Free Markets, Free People

Race

How is Romney different from Obama?

Well, frankly, I’m not particularly sure.  Of course we have RomneyCare and ObamaCare.  And we have this, said in Chandler, Arizona by MItt Romney concerning taxes:

"I am going to lower rates across the board for all Americans by 20%. And in order to limit any impact on the deficit, because I do not want to add to the deficit, and also in order to make sure we continue to have progressivity as we’ve had in the past in our code, I’m going to limit the deductions and exemptions particularly for high income folks. And by the way, I want to make sure you understand that, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions will continue. But for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more."

Really?  Because that’s right out of the Occupy Wall Street playbook.  His campaign staff released a press release which stated, “"The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy,"

Of course they don’t believe that at all or they wouldn’t be talking about “the top 1%” paying more.  It has nothing to do with “fairness” as most people would define it. 

This is what I talk about when I say that Republicans are as much a problem, if not more of a problem, than Democrats.  Republicans like Romney compromise their principles for votes.  This is a class warfare buy-in by him, even using the OWS/Democratic rhetoric.

 

 

If you wonder why Conservative Republican voters are less than enthusiastic about this field, Romney demonstrates it yet again.

Plastic, fantastic Mitt co-opt’s the left’s class warfare rhetoric and caves on taxes.

Nice.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

NAACP petitions UN over alleged voter suppression in US

I’ve often wondered how important the integrity of the vote is to some politicians and groups.   Oh, they’ll argue that it is supremely important, but then when attempts are made to assure it, will fight the attempts tooth and nail.

The nation’s largest civil rights organization, as it likes to call itself, has petitioned the UN over what the UK’s Guardian describes as “a concerted effort to disenfranchise black and Latino voters ahead of next year’s presidential election.”

Let’s examine this “concerted effort” according to the NAACP.  First the setup:

Fourteen states have passed a total of 25 measures that will unfairly restrict the right to vote, among black and Hispanic voters in particular.

The new measures are focused – not coincidentally, the association insists – in states with the fastest growing black populations (Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina) and Latino populations (South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee). The NAACP sees this as a cynical backlash to a surge in ethnic minority voting evident in 2008.

Actually they’re again trying to brand the South as “racist” by implication, but that’s another story. The particulars:

First of all, the registration of new voters is being impeded in several states by moves to block voter registration drives that have historically proved to be an important way of bringing black and Hispanic people to the poll.

No real specifics as to what that means.  Perhaps it means that voter registrations have to actually be verified with some form of identification.  Makes sense so dead people and illegals can’t vote.  They too have been historical constituencies of the Democrats,  right?  So this may simply be valid attempts to ensure the integrity of the voting system.

Four states – Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia – continue to withhold the vote from anyone convicted of a criminal offence. In Florida, offenders who have completed their sentences have to wait at least five years before they can even apply to restore their right to register to vote.

Across the US, more than 5 million Americans are denied the right to vote on grounds that they were convicted of a felony, 4 million of whom have fully completed their sentence and almost half of whom are black or Hispanic.

Losing your right to vote by being convicted of a felony has been something that has been in existence for quite some time.   It is hard to see that as primarily focused on “blacks and Hispanics”.  It is focused on criminals.  It shouldn’t have to be said, but no one makes blacks and Hispanics commit criminal offenses.

While it is certainly debatable as to whether or not criminals should retain or recover their right to vote, the premise that this is being done to disenfranchise minority voters seems to be nonsense.

Other measures have reduced the ease of early voting, a convenience that is disproportionately heavily used by African-Americans. Even more importantly, 34 states have introduced a requirement that voters carry photo ID cards on the day of the election itself.

Studies have showed that the proportion of voters who do not have access to valid photo ID cards is much higher among older African-Americans because they were not given birth certificates in the days of segregation. Students and young voters also often lack identification and are thus in danger of being stripped of their right to vote.

I stood in line at the grocery store yesterday as an elderly black woman wrote a check for her groceries.  The cashier asked to see a photo ID.  She quickly produced it.  This happens daily on a routine basis.  Anyone who doesn’t have a photo ID also doesn’t have a checking account which most people would find hard to believe.   We are routinely asked while engaged in commerce for photo IDs.  To cash a check, to buy alcohol (at a store, bar or restaurant), etc.  Additionally, most states provide free state photo IDs to those who don’t drive.

So this argument that it is unreasonable to ask for such an ID when the entire population obviously doesn’t think it is unreasonable for such requests by businesses and other government entities to ask for them is also nonsense.

Note also the complaint about “early voting”.  It hasn’t been ended, nor has anyone been barred from using it.  It just isn’t available for the long periods it once was previously.  That may be driven by budget constraints.   The complaint seems baseless and more of a complaint about convenience than disenfranchisement. 

Finally:

In Texas, a law has been passed that prevents students from voting on the basis of their college ID cards, while allowing anyone to cast their ballot if they can show a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

Can anyone spot the obvious problem here?  College ID cards are issued by schools who make no effort to determine citizenship or eligibility to vote.  Concealed carry permits are issued by the state after such a determination has been made.  The law makes perfect sense.

Examination of the particulars then raise questions about the efficacy of the charges. It also makes you wonder why they’re even being brought.  But without such a campaign, the NAACP really doesn’t have much of a reason for its existence does it?  A bit like NATO needing a war to justify its continued existence. 

Benjamin Jealous, the NAACP’s president, said the moves amounted to "a massive attempt at state-sponsored voter suppression." He added that the association will be urging the UN "to look at what is a co-ordinated campaign to disenfranchise persons of colour."

Remember that point when you read hyperbole such as this from Benjamin Jealous.  It is a publicity stunt.  A means of trying to justify the association’s continued existence.  But it is certainly not a campaign focused on the integrity of the voting system.  If it were, the NAACP, instead of fighting everything, would be assisting persons of color to comply with the laws … something pretty easy to do in this day and time.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

NYT: Dealing with reality by calling the result racist

Perhaps not openly, but certainly more than just by implication.

Here’s the problem as stated in the lede of the NY Times editorial:

Buried in the relatively positive numbers contained in the November jobs report was some very bad news for those who work in the public sector. There were 20,000 government workers laid off last month, by far the largest drop for any sector of the economy, mostly from states, counties and cities.

Oh, my.  So, it would seem that city, county and state governments are finally dealing with the reality of their fiscal condition and, unfortunately, doing what must be done to meet the new reality of limited budgets, right?  It’s about time.  Many of us pointed out that the “stimulus” only put off reality, it didn’t supplant it.   At sometime in the near future (like now) those government entities were going to have to deal with the reality of decreased tax revenues and shrunken budgets.

Well, not according to the NY Times which manages to stretch this into something completely different.  You see, it is a grand plan being pushed by the racist GOP in case you were wondering:

That’s one reason the black unemployment rate went up last month, to 15.5 percent from 15.1. The effect is severe, destabilizing black neighborhoods and making it harder for young people to replicate their parents’ climb up the economic ladder. “The reliance on these jobs has provided African-Americans a path upward,” said Robert Zieger, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Florida. “But it is also a vulnerability.”

Many Republicans, however, don’t regard government jobs as actual jobs, and are eager to see them disappear. Republican governors around the Midwest have aggressively tried to break the power of public unions while slashing their work forces, and Congressional Republicans have proposed paying for a payroll tax cut by reducing federal employment rolls by 10 percent through attrition. That’s 200,000 jobs, many of which would be filled by blacks and Hispanics and others who tend to vote Democratic, and thus are considered politically superfluous.

Wow … in a world of groundless claims, that’s perhaps one of the most groundless I’ve seen.  The case isn’t even cleverly built.  I mean how do you like the claim “many Republicans … don’t regard government jobs as actual jobs”.  Really?  Since when?  As I understand “many Republicans” they support a small and limited government but see this one as an outsized behemoth.  I agree with them.  What they talk about is cutting the size of government. And the intrusiveness of government. That necessarily means cutting jobs.  But they don’t support cutting the size of government because it will make those that are “considered politically superfluous” unemployed.  That’s just race baiting nonsense. They support it because that’s the conservative ideology based in a foundational concept of this nation.

By the way, unlike the NY Times, most people don’t consider the government to be a “jobs program”. Government is a necessary evil not a method of “getting ahead”.  It is there to serve, not provide “a path upward” (although there is nothing wrong with those who’ve been given the opportunity to take advantage of it).  It is there to be just as big as it needs to be and not one bit bigger.  But who or what color those who work in government are is irrelevant … even to the GOP.

Finally, what you most likely won’t hear is the NY Times whining about are any cuts in defense which will see troop strength radically reduced.  Those are good government job cuts too.  And many blacks and Hispanics have chosen that field as “a path upward” too.  But those are jobs they’re fine with being cut.  After all, if they cut more of those they can probably fund the 230,000 new bureaucrats wanted by the EPA to enforce it’s regulations.

How lame is the “racist” argument today?  Well, here’s your latest example.  I’m sure your no more surprised at the source than I am.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Irony: Racism is alive and well on the left

As Herman Cain rises in the polls, the race warlords and their enablers are dusting off their tired old arguments and attacking the black man who has had the temerity to wander off the plantation and dares to buck the conventional wisdom.

First up was Harry Belafonte, ripping into Cain as a “bad apple” and claimed he has no authority to talk about “the pride of people of color.”   No one is sure what gives Belafonte such “authority” but he certainly had no problem exercising it on “The View” in answer to questions by enabler Joy Behar.

Behar opened the floor to the topic on her program tonight, noting Cain’s comments and asking for a response. “It’s very hard to comment on someone who is so denied intelligence,” Belafonte replied, “someone who has denied such a view of history.” Adding that Cain only believed that because “he happened to have good fortune, a moment when he broke through– the moment someone blinked,” he insisted statistics on the number of black people in the American prison system and the exorbitant unemployment rate in the black community clearly disproved Cain’s point.

The comment by Cain to which Belafonte was replying  was that racism isn’t  “hold[ing] anybody back in a big way today.”  Cain just doesn’t see racism as a significant problem for blacks this day. 

Notice the premise of Belafonte’s attack.  Someone “blinked”.  He means, of course, some whites obviously screwed up and let a black man slip through a crack and succeed.  The obvious implication is that such a thing is a) unusual and b) a mistake.   Belafonte also implies that Cain’s success is a matter of “good fortune” and not talent, drive, hard work or an entrepreneurial spirit.

He simply lucked out and was in the right place at the right time when the racist white power structure screwed up and let the black guy succeed.

Of course, one has to understand what a significant threat Herman Cain’s success and popularity are to those who’ve made a business and significant living in the racial hatred field.  If Herman Cain is right, they’re out of business.  

So how does one maintain the myth that racism is a significant problem today for people of color?  And what must those who’ve built a very nice lifestyle doing so do when that myth is attacked and threatens that lifestyle?

Attack the miscreant that is voicing this heresy and destroy his credibility, of course.   The politics of personal destruction, something at which the left is quite accomplished.   Herman Cain is the new Clarence Thomas.

Appearing Monday on "CNN Newsroom," PBS host Tavis Smiley and Princeton University Professor Dr. Cornell West –the brain trust for the 18-city "Poverty Tour" that aims to highlight the plight of poor people– begged to differ.

"There are disparities in this country in every [socioeconomic] factor that we follow.  In every aspect of our human endeavors in this country there is a racial disparity element that’s a part of it. It’s almost silly to respond to [Cain] because the evidence is so overwhelming," Smiley said in the interview with CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux.

"There’s disparity in healthcare. There’s disparity economically."

West, taking a sharper route, also challenged Cain’s understanding of the economic issues that affect black Americans, saying, "Black people have been working hard for decades. I think [Cain] needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe and acknowledge the evidence is overwhelming."

Overwhelming in what way?  If a true disparity exists, is it a result of racism or could it have its roots in another area?  The lazy answer is “racism”.  It’s the easy way out.  It is the route that doesn’t demand internal self-examination and self-criticism.  It is the blame-shifting way which results in the maintenance of the threatened lifestyle. 

Black “leaders” continue to blame the problems in the black community on whites and continue to stay in the racism business while nothing changes in the black community.

How shallow is the argument?   Well, look at Tavis Smiley’s “proof” of racism today:

Smiley referenced this political shift, saying that Cain’s comments about the insignificance of racism can be attributed, in part, to how these views will resonate with Republican voters.

"Herman Cain is trying to get the GOP nomination," Smiley said. "When you’re running for the nomination of a Republican Party…these are the kind of statements that you make that play to your base. It’s politics."

Smiley continued, saying that President Barack Obama’s rendezvous with racism should be noted.

"There’s no comparison in history for any president that’s had a budget the size of the Secret Service budget now just to protect Barack Obama and we’re talking about whether or not [Cain] has a point about racism in America?"

That’s the proof – the Secret Service has a bigger budget now than in the past, Obama is a black man, therefore the budget increase must be proof that racists are trying to harm a black man who happens to be president.

Really?   Note the underpants gnome approach to that conclusion by a supposed educator.  Logic free, correlation is causation.

This is what the race baiters are reduced too right now.  Illogic and irrationality.  Anything necessary to keep the genie in the bottle. These sorts of attacks and the type of attack Lawrence O’Donnell launched on Herman Cain in an interview are what you will see in the coming weeks if Cain continues to rise in the polls.

Barack Obama is acceptable to the race warlords because they can spin him as a black man who succeeded on their terms.  Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a threat to every premise and myth they hope keep alive.  

Herman Cain is a threat to the race warlords because he is ready to put the “racism” claim to death.  He’s the proven exception to the race warlord’s cherished premises.  Smart people know Cain’s success can’t be relegated to “good fortune” and white racists letting down their guard.   Cain is everything the racebaiters say is impossible for a black man in America to accomplish.  And, of course, he doesn’t toe the line they have drawn to keep the race war alive and profitable.

Herman Cain has to go and you can count on the usual suspects to do everything in their power to discredit and destroy the man.  Instead of taking pride in the success of a man of color, the Belafonte’s, Smiley’s and Sharpton’s of this world want him gone.

Irony.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

What? No stories about the “all white” Occupy Wall Street crowd?

Well there is one, and I’m going to cite it, but it is interesting, I think, that only one has appeared given the constant “lily white” portrait of Tea Party events.

Though a few representatives of minority groups have appeared among the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters in New York City, photos and videos of the left-wing mini-throngs indicate they suffer from a serious lack of diversity. And the protesters themselves told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that they are conscious of the issue, if not the inconsistency it demonstrates.

A 40-photo Washington Post slideshow showing hundreds of angry protesters in New York and other cities includes no more than 15 clearly identifiable minority protesters, and just six African-Americans. The rest of the protesters shown are white, and most are male.

And yet they’re trying to portray themselves as the 99%.

I’m sorry, I find the whole thing hilarious.  Hoist on their own petard, the spokespeople are clueless about how to spin this:

“That’s an interesting question, and it comes up often,” OccupyWallSt.org’s Patrick Bruner said in an email to TheDC. “Unfortunately, we have a very high turnover rate, and nobody as of yet has come up with official diversity related statistics for us. From observation, I can tell you that we’re not all white, and that we also have a huge LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender] population.”

“We’re working on reaching out to minority groups as well,” Bruner adds. “Thanks for the food for thought, I’m sorry I don’t have more exact information for you right now.”

They are a caricature of what they consistently accuse the right of being and then condemn.

Irony – I love it.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

What would we do without the experts — teachers told to avoid white paper because it may cause racism

No, honestly.  That’s according to a story in the UK’s Telegraph.  Additionally, witches should be dressed in pink, fairies should be in darker pastels and when a teacher is asked their favorite color, they should answer “black” or “brown”.

All of this from experts who are “early years consultants”.  The premise of course is changing all these colors changes the perception of everything among a bunch of kids who haven’t yet digested that the kid next to them is a different color:

Instead, teachers should censor the toy box and replace the pointy black hat with a pink one, while dressing fairies, generally resplendent in pale pastels, in darker shades.

Another staple of the classroom – white paper – has also been questioned by Anne O’Connor, an early years consultant who advises local authorities on equality and diversity.

Children should be provided with paper other than white to drawn on and paints and crayons should come in "the full range of flesh tones", reflecting the diversity of the human race, according to the former teacher.

Finally, staff should be prepared to be economical with the truth when asked by pupils what their favourite colour is and, in the interests of good race relations, answer "black" or "brown".

Yes friends, white paper is racist because it doesn’t reflect the diversity of color out there, or something.

And yes, witches, soften them up with pink pointy hats I guess.  Otherwise you’re likely to get … witchism?  Can’t wait to see if this takes hold by Halloween. 

If not, I suppose I ought to lecture the parents about the fact that they’re engaged in turning their little witches into racists.  Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Oh and before you start thinking “those stupid Brits”, pause and reflect:

The advice is based on an “anti-bias” approach to education which developed in the United States as part of multiculturalism.

It challenges prejudices such as racism, sexism and ageism through the whole curriculum and teaches children about tolerance and respect and to critically analyse what they are taught and think.

Right.  And what they’re taught to think is things like affirmative action is the cat’s meow.  I have to laugh when I see claims such as this – they’re not  taught to “critically analyze” what they’re taught, they’re taught what to think and regurgitate on command.  They’re propagandized and introduced to group think.

"This is an incredibly complex subject that can easily become simplified and inaccurately portrayed," she said.

"There is a tendency in education to say ‘here are normal people and here are different people and we have to be kind to those different people’, whether it’s race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or faith.

"People who are feeling defensive can say ‘well there’s nothing wrong with white paper’, but in reality there could be if you don’t see yourself reflected in the things around you. “As an early years teacher, the minute you start thinking, ‘well actually, if I give everyone green paper, what happens’, you have a teaching potential.

“People might criticise this as political correctness gone mad. But it is because of political correctness we have moved on enormously. If you think that we now take it for granted that our buildings and public highways are adapted so people in wheelchairs and with pushchairs can move around. Years ago if you were in a wheelchair, then tough luck. We have completely moved and we wouldn’t have done that without the equality movement.”

Actually it isn’t an “incredibly complex subject, but “experts” don’t get paid consulting fees unless they at least try to make it one.  And I at least appreciate the fact that it is acknowledged as political correctness.

Take a look at that load of pap above and then consider this:

Margaret Morrissey, a spokeswoman for the Parents Outloud campaigning group disagrees. She said: “I’m sure these early years experts know their field but they seem to be obsessed about colour and determined to make everyone else obsessed about it too.

“Not allowing toy witches to wear black seems to me nonsense and in the same vein as those people who have a problem with ‘Bar Bar Black Sheep’ or ‘The Three Little Pigs’.

Children just see a sheep in a field, whether it be black, grey, white or beige. I have worked with children for 41 years and I don’t believe I have ever met a two year old who was in any way racist or prejudice.”

But:

However, recent research by Professor Lord Winston provides evidence that children as young as four can hold racist views. In an experiment carried out for the BBC’s Child of our Time series, children were presented with a series of images of faces of men, women, boys or girls. Only one of the faces in each sequence was white.

Children were asked to pick out the face of the person they wanted as their friend and the person they thought would be most likely to get in to trouble.

Almost all white children in the survey associated positive qualities exclusively with photographs of white children or adults. More than half of the black children made the same associations.

In contrast, people with darker faces were viewed as troublemakers.

Of course we have no idea of the experiences the children in question have had or what they’re home life teaches them.  We just conclude that they associate dark with bad for no other reason than they’re inherently prejudiced.   And apparently they assume they can change that by changing the color of their paper and claiming, whether true or not, that favorite colors are “black” and “brown”.

It is, again, the state via the school system, attempting to dictate a certain type of behavior or belief.  This is the same sort of model that is used with the environment – where children are taught (or propagandized if you prefer) that much of what supports their standard of living is bad and harmful to the environment. 

By the way, critical analysis requires what?  That both sides of an argument be presented factually and objectively, right?  Clearly in the case above and the environmental example (at least based on what I’ve seen), that’s not the case.  And calling it that is simply the usual redefinition of a word or concept that is so prevalent (and insidious) these days .

So put up your white paper, you racists.  Don’t you know that your insistence on using it is just racism?  Readability – phaa.  Your clients will welcome your new orange stationary, I promise.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Are white liberals getting ready to engage in “electoral racism”?

That’s the theory that is being put forward by the Nation’s  Melissa Harris-Perry

It’s an interesting argument for its ignorance.  I’m sorry, that’s not very kind, but frankly it’s true.   Harris-Perry gives a few paragraphs at the beginning of her piece to explaining this “most insidious” of forms of racism – electoral racism.  You see, it shows up, apparently, when voters refuse to vote for someone just because of his or her skin color.  And she goes to the trouble of talking about Barack Obama’s last two elections and what is called “roll off”:

One way to determine how many people felt this way is to measure the “roll-off.” In presidential election years, a small percentage vote for the president, but then “roll off” by not casting ballots for state and local offices. A substantial increase in roll-off—larger than usual numbers of voters who picked John Kerry or George Bush but declined to choose between Obama and Keyes—would have been a measure of the unwillingness of some to vote for any black candidate. I tested this in 2004 and found no increase, statistical or substantive, in roll-off in Illinois. Faced with two black candidates, white voters were willing to choose one of them.

The 2008 general election was another referendum on old-fashioned electoral racism—this time among Democratic voters. The long primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama had the important effect of registering hundreds of thousands of Democrats. By October 2008, it was clear that Obama could lose the general election only if a substantial portion of registered Democrats in key states failed to turn out or chose to cross party lines. For Democrats to abandon their nominee after eight years of Bush could be interpreted only as an act of electoral racism.

Not only did white Democratic voters prove willing to support a black candidate; they overperformed in their repudiation of naked electoral racism, electing Obama with a higher percentage of white votes than either Kerry or Gore earned. No amount of birther backlash can diminish the importance of these two election results. We have not landed on the shores of postracial utopia, but we have solid empirical evidence of a profound and important shift in America’s electoral politics.

Got that?   In both of the elections, no “roll off” was detected.  So it is usually safe to say that if none happened in the elections, racism was probably not a factor, given her theory.

But … and you knew there had to be a “but”, now Harris-Perry is very concerned that there will be a form of roll off in the 2012 presidential election.   And if Barack Obama doesn’t get his due in votes, it is most likely the fact that white liberals have abandoned him that will be the reason.

No, seriously.

The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.

Really … that’s the reason?  A “tendency” of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts?  Well there’s news.   It’s also news that he, Obama, is “just as competent as his white predecessors”.  Yeah, Jimmy Carter – maybe.

This is the the old tried and true race baiter’s tactic of whipping the base into line by throwing out the race card.   Pure and simple, she’s trying to use race as the basis of scaring white liberals, who would rather be called child molesters than racists, back into supporting a black president.

Harris-Perry attempts to use Bill Clinton in her comparison/justification of her claim (hey, wasn’t he the first black president?) saying that Clinton was much less impressive in his achievements yet managed to see his support increase in the days before he was re-elected:

In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.

But:

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

Anyone, is Barack Obama’s tenure in office “at the least, comparable to that of President Clinton?”  Well he is beginning to catch up in the scandal department.  But no one really ever considered Clinton a “failed” president.  Flawed, certainly.  But the word “failed” is what is beginning to be whispered about Barack Obama, even in liberal circles. 

I was one of Bill Clinton’s harshest critics and frankly I see no comparison between the two.  Clinton, despite all of his vices and problems was at least a competent leader.   Obama has never once shown comparable leadership skills.  And Clinton was a vastly better politician than is Barack Obama.

Instead of racism, could it just be something as simple as all Americans, including white Americans, are disappointed in his performance and are much more likely to compare his performance to Carter’s rather than Clinton’s?   Does it really have more to do with the economy, horribly high unemployment and the failure of this president to do anything meaningful to change that (see Carter)?   Clinton had the good fortune of having an up economy in his second run and he was credited with that.  Where Harris-Perry would find racism, most Americans see economic misery and the ineffectiveness of the man in the Oval Office to do anything about it.

Whether you believe that the president can significantly effect the economic tides, the president is the one who gets credit or blame depending on the condition of the economy (and they have no problem claiming credit on the positive side, do they?).  Oh, and don’t forget, Obama promised that if he was given his stimulus package he actually would change the economic tides and hold unemployment under 8%.  Three years later, we remain in an economic morass, and the man is trying to get another chance to finally do something? 

Is it really racism to drop your support for some politician who promises the moon and then delivers nothing?  That’s Obama’s problem, not his race.   I remember very well when the meme or talking point for Democratic politicians as applied to George W. Bush was “incompetent”.   Barack Obama, in the minds of a number of voters, has redefined the word.   Is it really racism to drop your support for an incompetent black politician, or is it a rational decision based on performance or lack thereof.

The key to Harris-Perry’s claim is her unsupported conjecture that Obama has been at least as competent as Bill Clinton, and if you disagree with that assessment (and aren’t going to support Obama this time) you’re a racist.

Same old song, different verse, and just as tired.  This time, though, it’s being deployed to keep white liberals in line.  A nice little twist.

In fact, the most insidious and subtle form of racism is claiming it exists in the face of any number of factors that weigh very heavily against such a presumption.  And that’s precisely what Harris-Perry engages in here.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Democrat turns up the “civility” with vile and racist characterization of Tea Party

It is incredibly frustrating to watch adults act and talk like this idiot and learn they’re in Congress:

Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana who serves as the CBC’s chief vote counter, said at a CBC event in Miami that some in Congress would “love to see us as second-class citizens” and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree.”

Not only is that vile; not only is it racist to its core; not only does it make a claim based on nothing but that fool’s prejudices, but it is overtly hostile to any sort of climate for rational debate.

It is the very definition of irrationality.  But it seems to have become the hallmark of some of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. 

When questioned, here’s the staff’s answer to their Congressman’s bit of race hate:

The explosive comments, caught on tape, were uploaded on the Internet Tuesday, and Carson’s office stood by the remarks. Jason Tomcsi, Carson’s spokesman, said the comment was “in response to frustration voiced by many in Miami and in his home district in Indianapolis regarding Congress’s inability to bolster the economy.” Tomcsi, in an email, wrote that “the congressman used strong language because the Tea Party agenda jeopardizes our most vulnerable and leaves them without the ability to improve their economic standing.

“The Tea Party is protecting its millionaire and oil company friends while gutting critical services that they know protect the livelihood of African-Americans, as well as Latinos and other disadvantaged minorities,” Tomcsi wrote. “We are talking about child nutrition, job creation, job training, housing assistance, and Head Start, and that is just the beginning. A child without basic nutrition, secure housing, and quality education has no real chance at a meaningful and productive life.”

Bullspit.  What the Congressman was doing was stirring up race hate and trying to use it as a weapon to thwart a political opponent’s agenda.  Obviously unable to confidently and competently argue his side, he’s reduced to summoning up the ghost of Jim Crow and lynching’s.

People like Andre Carson have no place representing anyone in Congress.  He’s certainly not a statesman, and in fact, he’s simply another in a long line of race baiters that use the fact that a district is predominantly black to get themselves elected and then, with a national platform, spread their hate.   It is time that voters demanded more from their elected representatives.  Race baiting is no more acceptable from a black representative of the people than it is from a white one.   And those who continue to display this sort of behavior need to be shown the exit by their constituents.  Atlanta did it by booting Cynthia McKinney who hailed from a predominantly black district and engaged in the same sort of behavior.  It’s time Indianapolis made a statement too.

This sort of behavior and talk is no longer acceptable from anyone.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Who is the “racist” here?

I don’t fling the “R” word around much, because it is a pretty loaded word.  But every now and then you come across something that just requires its use.

One of the things I’ve noticed about many “progressives” is their smug belief that they’re untainted by racism while most of those on the right are completely eaten up with it.  So what they tend to do is try to validate that belief with outlandish and absurd scenarios that they obviously believe because they actually put them out publicly with a straight face.

For example, take Janeane Garofalo’s recent rambling thoughts on why GOP presidential nominee Herman Cain is in the race.   It has nothing to do with his political desires or issues he’d like to effect.  It has nothing to do with his life’s experiences and how they’ve shaped his political beliefs.

Nope, it has to do with his race and a conspiracy by Republicans to appear to not be what Gerafalo is sure they are.  Thus this explanation:

“It’s actually not new,” Garofalo said. “It’s from the first time I ever saw him, especially after the first Fox debate and Frank Luntz as you know, has zero credibility — has these alleged ‘just plain folks’ polls after these Fox debates — and he asked who won the debate. And he was just about to say raise your hand if you support and before he finished, everybody’s hand went up to support Herman Cain. So it seemed as if they had been coached to support Herman Cain.

“I believe Herman Cain is in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the tea party certainly, and the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been moving more and more the right, also race-baiting more, gay-baiting more, religion-baiting more.”

You might believe she was saying all of that to comfort herself and deny the reality that the GOP actually none of the above.  She has obviously been a leftist Kool Aid drinker for years and this is the litany they believe despite facts to the contrary.  Thus it is important to those like Garafalo that they “refute” this new reality by claiming, without evidence (or by making up stuff – coached?), to fit in their manufactured reality.

Herman Cain, in Garofalo’s world and the world of many on the progressive left, is a race traitor.  He can’t be a serious candidate, because she assumes anyone with black skin must reject the right because the right is “inherently racist”.   Of course that must make Allen West, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley all racial plants as well.  But to explain people like this, it requires a grand conspiracy designed to “deflect” attention away from that “inherent racism” assumed by Garofalo’s ilk:

“But Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go, ‘Oh, they can’t be racist. It’s a black guy. It’s a black guy asking for Obama to be impeached’ or ‘It’s a black guy who is anti-Muslim,’ or ‘It’s a black guy who is a tea party guy,’” she continued. “I feel like, well wouldn’t that suit the purposes of whomever astroturfs these things, whether it be the Koch Brothers or ALEC or Grover Norquist or anything. It could even be Karl Rove. ‘Let’s get Herman Cain involved so it deflects the obvious racism of our Republican Party.’”

The absurdity of Garofalo’s theory is evident to anyone who knows even a little bit about Herman Cain.  He’s no one’s dupe.  But to the racist left he’s the Clarence Thomas of the political world.  “How dare he wander off the plantation.  We want our escaped slave back!”

Yeah, harsh, I know – but deserved.  Garofalo comes from a long line of projecting progressives who hide their inherent racism with ignorant utterings like this.   The purpose is to warn other blacks away from such behavior, i.e. thinking for themselves, and to again try to use racism as a potent charge against the right.   It is all about narrative building.  

The problem for Garofalo is she comes off as ignorant and transparent in her attempt.  Stupid.  She still doesn’t understand that in terms of narrative, that ship sank long ago.  It is both insulting to Herman Cain and other blacks who’ve chosen the right because that’s where they feel most comfortable  and revealing about Garafalo and where the real “inherent racism” lies.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

GOP makes big gains among white voters

I’m beginning to believe the saying circulating lately may have some truth to it – “if you voted for Obama in ‘08 to prove you weren’t a racist, you need to vote for someone else in ‘12 to prove you’re not stupid”.

It seems that at least one demographic may be over its fear of race and satisfied the historical moment has been satisfied and passed according to Pew:

Fifty-two percent of white voters identified themselves as Republicans compared with 39 percent who called themselves Democrats in the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The rest said they were independents.

In 2008, 46 percent of white voters said they were Republicans versus 44 percent for Democrats.

That’s a fairly significant turn around.   I think it is hard not to believe the point above isn’t somewhat true as well.   I actually believe there is a portion of the white population that needed to prove to themselves they weren’t hung up on race.   And the “historical” part was pretty compelling too.  Being a part of voting the first black person into the highest office in the land had a psychological historical feel-good aspect too it that was appealing.  It was something they could brag  about to the grandchildren.  And they would have, if only Obama had held up his end of the bargain and actually been someone for whom it was actually worth voting. 

But for many of those voters, we now have what has been described as buyers remorse.  Having bought into the demonization of the past president, George Bush, that portion of  white voters who swung the election Obama’s way thought “really, how could he be worse – and John McCain?  Get real.”

Well he is worse.  In fact Obama is worse than their McCain nightmare.   So we see the swing.  Guilt and history have been assuaged.

What does that mean for Obama – well, as we’re all driven to say when asking that question right now – it’s early.  But we may be spotting a trend if we talk about what happened and 2010 and now:

The findings pose a challenge to Obama as he seeks re-election next year. Republicans made big gains in the U.S. Congress and state governments in the 2010 mid-term elections and are attempting to deny Obama a second term as president.

"There was a large enthusiasm gap in 2010, with Republicans far more enthusiastic and interested in the election," said Leah Christian, a senior researcher at the Pew Center who worked on the report.

"A lot of what we’re seeing in the data is a continuation of where we were in 2010," she said.

The “enthusiasm gap” remains fairly large and continues to carry over from 2010.  These numbers were first evident in 2010 during the Congressional elections.

However, that said, obviously a lot in the outcome in 2012’s presidential election will depend on the candidate the GOP finally settles on.   The generic Republican seems to be doing pretty darn well these days.  Unfortunately, the problem is with the specific Republican candidates – as usual.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO