gets articulated. Not that my clumsy effort did justice to that sad part of our history. However, you know what they say about past’s unremembered……
Wilky,
For some reason the 1st part of my comment was lost…..
Wilky,
……as to Paul’s comment:
>>“When Paul says: “…..but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way……”
-He is inferring that the Civil Rights Act infringes on free speech, don’t you agree?<>He’s asking where is this going………“..we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized..”
-Here is the beginning of it, thanx for the interesting discussion!
Still did’nt go thru…
-I agree that that is what he is referring to, but no……I do not agree with the notion that market forces(?) would solve the vestiges of Jim Crow.
-Here is what I said.
IF we had:
A White Caucus = Raaaaaacist
Whitey magazine = RAAAAACIST
United Caucasian college = RAAAAACIST
The National Association for the Advancement of White People = Raaacist!
But, make those all “black” and it’s MAGICALLY not RAAAAAACIST!
David W., you have your head so far up your arse you must be seeing Uranus.
Skidoo,
“A White Caucus = Raaaaaacist”
-We had a White Caucus once. Yes, it was racist. It was called the Confederate States of America. Got it’s ass kicked in to the dustbin of history. Yet even after their defeat, whites in the south, using “States Rights” as an excuse, legislated around the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Jim Crow was the result. The NAACP was formed to fight this injustice. It took over 50 years after the organization was formed to end Jim Crow. They remain, sadly, since some would like to see a roll back of the freedoms they fought so hard for. Head up my ass? No, not at all my friend.
Senate Censorship and the New Black Panther Party
The chronically dysfunctional United States Senate, formerly “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” and the House of Representatives, have devolved into ultra-exclusive clubs for Democrats where Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi conduct business and wield power as if they are blind, partisan tools of the autocratic Obama regime.
Cesar Chavez, the Castro Duet, and every other world despot would be so very proud.
Acting like a rubber stamp for Obama, the Senate has adopted a policy of shutting out Republican input, such as during the long, volatile health care debate and more recently with the unemployment extension, and then brazenly denouncing the GOP for obstructionism.
Vermont’s Senator Pat Leahy is the latest to demonstrate that we are now living with a government of, by, and for the Democrats who have as much respect for the American people as they do for the loyal opposition which, when they were in control, often chose bi-partisanship over strictly one-party rule.
Fools.
Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, last week attempted to squelch and censor further inquiry into the mushrooming scandal surrounding Eric Holder’s Justice Department, the black racist New Black Panther Party, and the dropping of the virtually air-tight case of voter intimidation against the NBPP by the Obama-Holder DOJ. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1822)
If the Repubs win the House and stop Obama’s spending, and bring us back into surplus…. WATCH OUT!
All the time the cuts come, the Democrats will scream bloody murder and say we’re starving the children.
But… when a surplus happens, they’ll take 100% credit for it, because it was Obama that made the surplus.
That’s what they did with Clinton, they’ll do it again here.
The sad thing is, Repubs will get no credit.
Then again, Reagan understood this… “It’s amazing what you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.” That was a real man. Obama can’t do ANYTHING unless he can take credit.
Prae:
I too was in college.
I too thought I knew everything.
Reality will catch up with you soon enough.
You should remember the old saying (it’s true):
If you’re young and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you’re old and not a conservative, you have no brain.
Think about it.
Conversely, Prae, admitting you are a Leftist IS admitting you have an STD.
College. Ah. The LAND of the LOST ruled by a bulk of Leftist indoctrinating Professors.
The Leftist Elites prey on the weak-minded, elderly, poor, minorities, lazy, race-baiting buffoons and the moronically mis-guided youth (i.e. College mis-educated).
Please, create your own Utopia and bring every one of your parasites with you.
Thanks.
“Please, create your own Utopia…”.
Please create your own SELF FUNDED Utopia. Lefties, get your hands out of my wallet, I worked for my income.
Pinkos Stinko sums up his take on democrat voters:
“…..Leftist Elites prey on the weak-minded, elderly, poor, minorities, lazy, race-baiting buffoons and the moronically mis-guided youth….” -you know, the STUPID people that don’t vote against their own interests!
Elites? Racial epithets and standing in school doors are no longer fashionable. No, the REAL elites use code words that act as a “dog whistle” to the rabble they wish to control. “States Rights” is a throw back to the rally cry of segregationists through out the south, picked up by Barry Goldwater in 1964, carried by Dick Nixon in 1968, and used effectively by Ron Reagan in 1980. Its spawn, the 10th-ers want to take us back to the good ol days, before all that civil rights. This is what Rand Paul spoke about in his comments about the Civil Rights Act. -You bet c’ha!
“Racial epithets and standing in school doors are no longer fashionable.”
Except among Democrats.
“Its spawn, the 10th-ers want to take us back to the good ol days, before all that civil rights.”
*yawn*
Heard all the lies before; sick of them. Get a new tune, lefty — the race-hatred you peddle is stale.
Ah Yes! Those despicable “code words.” And only the “progressives” have the Enigma machine to decode them and tell us what they “really” mean. What stupifying arrogance! This is a prime example of the intellectual sloth that has infected the Left since it took over the “mainstream” media. Now words aren’t what they mean but what the elites say that they mean. I remember when poor old Dan Quayle referred to “family values” in the 1988 campaign the NYT and other such opinion-makers blasted him for using these “code words”. According to the Times and WaPo anyone who favored “family values” was a knuckledragger who favored familial rape, domestic violence and keeping women barefoot and pregnant. (Of course today a Democrat can’t order a lunch without including in it his “strong affirmation of family values.”)
“Those despicable “code words.” And only the “progressives” have the Enigma machine to decode them and tell us what they “really” mean.”
It’s pretty much cause and effect. The Civil Rights Act caused former segregationists to switch parties from Democrat to Republican, embracing States Rights. And the irony is, Lincoln’s GOP led the fight against States Rights!
“Get a new tune, lefty — the race-hatred you peddle is stale.”
I s’pose truth gets stale when it is ignored. Rand Paul’s slip about The Civil Rights Act infringing on States Rights was telling……