As Obama’s political troubles multiply, the “racism” excuse begins to emerge
Michael Barone notes something I’ve been watching happen over the past few months:
As Barack Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney in the polls narrows, and his presumed fundraising advantage seems about to become a disadvantage, it’s alibi time for some of his backers.
His problem, they say, is that some voters don’t like him because he’s black. Or they don’t like his policies because they don’t like having a black president.
Barone goes on to explain what that’s such a bankrupt excuse:
There’s an obvious problem with the racism alibi. Barack Obama has run for president before, and he won. Voters in 2008 knew he was black. Most of them voted for him. He carried 28 states and won 365 electoral votes.
Nationwide, he won 53 percent of the popular vote. That may not sound like a landslide, but it’s a higher percentage than any Democratic nominee except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.
Democratic national conventions have selected nominees 45 times since 1832. In seven cases, they won more than 53 percent of the vote. In 37 cases, they won less.
That means President Obama won a larger percentage of the vote than Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and (though you probably don’t want to bring this up in conversation with him) Bill Clinton.
Those are facts. Those that didn’t vote for him or support him, for whatever reason the last time, are even more unlikely to support him this time, given his record. If race was the reason for not voting for him in 2008, you’re probably going to find 99% of those type people in this bloc of voters in 2012 as well.
So if he loses, he’s going to lose because his support eroded among those who put him over the top the last time. Some aren’t going to vote for him this time and others are going to support the opposition candidate.
Is the left really going to try to sell that as a result of “racism”?
Yes. That is a developing theme. The fear, I suppose, is that the white guilt the race war lords have tried to instill and exploit for years has been assuaged by his election and thus can no longer be exploited for his re-election.
Thus the push to reestablish the meme.
It’s all over the place. Joy Behar and Janeane Garofalo provide a typical example.
How absurd has it gotten. Well, the Congressional Black Caucus is always a good place to go to figure that out:
Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, argued that President Obama has struggled during his first term due to racially-motivated opposition from conservatives who dislike having a black president.
"This is probably the toughest presidential term in my lifetime," Rye said during CSPAN’s Q&A yesterday. "I think that a lot of what the president has experienced is because he’s black. You know, whether it’s questioning his intellect or whether or not he’s Ivy League. It’s always either he’s not educated enough or he’s too educated; or he’s too black or he’s not black enough; he’s too Christian or not Christian enough. There are all these things where he has to walk this very fine line to even be successful."
She said that "a lot" of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word "cool" in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS superPAC.
"There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses," Rye said. "And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren’t asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that’s the number one person they’d love to have a beer with. So, if that’s not cool I don’t know what is.
She added that "even ‘cool,’ the term ‘cool,’ could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance]."
“Cool” is racist? Who knew? They’re essentially making this stuff up on the fly. Racism has become, for some, the tool of choice to stifle debate and muffle free speech. Don’t like what you’re hearing? Claim it’s racist and they’ll shut up. How “cool” is that?
By the way, speaking of “blaxploitation”, what would you deem this ad?
More examples of racially charged words you never knew about? Well, consult the ever knowledgeable Ed Shultz for the latest:
On his MSNBC program last night, Schultz referred to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), someone Herman Cain would seriously consider as a running mate, as "the guy who used an old Southern, racist term when talking about defeating President Obama during the healthcare debate. Below is the offending statement:
DeMint (Audio, July 9, 2009): "If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
“Break” = racism. Of course Ed Shultz, “racism” authority, was also the guy who edited a tape by Governor Perry of Texas to make a perfectly innocent remark sound racist. He later apologized for it.
Chris Matthews is not averse to making the racism excuse, or at least, interviewing those who will:
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown if House Chairman Darrell Issa’s treatment of Attorney General Eric Holder was "ethnic." Brown agreed, and Matthews said some Republicans "talk down to the president and his friends."
Because, you know, lying to Congress and the death of two federal agents as a result of a horrendous operation has nothing at all to do with Issa’s inquiry.
Finally there is this nonsensical “correlation is causation” study that the NYT saw fit to print.
Oh, yes, the racism charge is fully loaded and ready to be used, no question about it.
Obama’s possible failure to be re-elected couldn’t be because he’s been a dismal failure as president and a huge disappointment even to those who elected him could it?
Nope, it has to be because he’s black.
Back to Garafalo and Behar for a wrap up:
“And I don’t understand why so many people are reticent to discuss race in this country. We are not a post-racial society,” she added.
“No, not yet,” Behar said. “Not in our lifetime. There‘s no country in the world that’s post-racial yet, I don’t think.”
“Until the human condition changes, we won’t be,” she added …
Actually, it won’t change until some among us quit finding racism as the primary motive behind everything that happens when there are much more plausible reasons available. The fixation on racism comes from the left and is its fall back position whenever it encounters political or electoral reverses. It is convenient.
But racism is an excuse, not a reason. This goes back to the almost religious belief on the left that it isn’t their message (or performance) that is being rejected, so it must be something else. The means of message delivery must be deficient or the race of the messenger is causing a racist public to reject it.
It couldn’t be because he has been a terrible president or that the message sucks.
Nope, it has to be racism.
~McQ
Twitter: @McQandO
The paradox here is that the careless, stupidly applied charge of racism is itself racism of a kind. With the right skin color, or surname, a terrible, awful, horrible politician can be immunized…at least to a degree and among some…from their deeds and policy.
A strange and perverse application of The White Man’s Burden. We have to carry crappy pols of minority groups without complaint, apparently, and not hold them accountable.
Bollocks on that!
We’re racists if we question Obama or Holder on anything. We’re racists if we think voters should prove their identity. We’re racists if we don’t want unlimited people walking across the border any time they feel like it.
We’re inbred Nazis if we question catastrophic climate change. We’re mean, warped misogynists if we want to get Medicare under control. We are heartless ghouls who don’t care if children die if we question anything our enlightened educators do.
We’re ignorant and uncouth if we point out the plain English meanings in the Constitution. We’re rabid, violent crazies if we buy guns to defend ourselves.
We are all of these things to the left because they are unable to admit to themselves what we really are: correct, on every single one of these issues.
Yeeeup… Plus, they really have nothing BUT demonization.
And the best part is, according to their narrative, we’re ignorant hillbilly inbred morons. They don’t mention, but we must be very powerful, influential, persuasive, ignorant hillbilly inbred morons.
Because somehow, though we’re in the minority, and we’re a fringe, and though we don’t speak for the American public, we’re causing delays, and distortions, and preventing progress, buying our way to electoral victory.
Wow, I feel positively empowered.
Now, if someone would lend me some of the money we’re buying our way to victory with, I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday.
Yeah. I’m looking for my payout from “Big Oil” and “Big whatever” but can’t seem to find the disburser.
The same way I haven’t been able to get me one of the “codebooks” with all them “codewords”.
I’ve been taking notes – “Cool”, “Basketball” are two of them, though I’m not 100% sure what they mean when they’re not describing something that is neat or that I’m “okay with”, or a sport. But that’s to be expected, I’m an ignorant inbred hillbilly moron and clearly all these words are now double entendres, which places them beyond my ken.
According to the dems, nothing new with that, the fact that we didn’t vote for him in the last election proved we were racist.
Those people who don’t vote for him again will be called racist this time around. But all those who voted for him because he is black shouldn’t be considered racist.
Obama’s possible failure to be re-elected couldn’t be because he’s been a dismal failure as president and a huge disappointment even to those who elected him could it?
Two things,
1: This is not a ‘developing’ theme. It has been around for a while.
2: The Congressional Black Caucus is hardly a group to be talking about racism as they are openly segregationist.
Don’t believe me? Check this out: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html I know it is from 2007 but I’ve not heard a word about them changing their policy. Suffice it to say, if you or I tried this then we’d be up on civil rights charges.
That link must have been too hot. “Can’t Find” it now.
It’s actually a perverse incentive not to elect black politicians, because it’s a gambit to seeks to shield said pol from accountability. If people are going to be called racist regardless (and they will) I’d guess they’d go with the guy they can replace easier.
What it means is that rapidly the charge of Racism no longer carries any weight. When you routinely call Moderates, Conservatives, Libertarians, Tea partiers, and even some Democrats racist, then it means nothing.
Pingback: As Obama’s political troubles multiply, the “racism” excuse begins to emerge | Liberal Whoppers
Yep! I oppose him because of his color – he’s Red.
Pingback: Conversationally Speaking | Daily Pundit