At least that was the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the headline on Drudge. Well, that and the old gag about the guy on trial for murdering his parents who pleads for leniency from the court because he’s an orphan. See if you can guess why.
Black lawmakers lament flaring of racial tensions under Obama
Niall Stanage 08/26/13 05:45 AM ET
When President Obama follows in Martin Luther King Jr.’s footsteps on Wednesday with an address at the Lincoln Memorial, he will face a nation where race remains the great divide.
Black lawmakers say the election of the nation’s first African-America president has not been a salve for racial tensions, a view that the public has also voiced in recent polling.
While Democratic lawmakers place the lion’s share of the blame on Republicans for the state of affairs, they betray disappointment that more progress has not been made since the civil rights movement won its biggest victories.
Move over, MLK, because I’m pretty sure the media is about to anoint a certain someone’s address at the Lincoln Memorial as the greatest speech on race ever given. At least since his distancing-himself-from-Jeremiah-Wright race speech during the 2008 campaign.
Many Democrats insist that the ferocious opposition to Obama has a racial component.
“How do you overcome it?” Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a founding member of the CBC said, referring to racial inequalities. “We certainly haven’t done it with an African-American president.“
I saw the people who scream and shout about ObamaCare. I saw the hatred that was in people’s eyes. People are not being honest with themselves if they don’t realize that the roots of racism go deep, that we still have not been able to cut that cancer out of the side of America.”
“I think electing President Obama was a big, big, big positive. Now, the reactions to that election have not always been positive,” said Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the number three Democrat in the House. “It was a positive for people who look like me. It was a negative for a lot of people, and they reacted negatively.”
Still, Clyburn, Rangel and many other members of the CBC remember just how bad things were in an earlier era.
Upon which they reminisced about the savage opposition and visceral hatred Democrats meted out against President Bush, President Bush, President Reagan, President Ford, Nixon, et al. Not to mention the nasty Republican opposition and distaste for Clinton and Carter.
Of course not, it’s segue into they’re recalled experiences from 50 years ago. Which in retrospect must not have been all that bad since things are only slightly worse today.
I saw the people who scream and shout about invading Iraq. I saw the hatred that was in people’s eyes. People are not being honest with themselves if they don’t realize that the roots of racism go deep, that we still have not been able to cut that cancer out of the side of America.
Oh, oops, that was non-racist hatred of an evil white Republican president. Carry on, gentlemen.
Clyburn makes me want to vomit. “It was a huge positive for people who look like me. It was negative for a lot of people and the reacted negatively.” What an ass. Notwithstanding the fact that blacks are, collectively, worse off by every possible economic measure since Obama was elected his implication is completely vile.
If you look like him, i.e. black, the election of Barack Obama in and of itself is a positive. Fair enough. First black president. Very symbolic. And the culmination of a long, bloody struggle for Civil Rights.
Conversely, his election was a negative for a lot of people. People who aren’t black. White people who reacted negatively to the election of Barack Obama. Because he is black.
Yeah, racism is alive and well in America today but it isn’t the Republican party advocating it. Seriously, how racist is Clyburn’s insinuation that any negative reaction to the election of a president – you know, the kind of event where the stakes and emotions run high – isn’t about issues but the president’s blackness?
Maybe race relations haven’t come as far as I thought. I always figured America’s first black president would be criticized like every other president before him. How racist is that?
I like that Clyburn, Rangel, and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus remember how bad things used to be. Not many do, apparently.
While 45 percent of Americans said they think the United States has made a lot of progress toward realizing King’s dream of racial equality, 36 percent were more circumspect, saying only “some” progress has been made. Fifteen percent said that the advancements had either been small or nonexistent.
Forty-nine percent of Americans believe there is a long way to go before something akin to a color-blind society can be realized.
Okay then. White racists murdered blacks who came to organize for Civil Rights. White racists bombed a black church. Whites killing blacks just because they were black wasn’t the man bites dog story it is today – it was protected if not outright abetted by the local authorities. White authorities denied blacks the right to vote.
Fifteen percent of the people polled think advancements in equality are small or nonexistent.
Thirty-six percent think only “some” progress has been made.
That lack of historical awareness is what keeps the race hucksters in business. The 49% who believe there is a long way to go before something akin to a color-blind society can be realized are 100% correct. Rangel, Clyburn, Obama, and a cast of thousands have too much invested in stoking racial division to ever let anything like a color-blind society exist. Black politicians never hesitate to sell out their constituents to public sector unions and open borders crowd. If they don’t spark the comforting fires of racism the people that vote them into office just might notice.