…any criticism of The One is ipso facto racist. The folks at the LA Weekly and Janeane Garofalo should get a room.
[Update a few minutes later]
Well, here’s the missing noose. But it’s around the wrong neck.
The hypocritical LA Weekly people are a real piece of work.
[Via Mark Hemingway]
[9 AM update]
Where black is white, and real racism gets a pass.
Yeah, 3/4ths of white Southerners don’t think Obama was born in the U.S., but the real racism is that Sotomayor thinks that Latinas make better judges than white men.
So Jim, what does that have to do with the LA Weekly and their hypocrisy? Nothing of course. You’re just too cheap to get your own bandwidth. You should engage in your hyperbole on your own dime. How many Dems thought McCain couldn’t run because he was born in the Canal Zone? Quite a few. I guess LA Weekly, Janeane AND Jim should get a room.
I’ll be waiting to see the full polling figures you worked up to support this claim.
As soon as you wipe them off, since you obviously pulled them out of your aft.
I’m waiting for Jim to actually show how his statement is racism, other than that it’s critical of his Lord and Master.
So Jim, what does that have to do with the LA Weekly and their hypocrisy?
The birther phenomenon is a clue that much criticism of Obama is in fact based on racism. Or do you have a better explanation for the regional variation found in the polling?
How many Dems thought McCain couldn’t run because he was born in the Canal Zone?
None demanded proof that he had in fact been born in the Canal Zone, or accused him of having forged his birth certificate, perhaps having been fathered by a different man, etc.
I’ll be waiting to see the full polling figures you worked up to support this claim.
Click my name for the polling data.
This is not about racism. This about ANY criticism of Dear Leader.
Before Jan. 20 – dissent, criticism of the president (up to and including dreams of assination) was our right and patriotic duty.
After Jan. 20 – dissent, criticism = racism.
Is anyone really surprised?
None demanded proof that he had in fact been born in the Canal Zone, or accused him of having forged his birth certificate, perhaps having been fathered by a different man, etc.
Perhaps because he didn’t spend millions on lawyers in preventing it from being seen?
The birther phenomenon is a clue that much criticism of Obama is in fact based on racism.
Maybe clues aren’t really your specialty.
Yeah, 3/4ths of white Southerners don’t think Obama was born in the U.S., but the real racism is that Sotomayor thinks that Latinas make better judges than white men.
Two questions, Jim. Who was nominated for a spot on the Supreme Court? Sotomayor or your hypothetical “white Southerners”? Second, do you think there should be similar moral requirements for becoming a Supreme Court justice or becoming a white Southerner?
By these leading questions, I’m trying to point out that the Supreme Court has higher requirements for belonging to it than being a “white Southerner” does. So it is absolutely irrelevant if there really are so many white Southerners who believe Obama was born elsewhere. Racism in that group has no bearing on the matter which is whether Sotomayer has or doesn’t have racist beliefs. That latter bit is important because one of the claimed reasons for appointing Sotomayer is to provide some measure of racial balance to the Supreme Court.
But what racial balance can there be, if we’re instead nominating a racist to the court? Especially one who says they aren’t racist (getting both racism and either dishonesty or delusion)? In summary, it matters if Sotomayer is racist because she is the one being appointed to the Supreme Court. You can whine all you want, but that’s the bottom line. There’s going to be a deep focus on perceived racism in her actions and statements because it is important. Racism in your “white Southerners”? Not important.
It is times like this, when you utterly fail to understand what’s going on, that I wonder if you’re just a Republican shill.