I can accept a black man as president, I can NOT accept an incompetent, empty suit, anti-American/military, corrupt, marxist, phony, lying man.

There is something seriously wrong with liberals who have to add in the 'racism' card.
"The inability of a lot of people to accept a black man as president." Who the hell does this imbecile think voted for B. Hussein Obama? Besides 95% of the black community, that is.

This just in: Jimmy Carter's an asshole too.

News flash, huh?

Not only am I tired of hearing about Obama's date night and that it might mean I am a racist but I am also sick of hearing about it - which means, combined with mu opposition to ObamaCare, makes me a Double-Racist, if there is such a thing.

So where do I get my "SICK & TIRED OF OBAMA" T-shirt?

Given Obama's perpetual and on-going campaign via TV, is it any wonder people have OD'd on Barry?

Surprised the MSM doesn't just follow him into the bathroom so that we can get a news flash of his latest bowel movement.

When you have to play the racism card that simply means that you have no valid, honest argument to make-- the left is admitting that they have no credible rebuttal to the criticism that Obama is receiving.

It is amazing that moron's like Silva don't understand that comments like these only hurt their side.

They are trying to create a "camelot" persona for Obama and Michelle and it's just not working.

He seems to have time to date his wife, but no time to meet with General McChrystal and try to save the lives of our troops - many of whom would love to be home with their families.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

Silva is really slow to catch on.

The race card doesn't work anymore.

It's been "Lenny Bruce'd" by the media and Obama supporters.

As for the first couple, They appear to be tone-deaf to the problems facing the country. This really isn't the time for extravagance.

Praising the 'relatively modestly priced restaurant;, which cost how many thousands of taxpayer dollars for the motorcade, Secret Service, traffic and crowd control, etc?

Its nice Chewbacca and the liar in chief can afford to take time out of his busy bankrupting the country schedule to go out and have a nice quiet dinner courtesy of us.

I didn't hear about their anniversary date. I don't care about their anniversary date. If the old media and the left don't want to hear us complain about them spending money and time like normal people when the fate of the nation and the world is at stake, then maybe they shouldn't cover it?

I mean seriously, why is that news anyway?

Why does nobody remember that the Democrat party was specifically formed to prevent the abolishment of slavery? Why does nobody remember that the KKK was started by the Democrat party specifically to keep Republicans from gaining power in the south and giving rights to black persons. Why does nobody remember that it took until JFK and MLKjr for the Democrats to "see the light" and even then most of them voted against civil rights legislation?

Because JFK called MLK senior when junior was put in jail and the father began campaigning for the Democrats. Ever since then the Dems have played on being the minority rights party.

Meanwhile welfare programs, project housing, and education policies as well as a host of other "feel good" legislation has done what Jim Crow laws and Lynching could not. Kept the black man in his place according to the Democrat agenda. The fact that 90% of black persons vote Democratic is just icing on the cake.

Now call me a racist for refusing to give a damn what color someone's skin is, and instead judging them based on their actions and the actions of those they associate themselves with.

What Paul Bunyun wrote:

When you have to play the racism card that simply means that you have no valid, honest argument to make-- the left is admitting that they have no credible rebuttal to the criticism that Obama is receiving.

What Paul Bunyun really meant to say:

When you downplay the racism aspects of the hatred of Obama that simply means that you have no valid, honest defense against it -- the right is loath to admit that race is a factor in some of the criticism that Obama is receiving.

I and any other "lefty" will readily admit there are valid grounds for criticism of this and any other President.

However, pretending race isn't a factor lowers your credibility and colors the valid criticisms you may offer.

After all, if you're not honest and can't admit that race IS a factor in some cases why should we believe anything else you say?

And if you're not bright enough to see that race is sometimes a factor you've got you're head under the sand.

I always look forward to leftists posts with fresh new reasons why I'm a racist.

"I and any other "lefty" will readily admit there are valid grounds for criticism of this and any other President.
However, pretending race isn't a factor lowers your credibility and colors the valid criticisms you may offer."

Okay, Stevie, then how to you determine what is 'valid criticism' as opposed to 'some racist redneck spouting off'.

YOU TELL US STEVIE, because right now, you and your 'lefty pals' label everyone the same. When you have nothing to refute an argument or point of view, it's automatically RACIST!!!!!

"I and any other "lefty" will readily admit there are valid grounds for criticism of this and any other President."

Its the first since time i've heard even one of You leftists admit it, let alone any other leftist.

"After all, if you're not honest and can't admit that race IS a factor in some cases why should we believe anything else you say?

And if you're not bright enough to see that race is sometimes a factor you've got you're head under the sand."

Race is not a factor..It is conservatism versus liberalism Steve. Get Your head out of the sand.

After all, if you're not honest and can't admit that race IS a factor in some cases why should we believe anything else you say?

And if you're not bright enough to see that race is sometimes a factor you've got you're head under the sand.

Of course, there's always going to be some real racists in a nation of 300 plus million, but claiming they amount to more then a bucket in the tsunami of criticism drowning Obama is a phony argument that undermines the credibility of those making it. Obama himself equated racially motivated criticism with racially motivated support in an interview with George Stephanopoulos. Likely, Obama benefits far more from racially motivated support than he suffers from racially motivated criticism. When in Jimmy Carter going to address that racism?

Obama has used disaster and emergency rhetoric as a means to pass legislation in a rush, so when he's criticized for playing the fiddle after claiming the nation is burning it's of his own making.

-" Unfortunately, and this is the most troubling footnote of today's run of criticism for the Obamas' night out, ... The inability of a lot of people to accept a black man as president. "-

If, by "a lot of people" he means 'a small fraction of Obama's critics', then Silva is right.

How many people voted for/support Obama precisely because he is considered black? 'A lot of people', I think. And they proudly say so.

Using racism to support Obama = good.
A small percentage using racism to oppose Obama = bad.

Why is the latter bad but the former, good?

So when SG says: "However, pretending race isn't a factor lowers your credibility and colors the valid criticisms you may offer."

I say when you pretend that race is a factor to more than a tiny percentage of Obama critics, you lose credibility.
Keep crying wolf, soon nobody will pay much attention to real racism.

Come to think of it, maybe that's the plan. Devalue the charge of racism to hide the growing racism FOR blacks and AGAINST whites.

Mac:"Likely, Obama benefits far more from racially motivated support than he suffers from racially motivated criticism."

Spot on.
I didn't see your comment before I commented.

GF: -" Okay, Stevie, then how to you determine what is 'valid criticism' as opposed to 'some racist redneck spouting off'. "-

Good question. I'd actually like to hear a real, factual response from the Left/Dems/Obama supporters.

Steve Green:

So you are calling me a racist since you did not try to refute any of the points I made in my earlier post? I did dare you.

The reason none on the right want to say that racism is a very minor part of the criticism of Obama is that people like you will then take that and say "OMFG! THEY JUST ADMITTED THEY ARE RACISTS!"

Yes, a very very small number of people who oppose Obama likely do so based on race. The overwhelming majority of those who oppose him are conservatives and independents who can see exactly what he is trying to do to our beloved country.

As stated by someone else above. It is Progressive/Socialism/Idiocy that we hate, not the color of the mans skin.

Why can YOU not judge based only on what the man has said and not on the color of his skin? Are you in fact a racist yourself? Just like femenists are in fact sexist?

"GF: -" Okay, Stevie, then how to you determine what is 'valid criticism' as opposed to 'some racist redneck spouting off'."

Usually you can spot the people that hate Obama (the person) versus those who dislike his politics.

I'd say the birthers are race-based to a large part, wouldn't you? Some of those nuts really want to believe that he's a Muslim sent her to slit the throats of their children at midnight.

That's racism.

A recent article on this blog highlighted the rising opposition to Obama noted in the South.

It's fair to say that race is a factor there.

and yes, racism is a factor in Obama's support too.

But getting you folks, some of whom are from the south and probably racist yourselves, to admit that racism is alive and well and a factor in some of the criticism of Obama is like pulling teeth.

Look at what the left did to Clarence Thomas? Ive yet to hear anything from the right that matches the hate and vitriol directed at Clarence Thomas.

As for a black man in OUR White House, I think Thomas Sowell would make a GREAT President. Does that me me a racist(anti-white?)

Steve Green: "pretending race isn't a factor"

That's called "projection: Steve. Just because you and most leftists are bigots, doesn't mean that Obama's critics are.

I'm not making the claim that no one in this country cares about Obama's race, but of those who are critical of his Marxist worldview and anti-American policies, so few do that they aren't even worth considering.

But I suppose things may be a lot diffent on your side--those who support this Marxist anti-American President. Perhaps his race is a major factor for you. In any case, stop projecting your own feelings onto us.

"I'm not making the claim that no one in this country cares about Obama's race, but of those who are critical of his Marxist worldview and anti-American policies, so few do that they aren't even worth considering."

And you know this how? WHat crystal ball do you gaze into to say with such assurance that there are "so few"?

Clearly you're guessing. History supports my side, and you want to deny the history of racism in this country and say it no longer exists?

I'll call bullshit on that. The rancor and vitriol that spews from the right is in part race-based.

Im tired of hearing about obama period dose that make me racsist?

Steve, YOU know this HOW?

Face it, you don't your just spewing your beliefs without any facts. You want to believe it and you may feel it yourself but that's all.

I can't speak for "the right", but for me personally and for everyone I know who opposes Obama (which is most of the people I know) race is in no way a factor. That is a fact.

If you want to talk about "historically", well just go back and read JustRuss's #12 comment. Historically almost all of the bigots have been on your side and methinks they still are.

I don't dislike Obama because he is a Kenyan, I dislike him because he is a communist. He is not black he is red. I don't care what skin color a communist is, I do not care for them. The fact some of them shot at me years ago and I returned fire has a little to do with it. However I don't want a failed system foisted upon me and will fight to the death to prevent it.

Let me ask you this Steve:

If a Republican Presidential candidate said "she's just a typical black person" would that be a bigoted stament in your opionion?

"Usually you can spot the people that hate Obama (the person) versus those who dislike his politics. I'd say the birthers are race-based to a large part, wouldn't you? Some of those nuts really want to believe that he's a Muslim sent her to slit the throats of their children at midnight. That's racism. A recent article on this blog highlighted the rising opposition to Obama noted in the South. It's fair to say that race is a factor there."

You can SPOT a racist? I would infer then, that the RACIST! is white? Well, I've got a couple of black friends who also oppose Obama's policies. Are they RACIST! or do they just hold an opposing view and therefore are okay? If someone happens to live in Atlanta, and is white, they're opposition therefore means they're RACIST!? As for 'birthers', just because someone says 'show me the birth certificate' makes them RACIST?

No, Stevie, you have to do better than that.

SG: "I'd say the birthers are race-based to a large part, wouldn't you? Some of those nuts really want to believe that he's a Muslim sent her to slit the throats of their children at midnight.

That's racism."-

Muslim is a race? No, it's not.

Your untrue throat-slitting hyperbole aside, some birthers may be racist (a large part? Prove it. Got a crystal ball? Clearly you are projecting.). Some are not, they just don't trust Obama. So some fraction of a small percentage of Obama critics may be racist. Wow, that's really earth shaking news.

Since Steve Green is so interested in History... Apologies for the length.

http://www.tobydials.com/td/node/337

One of those many pieces of conventional wisdom--known at this point to just about all of us--is that black Americans vote for Democrats. Overwhelmingly so.

In fact, they vote in greater percentages--usually around 90%--for one political party than any other major demographic group. To have a demographic group vote so overwhelmingly for one party is rather amazing, and so I decided to look into the history of the two political parties to see if I could discover why.

One of the first things I discovered in my research is that there was a demographic group in America's past that--believe it or not--actually gave their votes to one political party in even greater percentages.

The demographic group was the same: black Americans.

The percentage was 100%.

The party that enjoyed those levels of support? The Republican Party.

Huh?

I know, I know, but wait... it gets even weirder. The Democratic Party is, today, thought of as the political champion and proponent of the interests of black Americans. But for almost all of the history of this country, the Democrats were the party of slavery, secession, Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, and opposition to nearly every piece of civil rights legislation ever passed.

And...

The Republicans were the party of abolition and emancipation. They opposed segregation, lynching, and Jim Crow. And they were the sole authors of nearly every civil rights legislation and amendment passed in the United States!

No, I am not smoking anything.

And cling tightly to your caps, because there's more. The Democrats were the creators of the Ku Klux Klan, which they founded with the expressed purpose of using violence to purge Republicans from Southern politics. Essentially, the KKK began its existence as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.

Now let's all just take a deep breath--I am NOT making this stuff up.

At this point in my study, I had more questions than I did answers, so I decided to be a bit more systematic. Whether we be Democrats, Republicans, or something else, we should all share a devotion to what is historically true. And so, I have put together a little timeline on this subject. These things may not be widely discussed, taught, or known today, but they are historical facts that are not generally in dispute. Personally, I found them quite surprising, and I think you might too.

_______

In 1789, Congress passes, and George Washington signs into law, a bill stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.

In 1792, the Democrat Party is formed. They are the party that promotes and seeks the continuance of slavery.

In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.

In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo the 1808 and other anti-slavery decisions.

In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.

For thirty years, Democrats pass multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law takes away all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who is so much as accused of being a slave.

In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

In 1854, the Republican party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

In 1857, the Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black--not even a free black--could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the anti-slavery Republican Party now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to deny blacks their citizenship rights, so...

In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.

In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of this citizenship, especially the right to vote, so...

In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
98% of Republicans vote for it.
3% of Democrats vote for it.

From 1866-1875, the Republican Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.

In 1875, in order to counter the Democrats' passage of Jim Crow laws, Republicans pass the most sweeping civil rights legislation ever--the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eight years later, the Supreme Court (mostly Democrat appointees) declares the act unconstitutional.

In 1876, Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. No more meaningful civil rights legislation is passed until 1964.

In 1892, Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate, and they keep control of the House. They immediately begin establishing Jim Crow laws and repealing all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they cannot repeal, they skirt with poll taxes and literacy tests.

Beginning after the War, and thenceforward until 1935, ALL blacks elected to Congress are Republicans. In addition to those elected to Federal office, hundreds of blacks--all of them Republicans--are elected to state legislatures in the South.

In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. Democrats admit--under oath in Congressional hearings in 1872--that the Klan is a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carries out this plan by means of a series of massacres at Republican Party meetings.

In 1901, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to the White House. Democrats and the media are outraged.

In the 1920s, Republicans propose anti-lynching legislation. The legislation passes the house but is killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In 1947, Republican businessman Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, hires Jackie Robinson (also a Republican), thus integrating Major League Baseball.

In 1954, Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower) authors the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education.

In 1956, Democrats express their opposition to Brown v. Board of Education in the "Southern Manifesto." One hundred and one members of Congress--all but four of them Democrats--sign the manifesto.

In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authors a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats. When the bill finally goes through, it is significantly weakened due to lack of support from Democrats.

In 1960, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authors a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, Senate Democrats attempt (though in the end unsuccessfully) to block passage of the bill.

In 1964, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is essentially the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including still-serving Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), employ a filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans vote for passage than do Democrats.

In 1965, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster is prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoys support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats.

_________

So here we are at 1965, right around the time when black American voters completed the big migration to the Democrats. 100% Republican when they first began voting, 90% Democrat now--what the heck happened?

I kept studying.

Though the sea change occurred in the 1960s, there were, earlier, a couple of small fractures in the 100% support once enjoyed by the Republicans.

First, there was the controversial election of Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes, who won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Though Hayes himself was not involved, there were numerous placative deals made with the Democrats to get them to support his election--including, unfortunately, a relaxing of Republican support for Reconstruction. This was a small crack in what had otherwise been the Republicans' unwavering record of championing the rights of black Americans.

Then, there was the Great Depression, which hit lower-income blacks very hard. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the many anti-poverty and work programs he supported, was seen as a champion of the "little guy." Rightly or wrongly, this caused another diminution in the monolithic support from blacks that had been previously enjoyed by Republicans.

But it was the mid-60s when the big shift took place, and there are three big reasons for that shift.

Kennedy and King:

The 1960s roiled with questions of equality and civil rights. Marches and protests were taking place across the country--it truly was the defining issue of the early 1960s.

John F. Kennedy, recognizing the need to place himself on the correct side of the cilvil rights question, employed the talents of Senator Harris Wofford to pursue this aim. Among other initiatives, Wofford encouraged Kennedy to make a comforting phone call to Coretta Scott King when her husband was in jail. This had a deep effect on Martin Luther King Jr.'s father, who had previously been a Republican and Nixon supporter. King, Sr. very publicly switched his support to Kennedy, and said he would bring "a suitcase full of votes" with him. And he did. When the father of the nation's most prominent civil rights leader switched parties, it was only natural that many would switch with him.

Civil Rights Legislation:

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed by a Congress wherein Democrats were the majority, and they were signed into law by a Democratic president. This had a powerful effect on public opinion.

The ironies involved were many. Both pieces legislation had essentially been authored by Republicans. As a percentage of the party, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for both bills than did Democrats. And a cadre of Democrats filibustered the 1964 bill in an attempt to prevent its passage.

Simply put, both bills could not have been passed without the actions of Republicans... not to mention that both were just modern versions of civil rights legislation that Republicans had passed--and Democrats had systematically undone--100 years earlier.

This, however, was not the broad public perception, and Barry Goldwater--with one action--made that perception significantly worse for Republicans. In the course of the debate on the 1964 Civil Rights legislation, he found an element of the bill not to his liking, and voted against it.

Oops.

Barry Goldwater--a man who, using his own money, twice kept the Arizona chapter of the NAACP from going bankrupt--was not a racist. And his vote was a principled one, in that it was a provision of the bill that he opposed, rather than its overall aim. And yet it may have been the most costly electoral mistake ever made. Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee for president. The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had voted against civil rights legislation. The perception might as well have been carved in stone.

The Southern Strategy:

The electoral reality for any presidential candidate is that he (or she, someday soon) must appeal to a majority of voters in enough states to win. It's a complex game, involving hundreds of calculations and very deliberate strategies. Resources are carefully allocated by state or region, in an effort to secure the most electoral votes. In the presidential election of 1960, the Nixon campaign decided to go after votes in the South. The South had been, from the beginning of the country, solidly Democrat, but fractures had begun to appear in this monolithic support, and the Nixon campaign felt they could make enough headway there to turn the tide. This was called the "Southern Strategy." Nixon's campaign and Republicans contended that they were appealing to traditional American values. Their Democrat opponents countered that they were appealing to underlying racism pervasive in the South.

Whatever the truth was, the Democrats' characterization of the Southern Strategy gained enough traction to have an effect. Ironically, there was still institutionalized racism in the South at that time, but it was still being expressed almost exclusively by Democrats. Southern Democrat governors, such as Faubus of Arkansas, Wallace of Alabama, and Barnett of Mississippi, were standing in doorways of schools, calling out the National Guard, and even closing them all down for a year to prevent their integration.

_______

So, here in 2006, where does this leave us?

Democrats will likely respond to all of this by saying, "that was then and this is now." They will argue that today's Democratic Party is nothing like the way it was. Some will go further, and argue that the roles have reversed--that today, it is the Republicans who are the racists, and the Democrats who are the champions of minorities.

In response, a fair-minded Republican must grant that the Democratic Party has indeed changed--and dramatically so--from its pro-slavery, secessionist, segregationist past. But that Republican then would likely go on to argue that the Republican Party did not change at all vis-a-vis civil rights--that they still continue to promote the same general ideas of colorblindness that they always have: that everyone should be treated equally, and that everyone should be allowed to get as rich as possible, regardless of who they are.

Where does the truth lie? Which party's policies are more beneficial to the interests of black Americans today? And, if all of this is a matter of historical record, why haven't Republicans been shouting it from the rooftops?

If you ask a thousand people to answer those questions, you just might get a thousand different answers. But somewhere in there is the truth, and it's a truth we're going to need to find as we continue to examine this question.

For now, we've taken the first step. For indeed, in order to understand where we are now and where we may be going, it is important that we first understand where we've been.

I'll say it again:

Clearly you're guessing. History supports my side, and you want to deny the history of racism in this country and say it no longer exists?

It does exist and it is a factor. You can claim it's not a factor, but you are only guessing. History suggests otherwise.

I point to historic facts - you decide history doesn't apply here. You'll have to do better than that.

Why even go off-topic and bring up birthers or the South, instead of the topic of the post? : the obvious nutjobs who claim that 'being tired of hearing about Date Night' is racist.

Just a troll changing the subject, again.

RE: My above post,

Another part of the civil war was overreaching by the federal government but in that case I hope we can all agree that it was Right for the government to do so.

And yes I know the Emancipation Proclamation was more about taking the work force away from the South than ending slavery, but as history shows; Republicans were always anti-slavery anyway.

The Democrats are still racist, they just hide behind feel good programs to try and make up for the evil of their pasts and are quite content to continue "keeping the black man down" with social programs rather than making them join the rest of the US population in having to struggle to achieve your dreams.

Steve Green:

A recent article on this blog highlighted the rising opposition to Obama noted in the South

Here we go again bashing the South. The new South consists of mostly Republicans and Reagan Democrats. The old line KKK members have moved North or have all died off. To be sure there are a few left, but they keep to the backwoods and swamps. If it had not been for the Republicans and the Reagan Democrats, there would be no black Mayors, State Congress Critters, and Governors in any of the Southern states.

You say that it was the Dems that voted in the civil rights law of 1964, I beg to differ. The old line KKK members in the U.S House and Senate. It took a solid Republican block to get this legislation passed. The Republicans are the ones that made this law veto proof too. Lyndon Baines Johnson has stated that he would veto this bill when it came across his desk.

Link:

Have you been in the South lately? The level of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic and anti-Congress venom is extraordinary, and with 59 Democrat-held seats in the region, 22 in or potentially in competitive districts, this is a very serious situation for Democrats. I have had several Democratic members from the region say the atmosphere is as bad or worse than it was in 1994.

What changed between 2006 and now? Between 1994 and now.

FACT: America elected a black president.

HughS continues:

The American South has a long history of acting as something of a national barometer that measures the tension between citizens and their government. That barometer is clearly signaling a major storm. But the cause of this political storm is, and always has been, policy.

Now what could possible be different about the south. Why is "The American South" signaling a major storm more so than other parts of the country.

Wake up and smell the racism.

Steve:

What changed is not the Presidents skin color but his policy. The South gets up in arms about all sorts of things (guns, religion, free speech) and in this case it is anti-socialism. The democrats and especially Obama have shown their true colors and it aint blue.

That is what changed since 2006. Racism exists on the right but it is minor. Racism exists on the left but it is Major. Nobody worth a damn on the right gives a flying fork about the color of the mans skin!

I'd say the birthers are race-based to a large part, wouldn't you?

Before the election Democrats in the House formally investigated McCain to verify he is a natural born citizen with far less probable cause than for Obama. Were the Democrats racially motivated? If not, then people can express their support for a similar formal investigation of Obama to verify he is a natural born citizen without be racist. In fact, calling them all racist undermines your own credibility.

A recent article on this blog highlighted the rising opposition to Obama noted in the South.

It's fair to say that race is a factor there.

Obama was black before he was elected. The fact that it's rising opposition proves it's based on Obama's actions, not his static race.

But getting you folks, some of whom are from the south and probably racist yourselves, to admit that racism is alive and well and a factor in some of the criticism of Obama is like pulling teeth.

Racism is no more a factor in criticism of Obama than religion was in criticism of JFK. Such criticism is at it's highest on inauguration day and stays at that level or declines over time.

Liberals use the charge of racism in a transparent attempt to silence Obama's critics by demeaning their character. Obama rejects the notion that the criticism is racially motivated knowing full well that if he were to embrace that silly claim his political career would effectively end with the 2010 elections.

FACT: America elected a black president.

FACT: America elected a leftist president, probably the most leftist president in its history, who turned out to be an incompetent, narcissistic boob, but that's not a factor, right? Naaah... it has to be about race. That's the only reason anyone could ever dislike with Obama. After all, America has a such a long, detailed history of elevating incompetent, leftist, narcissistic boobs to high office, we just love them so so much, right?

Ye gads, man, you're pathetic.

Steve Green - you are totally wrong when you call us racists because we won't bow down to that commie/nazi/marxist person. He is anti-American, and he has been aligned with criminals all his life. Now, am I a racist because I want a decent person in the WH? I don't give a rats behind what color that peson is. I am just sick and tired of you ignorant a**holes spewing racism at every corner. Grow up, grow a pair, and look at life like it is, not how you want it to be. Idiots like you are the ones who are responsible for the way the rest of the world looks at us.
Madalyn

Steve Green - Something I neglected in my previous post. Do you have any idea how many people you call "racist" because we don't agree with Obama are actually "black"? Do you have any idea what nationality any of us are? You need to take a break and quit screaming "racism" until you have facts.
What color am I Steve? Who do I dislike because of his policies? Obama. Who do I dislike because of their color? NO ONE!!!
Madalyn

Steve Green and his lefty white guilt and self loathing is trying very hard to project his racist and prejudicial beliefs on us when history does reflect quite clearly that the republican and conservative side of the political discourse has worked harder to promote equality then the democratic party which works very hard to keep the status quo.

Steve, I do believe racism is real but I believe it can mostly be found in the democratic party especially the left. That is the position of the left which is african americans cannot take care of themselves because they are in fact african americans. You and your party should be ashamed. ww

hey rascist stevie who put blacks into the position of Secretary of State and Defense? Not Carter, Not Clinton, Not Obami...it was George W. Bush.
My god you are moron.

Steve Green - you are totally wrong when you call us racists because we won't bow down to that commie/nazi/marxist person.

Well, since I have called anybody here a racist because they won't bow down blah blah blah YOU are the wrong party here, Madilyn.

All I've said is that race is a factor in the criticism Obama receives from some people, especially in the south.

and anyone want to guess my skin color?

Say Steve, which party was it again that elected a former KKK leader to be currently 4th in line for the Presidency?

Still haven't answered my question Stevie; When can YOU TELL that criticism of one one Obama's policies is based on a true objection and not based on racism?

Or is it completely true you and your pals are just blowing smoke up everyone's ass?

rascist stevie is going to run home to mommy soon.

re: 45

Blue painted over a Deep RED base coat?

All I've said is that race is a factor in the criticism Obama receives from some people, especially in the south.

Which is more than compensated for by the accolades he gets and excuses that are made for him merely because of his race, especially in the blue states.

There's more than one kind of racism, you know.

and anyone want to guess my skin color?

Not really, but if I had to, my guess would be that it's probably green with envy.

s green - "and anyone want to guess my skin color?"

Pardon me but, can I use the normal dem/leftist/progressive/libturd line?

Me racist? NO WAY some of my best friends are black.

Green - I live in the south. Am I a racist because of where I live? Give me a break. You can't stand that the person you like is wrong for the country. We are NOT racists because we want a real leader, one who is proud of his country. Not a spineless, worthless, unAmerican, unorganized idiot. Sarah Palin was right. Being a govenor is a lot like being a community organizer, "Except with responsibilities". Obama has never worked a day in his life. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he probably won't start now.
The racism card wasn't effective in the first week, and is even less so now, so please give it up. You ignorant people are giving the human race a bad name.
Madalyn

You'll have to forgive little Stevie. He's still not clear on Iraq vs Iran.

"Which is more than compensated for by the accolades he gets and excuses that are made for him merely because of his race, especially in the blue states."

Ah, more crystal ball gazing. OM has measured both types of racism and has empirical evidence that it is "more than compensated".

Are facts outlawed on this blog? Is this an "all-opinion" zone where you can make up anything you want and claim it to be true? Certainly when facts are presented there is a rush to shout that person down.

FACT: A Black President was elected in 2008.

FACT: there has been an increase in vocal defiance against the black president - more so than against Clinton, according to HughS.

FACT: there is a history of racism in the South.

FACT: there were faux lynchings and other demonstrations of racism against Obama during his campaign.

FACT: Birthers use Obama's heritage on which to base his religion. Clearly racist thinking.

FACT: Rush Limbaugh is a racist.

In 2003, Limbaugh worked briefly on ESPN's NFL pregame show, but resigned after saying Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

FACT: Jokes are made here and elsewhere about Michelle Obama's "monkey-like" appearance.

Feel free to present any FACTS that support your position, folks.

Steve - we are not going to apologize for not being racist. Stop the nonsense. A few people in this country "might" be racist. I don't know. They are not friends or acquaintences of mine. Every one I know looks at a person's character and not their skin. Can you say the same? Let go. Give it up. Stand clear. Whatever the saying is. Don't bother us with your ignorance anymore. Thank you
Madalyn

s green - "It does exist and it is a factor. You can claim it's not a factor, but you are only guessing. History suggests otherwise."

You're great on reading minds and suggesting "X" number of, presumably white, voters are against obama because of his race [against now, because he's apparently "blacker" now than when they voted him into office] but lets get specific shall we?

What percentage would you say are racists?

Give us a number for say Georgia who's racial make-up is approx. 65% White, 30% Black, 2.8% Asian American.

You might also explain how these primary results figure into your [faulty] equation:

No surprise that Obama won Georgia. Its large African-American vote made it a must-win state for him. What IS a surprise is his unexpected 43 percent share of white voters, doubling his South Carolina numbers and a bad omen for the Clinton camp. We'll see how the 87 delegates break out, but Georgia is among the top six states in delegate counts.

Or that the slight diff in Georgia's Nov election showing 52.2 percent voted for McCain versus 47 percent for obama is also "proof" of racism?

The obvious exit question is: With 95 percent of black Americans voting for obama does that indicate racism on their part?

Don't feed the troll.

s green - "Ah, more crystal ball gazing."

Pot meet kettle. You have used your own special crystal ball and consistently painted an entire section of the country as racists.

There's no nice way to say this: You [presumably sir, or is it bitch?] are a blithering idiot.

Not to mention an asshole to the nth degree.

RE #54, You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.

FACT: in 2008 the most openly Marxist, anti-American President in the history of the United States was elected.

FACT: That is the issue.

His race is only a factor for a tiny minority of his detractors, although it appears to be the primary issue for most of his supporters. If you and your fellow lefitsts weren't so seeped in bigotry and fixated on race you'd realize that.

hmmmmmmm.

Steve Green: "FACT: there has been an increase in vocal defiance against the black president - more so than against Clinton, according to HughS."

How is this a "fact"?

What is the baseline?

How was the data collected?

What methodology was utilized to validate the assertion that this claim is "fact"?

If it can be scientifically determined that the level of "vocal defiance" (hilarious!) against Obama is greater than that of Clinton, which variables are were used for measurement purposes?

Further, what level of "vocal defiance" would be acceptable as non-racist based?

Final question: Isn't this patently absurd, non-scientific, almost-adolescent-level assertion equivalent in "non-sensical-ness" to the Obama Administration's astonishingly dishonest measurement of "saved jobs"?

(quick answer: yes)

Here's another question you'll be too cowardly to answer Steve:

If a Republican Presidential Advisor said: "we want to make sure these jobs don't just go to black men" would that be racist?

s green.... is Big Bird a racist?

Drago, methinks the "vocal defiance" s green is referring to is also what shillary and bill, recently, called the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Oh wait, that can't be true, bill was white regardless of being the "first black president."

Lorie - you should really correct this and include the part where the blog in question actually brings out evidence of the racism:

In sifting through the hundreds of comments offered here today, we have had to withhold many - dozens really - for their overt expressions of racism. That's sad - not that we've held them back, but that we even had to read them in the editing.

Makes a lot more sense when that is included, but I'm sure you knew that.

Marc: "You're great on reading minds and suggesting "X" number of, presumably white, voters are against obama because of his race"

Uhm, actually - you're dead wrong - as usual Marc. I've never attempted to put a number on that. You dont' actually read the comments you just knee-jerk respond. That's obvious.

"With 95 percent of black Americans voting for obama does that indicate racism on their part?"

Yes. Some probably voted for Obama only because he was black.

Many - the majority in fact - voted for him because he was a Democrat and that ethnic group traditionally votes liberal.

Now - since we are mostly all adults here - why won't you admit that there are some whites in the south who are against Obama because of his color?

"Here's another question you'll be too cowardly to answer Steve"

For those of you who haven't caught on yet I usually skip over the comments which are insulting and personal attacks.

Steve Green: "FACT: there has been an increase in vocal defiance against the black president - more so than against Clinton, according to HughS."

How is this a "fact"?

I quoted and linked to an article on this blog written by HughS - No commenters on that article disputed it - the readers here accepted his statement as fact - which raises the question of why would these readers attack me when I quote Hugh's article?

What is the baseline?

How was the data collected?

What methodology was utilized to validate the assertion that this claim is "fact"?

Why are you challenging this now when you and the rest of readership swallowed it willingly when Hugh S wrote the article?

You guys suddenly challenge the very same assertion made on this blog just a few days ago that you happily accepted when you thought it supported your opinions.

There's no nice way to say this: You [presumably sir, or is it bitch?] are a blithering idiot.

Not to mention an asshole to the nth degree.

Major anger issues. Tsk tsk. Marc appears to be one of those people who don't like having their noses rubbed in their bullshit. I take back what I said about "mostly adults" - Marc is still the grade school playground bully. Some never grow up.

To (most of) the rest of you, thanks for the exchange. Racism is a factor, denying it gets you nowhere. We can debate the extent to which it is a factor, but denying it is at work against Obama is hiding your head in the sand.

Some are quick to point at the portion of the African American vote that favored Obama only because he was black - and yet you deny that some white voters were and still are racially opposed to his presidency?

Yes, some white voters oppose Obama because of his liberal policies and some black voters support him only because of his liberal policies.

And some black voters support Obama because he's black, and some white voters oppose him because he's black.

There, that didn't hurt, did it?

jp - "Lorie - you should really correct this and include the part where the blog in question actually brings out evidence of the racism:"

Here's a better idea, why don't you help s green out and quantify the assertions he's consistently made over the last few days?

Or, are you doing what's normal for you, dropping a turd of "wisdom" and fleeing the scene?

s green - "Uhm, actually - you're dead wrong - as usual Marc. I've never attempted to put a number on that. You dont' actually read the comments you just knee-jerk respond. That's obvious."

No shit sherlock, why do you think I placed a "?" mark at the end of it?

"Now - since we are mostly all adults here - why won't you admit that there are some whites in the south who are against Obama because of his color?"

What, I and the rest of us here must admit to the obvious?

Sure there's racism, here and every country in the world to some degree. Show me where anyone in these thread you've infested on the subject denys it.

"To (most of) the rest of you, thanks for the exchange. Racism is a factor, denying it gets you nowhere."

Again, show us, and sorry trotting out some shit about "no commenters on that article disputed it," [it being racism], is a load of happy horseshit.

Absence of something is proof of nothing.

"Again, show us, and sorry trotting out some shit about "no commenters on that article disputed it," [it being racism], is a load of happy horseshit."

Again - reading fails you - my comment refers to disputing Hugh's statement about the opposition to Obama rising in the south and the methodology used to arrive at the facts presented in HughS's article.

Hughs' article didn't address racism, and I didn't say that it did. It's an undisputed fact (on this blog at least) that opposition to Obama is rising in the south, that's all, according to Hugh's article.

FACT: there has been an increase in vocal defiance against the black president - more so than against Clinton, according to HughS.

It's a fact that Obama is black [me] and it's a fact that opposition is rising in the south [Hugh].

If you do read before commenting you must have the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader... which would explain your third-grade schoolyard bully mentality and language when it comes to opposing views.

Unfot., most Americans have an attention span of 60 min, which coincides with the length of a T.V. drama. Our memories usually last about 5 months, the length of the newest "season" of our favorite shows.

I would like to point out to Steve and anyone else that uses the "Oposition to Obama, especially in the South is based on race" argument to harken back to the "old days" of 1993. A slick talking southern "hippie" was in charge of the White House after a recession which began under a President by the name of Bush. This Hippie was surrounded by sycophantic hippies who felt they had a mandate to "change" America from the Reagan model. They instituted a new, more liberal social agenda, ie. gays in the military etc., and his "co-president" was put in charge of socializing the American health care system so we could be just like those, oh so smart, Euros.

The opposition that arose to these moves among conservatives, especially in the South, was monumental. The Southern hippie, one William Jefferson Clinton, galvanized the Region against the Democratic party.

Seems that this is just history repeating itself, but then again as the Rev. Al pointed out "Clinton is our first black president" maybe this was racism too?

Unlike Clinton who was, to give him some credit, a pure political animal, I don't see the current occupent giving in and moving to the middle, when the inevitable backlash occurs due to his liberal policies and indecisive decision making process.

I really wish ppl like Steve would quit using the strawman argument and defend his policies and lack of accomplishment..but then again when you cant, falling back on the use of poor argumentation and name calling is the only alternative.

Deke I don't know who you are, but your occasional posts always seem to be right on!!

s green - "Hughs' article didn't address racism, and I didn't say that it did. It's an undisputed fact (on this blog at least) that opposition to Obama is rising in the south, that's all, according to Hugh's article."

And you are yet to quantify why "opposition to Obama is rising in the south" other than to suggest it's because of racism.

Again no one to my knowledge suggests it isn't, you're continued stuffing that stawman is past tiresome.

"you must have the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader... which would explain your third-grade schoolyard bully mentality and language when it comes to opposing views."

No the explanation is contained in a loog-time view of the "opposition:"

Obama to Critics: Stop "Talking" and "Get Out of the Way."

Steny Hoyer - Nancy Pelosi - USA TODAY "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

"President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country." - Senator Harry Reid, NBC's Meet the Press, December 5, 2004.

If mimicking the asshats on the left is a crime, so be it.

"FACT: there has been an increase in vocal defiance against the black president - more so than against Clinton, according to HughS."

Fact: Barack Obama is (partially) Black.
Fact: The South is showing more opposition to Obama than it did Clinton.
Fact: The entire US is showing more opposition to Obama than it did to Clinton. The South is just being trotted out because they are the most vocal.

FACT: Just because his skin color is darker than caucasions does not mean that the vocal opposition in the South is directly proportional to the amount of Racism present.

The problem is the assertion of the left and though you have not specifically stated it so you can hide behind a "factual" argument. You are indeed asserting that the south is racist and the opposition to Obama is based for the most part on racism.

You sir are a LIAR! You are playing with words and "facts" to achieve your desired outcome. That works on wide eyed Obamatrons but not on any common sense American. Stop peddling your snake oil or admit that you are purposely skewing facts because you are too wrapped up in all that is "obamalot" and are desperate for a reason that he is failing.

Oh and the use of HughS article is a clear variation of Alinsky trying to force our own rules down our throats. Very well played but still a loser.

Funny lede. You could probably do a routine on that.

"If you just lost your job... you might be a racist!"

"If you think the Federal Government spends too much and has too little to show for it... you might be a racist!"

"If you think socialism is bad... you might be a racist!"

"If you refused to do say 'uh huh' during the 'Barak Hussein Obama' chant... you might be a racist!"

"If you ever refer to President Obama as Barak Hussein Obama in any context other than the Barak Hussein Obama chant or other white house approved situations... you might be a racist!"

"If you are happy with the health care you currently have and fear a public option might make things worse... you might be a racist!"

"If you do not believe failure in Afghanistan is an option... you might be a racist!"

I could go on, sadly.

"denying it is at work against Obama is hiding your head in the sand"

No one here is saying that it is not a factor for SOME people who oppose Obama. Obama's race is irrelevant to the vast majority of his detractors.

Your thinking that it is significant enough to be "at work against Obama", is merely projection on your part. As many of my posts in this thread (that you've ignored) point out, racism is common on your side, but it is not among the opposition to Obama, except of course amongst Democrats who oppose him. Hell, your party supports government mandated bigotry which you euphemistically refer to as "affirmative action". The left regularly practices the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. In wired into your brains. You can't help but being bigots. This isn't historic--it's today--it's happening right now.

So you and all the rest of the left, especially the media, need to stop projecting. It's getting tiresome. Present a valid rebuttal if you've got one and don't resort to the racism card. That's all I'm asking.

Obama's BLACK?

WTF!

"The Southern hippie, one William Jefferson Clinton, galvanized the Region against the Democratic party."-deke

Er, no. The main "galvinization" against Willie was the cold realization that Clinton was in thrall to the same "money trust" that Abraham Lincoln warned was taking over the American body politic back in 1864; basically the transcendence of capital over the common good, epitimized by "offshoring" during the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton years. Clinton is no more "hippie", or seen as one, as his counterparts on the right who also dodged Vietnam for the college flophouse and post-graduate brown-nosing. He COULD be seen as Left, though. And was. But...then...why did the Reagan coalition crumble at this time?

I SAY: the Lewinsky Show Trial (presided over by senile Chief Justice Renquist dressed in a Mikado version of judicial wear), and the accompanying final collapse of the Moral Majority which had attached its collective souls to the neoconservative war wagon during Reagan's second term, found the right wing out as nothing more than glorified city hall pantloads who had confused themselves beyond hope of sorting principles from proclivities, so everything became Principle and when abandoned, rejected red-faced. Enter: Concern Trolls. See post

Steve Green -

" there were faux lynchings and other demonstrations of racism against Obama during his campaign."

The only references I could find of that with a cursory google search was one in the greatly progressive state of Oregon, and it was something found on a Christian college campus one morning - and one in California. That article's gone to the great bit-bucket in the sky, but it was in a Silicon Valley newspaper.

Maybe it was 'Southern' California?

Seems to me if you're really looking for a racist, you ought to be looking in your mirror. I think your eagerness to repeat talking points smacks of intense bigotry in your own mind, and you're projecting that racism out on everyone you don't like.

BryanD -

You didn't finish your cut and paste. That last para seems a trifle... incomplete.

Indeed:

I SAY: the Lewinsky Show Trial (presided over by senile Chief Justice Renquist dressed in a Mikado version of judicial wear),

Do you then consider the trial against scooter libbey a "show trial"? They were both about perjury. In Scooters case he mispoke, on willies case he willfuly lied to the American Public.

Also "Mikado" seriously? Yes I get the reference.

and the accompanying final collapse of the Moral Majority which had attached its collective souls to the neoconservative war wagon during Reagan's second term,

How is questioning the boss about fooling around with his intern, followed by a trial for lying under oath related to the failure of Moral Majority? Excepting that the left was able to keep the guy in office even after admitting to an extra marital affair. Is that the death you mean? Because if so you are sadly mistaken, the left was already past that point and the right even today still finds it morally reprehensible to cheat on ones wife.

found the right wing out as nothing more than glorified city hall pantloads

The right wing is not full of sh** sir. Conservatism is the only way this country has ever prospered.

who had confused themselves beyond hope of sorting principles from proclivities, so everything became Principle and when abandoned, rejected red-faced. Enter: Concern Trolls. See post

What? Example of confusing principles and proclivities please? If you refer to the unfortunate cases lately of shamed repubs I think you know that is not a party wide trait. If instead you look at the Democrats you see that they have no principles and therefore have no problem with anyones proclivities.

Dude, you seriously need to learn some grammar if you expect to be taken seriously. It's called a period, use it. Take a breath next time you have a brain fart and maybe the stench will keep you from posting.

Bryan reminds me of a local guy I've known since kindergarten.

My aquaintance is not only a truther, but also a birther. He thinks "the Illuminati" is using the airforce to dump poison into the air to kill of 80% of the population, while the government is using alien technology to carve massive underground prisons in the rock deep under the Rocky mountains to imprison us. Seriously, and that's not even the half of it. Basically everyone one is out to get us in his mind.

Come to think of it based soley on his logic and reasoning skills, Steve Green kinda reminds me of him, too.

Lorie - you should really correct this and include the part where the blog
in question actually brings out evidence of the racism:

In sifting through the hundreds of comments offered here today,
we have had to withhold many - dozens really - for their overt expressions
of racism. That's sad - not that we've held them back, but that we even had
to read them in the editing.

Makes a lot more sense when that is included, but I'm sure you knew that.
jp2,
You did check and verify those comments didnt
you....how many, and what exactly was quoted.
Right?

Now - since we are mostly all adults here - why won't you admit that there
are some whites in the south who are against Obama because of his color?

Woo hoo! Since this is the very first time I have heard of the President's anniversary date night, I am not tired of hearing about it and therefore I have been PROVED CONCLUSIVELY NOT RACIST!!!1!1!!!

Thank you Mark Silva for clearing that up and Lorie Byrd for letting me find out. More than I ever got from that damn Jimmy Carter.

Fact: I am not a racist.

FACT: I have been PROVEN NOT A RACIST!!1!!1!

Fact: Steve Green agrees I can criticize Obama as much as I want now. AS MUCH AS I WANT!!1!1!!11

Hmmm, looks like bryanD's tinfoil hat has slipped off again and those hypnotic mind rays transmitted from the planet Xplkdq are affecting his brain.

My aquaintance is not only a truther, but also a birther. He thinks "the Illuminati"...etc.

Yeah, I knew a guy like this, too. Never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't like. Right or left, it didn't matter; the wackier, the better. The more goofy it was, the more he tended to believe it.

Don't know what it is about guys who are drawn to to that sort of thing. With this guy, though, we got along fine, I just had to learn to not go near his favorite topics.

Or, I would punk the rest of the department we worked in by walking up to a conversation he was in with a bunch of others, dropping one of his hot topics (like UFOs or the Kennedy assassination), and then walk away, laughing to myself. They hated it when I did that. : )

That's cruel OregonMuse. Funny, but cruel. LOL

(I've actully been on the receiving end of that trick a time or two..)

Obama has proposed a huge tax on grits across the nation. News of this proposal has greatly increased opposition to his policies. The loudest voice in this opposition has come from the american south. This once again is solid proof that racism runs strong in this portion of the country.

:/ Rich

Every time the left trots out this foolishness their numbers take a dive. Why?

For the same reason that concentrating on insurance/medical care when unemployment is soaring. Seven in eight are satisfied with their medical care/insurance. One in two college graduates do not have a job. Parents of those college graduates who doled out thousands upon thousands of dollars are not pleased.

So the left focuses on a non-problem.

Then there is the criticism of Obama, who as he pointed out was black prior to the election. To paint Obama's critics with a broad brush of 'racist' is to assume that all of those who are criticizing him did not vote for him.

That's untrue. Bob Herbert of the NYT yesterday asked if Obama had a backbone. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post asked if Obama knew who he was. (Recalling Sarah Palin's statement "The Presidency is no place for self-discovery.") Independent support for Obama has declined by half on issues across the board.

And the left yells 'racist'.

Go ahead, lefties, make my day. Call everyone a racist who questions the deficit, or Obama's inattention to the war and unemployment so that he can spend one million taxpayer dollars on a failed Olympic boondoggle. Does that de-legitimize the criticism?

No. But it certainly does neutralize Obama's apologists. Hey lefties, we're going 'mommy deaf' on that word.

I used to become alarmed when I heard bigoted remarks, or accusations of racism. It got my attention. The fact is now I don't believe it. Someone who claims that to me will now have a hefty burden of proof.

But that doesn't mean I can't recognize racism when I see it. Steve Green on this comment board is a Type A candidate. He believes that a black president should not be held to the same level of competency that a white president is held. Why is that Mr. Green?

It's because you sir, are a bigot.

BTW, the most shocking display of racism I have ever seen was in the North, not the South, where a black friend of mine was declined help to get away from her abusing spouse. Why - because her husband was black and spousal abuse is "okay in the black culture".

Where did that happen? New York. Probably someone who thinks they aren't bigoted like Steve Green - not judging the black man for hitting his wife is sooo open minded.

BryanD -
You didn't finish your cut and paste. That last para seems a trifle... incomplete.

79. Posted by JLawson

Sorry, but I hunt and peck as I go in a conversational or trian-of-though manner in comments here anymore, since tidying-up seems to attract editorial erasure due to the sheer power of my declaimations.

If my comments seem half-raised, it means my imaginary finger is jutting the air for emphasis, or poking an imaginary chest before me!

:-)

Oh! But to clarify mine which you address (and I'll have to surmise your underlying point):

I say the denouement of the Clinton impeachment hearings left the Republican Right constituency feeling seriously underwhelmed and used. The amateur culture-war buffs went home deflated, as well as pissed at their leaders. Morality policing was edged back into the church pews and the Reagan coalition petered out for good with the administration of Reagan's Van Buren, GHW Bush and "read my lips". Now it all comes from NYC.

Sorry, but I hunt and peck as I go in a conversational or trian-of-though manner in comments here anymore, since tidying-up seems to attract editorial erasure due to the sheer power of my declaimations.

Oh, is that what it is? I thought your meds had finally kicked in. : )

-" I thought your meds had finally kicked in. "-

Seriously.
Haven't heard from him for a while, then for the last day or two his comments seem a little...how should I say it...
'Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.'

iykwim

If my comments seem half-raised, it means my imaginary finger is jutting the air for emphasis, or poking an imaginary chest before me!

Sounds like the homeless schizophrentic that stalks the bridge between my office and 30th St station...

BryanD, in his own word
May be NSFW