I can't decide whether to be happy or hurt to have my opinion on racism in politics supported by the writings of Lee Atwater.
Race Issue Lingers Over Health Care Debate, With Possible Political Consequences
- Thread starter Aleenik
- Start date
I can't decide whether to be happy or hurt to have my opinion on racism in politics supported by the writings of Lee Atwater.
I think that it's noteworthy that the people who are really coming out and protesting Obama and his policies are batpoop insane. And should be identified as such. The more it can be shown that these people do not represent the mainstream of America the better.
To disagree with a liberal, Democratic President is guano insane now? So anyone who voted against Gore, Kerry, Obama, Carter, and so forth because they opposed their positions are nuts?
That's rather insulting to the loyal opposition, don't you think?
That's rather insulting to the loyal opposition, don't you think?
I think that it's noteworthy that the media quite naturally focuses on the fringy-er protestors, as they're more newsworthy and photogenic. And for the record this generally applies across the political spectrum - the anti-Bush protest coverage usually made everyone holding a sign seem like PETA-rejects and too-extreme-for-Greenpeace types, though obviously news organizations can and do adjust to fit their desired storyline in either case.
Not nearly as insulting as the effort you put into evading my point.
THESE protesters are insane. And should be pointed out as such. You seem to be missing the point that the "loyal opposition" is keeping it's mouths shut and heads down and letting the crazies do the work. I for one welcome a loyal opposition. Send me a PM when it shows up.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
So you are saying people who would normally be all about Obama's policies aren'te solely because of racism?
The Democrats will abandon this once they see the damage they are doing. There are a lot of people out there, Democrat/Republican/Liberal/Conservative, who are unhappy with things for myraid reasons and right now dozens of members of congress/the blogosphere/hundreds of TV pundits are pretty much calling all of them racisits. Thats NOT how you get support. Thats how you galvinize opposition.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Ahem...
You occilate between "some" and "all" rather liberally. I have seen these protests. Most of the signs are not offensive in the slightest and most don't even have signs. In fact most groups are rather transitory, there is a core who stays there all the time but most of the crowd are people dressed as regular joes who show up for an hour to check it out ant then leave. The media focuses on the signs they want to, which would be the signs that get ratings.
Hum, let's see. Just in the last few days or so, a poster called french civ fan has been making negative comments about black people and their issue with racism. Some examples:
That was an OP, so it wasn't a reply to anything at all.
Implying 'reverse' racism by black people because they play the race card.
He has even tried the art of subtle provocation:
"I'm not fully sure what to make of it."You gotta be more subtle next time. People can hear your thoughts
And none of these issues have any clear connection to the issue of race.
No, but I'm sure that despite all these posts that you made in a very short span of time to complain about black people, you love them very much
I was saying cries of racism would be herd, not just by blacks but whites and others also.
Why did I say that? Because that seems to be the case a lot of the time, as with criticizing Obama you may be called a racist by some, even if your not.
Again, I don't like it that your saying I don't like black people.(In other words, calling me racist.)
I'm assuming this is referring to me?
I shot myself in the foot? I don't support Glen Beck's statement of calling the president racist, and I never said I did support it.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
Of course, it isn't 'playing the race card' when Republicans do it.
The lower denominations of both parties thrive on this stuff, and there's never any shortage of demagogues willing to toss it around. At least Obama is having the grace to come down on it within his own party. Hopefully, Republican leadership will do the same.
When did I say it isn't 'playing the race card' when Republicans do it?
Rush Limbaugh isn't a politician and he isn't involved in the Republican parties leadership. I don't believe he represents the Republican party.
Rushe's statement on that matter is wrong in my opinion.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
Apologies, I didn't mean to attack you. I was just pointing out that both parties do this regularly.
Jimmy Carter hasn't been involved in the Democratic leadership for decades now. But he still represents Democrats, to an extent, because of his long association with them. This is why Obama, as the current party leader, has had to be assertive in rejecting Carter's interpretation.
Similarly, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, while not part of Republican leadership, do represent Republicans, to an extent, because of their obvious history and alliance. If Republican leadership does not wish to be seen as complicit with their opinions, then it would behoove them to reject them. I have sympathy for Republicans on this point, however. Right now, there IS no Republican politician who can go toe-to-toe with Rush in his own party.
Its fine.
And about the Republican thing, I have to agree to an extent. I don't know who is going to lead the Republican party forward. Sure Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee but I don't know how much of a role he will play in helping the Republican party move forward.
I have watched Glen Beck some, and iv listened to Rush Limbaugh some. I don't agree with everything they say though(Like the thing Rush said, for example)
I like Glen Beck overall I think, but when he makes comments like saying Obama is racist. I don't agree with that though.
amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
Carter is irrelevant.
The people at tea parties and protesting town halls aren't protesting Obama's policies. They don't seem to know what his policies are. They're protesting some bizarre fantasy of what a "socialist" (or a "fascist") would do. The fact that what they're complaining about doesn't exist puts the lie to the idea that the teabaggers are opposed to his policies.
Not that it's all about race. I think a lot of it is about being sore losers, or about believing what Glenn Beck says. But it's almost universally not based in actual policy differences.
The entire Congressional electoral success of the Republican Party through the 80s and 90s can be summed up in five words: Southern whites started voting Republican. If it wasn't for that single demographic shift, which started during the Civil Rights Era, Republicans wouldn't have had the successes they had.
And Reagan was a figure of reaction to the Civil Rights movement -- his first campaign in California was based on opposing open housing, and he started his Presidential campaign at the site of a famous lynching with a speech about "states' rights."
You're right that our current spectrum has no resemblance to that of the 1950s-60s, but that's because you have the timing wrong -- the Civil Rights Acts were passed at the end of the 1960s. Our current political spectrum is a lot like that of the 1970s, after the Southern Strategy re-aligned everything.
Cleo
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Ok...What makes you think I support this either?
There is a such thing as a person who holds a certain viewpoint(like Conservatism) views, but doesn't defend stupid stuff just because it was a statement made by a person who holds Conservative views, or supports the same political party.
And for the record, I don't support that statement made by Rush and think it is a stupid statement.
So many here have gotten caught up arguing small scale bs that the overall meanings have been ignored in favor of minutia that has little real application anywhere in reality. There are exaggerated "protest" movement against the Obama administration because of the campaigns leading to its formation and the the greater social issues that allowed him to be elected.
There ARE groups against various policies, but few if any policies have had any actual impact on anything to stir even mild opposition to any actions. Those groups legitimately protesting about the policies are made up of the ideological zealots from different parts of the spectrum, but the percentage of the population that describes is about the same as usual. There are always people opposed to whatever the leading policies of their time are. I'd give some kind of statistic here but Mark Twain explained how those are too easy to twist.
How then do you explain the exaggerated activities of these groups? Accounting for a certain word does that quite well, and THAT is why discussion revealing the racist fuel of these radical groups is appropriate. That one concept explains so much about the nature of these recent events that denying it is a fantasy.
This presents a huge image problem for the legitimate protesters and there is only so much time to fix it before it causes greater damage and reduced power and influece for all associated. If the legitimate groups do not act soon they will fail at distinguishing themselves and face being discounted along with the true trash, and that would be too great a loss. Everyone hoping to see the return of legitimate protest should be vehemently opposed to these radical elements.
There ARE groups against various policies, but few if any policies have had any actual impact on anything to stir even mild opposition to any actions. Those groups legitimately protesting about the policies are made up of the ideological zealots from different parts of the spectrum, but the percentage of the population that describes is about the same as usual. There are always people opposed to whatever the leading policies of their time are. I'd give some kind of statistic here but Mark Twain explained how those are too easy to twist.
How then do you explain the exaggerated activities of these groups? Accounting for a certain word does that quite well, and THAT is why discussion revealing the racist fuel of these radical groups is appropriate. That one concept explains so much about the nature of these recent events that denying it is a fantasy.
This presents a huge image problem for the legitimate protesters and there is only so much time to fix it before it causes greater damage and reduced power and influece for all associated. If the legitimate groups do not act soon they will fail at distinguishing themselves and face being discounted along with the true trash, and that would be too great a loss. Everyone hoping to see the return of legitimate protest should be vehemently opposed to these radical elements.
