PDA

View Full Version : General Politics On racists vs. racial resentment


jAZ
05-16-2011, 09:22 AM
Hi all,

I came across an article that for me reframed my thinking about the politics of racism in our country today. Pretty interesting, and it might have some ramifications for things I've said around here over the years. I thought I would share in case it's enlightening for others in the same way.

Racism hasn't been been my major issue, but I know it's a discussion I've jump into in the past. And at least at one level (that of the savvy politicians or operatives), I've had a fundamental reconsideration of their racially-themed actions.

Anyway, here's the short article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/newt-gingrichs-clever-race-mongering/2011/03/04/AF2r7q4G_blog.html#comments

Posted at 10:43 AM ET, 05/16/2011
Newt Gingrich’s clever race-mongering
By Adam Serwer

Newt Gingrich made a bit of news over the weekend on Meet the Press by coming out against Rep. Paul Ryan’s Mecicare plan by describing it as “right-wing social engineering.” But during that same interview, he did something else that may be more worthy of attention: He addressed a series of interesting claims he’s made about the president in a way that reveals how racially coded attacks on the President will be central to his campaign.

Gingrich recently referred to Obama as “the first food stamp president,” and came out in favor of voting requirements that resemble Jim Crow-era poll tests. When asked by David Gregory about such remarks, Gingrich feigned ignorance about their implications:

MR. GREGORY: First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president.

REP. GINGRICH: Oh, come on, David.

MR. GREGORY: What did you mean? What was the point?

REP. GINGRICH: That’s, that’s bizarre. That — this kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. Now, the idea that — and what I said is factually true. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism? I have — I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.


I don’t think Gingrich lacks the sophistication to understand how it sounds when he calls for poll tests and refers to the first black president as “the food stamp president.” He’s playing a game designed to produce precisely the sort of exchange you see above: Gingrich says something bound to prick up the ears of liberals sensitive to racialized attacks on the president, Gingrich is then asked about his remarks, then he gets to play the victim of a politically correct world where liberals try to stifle all criticism of Obama by characterizing any such criticism as racism. His dogwhistle is thus amplified by enraged liberals, while conservatives get to play up their own form of racial grievance politics.

What Gingrich is doing here mirrors the right’s political strategy since Obama got elected — stoking the fires of racial grievance. That’s why conservatives have pursued so many racially related pseudo-scandals since Obama got elected — from Shirley Sherrod to the trumped up accusations surrounding the New Black Panther Party case. From the Affordable Care Act to the overhaul of financial regulations, there’s been an effort to cast nearly every element of Obama’s agenda as a form of racially tinged redistributionism.

It’s not really all that surprising that conservatives would settle on a strategy of stoking white racial resentment, There’s a black president in the White House, and a growing perception among whites that anti-white bias is actually a bigger social problem than anti-black racial bias.

All of this does beg the question of how to properly respond to things like these latest remarks from Gingrich, given that drawing attention to it merely enables the speaker. Perhaps it’s best to just point out that whatever Gingrich’s motivations, he’s not dim enough to have been unaware of how these remarks would be received, and that whatever controversy emerges as a result is probably by design.

By Adam Serwer | 10:43 AM ET, 05/16/2011

mlyonsd
05-16-2011, 09:29 AM
OMG it's jAZ starting a thread in DC.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 09:32 AM
I (and from the tone of this article maybe many others) hadn't yet fully grasped game many on the right are playing. The game is described in bold above.

It's not so much that candidates and operatives are racist, or are pandering to racists, or that some larger segment of society has a subconscious racism that pols are directly pandering to.

To assume that assumes a lack of sophistication in conservative politics that doesn't generally exist.

What it would seem that politicians are doing is pandering not to latent racism, which might be narrow, but to the broader population who is angry about racial discussions entirely.

The dog-whistle isn't directed at the relatively small audience of racists. It's directed at the much broader audience that is resentful that we still talk about racism today. And that feels angry that when we do, people must be thinking those thoughts about me, a member of the party who's speaking through the dog-whistle.

It's a form of racial politics, no doubt. But it's happening for a purpose that I have missed entirely.

And I come back here and share it as a form of mea culpa. I don't know how to distinguish between my past remarks that were rightfully calling out racism... and those that were more false and caught up in this game.

But for any remarks where I was wrong on race, I apologize. I'll leave it up to anyone in particular to accept that apology for themselves or not.

mlyonsd
05-16-2011, 09:32 AM
And Adam Serwer is an idiot.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 09:33 AM
OMG it's jAZ starting a thread in DC.

Indeed. It won't last, I promise. But this seemed like a meaningful contribution and the right thing to do.

RNR
05-16-2011, 09:49 AM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday for private remarks quoted in an upcoming book in which he promoted then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s racial appeal as a “light-skinned” African-American.

Reid was convinced Obama’s race would help him in the 2008 campaign for president, believing the country was ready for a black president and noting that Obama speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,"

President Barack Obama said Wednesday that police acted "stupidly" in the arrest of prominent black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and that despite racial progress blacks and Hispanics are still singled out unfairly for arrest. "This still haunts us," Obama said.

Obama called Gates a friend, and said he doesn't know all the facts of the case. Nonetheless, Obama said, anyone would have been angry if treated the way Gates claims police in Cambridge, Mass., treated him. Gates claims he was arrested in his own home after showing ID to police who responded to a report of a possible burglary.

Anyone who thinks racism is not still prominent in our country wears blinders and ear plugs~

FishingRod
05-16-2011, 09:53 AM
I see some truth in this but it is not any different than calling people Tea Baggers and acting all innocent and surprised that it is also a homophobic slur.

Brock
05-16-2011, 09:55 AM
What's racial about food stamps? Is Obama immune to certain criticisms because he's black?

RNR
05-16-2011, 10:01 AM
What's racial about food stamps? Is Obama immune to certain criticisms because he's black?
I don't think he should be. However there is little doubt in my mind he made that statement to play on white people's racism that he is "giving his people hand outs"

blaise
05-16-2011, 10:03 AM
Well, I'm just glad Democrats don't have a history of pandering to racial fears to get votes, otherwise we'd really be in trouble.

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 10:05 AM
It's not a hard trick. It's been going on as long as there's been a base of racist voters in an integrated world.

Dog whistle politics. You use some rhetoric that your base will pick up on but will go unnoticed by the vast majority of everybody else.

If a politico or somebody familiar with that rhetoric calls you on it, play coy. "I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about," or even better, "Of course [person calling you out] thinks I'm saying something I'm not -- they're a biased prick and will do anything to stop me."

Dog whistle politics. It's how candidates pander to their extremes.

mikey23545
05-16-2011, 10:19 AM
It's not a hard trick. It's been going on as long as there's been a base of racist voters in an integrated world.

Dog whistle politics. You use some rhetoric that your base will pick up on but will go unnoticed by the vast majority of everybody else.

If a politico or somebody familiar with that rhetoric calls you on it, play coy. "I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about," or even better, "Of course [person calling you out] thinks I'm saying something I'm not -- they're a biased prick and will do anything to stop me."

Dog whistle politics. It's how candidates pander to their extremes.

Oh bullshit. You and jIZ and this article's author are so full of shit I can't even adequately put it into words.

Newt explained his comment so concisely I will not even add to it. To pretend that it is some Machiavellian plot to hoodwink the left and serve as the secret handshake amongst all us closet conservative racists just shows how batshit crazy you ****ers are.

Try looking up the definition of Occam's razor. As both Freud and Bill Clinton have said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a president is just a communist.

blaise
05-16-2011, 10:27 AM
The argument made in the original post and the fact that jAZ made it strike me as kind of ironic.
"Hi all, just wanted to post this article about people who inject race into a topic, and then act like, 'What? What, I just making a comment.' Of course it's about how Republicans do it, but I really wanted to just broach the topic in general. Seriously, it wasn't me trying to label Republicans racist."

MahiMike
05-16-2011, 10:28 AM
I don't think he should be. However there is little doubt in my mind he made that statement to play on white people's racism that he is "giving his people hand outs"

So you're admitting that the majority of people on food stamps are black?

donkhater
05-16-2011, 10:30 AM
If you automatically think that someone is refering to blacks when they mention food-stamps, then who exactly is stereotyping here?

RNR
05-16-2011, 10:31 AM
So you're admitting that the majority of people on food stamps are black?

Nice try~

vailpass
05-16-2011, 10:33 AM
It's not a hard trick. It's been going on as long as there's been a base of racist voters in an integrated world.

Dog whistle politics. You use some rhetoric that your base will pick up on but will go unnoticed by the vast majority of everybody else.

If a politico or somebody familiar with that rhetoric calls you on it, play coy. "I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about," or even better, "Of course [person calling you out] thinks I'm saying something I'm not -- they're a biased prick and will do anything to stop me."

Dog whistle politics. It's how candidates pander to their extremes.

:LOL: Shut. The. ****. Up.

blaise
05-16-2011, 10:34 AM
If you automatically think that someone is refering to blacks when they mention food-stamps, then who exactly is stereotyping here?

When I was in college I took a class called Welfare's Impact on Cities or something like that. One day the professor kept mentioning a comment Reagan made about "welfare queens." They were discussing how racist it was. Finally, I said, "Why do you assume he's talking about a black woman? Maybe you're the ones who have prejudices." The other people in the class got all mad at me.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 10:35 AM
It's not a hard trick. It's been going on as long as there's been a base of racist voters in an integrated world.

Dog whistle politics. You use some rhetoric that your base will pick up on but will go unnoticed by the vast majority of everybody else.

If a politico or somebody familiar with that rhetoric calls you on it, play coy. "I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about," or even better, "Of course [person calling you out] thinks I'm saying something I'm not -- they're a biased prick and will do anything to stop me."

Dog whistle politics. It's how candidates pander to their extremes.

That's actually the key point for me.

In years past, when we were a more deeply and broadly racist country (and in the period we were evolving out of that period in much of the country), do-whistle was definitely code speak directed at racists framed in a way that can be defended in polite company.

But this suggests that politicians have moved their dog-whistle techniques past just trying to speak to the diminishing group of genuine racists. Over last number of years (and I am certain that going forward through another generation or more) the code-speak is largely not directed at the racists and extremes.

But it's focused at getting a rise out of the media or anti-racism groups (dems, liberals, rainbow-push, latinos, etc). And when those groups have this argument, it's polarizes the debate. That drives a wedge between a large group who all agrees that racism is bad. One side sees the code and calls it racism. One side rejects the code and calls it over-playing the race-card.

This entire group I'm referencing isn't racist. The entire strategy is designed to create division among non-racists, and peel off potential supporters from a candidate like Obama, who transcended race, but did it as a D instead of an R.

And in doing so, many people get caught in the trap, myself included.

When I first read this, I thought back to that great speech on race that Obama gave during the campaign as the Rev Wright issue hit it's peak. He made the point in that speech:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-th_n_92077.html

For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

When Newt, Beck, Breitbart, and others do what they do, they aren't always (or maybe even mostly) doing it to pander to racists. They are trolling for a liberal reaction and exploiting that reaction to drive an B/W and R/D wedge between people who aren't racists.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2011, 10:36 AM
We need a counterpart thread to this. " On anti-semites vs semitic resentment" thread put up by someone on the right to be fair and balanced.

Simplex3
05-16-2011, 10:38 AM
...a candidate like Obama, who transcended race, but did it as a D instead of an R.

LMAO

mikey23545
05-16-2011, 10:42 AM
LMAO

Obama is actually suprahuman...

I can see him ascending up into heaven now with the hem of his robe flapping around in jIZ's fac...

blaise
05-16-2011, 10:44 AM
jAZ, if you want to paint Republicans as race mongerers, just go ahead and do it and stop with the horseshit, disingenuous Eddie Haskell act. No one buys it.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 10:44 AM
I don't think he should be. However there is little doubt in my mind he made that statement to play on white people's racism that he is "giving his people hand outs"

That's the point, exactly.

It's a political honeypot trap designed to get liberals upset at the possibly racially tinged rhetoric. At that point, the media is going to show up to watch the inevitable black-white car crash.

And the politics of that incident has a benefit to the politician in question far beyond securing the support of racists. It has the benefit of securing the support of "working- and middle-class white Americans (who) don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race... (who feel that) no one's handed them anything... (who've) worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor... (who) are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition".

That's the whole point.

vailpass
05-16-2011, 10:45 AM
jAZ, if you want to paint Republicans as race mongerers, just go ahead and do it and stop with the horseshit, disingenuous Eddie Haskell act. No one buys it.

X2

jAZ
05-16-2011, 10:47 AM
jAZ, if you want to paint Republicans as race mongerers, just go ahead and do it and stop with the horseshit, disingenuous Eddie Haskell act. No one buys it.

In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'm posting this to as a mea culpa for any unfounded implications made by me towards others on the right during discussions of race in the past. Some of those discussions may have been off the mark. I'm trying to own up to that generally.

blaise
05-16-2011, 10:48 AM
"George Bush let people die on rooftops because they were poor and because they were black."

- Claire McCaskill

Brock
05-16-2011, 10:49 AM
So you're admitting that the majority of people on food stamps are black?

Do you think the majority of people on food stamps are black?

jAZ
05-16-2011, 10:51 AM
LMAO

Obama is actually suprahuman...

I can see him ascending up into heaven now with the hem of his robe flapping around in jIZ's fac...

I'm sure you'll both admit that Obama was elected because he was able to appeal well past the black community.

RNR
05-16-2011, 10:51 AM
"George Bush let people die on rooftops because they were poor and because they were black."

- Claire McCaskill
If a person wants with little effort you can find both parties showing poor form on the issue. One of my favorites is the Harry Reid quote I posted earlier~

blaise
05-16-2011, 10:51 AM
In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'm posting this to as a mea culpa for any unfounded implications made by me towards others on the right during discussions of race in the past. Some of those discussions may have been off the mark. I'm trying to own up to that generally.

So, your mea culpa is that instead of believing comments made by Republicans were outright racist, you now believe they were more just comments made about race to get people upset over racial topics?
Quite a mea culpa.

Simplex3
05-16-2011, 10:54 AM
I'm sure you'll both admit that Obama was elected because he was able to appeal well past the black community.

His appeal was for all the wrong reasons to a large segment. White guilt, OMG he's closer to hot than any other Presidential candidate since Kennedy, anyone but Bush, and the "SQUEEE!!! we're in college and this guy totally gets us!" crowds took him over the top.

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 10:58 AM
So, your mea culpa is that instead of believing comments made by Republicans were outright racist, you now believe they were more just comments made about race to get people upset over racial topics?

That is a crucial distinction, actually.

One is blatant racism. Another is utilizing race for political points.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:00 AM
His appeal was for all the wrong reasons to a large segment. White guilt, OMG he's closer to hot than any other Presidential candidate since Kennedy, anyone but Bush, and the "SQUEEE!!! we're in college and this guy totally gets us!" crowds took him over the top.

You can believe all of that and still acknowledge that Obama's appeal transcended beyond the black community. By acknowledging that, you aren't also being asked to concede that you love Obama or that he isn't a reverse racist, or a Rev Wright disciple or whatever other feelings you have about him.

It's just an indisputable fact. Obama transcended his race in 2008.

RNR
05-16-2011, 11:04 AM
His appeal was for all the wrong reasons to a large segment. White guilt, OMG he's closer to hot than any other Presidential candidate since Kennedy, anyone but Bush, and the "SQUEEE!!! we're in college and this guy totally gets us!" crowds took him over the top.

Hence this from his own party. I will post it again because it makes me chuckle and blows a hole in the lefts above it bullshit....

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday for private remarks quoted in an upcoming book in which he promoted then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s racial appeal as a “light-skinned” African-American.

Reid was convinced Obama’s race would help him in the 2008 campaign for president, believing the country was ready for a black president and noting that Obama speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,"

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:06 AM
That is a crucial distinction, actually.

One is blatant racism. Another is utilizing race for political points.

Utilizing race like Democrats regularly do with minority voters. Strange that it becomes an epiphany to jAZ that this occurs when Newt does it.

Simplex3
05-16-2011, 11:07 AM
You can believe all of that and still acknowledge that Obama's appeal transcended beyond the black community. By acknowledging that, you aren't also being asked to concede that you love Obama or that he isn't a reverse racist, or a Rev Wright disciple or whatever other feelings you have about him.

It's just an indisputable fact. Obama transcended his race in 2008.

In typical liberal style you don't care how something happened or what the side effects may be, just as long as you think you got the outcome you were looking for.

Of course by your definition every Presidential candidate has always transcended their race/sex/religion/hair color/everything. One of them had to get the majority of the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the female vote, the red haired vote, etc.

Want to know who the racists are? Check out the people trying to appeal to voting blocks that are cut up by race. It's every bit as obvious as a white sheet.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:08 AM
So, your mea culpa is that instead of believing comments made by Republicans were outright racist, you now believe they were more just comments made about race to get people upset over racial topics?
Quite a mea culpa.

Yes, that's exactly it. But packed inside "get people upset over racial topics" is an entire world of subtle distinctions. Key among them is that "people (who) get upset over racial topics" aren't racists exclusively. I'm saying that's a small part of that group.

I'll repeat parts of my post above because you remarks suggest you didn't read it.

That drives a wedge between a large group who all agrees that racism is bad. ...

This entire group I'm referencing isn't racist. The entire strategy is designed to create division among non-racists, and peel off potential supporters from a candidate like Obama, who transcended race, but did it as a D instead of an R.

(from Obama's speech)

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
...

When Newt, Beck, Breitbart, and others do what they do, they aren't always (or maybe even mostly) doing it to pander to racists. They are trolling for a liberal reaction and exploiting that reaction to drive an B/W and R/D wedge between people who aren't racists.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:09 AM
Hence this from his own party. I will post it again because it makes me chuckle and blows a hole in the lefts above it bullshit....

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday for private remarks quoted in an upcoming book in which he promoted then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s racial appeal as a “light-skinned” African-American.

Reid was convinced Obama’s race would help him in the 2008 campaign for president, believing the country was ready for a black president and noting that Obama speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,"

I didn't understand the point of this post either time you posted it.

vailpass
05-16-2011, 11:12 AM
I'm sure you'll both admit that Obama was elected because he was able to appeal well past the black community.

If by "well past" you mean hispanics, unions, college kids ensared in the cult of personaility and liberal leftists who would vote for the exhumed corpse of Sammy Davis Jr. before they voted R then yes, I admit it.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:16 AM
That is a crucial distinction, actually.

One is blatant racism. Another is utilizing race for political points.

It's more than that.

I've always balked when I see people directly accuse politicians and operatives of being racists when they do what they do. Because I've always assumed said that people like Newt, Beck, Breitbart and others weren't themselves racist. Just political operators using race for political points.

But in this case, I'm realizing that they aren't using race to drive up support among overt or closet racists. Seeing it that way gives you cause to believe the country is more racist than it might actually be.

If you realize that they are trying to drive a political wedge between non-racists, and using the charge or perception of reverse racism to trigger a non-racist, economic self-interest, don't-call-me-racist-when-I'm-not... response among a target audience of non-racist, white voters who are frustrated in just the way Obama describe in his Wright speech.

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:16 AM
I fail to see why what you posted shows my comments suggest I didn't read what you wrote the first time, jAZ. If you want to keep requoting yourself with large blocks of text you should really have a more clear point.

jjjayb
05-16-2011, 11:18 AM
If you automatically think that someone is refering to blacks when they mention food-stamps, then who exactly is stereotyping here?

Exactly.

go bowe
05-16-2011, 11:19 AM
If by "well past" you mean hispanics, unions, college kids ensared in the cult of personaility and liberal leftists who would vote for the exhumed corpse of Sammy Davis Jr. before they voted R then yes, I admit it.
er, there were a lot of white women who voted for the president, and quite a few white men too, who were not liberal leftists...

last i heard, it is the middle of the spectrum, aka independent voters who decide elections...

is it different where you live?

Jaric
05-16-2011, 11:20 AM
You can believe all of that and still acknowledge that Obama's appeal transcended beyond the black community. By acknowledging that, you aren't also being asked to concede that you love Obama or that he isn't a reverse racist, or a Rev Wright disciple or whatever other feelings you have about him.
What would that be exactly? Is that someone who isn't racist?


It's just an indisputable fact. Obama transcended his race in 2008.The 2008 election had far more to do with George Bush (specifically how most of America hated him) than it did Obama. George Washington could have risen from the dead and would have still lost had he ran as a Republican.

go bowe
05-16-2011, 11:20 AM
I fail to see why what you posted shows my comments suggest I didn't read what you wrote the first time, jAZ. If you want to keep requoting yourself with large blocks of text you should really have a more clear point.

hold on just a minute...

this IS dc after all...

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:21 AM
If by "well past" you mean hispanics, unions, college kids ensared in the cult of personaility and liberal leftists who would vote for the exhumed corpse of Sammy Davis Jr. before they voted R then yes, I admit it.

I have no idea what this means either, but glad we can agree, maybe.

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:21 AM
Holy shit, this whole, "Hey, I'm just trying to understand. This isn't a partisan thing," act is so disingenuous and laughable that it makes anything jAZ posts just borderline unreadable.
Again, this thread is so ironic because basically jAZ is basically trying to paint Republicans as injecting race into the conversation to stoke racial fears on one level or another. The notion that you're doing some mea cupla is ridiculous. You're basically doing what you're accusing other people of doing. You're introducing the topic of race on one level, whether it's subtle or not, in order to negatively attach it to another group, and then you're holding your hands up like, "What?" It's what the author of the story in the OP is saying Newt is doing, and it's what you're doing. You can't see that?
It's laughable. You're doing what you're accusing others of doing.

RNR
05-16-2011, 11:22 AM
I didn't understand the point of this post either time you posted it.
It speaks volume to the racism that exists and the thought process of putting it into play. It is just more unveiled than other examples. You most likely feel uncomfortable with it as it reflects poorly on your party. It is what you are talking about in its rawest form~

go bowe
05-16-2011, 11:22 AM
What would that be exactly? Is that someone who isn't racist?


The 2008 election had far more to do with George Bush (specifically how most of America hated him) than it did Obama. George Washington could have risen from the dead and would have still lost had he ran as a Republican.

wow, talk about racism... :p :p :p

now you suggesting a zombie for president...

is obama really that bad? ;) ;) ;)

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 11:22 AM
Utilizing race like Democrats regularly do with minority voters. Strange that it becomes an epiphany to jAZ that this occurs when Newt does it.

Well that's the way it goes. At least you agree with him on the subject.

You probably have epiphanies with the other side more frequently as well. Warts are easier to look at on someone else.

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 11:25 AM
Holy shit, this whole, "Hey, I'm just trying to understand. This isn't a partisan thing," act is so disingenuous and laughable that it makes anything jAZ posts just borderline unreadable.
Again, this thread is so ironic because basically jAZ is basically trying to paint Republicans as injecting race into the conversation to stoke racial fears on one level or another. The notion that you're doing some mea cupla is ridiculous. You're basically doing what you're accusing other people of doing. You're introducing the topic of race on one level, whether it's subtle or not, in order to negatively attach it to another group, and then you're holding your hands up like, "What?" It's what the author of the story in the OP is saying Newt is doing, and it's what you're doing. You can't see that?
It's laughable. You're doing what you're accusing others of doing.

He introduced an argument that I think we can all pretty much agree with.

The target was a Republican politician. It doesn't make his argument any less valid.

He doesn't need bipartisan examples for it to be valid. Your argument is stupid.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:27 AM
I fail to see why what you posted shows my comments suggest I didn't read what you wrote the first time, jAZ. If you want to keep requoting yourself with large blocks of text you should really have a more clear point.

My posts are a full throated mea culpa including the acknowledgement that I suspect I've cast a wider net that is fair in the past, and that the fairly widely adopted, racially tinged rhetoric of republican pols... doesn't suggest (as I would have assumed in the past) the existence of a population with wide spread, latent racism... as I had previously assumed. And that some here surely get caught in that net unfairly.

vailpass
05-16-2011, 11:27 AM
er, there were a lot of white women who voted for the president, and quite a few white men too, who were not liberal leftists...

last i heard, it is the middle of the spectrum, aka independent voters who decide elections...

is it different where you live?

Not sure. I don't personally know anyone who voted for obama.

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:28 AM
He introduced an argument that I think we can all pretty much agree with.

The target was a Republican politician. It doesn't make his argument any less valid.

He doesn't need bipartisan examples for it to be valid. Your argument is stupid.

No, the argument is completely valid. Pointing out the irony of his posting this doesn't mean I think the author's point is invalid.
What I posted is true. Don't start crying now, Direckshun. We know you get a little emotional.

RNR
05-16-2011, 11:29 AM
Not sure. I don't personally know anyone who voted for obama.
Hi I am RedNeckRaider nice to meet you....and counting me you still don't~

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 11:31 AM
No, the argument is completely valid. Pointing out the irony of his posting this doesn't mean I think the author's point is invalid.

So... your point is that he's being liberally slanted.

That's your point. About a liberal.

God, you bore the shit out of me.

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:33 AM
So... your point is that he's being liberally slanted.

That's your point. About a liberal.

God, you bore the shit out of me.

No, my point was that he's doing here what the author is accusing Newt of doing.
Now, now. Let's keep the emotions under control there, all star. Okay?

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:33 AM
Holy shit, this whole, "Hey, I'm just trying to understand. This isn't a partisan thing," act is so disingenuous and laughable that it makes anything jAZ posts just borderline unreadable.
Again, this thread is so ironic because basically jAZ is basically trying to paint Republicans as injecting race into the conversation to stoke racial fears on one level or another. The notion that you're doing some mea cupla is ridiculous. You're basically doing what you're accusing other people of doing. You're introducing the topic of race on one level, whether it's subtle or not, in order to negatively attach it to another group, and then you're holding your hands up like, "What?" It's what the author of the story in the OP is saying Newt is doing, and it's what you're doing. You can't see that?
It's laughable. You're doing what you're accusing others of doing.

That's not true, as I've said repeatedly. I'm introducing it as an attempt to detach it from a group who might have unfairly had it attached to them.

It would be wildly ineffective for the purpose you describe for me to repeatedly concede the opposite is true.

I believe I was wrong in the past to assume a broader pool of racism existed when it may not have. I believed this in part because I saw politicians using racially tinged language, and believed that they were themselves pandering to this group of people.

I now think that I was wrong to make that assumption.

You don't have to agree with me that Newt is using this technique in order to accept that I genuinely have had a change of view. Those aren't mutually exclusive views.

Extra Point
05-16-2011, 11:33 AM
Obama transcended his race in 2008.

Yeah, mullato.

Can't people accept the COMBINATION of ethnicity? He's half WHITE.

PS: The republican party had a president that delivered the Emancipation Proclamation. That Lincoln did it, was huge, back then.

I won't argue that a lot of whites can claim to be less racist than other ethnicities. It's easy not to be prejudiced, if one hasn't been at the negative end of it.

go bowe
05-16-2011, 11:35 AM
Not sure. I don't personally know anyone who voted for obama.
dammit!!!

i thought i was gonna get through this morning without spitting my coffee all over my damn keyboard...

shit! LMAO LMAO LMAO

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:35 AM
That's not true, as I've said repeatedly. I'm introducing it as an attempt to detach it from a group who might have unfairly had it attached to them.

It would be wildly ineffective for the purpose you describe for me to repeatedly concede the opposite is true.

I believe I was wrong in the past to assume a broader pool of racism existed when it may not have. I believed this in part because I saw politicians using racially tinged language, and believed that they were themselves pandering to this group of people.

I now think that I was wrong to make that assumption.

You don't have to agree with me that Newt is using this technique in order to accept that I genuinely have had a change of view. Those aren't mutually exclusive views.

I didn't say Newt wasn't doing it. I'm saying you are. Just curious, do you accept that Democrat politicians regularly engage in the same type of thing that the author of the article is accusing Newt of doing?

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 11:36 AM
No, my point was that he's doing here what the author is accusing Newt of doing.

Great point.

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:38 AM
Great point.

Look, I realize you're upset that I'm saying jAZ is doing that, but try not to get all worked up. I guess he's a pal of yours or something.

Are you going to be ok?

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:39 AM
No, my point was that he's doing here what the author is accusing Newt of doing.
Now, now. Let's keep the emotions under control there, all star. Okay?

Yes, that's your point, and you are 100% wrong.

I'm not saying there are no racists. I'm not saying that there are none on CP or even in this thread. I'm also not saying you are a racist for questioning this.

I'm simply saying that I realize that what I had previously seen as a widespread, concerted political campaign to pander to over and closet racists as a way to energize a base that is more racist that will admit it... is not true.

And unfair.

What I saw previously as evidence of a significant pool of racists in the GOP (they must exist for the politicians to be playing these word games)... was not evidence of a population of racists at all.

It was evidence of a population of white resentment among non-racists toward policies they see as unfair to them... which is exactly what people here on the right have been self-describing as their motivations all along.

I'm conceding that is likely much more true than I assumed in the past.

SNR
05-16-2011, 11:40 AM
I still don't quite understand the article. I like to think of myself as a racially sensitive person, and even agreed with Warren Moon that part of the reason people were doubting Cam Newton's ability in the NFL is due a stereotype that black people can't play QB worth a squirrel fart. I've called racism or pointed out "racial tinges" on most everything that has come up and I have the posts to prove it.

But I still don't get the racial language on here. You're saying Newt was trolling leftists and when they called him out on it he said "U mad??"

I get that but I fail to see how else Newt is supposed to criticize Obama on the food stamp issue if that's the problem at hand. More people have gone on food stamps since Obama became president. Newt views more people going on food stamps as a problem. How is he supposed to talk about that? In what terms?

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 11:42 AM
Look, I realize you're upset that I'm saying jAZ is doing that.

I just don't get the argument.

But then I remembered who I'm chatting with.

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:44 AM
I just don't get the argument.

But then I remembered who I'm chatting with.

I think you get it. I just don't know why you get all emotional about it.

But then I remembered who I'm chatting with.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:47 AM
I didn't say Newt wasn't doing it. I'm saying you are. Just curious, do you accept that Democrat politicians regularly engage in the same type of thing that the author of the article is accusing Newt of doing?

First, yes, Dem politicians surely have their own version of this. I don't know if that quote from Claire McCaskill is accurate or not. I've not heard it before, but that could very well be an example of this in reverse.

I've also already said in this thread that I generally rejected it when I saw people on the left respond to much of this racial rhetoric from pols and operatives by claiming that the conservative pol/op in question was themselves racist. That reflexive assumption on the left is an example of what you are talking about.

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 11:50 AM
I think you get it.

The idea that any time you make make any argument that a politician of a party utilizes race politically, you are de facto doing the exact same thing... is classic blaise.

Huffmeister
05-16-2011, 11:55 AM
Another intellectually dishonest* thread from jAZ.



* Using jAZ's definition, meaning that I disagree with his opinion.

jAZ
05-16-2011, 11:56 AM
I still don't quite understand the article. I like to think of myself as a racially sensitive person, and even agreed with Warren Moon that part of the reason people were doubting Cam Newton's ability in the NFL is due a stereotype that black people can't play QB worth a squirrel fart. I've called racism or pointed out "racial tinges" on most everything that has come up and I have the posts to prove it.

But I still don't get the racial language on here. You're saying Newt was trolling leftists and when they called him out on it he said "U mad??"

I get that but I fail to see how else Newt is supposed to criticize Obama on the food stamp issue if that's the problem at hand. More people have gone on food stamps since Obama became president. Newt views more people going on food stamps as a problem. How is he supposed to talk about that? In what terms?

It might help to understand it in the context of the "welfare queen" rhetoric under Reagan. The imagery at the time was so well established, it left the general public with the entirely false stereotype that the typical welfare recipent was a lazy black person driving a Cadillac. That's completely untrue, but that perception has a lasting impact.

Newt's imagery is designed to link Obama to that "welfare queen" imagery.

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:57 AM
First, yes, Dem politicians surely have their own version of this. I don't know if that quote from Claire McCaskill is accurate or not. I've not heard it before, but that could very well be an example of this in reverse.

I've also already said in this thread that I generally rejected it when I saw people on the left respond to much of this racial rhetoric from pols and operatives by claiming that the conservative pol/op in question was themselves racist. That reflexive assumption on the left is an example of what you are talking about.

I think it's more than just reflexive assumptions. As far as I'm concerned the left engages in the same types of tactics when it comes to injecting race into a conversation. I just don't really see why you seemed to think it was very insidious in the past when the right did it, but apparently didn't have the same reaction when done by the left. Or are you just saying you've not seen it from the left?

blaise
05-16-2011, 11:59 AM
The idea that any time you make make any argument that a politician of a party utilizes race politically, you are de facto doing the exact same thing... is classic blaise.

Swing and a miss.

Have at.

vailpass
05-16-2011, 12:08 PM
Hi I am RedNeckRaider nice to meet you....and counting me you still don't~

LMAO

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 12:20 PM
Swing and a miss.

True or false:

Any time anybody makes any argument that points out how one party utilizes race politically -- but neglects to mention any other examples from an opposing party -- is an attempt by the person to utilize race politically.

blaise
05-16-2011, 12:24 PM
True or false:

Any time anybody makes any argument that points out how one party utilizes race politically -- but neglects to mention any other examples from an opposing party -- is an attempt by the person to utilize race politically.

False.
True of False: when jAZ does it, it would certainly make a reasonable person think there was some sort of partisan motive.

vailpass
05-16-2011, 12:24 PM
Short people with Napoleon complexes are irritating. It should be legal to slap them just because.

SNR
05-16-2011, 12:28 PM
Short people with Napoleon complexes are irritating. It should be legal to slap them just because.What the hell do you have against Corsicans? Racist.

RNR
05-16-2011, 12:34 PM
Short people with Napoleon complexes are irritating. It should be legal to slap them just because.
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1NvgLkuEtkA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 12:39 PM
False.
True of False: when jAZ does it, it would certainly make a reasonable person think there was some sort of partisan motive.

LMAO

So you'd modify this statement:

Any time anybody makes any argument that points out how one party utilizes race politically -- but neglects to mention any other examples from an opposing party -- is an attempt by the person to utilize race politically.

This way:

Any time jAZ makes any argument that points out how one party utilizes race politically -- but neglects to mention any other examples from an opposing party -- is an attempt by jAZ to utilize race politically.

In the world of the living, we call that a double standard.

RNR
05-16-2011, 12:41 PM
LMAO

So you'd modify this statement:



This way:



In the world of the living, we call that a double standard.

What the heck does that have to do with short people? We changed the subject and are picking on them now, please try to keep up~

blaise
05-16-2011, 12:45 PM
LMAO

So you'd modify this statement:



This way:



In the world of the living, we call that a double standard.

You didn't answer the question.

RNR
05-16-2011, 12:46 PM
You didn't answer the question.

First off are either one of you guys short?

SNR
05-16-2011, 12:47 PM
First off are either one of you guys short?Does that matter to you?

Racist.

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 12:49 PM
What the heck does that have to do with short people? We changed the subject and are picking on them now, please try to keep up~

HATE SPEECH

WE GOT SOME HATE SPEECH HERE

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 12:50 PM
You didn't answer the question.

My point is, I think it's an unfair line to draw.

If someone is going to go race-baiting to score political points, it's not de facto race baiting to point that out.

Which you agree with. Unless it's jAZ. In which case it is.

Double.

Standard.

blaise
05-16-2011, 12:54 PM
My point is, I think it's an unfair line to draw.

If someone is going to go race-baiting to score political points, it's not de facto race baiting to point that out.

Which you agree with. Unless it's jAZ. In which case it is.

Double.

Standard.

So, you didn't answer the question.

RNR
05-16-2011, 12:57 PM
Does that matter to you?

Racist.

Well I was hoping to spew some short people slurs~

vailpass
05-16-2011, 01:03 PM
What the hell do you have against Corsicans? Racist.

LMAO Not a thing man, not a thing. My grandmother's side came over from the boot back in the day.

vailpass
05-16-2011, 01:04 PM
First off are either one of you guys short?

Or even 4/7 short?

blaise
05-16-2011, 01:05 PM
Really, though, this is weird. Apparently Direckshun thinks we should take every thread at face value, by itself, in a vacuum, without taking any of the poster's past political history into account.
So, I guess we won't see him just going "Go Chiefs" every time pete posts a thread that has some connection to the Drudge report. He'll just be responding to the thread based on content alone, and make no assumptions that whomever posted it has some sort of partisan reason for doing so.
Good for you, Direckshun!

RNR
05-16-2011, 01:07 PM
Really, though, this is weird. Apparently Direckshun thinks we should take every thread at face value, by itself, in a vacuum, without taking any of the poster's past political history into account.
So, I guess we won't see him just going "Go Chiefs" every time pete posts a thread that has some connection to the Drudge report. He'll just be responding to the thread based on content alone, and make no assumptions that whomever posted it has some sort of partisan reason for doing so.
Good for you, Direckshun!

He is just short and bitter~

mlyonsd
05-16-2011, 01:07 PM
That's the point, exactly.

It's a political honeypot trap designed to get liberals upset at the possibly racially tinged rhetoric. At that point, the media is going to show up to watch the inevitable black-white car crash.

And the politics of that incident has a benefit to the politician in question far beyond securing the support of racists. It has the benefit of securing the support of "working- and middle-class white Americans (who) don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race... (who feel that) no one's handed them anything... (who've) worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor... (who) are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition".

That's the whole point.

I disagree with this. I think it has more potential to fire up Obama's base than working middle class whites.

The whole premise of this guy's article is flawed. Newt is going to make a perfectly innocent statement just hoping he set up Gregory to ask the question the way he did? Bleh.

The whole article is just an attempt to define republicans into a corner.

Direckshun
05-16-2011, 01:40 PM
Really, though, this is weird. Apparently Direckshun thinks we should take every thread at face value, by itself, in a vacuum, without taking any of the poster's past political history into account.
So, I guess we won't see him just going "Go Chiefs" every time pete posts a thread that has some connection to the Drudge report. He'll just be responding to the thread based on content alone, and make no assumptions that whomever posted it has some sort of partisan reason for doing so.
Good for you, Direckshun!

You're pretzeling.

blaise
05-16-2011, 01:50 PM
You're pretzeling.

So, you didn't answer the question.

blaise
05-16-2011, 02:10 PM
The idea that any time you make make any argument that a politician of a party utilizes race politically, you are de facto doing the exact same thing... is classic blaise.

Asking someone to answer your questions, having a hissy fit if they don't, then not answering other people's questions..........is classic Direckshun.

RNR
05-16-2011, 03:00 PM
This is bullshit! I was all set to get everyone on board picking on short people,...well...except for short people. Yet you guys continue to go at it :shrug: This was a great chance for all of us to unite...well...except for short people. I even posted the great short people song from my like mind hero Randy Newman. Whatever pass up this wonderful chance to set our politics aside and join in a cause,...well...except for short people~

patteeu
05-16-2011, 04:02 PM
1. I applaud jAZ for finally admitting that he's been way too quick to accuse people of racism in the past.

2. There are plenty of other politically correct yahoos, primarily on the left who are guilty of the same thing.

3. I have an alternative theory. Sometimes these alleged code-word phrases aren't really code words at all and should be understood literally. In these cases, not only is the speaker not pandering to rascists, but he's not cleverly trying to lure overly-sensitive leftists into making a big race deal out of the situation thereby stimulating a backlash from non-rascists either. Since I know that my theory is correct in many cases and since there's a strong possibility that it's correct in most cases, I think jAZ owes us another apology for the implied accusations in this thread.

4. I agree that jAZ would have never started this thread if there wasn't a way to cast Republicans as the villain.

5. SHTSPRAYER deserves a more personal apology since he, perhaps more than any other, has had his reputation tarnished with these false accusations of racism.

KC native
05-16-2011, 04:36 PM
5. SHTSPRAYER deserves a more personal apology since he, perhaps more than any other, has had his reputation tarnished with these false accusations of racism.

ROFL and with this you toss any credibility in your post out the window.

Jaric
05-16-2011, 04:45 PM
Well I was hoping to spew some short people slurs~

Yes, but that wouldn't be big of you.

Jaric
05-16-2011, 04:47 PM
He is just short and bitter~

There are some who think little of him.

gonefishin53
05-16-2011, 05:58 PM
I resent seeing fat, lazy, welfare queens waddling down the aisle of our community store with a half dozen loud, dirty, snot nosed kids in tow. But I live in area with no black population(Idaho County, Idaho). How then can my resentment be racist?

The same applies to the white half of Obama. I resent the white European Marxist half of Obama because of the white, European Marxist ideology pounded into him by his white European Marxist mother and his white European Marxist grandparents. Without the Marxist indoctrination provided by his mother and grandparents, I think Obama would have made an outstanding high school English comp teacher and BB coach. But the Marxist indoctrination provided by his white European Marxist mother and grandparents has led Obama to seek absolute power.

I will be ecstatic when Herman Cain is sworn in as president in Jan. 2013 so we can be done with accusations of racism based purely on ideology.

|Zach|
05-16-2011, 06:04 PM
I will be ecstatic when Herman Cain is sworn in as president in Jan. 2013 so we can be done with accusations of racism based purely on ideology.

LMAOLMAO

Saul Good
05-16-2011, 06:13 PM
That is a crucial distinction, actually.

One is blatant racism. Another is utilizing race for political points.

So you think the Republicans strategy is to have the Democrats accuse them of racism?