Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

How To Tell If You Are A Racist
Posted by: MichaelW on Saturday, August 23, 2008

According to Jacob Weisberg of, if you are white and don't vote for Barack Obama, the only reason must be racism. In fact, Weisberg's assessment concludes that the only reason Obama is not ahead by ten points right now because of old, white, racist people. Indeed, the title of his rant is "If Obama Loses; Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him."
What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?
In Weisberg's opinion, it can't possibly be that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. Nope. It's because you're a racist.

Nor can it be Obama's unfortunate and ill-explained associations. Nope. It's because you're a racist.

And we all know it's not Obama's holier-than-thou attitude (nor the He's-holier-than-thou worshiping of his adulants). Nope. It's because you're a racist.

Realtedly, an Obama election loss will not have any connection to his condescension towards people who believe in God or the Second Amendment. Nope. It's because you're a racist.

Mr. Weiss easily removes any doubt that racism is the answer, and that such potential liabilities are merely rationalizations for why could possibly lose Obama the election.
If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected [ed.: Yeah. That's one of the reasons]. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.
Breathtaking. Bravo to you Mr. Weisberg, as I have never seen such a brilliant dismantling of cogent straw-man arguments running counter to one's point. It's almost as if you simply mentioned what the counter-arguments were and they were summarily vanquished. Oh, wait. That is all you did. Hmmm. Maybe it wasn't so impressive after all.

Moreover, Mr. Weisberg's own arguments seem to undermine his point. For example, he suggests that Obama's skin color is not only the reason he should win, it's also the single most important factor regarding the fate of our nation:
Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
In other words, because Obama is black he must be elected, but that cannot be a reason to not elect him because that would be racist. Treating the candidate differently based on the color of his skin is just fine and dandy if you plan to elect him and show how racist you aren't. However, if you plan to vote for any other candidate, regardless of how many good reasons you think you have, you are simply not voting for Obama because he's black. Mind-bending logic, isn't it.

The irony of Weisberg's well poisoning is that it indicates why many of the black people who know him probably despise him. His patronizing approach to racial relations belies his own opinions as to the inferiority of black people who cannot be judged on the merits of their accomplishments, but instead upon their fealty to the causes of those so desperately seeking to dispel any doubts about their own racism. Mr. Weisberg apparently considers himself an enlightened being and offers as evidence his condescending indictment of white America. Yet, the tendentious manner in which he does so suggests he's trying just a little too hard. It's almost as if Weisberg knows in his own heart that he finds black people inferior, and only capable of attaining any accomplishment with the help of kindly white people like himself. Thus he lashes out at political opponents who find Obama's candidacy lacking, attributing to them the sins for which he seeks atonement.

But, could it instead be that Mr. Weisberg is just a pompous, elitist ass? Nope. It's because he's a racist.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses, but neither race nor age is going to sway voters. American voters first vote their ideological loyalties, and then for ’likability.’ It is the negative of extremism that will sway American voters, which Mr. Weisberg completely ignores (perhaps because he shares the extremist view). If Mr. Obama loses in November, it will not be because America is racist; it will be because Mr. McCain’s campaign successfully showed that Mr. Obama is too tolerate of extremism, by far.
Written By: a Duoist
Here’s the thing....people like this moron are only going to actually increase racism.

Many, many non-racist people don’t take kindly to being accused and summarily judged guilty of being racist. What better way to foster hard feeling?

Written By: shark
URL: http://
You’re not a racist if you vote against Obama. You’re just more likely to be one.
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
You’re just more likely to be one. [Emphasis added]
That’s a statement of probability and statistics, and is provable (or disprovable). What are your statistics to back up that statement?
Written By: Rory Daulton
URL: http://
That’s a statement of probability and statistics, and is provable (or disprovable). What are your statistics to back up that statement?
It’s called common sense.

I realize that the Bush-bots who inhabit this site lack common sense. So that’s why the notion seems so strange. Sorry about that.

But then again, why is this notion so controversial? I’m not saying everyone who votes against Obama is racist. I’m just saying that if you vote against Obama, you are more likely to be racist.

Explain why that is not true.
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"I’m just saying that if you vote against Obama, you are more likely to be racist.

Explain why that is not true."
For the same reasons why rotting meat does not cause flies. That’s why.

So much for your common sense.
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
It’s called common sense.
Everything you say is common NONsense.
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
This country isn’t ready for a black President until a credible black Democratic candidate can lose without the Democrats whining about racism.
Written By: Jonathan Biggar
URL: http://
"You’re not a racist if you vote against Obama. You’re just more likely to be one."<.i>

Unless you’re black. Or the usual multiculturalist who can’t see past race. Or against race-blind government policies.

In which case you’re probably a Democrat.
Written By: MlR
URL: http://
"This country isn’t ready for a black President until a credible black Democratic candidate can lose without the Democrats whining about racism."

You know, completely aside for my boundless contempt for the constitution and the office that we’re talking about and all of that, I almost wish I’d thought it that way. That thing is fraught with all the right implications, and it’s a pretty elegant way to put it.

I’d lose the conditioner "credible", principally because that should be necessarily implicit in this bundle of concepts.

It’s well done, though.
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
Well, I hope you are all getting comfortable with it right now, because racism is going to get the blame from most of the Left if Obama loses, or if he wins and fails to revolutionize American politics to a more Progressive vein, or if he wins and doesn’t get reelected in four years, or if he wins and Republicans manage to regain the House and/or Senate during his term.

And if he wins, gets reelected, has the biggest boom economy in history, brings Russia and China to heel, and develops a car that runs on happy smiles, we’ll then hear about he’s only acceptable because he’s half white and he talks white and has a white VP anyway.

There’s no way to avoid this, so just brace yourselves for it now.
Written By: Wulf
It’s called common sense.
If you had any clue what common sense was you’d be more worthy of a response.
This country isn’t ready for a black President until a credible black Democratic candidate can lose without the Democrats whining about racism.
Amen. Although to clarify, if Colin Powell ran he would win in a landslide, and he’d probably run as a Republican (although that’s not certain). In such a case, the cries from Democrats wouldn’t be "racism!" but instead "Uncle Tom!"

Either way, I think your point stands.
... my boundless contempt for the constitution and the office that we’re talking about and all of that ...
Despite all that we disagree about, I sometimes wonder if more people held the same view or at least understood the point, if federal government wouldn’t be so overbearing. Perhaps that’s just wishful thinking on my part, but I can’t help but be amazed at the vast amount of importance placed upon each Presidential election when it’s your local councilmen and U.S Reps and Senators who place a greater burden upon your everyday freedoms than the President. It shows how far we’ve come from a Republic to a Nation of Cantons (formerly known as "States").
Written By: MichaelW
There’s no way to avoid this, so just brace yourselves for it now.
Sad but true.
Written By: MichaelW
You disagree with Mr Weisberg? You must be an anti-Semite! ;)
Written By: Brainster
You know, if you’re automatically a racist based on skin color, you might as well be one in reality. What do you have to lose? The good opinion of people who will always hate you anyway?

sarcasm on just for mkultura/
I’d rather have cabins full of hot black chicks to cater to my every whim....

sarcasm off/
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
You’re not a racist if you voted against Michael Steele, but you are more likely to be, MK?

You’re not a racist if you don’t agree with Condaleeza Rice, but you are more likely to be one...

You’re not an anti-semite if you didn’t vote for Lieberman, but you are more likely to be one...

This can go on and on...

p.s. If you don’t vote for McCain you are an ageist.
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"Despite all that we disagree about, I sometimes wonder if more people held the same view or at least understood the point, if federal government wouldn’t be so overbearing."
Forget it, sonny. You’re talking about a sheer sovereignty of individual conscience and person that simply does not exist anymore in this country except for people like you to sneer at.

You’re in for the ride. Quit your daydreaming and face it.
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
There may well be people who think the only reason anyone would vote against Obama is racism, but I don’t think it’s fair to attribute that view to Weisberg. He doesn’t say that. All he says is that he thinks there’s so much in Obama’s favor that racism is the only likely explanation if he loses. It doesn’t follow from that that he thinks everyone voting against Obama is a racist. It’s consistent with what he says that very few of the people voting against Obama are racists, just enough to decide the race.

He’s wrong. The main motivation for the swing voters to vote against Obama will be the same motivation everyone else voting for McCain will have. Obama is a far left politician with typical behaviors and attitudes of politicians who has been masquerading as an outsider moderate who wants change rather than maintaining the liberal status quo of the aims of the current Congress that he’s a member of. If Obama loses, it will be because people will start to see through that. They’ll notice that his running mate is a long-term Washington insider. They’ll notice that he can’t handle himself without a teleprompter and thus is highly dependent on his speechwriters and visual reminders of his script. They’ll notice that his record doesn’t line up with the messianic script people have been running about him. They’ll notice that he’s as much a flip-flopper as the best of the Washington insiders, adjusting his views according to opinion polls the same way Bill Clinton did. They’ll recognize that his explanations for his previous votes that don’t fit his current rhetoric don’t hold water.

It won’t be racism that decides the election. But that doesn’t mean those who think it will be are accusing every McCain voter of racism. That inference is not just fallacious. It’s a complete non sequitur.
Written By: Jeremy Pierce
It’s called common sense.
I realize that the Bush-bots who inhabit this site lack common sense [...]
Explain why that is not true.
Hmmm. I asked for hard, statistical evidence for your claim, but you refused to do that. Instead, you relied on non-quantifiable, non-verifiable and non-falsifiable "common sense" that you admit is not actually common. You then followed that up with an ad-hominem attack and an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Is that the best you can do? Is that what passes for political "science" these days?
Written By: Rory Daulton
URL: http://
The bad comb-over weighs in again with his typical tripe.

Are the people who vote for Obama simply because he’s black racist?
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
I’m sure that there are whites who won’t vote for Obama because he is black. And I’ll stipulate that they are equally divided between the two parties (unlikely, because the Democratic Party was the party of slavery and segregation, but let’s just call it even for the sake of argument).

Would that unstated number of whites unwilling to vote for Obama be enough to cause him to lose?

Well, certainly not because of those who are Republicans, because most Republicans would not vote for such an extreme liberal anyway. Their votes will not be tested on the question of race. (Such a test for Republicans would come if a conservative black candidate was nominated by the GOP.)

But it could make a difference with those who are Democrats, who, while they long for the government cheese, just can’t bring themselves to accept it from a black hand. But again, I don’t see the free cheesers voting in substantial numbers against their own supply line.

So, race is probably not a factor on a simple party-to-party comparison.

But then comes the question of which party harbors the most racists, and that’s an easy one. It’s the Democratic Party. If you begin with the premise that each party has an equal number of white racists (which is being way overgenerous to the Democrats), then all you have to do is allocate the greater number of black racists (because blacks are about 9-1 Democrats) to the Democratic Party.

This is no doubt one of the reasons that liberals like to go around chirping about how blacks cannot be racists. Liberals and liberal academics have defined racism so that blacks cannot fit the definition!

Back in reality, however, if you take at face value membership in the black equivalent of a white racist Christian Identity church as a certain indicator of racism, then the Democrats are about to nominate, ipso facto, a racist for President of the United States.

(And, Yeah, there’s no reason to give anyone running for President of the United States the benefit of the doubt on that question. So the real fact of the race matter in this election is how whites are bending over backwards to give Obama that unwarranted benefit of the doubt. It’s an indicator that whites are oversensitive to, and afraid of, race to the point where they go into denial about Obama’s racist background.)
Written By: Martin McPhillips
It’s called common sense.
I realize that the Bush-bots who inhabit this site lack common sense [...]
Explain why that is not true.
Actually, as the idiot making the assertion, you’re the one who has to prove it IS true.

Epic fail from you AGAIN
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Let’s see, I didn’t vote for a white guy with Obama’s general policy positions.

The only reason I’d vote for Obama would be because of his race.

So although we can discuss the evil boogeyman of how race might prevent Obama from getting election. We can’t discuss how race is actually getting Obama votes (and not just among black either).

Two sides of the same coin.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Mr. Weisberg’s piece is totally without substance. Americans vote for a presidential candidate, not against one. As do all Obama supporters, he fails to answer the central question. Why should Barack Hessein Obama be President of the United States?

Weisberg talks of charisma, cool and good looks. He mentions eloquence and vision. When did these become the criteria by which we select a Commander in Chief?

Hollywood is full of charming, cool, handsome people. Should we go to California and hold a beauty contest for president? Castro is eloquent; so was Hitler. James Earl Jones has a much more powerful delivery than the preachy Barack. Should we launch an American Idol style speech contest electing the most talented TelePrompTer reader?

A better set of qualifications would include experience, leadership, integrity, judgment and policy positions.

I’m white, conservative, 64 and voting for McCain.
Written By: arch
URL: http://
Mr. Weisberg makes a series of false assumption characteristic of the Leftist. I take issue with these seven:

1. Reckless War? No. The US and a coalition of 31 nations went to war with Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from attacking his neighbors as he had done before. The UN resolutions provided the authority. Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force. Joe Biden voted for it. Barack Obama, as a candidate for Senate, supported the invasion during his campaign.

2. Economic mismanagement? No. GDP has grown at an average rate of 3.2% since 2001. Per capita GDP was $37K in 2001. This year it is $46K. Unemployment rose from 3.9% in 2001 to 6.0% in 2004 then declined to 4.6% today. This decline was a result of Bush’s tax cuts. People in the US living below the poverty level climbed from 12.8% in 2001 to 13.0% in 2002, then declined to 12.0% where it has remained since 2004.

3. Global warming? A hoax designed by radical environmentalists to increase taxes and control the lives of the people. CO2 does not cause a green house effect. Even if it did, humans contribute less than 4% of the total. The computer models used by IPCC have been proven invalid. There is no consensus on climate change. Wrecking the world’s economies will have zero effect on climate.

4. Failing health care system? I don’t think so. Nationalizing an industry has never improved it. People from all over the world come here for medical treatment. Even Canadians, who have government cradle-to-grave coverage come to our hospitals when they are ill. Government control leads to increased costs and eventually to rationing.

5. Drill for oil to deal with a domestic shortage? Yes! We have a demand for 20.8 billion barrels per day and domestic production capacity of 8.35. Increasing domestic production will increase supply and cause prices to moderate. Today we must support fossil fuel exploration, develop nuclear power and plan a transition to alternative energy sources when they become economically viable.

6. Raise revenue by cutting taxes? Yes. Kennedy did it; Reagan did it; Bush did it. Reducing marginal rates infuses capital into the economy, creating jobs (new taxpayers) and as a result, government revenues increase.

7. Respond to security challenges with belligerence? Pearl Harbor was a security challenge of less significance than the September 11th attacks. As a result, FDR’s belligerence took us to Europe, Africa and Asia with a force of 8.3 million men and the full force and power of the United States. When we are attacked, we should respond with military force.

As Mr. Weisberg may know, Iran’s government has threatened to destroy Israel. We are allied with Israel. The Iranian government is building nuclear weapons. They are enriching beyond to 4% required for power generation. They have milling equipment to make spheres not rods. They were associated with the AQ Kahn network who has always designed weapons, never power plants. Attacking Iran is not a pleasant thought, but we should not wait until Tel Aviv disappears in a mushroom cloud.

Sorry for the excessive length of this comment.

Written By: arch
URL: http://
I guess if you don’t vote for a McCain/ Liberman ticket you are an anti-semite
Maybe worse: I think Weisberg’s article is illogical and false- I must be an anti semite!
Actually if you think i am an idiot for making these statments you are obviously biased against Italians. Ah i may be trying to be funny but we KNOW that there is DEEP SEATED racism in this country :-).
Written By: Moose
URL: http://
They have worn me down. I confess. I am a racist. There, I feel better now. Happy now, Mr. Weisberg?

PS. I still ain’t gonna vote for that condescending, pompous, liberal sob. Or Obama either.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The interesting thing about the comment is how little race seems to play into white voting behavior.

To give an example, I personally know a family whose racism often shocked me, though it was certainly not extreme. Politically active, very left wing and personally racist. Nevertheless they all campaigned actively for Jesse Jackson when he ran for President. His race didn’t matter.

Similarly, I expect a great number of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams fans are quite prejudiced. It doesn’t matter, they would still like to see both of them in government. The fact is that most people who are prejudiced in various ways and to various extents routinely assume that while most of "them" are an issue, any particular person may not be. Thus, if Obama appeals he is still their guy, even if they have an issue with African Americans or "mixed" people in general.

Thus my hometown of Baton Rouge, a reliably Republican town, and while not as atavistic as many from northern climes might imagine, certainly no less racist than most major cities, has a centrist democrat African American mayor who is likely to be re-elected by a large margin barring some scandal. The Chamber of Commerce loves him, the Indian American Republican Governor Bobby Jindal loves him, he is popular in the African American community, etc.

I don’t deny racism, I have seen it my whole life, but when it comes to particular political figures it only matters with people who have no particular knowledge or connection with that particular candidate. If they do, it becomes a non issue. At least with white Americans. With non whites, I see a very different dynamic. That may be understandable, but it is what it is.
Written By: Lance
You know, completely aside for my boundless contempt for [strikethrough]the constitution and the office that we’re talking about[end_strikethrough] human nature and all of that, I almost wish I’d thought it that way.
Fixed that for you there, Billy.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Written By: Tom Perkins
Anyone remember the good old days when dissent was patriotic?

I guess dissenting against obama doesn’t count.
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
If Thomas Sowell were running for president against Hillary Clinton, I assume Weisberg would support Clinton. Would that make Weisberg a racist?
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
If you dont like carrots, you probably dont like vegetables. Or orange things. Or phallic symbols.

I’ve missed this site. And MK.
Written By: rob
URL: http://
TomPerkins:Fixed that for you there, Billy.

LOL smartass strikethrough meme FAIL!
Written By: Anon E. Mouse
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks