Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama's dollar bill remark

Obama's dollar bill remark
Thread Tools
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 08:36 PM
 
What do you think the reasoning is behind Obama's dollar bill remark (and those similar comments he has made in this campaign)? Is he attempting to subtly plant in voters minds the idea that McCain and Republicans are opposing his presidency on the basis of race rather than party differences? Nobody of any importance in the Republican party is bringing up race as a campaign issue, only Obama.

Is this what we can expect if Obama wins the election? That he will make special pleadings of racially abusive tactics whenever Republicans oppose his policies on tax, defense, etc?
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 08:39 PM
 
No clue WTF you're on about.
     
ballison
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 08:43 PM
 
     
64stang06
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 08:49 PM
 
Dunno, but I never once interpreted that he was bringing up race in that comment.
MacBook Pro 13" 2.8GHz Core i7/8GB RAM/750GB Hard Drive - Mac OS X 10.7.3
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Is this what we can expect if Obama wins the election? That he will make special pleadings of racially abusive tactics whenever Republicans oppose his policies on tax, defense, etc?
No, but I'm sure you'll take it that way, as that's the way you want to see it.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
No clue WTF you're on about.
I wasn't expecting an informed response from you, don't worry.
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
No, but I'm sure you'll take it that way, as that's the way you want to see it.
OK, well then let's scrap the dollar bill incident because clearly you unwilling or unable to grasp the insinuation, and take the other comments where Obama has explicitly suggested that his opponents are subtly racist. Now would care to explain what his intention is?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 10:19 PM
 
He's pointing out the obvious.

We can't ignore the issue of race in this election. For the first time in the history of this country someone other than a white male has a shot of being president. It would be naive to pretend that there is no significance to this fact. It says volumes about the contradictions implicit in the reality of the American dream throughout our history and perhaps it says something about our progress as a people.

He's not playing the race card; he's celebrating progress.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I wasn't expecting an informed response from you, don't worry.
No quotes, no links, what do you expect.

Yes he does have funny ears. All the dead presidents seem to have sorta normal ones I guess.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
What do you think the reasoning is behind Obama's dollar bill remark (and those similar comments he has made in this campaign)? Is he attempting to subtly plant in voters minds the idea that McCain and Republicans are opposing his presidency on the basis of race rather than party differences? Nobody of any importance in the Republican party is bringing up race as a campaign issue, only Obama.

Is this what we can expect if Obama wins the election? That he will make special pleadings of racially abusive tactics whenever Republicans oppose his policies on tax, defense, etc?
Anyone, Republican or Democrat, who explicitly brings up race will automatically loose this election. That doesn't mean that they, Republican or Democrat, won't try to bring it up subtly.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2008, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
... comments where Obama has explicitly suggested that his opponents are subtly racist.
You don't think his opponents are subtly racist?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
OK, well then let's scrap the dollar bill incident because clearly you unwilling or unable to grasp the insinuation, and take the other comments where Obama has explicitly suggested that his opponents are subtly racist. Now would care to explain what his intention is?
So, you start a thread with no supporting evidence, other than a statement about a dollar bill remark, which you interpret to mean that because Obama's black and the other presidents have been white, means that Obama is a racist. There's no doubt in my mind, and any other reasonable person's (unless of course they're projecting their own feelings) that Obama was talking about the size of his ears. Then, when you get called out on it, you blithely say "let's scrap the dollar bill incident..." because very few see it the way you do, except those that want to make race an issue (again, because of their own feelings). Then you throw in some more blather about other incidents where Obama has allegedly suggested his opponents are subtly racist, with absolutely nothing to back up your allegations, and you expect a reasonable response. You might want to look up the word apophasis. You also might want to not start threads without links and some supporting evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.

BTW, you forgot to include the word "liberal" in your thread this time; you're slipping.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 01:07 AM
 
He's playing the race card, plain and simple.
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 01:34 AM
 
Kerrigan, you are insane.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 02:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
There's no doubt in my mind, and any other reasonable person's (unless of course they're projecting their own feelings) that Obama was talking about the size of his ears.


You've got to be joking. Certainly that was an attempt at a joke, right? Because if you aren't, you must be the most dense pseudo-intellectual to come around here in a long time. . . . The statement was clearly a reference to race and an attempt to elicit sympathy by playing the race card. Or are you going to deny that Obama's own supporters have defended it on that basis?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 03:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
You don't think his opponents are subtly racist?
And you don't think there's large swaths of his supporters who are overtly racist?

pff

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
He's pointing out the obvious.
In so-doing he will drive the vote for McCain. Seriously. He's gotta know this.

We can't ignore the issue of race in this election. For the first time in the history of this country someone other than a white male has a shot of being president.
So... this time it's a half-white male? Baby steps I guess.

It would be naive to pretend that there is no significance to this fact. It says volumes about the contradictions implicit in the reality of the American dream throughout our history and perhaps it says something about our progress as a people.
"progress" is when people don't consider skin-color at all. Until then, it's nothing more than a card to be played for expediency.

He's not playing the race card; he's celebrating progress.
IMO he's celebrating Obama. There's a difference. It's not going to work. Don't take my word for it, just continue to watch his numbers.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 09:08 AM
 
The problem Obama doesn't seem to recognize is that by "crying wolf" as far as racism goes, he's helping to do exactly what he says would hurt him - remind people he's black. Not only that he's black, but that he apparently thinks that his color is viewed negatively by some and that he's going to be quick to make a big issue of it.

Not a good strategy, IMO.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 12:20 PM
 
he also said "and he has a funny name"
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 12:46 PM
 
I think Obama was wrong to say what he said. If he had said that *you* (as in, the general population) shouldn't be afraid of his name or the fact he doesn't look like the other presidents printed on money, fine, but it was wrong to imply that McCain is trying to infer this. About the only way he could have justified saying this was if he could link some of the anti-Obama groups and websites and such that use race as a divisive issue with McCain's campaign. However, I don't believe he has made this case (or tried to do so).

It is important that we do not conflate the campaigns themselves from the civilian advocates and politically active.
     
kido331
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 01:55 PM
 
What about Obama's subtle ageism? Why can he say, "same old Washington political attacks", or "same old tired answers" when talking about McCain directly and no one call him on that?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 01:59 PM
 
kido331: because "same old" is a very common expression that doesn't literally involve old people.

Why doesn't anybody call McCain on his constant "Obama wants to raise taxes" misleading statement, when what is really true is that he wants to raise tax on a small percentage of the wealthy, and oil companies (his windfall profits stimulus plan). While "raising taxes" is technically not untrue, obviously it is a calculated attempt to get Joe Sixpack middle class to think "oh no! He is going to raise my taxes!!"
     
kido331
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 02:06 PM
 
Why not say "usual" instead of "same old"?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 02:56 PM
 
Because "same old" is a stronger way of saying the same thing. It has a more negative connotation.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 02:57 PM
 
How about 'tired old'?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think Obama was wrong to say what he said. If he had said that *you* (as in, the general population) shouldn't be afraid of his name or the fact he doesn't look like the other presidents printed on money, fine, but it was wrong to imply that McCain is trying to infer this.
Did Obama say it was McCain doing this?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Did Obama say it was McCain doing this?
Yeah, but I think there was an intended inference. Obama is usually not that imprecise.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yeah, but I think there was an intended inference. Obama is usually not that imprecise.
Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see the quote.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 03:34 PM
 
I read it on CNN somewhere, but I didn't watch the video to hear him say this himself in proper context.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by 64stang06 View Post
Dunno, but I never once interpreted that he was bringing up race in that comment.
And neither did any of the reporters (national and local) who were at the campaign event in Union City, MO where these comments were made. A 98% white, very rural, very conservative city where most Democratic presidential candidates wouldn't even visit to stump for votes.

Originally Posted by Sen. Barack Obama
"I was in Union, Missouri, which is 98 percent white -- a rural, conservative [city]. And what I said was what I think everybody knows, which is that I don't look like I came out of central casting when it comes to presidential candidates," he said in an interview with Florida's St. Petersburg Times newspaper and Bay News 9.

"There was nobody there who thought at all that I was trying to inject race in this," he said. "What this has become, I think, is a typical pattern from the McCain campaign, whether it's Paris Hilton or Britney or this phony allegation that I wouldn't visit troops. They seem to be focused on a negative campaign. What I think our campaign wants to do is focus on the issues that matter to American families."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...rap/index.html

But hey ... this is just another example of typical Republican tactics. Solidify the majority of the white vote by playing upon the deep-seated prejudices, fears, or downright hostility to African-Americans that unfortunately still exists in some segments of the white community. This is what the Southern Strategy was all about. Of course, it's never as explicit as saying N*GGER! N*GGER! N*GGER!. Something so overt is considered taboo in this day and age. So subtle code words and images are used instead. Whether it's the stories and more importantly the images of "welfare queens in the inner city" ... even though the vast majority of welfare recipients have always been rural white women, or the Willie Horton ads designed to play upon the fears of the "big black male criminal raping and killing a white woman", or the infamous "Black Hand" ad that the late Sen. Jesse Helms ran which showed a weathered white hand reaching for a paycheck and then at the last second a black hand reaches in and steals the check .... ostensibly an anti-affirmative action spot .... run against an African-American Senate candidate ... well let's just say that he wrapped up the "good ole boy" vote with that one quite well. So now we have the McCain campaign with its constant mantra of Obama being "elitist" and "arrogant" ... which (not so) subtly elicits the old "uppity n*gger" image. It definitely continues.

So IMO, Obama is just telling the truth. That is what the McCain campaign was going to do ... and they did it. Especially with all of Karl Rove's lieutenants running the show now. Obama was saying to this lily-white audience in Republican Country, USA that McCain had nothing to offer but the same old Bush B.S. warmed over ... but he wouldn't get elected doing that, so he was going to resort to the old Republican playbook and base his campaign off fear of the other guy. All we've heard from the McCain campaign for the last week or so is 1) hating on the positive press Obama got during his overseas trip, 2) hating on the hundreds of thousands of Europeans who came to hear Obama and trying to insinuate that his warm reception there was indicative of someone that Americans couldn't trust, 3) a silly ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears ... two people I highly doubt McCain would even know who they are, 4) an even more silly ad comparing Obama to Moses, and now ......

5) Obama is "playing the race card and playing it from the bottom of the deck." Oh wow! How can we miss the (not so) subtle reference to the O.J. Simpson case where this phrase was first popularized? A situation that many a white person still hasn't gotten over I might add. Perhaps a shrewd attempt to link Obama to O.J. and the lingering white resentment over that case? Did Obama play the "race card"? I think not. Did McCain play the "O.J. card"? Oh hell yeah! LOL An interesting editorial that sums this up rather nicely .....

We know that operatives in modern-day presidential campaigns are supposed to say things that everyone knows are ridiculous — and to do it with a straight face.

Still, there was something surreal, and offensive, about today’s soundbite from the campaign of Senator John McCain.

The presumptive Republican nominee has embarked on a bare-knuckled barrage of negative advertising aimed at belittling Mr. Obama. The most recent ad compares the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton — suggesting to voters that he’s nothing more than a bubble-headed, publicity-seeking celebrity.

The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.

Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain on the ploy, saying, quite rightly, that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.’’

But Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, had a snappy answer. “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” he said. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.’’

The retort was, we must say, not only contemptible, but shrewd. It puts the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack.

It also — and we wish this were coincidence, but we doubt it — conjurs up another loaded racial image.

The phrase dealing the race card “from the bottom of the deck” entered the national lexicon during the O.J. Simpson saga.
Robert Shapiro, one of Mr. Simpson’s lawyers, famously declared of himself, Johnny Cochran and the rest of the Simpson defense team, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”

It’s ugly stuff. How about we leave Britney, Paris, and O.J. out of this — and have a presidential campaign?
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-race-card/

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 1, 2008 at 06:02 PM. )
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
he also said "and he has a funny name"
[IMG]GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Maybe not so funny to link a damn 2 MB picture? What the hell?

PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think Obama was wrong to say what he said.
I am stunned. I never thought I'd see any criticism of Obama from you. Glad to see you can be objective in certain respects when it comes to your candidate.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 09:32 PM
 
Obama is playing the race card, plain and simple. He can't resist mentioning how different he looks than the historical precedent. Interestingly, he said this in Berlin where other black, (and white) non-Presidents spoke such as Colin Powell and Condi Rice.

Obama has to pin McCain as the evil, mean nasty white guy. McCain refuses to play into it, but it won't matter. OAW and others will insist it is about race whether it is or not. When you call them to the carpet for playing the race card, they'll call that racist too. This is proof to me that within the sane, majority collective, racism is now officially ancient history. For others, it is only expedient.
ebuddy
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 10:26 PM
 
Oh please.

I will say it.

Obama already has the n***** vote locked up and has it coming out en masse in way that hasn't been seen since the 60s (if ever) to the degree it is expected this fall. He used the his own code words and language in speeches during the primary to ensure he could play on their insecurities and perceived biases to make sure he did so he could focus on the GE the rest of the year. Even Uncle Jesse knows it which is why he calculatedly made it known in a "mistakenly" candid comment on the most hostile news source there is to his issues. Nothing made this fact more evident as today's protest by a bunch of black youths at Obama's press event where they pointed to the fact he has been ignoring the poor African Americans and their issues since he was the presumed dem candidate,

Barry doesn't need to play on the full on race card among blacks as he has them locked up. All he has to do is make the segment of the Caucasian population that feels the slightest twinge of white guilt so that they feel the burden they carry if they don't vote for him. He knows he can carry the southern states with huge black populations. He just needs to subtly play the race card up in states like Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Aug 1, 2008 at 10:40 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 10:56 PM
 
Ha. It turns out that when Obama talked about McCain's ads and how Obama doesn't look like the other presidents on the money, he may have been referring to an actual McCain ad from over a month ago.



Here's the full ad.

So if McCain actually did put Obama's image on the money, how is Obama referring to McCain's ad "the race card?"
     
Luca Rescigno
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2008, 11:22 PM
 
Haha, what the hell is up with that ad? I don't get it. How is that supposed to convince anyone of anything?

EDIT: Also, I thought this may have been an ad run by one of those independent interest groups. A lot of the time they are more willing to go on the attack than the official campaign. I was surprised to see that it was run by the McCain campaign at the end.

I don't think the ad is offensive or racist, just kind of stupid. People who hate Obama will see it and go "RIGHT ON!" but it's not like McCain needs to win those people over.
( Last edited by Luca Rescigno; Aug 2, 2008 at 12:43 AM. )

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2008, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I am stunned. I never thought I'd see any criticism of Obama from you. Glad to see you can be objective in certain respects when it comes to your candidate.
Yeah, but after reading BRussel's post about the McCain ad where he used a picture of Obama's face on money, I'm starting to think that perhaps this was just a reference to this that Obama should have explained better, and we are getting our knickers in a bunch over this.

Who knows...
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Oh please.

I will say it.

Obama already has the n***** vote locked up ...
Well that simply speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
.... and has it coming out en masse in way that hasn't been seen since the 60s (if ever) to the degree it is expected this fall. He used the his own code words and language in speeches during the primary to ensure he could play on their insecurities and perceived biases to make sure he did so he could focus on the GE the rest of the year.
So what else is new? The Democratic nominee always has the black vote locked up simply because of the documented history of hostility that the Republican party has exhibited towards black people and their interests since the 1960s. Specifically since the Republicans decided to employ the Southern Strategy to win elections at the national level.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether this "en masse" turnout materializes. Additionally, it all depends on how one analyzes the turnout itself. There are several factors at play here ....

A. Percentage of the black vote - that is, of those blacks that do vote, what percentage of blacks voted for one candidate vs. the other.

B. Registered black voter population - the number of registered black voters.

C. Black voter turnout - the percentage of registered black voters that actually vote.

Now it is true that for the percentage of the black vote, Lyndon Johnson won 94% in 1964. But, both the black voter turnout and registered black voter population was much smaller than it is today. I would contend that in 2000 when Al Gore won 90% of the black vote, with a much larger black voter turnout and registered black voter population that had a significantly larger impact on that election than the black vote had in 1964. Some interesting stats by the factors listed above ...

2000 - A) 90%, B) 15,348,000, C) 84.2%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

2004 - A) 88%, B) 16,035,000, C) 87.4%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Using those figures the actual number of blacks who voted for Gore in 2000 was (15,348,000 * .842) * .9 = 11,630,714 And the actual number of blacks who voted for Kerry in 2004 was (16,035,000 * .874) * .88 = 12,332,839.

So this is a prime example that the impact of the black vote is not a simplistic thing to look at. On the surface it might appear that Gore did better with black voters than did Kerry. And on a percentage basis he did. But yet and still, more black people voted for Kerry than did Gore. On top of that, yo then have to factor in the number of black votes versus the number of total votes cast. State by state since that is how elections are won/lost. It's not that simple.

So what exactly do you mean by an "en masse" turnout? Factor in the fact that the percent of blacks eligible to vote who actually registered was approximately 67% and 68% respectively in the last two election cycles. Compared to approximately 70% and 73% of whites. And the fact that the Black Voter Turnout was 1% shy of the White Voter Turnout in the last two election cycles. IOW, blacks register at rate about 3% less than whites, and of those that do ... they actually vote at a rate that is 1% less than whites. So where exactly is this massive surge in black voters going to come from?

OAW
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 07:28 PM
 
I see the situation like this...

People suggest that perhaps we're not ready for a black president (see: West Virginia), the right doesn't even bat an eyelid.
Obama responds to those people... ZOMG RACIST HE SAID IS BLACK ZOMG.

Whether the right likes it or not, there were people who had previously suggested that someone black shouldn't be in the White House, and Obama was responding to them. He was not calling anyone in the McCain campaign racist, even though the right tends to think they are the center of the universe and always think "some people" always refers to them.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Oh please.

I will say it.

Obama already has the n***** vote locked up...
I missed this. What the?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The Democratic nominee always has the black vote locked up simply because of the documented history of hostility that the Republican party has exhibited towards black people and their interests since the 1960s. Specifically since the Republicans decided to employ the Southern Strategy to win elections at the national level.
No, in fact the dixiecrats remained unto their own. The gain in Republican constituency did not occur until much later upon Northerners moving South. Al Gore Sr, Byrd, and a host of others who comprise a "who's who" of racists remained democrats.

I maintain that the policies of the "right" are more conducive to equality than any ideal to date proposed by the party of choice among blacks. In fact, I think you'll find a major shift of blacks to the Republican party and I for one welcome them into the fold of common sense. After all, what on earth has the Democratic party done for blacks???
ebuddy
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I missed this. What the?
It's truly amazing what some people get away with.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
After all, what on earth has the Democratic party done for blacks???
The Civil Rights Act?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
The Civil Rights Act?
That's one that the Democrats in Congress tried to kill via fillibuster, right? I believe that's the one where Robert Byrd (D) got his reputation for being long winded, and kept his reputation in regards to racial intolerance.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
The Civil Rights Act?
Not so much. Bill Bradley tried to claim that he joined the Democratic Party specifically because of the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, it is commonly misunderstood to have been a primarily Democratic effort when in reality, Republicans had to soften the measure for it to pass the Democratic opposition. R.D. Davis from the National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans opined as follows;

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn't he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."

The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527).

At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."

The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
That's one that the Democrats in Congress tried to kill via fillibuster, right?
... and not just any ol' filibuster mind you, but the single longest filibuster in US history.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 09:36 AM
 
As long as there is a disproportionate population of blacks in the poverty bracket, I really don't think that in the era of trickle down economics that blacks will gravitate towards Republicans in great numbers.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
As long as there is a disproportionate population of blacks in the poverty bracket, I really don't think that in the era of trickle down economics that blacks will gravitate towards Republicans in great numbers.
As long as Democrats keep promising money and running ads like this:
from 2000
"When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister . . . Vote smart. Vote Democratic for Congress and the U.S. Senate."
.. and telling seniors every election they'll take your SS/Medicare/Medicaid away. (and will say the same thing with health care if it gets enacted)
45/47
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
after all, what on earth has the democratic party done for blacks???
Originally Posted by gomac View Post
the civil rights act?
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
that's one that the democrats in congress tried to kill via fillibuster, right? I believe that's the one where robert byrd (d) got his reputation for being long winded, and kept his reputation in regards to racial intolerance.
Ha! Ha! Ha!

I tend to skew liberal in my politics but even this liberal-leaning guy takes great pleasure in disabusing naive politicos about the supposed role Democrats had in passing the Civil Rights Act. The majority of Democrats opposed this legislation, especially the southern Democrats. Does anyone learn anymore in school about the Dixiecrats? about Jesse Helms and Robert Byrd leading the south in fighting legislation to minimize segregation and provide more equality between blacks and whites?
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 9, 2008 at 02:41 PM. Reason: for greater clarity in my statements.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
kido331
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2008, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Because "same old" is a stronger way of saying the same thing. It has a more negative connotation.
From Obama's latest ad called "Embrace"

For decades, he's been Washington's biggest celebrity. As Washington embraced him, John McCain hugged right back. The lobbyists — running his low road campaign. The money — billions in tax breaks for oil and drug companies, but almost nothing for families like yours. Lurching to the right, then the left, the old Washington dance, whatever it takes. John McCain. A Washington celebrity playing the same old Washington games.
Obama keeps playing the age card...
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,