Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » 2012: How It Looks

2012: How It Looks

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Tea Party is the third party, whereas the Libertarian Party is not. The Tea Party has money. The Libertarian Party does not. There are more Tea Party incumbents than Libertarian incuRomney's television lookmbents. The Tea Party has a single agenda, which is to obstruct the Obama Administration. The Libertarian Party agenda is complicated by comparison because it is intellectual. The Tea Party is anti-intellectual and proud of that. While the Libertarian Party is lofty and sincere, the Tea Party is banal and insincere.

Deep down inside, Tea Party bumper sticker rhetoric is shallow.

The Republican candidate Mitt Romney is shallow. His insincerity compounds his nonsensical argument about his business experience being a political qualification. It might make him a good chairman of the RNC, but not a good President of the United States. Presidents become presidents by succeeding at politics. It has nothing to do with business. Romney’s problem is that he is not a successful politician. His running mate is, but Romney is not. Tea Party-endorsed incumbents like Representatives Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are cunning. President Obama is cunning. Romney is about as cunning as a television anchorman.

The 2012 election is the terminus of Romney’s political career, according to his wife Ann Romney on The View. Even though the Tea Party has arguably made it possible for a Romney election win, it does not mean he will be treated any differently than President Obama after the election. If anything, Romney could expect to be impeached if elected.

Imagine a Ryan Administration with Cantor as Speaker of the House, sooner rather than later. Insincerity begets insincerity, which makes Romney vulnerable to attack by the very people who support him.Ryan and Cantor administration

The most divisive thing about this election is the emphasis on money. That is where the delusional idea that government can be run like business gets traction. The idea that a President can repeal law, such as Obamacare, is a banal expression of the contempt for civics that has been the result of so much attention on the money. Fueled by the incessant discourse given by media of all streams to the incredible amount of money involved in the 2012 election, campaign fund raising has new relevance, the rise of the Super PACs at its center.

Advertising influences public opinion. It may be that television advertising, especially its negative messaging, could decide the 2012 election. The common wisdom is that this election is too close to call. Television coverage of presidential campaigns began in 1948 when Harry S. Truman won against expectations to the contrary. Television coverage of the presidential debates of 1960 helped elect John F. Kennedy. Television amplified the crookedness of the 2000 election that ended up in the Supreme Court. So in some respects the country is due for another close one.

The reality is that public opinion and the popular vote are only interesting. The Electoral College elects the president and in that respect, of the 15 elections since 1948, only the 2000 election was close. From that standpoint it would appear that Ohio is going to elect the president in 2012.

The real question posed by this Super PAC election is about what is more important to the voters, appearance or substance? If it is appearance, Mitt Romney has anHarding makes a pitch advantage. He looks presidential. He photographs well. For whatever weaknesses as a candidate he brings to party, he has the look. Warren G. Harding had the look, too. It is just that Harding had the substance as a successful politician, as does Barrack Obama.

Romney and the Tea Party need each other. But that might not last should Romney win.

Powered by

About Tommy Mack

Tommy Mack began his career in broadcasting and is a US Army graduate of the Defense Information School. He worked in Army Public and Command Information and earned a BS in Liberal Studies from the State University of New York, Albany. A marketing communications executive, Tommy became a business management consultant for a major international consulting company and its affiliates before establishing Tommy Mack Organization, a business consulting practice specializing in organization and communications management. A professional writer and blogger, he writes about politics, business, and culture.
  • http://soundclick.com/333maxwell chas holman

    “Romney campaign stands by Mourdock”.

    Women.. For Goodness sake.. WAKE UP..

    If ever there WAS a sign from God, this would be one of them.. These ‘men’ who are completely uneducated and ignorant about a woman’s body, want to be in charge of the laws that Govern YOUR body. There is no other way to put it. Welcome to the year 1642 where science and medicine take a back seat. Don’t even dare mention the earth revolves around the sun.

    The Governor has said if he wins the Presidency that he would sign legislation if presented, that bans abortion. And you have GOP senators and Congressmen who have now said that women who get raped have no medical worries as they can’t get pregnant if they are ‘really’ raped, and now with Mourdoch, it is ‘God’s Gift’.

    Seriously..

    Vote like YOUR life, your daughter’s life and health depends on it.. It’s not playtime anymore, they are playing for keeps and total control.Have no doubt, this is ‘the big grab’.

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    The Romney/Ryan message is all about white, male supremacy. Sorry, neocons, but it is supported by its representatives.

    WE can vote, here in California, any day. My wife and I will. The health of our children demands our participation as much as their future does.

    2012 election is critical for our society. I can understand why many may pass; I hope to help them reconsider. Our civics insists on the exercise and our country upon its application.

    Tommy

  • Clavos

    The health of our children demands our participation as much as their future does.

    But apparently not the health of their pocketbooks, because they are of the generation which will be burdened with paying back all that spending on the part of the Obama administration.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Why do you think Romney might be impeached? I can’t think of anything he might do other than if he were to attempt to impose his Mormon faith on the presidency, and he’s got no track record of mixing religion with governance.

    Mind you, none of that precludes trumped-up impeachment charges, as happened with Clinton. Do you have any reason, other than a hunch, to think that the Tea Party is using Romney as a stooge so that they can get their guy into the White House? Seems a roundabout way of doing it. Wouldn’t it just have been simpler for Ryan to have run for the presidency himself?

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Not the liberal actor

    Tommy, you say, “The Tea Party has a single agenda, which is to obstruct the Obama Administration.” Has it ever occurred to you that the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party opposes Obama because history has shown that more taxes is NOT the answer to problems with the economy in particular and society in general. Obama’s only response to ANYTHING is to raise taxes, hence Tea Party opposition.

    You say, “President Obama is cunning.” With that statement I agree, as recent events in Benghazi have shown. But he was not quite cunning enough, as the truth has finally come out.

    You say, “… the delusional idea that government can be run like business ….” Let’s see, we have trillion dollar deficits (which Obama promised to halve), that no government (or business) can continue to run. Perhaps it’s time to run government like a business. Bush was not the answer, so don’t try to deflect attention from the deficit issue.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    Perhaps it’s time to run government like a business.

    Herbert Hoover was a businessman and believed in low taxes…and we got the Depression. George W. Bush was a businessman and believed in low taxes (and was handed a budget surplus)…and we got the Great Recession.

    In the macroeconomic view, Warren, relatively very few tax dollars are wasted, repeat, relatively very few tax dollars are wasted. The ONLY money that is truly wasted is that which is sent overseas (thanks to outsourcing, Wal-Mart, and rich people stashing their money overseas). The rest of the money that is kept stateside goes to help the economy function…

    …and the economy functions best when the government – repeat, the government – puts people to work. Proof? A little something called “World War II”, and the 90% top marginal tax rates in the 1950’s and the 70% top marginal tax rates in the 1960’s.

    The three most serious economic crises since 1900 came after huge tax cuts – the Depression, the 1982 Recession, and the Great Recession. Conversely, the times when the economy was most powerful were in times of higher taxes. Why? Because instead of money being stashed in some rich guy’s interest-bearing account, the taxes are being used to keep teachers and police and firemen and food inspectors – all of which are generally middle class incomes – at work…and they not only give value for their pay, but they use their pay to keep businesses open.

    Of course you think that’s all stuff and nonsense, so please tell me why it is that the worst three economic crises since 1900 came after huge tax cuts, and our most successful economic times were during times of higher tax rates. Can you do that?

  • Clavos

    Of course you think that’s all stuff and nonsense, so please tell me why it is that the worst three economic crises since 1900 came after huge tax cuts, and our most successful economic times were during times of higher tax rates. Can you do that?

    The better question is can you prove your points incontrovertibly, as opposed to coincidentally, which is all you’ve done so far.

    The burden of proof in this case is yours, not Warren’s; he does not have to (and cannot) prove a negative.

    In fact, Glenn, your “proofs” presented above seem to “prove” only one thing: that you’re a fervent socialist.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Has it ever occurred to you that the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party opposes Obama because history has shown that more taxes is NOT the answer to problems with the economy in particular and society in general.

    The funny thing about the Tea Party movement is that it started right after Obama took office, having been elected on a platform that specifically stated that taxes on the folks who made up the bulk of the Tea Party (i.e. those making under $250K) wouldn’t be raised.

    Seems rather cynical to me.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clav –

    The burden of proof in this case is yours, not Warren’s; he does not have to (and cannot) prove a negative. In fact, Glenn, your “proofs” presented above seem to “prove” only one thing: that you’re a fervent socialist.

    I explained how higher taxes help the economy here. Would that be considered a ‘proof’? I don’t know, but I can safely assume you certainly wouldn’t consider it as such since it goes against your core beliefs.

    Clav, there comes a point when there’s enough correlation for one argument and against another argument that the matter becomes rather obvious. As I pointed out, since 1900:

    – the periods of lowest taxes have always presaged major economic crises.

    – the economy has performed best during periods of higher taxes (and high level of government employment).

    – if the low-taxes-bring-national-prosperity argument were true, then it’s highly unlikely that the periods of low taxes would have presaged crises and that the periods of significant economic prosperity would have come during periods of higher taxes.

    And that’s not all, Clav – AGAIN, what nations have the highest standards of living for the general population? Non-OPEC first-world nations, all of which are socialized democracies. Even in the ongoing economic crisis in Europe, their standards of living are significantly higher than any small-government/low-tax/low-regulation nation.

    Perhaps you’d more easily grasp my meaning in terms of the marketplace. In the marketplace, it’s not always the cheapest that is the best seller – it’s the one that provides the best bang for the buck. So it goes with the nations of the world – sure, the first-world nations charge a lot higher taxes and have more regulations, but look at the bang that the populations as a whole gets for their taxpayer bucks: cleaner, safer, more highly-advanced, more highly-educated societies.

    Note the boldfaced words – ‘as a whole’. Sure, you as an individual can get a lot more for your personal money in Mexico – absolutely! But is Mexico cleaner, safer, more highly-advanced, or more highly-educated? No.

    You could even say that nations are like cars – the ones with small governments are like compact cars (Kia, Chevy, Hyundai, etc.). Sure, they get you from point A to point B, they don’t cost as much to operate, and their maintenance is usually cheaper. The socialized democracies, on the other hand, are like the higher-end cars (Mercedes, Lexus, BMW (and my new fav, the Tesla), etc.) – and they also get you from point A to point B, more safely, more comfortably, and in style. But they cost more.

    If you want to live in Mexico, you’re getting a Kia. If you want to live in the Philippines, you’re getting a Tamaraw FX (horrors – don’t ask). If you want to live where it’s safer and cleaner, and the people are healthier and more highly educated – if you want that metaphorical higher-end car – then you’re going to have to pay more.

    You get what you pay for, Clav – the proof is all around you.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “The Tea Party has a single agenda, which is to obstruct the Obama Administration.”

    Not exactly. It goes beyond Obama.

    And what do you base the future impeachment charges on?

  • Baronius

    If I follow Tommy’s thinking in the article, he’s saying that President Romney will face the same hostility that President Obama has faced. If I follow Tommy’s thinking in comment #3, President Romney will face that hostility because he’s a black man. The Tea Party, once it’s in charge of Congress, will drive out black fellas like Romney and replace them with white guys like Ryan. Unless, I guess, Ryan turns out to be black, in which case the Speaker of the House becomes president. It makes sense if you think about it.

  • Clavos

    Glenn, one more time:

    You are correlating unrelated observations and saying that A is the result of B, which may well be the case, but not as you’ve presented your evidence, because you’re taking a temporal link (or no discernible link at all, except for your assertion) and saying that it proves that the two phenomena are linked, but they aren’t other than as to the time in history (or place on earth, e.g.) they occupy.

    [That’s just an example of one of the “proofs” you’re presenting, but the same conclusion holds true for the others: The high taxes = robust economy, socialized democracies = higher standard of living, etc.

    Doesn’t prove your point.

  • Clavos

    In comment #2, Tommy writes, “The Romney/Ryan message is all about white, male supremacy…”

    And yet, Andrea Peyser (yes, that’s right, a female) notes, in The New York Post, ” While Obama once held a commanding lead among the fair sex, now he’s panicking. A USA Today/Gallup poll of 12 crucial swing states last week cut Obama’s total among the estrogen set to 48 percent. Romney has 47. A Pew poll tied Obama and Romney among women at 47 percent.”

    What is going on here? Could it be that the POTUS’ irritating habit of addressing us proles in a condescending and patronizing manner has finally come back to haunt him? On the eve of the election, no less, the female half of our divided society is finally getting fed up?

    Oh, frabjous day! calloo! callay!

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 8, yes, Doc, you are correct, when the TEA Party saw what a big tax-and-spend president Obama was going to be. And damned if Obama didn’t prove them correct!

    Re: comment # 12, Clavos, well said. Glenn is quite fond of offering anecdotal “evidence” as proof of his point. Here is an article by an economist that Glenn and Tommy may find interesting. JFK got it, why can’t Obama? Economics is an extension of human nature, which hasn’t changed since 1960, except perhaps for vote buying.

  • Baronius

    Clavos, I can explain this to you. (I’m getting good at this.) The drop in marginal tax rates in 1981 caused a recession in 1982. The drop in 1986 caused a recession in, I don’t know, 2002 or something. The drop in 2003 caused a recession in 2008. (There was no housing crisis.)

  • Baronius

    And the increasing tax rates in 1932 turned everything around lickety-split.

  • Dr Dreadful

    yes, Doc, you are correct, when the TEA Party saw what a big tax-and-spend president Obama was going to be.

    How has he been this, Warren? And how would the Tea Party have known, about eight seconds after the inauguration, that this was the type of president he was going to be?

    Or was it more that, by repeating it over and over and over again, the uncritical plebs would come to believe it was true?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Baronius

    “And how would the Tea Party have known, about eight seconds after the inauguration, that this was the type of president he was going to be?”

    Well, they started after the $800 billion stimulus package, so I guess I’d say “the $800 billion stimulus package”.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Odd that they wouldn’t start after any of Bush’s packages. Must be a coincidence

  • Dr Dreadful

    Here’s an analysis of the Obama administration’s record on taxation.

    Here’s one on the administration’s spending (from the rabidly left-wing Wall Street Journal).

    I’m pretty certain Warren won’t bother to read either of them, because he’s quite comfortable with the narrative as explained by the right-wing spin machine. But I thought I’d put it out there anyway.

  • Zingzing

    Clavos, never quote the post. A 15 point change in the polls is unlikely. There’s something fishy in it, but fishy has never caused the post to question anything as long as it fits their narrative.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    You are correlating unrelated observations and saying that A is the result of B, which may well be the case, but not as you’ve presented your evidence, because you’re taking a temporal link (or no discernible link at all, except for your assertion) and saying that it proves that the two phenomena are linked, but they aren’t other than as to the time in history (or place on earth, e.g.) they occupy.

    Ah, I forgot – your standards of logic are much higher than my own, not just in economics, but even when it comes to AGW, since the vast majority of the world’s scientists (and 98% of the climatologists), almost all of whom have doctoral degrees, cannot present to you enough logical proof for you to agree that AGW is real.

    Either that, or you’ve made up your mind that whatever anyone says contrary to your personal opinion must be in error. But it couldn’t be that, could it? Naaah….

  • Clavos

    Well done with #22, Glenn!

    A complete non sequitur!

  • Dr Dreadful

    Well, they started after the $800 billion stimulus package

    Technically the Tea Party movement started as part of Ron Paul’s ’08 presidential campaign, but it didn’t really achieve national momentum until, as I said, about 8 seconds after Obama’s inauguration; or rather, 8 seconds after he signed the stimulus bill. It was a remarkable transformation from the Bush stimulus bill, which didn’t seem to galvanize them nearly as much.

    The first Tea Party rally I encountered was at a local university in the heart of central California farm country, where I lived at the time. My fondest recollection is of a pair of shabby-looking youths holding up a large banner explaining how affronted they were at the prospect of being asked to pay more in taxes. I remember thinking how unlikely it was that they were paying any tax in the first place, let alone that their income was above the Obama threshold.

  • Baronius

    Would you say that the $787B stimulus galvanized people 4.98x as much as the $152B stimulus?

  • Igor

    I have found it refreshing to stop watching commercial TV and radio at this time. Not that I watched it very much previously, altho I’ve watched some of the excellent Giants baseball games recently (but with the sound off and KUSC or something on the radio). I don’t even watch PBS as they have allowed themselves to be snookered by radical rightists posing as ‘balance’.

    Don’t watch the debates, they are stupid. There is simply no reign on outright and repeated lying. If you must, read the transcripts, which are available free from CNN.

    As for the baseball games, I am really sad that the network has betrayed it’s opportunities with HDTV and reduced their camera work to the standards of 1955 black and white LDTV. About 10 years ago when HDTV was starting up and there were few HDTV receivers, the networks actually shot full HDTV in sports, which meant that in baseball they showed the entire infield and you could follow action without the horrid herky-jerky cutting from closeup to closeup that had been necessitated by LDTV. But now they’ve regressed to 1955 style and so we can’t see a play the way a spectator at the game would, but instead we are treated to hours of watching players spit, chew and scratch, up close and way too personal, all in glorious HD and color.

    Oh well, in a couple months college baseball season starts around here and one can actually go to a game and watch it the way God intended: under a warm sun with a full and refreshing view of the emerald field, with players making encouraging imprecations to the batters and pitchers, infielders perhaps tending the disorderly dust around 2nd base, and, of course, a great benefit of college ball: the student body sunning itself along the 3rd base hillside.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Baronius: Besides the $152bn Bush stimulus there was also the $700bn bailout, but unlike Warren I don’t move goalposts, so let’s set that aside, especially since Obama has distributed buckets of his own.

    The bottom line is that when you get into the realm of those sorts of numbers, there’s no apolitical reason why one should galvanize people any more than the next.

    From Dr Dreadful’s Dictionary:

    $152 billion: A shitload of money.
    $787 billion: A shitload of money.

  • zingzing

    baronius, did you really forget about the $700 billion? hrm, that’s odd. that should mean that the tea party should have been even more mad at bush than they are at democrat black muslim obama. but wait, there’s more! what about the $150 billion aig bailout? and the $25 billion he gave to the big 3 automakers? and the $50 billion to prop up money markts? the $200 billion he gave to fannie and freddie?

    with the measly little $178 billion you did manage to recall (congratulations), that adds up to about $1.63 TRILLION. where was the tea party for that one? oh, no one bothered to get mad until… wait for it… that muslim sandnegro filthy communist democrat terrorist who wants to destroy america.

    is there anyone who doesn’t see how strange and obvious this is? it’s weird how people think it’s wrong to straight-up lie to say, your mother, but when it gets to politics, they think they can pass the biggest, most idiotic bullshit as if it was true. it’s pathetic.

  • Baronius

    Igor – I said earlier that I don’t watch debates, and for the most part I haven’t this year. I don’t understand them. I’m interested in facts rather than witty comebacks – although I think this year there have been fewer witty comebacks, and a lot more things that, well, look like facts from a distance. As for televised sports, the interesting thing will be when they figure out how to show basketball and football in 3D.

  • Baronius

    Zing – I recall a lot of anger about those things. There was nowhere for it to be focused, though, with a lame duck president in office. I remember a lack of enthusiasm for McCain, though. But if we’re providing context, the Tea Parties bloomed when government health care and cap-and-trade were on the horizon. As for the race stuff, get out of the 1950’s. The rest of us have. We really have, whether you believe it or not.

  • Clavos

    As for the race stuff, get out of the 1950’s. The rest of us have. We really have, whether you believe it or not.

    QFT.

    Well put, Baronius. It’s true, but you’ll find few liberals who will accept that.

  • Dr Dreadful

    For the most part it is true. Most people are no longer racists, at least not deliberate ones.

    Conservative politics has its origin in the ruling class. They regard power as their natural right, and in my experience they tend to consider it an affront if their guy isn’t the one in charge. That’s the root of most of the opposition to Obama, especially the rhetoric that’s short on facts and long on talking points (e.g. Obama as a big-spendin’, high-taxin’, incompetent socialist).

    The birther movement, though: that’s another matter. There’s no way any question about Obama’s provenance would have even come up if it hadn’t been for his ethnicity and his being called Barack Hussein Obama. It’s pure and simple racism.

  • Baronius

    The birther movement was no different than the 2000 Florida or 2004 Diebold conspiracy people. Idiots. Maybe racists too, I guess, because that’s a subgroup of idiots, but no different than the people who claimed that the prior two elections were stolen.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Well, I don’t recall any Democratic politicians giving serious play to the idea that the Republicans in cahoots with Diebold had rigged the elections. Whereas several senior Republicans phrased their responses to the birther claims using weasel words. While it’s true they were probably just playing up a political opportunity as much as they judged they could get away with it, it was still a pretty poor show.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    As for the race stuff, get out of the 1950’s. The rest of us have. We really have, whether you believe it or not.

    Riiiiiiight. That’s why 46% of Mississippi Republicans STILL think that interracial marriage should be banned…and bear in mind, that’s just the percentage who were willing to admit that that’s what they believed. No, Mississippi does NOT speak for the red states as a whole, but IS indicative of the racism that still pervades the reddest part of the nation – the South. It was obvious even in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries in remarks by Rick Santorum here and here, Ron Paul’s racist statements in the past, and Michelle Bachmann’s tar baby statement. If one wants to find more, it’s not really that hard if one starts looking at conservative pundits or Republican state/local politicians.

    Are there Dems and liberals who’ve made racist statements? Sure…but when they do so, they apologize right away and don’t make that kind of mistake again (and even then their political careers are often over). The ones that don’t apologize find their careers are done for. Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, Hillary Clinton had said what Rick Santorum did, that Obama was “the government’s nigger”? Do you really think she would have been able to almost win the Democratic nomination? I don’t think so! But did that statement really harm Santorum’s standing in the Republican party at the time? Not much.

    THAT, Baronius, should be all the evidence one needs to see that the GOP as a whole still tolerates those who are racist.

    Sometimes Republicans do stand against racism – I remember Trent Lott’s political downfall in 2002 after he spoke kindly of Strom Thurmond – but since the advent of Obama, it’s as if the racists have come out of the woodwork, like they’ve found that they’re not alone in their racism and thus feel empowered to speak out their racist views. And please don’t try to say this isn’t the case – all one need do is Google racist, Republican, and politician (or pundit) and one gets a whole plethora of them. Again, most Republicans are not racist, but most Republicans DO tolerate those who ARE racist…otherwise, the GOP candidates couldn’t have made such obviously racist statements and yet stayed in contention in the race for the Republican nomination for president!

    Of course, since it’s me who’s pointing this out once more, the BC conservatives will ignore it, put their heads back into the sand, and tell themselves again and again that racism plays no part in Republican politics.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “As for the race stuff, get out of the 1950’s. The rest of us have. We really have, whether you believe it or not.”

    Not all of you, as Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu revealed yesterday. I prefer to trust what comes out of a guy’s mouth than have you speak for him, especially when he proves you wrong.

  • Igor

    Judge them by their acts. Check out how many blacks the republicans have sent to congress in the past 50 years, or even the past 20, or 10!

    It looks to me that blacks are only welcome in the republican party for the time it takes them to cast a republican vote, then they are excused.

  • Zingzing

    “As for the race stuff, get out of the 1950’s. The rest of us have. We really have, whether you believe it or not.”

    So there have been no monkey jokes, no Islamic slurs, no “put the white back in the white house,” no racist “joke” emails, all that stuff is just my imagination? Thank heavens. I’m so glad there’s no racism anymore.

    (seriously, you know I could fill page after page rj style with blue links to republicans/conservatives concentrating on obama’s race.)

  • Zingzing

    “Zing – I recall a lot of anger about those things.”

    Funny that you failed to recall the things themselves… Why is that?

  • Clavos

    Igor,

    How many blacks are republicans? Surely you don’t expect republicans to elect democrats because they’re black to prove their non-racism?

    And it’s not that the republicans don’t welcome blacks; their platforms don’t offer anything much to working class people regardless of their race.

    If I were black, I wouldn’t be a republican, either — come to think of it, I’m not a republican AND not black.

  • Clavos

    seriously, you know I could fill page after page rj style with blue links to republicans/conservatives concentrating on obama’s race.

    republican racists or just racists?

    If they are identified (either obliquely or directly) republican, go ahead; let’s see ‘em.

  • Baronius

    And Sununu said what? You guys always tell me that there’s a difference between being racist and accusing people of racism. Sununu accused Powell of racism.

    That begs the question, is Powell motivated by race? I mean, he’s always advising Republicans to moderate, but he won’t even endorse McCain or Romney, who are definitely moderates. But I don’t think it’s about race. Powell is a Washington insider. He makes himself relevant by endorsing Obama.

  • Zingzing

    Nice try clavos. Why’d you leave off the “/conservatives” in that? Are you going to say the guy at the Romney rally wearing the “put the white back in the white house” can’t be identified as a republican/conservative?

  • Zingzing

    So… Baronius… The guy who says “that’s racist” is himself a racist… Amazing.

  • Baronius

    “Funny that you failed to recall the things themselves… Why is that?”

    I remembered them. I was addressing the accusation that the Tea Parties were a response to Obama rather than Obama’s policies. I was providing some context. You’re right that I didn’t give a dissertation about current events, but I did point out the relevant context that no one else did (the stimulus, “Obamacare”, cap-and-trade).

    “The guy who says “that’s racist” is himself a racist”

    Quite often, yes. Or at least there’s no functional difference between them. It’s like the difference between a paparazzo and a stalker. One does what he does because he’s obsessed, the other out of the perception that others are obsessed, but there’s no difference in their behavior. They’re equally destructive to society.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I’m adding Sarah Palin’s recent Obama ‘shuck and jive’ comment. Palin later defended her remark. A fellow Republican criticized it.

    And on ableism I am tossing Ann Coulter in as an insensitive ableist boob. A wonderful letter, which I hope everyone who has not will take a moment to read, was written to her by a Special Olympics athlete, when she referred to Obama as “the retard”. Coulter later defended her remark.

  • Zingzing

    “You’re right that I didn’t give a dissertation about current events, but I did point out the relevant context that no one else did…”

    and forgot a whopping 90% of it… In the real context, bush handed out almost 10 times what you said. I would think you would find your point (at least in how it involves anger over bailouts) to be the exact opposite… At the time, bush had handed out twice as much as Obama, and the tea party didn’t care. It’s only when Obama did it that they suddenly started to see red. look at the numbers, baronius, look at the timeline of events. Are you really going to say the tea party should have been 4.something times as angry at Obama as they were at bush (I know that figure was a bit jokey)? Or are they just really bad at math and remembering things that happened it the previous several months?

    “They’re equally destructive to society.”

    So you’re saying we should just racism slide and it’ll be only half as bad? Racism is destructive, baronius. Confronting racism is not. I don’t know how you logiced your way into that nonsense, but for the love of god…

  • Zingzing

    Well, let me say that confronting racism can sometimes lead to conflict. But only with racists and their apologists. And then there are people who close their eyes and try to wish it away by pretending it’s no longer a problem, mr. Baronius.

    Just because it’s not a problem for you doesn’t mean it’s a not a problem. Just ask rape victims, gay people, women who can’t afford birth control and all the other people your opinion says don’t deserve consideration. You call yourself a Christian, but you seem to forget one of the basic points of christ’s teachings far too often.

  • Clavos

    Nice try, zing: put up a smoke screen instead of responding to the challenge to show us actual republicans who are racist, you go off on a tangent about “conservatives,” which among other things, conveniently ignores the millions of ignorant southerners (oops! Sorry for the tautology) — racist crackers who vote Democrat.

    You got pages of links? Let’s see ‘em.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Here’s one: Google former “GOP official Marilyn Davenport” and you can learn about her email that shows Obama’s parents as chimps

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Or if you like the golden oldies, there’s always our pal George “Macaca” Allen.

  • Clavos

    So, El B:

    I consider GWB to actually be a chimp; he’s no smarter than one, and most chimps speak better english (but not most texans, many of whom are also chimps). Does that make me a racist? If so, I readily apologize — to the chimps.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Chimps are smarter than racists.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    republican racists or just racists? If they are identified (either obliquely or directly) republican, go ahead; let’s see ‘em.

    You’re using the same kind of evasion here as you use with other subjects. How about looking at the examples in #35 – are you going to say that Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Michelle Bachmann aren’t Republican? Last I recall, they were all Republican candidates for president…and Santorum and Bachmann were each front-runners at one point or another.

    I’ll give you the same quandary I gave Baronius – if Hillary had called Obama “a government nigger” like Rick Santorum was clearly doing before he caught himself with the last syllable, do you really think that her viability as a Democratic presidential candidate would have recovered? Of course not!

    BUT Santorum’s racial slur affected his campaign not at all…just as Ron Paul was never called to account for the racism in his newsletter in the past, and Bachmann wasn’t held accountable for her slur, either.

    Why is that, Clavos? Why is it that the Republicans fired Trent Lott for merely speaking kindly of Strom Thurmond, but now that Obama’s in office, the Republicans don’t hold themselves accountable to anywhere near the same level. Why is that?

    Hm?

  • Irene Athena

    So Glenn Contrarian, can the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson count on your support on Election Day? (Just checkin’.)

    “Ron Paul was never called to account for the racism in his newsletter in the past” Say WHAT???? OH MY GOLLY, Glenn. If Ron Paul lost a ha’penny for each and every comment you’ve written over the last four years containing the words “Ron Paul” and “racist” and “newsletter,” he’d be flat-out broke! Never called to account, you say? And your voice, Glenn, was only one small bleating AIR HORN in a cacophony of calumny, drowning out the happy chorus of those singing of Freedom and Reason and Liberty and Ron Paul and All Things Right and Good.

  • Irene Athena

    And here we have [names omitted by author], tiresomely, predictably, needlingly making thinly veiled accusations of racism…but only to the individuals they know they can piss off the most by so doing. Unprofitable.

  • Irene Athena

    “Chimps are smarter than racists.” OR maybe the doctrine of original sin and the theory of evolution have met and kissed each other.
    Very sad account in Slate about the cruelly violent antipathy primates show towards “The Other” within their own species.

    CINDY — there is a sweet paragraph on page two about the comparatively peaceful Bonobo society…and how it got that way. ;)

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    Nice try, Clavos: put up a smoke screen instead of responding to the response to the challenge

  • Zingzing

    “Nice try, zing: put up a smoke screen instead of responding to the challenge to show us actual republicans who are racist, you go off on a tangent about “conservatives”…”

    Nice try, clavos. I said “republicans/conservatives” and then you tried to limit that to republicans. I said what i said because many won’t label themselves “republican.” even you (not saying you’re racist) refuse the label. So it’s you that created the tangent, and i don’t know why you’d bother to think otherwise, and I’m not taking your shitty bait. And now there are southern redneck racists voting dem… Hrm. Why would they vote dem, I must ask… Racist rednecks voting for Obama. News at 13 o’clock.

    “You got pages of links? Let’s see ‘em.”

    That’s what we have Glenn for. Haha. But seriously, I don’t want to. So I won’t. I think you know I could, deep in your heart of hearts that can google “racist attacks against Obama.” out of those 60 million results, I’m sure you could find enough individual examples to satisfy the requirement. If you think there haven’t been racist attacks on Obama, I don’t know what I could post to convince you. I’d also like to know what planet you’re on and how they get such wonderful hallucinogens.

  • Irene Athena

    You really think Republican Party didn’t call Ron Paul to account? What more could they have done to the man to shut him out? Burned him in effigy at the National Convention, rather than just refusing to let him speak?

    OK I’m really pissed off now. I’m taking my marbles and going home, and yes, I will take care to not let the door make contact on the way out. (Baronius — I read up on St. P.N. “A joyful heart is more easily made perfect than a downcast one.” I shall have to meditate on that awhile.)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    The Republican party absolutely did Ron Paul dirt. What they did to him was nothing but wrong – they arbitrarily changed delegation rules just to shut him out…

    …but the Republican party’s utter disrespect of Paul was NOT because of his racism. If they had marginalized Paul because of his racism, then they would have done the same to “Obama’s-a-government-nig” Rick Santorum. But they left Santorum alone, just like they left “tar-baby” Bachmann alone. So don’t give me any song-and-dance that the GOP “called Ron Paul to account” because of his racism – because they certainly did NOT.

    Funny how defensive people get when their side gets exposed….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Irene –

    “Ron Paul was never called to account for the racism in his newsletter in the past” Say WHAT???? OH MY GOLLY, Glenn. If Ron Paul lost a ha’penny for each and every comment you’ve written over the last four years containing the words “Ron Paul” and “racist” and “newsletter,” he’d be flat-out broke! Never called to account, you say? And your voice, Glenn, was only one small bleating AIR HORN in a cacophony of calumny, drowning out the happy chorus of those singing of Freedom and Reason and Liberty and Ron Paul and All Things Right and Good.

    There’s a BIG difference between ME calling someone to account, and the Republican Party calling one of its own to account. Or don’t you comprehend the difference? The Republican party never – EVER – called Ron Paul to account for his racism. It doesn’t matter how many loony lefties like myself point out his racism – it only counts if his OWN people do it, for they – and not we the Dems – are the only ones that count when it comes to holding Paul accountable.

  • Irene Athena

    A cacophony of calumny, it was. And you WON’T trick me into posting a gazillion links to slanderous articles written in influential Republican and Libertarian journals.

  • Irene Athena

    Personally, the phrase I liked best was “one small bleating AIR HORN.” :)
    Take care, Glenn. Gary Johnson, think it over.

  • Zingzing

    “us actual republicans”

    Clavos, you very recently said that you were not, and many times in the past have denied that you were, a republican. Are you a convenient republican? Much as you are a convenient Mexican, when you’re not paying taxes on time or being American enough to realize that your taxes go towards wars that kill innocent people (even though you support the “kill all Muslims before they kill us” doctrine)…

    What gives? Are you a republican or not? I swear that today, or maybe yesterday, you said you weren’t. Flippity floppity.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I am not surprised, Irene, that many men have not advanced much beyond the level of a chimp. And oh, how I have got to love the Bonobo narrative, which complements that position.

  • Baronius

    What you call controlling racism is really festering the wounds of old racism. It stirs up resentment on all sides. Doesn’t it concern you that companies now keep count of employees by race more than they used to? That kind of thing perpetuates the damage. To make this point clear: the Party of Slavery, the Party of the KKK is still the home of racial division. That said, I think it’s less deliberate than it used to be, and some of those who make the problem worse are doing so for the best of reasons.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    And you WON’T trick me into posting a gazillion links to slanderous articles written in influential Republican and Libertarian journals.

    No offense, Irene, but you won’t because you can’t. You might be able to show an op-ed or two in, say, a Cato Institute publication or some such…but when it comes to the mainstream conservative media, um, no, you can’t. Nothing by any News Corp affiliate, nothing by Breitbart, nothing by Limbaugh, Savage, Levin, et al, and certainly nothing by the most important of all, the politicians of the Republican elite like Boehner or Rove. Nothing by the real movers and shakers of Republican thought.

    As I pointed out to Baronius and Clavos, if Hillary had said “Obama’s the government’s nig-” before catching herself on the final syllable – as Rick Santorum OBVIOUSLY did – her campaign would have been done, kaput, and beyond redemption in Democratic eyes…and you know this. But Santorum actually did that, and the GOP held him every bit as accountable as they did Ron Paul – that is, NONE AT ALL.

    When it comes to Gary Johnson, he’s got some good points – he really does – but if you want to live in a prosperous first-world nation, slashing taxes and having small government doesn’t work. Pay attention to what’s going on in Europe: austerity doesn’t work. Greece and Spain and the like will eventually recover despite the austerity measures they’re being forced to accept and which will only slow their recoveries. Then watch France, which just rejected austerity measures. France will recover much more quickly than either Greece or Spain…because France is sticking with Keynesian economic principles.

    Libertarianism, Irene, is the polar opposite of communism, but it shares one thing in common: as designed, it cannot, cannot function in modern human society. You’ll find small examples of libertarian principles working in this or that society – just as you’ll find examples of classic communism at work (like in Israeli kibbutz enclaves) – but when it comes to entire nations…no. There’s lots of nations with small, weak governments that have really low taxes, low regulations, and which (by necessity, not by choice) are somewhat libertarian in nature…and they’re ALL third-world nations.

    And Irene, that’s not just a coincidence…it’s an inevitable result of having a small, weak government. That’s why all non-OPEC first-world nations are socialized democracies (including America). Having a socialized democracy isn’t a guarantee of having or gaining a first-world status, but having a small, weak government IS a guarantee of remaining in the third-world community.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    AP Poll results again indicate that majority Americans hold racially prejudiced attitudes toward both blacks and Hispanics. Prejudice against blacks, expected to decrease since 2008, has actually increased on the whole, according to the poll.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    To make this point clear: the Party of Slavery, the Party of the KKK is still the home of racial division. That said, I think it’s less deliberate than it used to be, and some of those who make the problem worse are doing so for the best of reasons.

    I assume you’re referring to the Democratic party…but more on that in a moment. I notice you pointedly ignored my comment #35 wherein I gave examples of GOP presidential candidates who made racist statements but were not held accountable AT ALL by the Republican party. Why is that, Baronius? Remember, YOU stated:

    As for the race stuff, get out of the 1950’s. The rest of us have. We really have, whether you believe it or not.

    Yet it’s YOUR presidential candidates who made the racist comments.

    Now, as to the “party of slavery, the KKK, and racial division”, you’re obviously referring to the Democrats. Did you forget what happened after liberal Democrats AND liberal Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act? The Southern Democrats – who WERE quite racist (I lived it, remember) – abandoned the Democratic party en masse and the South – which used to be solidly Democratic – became the reddest part of the nation. Remember Nixon’s Southern Strategy:

    From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

    It took a generation to get rid of most of the Democrats and become the reddest part of the nation, but now? As I pointed out in #35, 46% of ALL Republicans in Mississippi were willing to admit that they STILL think interracial marriage should be banned.

    But according to you, it’s really the Democrats who are the party of racial division. Oh, come on!!!!! How the hell can WE be the “party of division” when all one has to do is to look at the political conventions: the GOP convention in Tampa was almost completely lily-white – the cameras had to keep panning back to the SAME few minority attendees to make it seem like there were more minorities than there were…but the Democratic convention was TRULY multiracial and multicultural and you know it!

    “The party of racial division”…that, sir, is Orwellian doublespeak in its truest form!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    AP Poll results again indicate that majority Americans hold racially prejudiced attitudes toward both blacks and Hispanics. Prejudice against blacks, expected to decrease since 2008, has actually increased on the whole, according to the poll.

    And why do you think that there’s apparently more now than before? As I pointed out above, when Obama was elected, the racists came out of the woodwork and found that they were not alone…and thus felt enabled to be a bit more open about their racist views than they once were. That’s why Trent Lott was essentially fired by the GOP in 2002 for saying something nice about Strom Thurmond, but the GOP presidential candidates were largely given a pass for their racism this very year.

  • Clavos

    zing:

    Don’t know who did, but I don’t think I said, “us actual republicans.”

    OK, so you and the other progressives have convinced me that the republican party is institutionally racist.

    What can we do about it?

    Put them all in re-education camps?

    Rescind their right to vote?

    Elect nothing but black/brown/yellow presidents from now on? (that’s the one I like; at least two of those are both smarter and harder working than whites — because they have to be — like women in business have to be).

  • Zingzing

    #49, first line… The mask has slipped, old buddy old pal.

    As for the rest, you should stop acting like the problem doesn’t exist, hold your party accountable, vote out racist elements and stop promoting legislation that does disproportionate harm to minorities (and women). Easy.

  • Clavos

    Just bad writing, “old pal.” I should have written, “…to show us [the] actual republicans who are racist…”

    But nice try, “old buddy.”

    As for the rest, you should stop acting like the problem doesn’t exist, hold your party accountable, vote out racist elements and stop promoting legislation that does disproportionate harm to minorities (and women).

    Not my party, as I’ve said repeatedly. Meanwhile, the more Americans there are who are pissed at the status quo, the greater the likelihood of real change, which likely would result in improvement, taking place.

    And, if not? Pues, ni modo. Ees no my yob…

  • Zingzing

    Mhmm.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clav and zing –

    The line could be read either way – the sentence makes logical sense with or without the allegedly missing “the”. So it’s not poor writing…but we can’t assume that Clavos – for all his obstinate refusals to hold the Republicans accountable for their faults – is actually a Republican. There is no solid proof, and I would be loath to make such an accusation before I have more proof.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Clavos can have political sympathies that are generally on the conservative side without being a Republican. IIRC, he’s said numerous times that he votes for Republicans more often than not because they align somewhat more closely than anyone else with his outlook. They’re the best, for him, of a bad bunch.

    In the same way, should I ever decide to abandon my identity and become a US citizen (shudder), you wouldn’t catch me dead joining the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, I’d probably vote for their candidates most of the time.

  • Igor

    @52-Clavos: actually, Clavos? A chimp?

    “I consider GWB to actually be a chimp; he’s no smarter than one,..”

    IMO he’s got a decent IQ, he just never really put it to good use. So he makes poor decisions, like other scions of the rich. But I don’t think he’s at all racist.

  • Clavos

    But I don’t think he’s at all racist.

    I don’t think he is, either, Igor.

    Nor am I one for calling him a chimp (though perhaps chimps might have grounds for calling me a racist for applying their species name to humans).

  • Baronius

    Come on, Clavos, knock it off. If a thing exists, it must either be racist or an accusation against something that is racist. Otherwise, I don’t know, it’s like you’re theorizing that there is stuff that has nothing to do with race.

  • Clavos

    I know. My bad, Bar.

    It’s silly of me, I know, but I can’t help thinking there are some things in life that have no racial element at all.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clav –

    It’s silly of me, I know, but I can’t help thinking there are some things in life that have no racial element at all.

    Of course there are – but I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t have any prejudices, racial or otherwise. The key, then, is not to look for that very rare person who has no prejudices, but to look for those who refuse to allow their prejudice (whether it be from nature or nurture) to influence their decisions.

    The proof that there are those who refuse to allow their prejudices influence their judgement lay in the recent AP poll, a summary of which is found here:

    That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).

    See that? The level of anti-black feelings – determined from the ‘implicit’ section of the test – are in a majority of all Americans, and largely to an equal extent…BUT:

    Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats).

    Implicit racism – what one thinks or feels – as compared to explicit racism – what one says or does. Most have prejudices, racial or otherwise, but what’s important is the degree to which one refuses to allow prejudice to influence his or her words or deeds.

    It’s pretty obvious, Clavos, and completely in line with what I’ve been saying all along. That’s why I wrote about fighting the ghost of my own racism and about the good racists among us.

    I figure you’ll castigate me yet again for this comment, for having the utter gall to inject partisan politics into another ‘non-partisan’ discussion on race – how DARE I do so on the BC POLITICS page! – but I’ll be submitting an article about this later this week.

    à votre santé!

  • Clavos

    It’s OK, Glenn.

    Through your teaching, i have come to realize that there exists no evil; no wrongheaded policy nor any vicissitude which has not permeated the republican party to its very foundation; its core.

    The bastards…

  • Igor

    All you have to do is count how many black congressmen have been sent to congress since the republican “Southern Strategy” took over the racists of the south.

    Do you have the courage to do that, Clavos?

  • Clavos

    I have the courage (though I fail to see why courage is required), but I don’t have the time, so I’ll take a WAG that the # is zero. If not, I’ll unconditionally accept whatever number you quote.

    What’s your point? That racism exists? I never denied it, I just say that it doesn’t (by a long shot) only exist in the Republican party.

    Many of the blacks I know are racists; none are republicans.

    ALL of the Latinos I know are racist (against gringos — black and white); none are republican.

  • Baronius

    Igor (and others) – Read this analysis of the Southern Strategy.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clav –

    But that’s the problem with you – when someone shows you strong evidence against what you want to believe, you throw up your hands and reply sarcastically, but it seems that never, ever do you even question your own assumptions. It seems that never, ever do you say to yourself even for a moment, “Well, maybe I really am wrong about this or that matter”.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    This is from your reference:

    That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century.

    Nobody here understand the South like I do…and I can tell you right now that whoever wrote the above claptrap is freaking clueless. I’d LOVE to take him on a trip trough the South to let him meet the people, and let him then explain the continuing racism by Southern whites.

    Baronius, every white I know in the South – inside and outside my family – is racist, and is a Republican. That doesn’t mean that all whites there are racist or Republican, but in my experience most are. And it is precisely as was planned in the Southern Strategy, that as soon as the people began to associate Civil Rights with the Democratic Party, the whites would desert the Democratic party for the Republican party.

    Was it sudden, was it overnight? Of course not. But that’s what happened. I know, because I grew up in it…and I know for a fact the writer of your reference is a freaking idiot.

  • Clavos

    Baronius:

    Woo Hoo!!

    I just read that article — good stuff!!

    I welcome this opportunity to say to those who have scoffed at and excoriated my contention that establishing dependency, and thus control, is a significant element of the Democratic party’s pious (but cynical) concern for the poor and others in the underclasses: Read the article!.

    Excellent article, Bar! I already have it bookmarked.

  • Clavos

    @#87:

    What’s your point? in #85 I agreed that racism exists — I even pointed out that, in my experience, it’s not exclusive to whites.

    What more do you want, Glenn? You’re right (as you always are), but I still will not become a Democrat for reasons stated previously in comment #79 in this thread.

  • Igor

    Black people are unwelcome in the Republican party.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos (and Baronius) –

    You’re apparently so excited to find someone who gives you an excuse to think as you do…never mind that he’s flat wrong.

    Again, the writer of the article’s a freaking idiot. Yes, there remained quite a few politicians in the Democratic party, but they were almost without exception what used to be called “Dixiecrats”, who were every bit as conservative as the Dixiecrats of the 1930’s (and more so than the Republicans of today), AND who opposed the Civil Right Act.

    Did you forget that one such Democrat was a neighbor of mine? You know, Senator John O. Eastland, who was twice President Pro Tem and was certainly the most powerful racist in America for a generation? When the Civil Rights Act passed and he saw that segregation was bout to come to an end, he led a coalition that started the “Academy” education system in the South which maintained an almost completely segregated school system. If you’ll Google Indianola Academy (where I attended in 1976), you’ll find that the graduating class of 2012 is completely white – in a county that is 71% black! The whole ‘Academy’ system throughout the state is just that way.

    And let’s not forget that 46% of all Republicans in Mississippi were willing to admit that they still think that interracial marriage should be banned.

    What happened, Clavos, is the liberals rejected racism, and the conservatives tolerated it. As the Democratic party as a whole accepted liberal positions, and as the Republican party as a whole went waaaay off to the right, the always-conservative South went red…and if you really think that the Republican toleration of racists didn’t have anything to do with it, you’ve got a lot to learn.

    I’ve said all this before, ad nauseum. You sarcastically say that I’m “always right” even though you know firsthand that I’ve had the guts to admit error more often than anyone else on BC, but when it comes to race and politics in the South, yes, I do know what I’m talking about.

  • Clavos

    …never mind that he’s flat wrong.

    According to you.

    I’m not convinced he’s so wrong, especially about the Republican party’s history, LBJ’s motivations, he was, after all, just a poorly educated (he went to college, but at Southwest Texas State Teachers’ College in San Marcos — a long way, literally and figuratively from Yale), backwoods Texas cracker who delighted in lifting his dogs by the ears, I think the author hit the nail on the head when he said, about LBJ that “Johnson’s unexpected civil-rights conversion looks less like an attempt to empower blacks and more like an attempt to make clients of them.” Further, I have long suspected that’s the motivation of many Democratic leaders, not just that “all hat and no cattle Texan.”

    So, I don’t buy your story, the article has too much of a ring of truth to it.

  • Zingzing

    Ah, revisionist history…

  • Clavos

    Depending on your goals,the best kind, zing…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    And you and I have both known many a man who lacks an Ivy League education, who is nevertheless quite intelligent and educated – if not in a four-year college, than by the simple desire to gain knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

    That, and you’re assuming yet again that power was the primary motive. If that had been the case, then do you really think LBJ would have chosen not to run again regardless of any obstacles he faced? I don’t think so. The thing about those who are hungry for power, Clav, is that they are loath to relinquish it, and always leap at the chance to maintain or increase it.

    And just because someone is in a position of power does NOT mean that they are somehow incapable of doing the right thing just because it’s the right thing to do. LBJ knew when he signed the CRA that the Dems would lose the South for a generation and said precisely that…but he signed it anyway, knowing full well how much the Dems counted on the electoral votes of the South.

    You really do yourself a disservice by automatically assigning the basest of motives to the actions of others. Such assumptions might serve you well in business deals, but when it comes to doing what is right, in protecting the civil rights of the disadvantaged, your cynicism is way off base. You could as easily make the same claim about every major piece of legislation that preserved or increased our civil rights…but where does the cynicism end and acknowledgement of proper motives begin?

  • Baronius

    “You really do yourself a disservice by automatically assigning the basest of motives to the actions of others.”

    Glenn, you assume that every single thing you see is motivated by secret racism.

  • Igor

    Racism is deeply inculcated into American society, even in the North. I think that us Northerners, while we individually resisted racism, nevertheless we supported southern racism as a favor to our brother whites in the south.

  • Clavos

    I think you’re right about racism being inculcated, but I think it transcends American society to include all of humanity. I saw evidence of this on an extended stay in Haiti many years ago. As you know, Haiti is an all Black country, but even there castes are present within the population, with lighter-skinned people in the positions of wealth and power, and in descending order, the darkest-skinned Haitians are at the bottom of the societal totem pole.

  • Zingzing

    Baonius, it’s funny you’d say that when talking about lbj and the signing of civil rights legislation.

  • Baronius

    Zing, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Did you read that article? It’s a pretty good summation on the subject of the Southern Strategy.

  • Zingzing

    I’m referring to your hyperbole, bar. The article is a very slanted take on events that would have most historians of the subject rolling their eyes. It’s the fantasy explanation of the right. It’s not as simple as some on my side would make it out to be, but that was a bunch of facts massaging and ignoring huge swaths of documented history in order to make history fit with your opinion.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Glenn, you assume that every single thing you see is motivated by secret racism.

    Wrong. What I do is point out that it affects us to a significantly greater degree than you do. It’s as if when you yourself read things like the AP poll which shows the degree of racism within the American people, and when I remind you of the 46% of Republicans in MS who still think interracial marriage should be banned, it’s like it doesn’t register with you, it doesn’t mean anything to you.

    Baronius, it is human nature to be suspicious of those who are significantly different from oneself. It is only within the past couple generations that America’s made real strides towards minimizing racism. Do you really think that we can change in human nature in a mere two generations what has been normal for thousands of generations? Do you really?

    That’s why it’s such a mistake to try to sweep it under the rug and pretend it isn’t a factor in our everyday lives, Baronius. Minimizing racism takes effort and understanding in all walks of life, including your own.

  • Baronius

    You know whose narrative I won’t believe? The people who are trying to bully me into voting their way. The people who tell me that I hold certain political views because of my hatred of black people. The people who stereotype Republicans, southerners, Christians, white people. The people who don’t know any stories where they’re not the heroes. The people who display all aspects of political cowardice and claim that they’re brave. I’m not talking about Zing or Glenn or anyone else in particular, but every time you buy into the lazy, destructive lies of the dividers you do more damage to the country than any Confederate-flag-waving idiot has in more than 50 years.

  • Zingzing

    The easiest way to silence the stereotyping is to quit living up to it so often. And speaking of lazy, destructive lies, romney’s 47% remark comes to mind. Or that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage. Or that a woman who wants bc cover is a whore. Or that the pro-choice crowd gets their kicks by killing babies. Or etc, etc, etc…

  • Dr Dreadful

    I wonder what the percentage is of Democrats in Mississippi who still think interracial marriage should be banned?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Right or left, you are all allowing your daughters to be sold into the capitalist proposition that they should hate their bodies and your sons into the proposition that they need to be tough. And vice versa now, since the market has expanded. And both, if white and employed, should view blacks and Hispanics as the problem.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    And who, but the white and employed end up regularly being able to post in this forum?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Oh and don’t forget that males are “naturally” objectifiers of the opposite sex rather than they have learned dominator behaviors in order to succeed.

    (Notice I did not deal with attraction–which is inherent–but how attraction is served.)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    I never said, never even thought that you hated black people. But you sure do hate being shown numbers and being told what life is like in a place where you’ve little firsthand experience.

    but every time you buy into the lazy, destructive lies of the dividers you do more damage to the country than any Confederate-flag-waving idiot has in more than 50 years.

    ANY of them? In the past 50 years, that includes segregationists I’ve personally known, a private school system that is still segregated to this day (which I attended, remember), a doctor’s office that still had “white” and “colored” entrances in 1984 (20 years after the CRA)…

    …and you’re telling me that I am buying into “destructive lies of dividers” and I am doing more damage than any of those that I listed above?

    No offense, Baronius, but when it comes to racism in the South, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Good question – AFAIK the PPP never did release that particular demographic. But I do know that in the most recent Republican primary in MS, less than one percent of those who voted were black, and I know that the only reason that blacks were iffy about relationships with whites was because of the kind of reaction they’d often seen before from the white community.

    I know this because I was fairly close to the black community – we had a used clothing store and almost all our customers were black. It was known among the black community that I had a black girlfriend while in high school (it was a black guy who set me up with her), but we all tried our best to keep the whites from finding out about it because we all knew what kind of things could happen (and yes, I was still racist at the time, but hormones usually trump race). There was one half-white/half-black girl at school – she was gorgeous. The black community accepted her with no problem, but no boys from the white community would approach her.

    A lot of this, Doc, comes from a class consciousness. Both whites and blacks saw the whites as the ‘moneyed’ upper class, and the blacks as the lower class…and as in countless societies before, the upper class dared not marry lower, yet the lower classes had few qualms about marrying up.

    Based on all this, I’d say that yes, you’d find some Democrats who opposed interracial marriage, but the great majority – since it’s largely (in the eyes of Southerners) identified with those who would support a president who is himself the product of an interracial marriage – would not.

  • Zingzing

    Jesus, Cindy…

  • Dr Dreadful

    And who, but the white and employed end up regularly being able to post in this forum?

    Well, I’m white, but I was able to post a lot more frequently when I was unemployed than now.

  • Cindy

    112 Zing? I am merely describing the cult of the dominant culture. Are you actually left wing or are you an aficionado of same?
    \
    Me thinks you are righter than you thinks :-)

    Dr.D,

    Thanks for the update. (which coincidentally detracts nor adds to what I already said, nor does it effect what I said in any way whatsoever) :-)

  • Cindy
  • Cindy

    Why aren’t you a feminist, zing? You, the contemporary male?

    I don’t blame you, you know. You are what you have eaten.

    But don’t make the mistake of thinking that you are some enlightened male. You are as deep in shit as any indoctrinated unquestioning fellow.

    Luv ya,
    Just sayin’
    xxoo

  • zingzing

    cindy, i am a feminist, i’m just not you. apparently, that’s a negative. As far as feminism goes, we probably believe much the same thing. i wonder how it is that you, who grew up in the same culture that i did, were intelligent and lucky enough to see through that culture, yet none of the rest of us could possibly have done so. it’s amazing to think that everyone, including those that agree with you, could be so blind to the culture that they live in… Keep attacking, cindy. it’s sure to bear fruit. alienate those that agree with what you have to say. we’re all indoctrinated fools who aren’t blessed with your sight.

    The ”jesus, cindy” was because there seemed to be no connection between what was being said and your need to tell everyyone that they were indoctrinated with an odious hatred of women. was there a connection? if so, enlighten me. if there’s no connection, i suppose it’s time to tell you that your delivery is awful, even if most every asshole around here agrees with the message. preaching to and berating the choir doesn’t work. there’s a word that comes to mind, but it would be awful in the context, so i won’t say it.

  • Cindy

    Let me know when you find something that does result in real communication taking place as opposed to a knee jerk defense of what one already has come to believe is true, zing. While “preaching to and berating the choir” (as you interpret it) doesn’t really work, neither does anything else.

    Based on your defensiveness and your interpretation of what I say, even 4 years of trying other means had about zero impact on you.

    My comment was selfish and cathartic.

    (Not unlike all of the other commentary here but possibly more rude.)

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/2012/02/not-so-great-society.html Tommy Mack

    Is it racism characterized by hatred or bigotry characterized by intolerance that is under scrutiny, here? I thought the likes Glen Beck and Sarah Palin played to bigotry in the last election. I think they have been outdone in this one. In either event, racism seems to be the human condition upon which bigotry bases itself. It is only that bigotry is a morphic condition.

    Tommy

  • Zingzing

    Cindy, you won’t convince me I hate women. Sorry. And I think running around accusing everyone of turning women into prostitutes isn’t the best tactic at all. Back when you used to be reasonable rather than accusatory all the time, we had plenty of nice discussions. Do you see how much response your accusations got you this time? It killed the thread, didn’t it?

  • Cindy

    zingzing,

    I have reconsidered and you have convinced me with what you say you think I am saying/doing. If you believe I have been trying to convince you that you hate women, I have made a real error.

  • Zingzing

    I’m certainly not the feminist you are, Cindy, but if you spend your time beating on those who just aren’t quite as radical as you are, you’ll miss time beating up on those that are really guilty of oppressing and dehumanizing women. I give up my seat for elderly and pregnant women, I’m chivalrous to a degree that sometimes crosses reasonable lines, I believe in equal pay for equal work, etc, etc. I’ll admit I do sometimes wear sunglasses on cloudy days for the extra ogling they hide, but that’s probably the worst of my crimes. Call a bigot a bigot, I say, but find a bigot to call a bigot before you go calling someone a bigot.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A rather odd use of sunglasses, I’d say.

    Are you also a peeping Tom?

  • Zingzing

    Totally, Roger. Look out of your window. Not that window. I see what you do. And really? If you haven’t realized that sunglasses afford you a certain bit of leeway in that department, I’m going to suggest you invest in a nice pair of dark sunglasses. Actually, I’ll go so far as to say you are a dirty liar. You can also find porn on the Internet. Amazing world we live in. Nice try though.

  • Cindy

    zingzing,

    I am going to make you a short presentation of the “feminist I am”. It might help you comprehend my position. Or you may think of it as the “woman I am” because I understand what it is like to grow up as a female in our culture.

    If I see that you are open to understanding my position (or doing the work that might be necessary to do so), I will continue. If it is otherwise, then I will politely excuse myself. The understanding will go as far as you are willing and no farther.

    But at the moment I am coping with no electricity and a closing where I am not finished packing as well as burst sprinklers at my business. So, look for it in the future. I will try a new approach.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    zing, I’ve come to a point where I don’t want to hide my admiration of women. I’d rather display it openly: good for me and good for them.s

    It’s the honest way. Sunglasses serve no purpose.

  • zingzing

    it was a joke, roger. get over yourself. (and you’re a terrible liar.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Always got a smart aleck answer whenever you get caught with your hands in the cookie jar, huh, zing? And given the context of your chronically piss-poor communication with Cindy, if it was a “joke,” then certainly you haven’t done much to endear yourself.

    Is that what you were aiming at?