Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.
Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.
"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."
At an April 12 event in his district, Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis (R) said of Obama: “I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”
Xian - it is good to have you back. Even if you are a piece of garbage community organizer that deserves to be mocked and ridiculed for bothering to waste your time with "those people" when you could be making big bucks somewhere working for corporate America, I still missed you. :)
And as long as I'm being completely sarcastic, let me just say that Republicans would never use the racism against Obama, and I can't understand why you hate everyone so much as to imply that with these quotes. Obviously "uppity" is just a cute southern term that has absolutely no historical connotations at all. And we all know that a white guy from Kentucky would never mean anything derogatory by calling a black man "that boy". Finally, isn't it at least somewhat possible that the election of Obama will mean that the terrorists win? So, I think you are completely out-of-line by posting these direct quotes from elected Republicans.
Ah ... I'm glad that's over. Cheers!
And we all know that a white guy from Kentucky would never mean anything derogatory by calling a black man "that boy"
Funny thing is, Davis is only 3 years older than Obama. So he can't justify this quote as some sort of age-related statement. Were he to not have a sketchy background, I'd probably give a free pass to Senator Byrd saying this, since he's been a Senator longer than Obama's been alive.
I agree with both of you - the racial undertones of these statements are pretty horrendous. But I doubt these sentements are exclusive to the Republican Party. One of the reasons I'm secretly hoping Obama wins is to basically give a giant middle finger to racists everywhere.
"these direct quotes from elected Republicans."
Heh. D.Boon, you just can't help yourself, can you?
Wasn't it just yesterday you were proclaiming that you didn't really hate Republicans?
Let's say I see three kids knock an old lady down in the street. I say to my wife, "Did you just see those nasty little kids knock that lady over? Those kids are monsters!"
Does that mean I hate my kid?
Have a good night.
"Does that mean I hate my kid?"
No, it means you hate "those" kids. But your comment didn't criticize "those" officials - it went after "elected Republican officials."
You painted as broadly as possible, as you almost always do.
It's like you can't help yourself.
No, it means you hate "those" kids. But your comment didn't criticize "those" officials - it went after "elected Republican officials."
You painted as broadly as possible, as you almost always do.
It's like you can't help yourself.
True or false: Those comments came from elected Republican officials?
True or false: Liberals are painted by many users on here with as broad of a brush as possible, including by you at times, especially when you are referring to any Democratic member of the state legislature?
My point: If you don't want these broad-based attacks on Republicans/conservatives, try not dishing them out yourself and maybe start jumping on those who paint your opposition with a similar broad brush just as much as you do Boon. Can't help yourself, indeed.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
"True or false: Liberals are painted by many users on here with as broad of a brush as possible, including by you at times, especially when you are referring to any Democratic member of the state legislature?"
False. I believe that with rare exception I only talk about four Democratic members of the state Legislature - Rep. Jakobsson and her leader, and Sen. Frerichs and his leader. I do talk about both of them putting fealty to their leader over the best interests of their district, but that's not painting broadly, given the numerous specific examples I've given in each of their cases.
Do you really think I hate Democrats or liberals the way that D.Boon hates conservatives and Republicans?
But your comment didn't criticize "those" officials - it went after "elected Republican officials." ... You painted as broadly as possible, as you almost always do. ... It's like you can't help yourself.
So am I to understand that you thought my original comment was targeted at every Republican official in America? Or every Republican in America? That makes doesn't make any sense.
I have to agree with Arvid on this one. When are you going to start calling a fair game, ump? You jump on the littlest, illogical thing to proclaim me a "hater" of all Republicans, and even throw in the little personal jab "it's like you can't help yourself". But others on this site are allowed to call me names I don't even use on my neighbor's dog and your response is to basically tell me I deserve it because I hate everybody. Note to conservative haters: proceed!
It's weird.
Is uppity really a racial term? I have heard it used numerous times and never in reference to blacks or any other minority.
Sometimes I think people are looking too hard for racism. Plenty exists without inventing more. I am reminded of the Tar Baby quote of Romney’s. I read that story as a child and never realized it could ever have racial connotations until someone decided it made good ammunition.
Corben Rice, are you running for County Board?
Which Party?
"So am I to understand that you thought my original comment was targeted at every Republican official in America?"
Yes. Given our previous discussions, I think that's a safe assumption. If you insist that I'm wrong, then I am glad to have been so mistaken.
"When are you going to start calling a fair game, ump? You jump on the littlest, illogical thing to proclaim me a "hater" of all Republicans, and even throw in the little personal jab "it's like you can't help yourself". But others on this site are allowed to call me names I don't even use on my neighbor's dog and your response is to basically tell me I deserve it because I hate everybody. Note to conservative haters: proceed!"
Please stop pretending that somehow you're the only one treated rudely on here. Just yesterday someone on here told me that I support killing nuns because I'm a Republican. Today I'm once again informed that I'm not a decent human being. It sucks, and clearly everyone could stand to be more civil (myself included), but in no way are you insulted worse than others on here.
On August 1st, 2008 at 10:20 PM, D. Boon said:
It is funny if you think about it. Is this really the best they can do? Is the best Gordy can do is to try to squeeze some issues out of nonsense in the hope that something will stick? Are these repetitive, sophomoric cartoons really the best Joan can do every week? Is this really the way the GOP was envisioning this election: making fun of the opponent in a desperate hope that somehow people won't vote for him in a landslide?
Yes! This is the best that conservatives can do. This is it. And honestly, what more should we expect?
...
What we all need to realize is that this is how the GOP does things. They have no morals, no qualms about taking and keeping power. Far from being embarassed, Republicans are probably overjoyed that finally McCain is doing it the right way. The low road is the right way for the GOP. And considering the unpopularity of their ideas, the low road is undoubtedly the only way for the GOP yet again.
Stay tuned. It will get much worse.
As for assuming that your statement was a broad condemnation, I'll point at the above quote. As for a fair game, I'll quote you again:
The irony is that the minute your own tactics are turned back on you you cry "foul!" like some sensitive liberal or something. Apparently this is yet another case of someone who is more than willing to dish it out as long as he doesn't have to take it.
Which Party?
I am running on the Republican ticket. Please feel free to visit my website at www.ccboard5.com.
Funny, I usually think of it as a term that's primarily used that way, unless it's being used ironically. Just think about the last quote up there. "Boy" is not really a racial term either, but when it's applied to a fully adult, African-American man, then, yes, it is.
I think part of the problem is that American folklore and mythology, race is often wrapped up in it. That probably goes double in the South. As recently as just a few decades or so ago, it was accepted to make characteratures that we would never tolerate today.
But I know how you feel. I loved all the Narnia books as a kid (and still do), but never even noticed all the Christian symbolism present in them until I was much older.
I loved all the Narnia books as a kid (and still do), but never even noticed all the Christian symbolism present in them until I was much older.
too bad - that's what really makes them good
As for assuming that your statement was a broad condemnation, I'll point at the above quote. As for a fair game, I'll quote you again:
Honestly, I am still just surprised that anyone thinks my original comment was some general condemnation of every Republican in America. That conclusion is so far from logical that it lives in alternative universe I like to call "illogical".
But I appreciate the cutting and pasting of my previous work. Reading over it, I am having a hard time finding personal attacks in there. These seem like brutal, and somewhat snarky attacks on the ideas, styles, and writings of the commenters on this site, and the GOP, but they are far from personal in nature. No one is called an idiot, a moron, despicable, bigoted, or in need of counseling. No one is told the site would be better if they packed it up and never wrote another word.
Is it possible that you folks are a little too defensive about this race thing, and you're seeing things in the words that just aren't there? If it makes you feel any better I will be clear:
I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS IN XIAN'S POST.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU.
Is that better? Yes, you have racists in your party who are more than eager to use that ugly card to stop Obama. Are you one of them? I don't think so, and I certainly hope not.
"Is uppity really a racial term?"
Yes, at least in part. Historically, it was usually part of a phrase: "uppity negro" or worse. Over time, it also came to be used in reference to women. In general, it has been used for anyone who doesn't "know their place." When used to describe a member of a racial minority, it is unavoidably racist.
Tar Baby, as Narc points out, is a casualty of cultural evolution. I think that the storytelling elements of Uncle Remus are a great loss, on many levels, but no one has ever figured out (yet) how to reclaim the good parts.
Honestly, I am still just surprised that anyone thinks my original comment was some general condemnation of every Republican in America. That conclusion is so far from logical that it lives in alternative universe I like to call "illogical".
See my previous post. In the past, you broadly proclaimed how you view conservatives. How is this not a broad statement about all conservatives: "This is the best that conservatives can do. This is it."?
So, given this history, it's not illogical to assume your original comment applied to all Republican officials. And considering you think Republicans have "no morals, no qualms about taking and keeping power" and applaud candidates for "taking the low road," it's not illogical to infer a broad generalization from your original comment.
But I appreciate the cutting and pasting of my previous work. Reading over it, I am having a hard time finding personal attacks in there. These seem like brutal, and somewhat snarky attacks on the ideas, styles, and writings of the commenters on this site, and the GOP, but they are far from personal in nature. No one is called an idiot, a moron, despicable, bigoted, or in need of counseling. No one is told the site would be better if they packed it up and never wrote another word.
No, but nice straw man. Where is the assertion that you posted "personal attacks?"
I think you said it best:
Your inability to differentiate between debating techniques and personal insults continues to frustrate. Perhaps you should consider taking up gardening?
These were Republican elected officials. The second case is particularly egregious, as if you read the whole transcript, the interviewer gives him a couple chances to clarify or retract and he merely powers it through.
Don't you find it troubling that your first reaction is not to respond to the racial slur but to attack any retelling of the actual events without reframing? You quoted a passage that was 100% factual and not even tilted in any direction. It's as if reality is your enemy.
If Obama loses due to race (NOTE: just in case someone somewhere here is a hypersensitive idiot--not actually on this forum as a regular poster, but maybe they just wander in here, I want to give a quick English lesson: this is a conditional statement. It in no way suggests that if Obama loses it must be because of race, it merely talks about the possibility. If you can't understand that, please do not support ENGLISH-ONLY legislation as you would be deported...), it won't be because of neo-KKK voters. It will be because good people somehow convince themselves that racial slurs against Obama are somehow his and his supporters fault and they should just lie back and take it.
not even tilted in any direction
Give me a break.
"these direct quotes from elected Republicans."
Was the quote. How is that problematic? Were the quotes not direct? Were the Republicans not elected? Once again, why do you hate reality?
xian, you're ridiculous. Quit being so patronizing - I'm not one of your students, I don't need a grammar lesson.
Here, I'll use your most recent analysis of quotes towards an initial one:
"that boy" - Is Obama not a male? How is that problematic? Why do you hate reality?
See? That's utterly ridiculous.
Who in this thread is questioning the factual basis for the quote? I haven't found a single comment asserting that the direct quotes were not from elected Republican officials. Not a single one. Nice straw man, though.
Your post highlights the (perceived) implicit meanings of the racist quotes. Yet, you ignore the (perceived) implicit meanings of Boon's statements.
No, it means you hate "those" kids. But your comment didn't criticize "those" officials - it went after "elected Republican officials."
Here's the problem. It's Gordy's phantom quote. There's two ways to interpret this:
1. You are saying that Boon was criticizing all elected Republican officials. This is just plain wrong. There is not one sentence which uses the quoted term and no sentence in which Republican officials are the subject in any fashion. There is one instance in which he uses something different from what you put in quotes as a descripted modifier.
They are Republican officials.
2. You are saying that you are upset because he is criticizing any Republican officials anywhere for anything at all. In other words, if a Republican Dog Catcher was vivisectioning up random neighbors, it would be wrong to go after him.
I assume it's 1, and it's still ridiculous.
This whole mess is ridiculous. Yes there are racist republicans. And racist democrats. And sometimes those racist yahoos let their racial biases slip through... sometimes they say stuff with racial overtones and either don't care or don't know. "They" say stupid crap on regular basis. Whoever "they" may be.
If you want to show an organized effort by the Republican party to paint Obama any particular way, I don't think these guys are part of that proof.
If anyone else wants to defend these guys as politically correct, they'll have a hard time. They obviously aren't.
If you want us to vote against these yahoos, you'll be out of luck as they don't represent anyone here as far as I know, and I've certainly never heard of them before in my life. If you want to bait people into an argument over whether or not republicans are inherently racist, you have succeeded. Just like Obama's pre-emptive remarks on racism... they've really brought the sides together...
...or something like that. Unity!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
There is one instance in which he uses something different from what you put in quotes as a descripted modifier.
Don't poison the well. The inclusion/exclusion of the word "officials" in no way detracts from the argument.
I assume it's 1, and it's still ridiculous.
Look, you've discussed the inherent prejudices in inflammatory modifiers (e.g., the "black" criminal, the "gay" pedophile) and how they are used to reinforce stereotypes. IP simply pointed out what he (in good faith, no less) perceived to be another example of an inflammatory modifier (Republican) used to reinforce a stereotype (that Republicans are racist). It's that simple.
TP: That wasn't the main point. My main point was that he was wrong--the post didn't go after Republican elected officials. It went after a complete of guys who were definitely elected Republican officials. The quoted sentence merely said that the guys were elected Republicans and that they said the quotes. It has a racial overtune to talk about the black criminal element. It doesn't have such a connotation to talk about Republican officials as "elected". It merely points out that they aren't non-elected officials.
If you want us to vote against these yahoos, you'll be out of luck as they don't represent anyone here as far as I know, and I've certainly never heard of them before in my life. If you want to bait people into an argument over whether or not republicans are inherently racist, you have succeeded. Just like Obama's pre-emptive remarks on racism... they've really brought the sides together...
1. You should have heard of one of them. I hope it's not too often that people demand that Commandments be posted in public places and then can't manage to name more than a few of them.
2. I wasn't looking to bait anyone about anything. I hope you and others have enough personal agency that you can discuss issues of race without doing something you wouldn't want to. These comments are infinitely more relevant than people complaining about some random diaries on Kos making stuff up.
3. To call Obama's remarks "pre-emptive" assumes that merely discussing race is somehow the logical equivalent to mild racial slurs. Obama merely made a prediction. This prediction didn't make people racist. If anything, it was designed to prevent shallow race-based attacks from entering the campaign.
What is the problem you have with those comments? They were clearly proven true. They were not accusatory toward anyone in particular. They were addressing real issues that face the nation.
Once again, I ask why there is more outrage at attempts to address racism than the racism itself. Which side are you on?
I'm not outraged. I just don't see any point behind this post except what seems to be, at least from your description, to wanting to derail other conversations by baiting people into an absurd race discussion instead. Because it's really relevant that some republicans might be racist scumbags. So far nobody disagrees with that idea. They're just trying to figure out what the hell you mean by it. Trying to imply that republicans generally are? That republicans are generally organized to attack Obama on race? The post doesn't really say and leaves it to people to get sucked in to either guess or wonder in comment.
If you want to have a discussion on race try doing it without framing the issue in a way that puts almost everyone you're trying to get on your side on the defensive first. You think a Republican reading your post will take this as an honest attempt to get them to deal with race issues within their party? Or do you think they'll take it as an implication that they are racists and immediately go on the defensive?
The whole mess is absurd because you still don't seem to realize how combative you initially are with this subject nor do you seem to understand why people seem so defensive about it when they feel you're trying to group them in with a type of thinking they also find repugnant.
Instead of discussing race in a way that may change someone's perception on the issue you leave them with the impression that 'the other side' just labels them as a bunch of racists no matter how they do and there's little they can do about that. It might actually make the problem worse because instead of coming together with you when one of their own says/does something stupid along these lines, they're more likely to defend them because they 'know' how the 'other side' tries to crucify them on the most petty things. Obama makes a similar mistake when he leaves people with the impression that republicans generally will use racist attacks on him. It immediately puts republicans as a whole on the defensive, for themselves and fellow republicans.
Instead of making progress... nothing changes. It may in fact help to ensure that nothing changes. That's my complaint. Now what was your point?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
My point was to highlight the inconsistency in attacking Obama for mentioning the negativity which would come at him and then accept the worst of those attack at him.
I also wanted to frame it in the context of the double standard between the treatment of substantive criticism of Palin and hollow, sometimes racist, criticism of Obama.
There has been critique of Kos and others' blantant fabrications of Palin's family life. I agree with that critique. I cannot fathom why a well meaning person would attempt to pin random bloggers behavior on the whole of the political left. Surely, that is sociopathic behavior, not "liberal behavior".
There has been very aggressive critique of people merely responding to the idea that Palin's years running a small Alaskan town with very different budget requirements and massive amounts of federal assistance is somehow prodigal executive experience. Remember, we are not talking about anonymous bloggers on the internet. We are talking about Karl Rove implying that Richmond is a backwater town and Wasilla is some massive critical metropolis.
I fail to see how pointing out the populations of Wasilla and Alaska are inflammatory points.
There has been critique of people attacking Republican elected officials who have made blatantly racist slurs against Obama. People have stooped to the level of implying that the phrase "elected Republican official" has the same historical context as a relatively young white adult politician calling an African American adult politican "boy".
Then when I explain in detail, I'm told to shut up because I'm not allowed to teach anything here because it's condescending for me to treat anyone as "students". My understanding that all of us are lifelong learners and teachers. Sure, for teaching in one of the most challenging environments in the country, I've developed some additional skills. But when someone comes at me here with knowledge rather than vitrole, I regard myself as a student and them as a teacher.
The phrase "elected Republican official" is absolutely critical because it highlights the difference between sexist, hateful bloggers who may be aligned to a party and people representing the party. In the same way an Urbana teacher molesting students does not represent all teachers, but still should be identified by their profession and teacher so we know who's responsible, so it is for politicians.
Of course I know that Gordy does not endorse racial slurs. However, in some regions the party has. It is what it is. I don't think that means that all Republicans are bad and it certainly doesn't mean that I think that no Democrats are racist.
There is a simply fact to this campaign based on its time in history: Sarah Palin will be subject to sexist attacks. Barack Obama will be subject to racist attacks. Both will be subject to more boderline attacks that employ the specifics that surround race or gender. Those who attack Palin for her poor mothering are being sexist. Those who attack Palin for what they see as poor parenting may or may not be attacking her on gender lines. Some are, and some really do see parental responsibility as necessary and non-gender based.
Along the same lines, some will attack Obama with racial slurs. Others attack Obama for his association with black churches. Still others attack Obama for his association with specific church ideology. This may be purely ideological critique, it may be race-based--it will be different for each individual.
Finally, we must check how this spectrum matches up with the power on either side. Obviously it's different if an 8 year-old Obama supporter says that Palin's place is in the kitchen than if a state rep. says that Obama is "uppity" or calls him "boy".
My last question is this: Can disparging "community activists" be a race-based attack? I would argue that it definitely could. That it could doesn't mean that Palin was attempting to do so, but looking at the most extreme on this site, people definitely defended the comment by saying, "Don't worry, she was just attacking south side Chicago activism" which anyone can see the racial connotation to. So whether or not she meant it, the connotation was clear to some.
This is my deepest grievance against the Republican party--in many major Republican candidates' rhetoric, they capitalize on anti-immigration sentiments. Are there perfectly reasonable anti-immigration arguments. Sure, there are a few. Most of them are anti-free market competition or self-defeating or currently non-applicable. But a perfectly reasonable, fair person could have some thoughtful reasons to support mainstream Republican ideology on the subject.
However, there is no disputing that a large chunk of the anti-immigrate sentiment is merely that--sentiment. People who hate people from different places. People who talk nice and then at the dinner table toss slurs around. People who claim to be small government and then try to turn our country into a gated community.
The Republican "big umbella" seeks to unite the truly compassionate conservatives and the flaming racists under one tent. And I don't understand how you who are compassionate can stomach this unholy union. I can't stomach it on the left, and do not defend those elements who claim that poor people are stupid and we the chosen smart ones must lift them up. I don't defend handouts, nor pork, nor paternalistic treatment of folks of color.
My point is this: I do not understand why you let the Sarah Palin's of the country into your tent.
Speaking of "uppity," did you see Lynn Westmoreland on the Colbert Report? He didn't seem like the brightest guy.
I am running on the Republican ticket.
Corben,
Why is your little tag blue then? Are you trying to be intentionally misleading? You should change it to red. I understand that you probably want to distance yourself from the "R" word, but if that's the case you shouldn't be running this year.
xian... very well put. I'm pretty much in agreement on many of those points. The hypocrisy is once again thick this year. Everything from which criticisms are fair and which ones are off limits, to what counts as qualifying background for the job that varies wildly, even though ideology often takes precedent for almost all ideologues. Just from 2004 both parties have inverted many of their arguments, and many of those same arguments are inverted from 1992/1996. The hypocrisy is stunning, but hardly new, and seems to be part of the partisan game: When it works for your side its good. When it works for theirs its bad.
On the other issues, I don't believe Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, have much of a entry gate to discriminate on who gets into the tent. There's no single tent but a collection of them throughout the country that make up the whole. The national party can apply pressure to the state parties but there is little direct control, especially over who the voters pick in primaries and general elections. As an independent I and others like me have zero influence on who parties let into their tents, but thanks to our open primary system we do at least have some influence on who may at least get to that 'elected' status. But only within our representative districts and states.
On the national stage it's not even that easy to restrict a tent. I'm sure that GOP party leaders are less than pleased with Ron Paul throwing his own personal convention in competition with their own, but there's no mechanism to boot him out of the party beyond hoping some local yahoo can beat him in his own district, which is highly unlikely given his popularity there.
On Palin and community organizing, it was far too dismissive and hypocritical to the service meme they were pushing at the convention. That was my first take, and after all the defenses and complaints, it's still my take. It was a dumb thing to say in an attempt to belittle Obama's record as he and their campaign had belittled hers. The McCain campaign should have realized that would open her up to far more attacks than it would help her. Some may feel justified in reading racism into it since the term is generally associated with urban minority leaders, but I think this would be projecting an incorrect malicious intent on the situation when the goal seems far less nuanced or complicated: looking tough, responding in kind to the belittling of her record.
I don't think a poorly planned speech point would be enough for either party to bail on a VP pick after selection, so there's really no motivation for a party to kick her out of the tent that they're ideological allies in... even if there were some tent bouncers to do it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I don't think a poorly planned speech point would be enough for either party to bail on a VP pick after selection, so there's really no motivation for a party to kick her out of the tent that they're ideological allies in... even if there were some tent bouncers to do it.
No, but there is light years distance between bailing on Palin and lauding her great speech and "effective use of humor". I have no idea whether Palin meant to directly capitalize on racist sentiment against the empowerment of urban minority people. I know very little about her speech writers or what she is willing to do to get elected or how that balances against her moral center.
What I do know is that the dynamic I refer to is similar to many situations--it's non-explicit and it's non-negligible. Whatever the motives are, it is our job to be at least as critical of those who "play for our team" as those who do not. When Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or anyone else representing our country in a public capacity breaks the covenant to do no intentional harm to the country, they must be called out for it and held accountable.
This is why I tell people that I see Obama as linked to those destroying the Chicago Public School system even though I will vote for him for President. I think his election is very important, but I also believe that--in the same way destroying constitutional liberties in the name of "security" is to destroy the fabric of our nation--no election is worth compromising my integrity.
I know that most people from every end of the political spectrum want the same thing--what's best for America, and I believe that when called on it will do the right thing. This are the only hope for the future of the country, and I call on it.
When Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or anyone else representing our country in a public capacity breaks the covenant to do no intentional harm to the country, they must be called out for it and held accountable.
I was more shocked by Bush's use of the term "the angry left" in his speech. Here's the man who is supposed to be the leader of the entire country and he so easily spews venom at a large group of that country's citizens in order to push the Republican ball forward. I know after so many years of this kind of bullshit I should be used to it, but this man is just one of the lowest forms of leader I've ever seen. A small, angry man with zero credibility or integrity left. How did we ever get stuck with eight years of this?
Oh, right.
I have no idea whether Palin meant to directly capitalize on racist sentiment against the empowerment of urban minority people.
Careful buddy, you sound like your're saying every Republican in the country is a racist.
Well, to be fair Boon, it's not like any of these people are associated in any official capacity with the party. If they were, surely they would have been asked to speak at some sort of national gathering of delegates from the party or something similiar.
Xian, you and Obama are totally right. Just like Obama said, Palin and other Republicans must be clinging to their guns, religion, and racism. I'm sure if he were well enough to be on TV, Jesse Jackson would say he wants to cut Palin's nuts off because of what she said.
The three statements mentioned in your post are the ugliest, most racist attacks I've ever seen. The fact that some people would claim that two of them are innocent colloquialisms and the other is actually a critique of Obama's policy just shows how much the world needs community organizers from Chicago such as yourself and Obama.
These comments, especially in light of Obama calling his grandparents "typical white people" and his 20 year attendance at a so-called church that promotes Black Liberation Theology, are unbelievably shallow and hypocritical. There are simply no stones to throw in this fight.
Why is your little tag blue then? Are you trying to be intentionally misleading?
You may be unaware but red and blue designations used to switch parties. It is a more recent occurrence that a color has been “assigned” to a party.
Personally since red is the color of communism and revolution it seems like it is ill suited for the Republican Party.
The reason I choose blue is I find it visually pleasing. Any other mind reading tricks?
Those who live in seven glass houses shouldn't throw stones? ;) (just kidding)
Mr. Rice, I have a question. Why isn't the word "Republican" on your sign?
Why isn't the word "Republican" on your sign?
Why isn't "Democrat" on Obama's sign, or "Republican" on McCain's sign (which happens to be *gasp* BLUE!!!)?
There are plenty of candidates that leave off their party affiliation. For one thing, it causes some voters to actually look at what the candidate stands for, rather than instantly discrediting a candidate.
I thought the "Obama=Manchurian Candidate" or "Palin eats babies" attacks were getting pretty removed from the issues and facts. But commenting on a candidate's signage?
For one thing, it causes some voters to actually look at what the candidate stands for, rather than instantly discrediting a candidate.
This is the main reason other than there is no space on the sign for it. Perhaps Anon you like the ease of labeling people so you don’t have to find out about them, but I would prefer voters to make decisions about me based on who I am not whatever convenient labels are available.
Don’t worry though Anon no one will be able to vote for me without seeing the (R) by my name. So my nefarious plan to deceive the public is thwarted. Woe is me.