Buchanan calls Carter assertion that some attacks on Obama "based on racism" "malevolent and ignorant"
September 17, 2009 7:30 am ET
From the September 17 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
Previously:
Conservatives express outrage about charges that their attacks on Obama are racist
Pat Buchanan promotes 9/11 Truth column
After defending Hitler, Pat Buchanan again complains about Dr. Martin Luther King
MSNBC promoting Buchanan's Hitler column on its own website
MSNBC comments on its promotion -- and removal -- of Buchanan's Hitler defense
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Is that because only racists know the secret handshake?? :-)
Someone did a documentary during the 2008 campaign, interviewing some of the people you're talking about, and the N-word was tossed around quite freely, as in, "I just cain't vote for no n*****!"
Jimmy Carter struck a nerve among the Troglodytes by speaking an ugly truth, and he'll surely be ground up in the GOP Propaganda Machine for his efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------
Always curious to hear everyone's opinion
Carter may not be the president anymore, but he should still understand this. (Assuming he ever did.) And thus he should understand that while Obama may appreciate the sentiment, I'm sure he doesn't appreciate the legitimacy Carter just gave to the opposition.
This is, I'm not sure Carter EVER understood that. I was only six when Reagan was elected, and the perceptions of even the most politically astute six-year-old are obviously still next to useless. So I don't KNOW. But everything I've read about him and the country/world of late '70's tells me that he was just TOO GOOD A MAN for the job. And politics is a dirty business.
Even HE admits that he makes a much better former President than he ever did a President. Based on the great deal he's accomplised since, and what happened when he was in office, that's pretty hard to deny.
-----------------------------------------------------
Looks like it's a good day for me to argue with liberals for a change! LOL
But I guess, if calling [something] out causes moderate people to pull back, or sympathize with the opposition, then NO. Not if it can prevent you from doing something legislatively about [the problem, whether racism or otherwise.]
And I can't really think or any examples where fiery racial rhetioric would have helped matters any. Lincoln was very moderate on slavery in many of his campaign speeches and his inaugural address. I can't see the language of a fire-brand abolitionist helping him any, at the time.
Kennedy and Johnson did more than any president since Lincoln as far as racial justice and civil rights go, but beyond articulating their position on segregation, voting etc... (and Kennedy didn't even really do that very often) they didn't go around pointing fingers, and saying so-n-so is a bad person/racist or [people form this state] are bad/racists. And I would think, especially at the time, that this would have been particularly counterproductive.
LBJ lamented that he was "Losing the South for a generation" in signing the civil rights act. But I don't think he'd been any better served by addiding "because of all those racist bastards" to the end of that sentiment.
-----------------------------------------------
But it's hard to say, really.
I know EXACTLY where President Carter is coming from and I have no interest in shooting the messenger.
...though I still say Carter's comments did (and will do) more harm than good. :)
-------------------------------------------------
I'll have to take this one up...
-------------------------------------------------
There's strength in good, healthy debate.
I'm just a pragmatist's pragmatist.
----------------------------------------------
Religion? Philosophy.
Philosophy? Science.
Science? Engineering.
And the First Amendment only applies to conservatives...
MMFA has not reported Carter's opinion accurately however, he did not use the word some , he used the word overwhelming.
I wonder where carter was when dems were calling Bush a liar? I guess it was not so important to him them. Carter is a fool and the lack of support for his comments shows most agree with that.
I (obviously) won't go quite as far as s/he does, and Buchanan's statement only proves my point: that the opposition will use this to their advantage. But I'm almost frightened that we're close enough to shake hands over the divide seperating us!
-------------------------------------------------------------
While I'm over here, and we're not bashing each other's heads in... It's nice to meet you, Fair!
LOL
I think Carter's words are honest, hard to argue with, and important.
I agree with Carter's words, but the subjective nature of the word "overwhelmingly", especially to those who think in extremes (right wingers), probably aggravated the reaction.
Carter's a pretty smart guy, it may not be easy for him to talk at a Fox News level without being very self-conscious about his words. If he had dumbed it down a little, it would have been less of an issue.
No, people can misinterpret words because of their own biases and limitations. You and several others have shown this over and over on this very topic.
There was nothing really extreme in Carters words, but the black & white thinkers who only see in extremes got confused.
Take some responsibility, you can't spend your entire life blaming people whose thoughts are more complex than yours for your inability to understand them.
I also don't take too seriously anybody trying to insult Carter's intelligence by calling him the "worse (sic) president in history"
Assuming that you are open-minded about this, and willing to confront uncomfortable facts, I'd suggest you read Leonard Zeskind's Blood and Politics.
I agree with this statement 100%, but I still wish he hadn't.
In doing so he's given a lot of ammo to the Conservatives complaining about how they can't criticise Obama without be accused of being racists. Regardless of their racial motivations, prior to this incident no prominent people were really calling them racists. But to have a former Democratic President like Carter do it... Well, it just plays right into their game. He's helped them out, rather a lot.
This is one of the things that made Carter a lousy president - he's way TOO honest, and just doesn't have the deviousness needed to think like his opponents and plan his game three steps ahead accordingly. It may sound cynical, but he was way too good a man to ever be make decent president.
The Con's might have been mosting lying before, about being called racists, or at a minumum exagerating the accusations. But at least they HAD to. Now they can point to a former President accusing them of it. He just letigimized their 'playing the vitcim' act. Obama was doing just fine without Carter's help, and he's in a worse position now because of it!
So, as a liberal, a Democratic Voter and a huge Obama booster, I say: "Obama knew what he was doing, and was doing just fine, so STFU, Jimmy Carter!"
----------------------------------------------------------------
That's my take anyway
Read what you write and THINK about what you wrote. Sorry, you post very assinine, and lets be clear, AN ASSININE LIBERAL.
NGE's post was actually pretty on the mark. Jimmy Carter is way too honest to be effective in our government as it stands today.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't like Carter, Never voted for Clinton, still a Liberal
Couldn't disagree more, young whippersnapper. Whenever they're called out for obvious racism, the Right accuses the accuser of "playing the race card," and casts itself as the victim. They do the same thing with the "liberal media" canard. This has been a conservative tactic for 150 years, if not longer, and it's proved dangerously effective. It is one of the reasons that the Confederacy, while it lost the Civil War, actually won the peace, ushering in a hundred years of state-sponsored terrorism in the American South. [url=http://www.budiansky.com/home.html]See The Bloody Shirt, by Stephen Budiansky, if you can stomach it. It took me two months to read it, a few pages at a time. To much in one sitting and I'd have had a stroke. I also recommend BLOOD AND POLITICS; The History of the White Nationalist Movement, from the Margins to the Mainstream, by Leonard Zeskin, to see where we might be headed.
The mistake we liberals make is to think that conservatives actually value the freedom that they tout. They, in the main, don't. They value freedom for themselves. The conservative Prime Minister, Disraeli, put it perfectly: "I don't give a fig for the Rights of Man; I'm interested in the Rights of Englishmen." Unfortunately, one of those "Rights" was seen as the right to rule other nations and races. Not much has changed in conservative thinking. The Becks, Buchanans, Limbaughs, etc., think that they have the right to rule, and that the 2008 election overturned the natural order. There's little they won't do to regain power, and we cannot allow them an inch's space in which to "Luntzify" our language and intimidate us from calling them out for what they are.
Sorry, the link didn't work, and I don't have time to go back and fix it.
And again, I'm 100% with you throughout. I don't deny any of it. The right has always been willing to lie, smear, play the victim, be the hyopcrite, whatever it takes, whenever it suits them. I don't deny it at all. (In fact, in any other discussion, I'd be MAKING those points!)
There was a great column here a few weeks back (apologies that I can't find it now.) I think it was one of J.Foser's but I could be wrong. The point that stands out in my memory was meant as an answer to those who would say that [PP] "Al Gore should have phrased his 'took the initiative in creating the internet' quote a little better, so that it wouldn't have been turned into 'I invented the internet' by the Right." The point was, that if your opponents are willing to LIE and blatantly MISQUOTE you, then it really doesn't matter WHAT you say or HOW you say it - they'll just LIE anyway, if they have to.
Now... here's how that's relevant here: I'll grant that, with or without Carter's comments, the right will ABSOLUTELY continue to cry victim, saying they can't speak openly about POLICY becasue they'll be (falsely) accused of racism by the left. So at the end of the day, since the Right will behave the same way so who cares about any 'damage' President Carter may have done, correct?
The problem is that they now have actual material, right out of a Democratic Icon's mouth, to back up their b*llsh!t. At least before, they were ACTUALLY LYING. And that's important because of the MODERATES. I don't think that a significant number of moderates were really being swayed by the 'victim' act the Rigth was playing on race. (Only the ones who are already racist themselves!) But NOW... NOW that they can piece together a video with a recognizable, prominent democrat ACCUSING them... (And not a particularly popular or sympathetic one at that, outside the party's base anyway!) A lot more moderates might then start giving credence to the Right's 'victim act.' And THEN...
The right have won. Because now they've silenced thier critics, JUST LIKE THEY DID by saying "liberal media" over and over a million times for three decades. Just like 'liberal media,' "We're being called racists!" is a total red herring, (and total b*llsh!t.) And before Carter opened his big mouth, I'll bet most moderate people realised this. The Right had NO PROOF that anyone was calling them racists, so the victim act had no traction. Now that we'll all have to do damage control over this "racism" nonsense (from both sides) we can no logner debate the ISSUES.
And that's exactly what [the right] want! Distract the public from the real issues! Becasue they know they can't win on the issues! But they can win on b*llsh!t! They've only ever won on b*llsh!t! And Carter just delivered them a whole truck-load of rhetorical fertilizer!
-------------------------------------------------------------
I certianly HOPE I'm wrong... but that's usually when I'm right most often!
OK, I'm going to channel a five year old here for a second and say "BUT HE STARTED IT!"
Now, why is that important?
Follow me...
1) Beck makes a statment: [PP] Obama's a racist.
Burden is now on him to prove it. He can't, becasue it's b*llsh!t, so what motivatied him to say it? Obama's POLICIES? What policies of Obama's are RACIST? Expensive? Perhaps. COunter-Productive? You can debate that. Liberal? Unapologetically so. But RACIST? Where are the reparations? Where are the concentration camps? Where is the disproportionate representation of minorites and the systematic discrimination against whites? It just ain't there. And if you think it IS, show me why OBAMA is responsible for it. Affirmative action waaaay predates him as a policy.
2) President Carter claims it's beacuse of race.
OK, fine. He might need to back that up, but calls for proof on Carter's statement would carry a lot more weight if Beck (etc...) had EVER provided any proof of theirs. Carter may have failed to PROVE racism, fine, but none of the Beck crowd can DISPROVE it, and none can support THEIR ORIGINAL accusation of racsim on the part of Obama. That alone gives Carter way more evidence that Beck (etc...) ever had, let alone presented.
So I'm satisfied that Carter was RIGHT. But I STILL say it was a real dumbass thing to say. (As I've stated above.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary Logic and the Burden of Proof
You missed the point once again. It's not legitimate anti-Obama sentiment that's the problem, it's the paranoid delusional nutjob sentiment that is racist. Such as:
50% of people in Kentucky (not a bastion of liberals) believe Obama is not a US citizen.
33% of people in New Jersey believe or aren't sure if Obama is the anti-Christ.
The racists have always been around. They've just been recently awakened now that the black man is in the White House.
What I read from grunt was;
I challenge you to show me some anti-Obama person whose hatred is based more in racism than disagreement with the substance of Obama's policies.
But you can only use nice people who are talking about issues, no crazy racists.
Every day, I think I've seen it all.
Beck didn't do this. Not even close. (And thus Obama's supporters hardly NEED to DISproove it, since it's false-ness is pretty much self-evident.)
So CARTER's hypothesis is that BECK (& co.) are racists. THAT'S why they made their statements. Can he prove it? No, but he doesn't have to. He just needs evidence. Does he have enough to withstand scrutiny? Based on the voices on the Right that I'VE heard so far, I'd say, "Yes, he does."
Now... Can Beck DISPROOVE it? Sure. All he has to do is support ANY of his statements. Support why he thinks Obama is a racist, show some evidence that will withstand scrutiny. Show some evidence that he was ever accused of rasism just because he was arguing a policy point. Show that his position with Obama are consistant with positions he's held in the past. If he could justify his positions, the Carter would have to eat crow.
But Beck can't, so Carter won't.
----------------------------------------------------------
He was still a dumbass for saying it though!
Regarding burden of proof, I refer you HERE
Beck used experiences from Obama's past. His comments about his grandmother being a "typical white person." Did you forget about that?
What more evidence does Carter have than Beck? They both have past statements and relatinships they can look. Both are up to interpretation.
If Beck called Obama a typical black person would that be considered racist?
that being said, carter has a point. if you look at the teaparties and town hall meeting and even back in the McCain campaign there were many references to obamas race. look at the pictures and listen to the comments. i would post the pictures but i am not smart enought to know how to post them here. now, i know not all people at these events are racist, but, by allowing those that are to associate with them them manage to paint themselves with the same broad brush. i am only applying the same standard that the right applys to president obama. by going to reverand wrights church and being on a panel with william ayers the right said that obama shared their views. if thats true then it's also true that by not speaking out against the racist at these protests then the non racist people are giveing validity to the racist claims.
Earlier this year, we had the guy running for Chairman of the RNC send out copies of Barack the Magic Negro as a "joke". That was, and still is, racist.
Earlier this year, we had a republican staffer sent out an e-mail to a vast list of people that pictured Obama in the dark and you could only see his eyes. Get it? He's black? You can't see him in the dark. If that's not racist, I'm not sure what is.
We've also seen things sent around that show watermelons and fried chicken in the White House.
We've had Limbaugh asking if we could still call it the White House now that Obama was there.
And so on.
The examples are far, and many of the racist opposition. This is not to say that all who oppose Obama's policies are racists, I don't believe that they are, but there are plenty of racists that oppose him, only for the color of his skin.
Of course racism happens with more than one race, but it is still more prevalent as being a white against minority thing. Just take a gander at the Southern Poverty Law Center's website sometime. They do list various hate groups of different races, but it is still a majority white thing.
Could you supply the picture so that I can see it?
The watermelons and fried chicken stereotype is also moved forward by many black comedians and commentators. Stereotypes are always wrong and can be racist. Again, I don't think an email represents an entire group in opposition, but rather a fringe of people who should be marginalized.
The White House comment was a response to political correctness. If you don't get the joke, perhaps you should check your own racism at the door.
I'm sure there are people who opposed Bush only because of the color of his skin after Hurricane Katrina. There are people who only support Obama because of the color of his skin. Does that represent the group as a whole? No, and both should be considered racism and those people should be marginalized.
Hate groups are a majority white thing because whites are the majority. I think the math adds up.
TN Aide Sends racist e-mail
See above link for a story about the aide that sent out the highly racist e-mail, it includes a picture.
The White House comment had nothing to do with PC. Why would it NOT be called the White House? And seeing as it came from Limbaugh, a well known racist (Take the bone out of your nose and call me back - one of his more famous comments) it stands to reason it was racial in context.
If you think supporting someone because the color of their skin is racist, then I'm pretty sure you don't really know what racism is. Are there black people in America that support Obama because he's black? Absolutely, and I would be naive to say that there aren't. Are they racists? No. No indeed, they are not.
I can say people opposed Bush not because of the color of his skin after Katrina but because of the total ineptitude of his actions after Katrina. I'm pretty sure not too many people were concerned what color skin he had, when they were drowing, or struggling to survive.
Hate groups, as I stated, are a white majority thing, and it's got nothing to do with being the majority, because that doesn't even make sense, mostly because if you're the majority, and hold almost all the strings to power in the country, and the WORLD (As white folks do still to this day), then what do you have to be angry about?
The White house comment was referencing black leaders who demand they be called African-Americans. If they can't be called black, would it be racist to call it white? Again, a joke that obviously flew way over your head. Again, mocking the OTHER side's racism.
Is it racist to not support someone because of the color of their skin? I clearly do know what racism is. Apparently you may not. If you ARE supporting someone because of the color of their skin, it means you AREN'T supporting someone else because of the color of their skin. That isn't racism? I would say you could indeed say they are.
Why didn't they go after Mayor Ray Nagin? He was as inept as anyone in the pre-hurricane situation and the aftermath that followed. Why was he not demonized by the black community? Why did Kanye West declare W didn't care about black people, but he never referenced Nagin?
I guess those people fear losing the power they think they have. That would be the logical explanation to me. The majority fearing losing that position.
So... MARGINALIZE them already!
-----------------------------------------------------------
NGE
When we are so "post-racial" that people like those who unabashedly proclaimed they'd "never vote for a n***r, are called out by their friends and neighbors, we can talk about "same standards."
I was a little shocked, and taken aback, and asked why? He told me that no n***** should ever be President, it's just not right.
I told him also that if I ever heard him use that term around me again, we'd have to go and speak to our HR manager about his inappropriateness. He never did, and he didn't really speak much to me after that.
If everyone would stand up like that, face-to-face and just tell these people not to use any type of derogatory comment about someone that RadioCreepers would be screaming that their 1st Amendment rights are being attacked.
My favorite horrifying quote, "It ain't racist if you're white."
Or bigger than the speaker and within earshot.
Quinney who is a racist but is too cowardly to admit it. However his base listeners wear it as a badge of honor. On the show, he has always mentioned that you can't refer to anything because Liberals take it as racist.
When discussing the Senators who voted against denying ACORN funding, he first mentions Sen.Casey, who said that he is not a Grand Jury, mutters some comment then goes onto Sen. Burris from Illinois. Of course, you know what is coming..Quinney the non-racist..shrugs this off by saying he is from Illinois and is BLACK.
This is what a racist like Quinn doesn't seem to get. Where did he mention the skin color of any other Senator..but he made sure his Trailer-Republican base were aware that Burris is black.
Quinney, you are infected with rascism, admit it and get help. Did you infect RadioRosie also?
In the future, if an idiot like Quinney has his way, when identifying anyone, you would have to put their Political preference, their race, their religion etc., all inside the ( ).
Quinn, can't you even be honest about you ignorance.
------------------------------------------------------------------
My Blog
We don't criticise flag-waving, we critcize flag-idolitry. For eight years these chickenhawk "patriots" called us traitors, and tried to treat the flag like it was some kind of sacred symbol. (The CONSTITUTION... not so much.) But the acted like it was THEIR flag, as opposed to ALL OF OUR flag.
Now that they can't deny that the same flag, suddenly flying behind Obama, is in fact a symbol for EVERYONE, UNIFIED... Well, suddenly it just doesn't seem important.
I see your point, but I think YOU'RE trying to have it both ways as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Blog
Did you forget about decorating the back window of your truck with it, or painting it on the hood of your car?
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free.
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning. (Disposal of Unserviceable Flags Ceremony)
American Legion
Although, I would say the American flag was far outnumbered by the "Don't Tread on Me" yellow flags that for some reason has become popular with the 9-12ers.
It's not just the south.
I often wonder how people like Pat are able to live with themselves knowing the kind of person they are?
While it might have been prudent for Jimmy Carter to specifically say that not all people from the south are racists (or did he and I missed it?) his words were true, nonetheless.
Perhaps anyone who becomes offended by his words must have a guilty conscience about something?
Fact is, I was one of those Southern Troglodytes when I was young. I was a racist and used the N-word frequently. I'm not proud of it, but I was a product of the prevailing culture. I eventually outgrew that small-mindedness, but a lot of people haven't. These are the people who are the driving force behind the Teabaggers, Birthers and Tenthers.
The Republican Party embraced this Fanatical Southern Racist Demographic decades ago in an attempt to acquire a solid voter base. It was called the "Southern Strategy". Anyone who doesn't believe it can look it up.
Unfortunately, these Troglodytes now own the Republican Party.
Giving air-time to an old-style neo-nazi racist to talk about a race issue is absolutely absurd.
Unlike Fox , who has MANY credible liberal voices on their programs, MSNBC is a joke. And their lack of viewers shows it.
But as far as Carters comments go, Buchanan is dead on right. And very few people agree with Carter.
man, where have you been? no one here claims MSNBC is unbiased. not even MSNBC. they are the counter to fox.
And very few people agree with Carter.
really? got some polling to back that up or are you just reffering to you and the voices in your head?
Especially on this issue, Carter is saying there is a strong influence on the right from racism, and every righty is twisting it as Carter saying "all criticism of Obama is racist".
But to answer Carters claim, which is pretty well documented to any reasonable person, Faily says very few people agree with Carter, meaning Fail needs to convince herself that a majority of Americans disagree with reality to remain comfortable with the lies she accepts. It's interesting.
I don't think either one of them have ever seen the inside of a limo in their lives. All of my friends that are liberals, while not exactly poor (well, some are pretty poor), are not quite up to the limo liberal name tag, or, well, actually not even close.
Jimmy Carter doesn't care what idiots like Pat Buchanan think. He doesn't care what the morons on Fox say. He simply explained the way he see things, based on having lived in the south for most of his life. In a court, Carter might easily be considered an expert witness.
This is great! The old Cracker Buchanan, who is just as likely to show up on air in a hooded sheet with a KKK tattoo on his forehead as he is in a suit and tie, criticizes Carter for an "ignorant" statement!
But don't misunderstand my statement. Obama should keep doing what he's doing! I wouldn't want to stop him. He has done more to slap stupid, complacent White people in the face and wake them up than any politician I can remember.
Really? Pat Buchanan skips along, circumnavigating the lit cross, and is critical of Fmr. Pres. Carter? Really! I mock his banal excreta. Alas, his verbal flatulence is Klan-in-hand with his breathing. I do not wish him death. That would make me as good as he is. He is not nice at all, is he?
Mr. Buchanan is in a safe place, with his crowd of like-minded people. Adding that up with supportive viewers, you have the rotten apple in our national barrel: seeds and pulp are covered by skin color. Luckily, Americans are becoming immune to his rancorous petulance.
I am most determined to act humanely towards others, given the heartfelt anger, and prejudice that Mr. Buchanan and ilk live.
It be it,
Ronin Kannushi.
Really? Pat Buchanan skips along, circumnavigating the lit cross, and is critical of Fmr. Pres. Carter? Really! I mock his banal excreta. Alas, his verbal flatulence is Klan-in-hand with his breathing. I do not wish him death. That would make me as good as he is. He is not nice at all, is he?
Mr. Buchanan is in a safe place, with his crowd of like-minded people. Adding that up with supportive viewers, you have the rotten apple in our national barrel: seeds and pulp are covered by skin color. Luckily, Americans are becoming immune to his rancorous petulance.
I am most determined to act humanely towards others, given the heartfelt anger, and prejudice that Mr. Buchanan and ilk live.
It be it,
Ronin Kannushi.
Vet attacked by man
This Carter guy the peanut farmer, right? Had a drunk brother, right? Lusted other women besides his wife, right? Was President for 4 years, right? What is he known for as President? Inflation comes to my mind. Can anyone assist me with other accomplishments? I also remember when he went to Washington his daughter didn't attend PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Those schools everyone pays taxes to provide. I guess they weren't good enough for his child. Why?
Almost everyone on here acknolwedges that Carter was not a good President, but what has he accomplished in his life? Well, let's run down the list shall we?:
Georgia State Senator
Governor of Georgia
President of the United States of America
Naval Academy graduate
Nuclear submariner
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize
Started Habitat for Humanity
Camp David Accords
Panama Canal Treaties
Brokered Peace between Israel and Egypt (still holding now)
Founded the Carter Center (works for global human rights)
Brokered agreement with N. Korea on taking down their nuclear program.
Those are just the highlights, and there are many more in there. The man is a national treasure, you jerks just don't happen to see it because he is a democrat.
-in an airport men's room, like Larry Craig
-in a bordello-issued diaper, like David Vitter
-on text messages with teenage pages, like Mark Foley
-in Argentina, like Mark Sanford
-in the White House with Jeff Gannon, like SOMEONE in the Bush administration
-with a mistress given a sinecure job with a relative, like John Ensign
-with boy prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, like Rush Limbaugh
Of course, a Republican never lusts in his heart, since he doesn't have one.
Obama is 50% white and 50% black. Why must he refered to as black?
If a white man disagrees with a white man he is disagreeble.
But when a white man dissagres black man then he is a racist?
Of course President Obama does not want to take on this issue, because every agenda item he supports will then be spun by the right-wing as racially motivated. It is sufficiently bad enough that the Right is denigrating all low income groups by seeking ways to eliminate a healthcare portal, why would the WH want them to target specific minority groups? Legislators are already doing this daily: Baucus Plan and Price (GOP) healthcare plan of July 09 to address illegal migrant groups (code for Hispanics)- done!
Baucus and Price: Abortion only if rape, incest or MAJOR health concern (code for all low income) - done!
Continual attacks on ACORN (code for Blacks) - done!
So trying to nit-pick is silly, accept that racism continues to exist in this country and move-on. But no, the Right want to not so subtly say that RACISM DOES EXIST and it is the WH and Dems who are denigrating these individuals. In order for the GOP to succeed with this, they will need to attack anyone who even uses the word RACISM in an uncoded manner. The GOP attack is not too subtle...and what all of this Racism talk does is move the real topics of discussion (Healthcare Reform, Climate Change, Regulation of Wall Street) off to a side table.
So wake up DEMS! Don't be gamed into a circular argument with the likes of Buchanan, it is a waste of time!