Driving A Wedge Indeed
Ward Connerly writes: ‘One thing I have learned from more than 13 years of fighting for equal treatment for every American regardless of race, sex, color, or ethnicity is that politicians can triangulate more about this issue than almost any other — and get away with it. A few days ago, Sen. John McCain gave his support to our effort in Arizona to prohibit preferences through a constitutional amendment. In explaining his reason for doing so, McCain said, “I have always opposed quotas.” Instantly, Sen. Barack Obama pounced.’
Speaking at a convention of “journalists of color” (the participants gave him standing ovations at the beginning and at the end of his appearance), Obama said, “I am disappointed that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he’s right. You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they’re all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.”
Indeed. “The truth of the matter is,” indeed, that this issue is all too often “designed to drive a wedge between people.” The ones driving a wedge between them, however, are not conservatives or others who oppose ‘preferences.’ They call for the same treatment for everyone. There’s nothing decisive about that.
No, the ones doing the dividing are people like Barack Obama. People who believe that others should be treated in a ’special’ manner simply because they’re members of a ‘minority.’ Whether they want to be part of it or not. The government considers them part of such a minority and that’s that.
Furthermore, the ones doing the ‘dividing’ are those who accuse every single person who opposes ‘preferences’ of being racist, unempancipated, and so on. Evil, in other words.
Once I thought that Obama did not like these kinds of attacks. We all know better now.
What’s sadder than Obama using this line of attack is that it works. If it didn’t work, Obama wouldn’t use it. Voters are seemingly influenced by Obama’s idiotic reasoning. And that of others who agree with Obama on this issue, and on his approach.
The sad reality is that those who support special treatment for minorities are enforcing racism, sexism, and so on. They’re even encouraging and institutionalizing it.
Until we reach the point that we are living out what Martin Luther King Jr. often called the “true meaning of our creed” that all men (and women) are created equal, how we deal with the issue of race will be a work in progress. Something tells me that, deep in his soul, Sen. Obama knows this. Certainly, he should.
Quite right.
"People who believe that others should be treated in a ’special’ manner simply because they’re members of a ‘minority.’"
Yeah, or because systematic disenfranchising is sort of a fact everywhere and it might be a good idea to counteract that. I mean, the US was from beginning a big landscape of social engineering, designed to keep white people and white men in particular with a better slice of the pie than they deserved. Today white people and people with more melanin (especially those with African looks) are getting a better and worse deal, respectively, as a sort of aftershock to this social engineering. Black guys get more and heavier prison sentences, more often get the DP and even if they have a clean record then white guys with a few blots on their personal history have a better chance to get the same job. I’ll try to find the study on that.
Didn’t Obama want some class-based (as in economic quartiles) quotas? That sounds a lot better than a racial basis.
"Furthermore, the ones doing the ‘dividing’ are those who accuse every single person who opposes ‘preferences’ of being racist, unempancipated, and so on. Evil, in other words."
[Segue]
Once I thought that Obama did not like these kinds of attacks. We all know better now."
Hah. Hahah. Clever. Has Obama "accuse[d] every single person who opposes ‘preferences’ of being racist, unempancipated, [evil] and so on"?
Has he? Eh, nope.
"enforcing racism, sexism, and so on. They’re even encouraging and institutionalizing it."
I’m still not so sure about that. I’m very uncommitted. But your article does point out that Obama isn’t too positive on quotas, saying that they mostly drive a wedge and aren’t meant to solve a problem. He has gotten standing ovations in front of black audiences when demanding personal responsibility and striving on your own. Recognizing systematic discrimination isn’t the same as blaming it for all ails.
I was really bothered by this article, you go off on Obama as if you hadn’t just quoted him on taking a fair-minded stance on the idea of quotas, and the structure of your text makes it look as if it is trying to tie Obama to people who call anti-quota stancer takers as "evil". Obama hasn’t said that. His campaign has said McCain has race-baited while it has not, which seems to be a lie just as bad as the Landstuhl BS, but he hasn’t participated in the attacks you grumble about.
I don’t think he is calling McCain racist at all. He said
"Since they don’t have any new ideas, the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me. They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy. They’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills."
Is that a "race card"? Looks more like a predictive warning about the rumor-mongering we’ll see. He does say the color of his skin will be used against him, and we have seen "muslim" e-mails already, just not from McCain affiliates. He should have specified "They", really. Now it looks as if he has rated his competitor as morally low, predicitng the race card will be used. OTOH, the McCain campaign has now used the race card card, so in a way they have fulfilled Obama’s prediction.
Hat tip to Andrew Romano, who offers a counter-example
"They’re going to try to say I’m confused. They’re going to try to say that I’m too angry. They’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s a North Vietnamese collaborator with PTSD and he’s older than all the presidents on the dollar bills. But that’s just because they don’t want to debate me on the issues."
I think it is interesting to have for comparison.
utsu,
It’s not clear to me whether the ‘muslim’ e-mails are coming from McCain affiliates at all. I know most Republicans wouldn’t even suggest that just because it would be political poison for them.
Obama’s comment was following a criticism of McCain’s ad, where he described it as an attempt, because apparently he thinks McCain can’t address the issues, to cast doubt on him personally. Even that wasn’t completely honest, since McCain’s ad brought up issues like oil drilling, which it said Obama didn’t support. The segue from video clips of his Europe trip to questions about Obama’s positions on the issues, was the entire point of the ad: to show his reception on the Europe trip as unimportant compared to the issues Obama is against.
From there, Obama moved into comments about how he would be villified as different. It mirrors comments Obama made a while back where he said the "Republican attack machine" would say something like "and, oh yeah—he’s black" as a way to diminish him.
The problem here utsu, is that he’s trying to conflate bigotry and paranoid wingnuts at the bottom of society with McCain’s campaign against him—its wholly intentional, and not an accident of not specifying who ‘they’ are at all.
utsu, my view on this is Obama is simply fitting into the mould of a typical Democratic candidate, and the Democratic party has always used so-called "Roveian" tactics to create fear. Remember when Democrats were saying Newt Gingrich would take old people’s money away and take food from the mouths of school children? Obama has said things like that this campaign also.
The most striking thing remains Obama’s past comment suggesting the attack would be "and, oh yeah—he’s black". I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything like that reported in the press.
It wouldn’t even work if they wanted it to. A new Rasmussen poll shows that the number of people who would support a black candidate is up to 85% from 78% in early June.
Tell Samuel Snow about preferential treatment(here, here and here). He is just another white legacy admission like John McCain or George Bush. Samuel Snow is just another common criminal like James Hensley.
"Remember when Democrats were saying Newt Gingrich would take old people’s money away and take food from the mouths of school children?"Was that an absolute lie or just an emotional and extreme way of putting things? What I am seeing now in Wisconsin thanks to the GOP is very much along those lines. Roveian implies detachment from reality, to create credibility through repetition and to play on the simplest tendencies of the listener."The problem here utsu, is that he’s trying to conflate bigotry and paranoid wingnuts at the bottom of society with McCain’s campaign against him"He did make a segue that implied McCain’s latest ad was in the strain and grain of the xenophobes of the right wing? Because McCain’s ad was a mix of the stupid and the substantial, and Obama is line if he tries to claim McCain is trying to sow fear based on xenophobia if he uses only that ad as evidence.Obama should be careful. Even if I take away the policies that I agree with because of my left-wing leaning, Obama seems to have a qualitative AND quantitative edge to McCain. But if he tries to spread "the fear of fear" too much then he will only be quantitatively better.Once again, I have never been for Obama because he is some symbol of purity or renewal, but I do expect him to be a bigger person than McCain.
utsu,
yes it is a lie to say republicans wanted to take old people’s money away , etc. right now, they just support a different plan then democrats, where the choice of what to do with your money would be completely voluntary. every plan republicans have proposed also have measures to make sure people don’t lose money thats owed to them. it was always just dishonest a way to scare people into voting democrat.
Just like Democrats claim that Republicans want tax cuts for the rich, when they’re proposing an across-the-board tax cut for everyone. That’s dishonest also.
I agree with you that McCain’s ad was a little childish, but it also doesn’t show Obama as better than McCain for responding to it the way he did. What I’m amazed at is people who still think Obama has run this campaign in the new politics he promised at the beginning.
Oh, and the most recent dishonest tactic:
Trying to paint the Republican Party as having "a culture of corruption", when the Democratic Party is just as corrupt and everyone knows it.
"yes it is a lie to say republicans wanted to take old people’s money away"We were talking about attacks on Newt here."Just like Democrats claim that Republicans want tax cuts for the rich, when they’re proposing an across-the-board tax cut for everyone."Seeing as they are slanted so much towards upper percentiles, it seems that is what republicans want."What I’m amazed at is people who still think Obama has run this campaign in the new politics he promised at the beginning."I didn’t expect that and I don’t have it as a factor in supporting Obama. I never thought Obama could win nicely seeing as McCain has the person that actually made Kerry’s windurfing a problem in the last election as an employee now.
Really? Study them much? Who benefited more from his initial $300.00 tax break? someone making 200,000 a year or someone making 20,000 a year?
"Really? Study them much? Who benefited more from his initial $300.00 tax break? someone making 200,000 a year or someone making 20,000 a year?"
A clean 300 cut will of course be felt more for those earning less. Proportionally, I thought the tax cuts were aimed towards high-income households - haven’t the tax cuts during this eight-year golgata been tilted towards upper percentiles/companies?
That is yet another Big Lie you are thoughtlessly buying into there, utsu. It is true that in absolute dollar amounts, higher tax brackets enjoyed the most in tax cuts in 2001, but that is inevitable because they were paying more taxes the whole time. If you cut taxes on the rich by 1% and taxes on the lower brackets by 5%, the guy who makes $300,000 is going to see a lot more cash ($3,000) than the guy who makes $30,000 ($1500). Democrats cook that statistic to claim that it was "tax cuts for the rich" because the rich guy got twice as much cash as the poor guy, but in truth it was slanted the other way when you measure the tax cut "proportionally". The Democrat’s meme on tax cuts has consistently been a lie (yes, lie, because the evidence of intent to deceive is clear by the fact that they keep it up even after having been corrected) for years and years.
But I am sure that won’t stop YOU.
I hate to just assume people will read a pdf, even a small one, but this document tells me the tax cuts really focus on the have-mores in terms of % of income, and % of the total tax cut plan.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf
But that isn’t a big point to discuss. What is to be learned is that there is a time for tax cuts and a time for tax raising, no matter your ideology. Bush chose the right side of things at every opportunity (bank deregulation, yax cuts etc.) and with his poor timing the right-wing choice was the wrong-wing choice.
McCain isn’t necessarilly bad for being GOP (even though his recent decisions show he is making bad turns), he is perceived as different from Bush and to a degree, that is fair. The purely right-wing choice and the purely left-wing choice is the wrong one on the economy and the energy issue. I fear that ignoring any right-wing solution because Bush sucked so incredibly much on timing his tax cuts and managing the economy will be akin to a pendulum being allowed to swing too far to the other side. In some, but not all ways, McCain is dragging the previously Bush-obedient GOP establishment with him because he is the only choice for them, not vice versa.
I want the democrats to become more somewhat more humble, direct and flexible without losing the race to the decidedly inferior McCain, not because I want them to do the right thing at the possible expense of their own success, but because I think the US economy could become more stable and thereby work to the advantage of its citizens and the global economy.