Carter's Racism accusation

Remove all ads!

I think DR covered it quite well. The illegal problem won't be going away. A lot of good can be accomplished with a multi-pronged approach-- improved border security; aggressive pursuit and prosecution of businesses who import or hire illegals; immediate deportation of criminal aliens (legal or illegal); a path to citizenship for illegals in good standing willing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship. We will not be able to remove all 10 million illegals from our country, and we should not operate under the illusion that we can. I oppose blanket amnesty*, but a path to citizenship is a key component to handling the problem -- as job opportunities for illegals begin to dwindle due to our crackdown on the businesses hiring them, providing a non-criminal means for illegals to get work is absolutely essential for ensuring public safety. The only way to do that is to provide them with a path to legitimacy. Further, it is a lot easier to track a resident alien than it is to track an undocumented one, so the benefits we would yield from such a program are manifold.

* Although Ronald Reagan clearly didn't oppose it when he unabashedly pushed for and adopted a measure granting amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants in the mid 1980's. That said, when Reagan did it, it hadn't been tried yet. In retrospect, it looks stupid to grant blanket amnesty to 3 million people without any real pre-conditions, but there wasn't yet any precedent to show why the measure would fail. The answer, of course, is not to throw the entire concept out the window, but rather to fix it. Don't repeat the mistake of Reagan and the then democrat-controlled legislature by letting them stay for free -- make them earn it. Hence the fine, the need for a clean legal slate, and the requirement to learn English. As far as I'm concerned, anyone willing to put forth that much effort has earned his right to be here. Anyone who isn't? Well...they should be deported.

 

Well, okay, here's David Frum (used to be a speechwriter for Bush, still more or less defends Bush's presidency, still a conservative)

 

Frum is an old school neo-conservative of the sort of the late Irvin Kristol or Francis Fukuyama - agree with him or not (I don't), he is cerebral. It is only natural that he has nothing but contempt and derision for the rabble that the GOP notables like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey are currently rousing. Frum speaking of 'some of the most unscrupulous people' sounds about right to me.

Interestingly, we see a split between old school neo-cons like Fukuyama and Frum and the likes of Bill Kristol - Irvin's son and a major champion for Sarah Palin (who, fortunately, lost out in GOP straw polls to Mike Huckabee).

 

Wait, isn't "old school neo-conservative" something of a contradiction? Wouldn't they just be "conservative"? Maybe add in "old school" to distinguish them from the newer brand of neo-conservatives, but putting the two together seems like a misnomer.

 

I think he means Frum is one of the original gangstas, so to speak, of the Neo-Conservative movement. Those whose political stance is based on a set of principles (specifically, the use of American economic and military might to spread democracy in other countries) which first emerged in prominence in the '90's. There are few principled neocons like Frum around anymore. Most self-identified neocons these days are like Bill Krystol and Dick Cheney, unwavering cynics and political tacticians first and foremost. A good way to identify the latter type of Neocon is to observe the tendency to see the world and frame issues in a "good vs. evil" binary, shun diplomacy, or b*tch excessively about the Middle East. Often all three, actually.

 

While reading today's paper I came across this opinion piece by Jay Ambrose that probably sums up my feelings on Carter's racism quote better then I could ever do. The bolding was done by me for a part that I found particularly well done.

 

Pretty well sums up how I feel too. Stated simply, it is possible to oppose Obama without being a racist.

 

It's certainly possible - the question is whether or not that is what is happening. Bill Clinton chimed in to the debate earlier this week and basically said the opposite of Carter. He argued that the current health care debate didn't have anything to do with Obama being black, because many of the people who were opposing health care reform were the same people who opposed it when he was president. And Bill Clinton is obviously not black.

That said, there are definitely still racists in the US, and I think the racists join with whatever group is opposing Obama for whatever reason, because they do have a problem with a black man being President. Granted, this is not what Carter said, but I feel it bears mentioning. Kind of like the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

Of course the racists are opposing Obama. The question isn't how many racists are opposing Obama, but how many of the people opposing Obama are racist? Look at the amounts of criticism Clinton got over his attempt, consider in the polarization of politics since then, and tell me how much criticism you'd expect just on the issues/politics. What's actually present doesn't seem to be significantly different from that expectation from my view.

 

I don't think Carter said everyone who disagreed with Obama did so due to racial bias -- he was referring to the extreme protests that have been occuring. There a big rift between telling someone you don't agree with them and smacking them around because you don't agree with them -- the latter is usually caused by extinuating circumstances.

 

And I'm saying that's still vastly due to politics, not racism. I'll agree that there are a few racists out there, and that they're very vocal about it, but I don't see any racism in the agitated masses. They aren't marching on Washington, carrying signs, and shouting down speakers because of racist hate, but because of political disquiet.

 

You're missing the point NOG -- the anger is caused by both a disagreement in politics and racial bias. People are arguing about the issues but letting their racial bias interfere with their ability to act moderately -- hence, we get some rather extreme political protests.

Where a lack of respect exists, so does a lack of decorum.

 

Exactly. Just because someone isn't shouting "kill the darkie" doesn't mean there isn't a form of racial bias or resentment simmering their outrage beneath the surface. In fact, the more irrational or extreme the complaint, the more likely it is this is the case.

 

There have been lots of cases where people have had a lack of respect for a leader, with an accompanying lack of decorum, without a racial component.

What I see here is too much willingness to paint dissenters with the racist brush. Such broad painting is not cool in public discourse. Neither are comments like "liar". Michael Coren said it this way

Emphasis mine. I would argue Dowd's comment tells us more about her than it does about Wilson. He never bloody well said "BOY", yet what she 'heard' is all the sudden gospel truth. I've been accused before of hearing subtext that isn't there. Fair enough. I think Dowd has a similar problem. I read a quote from a journalist who said it mjuch better than I ever could -- when I
find the thing I'll post it.

Ahh, here it is. Peter Worthington's comment, which I pretty well plagiarized.

 

Ok. I give up.

 

So, this is from the same link:

This guy, of course, doesn't bother to make that case.

Ditto. Where's the beef?

For a guy who loves the line, "the case can be made," he seems reluctant to make it.

She did, actually make her case:

Get a load of this:

So here's what we have: Afghanistan is "Obama's War," Acorn is Obama's "catastrophe," Obama is too soft on Iran, Obama doesn't really "trust" Israel, Maureen Dowd tosses about worthless accusations about Joe Wilson, Carter is the worst president in "living memory," and that Carter should be "put out to pasture." But wait, I'm saving the best for last. Drum roll, please:

"Obama was elected president because he was black."

What was that again about the "race issue" and Obama?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1

 

It's been mentioned before that many, many black people voted for Obama on that basis only. I believe I commented on that in previous threads, stating that if it's wrong for a white voter to vote for a white guy "because he's white", then the converse should also be true.

Dowd did make a case, but it's hardly a convincing one. Once again we have a case of anyone who opposes the actions of a black person, for whatever reason, is being told that nope, everything you say is a damn lie and you're a racist.

Lookit, politicans get out of line all the time. Here in the Great White North, one of our former Prime Ministers blurted out a phrase that rhymes with "duck shoe" on the Parliament floor (he later said that the Spoonerism is what he actually said, though IIRC recordings proved that to be a lie.

It's possible to be a douchebag while not being a racist.

The overarching question seems to be "How much of the opposition to Obama is racially driven?" It would be flat out stupid to say that none of it is -- I've never claimed that. It would also be flat out stupid to say that it all is. So the question comes down to the percentage: is it more or less than 50%?

My position is similar to one Snook mentioned earlier -- there was LOTS of opposition to Clinton from the right. Over the last few years, extreme right wingers have become more and more angry at the Left (Democrats, as it were) in general. Is the level of anger against Obama so severely increased from what was shown against Clinton (or the other Democratic candidates for the Presidency, including the female edition of Clinton) that we can only attribute it to racism? I think not.

I think that there would be similar levels of opposition to any plan made by any Democratic President. There would be similar levels of rudeness and lack of respect. I truly wish that weren't the case, as I prefer civilized discourse, but those are the facts as I see them

 

No, we don't. That isn't what is happening. You are dramatically oversimplifying the criticism leveled at Wilson and the intentions of those criticizing him by way of a major straw man. YOU are doing that.

That is why I said I give up.

 

Yes, but those same black people would still have voted for the Democratic candidate, regardless. A lot of blacks just don't vote Republican.

Less, probaly far less, but the percentage would be higher here in the South (But still below 50 percent) - Most of the "birthers" are in the South.

 

So I guess Code Pink is an anti-white group? They're even more vocal (and irrational) than most of the anti-Obama protests I've seen, so obviously there must be racial bias behind it, right?

I'm sorry, but your argument seems to amount to "They vehemently oppose Obama, therefore they must be racists." You can't say someone's a racist just because the person they're disagreeing with is from a minority race. You need to back that statement up with evidence.