There are multiple dustups brewing in the national election scene as both presidential campaigns aren’t just testing out themes to appeal to voters, but also attacks and rebuttals as well. It’s all about gaining political advantage for their side in the November elections.
That said, the theme that our president’s opponents most want to declare taboo is the issue of race. They seem the most indignant when it's suggested that race could even possibly be an issue in an election where Americans will be asked whether or not they want to re-elect the nation’s first African-American president.
Journalist and former CBS anchorman Dan Rather drew a white-hot reaction from the rabid right for stating the obvious -- race will still be an issue in the 2012 presidential election. The reaction seems hottest by those who have been quickest to use race as an issue in the past, whether it was calling President Obama a "colonial Kenyan," reviving and reveling in Birther controversies, or never truly denying rumors that the president is secretly a Muslim.
The irony is the folks guiltiest of those tactics take the most umbrage at being called to task on it. Sometimes, it smacks of I-think-he-doth-protest-too-much doublespeak.
At the end of the 2008 election cycle, such questions about race did prove to be relevant. From accusations of President Barack Obama hating white America due to his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the subtle insinuations that Birthers still level against him today, there was ample evidence that certain segments of America weren't ready for a black president.
Posters of President Obama dressed as an African witch doctor, continuous “questions” about the man’s birth certificate, and other attempts to prove that he is "not one of us" are evidence that the issue is far from dead, especially with some of the radical’s in the Republican party. Yet, other right-wing activists, even if they don't believe such accusations, still seem willing to use the controversy to their political advantage.
So, Rather's comment that it would be an issue this year barely qualifies as news analysis in my opinion. The rage from those being called out for it is more evidence of how it’s true than any assurance it's not. Is Dan Rather correct? Yep. The issue really is how much and how in-your-face race is going to be over the next few months
There are some ominous signs already. Jeremiah Wright's latest sermons are back on the playlist at Fox News and other right-leaning media outlets, despite the fact that President Obama hasn't had him as a pastor since 2008, cutting ties after the previous controversy. And, while it's harder to tell if birtherism is being pushed front and center again, since it's always been in the news, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's recent press conference on the results of his investigation into the president's birth certificate shows that there's a willingness out there to play upon those fears of a black President being from 'Somewhere Else.'
So, certainly there are people out there who are still ready to make those same sorts of arguments as before, though they are now unable to couch them in the terms of 'Are we ready for a black president?' After all, the results of the 2008 election showed that we were.
However, conversations about race and politics don't have to be considered automatically negative things. That's just our default assumption when racial differences are discussed in the media. Race could play a positive role in the 2012 presidential election. The problem is that all signs point to no for now. Skirmishes between the two campaigns have been economic or social, not racial, and only time can tell if it's going to come up in the future. The nation's imagination is going to be captured by the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial, but is that the right atmosphere in which we want to have a healthy conversation about race?
While this election is yet again another historic chance to have a significant conversation about race, it needs to be a conversation that is worthy of America. Otherwise, it's going to be considered an extension of our presidential election pageantry culture, instead of a sincere effort to talk about the real situations that America's melting pot faces today.
Reprinted from State Senator Curt Thompson's (D-5th) blog. Also, check the Senator out on Facebook and Twitter.
In our scrapbook, there is a '70s AJC clipping about my dad-"Gwinnett has its first Negro Grand Juror" and less than 50 years later, a Black man was elected President. It’s those two facts that gives me hope. Hope that we can get to a place where race really doesn’t matter but to get to that place, I think we have to honest and frank discussions about where we are now. Acknowledging that although we have come a long way, we still have prejudices. When a member of congress yells “liar” to the president, or singer calling for beheading the President. That’s not just 2 sides having a philosophical difference. There is something more afoot.
Like people say....some will never let it go....."which is just as big of a screwup and potentially even more embarrassing.."
Saying something is a fact does not make it so. America is a capitalist nation with some socialist aspects (roads, parks, fire departments, police departments, public schools, etc.) And unions, while I agree in need of some reform, are not socialism. They are/were created to defend workers' rights. Why would you be against that? As I said, some unions could definitely use reform. Some have definitely over played their hand, but that is not socialism. I can argue that with you. For example, Teacher unions prevented women from getting fired for things such as getting pregnant. Apparently you define that as socialism. I define it as preventing unjust termination. As for your claim that the left side of the democratic party are socialists, are those the same socialist democrats Allen West called communists last week? And didn't a prominent Catholic bishop insinuate President Obama was a totalitarian by comparing him to Hitler a few days ago? So if you're keeping score, President Obama and the democrats are communist, socialist, totalitarians. Really? Me thinks the rhetoric is hyperbole at best.
The caller, given the muffled giggles in the background, was most likely a drunk college student having a little fun. For me, it was a a powerful, chilling and very visceral reminder that racism remains deeply embedded in our culture. We've certainly progressed as a society in that it's no longer OK to share this ugliness out loud, to another person's face. We're fooling ourselves if we think this kid who called me that night would have the same inner feelings about meeting a black man named Parks on the street as he would a white one. Or if we think he's the only nice, well-educated person in America who harbors those feelings.
There's always examples of idiots. I have met plenty of black people who hate white people, just because they're white. Can you say Reverend Wright? But to say that that one idiot's predjudices are indicative of everybody is shallow at the least.
There's a lot of room between "one idiot" and "everybody." My point is, there's a lot more "idiots" than some people think there are, because they're underground now -- and a lot of them only surface in 3 a.m. phone calls. We don't know how often race influences people's perceptions of and reactions to others. I can tell you that, after being treated like a black man by a white racist, Griffin's work felt very contemporary to me.
"Look what Obama's done with his czars and EOs this term, " You are , of course , aware that there are no actual "czar" positions and Bush appointed quite a few more of these high level "overseers" than Obama has ..right? You might also be aware the W issued nearly THREE HUNDRED EO's? Probably not .. I find myself with Mr Leader here. The Repubs have gone bugnutty . The failure to focus on real issues that effect a majority of citizens while pandering to the religious freaks on matters of gays, abortion and simple women's heath issues has turned off a great of us who USED to believe the republicans truly represented a smaller government alternative instead of hypocrisy and nonsense. Four years ago I couldnt conceive of voting for Obama, now I'm not so sure he isnt the lesser of two evils .
What is "bugnutty"? Do they dwell on social issues? Yes, some do. If Obama is the lesser of two evils, you are not paying attention.
And the "war against women" IS no joke; it's not liberal propoganda, it's downright scary. As to "rich pay their fair share", the only part of that I'm for is plugging tax loopholes. Of course, I'm for the very controversial "have everyone pay additional taxes and eliminate most of these social reforms", since that is the only chance we have of making leeway on our Bush/Obama (bi-partasain?) debt.
Let me get this straight. You're telling me that it is impossible to debate with people like me because we sterotype, and then you proceed to sterotype and label me? Nicely done, sir. And to answer your question, no, I do not think president Obama's actions reflect a totalitarian regime. Rather, I think many Americans have gotten comfortable with lobbing outlandish accusations without any real thought as to what they're really saying. President Obama's years in office have been far from Hitler led Germany. I have been quite rational and reasonable in my responses to you, but I'm starting to fear I'm wasting my time. You appear trapped in your rhetoric.
You need to keep current on polling data. The WSJ had a very good article on the male/female vote. It's not the female vote but rather the single female vote. Romney is leading Obama among married women. But here's the truth...Obama has had it all his way for months...no opponents...taking potshots at Republicans...and the best he can do is an approval rating in the low to mid 40's . He's going to plummet when he has to defend his record.
Link: http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/18/news/economy/drilling-regulations/index.htm Sorry, can't blame this one on Republicans nor Fox News.