The problem with this glimpse into Harry Reid's wily and inappropriate mindset is that this view isn't unique to Reid. Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was speaking for many in the Democratic party at the time, who no doubt had visions of high voter turnout and a historic presidency dancing in their heads and ultimately picked the novelty of Obama over the experience of Clinton. That, my friends, is using race to manipulate, and completely calls into question the so-called noble left's racial justice campaign plank.
And I totally agree with Michael Steele, that by the same standard that saw Trent Lott exorcised from his leadership role for toasting Strom Thurmond at his retirement party, Harry Reid should have to give up his post as Senate Majority Leader. The left predictably and hypocritically has tried to circle the wagons, with both DNC Chair Tim Kaine and Senator Dianne Feinstein on the Sunday shows suggesting that it was enough that Reid apologized to Obama. It's not. Yet another stunning example of the type of hypocritical double standard, embodied by the left, who insincerely and continuously attempt to use race and identity politics to stoke racial and classist angst merely to get more votes for a platform focused on reducing our freedoms, intruding on every aspect of our lives, and increasing our dependency on the state.
Republicans stand for a conservative interpretation of the constitution as a guide for governing, abiding by the wisdom of the framers. Perhaps the Democrats should drop the pretense of their faux morality and have the guts to run on their real platform of a continuous reinterpretation of our rights, in favor of centralized federal management and bigger government as the only solution to our ills.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - El Bicho
"I asserted that the left was obsessed with racial justice, diversity, and identity politics."
So you have written yet another article about it. I am sorry but who is obsessed?
The article is seriously flawed because the author, yet again as is an issue with many of his articles fueled by his poorly informed opinion rather than actual facts, does not know what he's writing about.
What exactly is wrong about Reid having that opinion of the political landscape? You don't state what it is other than it's bad.
That you and Steele want the same standard shows how either disingenuous or ignorant you both are. Reid says he thinks the electorate is more likely to vote for Obama because he isn't too black to upset white voters. Here's what Lott said, which you fail to offer even a link to:
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, [Mississippi] voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
Strom ran as a segregationist, which means he didn't want whites and blacks mixing, even though he thought it was okay to have sex with black women. What problems were Lott referring to that we would not have had if segregation had been allowed?
btw, you also fail to mention that the Bush White House was behind the push for Lott to resign his post to get their guy Frist in charge. Now why is that? Did you not know that or are you purposely misleading readers?
Conservative George Will doesn't think Reid's comments were racist because he is an honest, intelligent debater. Why don't you set the same standard for yourself and stop wasting everyone's time?
2 - Dr Dreadful
I actually can see Obnox's point on this one, much as I think he was way wide of the mark last week.
This is on a par with Joe Biden's (in)famous remarks when he was running against Obama in the Dem primaries.
It's indicative of a mode of thinking which seems to be found among a certain breed of political dinosaur. These guys know that they oughtn't to be racist, but they don't really get what not being racist really entails.
And it's not exclusive to the left either.
3 - Dan(Miller)
There is an interesting part of Sen. Reid's remark, that candidate Obama had no "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." I have seen nothing written about the words highlighted above in the quote. I recall listening to then Senator Clinton's attempt to affect a "Negro dialect" before a largely Black audience, and she got some modest criticism for doing so.
It seems likely to me that Senator Reid's use of the words "unless he wanted to have one" must have had some intended meaning. The only meaning I have thought of is that he viewed then Senator Obama as affecting a "Negro dialect" when he thought it politically useful, but not otherwise. Is there some other meaning reasonably ascribed to the words?
Surely, this must have occurred to someone else.
Dan(Miller)
4 - Dan(Miller)
Further to my comment #3, there a bit of an unset at NPR over a cartoon presentation on "How to speak tea bag." In response, the NPR ombudsman noted that the creator of the cartoon "is talented, but this cartoon is just a mean-spirited attack on people who think differently than he does and doesn't broaden the debate. It engages in the same kind of name-calling the cartoon supposedly mocks."
Relevant to this thread? I don't know.
Dan(Miller)
5 - Dr Dreadful
No, Dan, I think you're right. Reid seems to have been referring to the notion of Obama switching to ebonics to appeal to a particular voting bloc (which, as we know, he never does).
I've been having a look around the web to see if Reid's comments appear in their proper context anywhere - to see if they make sense any other way - but no-one seems to have taken the trouble to do this, at least not to my satisfaction.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
*yawn*. Comparing Harry Reid's observations of political fact to Trent Lott is comparing apples to gasoline. Why? Because Trent Lott - a senator from MY home state - was well liked in racist circles. Here's something I picked up about a speech Lott gave in Greenwood, MS - about thirty miles from my house:
"In 1998 and 1999, Lott was criticized after disclosures that he had been a speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization formed to succeed the segregationist white Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. In a 1992 speech in Greenwood, Miss., Lott told CCC members: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries."
Asked to comment on Lott's remarks at the Thurmond celebration, Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, said "God bless Trent Lott.""
Are you familiar with the Council of Conservative Citizens? Google it sometime - it was a nationwide organization that was started after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and the stated purpose of this organization was to steer business away from black-owned businesses towards white-owned businesses. The CCC was started by Senator James O. Eastland, who was twice president pro tem, who lived not five miles from my house, who my grandmother worked for (selling moonshine), and who offered me an appointment to the Naval Academy (I declined). This man was the most powerful racist in America for a generation, and Trent Lott was his acolyte.
SO UNLESS YOU CAN FIND SOMETHING HARRY REID'S DONE THAT COMPARES TO WHAT TRENT LOTT SURE AS HELL DID, THEN I SUGGEST YOU GET OFF YOUR DEAD HIND END AND FIND OUT WHO THE REAL RACISTS ARE, AND WHO'S REALLY CARRYING A DOUBLE STANDARD...that is, if you really do care about getting rid of racism and racists. Many, many conservatives don't.
I can count the number of times I've cussed on BC on one hand and still have fingers left over...but the willful ignorance of the Right Wing when it comes to who's racist and who isn't...is an outrage.
7 - Dave Nalle
Reid's comments are trivial and irrelevant. Lott's comments were just a trivial and irrelevant. Neither of them was particularly racist and both are being taken largely out of context.
But what does it matter? Reid is out of office in less than a year and Danny Tarkanian will be sitting in his seat, and he is certainly not a racist, though he might not be terribly fond of Turks.
Dave
8 - The Obnoxious American
So let me get this straight El Bicho, because George Will doesn't agree with me and because George Bush pushed for Lott to go, I'm somehow wrong? Sorry but that's pretty flawed logic. I don't always agree with George Will or George Bush. But whether or not Will agrees with me or whether Bush pushed for Lott to go matters not to the point I've raised - namely that the Dems love to play the race card, but are not morally superior by any stretch. And the fact that they try to appear as friendly to minorities, as evidenced by Reid's schemy comments, is about as dishonest and sleazy as you can expect from politics. But go ahead and reassure me that Reid's comments don't matter. You're just proving my point about the left's hypocritical behavior.
Glenn,
Reid's comments were indicative of the left's will to use race to manipulate and that is the point of the article here (as well as the one last week). Perhaps Lott should go, maybe he was a stinking racist. I don't make any claims to the contrary. But a) what he said at Thurmond's retirement party (which is why he resigned not for any of the other reasons you mention) was just as bad as what Reid said, and you're a hypocrit for suggesting one should go and one shouldn't, and b) nothing Trent Lott did will change the fact that Reid's "fact stating" in an excersize by a left wing pol, one of the leaders of the party, using race as a political tool. This is all the more inflammatory considering the left's platform of racial justice. Is this too just political maneuvering? I think the answer to that has been and is now even more obvious.
Shame I have to explain all this.
9 - Baritone
It is so typical of OA to take some random, perhaps unfortunate comment by an individual and use it to accuse and excoriate an entire group.
I look upon Reid's comments as little more than an older individual who apparently hasn't altogether escaped the past. As he was a supporter of Obama and that the entirety of his comments were meant to praise him, they cannot be compared to Lott's comments.
While his comments were perhaps not PC, they do in fact reflect the reality. Obama's fairer skin, his mixed racial heritage and his educated, polished elocution went a long way in rendering him less threatening to white voters.
Further, I've heard and read all this crap about how supposedly demeaning Democrats are to minorities ad nauseam. It is first, a blatant lie, and second nothing more than a rationalization by right wingers attempting to compensate for their own failures and bigotry as regards minorities. It's a mantra that is oft repeated in the effort to convince themselves and others that they aren't racists by pointing fingers at the opposition.
10 - The Obnoxious American
"It is so typical of OA to take some random, perhaps unfortunate comment by an individual and use it to accuse and excoriate an entire group."
So hypocritical BTone, you know as well as I if we were talking about Sen Harry Reid (R) you'd feel completely differently. But go one trying to convince us that it is in fact us on the right who are actually in support of more individual freedoms (FOR ALL) that are attempting to compensate. What a laugh.
Just because the right knows that hate crime laws are reactionary and not needed (hate crimes were crimes to begin with) just because the right realizes that things like AA and enforced diversity isn't a real solution to anything, doesn't mean we're bigots. It just means we're smarter than you.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
Why don't you look up Harry Reid's voting record as compared to Trent Lott's...and see why the black community (with the exception of a few, most notably (gasp!) RNC head Michael Steele) is NOT up in arms against him.
Harry Reid's voting record shows he's always been very supportive of minority rights. Lott's shows just the opposite.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Lott's comments were just a trivial and irrelevant. Neither of them was particularly racist and both are being taken largely out of context.
Yes, Lott's comments were taken out of context...UNTIL you compare them against his voting record, against his college days when Trent Lott helped lead a successful battle to prevent his college fraternity from admitting blacks to any of its chapters. Add all these to his association with the Council of Conservative Citizens...and what do we have? Someone that only Dave Nalle could deny was a racist.
13 - Christine
A few points, first: if a Republican would of been caught saying the same exact words there would be hell to pay by the Left. And it's amazing that within hours Obama made a public statement defending Reid, yet, when it came to the "crotch bomber" he waited 3 days. Hmmmm.
Last, what a way to get your book marketed.."Game Change", already number one.
14 - Baritone
Oh please. Smarter? Hardly. Greedy? Yes. Self-serving? Yes. Presumptive? Yes. Condescending? Yes. Clueless? Yes. Anal? Yes. Self-hating? Yes.
I could go on, but smarter? No.
B
15 - The Obnoxious American
Christine
Absolutely right, and biting commentary. Glenn and BTone, that must have hurt :>
16 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
No, Christine's point is a false argument. Answers about the crotch bomber required collating and considering the available intel, and speaking with the agents and bureaucrats involved. This takes days - and anyone who knows what it's like dealing with different government agencies knows that getting detailed answers like this in only three days...well, it's not a miracle, but it was certainly unusually fast.
Reid's comments, however, required a few Google searches to check the context as compared to his voting record...just as it only required a few Google searches to destroy your point about Trent Lott, and Dave's claims that Lott's statements were taken out of context.
17 - Christine
Glenn, you may be right about accumulating intel. As we can see they (whoever is in charge) are NOT very good at it!! But then again, Obama could of made some statement (from Hawaii) to calm the nerves of the nation.
18 - The Obnoxious American
Christine's absolutely right. After all this is a president who has weighed in on nearly everything, from Gates's arrest to Kanye West's designation as an "ass." Yet he couldn't directly weigh in for days on an attempted terror attack? Kind of crazy.
And the left has been quick to say, well Bush did worse with Richard Reid. Not quite the same thing. First, Bush messed up too and it's not like the left hasn't harped on him for the last 8 years. That said, the Reid incident was a mere few weeks following 9/11, the threat wasn't fully known, the protections and war on terror weren't in place. And since when are we holding up Bush as an example of what a president should do?
He failed when he didn't speak to the American people for three days. He appeared to not want to be involved in this, which is a sign of weakness. Moreover he clearly applied a double standard to what Lott said vs what Reid said.
What's really funny are when people are talking about look at their voting record. Reid's voting record IS the point. It's all about pandering and manipulation. Reid's not in office to do what's consitutional, or right for the country, but rather to do whatever race baiting manipulation he can to get votes - from the selection of candidates, to the support of flawed, but racially (or genderly) sensitive legislation. Don't you get that passing laws to "be down" is using race in politics? Check out the title of this article.
19 - roger nowosielski
Aside from addressing the double standard issue, I don't find Reid's remark racist one bit. Clumsy, definitely. Poorly articulated, definitely. But what's racist about articulating one's opinion about the mood or sentiment of the country.
If he were expressing his own personal opinion about Obama the candidate, that would have been a different story. But clearly he didn't. In fact, his remark comes awfully close to Geraldine Ferraro's infamous comment in the midst of the primaries.
Was Ferraro a racist? I seriously doubt it. In fact, most of the outrage generated by her remark had come from Obama's supporters. Outrage, because she spoke her mind and it did close, perhaps, to reflecting the truth. Some liberals have reacted to having been "found out."
Indeed, Obama was to an extent an "affirmative action" candidate, unproved and untried. Many, including myself, have had serious reservations. And yes, his being inoffensive, and not cutting the picture of a stereotypical, angry black, did help him with his nomination.
The question is - why making such an observation is regarded as a racist remark, regardless who says it?
20 - Doug Hunter
"just as it only required a few Google searches to destroy your point about Trent Lott, and Dave's claims that Lott's statements were taken out of context."
Only for the feebleminded. Lott's statement was a compliment given off the cuff at a birthday party and could easily have been referencing leadership qualites or conservatism or any number of things other than race. Of course those obsessed with race, like yourself, assume foolishly that everyone else is and try to make it about that.
There's only one racist political party out there, it's the one who plays identity politics, creates race conscious legislation, and is constantly bringing our differences to the forefront. The other side seeks only a colorblind society.
Your masters are absolutely terrified of a colorblind society where merit rules, that would take away their most reliable voting blocs.
21 - roger nowosielski
it did come close to . . . (second paragraph)
22 - The Obnoxious American
Roger
You miss the point of the article. Virtually none of the things people say that are then labeled as racist, are actually anything more than clumsy, stupid, off the cuff comments. That's not at all the point of the article, which is that the left continues to use race as a tool to manipulate. Either to win votes from minorities with pandering legislation, or to stifle dissent.
Interestingly, your point about Ferraro proves mine. A clear double standard has been applied to Reid when what Ferraro said wasn't even as bad yet shelled her chances. But more to the point she got whacked not because of what she said, but because the party was interested in using Obama's race to win. So Ferraro gave them an easy way to demonize Hillary.
Interestingly, here is wiki's quote of what Ms. Ferraro said, and it's very very close to the point of my article:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
23 - roger nowosielski
I was responding to Dreadful's comment, OA. Havent' read the article.
As I said, aside from the double standard issue, I see no issue except for Reid's lack of intelligence to express his ideas clearly.
As to whether he was being manipulative, as I believe you may have insinuated in one of your comments, I'm not qualified to judge. Personally, I don't think he's that smart to be accused of manipulation, but I reserve my judgment.
24 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
I think any reading of what Reid was trying to say is obviously manipulative in terms of using race to get votes. Reid basically acknowledged that Obama's ability to sound white to white audienced but to also have the ability to turn off (or on) the "dialect" would help him gain votes.
This episode shows the 2008 election for what it was - the selection and election by Democrats of a candidate chosen not because of his accomplishments or experience (there wasn't much of either) but mainly because of his racial appeal, and the so-called historic nature of such a presidency. That's effectively what Reid was saying when he was quoted. If that's not using race to manipulate, then I don't know what is.
25 - roger nowosielski
That's a minor issue to me. All politician's are.