The thread “The Religion of the President” is a great thread. If you haven’t, you should all read for context for post 54, where X destroys Dr. Fate’s argument.

The President gets a lot of flack and a lot of it is deserved. He’s done some dumb things and he has completely reneged on a lot of commitments. Yeah, he’s been dealt a difficult hand, but that goes with the territory.

But a lot of flack he gets, in my opinion, is simply because he’s black. Probably my proudest moment as an American was the day a black man was elected to be president. I never thought it would happen in my lifetime. I knew Obama was leading in the polls, but I thought people were lying to pollsters, and that when they entered the voting booth, the fear of the other would overtake them and they’d vote for the white guy. The fact that places like Indiana went Obama said to me that maybe, maybe the country had been changing for the better faster than I could see.

Arguments like those expressed in that Religion thread, however, the birther silliness, and a lot of the cheap shots we’ve seen, I think arise out of a discomfort many people have with a black man as president. If racism is a fear of the other, Obama is so other.

But then there is what Minister X said in the last part of that thread. There he writes:

Americans will catch on sooner or later. I hope the Republican candidate for Prez in 2012 realizes that, and rises above this sort of thing. One can focus on Obama's policies and official performance and make a good case he should be replaced. I'll vote for a Republican who does that; I will not vote for one who lowers him- or herself to baseless fear-mongering. I hope I'm not alone in that.

Playing to the basest of emotions will only take a Republican candidate so far. I’m sure it’s tempting because the positive feedback loop is so strong, but what they will lose are people who see such fear-mongering for what it is, and the Republican’s are going to need those people to get elected.

I think that a very small amount of it is because Mr. Obama is black. I recall the attacks during the Clinton administration and they seemed almost as ugly to me. The Swift Boat attacks against Kerry also come to mind. Reagan, Bush I and especially Bush II also got their share. I think for the most part this it is just the nature of our politics. What's worse now is that people can find media that supports their existing preconceptions and misconceptions, echoing and magnifying whatever biases they already have. As the presidency goes on for years, that magnification gets stronger and stronger.

The attacks are because he is a Democrat, made by Republicans.
The Democrats have attacked Bush just as bad, this is nothing more than partisan politics.

That being said, the thread in particular had a little bit more to it I think, I am not black so I can't say this for certain but black churches are not identical to white churches. To compare the presidents church to one I am familiar with would probably not be the right thing to do. Yes both are Christian but compare a Catholic Mass in Beverly Hills to a downtown Detroit revivalist type church and the two Christian services are nothing the same (I have to believe). The Prez is black, he goes to a church that is mostly black, good for him! But to compare it to another church simply is not fair. I agree the crap the president sat through with Jeremiah Wright was insane and he was waaaay over the line, but this recent Pastor is fairly "tame" and hardly an issue more than partisan politics plain and simple.

What? He's black? OMG!

I suppose that you are right that there are some that hate him only because he is black, but far less than those that love him because he's black, which incidentally is just as despicably racist.

This is first rate nonsense. Hating somebody because of the colour of their skin is far worse than loving somebody for it. This should be self-evidently true really. Just because you're proud that your country has elected a black man it doesn't stand to reason that you hate white people.

Anyway, I don't think george was referring to all criticisms of Obama when he made this thread. He's clearly talking about the undercurrent behind certain hysterical lines of attack that keep resurfacing such as the neverending 'birther' controversy, the constant insinuations that he's a muslim, the guilt-by-association bullshit where people like Steve like to pick apart everything ever said by people at churches he attends to find evidence that Obama hates whites... Not only is all this stuff ridiculous, it's also utterly irrelevant to his performance as President.

Ultimately it'll prove to be counter-productive too. Right now instead of focusing on Obama's record the guy who's leading the polling for the Republican primaries can't shut up about his birth certificate. How do you think that's going to play with the swing voters ? It seems to me that Republicans have allowed the small minority of racists to have their way. I'm quite sure the vast majority of conservative Americans are not racists but you wouldn't be able to tell that from the way minor fringe obsessions are dominating the agenda. It'll cost you a lot of votes next year.

Yeah, Sass has it. Randy, I didn't say, "overwhelming majority of the criticism," but the muslim thing, the birther thing, the church thing, the wacky out there stuff is motivated, in part, because he's black and some people aren't comfortable with that. I know there are tons of things that Obama can be legitimately criticized for, which is, in part, why I quoted X, who does a really good job pointing those things out. My point, I think, is that this kind of criticism is politically a loser. It will alienate people like X, like me, perhaps like you. Baseless fear-mongering is just that and has no place in a Republican nominee.

I hear what Ray Jay is saying. Maybe politics is just getting rougher. Maybe. That Swift Boat stuff was, indeed, nearly as equally crazy, I'm not sure I entirely buy it. The very personal nature of the crazy attacks suggest it's more than that.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Not so fast, mister. You don’t get to throw down gasoline on the race card like that and go running of pretending it wasn’t you. Your own words quoted above are borderline racist. You openly say that you were the proudest ever to be an AMerican when Barack. Obama won because he was a black man..

When my grandfather was my age, a black man couldn't play major league baseball. In two generations we not only allowed qualified black men to play baseball, but to become president of the United States. Two generations! How cool is that! It took four to go from slavery to integrated baseball.

I'm not proud that people voted for him because he's black, I'm proud that enough people thought the fact he was black did not disqualify him, there is a huge difference, and that was the difference that won him the presidency. Actually, still makes me proud, despite his Presidential track-record of disappointing just about everyone.

bbauska wrote:What? He's black? OMG!

No he ain't. He's mixed race.

You are correct, Danivon. Nobody bit the bait...

I'm going to ramble...

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:What? He's black? OMG!

No he ain't. He's mixed race.

I realize you're probably just being cute, but since you're not an American it's possible that you don't fully understand what "black" means here, rather than in the OED. One could have a lot less African blood in him than Obama or Tiger Woods and still be "Black in America". The census bureau, for the first time in 2010, included among the choice of races something much like "mixed race" and many, many fewer people checked it off than could have. It's still a very weak concept here. I don't say this with pride. In fact I see it as one of the signs (albeit quite a subtle one compared to most!) that racism is deeply ingrained in our culture.

>> Regarding the argument of the prior several posts: being proud that racial barriers are falling doesn't make one a racist. Recognizing that races exist* and that racism exists, and noting that fact, doesn't make one a racist. Calling someone a racist doesn't make you a racist. Not even "borderline".

RUFFHAUS8 wrote:Frankly he [Obama] was a wet behind the ears nitwit running around screaming “Change” and the electorate is that stupid and easily influenced by the media into voting for what they are told to.

Using the word "what" instead of "who", if intentional (and I'm sure it wasn't), would be racist. Exaggerating Obama's lack of qualifications and calling a graduate of some fine schools a "nitwit" isn't necessarily racist, but it's certainly not inconsistent with racism. Now please ignore those two sentences, because I don't want to either accuse Ruffhaus of racism or worry about whether he is. What I want to know is this: if the electorate is so easily influenced by the media, why have seven of the last eleven Presidential elections been won by the more conservative candidate?

[I voted for John McCain but I don't think it's outside the realm of rational behavior to have thought that Obama would make a better President.]

• Chain of memes: 1) someone comments about the vitriol aimed at Obama and suggests that racism underlies some of it; 2) he's reminded (quite accurately) that worse insults and more offensive language was used against G.W. Bush - the point being that since vitriol need not arise from racism, attribution of racism behind the vitriol aimed at Obama is specious. --- I simply wish to note that the truth that does reside in the second meme does not necessarily apply to the final corollary as much as the meme-expressers would like. The fact that Bush was insulted doesn't disprove the existence of racism in insulters of Obama. It's simply the case that it's incumbent upon those spreading the first meme to show how the criticisms of Obama are both unprecedented in nature (at least recently) and logically connected to racism.

Specifically: I read some opinion piece this AM -- I'm not going to try to find it and cite it because it's not relevant beyond my paraphrasing of it -- that said The Donald is a racist because now that his birtherism claims have...

TIME OUT. Please excuse me for this digression but I'm sure some of you will find it amusing. Remember how the movie Patton starring George C. Scott begins with him giving a speech to some unseen group of soldiers, and talking about courage and winning? I happened to run across the full text of that speech. Only about 60% of it made it into the movie. Remember the foul language? For instance, criticizing some writers who romanticized individual heroism over team effort (Patton was trying to instill team spirit), he said they "don't know any more about real fighting, under fire, than they do about f___king." Well at one point he's talking about the importance of staying alert and uses some foul-language imagery that popped into my mind just then as I was about to describe what happened to Trump. Patton: "A man, to continue breathing [on the battlefield], must be alert at all times. If not, sometime a German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of s__t." ... ... I'm chuckling again now. And so to pick up where I left off...

...now that Obama has snuck up behind The Donald and beat him to death with a sock full of birth certificates, Trump is making noises about moving on to an investigation of how Obama got accepted at Columbia U. and then Harvard Law. (This pundit notes that both schools turned The Donald down despite his being a child of privilege.) Anyway... to finally get to my point... I've heard some stuff about Obama and Harvard, I think. I also recall the enemies of Dubya doing "opposition research" on his acceptance at Yale and Harvard Business. This pundit said that questioning Obama's qualification for admittance to Columbia and Harvard is tinged with racism because it's based on an assumption that a black child raised as Obama was couldn't possibly be good enough to get into Columbia on his own yada yada yada.

I think this pundit is way off. First of all, in this case the experience of Bush goes a long way to "legitimize" inquiries of this sort (to the extent they are ever legitimate - or relevant), especially since Bush did quite well in school. Second: questioning how a US President got into a school is an utterly stupid thing to do no matter what - one only needs to be a partisan hack to do it, not a racist. (Questioning how someone passed courses might be a legit inquiry if there's evidence of cheating.) So, as I said at the end of my bulleted paragraph: to charge racism when someone attacks the Prez you need to show that the nature of the attack was unprecedented and find some link beyond mere dislike of Obama. In this case the accuser fails on both accounts. But I don't think all accusers fail. I think it's probably possible to find some racism behind some criticisms.

Now let's say you're about to post a criticism of Obama. If you're worried that you might be accused of racism, or actually concerned about and questioning your own motives (yeah, sure), here's what you can do: make sure your criticism is just like one that was leveled against a white man by another white man. If you can't do that - watch out.

* The existence of "races" is actually a matter of some controversy among evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and related scientists.

ok, why is it the "other stuff" brought up is all because of race yet when say Kerry ran, I suppose that was about race? When Bush ran, the stuff about his national guard days were about race as well? Why oh why must this be about race (as you insist it is) and not about partisan politics as it is with every other freaking politician. Seems like a bit of a racist remark to assume any negative simply must be racially oriented when the man is black but when he's white (and the same thing) it's another matter.

His father went to Harvard, so it's hardly a surprise that he did.

Racism just doesn't fit the evidence. Republicans happily embraced Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice well before Obama. I'd offer American supremacism as the correct answer. The dilemma with Obama is whether he properly reflects America's view of itself. When he damned the Iraq War, Guantanamo, torture, etc. he condemned America's do no wrong view of itself.

While being white is certainly one of the privileged binaries in America it's just one of many. If you have enough of the right factors in your favor it's pretty clear that race won't prohibit your success in any position.

Race in simple terms of skin color is a marginal issue, if enough other binaries are in your favor. That's why DF went after his status as a Christian, not because DF has a problem with skin color, but because Christianity is a another favorable binary. If you oppose Obama you'll want to strip him of as many favorable binaries as possible.

Bianaries: (I highlighted a number in Obama's favor)
White or not white
Male or not male
Christian or not Christian
Wealthy or not wealthy
Educated or not educated
Married or not married
Heterosexual or not heterosexual
Parent or not parent
Military or not military
Attractive or not attractive
Elite or not elite

There are many more, and some are interelated such as sexuality and family status.

Consider Colin Powell in terms of this list.

That's very interesting.

I'd add tall to the list. Apparently that comes up when people discuss Mitch Daniels candidacy

How are you defining "elite"? That seems to be a negative these days and seems to be a function of wealth and education and class. But even with that, very few would define GWB as elite (although his grandfather was a senator) whereas Obama who grew up under troubled circumstances often gets described that way as a term of derision.

x

...now that Obama has snuck up behind The Donald and beat him to death with a sock full of birth certificates,

I note that Tom Tancredo is now claiming that Obama purposefully withheld his birth certificate this long in order to
"Make republicans look stupid". too funny.
I also note that Donald Trump took great exception to this being about "race" becasue he "has always had great relations with the blacks." Also, too funny.

The notion that the "birther issue" is about race is true as long as a significant portion of people claim it is true. And too many commentators, from Jeff Toobin, to the New York Times to ...long list, have made this claim.
There is also truth in the sense of the "otherliness" of Obama. He is not for populists, "he's NOT just like one of us," I mean, arugala....really.

I think part of the problem is the medias' reluctance to deal with objective truth. Why they bother to provide Donald Trump coverage (When he says, "I've heard the certificate is misssing..." ) when they know the truth, is problematic. The lack of journalisitc standards... They have a huge role in propogating lies, slander, and disinformation.
The other part of the problem is the political process. The primary system allows for a small section of committed party members who vote in early primaries to have out size influence. Significant portions of of these committed voters tend to hold extreme views (and remain committed racists) and candidates who pander to these views gain early support.

Still, I don't know why it would surprise anyone that race is still an issue. The civil rights battles weren't that long ago. There are still serving members of Congress who marched with King... And the idea that there are differences between races are significant is still stressed in every day media and every day discourse.

I am not black so I can't say this for certain but black churches are not identical to white churches

I point this out, Tom, not because its not true. But that it should actually matter. Mormons are different too. So are catholics. But those differences aren't stessed when discussing politics of people of these faiths. . Only the "black versus White".

I look forward to the day, an openly gay person runs for President. Its taking gays a lot less time to achieve total acceptance than blacks. (Well, not the Black gays. And the Black Jewish Gays ....even worse...) ("The Producers...)

Minister X wrote:I realize you're probably just being cute, but since you're not an American it's possible that you don't fully understand what "black" means here, rather than in the OED.

I was not simply trying to be cute, but to make a point, which you do acknowledge in a slightly patronising way - in America the legacy of the 'one-drop' laws mean that anyone who is a bit black is 'Black'. You mention Tiger Woods. He is not even half-black. He's more Asian than black, but is considered to be black by many. Anyone who dares to suggest that there are some hangovers from the past still afflicting American racial politics will be held by Randy (and he dear departed Steve) as racists ourselves for mentioning it, because apparently sticking up for people who are recipients of prejudice is equally as bad as the actual prejudice. Which is also a big problem, frankly.

And I already knew this to be the case. You see, while I am not an American, my girlfriend lived there for a time, and is herself mixed race. The latter fact means that I do pick up on the difference between black and mixed race, and the former means that she has made me well aware of how she found the state of US racial politics.

I also can see why George and others who voted for Obama would resent accusations that they did so out of 'racism', and that suggestions that Obama is 'less qualified' than his primary and final election opponents, is a 'nitwit' or whatever are pretty much subjective. But it's a neat trick of the right to play the 'race card' painting themselves as the victims in all of this.