Conservatives express outrage about charges that their attacks on Obama are racist
Conservatives in the media have recently criticized congressional Democrats, Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, and others for suggesting that attacks on President Obama are racially motivated, saying, for example, that it's a "disgusting smear," "a sign of desperation," and " despicable tactics." However, conservative media figures -- including some who are now decrying the accusations -- have themselves used charges of racism when discussing Obama and his policies.
Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity criticize Democrats for saying attacks are race-based -- but they've also leveled charges of racism
Glenn Beck: "[F]alse cries of racism" are "dangerous," like when someone "cries 'fire.' " On his radio show, Glenn Beck said there are "false cries of racism on Joe Wilson when there's absolutely nothing to back it" and demanded "evidence." From the September 16 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: If I was a betting man, I would say that the false cries of racism on Joe Wilson when there's absolutely nothing to back it -- just back it up. Just back it up. You want to say, "Hey, I think this guy is a racist"? Well, then, let's listen to the explanation. Let's ask: What is your evidence that he's a racist? What is your evidence? And let's do it with peace and love in our hearts. What is your evidence?
I haven't heard their evidence. Has anybody even asked their evidence? I'd like to ask for the evidence. What evidence do you have that Joe -- because maybe he is. I don't know. I've looked. We've had our researchers look. I haven't found any evidence. So, let's hear it. Maybe he is.
But that should be asked. Why would you say that? Because racism is real. And if you have evidence, well, then, we should listen to it. And maybe we can convince them that they're either right or they're wrong. Maybe we can say, "Oh my gosh. Oh, I hear your evidence now. Oh, I see. OK. You're right." Or, "Mmm, no, you're wrong, and here's why." You see? That's maybe what we should do.
It's kind of like -- it's really interesting to me. When somebody cries "fire," why do they cry "fire"? Because it's dangerous. Kind of like racism. It's dangerous. OK? So, if somebody cries "fire," how come we've just now entered a world where if somebody cries "fire," nobody says, "Wait, wait, where? Where? You see smoke? Help me out. Where's the fire?"
How come we either just say, "You liar! There is no fire! You should be thrown out of a window!" Or, "Yeah, there's a fire in here, and you started it!" Why do we do that? Why do we do that? Why don't we reasonably and rationally say, "Oh, hang on just a second. Where's the fire? I don't see any evidence of fire. Where's the fire?" "No, don't you smell that? You smell the smoke?" "No, I don't -- oh, hang on just a sec. Yes, I do. Let's call the fire department and look and find out where the smoke is coming from." Why don't we do that anymore?
Because it's really not about fire. It's really now -- the cries of racism -- most times, not all times -- some people have evidence and would like to have that conversation. When there are cries of racism, sometimes it's not because there's real racism. Sometimes it's because there's somebody mealing around in the office, you know, that might figure out what's going on in the office and then might report it.
And so what do they do? "Fire! Fire!" -- to get everybody out of the office so they can continue to cover up what they need covered. And so you're all standing out on the sidewalk going, "Gee, fire." But you know what? After that person cries "fire" over and over and over again and there is no fire, maybe we should look at that and say, "Why do they keep crying 'fire'?" [The Glenn Beck Program, 9/16/09]
Previously: Beck calls Obama a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." Beck said on Fox News' Fox & Friends that Obama is a "racist" and has "exposed himself as a guy" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people." [Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]
Sean Hannity: "[T]hese are despicable tactics. It's all designed to silence critics. It's all designed to intimidate. It's all designed to shut down opposition." On his radio show, Sean Hannity asserted that former Sen. George Allen (R-VA) was treated unfairly after he called a Democratic videographer "macaca" and that "[n]ow Democrats and their media friends are trying to do this to Joe Wilson, too." Then, discussing Maureen Dowd's New York Times column in which she suggested Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouting "you lie" at Obama during his health care speech was racially motivated, Hannity said the tactics are "despicable" and "designed to silence critics." From his show:
You know, maybe we need to introduce -- I was saying this earlier today. You have Maureen Dowd in The New York Times today. Maybe we need to -- a new verb into the political lexicon. You know, maybe to "macaca" somebody. You know, that's when Democrats cry racism in the absence of any evidence whatsoever with the clear intent to being -- to silence any critic.
You know, quote, "The Democratic media" -- in that sense -- quote, "macacaed George Allen in 2006, knocking him out of the Senate based on the use of the word 'macaca' to describe a Democratic tracker." Nobody had ever heard of the word before. The Washington Post wrote hundreds of articles. They're trying to now, you know, do the same thing to Bob McDonnell, who's running for governor. Heard him anyway -- "Well, 25 years ago, he wrote this."
Now Democrats and their media friends are trying to do this to Joe Wilson, too. You got Maureen Dowd -- "Surrounded by middle aged white guys," you know, "snapshot of the days when such politicos ran Washington like their own men's club -- Joe Wilson lied -- yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air," quote, "You lie, boy!"
Fair or not? You know, Dowd isn't even sure it's -- just label him a racist. Folks, these are despicable tactics. It's all designed to silence critics. It's all designed to intimidate. It's all designed to shut down opposition. And by the way, and the very tactics were used against you, the American people, all summer long. [ABC Radio Networks' and Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, 9/14/09]
Previously: Hannity asks, "Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?" Hannity asserted on the former Fox News show Hannity & Colmes: "As more is learned about Barack Obama's positions, his past, and his affiliations, it seems that the 'change' candidate has all the same problems with race as those before him," and later added, "It's only fair to ask: Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?" [Hannity & Colmes, 3/02/08]
Rush Limbaugh: "[S]erious concerns" about media's "new standard," which is that any criticism of Obama is "racist." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said:
I have serious concerns about today's media and their new standard, which is this: Any criticism of an African-American's policies or statements or misstatements is racist, and that's it. Therefore, the question: Can this nation really have an African-American president? Or will the fact that we have an African-American president so paralyze politically correct people in the media that the natural scrutiny and process through which all of our presidents are put through and vetted do not occur because of the fear in the state-controlled media of themselves being called racist and the desire to be able to call everyone else racist.
In other words, we have a blank slate. We have a president here who is not scrutinized, who is not examined. There is no attempt to be suspicious of power anymore. So, is it possible? Can we really have an African-American president? Or does having an African-American president paralyze the process by which people with that kind of power in our representative republic are kept quote, unquote "honest." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/16/09]
Previously: Limbaugh said "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering." Referring to an incident in Illinois in which a white student was allegedly assaulted by black students on a school bus, Limbaugh said: "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering." From his show:
LIMBAUGH: Why, it's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America -- white kids are getting beat up on school buses now. I mean, you put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety. But in Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, "Yay. Right on, right on, right on, right on."
[...]
LIMBAUGH: We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: I mean, I wonder if Obama's going to come to the defense of the assailants the way he did his friend Skip Gates up there at Harvard. I mean, the assailants are presumed innocent due to the white racism we all know runs rampant in America. I mean, the drive-by media is ginning up all this criticism of Obama again today. It's all based in racism, the criticism of Obama's health care plan or whatever. It's all based in racism. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/15/09]
Previously: Limbaugh said the way to "get promoted in the Barack Obama administration" is "by hating white people." On his radio show, Limbaugh said, "I care about whether she's [Sonia Sotomayor's] qualified, and I think she's disqualified herself. Not only does she lack the often-discussed appropriate judicial temperament, it's worse than that. She brings a form of bigotry or racism to the court. I don't care -- we're not supposed to say it, we're supposed to pretend it didn't happen, we're supposed to look at other things, but it's the elephant in the room. The real question here that needs to be asked -- and nobody on our side, from a columnist to a TV commentator to anybody in our party has the guts to ask: How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive." Limbaugh also stated that the way to "get promoted in the Barack Obama administration" is "by hating white people." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/29/09]
Other conservatives complain about Democrats' accusations
Stephen Hayes: "[D]isgusting smear to suggest" that Wilson shouted "you lie" because of Obama's race. On Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes said:
There is absolutely zero evidence that saying "you lie" to the president of the United States has anything to do with race whatsoever. And it is a disgusting smear for anybody to suggest that.
It's sort of a sad day when we get to the point where a columnist in The New York Times can just imagine that somebody is saying something, literally putting words in her mouth. And she prefaced the statements by saying, "Fair or not, I heard him say, 'You lie, boy.' "
Well, you know what? That's not fair. You can't -- as a journalist, you can't just imagine people saying things. You have to criticize them based on what they actually say. And he didn't say this. [Special Report, 9/15/09]
Charles Krauthammer: Racism charge a "sign of desperation" by Democrats. Also on Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said, "You know, the accusation of racism is a sign of desperation by people who know they are losing the national debate, and they want to hurl the ultimate charge in American politics. This is dealing from the bottom of the deck, and I agree that it is a disgusting tactic. It's done as a way to end debate. The minute you call somebody a racist, the debate is over. You don't continue. I mean, accusations of racism are the last -- the refuge of the liberal scoundrel." [Special Report, 9/15/09]
Brit Hume: Accusing Wilson of racism "cheapens the charge." Discussing Dowd's assertion that Wilson shouting "you lie" at President Obama during his health care speech, Hume said on Special Report: "I think over time, it cheapens the charge. And I think that in this instance, with all that we've heard and the instances cited in James Rosen's report, this is going to infuriate the people of goodwill who are resisting President Obama not in any way because of his race but because of his policies. And my guess is that it has real backfire potential, which diminishes the consensus, to some extent, on race in America." [Special Report, 9/15/09]
Joe Scarborough: "Playing the race card is the last refuge of the truly desperate?" Discussing Dowd's comments on MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough said, "I guess patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel -- is -- could we add to that that playing the race card is the last refuge of the truly desperate? I'm serious. Saying that everybody's racist and looking into Joe Wilson's mind and saying, 'Oh, he can only say that because he's from the South, and if you get angry at the president, you're a bigot.' " Later, when referring to Carter's comments that Wilson's words are "based on racism," Scarborough said:
You know, Jimmy Carter's been inside a bubble since the winter of 1976. I've got to say, as somebody who's said throughout his entire public career that racism does exist, I don't know what America Jimmy Carter lives in, because he doesn't live in the America where I live. And again, this is an America where, whether I was -- you know, I went to the University of Alabama. I saw it some there, but for the most part, I didn't, despite the fact that I got involved in race issues at the University of Alabama in a very aggressive, high-profile way. The same thing with Congress.
Yes. Are there racists? Are there bigots? Yes. But for a former president to suggest that Barack Obama's approval ratings dropped to 50 percent and people are angry with him because he's a black man, that's just not the truth. Again, it -- there's desperation out there on the hard left, and they just can't figure out why people in the middle of America are upset at this guy. [Morning Joe, 9/16/09]
Transcripts
From the September 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
HAYES: There is absolutely zero evidence that saying "you lie" to the president of the United States has anything to do with race whatsoever. And it is a disgusting smear for anybody to suggest that.
It's sort of a sad day when we get to the point where a columnist in The New York Times can just imagine that somebody is saying something, literally putting words in her mouth. And she prefaced the statements by saying, "Fair or not, I heard him say, 'You lie, boy.' "
Well, you know what? That's not fair. You can't -- as a journalist, you can't just imagine people saying things. You have to criticize them based on what they actually say. And he didn't say this.
I agree with Charles that he was out of line. You shouldn't -- he shouldn't have yelled at the president from the floor. It was inappropriate. He apologized.
There was a time right after it happened that both the White House and Nancy Pelosi wanted to just move on. That time apparently has passed, because I think they believe there is political advantage to making this a bigger deal.
I'm not sure it works. I think this could very well backfire, because I think the vast majority of people who disagree with the president disagree with him because they disagree strongly with his policies, but they do so with goodwill.
KRAUTHAMMER: You know, the accusation of racism is a sign of desperation by people who know they are losing the national debate, and they want to hurl the ultimate charge in American politics.
This is dealing from the bottom of the deck, and I agree that it is a disgusting tactic. It's done as a way to end debate. The minute you call somebody a racist, the debate is over. You don't continue. I mean, accusations of racism are the last -- the refuge of the liberal scoundrel.
As for Maureen Dowd, imagining a word that wasn't said -- well, in my previous profession, I saw a lot of people who also heard words that weren't said. They were called patients. Many of them were actually helped with medication.
The reason that she won't be and others who are hurling the accusation is because it's a deliberate attempt to change the subject and discredit the opposition with an unprovable and unproven ad hominem.
From the September 15 edition of Special Report:
BAIER: Well, racism and the accusations of it are the subject of tonight's commentary by senior political analyst Brit Hume. Good evening, Brit.
HUME: Hi, Bret. One of the great achievements of the American civil rights movement is a broad and deep consensus that racism, which has a long history in this country, is unacceptable; indeed, even intolerable. Civil rights activists led by Dr. King appealed to the conscience and goodwill of this nation on the issue and won the nation over.
Today in America, one of the worst things that can be said of anyone is that he or she is racist. The charge is so potent that some -- Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to mind -- have hurled it about with abandon, knowing how far people will go to avoid the label. But the accusation should be wielded with the most extreme care, supported by abundant evidence, which brings us to the case of Joe Wilson, the backbench Republican congressman, who, as we all know, called Barack Obama a liar to his face in the House chamber last week. He apologized, as we know, and he should have. And it wouldn't have hurt him to do it again.
But now he stands accused of, you guessed it, racism. We heard from Democratic Congressman Johnson, with his talk of people donning white hoods, encouraged by Wilson. That's one example. The noted New York Times columnist that we spoke -- or heard about earlier said over the weekend that Wilson could not accept that a black man is president. She said she heard Wilson use the word "boy" in his outburst. So, she admits he did not actually say that. That, it seems, is her evidence.
Some people have wondered if President Obama would play the race card to answer his critics. He has not. But it is being done for him. Bret.
BAIER: So, does this work? What does this do to debate when it's thrown out there?
HUME: Well, I think over time, it cheapens the charge. And I think that in this instance, with all that we've heard and the instances cited in James Rosen's report, this is going to infuriate the people of goodwill who are resisting President Obama not in any way because of his race but because of his policies. And my guess is that it has real backfire potential, which diminishes the consensus, to some extent, on race in America.
From the September 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: The country that elected Barack Obama and the country that gave him a 70 percent-plus approval rating on January the 20th is now a country that's filled with bigots and racists now that his approval rating's 50 percent.
BRZEZINSKI: Well --
SCARBOROUGH: It has nothing to do with the fact that some of us believe he has darted way too left, has been way too unfocused. Now, if you don't love President Obama, more and more people on the left are racist. Jimmy Carter said it.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: Maureen Dowd said it this past weekend. It is -- what do they say? Let me bring in Mike Barnicle. Mike, it's -- I guess patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel -- is -- could we add to that that playing the race card is the last refuge of the truly desperate? I'm serious. Saying that everybody's racist and looking into Joe Wilson's mind and saying, "Oh, he can only say that because he's from the South, and if you get angry at the president, you're a bigot."
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Jimmy Carter's been inside a bubble since the winter of 1976. I've got to say, as somebody who's said throughout his entire public career that racism does exist, I don't know what America Jimmy Carter lives in, because he doesn't live in the America where I live. And again, this is an America where, whether I was -- you know, I went to the University of Alabama. I saw it some there, but for the most part, I didn't, despite the fact that I got involved in race issues at the University of Alabama in a very aggressive, high-profile way. The same thing with Congress.
Yes. Are there racists? Are there bigots? Yes. But for a former president to suggest that Barack Obama's approval ratings dropped to 50 percent and people are angry with him because he's a black man, that's just not the truth. Again, it -- there's desperation out there on the hard left, and they just can't figure out why people in the middle of America are upset at this guy.
BRZEZINSKI: Well, we have to get to more top stories now, but later, we'll talk about this. I actually worry about the fact that he brought this up. I really do, on a number of levels.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, he's not alone.
BRZEZINSKI: I know he's not alone, but --
SCARBOROUGH: Again, Maureen Dowd brought it up. A lot of people on the hard left have brought this up because they can't get past the fact that --
BRZEZINSKI: I do that math. I get it.
SCARBOROUGH: -- Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton, couldn't get health care reform passed because 75 percent --
BRZEZINSKI: It just --
SCARBOROUGH: -- of America are not racists, 75 percent of Americans like their health care.
BRZEZINSKI: It may not just be wrong, Joe, it may be irresponsible.
SCARBORUGH: It is reckless.
BRZEZINSKI: We'll talk about it.
Thanks Sean. I never thought I would hear you pointing out what is wrong with the tactics on the right.
Muh huh. I'm sure they did.
Laura Ingraham sticking with the tired old "We're afraid to speak up for fear of being called racists!"
BilldO, comforting himself and the racists in his audience by noting that the guy with the underage prostitutes was white, so it can't be racism.
Huh?
Bill, there were no underage prostitutes, and the two who were illegally filming their lies about being a pimp and a prostitute are on your side, trying to smear an organization that you spend a lot of time demonizing, and that most of your audience thinks is the epitome of scary black poor people who are going to kill them all !!
Now get yerself some more Kool Aid, M-fer !!!
And beyond those points is the fact that there is no reference made to underage prostitutes by ANY of the seven ACORN workers in ANY of the videos made available. How likely is it that NONE of them would make reference to underage girls turning tricks when that is supposedly what the person talking to them (as an off-camera voice) is discussing?
I'm very suspicious about the editing of those videos.
I still haven't heard from any of those outraged (wink wink) about the ACORN employees actions exactly what they would have done in their place.
You know, I was talking to my buddy the other day about knocking over a bank. Thank God he's not a hidden cam filmmaker.
There's no videotape, but I bet their relatives can show you the graves.
You know, Spinal Tap wasn't real. But it's on video tape. So that must make it real. How do you resolve that conundrum?
by real, I mean a "real joke."
That would be a true statement anywhere else in America, but here in loony left land if you're perceived as a right of center org, then you're GUILTY until proven innocent.
If you haven't noticed this Xe/B-water meme is just the latest distraction from a flailing Bambi and his past / present associations with groups like ACORN.
Barry even celebrated the 70th anniversary of the fall of Poland by ditching the missile defense shield. Way to capitulate to Putin Bambi! Great timing also. Marxist are always big on symbolism.
Bambi orders missile defense shield scrapped
That's what I'm hoping for.
ACORN is the shiny object distraction for the bedwetters who want a magic safety shield.
I haven't seen anybody saying that Blackwater is guilty yet, but there is some credible evidence there (which you ignore), while the "crimes" that ACORN was allegedly assisting with are admittedly non-existent.
Leave the basement once in a while. Walk outside, maybe into another neighborhood. You wingnuts all seem to live in a bubble where reality doesn't matter.
You get your day in court. We'll have to wait and see.
As far as the ACORN "crimes", I'll give you that. One thing you ignore is that the "crimes" were never escalated to the next level, as in ACORN actually helping the two journalists acquire the homes. Nine out of ten ACORN offices seemed more than willing to help get the ball rolling and that is really all we need to know. They would have done it.
Is that clear, terrapin?
This is, by far, the most false outragey outrage ever falsely outraged by the nutjobs.
There seems to be something about "joking" about helping with crimes, but I don't see any crime either.
Sometimes right wing nuts see things that aren't there. It's best to let them run around in circles til they tire themselves out.
It's not just FOX news or the righties piling on ACORN in this scenario. The Democratically dominated Federal Government is voting overwhelmingly to block funding and ACORN is scrambling to do their own internal investigations all over the place.
That's reality.
Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, ACORN, all of these boogeymen to frightened paranoids had to be shoved aside by the wimpy Dems.
They might explain it as pragmatic, that they need to calm the far right looney screechmonkeys in order to get back on topic, but I don't like giving extremists an inch.
The teabagger terrorists only get emboldened when appeased, and while it's the primary goal of the GOP to reward the ignorant, the Democratic Party is aiding and abetting that.
That's the way I see it.
Any other explanation for Democrats caving to Republican demands when Republicans hold no cards makes zero political sense to me.
You get extra credit if you research the rift between the so called neo-confederates and the SCV. Your link even alluded to it, but I'm sure you glossed right over that so as not to taint the smear on Wilson.
In other words, I'm way ahead of you. I've read a lot from the apologists, and seen a lot of cracks in their wall.
Your homework is to try to read the parts that don't whitewash the group.You get extra credit for keeping your tinfoil hat on all day.
It's interesting that you raise the Confederate flag issue. I am not so sure about your thought "Any white man from the South who advocates flying the Confederate flag at the statehouse is, unless proven otherwise presumed to be a racist." I tend to disagree, and them agree. OK, I am arguing with myself.
The Confederate flag to somebody like me, born, raised and educated in the Northeast, tend to see it your way. The Confederate flag is a loaded symbol. However, to many in the South, it was a glorious moment in the history of the South. It is hard to prove that these people are racist because, to them, they are just honoring their past. But,as history has proved, it was wrongheaded.
However, like all symbols of the past (because the Union survived, and thrived because we were united) the Confederate flag belongs in a museum.
It is not racism or political idealism.
It is sheer paranoia. We Americans are paranoid, about everything.
Ever buy a $20 product and a $3 protection plan? Paranoia at its best. What was the chance that the product would fail between 1 (covered under warranty) and 3 years?
Which is why we blindly attacked Iraq, for 911. Paranoia.
Which is why we spend 3X money more money on health insurance than any other country. Paranoia.
Come to think of it, the word insurance should say a lot. More paranoid you (or the country), more insurance money spent.
For a collective group who all think they are not racists sure have a guilty conscience about being called racist.
The old adage goes... when you must continuously repeat something over and over... you are what you say you ain't.
Consider... Fox Noise's incessant need to keep claiming to be Fair and Balanced... when they clearly are not!
Cap, I just looked at my Facebook page, and a wingnut high school acquaintance of mine has "Carter is a douchebag!!!! as her status.Maybe more exclamation points.
Carter was a pretty good president. He had his problems, and got elected at a pretty bad time. I voted for Carter, having had a preview of Reagan as my governor for most of my childhood, I knew what an imbecile St. Ronny was.
Unfortunately, the stoopid vote won in '80 (ask your mom & dad who they voted for).
i didn't realize msnbc had weekend programming beyond their usual tabloid crime dramatizations drivel...
Keep the messiah talking. The more he talks about HC the more the country doesn't buy what he's push'n.
Stereotype - logical oversimplification in which all the members of a class or set are considered to be definable by an easily distinguishable set of characteristics defined due to race, gender, religion, age, weight, ethnicity, socio-economic class, disability, and occupation, among the limitless groups one may be identified with.
Alan Keys is a stereotyping, but some if not all right wing nuts are racists. Either is not good regardless who you are!
Does anyone actually buy this line about criticizing the President being equated with racism? No one objects to criticism. Criticism is healthy. Months of demanding to see an African American's birth certificate for no reason other than a completely groundless suspicion that he must have been born in Kenya against a mountain of evidence to the contrary? That smacks just a wee bit of racism. Carrying pictures of the first African American US President with a photoshopped bone in his nose and the body of a shirtless "tribal-looking" African? That's racism. Saying on a national radio show that you're considering going on a lynching party against Michelle Obama? Not exactly devoid of racist overtones. Carrying a sign that says, "OBAMA = WHITE SLAVERY"? Racism. Editing a clip from the audiobook of Obama's autobiography so that it appears Obama himself authored the line, "White folk's greed runs a world in need" (when in fact Obama was quoting another man) and playing it over and over and over again on a national radio show? Race baiting if not racist.
Just answering...
And here's the rub. He didn't say that all criticism against Obama was racially motivated. He said some of it was. And he's right.
Well there are some people who will haul out their own race card and absolutely say that, there have been several on this website in recent days doing exactly that. They are essentially saying that all this criticism of Obama is race based. So the answer to your question is Yes, some do it reflexively.
However, I also think that some con pundits and talk show hosts are playing their own race card by playing victim and saying that Obama can't be criticized because they will be accused of racism.
I am in Obama's camp on this, and want no part of it from any corner.
Who? Anyone who is taken seriously in major media? Anyone with significant influence?
As for others, specifically the major media, I don't really watch much cable news or listen to people who traffic in such garbage, so I am not the one to ask. There may or may not be. Somebody else could probably answer you better.
if i remembered their screen names i'd call out the rest, because i've seen plenty of intellectual laziness here at media matters directed a people accused of being racist simply for disagreeing with the president... his apologists set this up during the election, saying if he lost it would be due to racism...
Vysotsky:Does anyone actually buy this line about criticizing the President being equated with racism?
johnrod10 : Yes. Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd do believe that the criticism the President is getting is racially motivated.
It's become necessary to include the word "all" or "every" anytime you say this, and even then, it's not always effective. Let me summarize the "conversations I've had over the past few weeks;
Right Wing Person: So, if I criticize Obama's policies, that makes me a racist ?
Me: Not at all. There is a significant amount of racism involved with a lot of Obama-haters, but there are perfectly legitimate non-race-based reasons to criticize Obama.
Right Wing Person:So you're saying that anybody who doesn't like Obama is a racist?
Me: No. Many people who don't like Obama are racist, but not all of them.
Right Wing Person: You're playing the race card and silencing my free speech by saying I'm a racist if I criticize Obama !!
Me: I didn't say that.
Right Wing Person: Yes you did !!
etc.
I think Barney Frank owes dining room tables an apology.
Vysotsky:Does anyone actually buy this line about criticizing the President being equated with racism?
johnrod10 : Yes. Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd do believe that the criticism the President is getting is racially motivated.
It's become necessary to include the word "all" or "every" anytime you say this, and even then, it's not always effective. Let me summarize the "conversations I've had over the past few weeks;
Right Wing Person: So, if I criticize Obama's policies, that makes me a racist ?
Me: Not at all. There is a significant amount of racism involved with a lot of Obama-haters, but there are perfectly legitimate non-race-based reasons to criticize Obama.
Right Wing Person:So you're saying that anybody who doesn't like Obama is a racist?
Me: No. Many people who don't like Obama are racist, but not all of them.
Right Wing Person: You're playing the race card and silencing my free speech by saying I'm a racist if I criticize Obama !!
Me: I didn't say that.
Right Wing Person: Yes you did !!
etc.
I think Barney Frank owes dining room tables an apology.
Witness white people who are disdainful of "trailer trash" folks. It's a form of self-loathing which can be a form of racism.
Alan Keyes was a crazy BEFORE President Obama was elected and he's STILL a crazy, but you can add "birther moron" to his crazy title!
This "I can't tell who's a racist UNLESS they Call President Obama a N****r," bull crap you folks are using is pathetic. Try using a little common sense!
The truth is, a lot of it is motivated by other smears such as communism, hitler, things like that. I wonder if that is what is bringing out the guns.
Is showing footage of people robbing a bank and saying they're bank robbers playing the "law and order card?"
Mr. News
And then there is Jimmy Carter. How the hell does he know that the criticisms of Obama are "overwhelmingly" racist? And considering the Obama administration wants no part of it, Carter is just trying to make headlines and inflame the situation. He was a failure as a president, and he is turning out to be not much better in "retirement".
I don't know where this is all headed, but I would hope the rhetoric is replaced with discussions on policy and issues pretty damn soon.
And he did not provide a counterexample to that statement in his post above.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/29/politics/main5195604.shtml
I think this is what has been going on from the beginning..some of the stuff by right wing radio,Fox news,the RNC and even members of Congress has been so outrageous, no fair minded person could miss the obvious racism.They did this because the President will not make race an issue even though its obvious.
It is an attack thru defensiveness.
For Joe Scarborough to say he hasn't heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh say anything racist is mind boggling..Sean Hannity says the same thing..O'Reilly defends Beck..and on it goes..Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter are geting attacked!!! Who will defend them with facts!!See how easy it was for Nancy Pelosi's factual observation that protesters were carrying Nazi signs to get spun into claims that she called good taxpaying citizens Nazis just for expressing themselves.!!!The media will not defend angry minority taxpayers as much as they do Angry,Bitter white taxpayers!!
I think of how well-behaved civil rights protesters were treated just for protesting real citizen inequalities would have been treated if they behaved like these Teabaggers/Birthers,etc..
It is clear that the 1950's/1960's America is what the TeaBaggers long for and that doesn't include a Black President or diverse country!!!!!
if you oppose health care reform..attack the plan..not the man..
i'm plenty old enough now to have seen plenty of acrimonious political discourses..but never have i seen the level of slander..lies..disrespect..and outright racism as we are suffering today..it's disgusting..un-American..and erodes the very fabric of our culture and social fabric..
That said, I see the method of their attacks as smacking of good old racism. They are appealing to the worst of the worst in order to bring down a democratically elected president.
The fact that they now are pretending to be the victim reminds me of the schoolyard bully who punches a kid and complains the other kid punched him.
That's simply false. Beck has had Democrats on his program whom he agrees with. Whenever a Democrat does something that's good for the country, Beck has acknowledged it and thanked that person. You are forming your entire opinion on Beck based on the liberal meme that he's a lying, racist, hatemonger. There's just no way you can come away with that impression when you listen to Beck on a regular basis.
Any REAL democrat is public enemy # 1 to Beck.
All he cares about is pushing a far right agenda.
Nobody's saying that except rightys.A poster here(jwcoop, I believe) put it pretty succinctly the other day (paraphrasing); The right would hate Obama if he was white, the fact that he's black just drives them off the rails.
And there's very little serious discussion of policy going on with Beck, Rush and Sean.
I'm sure if I watched the entire shows, every day, for a year, I would see some mention of substance, but to sit through hundreds of hours of propaganda, emotional outbursts, trivial partisan attacks and lies to get to it doesn't seem like a very wise use of my time.
There it is folks, the master bloviator has just gone full out racist. Calling for the return of segregation. Looks like the reich learned nothing from history...
He's clearly not saying HE wants segregated buses but that's the type of America that this government's policies are leading us to. At least in his opinion.
Har! ONly you, stark raving starkers, could claim a person's sanity is irrelevant while trying to explain his comments.
<3 you lil' wingnut !!
Sarcasm is often done by saying something that is the opposite of your actual opinion, to make it look appear.
It can also be used to frame the other side's position as ridiculous.
So is Rush, through his sarcasm, taking a bold stance, in 2009, that he's against segregation?
Is he suggesting that he has opponents who are promoting segregation?
I'm serious, stark, not just messing with you, I want you to explain this to me. I listen to Boss Hogg's show when I have a chance, and I hear these long rambling piles of nonsense that just sound like gibberish, all contradictions and non-sequitirs, then his callers call in and tell him how brilliant and truthful it was.
It's as if we're speaking a different language, and I want to understand. I think it might help me if you explain how sarcastically saying "we need segregated buses" is making a point.
What is Rush saying here?
to make it look absurd.
I should only type one thing at a time, know my limitations.
WTF??
Don't you think there should be some sort of point to a joke about a topical issue like this?
A man walks into a bar. He tells a joke, and it is funny.
Do you consider that a joke?
Because it is nonsensical. It makes no sense on any level. (Newbee)
How so, because they are Obama supporters? (starky)
OK, I'm starting to think we're having our chains yanked here. Nobody is this thick.
These jokes are not funny to anybody, and don't make sense, but that doesn't mean they're not jokes.
That is supposed to make sense, but it's considered ridiculous to think that some ACORN employees were not fooled by some skinny white nerd in a pimp costume walking into their office asking for tax advice.
Can you please explain that?
I think the distinction is in policy and typical rightwing attacks on liberals. For me, if the same could be tossed at Hillary or John Edwards and there is no clear evidence of racism, then it is not racially motivated, in my opinion. However, when this standard cannot be logically met, then all bets are off and they better damn well be able to tell me their criticism is not racist.
Randy
1. Re-regulating the markets. Is this a good or bad idea? How to do it and not stifle the free flow of capital.
2. The Stimulus. Is it working or not? Too big or too small?
3. Healthcare reform. Too expensive or a must? What should it entail? Tax the rich or not? What is the impact of doing something vs. nothing?
4. Gitmo. Keep it open or close it?
5. Afghanistan. Escalate or leave?
6. Global warming. Address it or ignore it because it's not that significant?
7. Energy policy. Green energy vs. fossil fuels.
8. Iraq. What is our mission there after the deadline to leave? Keep an eye on it or stay out its business? Should we worry that China will usurp Iraqi oil supplies through contracts or not?
And so on.
Notice that nothing on my list is aimed at Obama, the man, or blindly pretends Bush was never in power. Focus on what is happening NOW, and what is pertinent to America's future.
Randy
And if Bush were in the same situation, y'all would either ignore it or defend it. Funny how that works...
And if Bush were in the same situation, y'all would either ignore it or defend it. Funny how that works...
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...... K.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/29/politics/main5195604.shtml
Glenn Beck said that Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people or at least the white culture," and followed up with "Obama is a racist."
Glenn Beck is a racist.
The above by Ta Nehisi Coates of the atlantic mag online is about as good a summary of these sleazeballs as I have ever read.
Classy. You people have the gall to call us racists?
starky, read this, slowly and carefully;
NO
BODY
IS
SAYING
THAT
It's what you've been tricked into believing. Try to think for yourself, it feels good.
That is, quite possibly, the stupidest, most simple minded question I've ever seen in my life, and I've heard some doozies.
Please tell me you're joking. Please.
I think you may be interpreting this "overwhelming presence of racism" this way; If 100 people criticize Obama on one day, 85 of those are completely racist, and 15 are not racist, and are talking about policy.
It's not that a certain number are race-related, and a certain number are not.
It's that racism is a pervasive factor in the thinking of many people (left, right and middle, black white, other), and it has been demonstrated clearly, in the past couple of years, by many of those most enthusiastically opposed to Obama.
Criticism of Obama isn't neatly divided into two groups, racist and non-racist.There is some that has absolutely no racism involved, and some that has absolutely nothing but racism driving it.
Much more is a combination of the two.If somebody is scared of Bill Ayers, they don't care if Obama is black or white. If somebody is scared of black people, they don't care if Obama is a Christian or Muslim.
Do you understand a little better? It's not a matter of dividing up every comment about Obama into "racist" and "non-racist", it's about an overall effect of racism on the entire political atmosphere.
There are some people who will see racism everywhere, but you're going with the ridiculous generalization that a lot of the media is making.Everybody that I hear complaining that they're not allowed to criticize the president seems to spend most of their time criticizing him.Not real convincing.
The flip side of the coins is that promoting the view that you are pushing here causes people to be afraid to point out racism(which I suspect is making the conservatives pretty happy)out of fear of being accused of playing the race card.
See how easy that is?
Did you really understand the point of my last post?
What, to you, is the most outrageous example of somebody crying racism without knowing the facts re: the Gates case ?
If you can't find a good example there (You mentioned it specifically), how about another example? I just want to understand what you see as "crying racism" about something with no indication of racism.
If you can't find a good example there (You mentioned it specifically), how about another example? I just want to understand what you see as "crying racism" about something with no indication of racism.
Me:What, to you, is the most outrageous example of somebody crying racism without knowing the facts re: the Gates case ?
stark: The Gates case is a good example.
Are you just goofing around here, stark? Do you really not understand that , when I asked for an example of a false charge of racism from the gates case, I might like something more specific than THE GATES CASE???
Holy mother of Hannah. It's like talking to Ralphie Wiggum.
When you said somebody was crying racism when there was no indication of racism, I thought maybe you would come up with a quote from somebody accusing another person of racist actions, and evidence that there was clearly no racial element to the situation.
You came up with a reference to something that Gates said, and your opinion of the situation, which differs from his. I thought you had an example of a "false charge" of racism, not just another incident where a conservative is unable to see racism as long as there's not a burning cross and a hood.
I've seen plenty of those.
My definition of an example doesn't involve begging the question, stating opinion as fact, or mind reading.
Do you see what you did there? You've made an assumption, or been talked into believing something, and you're asking me to answer a question based on the premise that your assumption is true.
Easy logical pothole to fall into.
Imagine if I had asked you "Do you honestly believe a cop going into a mans home and bothering him just because he's black ISN'T racism?"
Pretty ridiculous, huh?
Fact: The party with the largest number of KKK members was the Democratic Party.
Fact: The 1964 Civil Rights Bill was passed with overwhelming Republican support.
It is funny how you excuse the Democrats for racism, and then blame Southern Republicans for it today. The realignment of the South to the Republicans had little to do with race.
Fact: Currently KKK members and skinheads are overwhelmingly Republican
Fact: The Democratic party has a much larger percentage of minority support
He is held up on this forum and defended to the bitter end. Never let that one FACT slide. It is the Democrats who have embraced the KKK and its former members.
They don't seem to be able to defend themselves, or attack the other side, without going back 25 - 200 years.
Ok, that's not entirely true. They can gin up 50s style commie and negro fears in the 21st Century by showing scary footage of ACORN and Van Jones to the bedwetters.
For instance, the Joe Wilson incident. It's unprofessional and completely disrespectful to heckle the President during an address to a joint session of Congress. So why did Joe Wilson feel that it was ok to blurt out ANYTHING? There's not a clear motive, but there's certainly an implied one.
If the act is disrespectful, then committing the act is a sign of disrespect. So, does Joe Wilson disrespect the office of President, or the man who holds the office? One would hope that he (as a United States Congressman) respects the office, so one would have to assume that it's the man that he disrespects. Why does he disrespect that man? Is it because he's a Democrat? Does Joe Wilson disresepct all Democrats? Is there anything in his history that shows he has a pattern of disrespect for Democrats? Does he behave like that towards Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House? Not that we know of.
So, if it's not the office that Joe Wilson disrespects, and it's not the political party that he disrespects, then what's left that distinguishes Barack Obama from Joe Wilson? That he was a Senator? Does Joe Wilson act like that towards other members of the Senate? That Obama is a lawyer? Does Joe Wilson act like that towards other lawyers?
There's obviously some distinguishing factor about Barack Obama that Joe Wilson disrespects, otherwise the disresepctful act would never have occured.
And this is where it's indicative of racism. This is what these people are not seeing. Joe Wilson disrespected Barack Obama, and the only reason that seems to hold water is because of the color of Obama's skin.
It's not that Joe Wilson thinks Obama lied, or that he said, or that he said it to his face. It's that he disrespected the highest elected official in this country in a setting that above most others calls for professional and respectful conduct.
Joe Wilson shouting "You lie!" isn't racist. Joe Wilson believing that it is acceptable to disrespect President of the United States simply because he's black is. And if that's not the reason that Wilson thought it was ok to be so disrespectful, then he is at fault for failing to provide his own reason.
Randy
The way that I see it is that there are people on the right that are treading the fine line of being racist without actually doing it. Like Rush played "Barak the Magic Negro" on his show and someone asking if Obama because President would it still be called the White House. On the other side, there are those on the left who like to say that everything against Obama is about race when it is not. Some of these people do make a living turning everything into a race issue.
I think that both sides need to take a step back and decide what the arguments are really about.
If their hate speech results in violence they should be tried and arrested for inciting a riot, if anyone is killed they should also be tried as accessories to murder.
Seems to me the ultimate bomb lable to throw at the President of the United States and his adminstration is that they are communist, socialists, or Marxists. And the pundits are doing that with regularity and glee. So when an understandable counter-charge comes hurtling back, they cry foul.
All name-calling and labeling should stop. It doesn't help the debate. But if you're going to be a bully, then don't cry when you get punched back in the eye.
The only reason these conservatives are crying foul is because they don't want to be outed--they know the charge is true, so they're trying to cover over the truth.
And they are clearly all afraid they'll lose advertising support. How many companies in the US today want to be identified with racism??
Yes, this pompous Brownshirt with nothing at all to say likes to fill his dead air by calling people "cockroaches."
They wonder why people call them "racists?" Let's call them Brownshirts.
I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I am not affiliated with either party because they have both abandoned the American people.
My primary concern is with the projected expansion of government and public debt through unsustainable deficit spending. You should all be concerned by it and I do not see how race is part of the equation. I was opposed to Bush's deficit spending, but today's Washington is taking it to another level altogether.
How is it that being fiscally conservative as I am equates to racism? The fact that some of you choose to play the race card leads me to believe that you have your own insecurities in regards to race and are projecting it onto those you do not agree with. Or you are in fact trying to silence people like me who are just plainly disgusted with Washington and want their voices heard.
Have any of you read the CBO report projecting the public debt over the coming decades? If those numbers don't bother you, then your head is securely buried in the sand.
Take a look at the last line of the chart on page 22. It says that the debt held by the public by 2020 will be 87% of the GDP. Coincidentally, that is the same year that federal borrowing is projected to exceed the interest expense on the debt (in other words, the borrowing will just be enough to cover the interest on the debt alone).
The debt held by the public jumps to 181% of GDP by 2035! Do you guys realize what measures will need to be taken by then to gain control over the skyrocketing deficit? Have you ever heard of the term hyperinflation? What do you think will happen to interest rates? How about tax rates?
These are the issues that make me concerned for my 3-year-old son's future. This government, both parties, is completely out of touch with the average American. The current Washington spending spree is illustrative of that point.
Take the stimulus bill debacle as an example. The Republicans railed against the outrageous earmarks in the bill but when the numbers were broken down, Republicans accounted for 40% of them! So perhaps in that case, the GOP was only 66% as bad as the Dems, but that's plenty bad enough from my standpoint.
We need Washington to realize that the liberties they are taking with your family's money, my son's money, are unacceptable. I think that is one of the points missed here by many of you, and I believe that was the point a majority of the Tea Party participants were trying to make: huge government is not a good thing. And to deny that the current rate of government spending has not seen a dramatic increase under the current administration is to deny reality.
In what nation of the world or in history has such a model been of benefit to its citizenry? It doesn't happen and the results are typically truly oppressive. Do yourself and your family a favor and escape the party-line bickering. Or do you think the wolves will spare you because you were one of the good sheep?
I too am a fiscal conservative (mostly) and a social liberal (mostly). Honestly, no one can really call me right or left because I vary issue to issue.
But on this Health Care Reform issue, I'm hearing not a single legitimate concern based on actual facts from the large majority of the opposition. Oh sure, you might here a person here or there talk about legitimate concerns... but sadly they are the fringe right now.
Cries of Socialism/Facism/Tyranny/etc... those are not legitimate policy objections.
Cries of loss of freedom are not legitimate policy objections.
Cries of Death Panels, questioning Obama's birth place (after it was proven), and signs about refreshing the Tree of Liberty are NOT legitimate policy objections.
Sorry, but anyone with legitimate concerns is in the very fringe, very small minority in the group of people opposing Health Care Reform. And if you happen to be one of the people with real, legitimate issues... it's not the Democrats or the lefties or the liberals or Obama or Pelosi or the people here that you should be upset with for having those concerns "ignored". It's the nutjobs on the right who lie and fear monger and promote the hate and the conspiracies that you should take issue with. Because it is they who are drowning out reasonable objections, it is they who are misrepresenting the entirety of the opposition.
"When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds,"
Words from former President Jimmy Carter:
Even though this is coming from a former President of the United States conservative personalities refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Here’s why:
These white conservatives are only playing dumb. They know full well that racism is behind most of the attacks on this President.
We watch day and night and night and day how these talk shows pundits and News agencies cover current events, and we see how they ignore, overlook and downplay obvious racist comments and behavior directed at this President.
This alone proves these so-called educated people are aware of the circumstances surrounding the attacks on this President.
Take for example Obama's campaign run: Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton engaged in racial politics. Hillary felt the need to point out that the "base of her coalition are white [people]" and Bill brought up Jesse Jackson’s name for no good reason than the fact Obama is black, just like Jackson.
This kind of dirty politics went on the whole time Obama campaigned. It got worse when Obama ran in the general election against Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin. It got downright nasty. At one time ALL of McCain’s ads opposing Obama were negative, negative and full of racial overtone.
McCain did not bother to offer his ideas and policies for America while campaigning against the black man; instead he just attacked the black candidate relentlessly. In fact, during the first of three debates McCain did not look at Obama. That is classic behavior from a white racist. They believe a Black man is not their equal.
These talk show and conservative liars know all about Sarah Palin’s divisive speeches at her rallies and they know about the racist signs that were on display.
Many of her supporters were yelling “hang em high”, “off with his head” and “kill the n*&^er”. At the same time Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity under the guise of free speech LIE, misrepresent and criticize EVERTHING Obama does, while ignoring the good.
It doesn’t stop there.
You have Tea Party (lynch mobs) rallies. You have people bringing guns to a Presidential town hall meeting and Republicans advocating failure for the President. This same Party says no to everything Obama proposes.
You have “Birthers” questioning Obama citizenship and “Deathers” lying about “death panels, both cults refuse to accept truth or reality; on top of that threats on the President’s life increased 400%.
I could go on and on.
The point is there is no excuse or doubt conservatives know racism is behind most attacks on President Obama. This whole denial act is a joke.
Why do they play dumb? They play dumb because they have no intentions on improving race relations. They play dumb because they agree with those who speak hate. They play dumb so hate mongers don’t go away. They play dumb so they can continue to deceive the American people. They play dumb hoping something bad befalls the President [If that happens blacks cannot fault them].
They play dumb because they have no interested in changing their wicked ways.
Think about it, if they were to acknowledge racism is behind attacks on Obama, they would be expected to speak out against this behavior.
Can you imagine seeing racist people speaking out against racism?
When protesters start putting out signs that say "Go back to Kenya" and when they try to Otherize the President, they are being RACIST. It is not something else.
And liberals are rightfully suspicious when these same protesters failed to protest the spending policies of George Bush. Where was Beck, then? Where were the 9-12 protests then? These protesters are not against spending, they are against Democrats spending. It's a convenient, tired argument used by any party that is out of power.
As for 'bickering': I'm 65 and I never before heard any president suffer such disrespect. People gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, and no one started after him till he proved so unworthy. As for the Obama = Hitler versus some cries that Bush was Hitlerian, ask this: whose grandfather fought Hitler and whose offered him financing? Who is the Aryan of pure blood, and who the 'half breed' denigrated by Nazis.
Finally, when Obama and Sotomayor were accused of racism, neither put on a big PR campaign to try to prove the accusations wrong. They knew, as did most people, these accusations were untrue.
by manofmystique
"When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds,"
Words from former President Jimmy Carter:
Even though this is coming from a former President of the United States conservative personalities refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Here’s why:
These white conservatives are only playing dumb. They know full well that racism is behind most of the attacks on this President.
We watch day and night and night and day how these talk shows pundits and News agencies cover current events, and we see how they ignore, overlook and downplay obvious racist comments and behavior directed at this President.
This alone proves these so-called educated people are aware of the circumstances surrounding the attacks on this President.
Take for example Obama's campaign run: Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton engaged in racial politics. Hillary felt the need to point out that the "base of her coalition are white [people]" and Bill brought up Jesse Jackson’s name for no good reason than the fact Obama is black, just like Jackson.
This kind of dirty politics went on the whole time Obama campaigned. It got worse when Obama ran in the general election against Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin. It got downright nasty. At one time ALL of McCain’s ads opposing Obama were negative, negative and full of racial overtone.
McCain did not bother to offer his ideas and policies for America while campaigning against the black man; instead he just attacked the black candidate relentlessly. In fact, during the first of three debates McCain did not look at Obama. That is classic behavior from a white racist. They believe a Black man is not their equal.
These talk show and conservative liars know all about Sarah Palin’s divisive speeches at her rallies and they know about the racist signs that were on display.
Many of her supporters were yelling “hang em high”, “off with his head” and “kill the n*&^er”. At the same time Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity under the guise of free speech LIE, misrepresent and criticize EVERTHING Obama does, while ignoring the good.
It doesn’t stop there.
You have Tea Party (lynch mobs) rallies. You have people bringing guns to a Presidential town hall meeting and Republicans advocating failure for the President. This same Party says no to everything Obama proposes.
You have “Birthers” questioning Obama citizenship and “Deathers” lying about “death panels, both cults refuse to accept truth or reality; on top of that threats on the President’s life increased 400%.
I could go on and on.
The point is there is no excuse or doubt conservatives know racism is behind most attacks on President Obama. This whole denial act is a joke.
Why do they play dumb? They play dumb because they have no intentions on improving race relations. They play dumb because they agree with those who speak hate. They play dumb so hate mongers don’t go away. They play dumb so they can continue to deceive the American people. They play dumb hoping something bad befalls the President [If that happens blacks cannot fault them].
They play dumb because they have no interested in changing their wicked ways.
Think about it, if they were to acknowledge racism is behind attacks on Obama, they would be expected to speak out against this behavior.
Can you imagine seeing racist people speaking out against racism?
On September 17, 2009, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, warned of possible violence if the rhetoric wasn’t toned down across the nation.
We all seem to know where the rhetoric is coming from. Fox News Network www.foxnews.com, Glenn Beck, Mark Williams www.marktalk.com/blog, Hannity, Limbaugh www.rushlimbaugh.com and O’Reilly have motivated thousands of conservatives to turn out for tea bag, birther and deather events. We are asking you, if you believe, Fox News is a major component in inciting our citizens, utilizing, their media outlet as a weapon, to derail peace.
Remember, our goal is not to infringe on anybody’s freedom of speech rights. However, the question is, whether the words used by this network, are used in such circumstances, and are of such a nature, as to put, us, all, in clear or present danger. That their words, will incite, substantive, evils against our citizens or president.
Military familes have already taken a stand when they wrote the Department Of Defense regarding supporting Fox News and the adverse effects Fox were having on their community, not only did they pull advertising, they also, blocked Fox News at military installations, as being restricted material.
http://hiteminthewallet.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/open-call-for-american-citizens-to-take-action-against-fox-news-network-mark-williams-and-rush-limbaugh/
Fact is, noone has said one thing about Obama being black, but I sure can demonstrate Obama saying nasty things about other races and mentally challenged people. He has talked about Asians, has railed against the evils of White Suburbia, he has sat in a church for over 20 years listening to a foul, hateful *cough* preacher.
You people have nothing. NOTHING but your lies and sniveling hatred. 2010 is going to be a sad year for you lot.
If you read this comment thread, almost every conservative has resorted to the strawman that "anybody who criticizes Obama is called a racist".
It's BS, and shows the desperation of the right to avoid issues and stir up the far right fringe (including racists, among other nut jobs).
Keep it up. 2010 is going to see Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and a few elderly Klansman with soiled robes and some hicks with rusty old guns strapped to their wheelchairs wandering around a cornfield somewhere.
That will be the GOP convention.
Hey, you smell that? Yep, smells like fear to me. You must be equally troubled by the stripping of funds from ACORN--looks like you'll have to find a new job soon.
But that might just be my fear talking. With the brain trust above, letting us know that nobody has ever mentioned Obama being black, using words like "milieu" very convincingly, and warning me that my job with ACORN might be gone, they've really got us on the ropes.
Smell that, Gal? It's the same old sack of shyte every one of you wingnuts is buying, and trying to sell here.
Nobody here is buying.You're the end user. Unless you can sell it to each other.
Nice try yet again at belittling the opposition with your own strawman argument, but it doesn't pass the smell test. Your techniques are classic though so bravo.
Since you can't let go of the strawman, let's return to the impetus for this whole discussion, and that would be Mr. Peanut, James Carter (looking into his history and early campaigning will give you an idea of why he has been trying to make amends ever since).
Mr. Carter's allegation started this whole debate (again), so here is the quote for you (again) since you seem to have forgotten it and think my reaction is somehow strawman territory:
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man."
Okay, then. How am I supposed to interpret this again? An "overwhelming portion." Want to put a percentage on that for me? Sorry, I guess according to your misrepresentation of the original proposition (what's that called again?), that is a "jaw-droppingly goofy" question. Just play along. What did Jimmy mean?
I guess your take is that there are varying degrees of racism involved and it can't be quantified. You said, "It's not that a certain number are race-related, and a certain number are not. It's that racism is a pervasive factor in the thinking of many people (left, right and middle, black white, other), and it has been demonstrated clearly, in the past couple of years, by many of those most enthusiastically opposed to Obama."
Now would that qualify as a strawman argument perhaps? Are you not re-interpreting what Carter said to suit your argument and not addressing the actual positions? Sounds like a strawman to me.
I think you did interpret Carter wrong, but see, that's my opinion. I think he was in fact saying that most people who disagree with Obama do so because he is black, and therefore a majority of his opposition is derived from racism. I think my interpretation of the Carter quote is a lot more in line with reality than yours where you, in a strawmanesque way, insert "many" and "pervasive factor" in place of "overwhelming portion."
So let's assume I'm right because I am. Here's that silly question again. What percentage is an "overwhelming portion" in your opinion? By your logic it would have to be pretty high since you advocate there are varying degrees of racism involved here, so some people are just a little bit racist while others are full-fledged Klansmen. That's a pretty wide swath.
Aren't you tip-toeing around what you really feel here (I guess it's hard for someone to tip-toe when they throw around terms like "teabagger terrorists")? Come on, you can say it. What conservatives are crying about is what you and Carter believe: most of the people who oppose Obama do so because they are racist. You call that a strawman. I call that a correct interpretation of what was said and foist the strawman label back upon you.
When conservatives, including fiscal conservatives like me, are offended by this notion that they are "overwhelmingly" racist, and decide to pipe up and say, "Hey, Jimmy, I'm not a racist and I have 'intensely demonstrated animosity' toward Obama based of the fact that he and his Congress are spending this country into oblivion," that is somehow a strawman argument? I have to ask, do you know what a strawman argument is?
My interpretation (correct I might add) of the original proposition here is that an "overwhelming portion" of the people who "intensely" oppose Obama are racist. How is my response not a direct attempt at refuting that absurd proposition? And what exactly did I say that misrepresents the original proposition? If you were to find that single honest bone in your body, you would yield that what you call my strawman ("anybody who criticizes Obama is a racist") is, by definition, not.
Oh, and I can identify a mop: you, since I just mopped the floor with you. Take care.
"Noone" has said one thing about Obama being black? Really? Care to place a bet on that?
that means there is absolutely no racism, anywhere.
The fringe rightys really need things spelled out very loudly before they understand.
In my case, however, I'm not too sure. I may yet turn into a racist before all this is over because I'm being confronted by reverse racism more and more and I don't like it.
Maybe this is a natural occurrence. I get a sense that a lot of blacks who might have been latent racists or who had controlled their anti-white feelings, are letting it blow. Maybe like Jimmy Crazy Carter they feel that the opposition to Obama is racist and so they react in their various ways. Most definitely we had that case with Prof. Gates. We had it a few days ago with what's-her-name, the black girl tennis player who disgraced herself on the court with her outburst. We had it overtly by Kanye West a couple of nights ago. And I had it twice yesterday in Toronto, of all places, in rude confrontations with absolute strangers who were black and who wore tree-sized chips on their shoulders. One can taste hostility in the air as never before.
I voted for Obama and I now know I made a huge mistake. By the time his one term ends, America will be a different country and it will be polarized. Qualified and deserving blacks will no longer have a chance to get elected to public office.
As for me, I never use the "N" word but I have no fear of being accused as racist and when I’m confronted by unreasonable, hostile blacks, I will use the "A" word that I use no matter what their color. It stands for what proctologists examine.