Thursday, September 17, 2009

Once Again, The Race Card

Jimmy Carter accuses President Obama's political opponents of racism.

GOP head Michael Steele, argues otherwise:
It is becoming increasingly clear that some in the Democratic Party need a serious history lesson. Slavery was racist, Jim Crow laws were racist, segregation was racist – opposing a radical political agenda is not. Americans of all races and political mindsets applauded the election of America’s first African American president; it was a proud moment for every American. But our pride in electing an African-American president does not override our right to disagree with President Obama’s policies. It is obvious certain politicians are attempting to exploit racial anger to make up for their own policy failings.
Read the whole thing.

23 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are non-racists that object to Obama's policies. However, it's BS to ignore that much of the anger against Obama is racist. The entire birther movement is about Obama being a black Kenyan. There are plenty of protesters "worried" that Muslims are taking over.
And there a whole lot of whites that fundamentally can't accept that a black man can do the job. The white supremest groups are also in the mix.

The engine was built by corporate interests that stand to lose billions if Obama reforms their industries. Racism is the fuel.

Easily 10% (more like 25%) of the country is racist. Even a million protesters represent 1/3 of 1% of the country.

September 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was it racist for what the democrats did to Clarence Thomas? If so, I never heard an out cry, from Jimmy Carter or for that matter any democrat.

September 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I hope the D's are smart enough to back away from Carter on this one - VERY stupid statement to make. I believe the President himself made the right step by countering Carter's claim yesterday - stating that the opposition was not racially driven. Not even worth explaining because the accusation is so ridiculous.

Half-wits like Diano (See the excuse/talking points piece of crapola above) need to stop defending Carter by seeking parallels and come up for a breath of air.

September 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve - At a time when this country seems to be increasingly divided,Carter's statement seemed to be just more fuel for the fire. I was pleased to see Obama distance himself from that statement. However, the reality of the situation is that there are people out there who's opposition to Obama is racially motivated. Would you agree with that?

Anon - Was what the democrats di to Clarance Thomas racist? Wasn't his accuser, Anita Hill, a black woman?

September 18, 2009 at 9:44 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fight against Clarence Thomas had nothing to do with race. He was completely unqualified for the position and held extremist views on the constitution. Bush Sr. picked Thomas because of his race in the hopes playing the race card would deflect criticism of such a weak choice.

The President's statement referred only to whether Joe Wilson's outburst was racially motivated. It didn't apply to all the protests.

September 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I love it.

Conservatives will only support a black person if he is unqualified and only to deflect charges of racism.

Liberals, on the other hand, only appoint "qualified" blacks to positions of power.

And their definition of qualified is anyone who believes in affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, statist interventions and the rest of the liberal agenda.

People like oh, Eric Holder for instance.

Get it?

September 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is that qualified blacks reject the conservative agenda. So, when the GOP needs a token black conservative, the pool is limited to the unqualified. Look at their pick of Michael Steele. Hard to imagine someone less qualified to run an organization.

Let's see what Gil considers qualified:

- turning a blind eye to institutionalized racism and bigotry

- the top 1% hoarding wealth and dodging their fair share of taxes

- police state and dictatorship tactics like renditions, torture and suspension of habeas corpus

- the rest of the conservative agenda (denying evolution, religion in the schools, shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy, repealing civil rights, deregulation of monopolies,...)


It seems that all Gil is qualified to be is a right-wing hack with a blog. A very low bar indeed.

September 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

by that theory, Gil, and reviewing the statements of our favorite anonymous poster, could we infer that he is truly the racist amongst us?

September 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way what ever happened to Anita Hill--Oh yea! I remember the democrats used her and then threw her under a bus. I think that she won, The most unbelievable witness to hit the stand award!

September 18, 2009 at 3:12 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

steve-
The logical inference is that Gil tacitly supports racism and bigotry by supporting policies that claim to be fair, but are inherently designed to suppress minorities and overlook abuses.

In the South, they get away with segregation by moving an existing "white" school that was forced to integrate. They move it to the other side of town, outside the range for school busing to the black neighborhoods, then shutdown the local public bus line along that route.

As for Anita Hill, if you recall the testimony... one of the witness was someone she had met ten year earlier for a job interview. In discussing her reasons for leaving her previous job, she had told him the story about Thomas, well before Thomas was a nominee.

If you believe that Anita Hill made up the story 10 years earlier "just in case" Thomas got nominated, then you probably are dumb enough to believe that Obama's parents faked his birth certificate back in 1961, so he could become President over 45 years later.

The revelation Thomas's actions 10 years earlier prior to the nomination proves that it was not made up after the nomination.

September 18, 2009 at 8:17 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Anon - You want a coke?

September 18, 2009 at 10:01 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Steve,

Stop tacitly supporting racism and bigotry by using that disrepectful caricature of our first African American president smoking a cigarette.

You're hateful. Stop suppressing our president!

September 18, 2009 at 10:08 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Lets move on. Forget about blacks. The new and improved prejudice is against people who would even consider communism or socialism.
Van Jones seemed to be qualified for the job that he was appointed to, but that didn't matter, because he at one time considered communism to be a viable alternative. Glenn (Tail gunner Joe) Beck had a field day with that one, claiming that he alone was responsible for the downfall of communist Van Jones. When some started to compare Beck to McCarthey, he had the audacity to say that he should not be compared to McCarthy. He should be compared to Edward R. Murrow! Is this guy on crack?

September 19, 2009 at 7:15 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

sorry, you clearly discovered that I use the Smoking Obama picture not because I found it to be hilarious but that I am a closet racist.

Anyone else waste their time reading anon-iano's subject changing one-sided example?

September 19, 2009 at 9:49 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

As you helpfully pointed out Steve, not even his own family takes him seriously.

September 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob-
No Coke. Pepsi.

Did you notice how much effort Gil is expending to defend racism? Whenever racism gets called out, Gil and the rest of the right-wing jumps in to deny by claiming that race-card is being played. To live in their world, is to believe that racism against blacks and other minorities may theoretically exist somewhere, but they can never seem to find an actual example.

Racism and white supremacy DO exist. Which party are these people going to gravitate to? The multi-cultural-ethic Democrats or the overwhelmingly white Republicans?

We've got the nation's first black President and Gil and Steve act like there isn't a single racist protesting. Get real.

There are still people that would have separate bathrooms and water fountains if they were allowed. Do you think they are sitting at home or out protesting Obama?

Gil is an enabler. He won't go out and do a lynching, but he'd probably offer up advice on where to find trees with strong limbs. He'd argue that information about trees isn't racism and offer to sell you some rope, too.

September 19, 2009 at 11:24 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

haa haa! Shoe #1 drops!

September 19, 2009 at 8:24 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

thats right chief, I'm not going to let a very small percentage represent all who oppose the bill - the race card is a pathetic excuse in this debate and no amount of your talking points can bring legitimacy to this arguement.

September 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve - Suggested reading. The Michael Smirconich column in Sundays Inquirer.
And talk about playing the race card! The comments by Beck and Limbaugh this past week were a hell of a lot more inflamatory than Carters remarks.

September 20, 2009 at 4:46 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

can't say i listed to beck or limbaugh. and when it comes to hannity, i may give him a listen only when eskin and missanelli are both in commercial breaks.

September 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve - I give you credit for that, but I assume you do watch the news. Their racially inflamatory remarks were fodder for every major news network.
Beck called the president a rascist, and Obama went as far as to say Obama wants black kids to beat up white kids on the school bus while they shout "Rigt on, right on"
You missed these stories?

September 21, 2009 at 9:58 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

the only thing I read recently (Or watched) was a youtube video of Glen Beck mis-spelling a key word while trying to tie the Obama Administration to socialist extremes - it was entertaining to see him screw up royally. Look up the blog "Warming Glow" and you find it - the blog owner hit it on the head with the animated GIF below the video.

Whether your believe me or not, I put little to no weight into talk radio, unless it's sports related. Just as I do with Network and Cable news, I find talk radio to be biased and slanted - I have yet to find anything to my liking - direct, without bias (This includes NPR). I don't really discuss Beck or Limbaugh or any of the others because I don't care about them - they're not elected representatives or executives, they don't represent me or my interests, they've never done anything to benefit my pocket, security or general welfare (Unless you want to get me on 1-800-mattres and leave the last S off for savings, a popular radio ad...). They're similar to Diano as they have their own side's talking points to heave on the masses, however, they make money from a large sponsorship base and will take extremes to get futher listeners to tune in. Just like Stern, fand and opponents will tune in just to hear what they say next. Me? I'd rather keep WRTI on in my office.

September 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve - Its not that I want to watch or listen. My mom is in a nursing home, and I have to divide alot of my time between there and my dads house. He listens to FOX 24/7, and he has it on at the nursing home too.

September 26, 2009 at 4:33 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home