Race card played
(Bloomberg) President Barack Obama said that racial tensions may have softened his popularity among white voters within the last two years, according to a story posted on the New Yorker magazine’s website today.
“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,†Obama said in the article by David Remnick, appearing in the magazine’s Jan. 27 edition.
“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,†Obama said in his most direct comments on how race has affected his political standing since he’s been in office.
Are there some who really do not like Obama because he’s black? Sure. A tiny number. Were there people who despised Bush because he was an Evangelical Christian? Yup. But, really, this is a typical Left wing trope, playing the Race Card, when it’s not about personal like or dislike, it’s about policy. It’s about the highly unpopular Obamacare. About the NSA spying on US citizens. About an economy that is limping along like a drunk sloth 5 years after passing the trillion dollar Stimulus. About Blaming everyone else. About leaving our people to die in Benghazi. His assaults on the Constitution. About continuously denigrating citizens that do not agree with his policies.
He gives his political opponents little reason to personally like him regarding that last one.
The New Yorker article itself tended to be pretty much softball. As Kristinn Taylor notes at The Gateway Pundit
In the nearly 17,000 word New Yorker article by David Remnick on the current state of the Obama presidency based on numerous in person interviews with President Barack Obama, the word Benghazi is nowhere to be found. Libya is only mentioned twice in passing with no reference to the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Fallujah on September 11, 2012 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Dougherty.
Remnick found talking to Obama about football and basketball more important than Benghazi.
It’s not all bad, I do like the part about him saying he is trying to protect his kids from the filth emanating from Hollywood and the current “if it feels good, do it” culture. Really, though, the article is a puff piece designed to protect Obama.
Yeah… that was “Benghazi”. Not Fallujah. Fallujah is in Iraq. But yeah, Obama is responsible for the fall of Fallujah as well. His policies and his weak approach to the military has led to the uprising again of terrorists and its spread. Thanks to Obama, Iraq and Afghanistan are more dangerous places than when he took office.
And now, thanks to liberals in office (R and D) Iran is weeks away from having nuclear weapons (according to some). I personally believe they’ve had them for a while. Might help to explain why Obama caved so easy on the “negotiations” with Iran.
I fear for Israel. If Israel does what US won’t do, I fear Obama will come down hard on Israel and make them a larger target for their enemies.
And, it is a bit hypocritical of Obama (what else is new) to complain about Hollywood when he’s spent his entire DC career catering to and playing kiss-ass with the Hollywood crowd. He’s paying them to promote FailCare. Obama is a true believer in the values of Hollywood.
It is depressing to me when someone accepts the title and status of Victim. It means they have given up on themselves and transferred control and responsibility to someone or something else.
It is one thing to be a victim of a natural disaster (or overwhelming force) but to remain a victim means waiting for rescue and assistance from someone or the government.
Its another thing to voluntarily give up control for my life because of other’s attitude and actions, because that puts them in charge of me. Declaring oneself to be a victim and blaming others is volunteering to be controlled by others.
Here’s the text just before the Obama quotation:
– Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history. The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama’s drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters. –
If these statements are true, they add some context to the quotes. Offering an explanation is not whining.
There is not enough bad that can be said about this guy. I actually have black patients that are apologizing for their support.
J, your quote affirms every one else’s stances. Namely that our opposition to him is because of his anti-American policies. NOT because of his race. I despised Clinton and Gore as well. And they’re white. I’m just anti-Socialist and Pro-Republic.
His “explanation” is whining when it is based on an ideology not borne out of facts. And based solely upon, “they don’t like me cuz I’m black” whining. He is a narcissist who is incapable of believing that a single thought he has had is bad. He has a god-complex so bad that even when the ruins of America are around him, he will still blame someone else.
But, thanks for adding support to our statements, J.
Pirate,
Here are the quotes from the President you chose:
“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,â€
“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,â€
Both statements are very likely true. He recognizes that some people dislike him solely because he’s black and others like him solely because he is black. How is that whining? How is that playing the “race card”? Should he just refuse to answer any questions concerning race in America?
Gumball insists that favoring conservative policies that harm blacks is just a lucky side-effect of favoring conservative policies that reward white elites, and I believe him. The civil rights movement was a boon for white conservatives, giving them a literal bête noire to rally against, from Reagan’s welfare queens, H.W.’s Willie Horton to Romney’s 47%. Racism, direct and institutional, both as a deeply held belief and as a powerful political tool, permeates the modern conservative movement.
The president should be above invoking racism as an excuse for his policy failure. Even proposing a balance is raising the issue. If his comment is supposed to be even handed and balanced, it did not need to be said. He said it in the context of why his policies have not worked as well as he would like.
Since this president constantly finds excuses, and constantly blames others, and has to falsify data to hide his policy failures, and uses divisive tactics to justify his policy; even a hint of such tactics in his speech follows his established pattern.
Better, had he attempted to inspire and lead, than excuse and divide.
Yes, as we all know by now, J believes that when people are taxed more, that helps black people. And when everyone is allowed to keep more of their hard-fought dollars, to decide what to do with as they please… that hurts black people.
It has no logical basis in any known universe or any theory of relativistic understanding, but he clings to that idea like crap to the underside of an outhouse.
J’s mind: When women are allowed, shown, and taught how to defend themselves from potential attackers through their 2nd Amendment, that’s bad for women. Especially black women.
J’s mind: When federal dollars are given freely to a private company in order to pay back political donations, that benefits blacks.
J’s mind: When conservatives push individual responsibility and the rights of states, that leads to white ownership of blacks as slaves.
Might I suggest that J really needs to move to Russia or Iran where his views will meet with friendly companionship.
Jeffery,
You are correct, that is what the President said and there is much truth to it. There are going to be people who dislike or support him on the basis of race.
Remnick (the article’s author) makes the point that just prior to Obama’s statement that Obama got less of the white vote than any victorious president in history. Somehow that means that white people dislike Obama because he is black.
There is never any indication that Obama is disliked because of his policies. Obama cannot bring himself to believe that.
When discussing Medicare and Medicaid, Obama brings up racial divides. There is no domestic policy issue that Obama does not see through race and race alone. That is flat out wrong.
When discussing the role of the Federal government, Obama says the opposition in citing Constitution restriction on Federal powers and leaving those powers to the states is tied up in racism.
The article clearly demonstrates that Obama is not a president that is engaged in the office of the Presidency. He sees everything through a colored prism. That is not good for the country or the people of the country.
Obama has been one of the most divisive presidents in history. Some of that has to do with his race but by far it has to do with his policies. We see declines in his approval ratings across the board now in every ethnic, gender and age group.
Obama can try to maintain and convince himself that it is all about race, but it is not.
Gumballs,
Why do you feel that Americans who disagree with your reactionary ideas should leave America?
Blacks, Hispanics, liberals, atheists, Muslims and gays have just as much a right to be here as Caucasoid, conservative Christians.
Government policies over the past 30 years have redistributed wealth in the US. You will disagree, but the truth has a liberal bias, and wealth has flowed up to the rich! Our government policies have wrecked the American middle class. We have destroyed labor unions, shipped manufacturing jobs overseas, supported massive unemployment – all by policy, not by accident, not by natural market forces. The outcomes are as expected – stagnant wages, unemployment, underemployment – but outstanding transfer of wealth to the already rich. And yes, this effects the poorest and least educated among us – where blacks are overrepresented.
Our economy produces about $50,000 worth of goods and services for every man, woman and child in America. Can’t we figure out a way to have a more equal distribution? Do you really think Mitt Romney adds a thousand times more value to our society than a 1st grade teacher in the inner city?
And that ladies and gentlemen…. is J.
blaming others for the sins of his own making and doing.
Jeffery,
Why do you feel that Americans who disagree with your reactionary ideas should leave America?
Why do you suggest that the ideas of those nations be brought here? Why do you want to subject people to the same type of tyranny and oppression that occurs daily in those nations.
If you like those failed systems, move there. It would not be wrong for someone to suggest that if one likes programming to move to Silicon Valley. The same holds true here.
Our government policies have wrecked the American middle class.
Those would be the policies of liberals, right? After all, the war on poverty has failed miserably because of those exact policies.
The truth does not have a liberal bias. The truth places the blame for this mess squarely on liberals and their ideas.
Can’t we figure out a way to have a more equal distribution?
“Wealth distribution” is not an economic goal, Jeffery. It is one based on jealousy and not one based on work ethos or any other legitimate idea.
Do you really think Mitt Romney adds a thousand times more value to our society than a 1st grade teacher in the inner city?
I didn’t realize that a salary was based on “value to society.” I thought that a salary was based on the marketplace.
Do your employees all make the same amount of money, Jeffery? As they most likely do not, why is it that you feel that you have a right to set salaries, but others do not? Why is it that you feel you can say “I run this company” but won’t extend that same rational and decision to other companies?
Depends on what you mean by value. Value has many varieties, connotations, and value-sets based upon who is doing the valuing and who is being evaluated. Is that 1st grade teacher a presumed pedophile? Is that 1st grade teacher a new teacher? Is that teacher a hag has been who should no longer be employed as her value is no longer what it once was?
Or, how many people does that 1st grade teacher employ? how many businesses has that teacher created? How many offspring has that teacher brought in to the world and added value to our economy by created even more jobs and wealth for others?
First, I don’t presume that you are American as your values and ideals are not American. Second, when you espouse anti-American beliefs that best fit alongside China or the USSR or Cuba, then I’d suggest you move to where you better fit in.
Our system worked great before Socialism started destroying the work ethos. It is Socialism that seeks to keep the poor as poor and the elites protected from the poor through gov’t regulation and its power to oppress.