Only a racist would bring forth the one drop rule.

Sure as shit, it's one of Wizbang's leftards doing so.

I find the content of his character, lacking.

JayTea,

By deleting bryanD's racist screed, you rob my response to him of a referent.

Right on, dude! Preach it! Couldn't have said it better myself!

Classic strawman argument.

But that hasn't stopped his supporters from frantically proclaiming that it's all about race, The opponents are motivated by racism, it's all about race, they wouldn't be against those policies (or, at least, as vocal as they are) if Obama wasn't half-black.

Few if any leftists are proclaiming "it's all about race." That's a strawman argument you've invented.

But it's clear that "some" of it is about race," and denying race is a factor at all is something that you'd expect from racists.

The fact that the right denies that Obama's race stirs up hatred in "some" on the right adds fuel and legitimacy to the claim that race is involved. It's wrong for the right to defend inherent racism by claiming it doesn't exist when we all know that racism is still alive in America -- Michael Steele even admitted that as recently as last week.

Only a racist would be unable to see that racism is a factor - and no, it's not "all about race" but racism is at work. No question. Even the chairman of the Republican National Committee, black American Michael Steele, says that racism is a factor in how people perceive and react to black American politicians.

To deny racism exists in the right wing reaction to Obama is to defend it. Shame, shame...

Lee Ward sez:

To deny racism exists in the right wing reaction to Obama is to defend it. Shame, shame...

To assert such without concrete factual support is racist.

Oh, gee, Lee Ward slinks back to where he was forcibly evicted to spread more of his fantasies and rantings.

Don't put words in my mouth, Lee. (God knows where they've been.) I didn't say that there was no racism, I said that the charges are so vastly overblown, that any real charges are so diluted that they are lost in the noise.

I notice you're slightly more civil now, Lee. I guess all those spankings finally took, and learned you some manners. Keep demonstrating some civility (which, in your case, is an absurdly low standard), and we won't renew your previous banning.

Unlike when you ran the show, when failing to do anything short of agreeing with you and obeying your sociopathic dictates resulted in banning.

How'd that work out for you, anyway? Oh, yeah...

J.

Sorry, Rodney. BryanD was banned for gratuitous use of racial epithets a while ago. I gave him a chance to retract it, and he doubled down, so his comments go right down the toilet as soon as I see them.

Unless, of course, I feel like editing them instead...

(shrug) I gave him fair warning that he had gone too far. He didn't take that well. Since then, he's cycled through about a hundred proxies, and I've deleted about a hundred of his comments.

Just ignore him; anything he says will NOT stay up long.

J.

bryan[the]D[eluded] has been exlaiming:

Author's note: Any time President Obama and racial identity is brought up, I intend to mention that he is half black and half white. To call him "black" is to deny half his ethnic heritage, and as long as that is an issue, his mother's ethnicity should never be denied or concealed or omitted." ---jay tea

"Half black and half white" is termed *Mulatto*.

Is it?

Since I don't think in those terms, I suppose we shall have to take bryan[the]D[eluded]'s word for it...

But to spare you any non-ironic use of that genetic term, in American culture (USA) the "One Drop" rule indubitably still applies today: Obama (being Part Black) IS Black (as opposed to White).

I further believe that in the subculture in which bryan[the]D[eluded] crawls, this "'One Drop' rule" he proposes is commonplace, and that behavior (particularly political behavior [see Identity Politics]) is ascribed and predicted based on that "rule" of his. This (the ascription and prediction of behavior based on 'race') is the classic definition of "Racism."

The "post-racial" meme is a neoconservative talkers' trope.

The politics of Identity is Racism, and it's practitioners are Racists.

QED.

Now you are deleting my comments?

Done here.

Barry's going to be in a world of hurt come 2012 when he and his Obamabots learn that 'the race card' won't play anymore.

Jay: "I didn't say that there was no racism, I said that the charges are so vastly overblown, that any real charges are so diluted that they are lost in the noise. "

Now that you've admitted that racism is at work we only have to disagree on the extent to which it is at work.

The current fury and anger at RNC Chairman Michale Stelle is, according to Mr. Steele, motivated in part by racism.

Nobody, including Mr Steele, is proclaiming that anyone who criticizes a black politician is an out and out racist.

But he does say this.

But there's an edge to his voice when he talks about a double standard that he believes has been applied by his critics, and he posits racism as the cause: "I don't see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?"

There is RNC Chair Michael Steele proclaiming that racism is at work among his critics.

So... racists are critical of RNC Chairman Michael Steele but they aren't critical of Barack Obama?

Of course they are - the growth in right wing extremism seen since Obama's election is another indicator -- Mr. Steele's personal experiences and accounts aside.

Measuring how much racism there is at work is difficult, but to deny it is silly and childish.

All these accusations of "racism" have utterly diluted the allegation.

Only in your dreams. This week saw the RNC Chairman admit that racism is at work in America. More and more people are waking up to this fact. Instead of diluting, the argument is getting stronger and spreading wider, throughout all parts of the country.

Blogger Johnson saw this and flagged it early, and for that he's now as hated as that black man by some...

It's clear that those of us who point out and expose racism in America are hated by racists as well. It takes bravery to admit it and cowardice to deny it. I actually admire (a bit) a racist who will up and admit it. Their honesty counts for something - the deniers are only adding fuel to the fires.

Mr. Ward, if you were truly honest, you'd fess up to your anti-Obama jihad that lasted right up until Hillary conceded -- and then banned anyone who went back and quoted you.

You want to pick a fight between Steele and me? I could care less about the guy.

The race-based opposition to Obama's policies is only the slightest factor. But that's the only one that Obamoids (even reformed Obama-haters like you) want to talk about, because 1) it's the only fight you think you can win, B) it's the only fight you actually can win, and III) Obama's policies and decisions and actions are utterly indefensible on their own.

J.

The mistake obama, the left and Lee Ward make is that they focus on their claim that any disagreement with obama has an essential root in racism. Any objection to his policies is of necessity tainted with racial motives and therefore the rational arguments can be ignored and all response devoted to denouncing he dissenters as racists.

The result of this BS approach is that it has allowed substantive criticism to go unchallenged. To some extent not challenging the substance of disagreement has played into the hands of obama's critics.

Additionally, it has made obama and his supporters look like a bunch of shrill race baiters. By reducing the opponents arguments to racist attacks they have given themselves all the credibility of Al Sharpton pushing the Tawana Brawley hoax. Almost no one is listening to their accusations of racism any more.

The only sense in which obama is post racial is that he has made the accusation of racism meaningless. It is no longer the character destroying accusation that it once was. People are no longer concerned with being called a racist. While it is possible that this overheated rhetoric will give cover to real racists, I have not seen that yet, but as I have said elsewhere on these pages, I don't really care anymore if it does.

But Lee, you raise a good point. How much a part did racism play in your constantly reposting the video of the guy claiming to have performed oral sex on Obama? I think you put that video up on the late, unlamented Wizbang Blue at least five times.

When you gonna admit to YOUR racism?

J.

I'd like to ask Lee (and anyone else who'd like to chime in) on the racism in this quote:

Barack Obama's arrogance has been on display on many levels for quite some time now, dating back before he made headlines last Friday, and even before his now famous "you're likable enough" backhanded slap at Hillary Clinton during one of the debates. This arrogance and condescension are equally evident in the pompous pontifications of Michelle Obama -- who just can't find anything in America worth praising besides her man Barack.

Having women faint and swoon over him has probably taken an even toll on Barack. He probably believes that he is indeed the One True Brand Man who can lead this country out of our desperate, bitter hole of despair, and break our 'clingy' grip on what Obama clearly feels are pathetic crutches.

It's ironic that, as pessimistic and downtrodden some Americans might feel these days, it's the peak of Obama arrogance to suggest that religion is something that is "clung to by desperate Americans".

Raised by an atheist mother in a secular household, Barack "doesn't get it" when it comes to religion for every day Americans -- a look at Reverend Wright's preachings, which Obama fully embraced and endorsed until the truth came out, fully explains that.

Obama must believe that religion is refuge --- and that in the case of working, everyday Americans it's something to cling to in desperation, and it's easy to see why he'd believe that. In the case of Barack's own congregation, it is a refuge from the "oppression of white America."

I'm not sure anyone could be further out of touch with the heart and backbone of our country than Obama.

I'll leave the source unnamed at this point...

J.

"The mistake obama, the left and Lee Ward make is that they focus on their claim that any disagreement with obama has an essential root in racism."

No. You're back to Jay's tactic, creating strawman arguments you can then pick apart.

Nobody I've seen is claiming that "any disagreement with obama has an essential root in racism", not at all.

What many of us are doing is pointing out that racism is at work, it is a factor, and the more that people deny it's a factor the more obvious it is that the inherent racism of some of the right wing base is at work in the opposition to Obama and his policies - and that there is an organized, constructed effort to deny the right wing racism factor.

It's interesting is to see the mental gymnastics some will undergo to try to cover that up.

How can it be a factor for Michael Steele and not a factor for Barack Obama? That's ridiculous.

Lee -

I think there is real racism in America. It comes in the over focusing on race and in making race the ultimate decider in determining a person's legitimacy.

A black person cannot be legitimate if they are conservative. Blacks like Steele, Condoleeza Rice and Justice Thomas are fair game for all sorts of disgusting racial epithets.

Liberals regardless of color can never be considered racist, no matter what they say, no matter what their actions. So white dems can make jokes about the appropriate place for blacks being that of servants and janitors. They can refer to them as negroes and express surprise at their being able to speak coherently and that they can appear "clean".

Yet conservatives are racist of they dare attempt to evaluate a black person on the basis of their achievements. A conservative black who stands on their achievements is called an uncle tom. Libs consider the idea that you should evaluate people based on their ability and character as patently racist.

There is racism in America. It is fueled and kept alive by the left. The same left that tried to stop anti lynching laws and the civil rights act. The same left that has declared that blacks can only get ahead if we give them handouts. The same left that assumes that if you have dark skin you are incapable of making it on your own and therefore anyone who makes it on their own needs to be torn down at any cost. The same left that refuses to let a black man run for Senate in NY.

OK, Lee, I confess.

If a white guy had quadrupled the deficit, trashed our relationships with our allies, sucked up to our enemies, nationalized two car companies, and attempted to take control of one-sixth of our economy, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact, I'd support it wholeheartedly.

But since it's a black man putting forward all these things that I've opposed for years, I have to oppose them.

You haven't changed a bit since your last visit here, Lee.

And that's hardly a compliment.

J.

"Nobody I've seen is claiming that "any disagreement with obama has an essential root in racism", not at all."

But it's clear that "some" of it is about race," and denying race is a factor at all is something that you'd expect from racists...

Only a racist would be unable to see that racism is a factor - and no, it's not "all about race" but racism is at work. No question.

Gee Lee. It sure sounds from what you just said that every objection to obama has an essential racial component.

You're full of shit.

I really don't care what color his skin is. He's a screw up and he's made a mess of our country. He's destroying our democracy, our economy and our international relationships. Nothing of that has anything to do with his race. I would criticize any president for doing what he is doing.

You on the other hand are being racist for assuming that it does have something to do with his color. You are assuming that if black people are criticized it must be because of their race. You do not believe that they can stand on their own two feet on their own merit. You deny obama the respect his office deserves by refusing to enter into a discussion about merit and instead dealing with race. If he were white you would defend the substance of his policies, but because he is black you do not bother to defend them. Apparently the quality of his policies is not the point. For you it is just the color of his skin that matters.

Why is it that if someone raises an issue about his spending policies or his taking over the auto industry or student loans or health care that the response is that the criticism is racist? Why not respond to the actual substance of the criticism? Is it because you are so fixated on race that you cannot see past it yourself? Is it because for you the primary need to support obama is that you need to demonstrate that somehow you are not a racist? If you could focus on he issues themselves and not his skin color you could convince me otherwise.

Lee Ward-

"What many of us are doing is pointing out that racism is at work, it is a factor, and the more that people deny it's a factor the more obvious it is that the inherent racism of some of the right wing base is at work in the opposition to Obama and his policies - and that there is an organized, constructed effort to deny the right wing racism factor."

Your full of shit, it dont work anymore..

"It's interesting is to see the mental gymnastics some will undergo to try to cover that up."

As exemplified by Jay in #13. I suspect that the quote used by Jay is something I wrote.

What does that have to do with anything Jay wrote in his post, or what I've written in my comments to that post? Nothing. It's just another strawman argument used to dodge the central question raised by Jay's post. By pointing to criticism I made about Obama Jay attempts again to swing the argument away from reality.

The reality is that not every critic of Obama is a racist. To suggest that is cartoonish and childish - and I'm not suggesting that at all.

The reality is also that racism is a factor for some of Obama and Steele's critics. To deny that is to defend that racism.

Nowhere in Jay's post does he admit that racism is a factor.

Jay's post and immature comments afterwards struck me as a childish attempt to deny racism by (1) not admitting that it's a factor, and (2) creating simple strawman arguments that defend racists by suggesting that people who are pointing out the inherent racism involved as a driver for some on the right are overdoing it.

Overdoing it? You did nothing to quantify it at all, Jay. You didn't even admit in your post that it exists - so how on earth can you suggest it's gone too far -- unless you take the position that racism is not existent.

You're not suggesting that there aren't racists on the right -- you're just choking on the words and lashing out in anger because of the fact that others - like Charles Johnson - are adult enough to admit it.

Apparently, anyone who points out that racism on the part of the right is a factor in the American political scene today is in some circles subjected to violent criticism from some on the right.

Imagine that... I wonder why?

Lee, ADMIT that I quoted your own words or BE BANNED!!!!!

Just kidding. I'm not like that. Just thought you might be nostalgic for the days when you were a petty tyrant.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama's policies, and they are always spelled out when those policies are opposed. YOUR side -- that's the side that you were a late comer to -- chooses to ignore those reasons and blame "racism" instead.

That passed "beating a dead horse" a long time ago, Lee. Now what you're doing is closer to necrophilic bestiality, and (outside San Francisco) that's illegal. So you'd be advised to knock it off -- you don't want both the police and PETA after you.

J.

So which is it Lee?

On one hand you say:

The reality is that not every critic of Obama is a racist. To suggest that is cartoonish and childish - and I'm not suggesting that at all.

The reality is also that racism is a factor for some of Obama and Steele's critics. To deny that is to defend that racism.

And yet on the other hand you say:

But it's clear that "some" of it is about race," and denying race is a factor at all is something that you'd expect from racists...

Only a racist would be unable to see that racism is a factor

So you make this useful tautology that if someone makes a criticism and says that they are not racist, that such a denial is proof of their racism.

According to this formula of yours:

1) Not all criticism is racist

But...

2) some criticism is racist

3) saying that racism is not involved is proof of racism.

4) failure to admit to racism is evidence of racism.

Hence all criticism is racist because either it admits it outright or by denying that it is racist demonstrates the inherent racism.

With bullshit circular reasoning like that you should either be in academia or government.

"there are racists on the left", "some of Obama's support is based on his race"

I've never seen a leftist anywhere admit that. Want to be the first, Lee Ward?

"Gee Lee. It sure sounds from what you just said that every objection to obama has an essential racial component."

Well then let me help you by bolding a word or two in what I wrote.

Few if any leftists are proclaiming "it's all about race." That's a strawman argument you've invented.

But it's clear that "some" of it is about race," and denying race is a factor at all is something that you'd expect from racists.

And I'll say it again.

Nobody I've seen is claiming that "any disagreement with obama has an essential root in racism", not at all.

We laid that strawman to rest way up in the comment thread.

The fact that the right denies that Obama's race stirs up hatred in "some" on the right adds fuel and legitimacy to the claim that race is involved. It's wrong for the right to defend inherent racism by claiming it doesn't exist when we all know that racism is still alive in America -- Michael Steele even admitted that as recently as last week.

Admit it. Own it, Fix it. Michael Steele admitted it. If more did the same then there would be hope that the ajority on the right don't agree with them.

Defending the racists by attacking those who point out this obvious racism suggests otherwise.

Lee, that quote illustrates my point perfectly. Many of the tones and implications in it are precisely the kinds of things that are highlighted as "racist" when expressed by conservatives. But since you're a good liberal, you can't be a racist, so you can say them freely. Especially since you "saw the light" and are now a full-blown (if you'll pardon the Larry Sinclair reference) Obama apologist.

If I removed a few time-sensitive elements from one of your pieces and reprinted it, I'd be denounced as a racist within ten minutes.

Which goes to show how empty the accusation has become. And congrats! You get to own a piece of the credit!

J.

I know you didn't write it, Mr Tea, but it's amusing that the next article down on Wizbang is about how just about ANY criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.

The same thing could be said of some of Israel's supporters as you are saying of Obama's: that their accusations of anti-semitism are so frequent and overblown as to dilute the meaning of the word. But I doubt you'll admit that.

Wizbangers want it both ways. It's racist if they say it is, it's not racist if they say it's not.

Throughout history there has only been one party that has supported racism and that has been the Democrat party. This goes back the days when the Constitution was debated in the Constitutional Convention. While Slavery was prevalent, both in the North and South at the time; the North had started to drop the practice due to the coming industrialization of the region. The South maintained it and had to be forced to drop it by a devastating war.

Most of the leaders in the South, after the Civil War, were white southern Democrats that believed that the black man should remain in perpetual slavery, even if the law of the land forbade the practice. How was this done one might ask? Simple. The white powers that be devised a sharecropper system and with this means of control, kept the black man in bondage.

If the black man or any other group, didn't do what they were told ie Catholics and Jews mosty, they were taken out by the Ku Klux Klan and lynched (blacks) and beaten almost to death. Now the ancestors of these people are doing the same thing and when they are thwarted in their plans, they drag out the racist, homophobic or anti-woman rhetoric. This in my IMHO, is just a smoke screen for their own rude comments and they really don't want to admit it.

Lee Ward will be very surprised when he gets finished eating his cake and discovers he doesn't have it anymore.

The Democrat's Race Card is always up their sleeve...and they get VERY nasty when someone objects to them playing it!

In fact, to them, objecting to them playing the Race Card is...RACIST!

Scoundrels one and all.

Bruce Henry:

"It's racist if they say it is, it's not racist if they say it's not."

"there are racists on the left", "some of Obama's support is based on his race"

I've never seen a leftist anywhere admit that. Want to be the first, Bruce Henry?

Lee,

You are still guilty of circular reasoning. You are claiming that some criticism of obama is racist and then you say that denying that any specific criticism is racist is itself evidence of racism.

Your argument comes down to saying that if I make a criticism and claim it isn't racist that my denial is proof of my racism.

You sit here and say that some criticism is racially motivated and because some of it is that all of it is tainted. You say that because we assert that our criticisms are based on the issues that our denials are evidence of our racism.

You further assert that if I do not criticize other criticism of obama as racist that it shows that I am racist. Even though I have no way of knowing the motivation of someone criticizing the president except by examining the contents of the criticism itself. If the criticism is solely based on substantive disagreement with policy I have no way of knowing if the criticism was motivated in any way by race.

Your assumption is that regardless of substance some criticism is racist. Without knowing what criticisms are actually racist you are presuming that all criticisms are racist until proven otherwise and that everyone should denounce criticism of the president in general as being racist in order to show that they themselves are not racist.

Essentially you ask that everyone forswear from criticism of the president because to do so may be racist and that failing to denounce criticism as racist is evidence that a person is in fact a racist.

You refuse to confront the substance of any criticism.

You are a race baiting fraud.

Bruce,

There is criticism against Israel that is not anti-Semitic. But since most of the criticism you see is based in acceptance of historic falsehoods that Israelis stole their land and that they have made the palestinian people refugees it is hard to discern where the anti-Semitism stops and legitimate criticism begins.

If you want to criticize specific acts of the Israeli government such as their Gaza policy or their East Jerusalem building then I can readily admit that such criticism is not racially motivated. It may be ill informed, but I would not presume to think that it is racist first. I would address the substance of he argument.

On the other hand, when criticism of Obama starts with specific objections to his spending or his handling of foreign relations, or healthcare etc. The first response of the left is to cry "racism!" and not address the issue. Liberals do not defend obama on the issues. They throw out the race card.

Frankly I find it racist for the left to assume that obama's policies are not worth defending on their merits. Clearly by their actions that is what they believe for if they felt that his policies could be defended they would do so.

Does this mean we are going to see Rule 5 Sunday posts from you now?

"Sorry, Rodney. BryanD was banned for gratuitous use of racial epithets a while ago. I gave him a chance to retract it, and he doubled down, so his comments go right down the toilet as soon as I see them."----jay tea

!!!Whuh?....Hmmm!

Well that clears THAT up, except I don't use racial epithets. Noop. Not me.

I just figured you nursed a grudge against me regarding several low blows I MIGHT have taken against your past Naval Fiction exhibitions here (which I DO apologize for BTW---it takes guts to "publish") and you suddenly remembered it,

OR for me being 99% Right All The Time,

OR because Palin is tanking or something.

Something like that. I don't use epithets. Allegory? Maybe. Hyperbole? Yep. (Irony mostly.)
Epithets? Nononono.

Anyway, I never received an ultimatum did I?

-----------------------------------------

Lee Ward! Wie gehts!
-------------------------------------------

"Throughout history there has only been one party that has supported racism and that has been the Democrat party"---Stan

The extermination of the Indian peoples became a truly national effort during the Republican halcyon days of 1864-1890.

* * * * *

Editor's Note: BryanD's straw that broke this came's back was published on March 6, 2010:

"IThe real scandal though is the outsourcing of construction to China, knowledge of which could harsh the GOP/Dem interdependency multinational corporate freedom-to-niggerdom scheme, so you're excused under rules of tactical bipartisanship."

My response:

"Bryan, I'm gonna cut you a break. Offer up an alternative phrasing to the racial epithet and I'll edit into your original comment, and I won't bring down Olaf The Troll God's Hammer on your IP.

Fair enough?"

His answer:

"Though my IP is amorphous, I thank you for your concern.

I'm burning my copy of Huckleberry Finn even now and will send the ashes to the Crones of NEA, LLC for use in their scaaary ceremonials."

So I banned him. And I renew that ban every time he finds a new IP. And I intend to continue doing so as long as necessary.

Please, stop feeding this troll.

J.

Of course I knew no leftist will admit that

"there are racists on the left", "some of Obama's support is based on his race"

I just wanted to make clear the rank dishonesty among the leftist trolls here today. Leftists calling us "racists" is a joke. Leftists have no credibility on race or racism.

Once again bryanD uses that tried-and-true trolling technique of, "Hey! Look over there!"

Scuze me while I whip this out:

Obama is BLACK?

"Obama is BLACK? "

Yeah, I had forgotten that he was black. I was so blinded by his breathtaking incompetence that I had completely forgotten it.

/Chris Matthews

Indeed,

Why is it that the left carries on so much about how articulate obama is and how stylish and clean he is? How come they don't talk about his policies? Why when it comes to making laws and policies we get our TV's full of Pelosi, Reid, Axelrod and Emmanuel?

An outside observer might think that the left doesn't consider a black man credible on these subjects and that the left is amazed that obama can be articulate etc.

Just saying. Makes all you lefties look really bigoted that's all.

"Obama is BLACK? "

Actually, he's 50% white, 25% Arab and 25% black.
Tell you what, race obsessed lefties , if the central theme of your racism is that conservatives reflexively hate a black president, I'll trade you 0bama for Dr. Thomas Sowell(who is 100% black) and could eat Precedent Toonces and any other Democrat's lunch in intellectual firepower and any other aspect of capability to be POTUS.

For Stan's and Mr Kirtz's benefit:

Some support for Obama is based solely on his race. Although, if you compare black voting in 2000, 2004, and 2008, you'll find that Gore got about 90% of the black vote, Kerry about 95%, and Obama about 98%. So, I'd say, not that much of Obama's support is based solely on race. Some? Sure. Nobody that I ever read ever denied that.

And why do black voters overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates? Here's a little history lesson:

In the election of 1876, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote and the Electoral College was basically tied. The Republican party ABANDONED the newly freed black citizens of the South to Jim Crow Democrats in order to win, I mean STEAL, that election. "Benign" neglect ensued by both parties.

Beginning tentatively with FDR, accelerating with Truman and Kennedy, and culminating with LBJ, the Democratic party deservedly won the support of black and other minority voters, simultaneously embracing Civil Rights and virtually expelling, ostracising, or simply bypassing most of the dinosaur racists of the 50s and 60s.

Then Nixon's flagrant adoption of the "Southern Strategy" probably permanently alienated many black voters. As did Reagan's commencement of his 1980 campaign with a speech (in Philadelphia, MS, of all places!) about "states' rights." For all you historically-challenged out there, "states' rights" was code back then for "white supremacy."

And, for Jim M, a reminder that "the left" and "the Democratic Party" are not now, and never have been, synonymous. Indeed, in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, the Democratic party, at least or especially, the Southern wing of it, could more fairly be described as being "on the right." Although the terms might not have meant the same thing back then that they do now.

Geraldine Ferrarro was the most honest Democrat in this brave new post-racial world when she correctly said that Obama would not be where he is was if it wasn't for the color of his skin.

He used it to get into the Whitehouse (Can we still call it that?) and he's used it ever since. Why put he put down his best weapon -even if it only fires words?

Bruce is so overwhelmingly excellent in his re-writing of American History. He is so talented that he takes an epoch of time and sums it up in one paragraph. That, in a nutshell, is the left. They like their stories neat and short regardless of the truth.

Comparing 90% for Gore, 92% for Kerry and 98% does not prove anything at all. How about the total number of blacks that voted in each election cycle. There is where the story lies.

The left is obsessed and always has been when looking for color. They adopted "white guilt" and act accordingly. The liberal wing of the democrats have treated minorities terribly and now their guilt drives them to only look at color first. But what they don't see is they have convinced most black americans that they cannot succeed unless they use government programs. They cannot achieve without whites help. The racists are and always have been clear to me, the liberals. Their history is full of examples starting with eugenics. ww

So was it an embrace of civil rights that caused James O Eastland (D, Mississippi) to bottle the act up in committee?

Was it embrace of civil rights that caused 18 dem senators to filibuster the act for 57 days?

Was it embrace of civil rights that caused Sen Byrd to speak against it for 14 hours and 13 minutes straight?

Was it embrace of civil rights that caused Robert Kennedy to approve the wiretap of Martin Luther King Jr's phones?

I could go on. And on.

From opposition to the anti-Lynching laws to the Indian Removal Act, the dems have stood opposed to liberty and in favor of racial discrimination for 2 centuries.

Bruce Henry just proved again the left cannot be honest about race and racism. When you have to make up "code words" to find racists under your bed then maybe there really is no racism in the Republican party.

The real reason, Bruce, that almost 100% of African Americans voted for Barack Obama is because Democrats in the media and education establishments have propagandized them for their whole lives, telling them white people are racists but black people are not.

Nice little fantasy construction you got there, Bruce. A lot of truth, covering up some very subtle falsehoods that tell the real story.

LBJ was the only Democratic president who made civil rights a major priority. FDR made some gestures, Truman some real strides, and Kennedy some good noises, but nearly all the credit for civil rights advances of their eras were because of Republicans and over the resistance of the entrenched Democratic machine.

As for your numbers... Gore scored 90%, Kerry 88% of the black vote. Obama's 97% is only half the story -- the other significance is the far-greater turnout of black voters than in previous years. He had a significantly higher precentage of a significantly higher portion of the electorate. Black voter turnout was about 67% -- smashing the prior record by almost ten points. (The overall turnout was 62%.)

So, Bruce, would you say that 5% of blacks who voted for Obama did so on the basis of race? I'd put it even higher, as Kerry did 9% worse with a much smaller pool. I'd wager that a significant portion of the increased turnout was to vote for Obama based on his race.

And what does that mean? To me, absolutely nothing. A statistical exercise. Fun with numbers.

To those who live and die by racial definitions and dividing people into categories based on such factors as race, though, it means the world.

J.

Reading comprehension is definitely not your thing, Jim. I already addressed the fact that the southern wing of the Democratic Party was, indeed, the racist party through the Civil Rights years. Jesus.

As to Bobby Kennedy's authorization of the King wiretap, he admitted that it was an act of cowardice, prompted by J. Edgar Hoover's threats to oppose the Kennedys as "soft on Communism." Bobby Kennedy was no racist.

And you know it.

Mr Tea, I would say that at least 5% of blacks who voted for Obama did so on the basis of race.

No evidence, just a guess.

And I would guess that at least 5% of whites who voted for McCain did so because there was no way they would ever vote for a black candidate, of any party.

What would your guess be?

Lee is really a piker at this kind of argument. He wouldn't survive 15 minutes at slashdot before those even more poor at reasoning, even more emotionally invest, utterly shot him down from his own putative side. Here, for the sake of clarification, is the style of argument I dub "crayon-coloring politics:"

1. I oppose X because of substantive reasons 1, 2 and 3
2. Ah, well, if #1 opposes X it can only be because of derogative term Y
3. No, I (#1) gave substantive reasons. Your overuse of Y robs Y of all of its utility as a derogatory term. To call, for example, anyone who is male a rapist is to make rape a reasonably acceptable term for at least half the population. As someone who deplores Y, I really can't stand your watering down the term that way.
4. I (#2) didn't say that all criticism of X is Y, just that some criticism of X is Y. Surely you will agree.
5. Well, I (#1) suppose it's theoretically possible, but it certainly doesn't apply in any circumstances I can recall.
6. Ah, but if some criticism of X is Y, then you (#1) admit my point and my superiority. Now let's argue how much criticism of X is Y. I (#2) assert that any criticism of X that asserts A or !A must be Y.
7. But that's the exact same thing as asserting that all criticism of X is Y.
8. So you (#1) admit you are Y, then? And by the way, here's someone else whom I (#2) decide you must favor based on irrelevant factor Z, and who has said something I can misconstrue to mean he agrees with me about your criticism of X being Y.
9. Not only is that an argument by irrelevant authority (a logical fallacy), it's also a red herring (another logical fallacy). Clearly, you (#2) have no interest in arguing in good faith.
10. Your constant denials of your own Y prove that you are Y, and thus I need not listen to you any further. Indeed, no one else may listen to you either, or I will accuse them of Y.

Like I said, Lee, you're a piker. And it's a tired strategy, that only works on idiots and five year olds. Try better next time, you Y you.

Actually, Jeff, Lee's technique works quite well when one utterly controls the grounds of the debate. If one's opponent makes inconvenient points, just delete the remarks and ban them -- usually with a few gratuitous insults that the other can't reply ti. It's a style Lee mastered.

Pity he can't apply it here.

J.

Bruce, Just because blacks typically vote against their own interests and for the dem party does not mean that merely 5% of blacks voted for obama because he is black.

Just based on numbers of voters, 13.8M blacks voted in 2004. an additional 2.1M voted in 2008. That would mean that 15% more black voters turned out in 2008 and nearly all of them voted for obama.

I would propose that at least 15% of blacks voted for obama simply because of his race. I would further venture that many blacks who voted in previous elections voted for obama primarily due to his race. I doubt that you could get much below 80% of blacks claiming race as one of the top reasons they voted for obama.

J Edgar Hoover, another boogie man of the left. Admittedly he was a bit strange, but he kept the Communists from infiltrating the seats of government. While it is true that some of his methods were a bit over the top, they got results. The FBI under him had wiped out the bandit gangs of the Midwestern United States in the 1930s and kept the spies down to a manageable degree. As with Joe McCarthy, the left was angry at them, because they kept their allies under control.

Hoover also kept an eye on groups like the Weather Underground, SDS, the Symbonese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers and other extreme left wing groups in the 1960s and early 1970s. Too bad that there not a Director of the FBI like Hoover in there now. He could be keeping an eye on the current crop of domestic terrorists, such as Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakan and Jessie Jackson.

My guess is that Bruce Henry is one of the Democrats who is 5% racist. Hidden racism like Bruce Henry's even is worse than open racism like the La Raza racists, don't you think?

Did you notice how Bruce Henry didn't even try to defend his "code words" slur? The left has never defended that one, they just throw that lie out there in hopes no one will ever question it. Actually, now that I think of it, the left is never asked by the MSM to defend any of their lies. And I guess when people like me ask questions we are pretty easy for them to ignore.

State's Rights was a slogan used by dems back in the pro-segregation 50's and 60's. Nobody except the racially attuned dems was thinking of State's rights as racist code words when Reagan used the term in 1980. Nobody.

When Reagan spoke of State's Rights he was talking about the states not being burdened by unfunded federal mandates and retaining something akin to the sovereignty that they historically have had. The dems hate this idea because they know that state sovereignty means they cannot force their socialist agenda down the throats of the nation all at once.

Perhaps it is because the dems used this term for their own racially divisive ends that they expect that anyone else uttering the same words in sequence must mean the same thing that they do.

How arrogant must one be to assume that everyone must think the same way that you do?

Hey Bruce! Explain this:

Why is it that it is OK with the dems for a white woman who has never lived in NY to suddenly move there from Arkansas and run for Senate and she gets the full support of the party despite never having run for elected office before.

Yet when a black man from Tennessee, who had a respectable career in the House of representatives wants to move to NY and do he same thing the dems get all up in arms about it and run him out of the state?

Sounds like racism to me. They wouldn't even let him stand for the primary. It's one thing to let him run and lose in the primary, but to forbid him from even participating in the election? That sounds like the same old tactics that the dems used in the reconstruction south.

Guess the party hasn't come that far in he last 150 years has it?

Nice of Lee to demonstrate what happens when you keep your head up your ass and are the catcher, not the pitcher.

I'm getting to the point where, if I'm trying to have a substantive discussion on Obama's merits and I'm automatically accused of 'racism' - I just wander off. I don't give a damn what color Obama's skin is - when I really get a good tan on I'm darker than he is. So accusations of racism are a simple way to figure out who's not taking the argument seriously.

If someone's intent on focusing on accusations of racism on ANY pretext whatsoever, especially when there's no overt indication (such as "I HATE Obama because he's oversupplied in the melanin department!" which sounds pretty damn ridiculous from the start...) or covert indication (such as "I hate Obama because his shoes are the wrong size!") then there's pretty much no chance you're going to be able to get any sort of substantive thought out of them.

They're too busy looking for racism to actually think about the mess we're in. They're the equivalent of someone making sure the deck chairs on the Titanic are EXACTLY 8 and 7/16ths inches apart... after the ship has already hit the iceberg.

Democrats may lack morality, integrity and honor but they can add. Obama was the most attractive candidate they've nominated for years and he faced the weakest Republican since Alf Landon. He won by 7% of the vote ( assuming the count was not corrupted by Democratic officials. And I'll presume that for now ).

African Americans vote Democratic by large margins. No group is so lopsidedly partisan. If Blacks split more equally the Democrats would have big problems. How big? It is estimated Obama got 95% of the Black vote. About 12% of the voters in 2008 were African American. That breaks down to 11.4 to 0.6 or a margin of 10.8 percent. McCain, bad as he was, carried everyone else. If he had gotten 1/3 of the Black vote, it would essentially been a tie.

Democrats know that only by convincing African Americans that racism is rampant in America and that Republicans represent it can they remain competitive. Without a wildly lopsided Black vote, the Democrats are toast.

There are certainly racists in America and there are certainly racists in the GOP. There are, most likely, racists in the sewing circle of the AME Church ( as well as every other religion and denomination ). Racism exists. It isn't going away. But it probably has more influence in the decisions of the Democratic Party than any other large organization in the country.

The Democrats need racism so they'll continue to look under the bed for it and the lapdog media will report their fantasies as hard news.

With all the race-baiting going on from Bruce and Lee, it's worth pointing out that I have never, ever seen a racist comment here at Wizbang. We've got our bible thumpers, our Nascar guys, our self-confessed capitalists, suspected Republicans, even birthers once in a while, and a lot of other pissed off redneck folks, including me. And I would happily describe Wizbang as a legitimately right wing blog. But never once has anybody taken a cheap racial shot at Obama that I can recall.

Except for those made by folks like Bruce, Lee, Steve Green, and a few others from the insane asylum on the left.

They keep bringing the subject up, and I wonder why that is. Wishful thinking, maybe?

I think it's projection, Bobdog - they can't imagine anyone NOT reacting to Obama's melanin content. Because they're obsessed with Obama's color, they think everyone else is also, therefore we're all racists. We don't need to confirm it, because they already know we're racists. We can't deny it, because if we deny it we confirm it in their eyes.

No matter what we do or say, they'll interpret it in a manner that confirms the fact that WE are racists, and they can feel superior because they KNOW they aren't because WE are.

It's kind of weird, but it seems to be the way they're pushing any more...

Bobdog, there have been some racist comments against Obama. They've prompted the use of Olaf The Troll God's Ban Hammer. I recall one especially virulent outbreak election night, 2008.

That was the exception, though. Not the rule. And I really appreciate you folks for making it that way.

J.

That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Racism -- the real thing, that is -- is pretty much finished.

About all that's left is phony-baloney Ray-Sizzum.

Lee, you forgot to shout "Liar!"

You're slipping.

And you want to complain about straw men? How about this one?

"How can it be a factor for Michael Steele and not a factor for Barack Obama? That's ridiculous."

This is based on the assumption that we agree with Steele's contention but not the others.

Bad. Really bad.

Crying "racist" in response to an assertion is an admission that the person cannot refute the assertion.

That is, the person crying "racist" is not addressing the SUBSTANCE, but rather attempting to address the MOTIVE for presenting the assertion.

The MOTIVE for presenting the assertion and whether or not the SUBSTANCE of the assertion is true or false are completely INDEPENDENT.