Who’s race-baiting whom?

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Race | Posted at: Monday, 13 October 2008

Any time an opponent of Barack Obama has the temerity to criticize him, as predictable as the daily solar rise in the east, you can expect to be accused of racism.  Nashvillian Sean Braisted isn’t one to disappoint. 

Let’s briefly review the record

Barack Obama abused race to benefit a corrupt organization (ACORN).  He never supported Republican calls for common sense regulations of two now-bankrupt companies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).  In exchange for his support hiding those companies’ insolvency, he received tens of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions.  And when the house of race cards he helped build, came crashing down upon the American taxpayer, he flat-out lied and said that it was Republicans who prevented common sense regulations that caused the mess.  He and his party created the problem, and he now thinks that he can get away with sweeping his blame under the rug of American disgust with President Bush.

When black Congressmen tell white Congressmen that their (now obviously very real) concerns about the liquidity of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a “political lynching,” who is race-baiting?

If there isn’t a “race-baiting” addendum to Godwin’s Law, there should be. 

Share this post:

10 Responses to “Who’s race-baiting whom?”

  1. ludovic Says:

    for more about race in the race, from the left, right and center, visit http://www.stopdogwhistleracism.com.

  2. Sean Braisted Says:

    Yes, how could I ever assume that by calling Obama a “race hustler” you might be race-baiting?

    Your so called “record” is just opinion based on the desire to find a scapegoat for the credit crisis. The notion that this was caused by minorities getting homes is both laughable and sad.

    Blaming ACORN for enforcing the Fair Housing Act, or Freddie and Fannie for purchasing mortgage backed securities from private lenders, is an amazingly simplistic worldview supported by prejudices and not the facts.

    Ed: I called him a race-hustler because that’s what he did, all while claiming to be a new kind of post-racial politician. The only thing new about his hustle is that while he’s aloud to cry “racism,” his opponents have to keep their mouths shut about the fact that Obama is the only one in this race abusing the issue of race.

    Nor have I ever decried minority lending as a cause of the credit crisis. Instead it was lending to unqualified people. Were the unqualified disproportionately minority? Maybe. Who cares what race people are when lenders make a loan decision. If they were unqualified, they don’t deserve a loan at the same terms as a qualified applicant. And if they are qualified and a lender turns them down, someone else will surely take their business. (For the record, the idea that such a thing could be happening on a wide scale in this day and age of back-bending reverse racial preferences and programs is ludicrous beyond belief.)

    You’re the one being simplistic in search of a scapegoat, which in your view, is anyone who disagrees with Obama.

  3. Stan Scott Says:

    “Opinion based” record? The trouble with people like Sean Braisted is that’s all they have for if they took a real look at the record they would they would not hae much to truthfullly say. Come to think of it, maybe they have and that leads them to denial and – of all things – “opinion based” positions.

  4. Lee Says:

    You know, it’s an old saying that patiotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    Maybe that should now be changed to race grievance.

  5. Sean Braisted Says:

    Bob,

    Your assumption that Obama’s clients were “unqualified” is based on nothing but your opinion. If you call him a “race hustler,” I’d hope you would have even a small modicum of evidence to support the idea that his case was frivolous and that there was no racial discrimination occurring.

    Ed: My opinion is that ACORN is a race-hustling organization, the same as Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow-PUSH Coalition. But Barack Obama has tried to present himself as not being like that. ACORN, William Ayers, Fannie and Freddie . . . there is a long list of causes and associations that put Obama into the same category as just another (albeit, more attractive) Jesse Jackson kind of Democrat.

    Furthermore, you have it backwards. The burden in America is that the plaintiff has to prove that racial discrimination occurred. The defendent doesn’t have to prove that he’s not. Since you’ve taken the plaintiff’s side, prove it.

  6. Sean Braisted Says:

    Bob,

    The case was settled out of court, so barring some evidence to the contrary, it is logical to assume merit to the case.

    Simply having dealt with ACORN at various points in his career is not evidence that Obama is a “race hustler”. John McCain has also dealt with ACORN when he was pursuing his immigration policies. They are a multi-faceted organization which branches across the country in a variety of different areas.

  7. Lee Says:

    The case was settled out of court, so barring some evidence to the contrary, it is logical to assume merit to the case.

    That’s not how it works, and you know it. Most of the ambualnce chasing attorneys who advertise during daytime court shows and Jerry Springer also settle their cases out of court because a corporation knows that it costs less to settle than to go to court.

    Especially if they are facing an attorney representing a group willing to use the charge of racism as a PR bludgeon against them.

    Nobody wants to find themselves in the situation of trying to prove the negative that they’re not racist.

  8. Sean Braisted Says:

    Lee,

    Nobody wants to find themselves in the situation of trying to prove the negative that they’re not racist.

    That is not how it works and you know it (actually, you probably don’t, but anyways). The impetus for proving malfeasance would be on the part of the plaintiff, and through the deposition all that Citibank would have to show is that black families with similar credit histories to white families weren’t treated differently.

    Its not illegal to discriminate on the basis of credit history and income, however, if it is shown that African-Americans were disproportionately denied loans compared to whites with similar credit histories, then a violation of the Fair Housing Act could be inferred.

    Ed: Actually, plaintiffs don’t have to prove that they were treated differently. They only have to prove “disparate impact. It’s a bastardization of the law that says that even if a minority is treated under the same rules as others, if the outcome is different, it’s prima facie evidence of discrimination. It’s all part of the shakedown that makes it easier for banks, in this case, to just give a large donation to ACORN and change lending rules so that less qualified minority applicants can get the same loans under the same terms as others with better credit records.

    Lending isn’t supposed to be a race-based thing. But ACORN and the Democrats in Congress made it so. And now the taxpayers are stuck with the bill–a bill that is so large, it is $100 billion more than we have spent on the entire War in Iraq to date.

  9. Lee Says:

    That is not how it works and you know it (actually, you probably don’t, but anyways).

    The guy who just went “Oogity Boogity” in another post here just insulted my intelligence.

    And completely missed my point that AIG (or any company) can potentially have a court case drag out for months, constantly deal with murky accusations of racism in the media, and even if they win, come out losers in the long run due to the negative publicity aired and legal fees run up.

    But between unnecessarily insulting me and going “Oogity Boogity” on Bob’s other post, implying that Bob is either a racist or peddling racism, you are inadvertantly proving Bob’s point about the tendency of Obama and his supporters to play the race card as their default defense against legitimte criticism.

    It may be enough to get him elected, but it won’t help him govern.

  10. Sean Braisted Says:

    Lending isn’t supposed to be a race-based thing. But ACORN and the Democrats in Congress made it so.

    Riiiggghhtttt. So, basically, lenders have never discriminated against people on the basis of skin color. Democrats made it all up, passed unnecessary laws which addressed a problem which didn’t exist, and then sued the lenders for not following a law (even though they totally were, because as we know, the only discrimination that exists in America is unqualified blacks getting into Ivy League schools…or something like that).

    The guy who just went “Oogity Boogity” in another post here just insulted my intelligence.

    Wasn’t insulting your intelligence so much as presuming you think that nobody can present an adequate defense against discrimination suits.