******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Saturday Night Card Game (Was Obama Elected "Because He's Black"?)

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Rush Limbaugh stated the other day that Barack Obama would not have been elected if he were not black. Predictably, Limbaugh has been called racist.

There are two issues here. Was Limbaugh wrong? And if he were right, should he not have said it?

The video below is a pretty good discussion of both the facts and the issues. Surprisingly, Chris Matthews moderated relatively fairly (back at a time when there still was the aroma of hope and change in the air):



If Rush Limbaugh were "racist" for his statement, what about the professor in the video, who reported that her college students overwhelmingly said they voted for Obama because he was black, and who challenged others that they may not like the reality but the facts were the facts?

What about the students themselves for voting for someone based on race?

Or the HuffPo blogger who wrote the post Vote for Obama Because He's Black; or the Salon.com columnist who wrote It's OK to Vote for Obama Because He's Black?

Or Cynthia Tucker, who repeatedly has called Michael Steele an unqualified affirmative action appointee, someone who is Chairman of the Republican National Committee only because he is black:



It is important to have frank discussions of these issues. But that is not possible, when the race card is played.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Saturday Night Card Game
What Don't You Understand About "No Asians"?
Gawker -Think Progress Tag Team

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

9 comments:

  1. "It is important to have frank discussions of these issues..."

    I'm thinking...maybe it isn't. I'm 44 and for as long as I can remember the 'discussion' has been moderated by whatever liberal humming sound was popular at the moment. I'd rather discuss the weather than race issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There were two important reasons why Obama won the 2008 election, the first being the huge Anti-Bush sentiment. But the second, and more disturbing reason, was because he was not white.

    A distant third might be that McCain ran a rather lackluster campaign, and the choice of Palin, to perhaps grab some of the Hillary folks, seemed to scare more people away than not.

    There may have been was the 'white guilt' factor, which drew quite a few votes from those who said "Golly, Hon, we voted for a Negro. How progressive! That will show everyone there's no racism in this house. Let's leave the Obama sign up for a while longer, ok?"

    But Obama was the perfect DNC mouthpiece, the perfect tool of the far left. His ideology echoed theirs, but his color is what they wanted - not so much the man.

    Regardless of what comes out of Obama's mouth, anyone who dares differ is immediately branded as racist. I propose that Obama was groomed for this moment from the day his "guardian angel" paid his way into Harvard.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At PS: Political Science and Politics, there is an interesting article called "Obama's Missed Landslide: A Racial Cost?" by Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Charles Tien and Richard Nadeau (you can access it at http://www.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/lewis-beck-tien-nadeau.pdf). Its abstract states,

    "Barack Obama was denied a landslide victory in the 2008 presidential election. In the face of economic and political woe without precedent in the post-World War II period, the expectation of an overwhelming win was not unreasonable. He did win, but with just a 52.9 percentage point share of the total popular vote. We argue a landslide was taken from Obama because of race prejudice. In our article, we first quantify the extent of the actual Obama margin. Then we make a case for why it should have been larger. After reviewing evidence of racial bias in voter attitudes and behavior, we conclude that, in a racially blind society, Obama would likely have achieved a landslide."

    Note, if I'm reading the article correctly, it seems that it's the racism of independents and Democrats which is at issue here. Republicans weren't going to vote for Obama, whether they're racist of not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "and the choice of Palin "

    Was the thing that keep it as close as it was!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's racist only for the right to make a point about race. According to the establishment it's never racist for the left to do it.

    Obama is the end result of the long march of the left through all of our institutions. He represents that element of the West that is self destructive and will destroy the West in alliance with external enemies (communists, socialists, fascists, islamists).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Limbaugh's comment about Obama being elected because he is black is entirely appropriate because it is the truth. We as a people must not fear to speak the truth, however bitter the pill may be to to some.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dumas and nashvegas beat me (comment-wise) to my first two sentiments. The cosmopolitan, "Ain't we post-racial?" white guilt led lots of folks I know down the wrong path.

    And for all the moonbats' vehemence toward Limbaugh, and all the daily material they have to sift through, how many times have they shown him as dishonest, or even incorrect?

    Until the left comes to define Affirmative Action and the NAACP (and such) as racially divisive and without validitiy in a "post-racial" America, there'll be no such thing as honest debate regarding race.

    The thinness of skin for Rush's critics are more significant than the color of their skin. Rush's biggest sin, in the liberal mind, is that he refuses to perpetuate the white guilt syndrome or embrace the nutty concept of victomhood for non-whites.

    ReplyDelete
  8. even more disturbing is the thought of the social climate when BO is defeated in 2012. i seriously doubt that America will be post-racial by then. it is going to get ugly!

    the comment about folks voting for Obama to prove they are not "racist" is spot on!

    ReplyDelete
  9. My wife, who would represent the opinion of most independents or moderates, did not vote for president. Her statement was that there was no one to vote for. I have to agree, but my vote for McCain was a vote against Obama. Not for his race, but against his ideology. McCain would have been a horrible president, but at least he would not be out to destroy the country.

    I am sure that a large number of people voted for Obama for his race. I know that most Blacks that are friends did so. Many whites did so as well for whatever reason. After all, most women voted for Kennedy and Clinton because they were "cute".

    It brings up the idea that our voting system is broken. As it stands, a group of people can vote for their person with the intent of taking money and wealth from another group of people. That is not a free society. A better system would be to "earn" your vote. You would only be able to vote if you were worth a given amount or owned property. As I understand our early government, this was the accepted system and it worked much better than what we have had for the last 100 years.

    As to race, I don't think it is a problem in the South were I live except among Blacks who feel that the white man has caused them misfortune. Those Blacks who meld with society seem to prosper and are accepted as anyone else; Indian, Asian, White, Cajun, etc. So racism as I see it is predominately in the African American community.

    ReplyDelete