There are more and more stories appearing in the media with the template that we're a racist nation. This is preparing the groundwork to blame Obama's upcoming loss on the evil right-wing bigots, of both parties. And of course, poor Michelle won't be able to feel proud of America any more.
No, it won't have anything to do with the fact that he's Michael Dukakis with more melanin. It will have nothing to do with the fact that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and his running mate comes in third, that one needs a scanning tunneling microscope to measure the thickness of his resume, that he sat in the pew of an America-hating bigot for twenty years and had his children baptized by him, that he partnered with an unrepentent domestic terrorist to radicalize Chicago schoolchildren. No, it will be our fault, because we are racist, and don't deserve the blessings of having The One preside over our unworthy nation.
Anyway, here's the latest example, from US News.
[Wednesday morning update]
Jonah Goldberg has related thoughts today:
This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.
Similarly, McCain's experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.
Nope. It's got to be the racism.
I don't think so. The MSM doesn't expect Obama to lose, and, frankly, when I look at the RCP electoral college numbers -- Obama is now up +5 in Colorado! -- I'm not very hopeful myself. Furthermore, I expect this is driven from Axelrod Master Control, and he neither expects to lose nor really gives a damn what happens if he does lose.
What this is doing, I think, is firing up the legions of volunteers and workers and especially youth voters that Obama (Blessed Be His Name) needs to win. Are you going to let those racist rednecks that remind you of your NASCAR-watching gun-clingin' uncle who's always asking you when you're going to get a job tell you which President to have? No! Vote, brother! Donate money, time, blood! und so weiter.
Also a possibility is setting the groundwork for undermining a post-debate bounce for McCain. Having seen Obama (Blessed Be His Community Organ) off teleprompter, and the Rick Warren debacle, they may be expecting McCain to look better on Friday, especially since it's foreign policy day, and want to send the signal out to all the minions that the theme for rejoinders, when some married white middle-aged schoolteacher says I thought Senator McCain had some good points about Iran, I would feel safer knowing he's in the White House at 3 AM is Hey, you were just made nervous by the tall black guy, aren't you? You'd probably cross the street if you saw him on the sidewalk at 3 AM, wouldn't you? It's okay, everyone has these feelings, at first, before you get to know Him.
Good points Carl. Of course, this "getting in their face" strategy of campaigning might backfire on them. "You thought McCain was good? You must be a racist. You can only prove that you are not a racist by voting for the Chosen One." I can see that convincing a lot of people to vote for Obama, yeah, riiiight.
Hmmmmm.
1. Howard Dean lost the Democratic primary in 2004 because his supporters were so into "getting into people's faces" in Iowa. Not a popular kind of schtick.
2. Personally the whole "racism" angle is a mistake. It's going to inflame black voters and if there are riots, assuming Obama loses, then the cause will be laid right at the MSM's feet.
Wondering if BO wins you're going to concede you were wrong. Seems to me this election is going to come down to 2 groups; those who voted for John Kerry 4 years ago and are voting for McCain this year, and those who voted for Bush 4 years ago and are voting for s***head this year. Seems to me group B is going to be larger.
Wondering if BO wins you're going to concede you were wrong.
It's an interesting question, given that in this election season Transterrestrial Musings has bounced between Transterrestrial Gloating and Transterrestrial Whining.
Anyway this post follows a formula that Reagan established in the 1960s: First run roughshod over race issues, then blow accusations of racism out of proportion and act offended. Reagan set the script when he denounced the Civil Rights Act in 1966 at a state convention of black Republicans. A black Republican at the meeting responded, "It grieves me when a leading Republican candidate says the Civil Rights Act is a bad piece of legislation." Reagan shouted, "I RESENT THE IMPLICATION THAT THERE IS ANY BIGOTRY IN MY NATURE" and stormed out.
(New York Times, March 7, 1966)
Reagan was no idiot in those times. He knew that he was driving a wedge. Hopefully his tactics won't prevail this year.
Wondering if BO wins you're going to concede you were wrong.
Wrong about what?
...the fact that he's Michael Dukakis with more melanin.
If only. I'm afraid he's more left-wing than that.
"Wrong about what?"
About McCain winning the election. You seem sure that's how it's going to play out. I don't see that big of a Bradley effect here; not enough to make up for the current poll gap. Which is going to widen in the absense of a debate collapse by BO. Historically the msm has been as skilled at hanging themselves any any institution, but your (apparent) certainty is... puzzling.
Rand,
You are wrong for not relinquishing independent thought and failing to give uncritical support to the Messiah. I think Curt is suggesting you admit your mistake or face re-education camps. There, you will learn that there was a Civil Rights Act in 1966, and not one in 1964 that was fillibustered by southern Democrats lead by Robert Byrd.
Well, obviously, if Obama wins, I will have been wrong in my prediction that he would lose, and I would of course concede that I was wrong. What kind of nut wouldn't? I don't really understand the point of your question.
I don't know on what basis you think that Obama's gap is going to widen, though. I also think that current polls are too heavily weighted in favor of Democrats. Unless Obama has a lead of at least three points in swing states on the eve of the election, he'll lose.
Unless Obama has a lead of at least three points in swing states on the eve of the election, he'll lose.
I wish it were so, Rand, but I disagree. If you watch the RCP EV map over time, what you notice is two things:
(1) Almost all of the states are settling down into the same voting preferences -- and almost the same voting percentages! -- as they had in 2000 and 2004. That predicts a narrow Republican victory, except...
(2) Obama has flipped at least two key states, Iowa and Colorado, and is on the verge of one more, Virginia. I can't explain Iowa, since nothing much is happening there that I can see, but Colorado has been slowing turning blue for the past 10 years, as evidenced by the success of Democrats in statewide and local elections, and Virginia has the same trend, presumably led by all those sophisticates from NYC, DC and Philly moving into northeast VA, turning out the Old Dominion people.
(3) And, unfortunately, the trends in those keys states seem to be solidifying the Obama flip. Iowa is now no longer a toss-up in the RCP average, it's solid blue. Colorado was very close when Sarah Palin was picked, now Obama is up by 5% or more. Virginia used to be leaning McCain, but it's now razor-close.
It's true McCain has been picking up steam in national polls, but that seems to be largely a case of solidifying his support in states he was already going to win. That isn't going to help.
The only hope I see is that the state polls are wrong, that party identification has been (intentionally or otherwise) skewed toward the donks, that the probability of Obama voters (mostly young 'n' flaky) actually turning out to vote instead of getting stoned at the victory party the night before and sleeping in has been overestimated, or...something strange happens in the next few weeks, an October surprise.
Unfortunately, economic October surprises seem to work in Obama's favor. After so long in the White House, I think everyone just has it in their heads that "the Republicans have been in charge," even when facts (e.g. that Congress has been Democratic for two years) are otherwise. People instinctively feel that the Democrats are the party of idealistic teenagers, and the Republicans are the party of in-charge middle-aged men with beer bellies. (Why they might want to turn the reins over to the teenagers, those of them who aren't teenagers themselves, is a mystery to me.)
So anything that tends to suggest government has been asleep at the switch is going to hurt McCain, no matter how unfair that is. (And very little can be more unfair than suggesting McCain rather than Obama shares more blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown. Only the former has been talking about it, even trying to do something about it, when something could still be done about it. The latter just took campaign dough from the brokers, like all Democrats do, and now offers 20/20 hindsight, like all Democrats do.)
Carl, all I know is that Obama pretty consistently underperformed his polls through the primaries, and I expect that to occur on November 4th as well.
And note that he still hasn't closed the deal. He's not above fifty percent anywhere. I expect most of the undecideds to go McCain when they get into the booth.
There, you will learn that there was a Civil Rights Act in 1966, and not one in 1964 that was fillibustered by southern Democrats lead by Robert Byrd.
Leland, you're absolutely right that the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. And Reagan initially supported it. But come 1966, when he ran for governor, he told a state meeting of black Republicans that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a bad law. He then hallucinated an accusation of racism at the first mild criticism, acted deeply offended, and stormed out of the meeting.
Again, Reagan knew what he was doing. He realized by 1966 that the Democrats had left the anti-civil-rights ball lying on the field, and he ran to pick it up.
And no, Obama isn't the Messiah. What he really is, at least so far, is a relief. He is post-Bush and post-racial. The Republicans, by contrast, have just graduated from the backlash against civil rights to tokenism. They put up Alan Keyes against Obama, and now McCain's debate training partner is Michael Steele. In both cases it's "we'll match your black guy with our black guy."
I expect most of the undecideds to go McCain when they get into the booth.
From your mouth (fingers?) to the ears of God. But I'm not holding my breath. I'll be looking for bargains on the stock market for my 401(k) the second week of November -- and probably for another four years afterward, alas. Since I'm in the buying market for houses, an Obama Presidency will probably be pretty good for me.
He is post-Bush and post-racial.
Not to mention post-safety, post-prosperity, and post-liberty.
But you're right. People just get tired of being serious, of living within the constraints of human nature and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and they yearn to take a flying leap of faith that all those beautiful fairy tales -- every child can be above average, every person can count on tip-top health care for free, as a natural right, we can drive around the country for pennies using a tiny windmill on the corner of the roof -- might, just might, be true.
It's kind of like how after two years of dieting and exercise, you just long for a blow-out ice cream sundae and lying around the house watching some sappy movie where everything turns out perfect. Screw the real world. People thought much the same way in the election of 1960, with a similar result. They were sure tired of the endless grim Truman-Eisenhower Cold War, the draft that never ended, the miserable Korean War, the Airlift -- and wanted a nice fresh youthful breath of yes we can!!.
If I could count on a Republican Congress to put the fork to any serious Stalinism dreamed up by the Chicago machine that will expect President Obama to start repaying its favors, I'd be unworried. Let Obama be the American Princess Di, smile and give wonderful uplifting speeches across the globe, so long as he leaves alone the grubby machinery that makes America actually function. In truth, in such a situation, with a Republican Congress, I might even prefer Obama over McCain, who would take seriously the mandate to Do Something about all kinds of things that should really be left alone. So, for me, it's really Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Russ Feingold, and the like that doom Obama. He could be the nicest guy in the world and I wouldn't dare pull the lever that takes away the last constraint on the parasite whore showboating dumfuks that are the Democratic majority in Congress.
He realized by 1966 that the Democrats had left the anti-civil-rights ball lying on the field, and he ran to pick it up.
Your premise is based on this faulty assumption, which is easily proven false by noting that Democrats continued to elect Robert Byrd. Just recently a Democrat pollster found that 1/3 of White Democrats are racist. Reagan picked up the ball in 1968 and signed the first bill that made MLK day a holiday. So much for your assumption.
Oh, and McCain employs a black debate coach, and you cite that as evidence that McCain's a bigot? You are a nutcase.
Oh, and McCain employs a black debate coach, and you cite that as evidence that McCain's a bigot? You are a nutcase.
Gee, like that's news.
Reagan picked up the ball in 1968 and signed the first bill that made MLK day a holiday.
If you mean the national holiday that was enacted in 1983, Reagan opposed it and signed it only after it passed with a huge veto-proof majority.
McCain was against the MLK holiday before he was for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day
Michael Steele is not McCain's debate coach. He is McCain's sparring partner, playing the part of Obama. Apparently McCain thinks that Steele is a good stand-in for Obama because Steele is also black. This is an obvious bit of tokenism, but tokenism is not the same as overt racism --- as I said, the Republicans have graduated from that. It is, however, way out of touch. The Republican attitude is that black politicians are all equivalent, except for party registration.
Not coincidentally, that's also the way that the McCain campaign has played it with women. They think that Palin is their Clinton. They wanted some Republican dame and they didn't think hard about which one. Clinton, to her credit, doesn't want to be pulled into their beauty contest.
Apparently McCain thinks that Steele is a good stand-in for Obama because Steele is also black.
Um, which is kind of self-evidently correct, you know. Or don't you believe your own Democratic Party rhetoric that being black is a profoundly different experience than being white in America? If you don't believe this, what's all this crap about affirmative action, minority set-asides, or the pressing need to elect a man to be President because he's black?
No one on the Republican side doubts that being black is different, and makes for a different life experience, some of it sucky. They differ from the Democrats in how that should be addressed: the R solution is to level the field, the D solution is to tilt it the other way for a while (I think Sandra Day O'Connor said fifteen more years).
But since the Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they'll be watching McCain's debate performance -- like they have been scouring his ads -- for the least bit of conceivable jot of something that could be considered racist, or racially insensitive, or rhyming with the word "race," I dunno, it gets a little Alice in Wonderland after a while -- it makes perfect sense for McCain to have a guy there who can, to the extent being black means anything, give him the gut instinct response.
Senator, maybe you shouldn't put it like that. I can tell you, growing up black, it gets heard like this, which is maybe not what you wanted to say.
And so forth. Besides, you're projecting here. It's only the Democrats that believe in the vasty power of symbolism, who think whether or not you have a black debate coach Says Something Important As To Who You Are, as opposed to being, say, a minor practical matter.
Apparently McCain thinks that Steele is a good stand-in for Obama because Steele is also black.
Really Jim? Is that the best your mind can come up with? It couldn't be because Michael Steele is the Lt. Governor of Maryland since 2002 with more executive experience than Obama and more time in Washington than Obama? It couldn't be because Michael Steele is also the chairman of GOPAC, and therefore well aware of the issues, the GOP viewpoints and the DNC counterpoints?
But Jim... Jim sees a black person, so all Jim can think of is, "he's a token". Yet Jim seems to think others are racist. Jim also sees a woman, that despite being the Governor of her state with higher approval ratings than the President or Congress, and she too is just a token in Jim's view.
It couldn't be because Michael Steele is the Lt. Governor of Maryland since 2002 with more executive experience than Obama and more time in Washington than Obama?
That's exactly the point, Leland: Michael Steele has a different resume from Barack Obama. He has executive branch experience at the state level, and Obama doesn't; Obama has federal experience and Steele doesn't.
More to the point, Steele doesn't have at all the same style of oratory as Obama.
If you wanted to practice football with a substitute because you expect to face Limas Sweed, you wouldn't use Dennis Dixon. You could say that Dixon is "even better" than Sweed because he has "quarterback experience". That's the wrong kind of experience to prepare you. It would make more sense to ask Jordy Nelson, because he and Sweed are both wide receivers.
Or, if you were decades out of date on race issues, you could figure that playing against blacks is a separate game.
That's exactly the point, Leland: Michael Steele has a different resume from Barack Obama. He has executive branch experience at the state level, and Obama doesn't; Obama has federal experience and Steele doesn't.
That wasn't your point. If that was your point, then why did you write:
They put up Alan Keyes against Obama, and now McCain's debate training partner is Michael Steele.
or this
This is an obvious bit of tokenism
You see Michael Steele as a token. You see Alan Keyes (who previously was a bid for the Republican Presidential candidacy) as a token. Moreover, what does Michael Steele's resume or Obama's resume have to do with this sexist comment you wrote to extend your point:
They think that Palin is their Clinton. They wanted some Republican dame and they didn't think hard about which one. Clinton, to her credit, doesn't want to be pulled into their beauty contest.
Republican's don't think Palin is Clinton. There's no comparison between the two beyond their gender. The VPOTUS is not a beauty contest, and no one but you seem to think it is. Check a few other threads out where Chris Gerrib and I spar about Palin and Obama. You won't find either of us talking about who looks better or anything about their appearance.
You should be ashamed, instead you are continuing to lie about what you wrote.
> He is post-Bush and post-racial.
In what sense is Obama post-racial?
His surrogates are claiming that racism is the only reason why anyone would support McCain.
Since the only "executive experience" that he'll admit to is running this campaign, surely its reasonable to attribute his campaign to him....
You see Michael Steele as a token. You see Alan Keyes (who previously was a bid for the Republican Presidential candidacy) as a token.
Michael Steele and Alan Keyes both have their own lives and their own business to attend to and they aren't tokens at all on their own terms. But they have nothing in common with Barack Obama other than that they are black. Keyes was obviously a terrible candidate to field against Obama. There is no particular reason to believe that Steele can imitate Obama well as a debate opponent.
So when I say that Keyes and Steele are tokens, I refer to the way that the GOP is trying to use them, and not what the men are themselves. I doubt that they believe in black interchangeability, but that is the way that the GOP has treated them.
As for Obama, he is post-racial in the sense that he is just as much a white man as he is a black man. I'll concede that it would be an overstatement to say that everything around Obama is post-racial. Obviously black voting patterns in this election are highly racial, and so are white voting patterns at least in the South. I'll even concede that his campaign has dipped in the racial waters at times. But Obama himself has never made belligerent statements about a "high-tech lynching" or anything of the sort. He really would like to live in a post-racial world, as he explained in a major speech on that topic.
Palin, by contrast, said directly in her RNC acceptance speech that she carries the torch for Ferraro and Clinton. Now, Palin might well want to live in a post-sexist world, but it is clearly not the way that the GOP put her forward this year. It's not just that some Time magazine article discusses a sexism factor. No, the campaign directly pounces on criticism of Palin as sexism.
Okay, as I've been thinking about this, there was one counterexample back in June. That one time, Obama had his quip, "And did I mention that he's black?" So okay, Obama has had moments where he defined himself as black. But there has been much less aggressive identity politics from Obama and from his campaign than from Palin.
> As for Obama, he is post-racial in the sense that he is just as much a white man as he is a black man.
How about a meaningful example of either of these things?
While you're at it, how about Native American, Mexican, Indian (as in India), Irish, English, Chinese, Japanese, and whatever else you have.
And, just for giggles, provide a "not racist" reason for voting for McCain or one of the other candidates. (Assuming, of course, that you don't think that racism is the only reason that someone wouldn't vote for Obama.)
And, just for giggles, provide a "not racist" reason for voting for McCain or one of the other candidates.
A reason to vote for McCain-Palin? If you think that abortion is murder, they're the only reasonable choice.
Also if you think that Iraq should continue to dominate our foreign policy, McCain-Palin is the only reasonable choice.
Also if you think that unearned income is more noble than earned income, you would have to favor McCain-Palin over Obama-Biden.
A reason to vote for Bob Barr? He's far more libertarian than either of the major candidates.
Now we're just waiting for examples of how someone can be a "white man", a "black man", and so on.
BTW - Is Obama the only one who can be multiple? If not, who are some others? (How about ex-President Clinton?)