20 years early

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Race | Posted at: Wednesday, 5 November 2008

In 2003 Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger which determined that “the Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

After electing a black man to the highest office in the land, it’s obvious that the if ever there was a time when racial quotas were needed in America, that time isn’t now.

Comments Off on 20 years early

Obviously this is racist

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, 2nd Amendment, Race | Posted at: Thursday, 23 October 2008

Anything that criticizes Barack Obama is racist. QED

Comments Off on Obviously this is racist

Psychologists would call this projection

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Race | Posted at: Monday, 20 October 2008

My constituents are racists.  Sorry, I meant to say “rednecks.”  “Really redneck.”

Yes, those quotations comes from Representative John Murtha, but you knew that already, didn’t you?

Retired Lt. Col. Bill Russell is his opponent. 

Murtha was an early* supporter of Barack Obama, but it’s getting increasingly difficult to see why–or how–Murtha is supporting Obama.

*Sean points out in the comments below that Murtha first endorsed Hillary Clinton.  That makes a lot more sense given what we see of Murtha now.

Comments (1)

Racial politics

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Race | Posted at: Friday, 17 October 2008

More eloquently than I can, Charles Krauthammer has described the shameful racial politics played by Barack Obama against  John McCain and Sarah Palin, as well as against Bill Clinton. 

It’s clear that the allegedly post-racial Obama is not above being a race huckster whenever he needs to scare up a vote.

Read the whole thing.

Comments Off on Racial politics

Hey, at least he’s honest

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Government, Iraq, Military, Race | Posted at: Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Democratic Representative John Murtha about the people of his own district:

There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.

It’s nice to know that there are at least a few elected official honest enough to admit that they have contempt for the people who vote them into office.

Believe it or not, Murtha is not running unopposed.  His Republican opponent is Retired Lt. Col. William Russell.  Give him a look.  At least he doesn’t seem to think that his supporters are a bunch of hicks.


Yes, this is the same Jack Murtha who, without any evidence, claimed that a Marine from his own district was a cold-blooded murderer.  The Marine was later exonerated, even after immense pressure on the Corps for a conviction due to the fact that Murtha is the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Contempt for his constituents and contempt for those who serve.  At least he’s consistent.

Comments (2)

The false claim of racism is racism

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Race | Posted at: Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Reader Sean Braisted asked this question of me:

How is it racist to put up a display mocking McCain as a member of the KKK?

I think the answer is obvious, but maybe it’s not, so let’s look more closely.

There is an old saying that rape is the hardest crime to prove, and even harder to disprove.  Racism is probably the second hardest crime to prove, and again, is even harder to disprove.  (In the era of DNA evidence, racism may now actually be the hardest crime to prove.) 

Like the boy who called “wolf,” every time a race huckster cries “racism,” it inures the public to the damage racism causes when it really does occur.  The call of fake racism makes real racists more dangerous, because it makes real racism less credible.

Consider again the rape analogy.  False accusations of rape make people less willing to accept the claim of real rape when it occurs.  Do you think that the next black woman near the campus of Duke University who is raped by a white man is going to think twice before she reports it?  Of course she will, because people will think twice before believing her.  A false cry of rape makes it less likely, therefore, that the next rapist will be caught.

Definitionally, Merriam Webster is on my side.  It defines racism this way:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Prejudice is defined as:

an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Deflecting valid criticism with a shield of a false claim of racism against a member of another group clearly meets the definition of prejudice, and thus racism. 

This particular instance, where a homeowner erected an effigy of a KKK-clad John McCain was clearly irrational, as in all of John McCain’s past there has never been even the remotest rational basis in fact for claiming that he is a racist man.  I agree that the act was “crass and tasteless,” as Mr. Braisted claims, but I doubt that he would stop with those adjectives were it a depiction of a KKK cross.  Both are abhorrent reminders of an ugly past that no man deserves.

I want to move to that post-racial period where a white man can call a black man a jerk and people know that it’s because he’s a jerk, and not because he’s black.  But we’ll never get past racism if we always cry racism.  And that is why the false claim of racism is racism.

Comments (4)

A tale of two idiots

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Media, Race | Posted at: Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Ricky Thompson is an idiot.  The pipefitter won’t be for voting against Barack Obama because he’s mixed race.

Ron Havens is also an idiot.  He put up a Halloween display in his yard showing a KKK-robed John McCain chasing after Barack Obama with a baseball bat.

So which one of these idiots is in the New York Times, and which story is relegated to the Elmira Star Gazette?  Of course, it’s the story of the anti-Obama racist from 1,200 miles away in Mobile, Alabama, and not the one about the anti-McCain racist in nearby Upstate New York.


John J. Miller points me to another New York Times article today where Harold Ickes says that “people in certain states” are racists.  Former Jesse Jackson advisor Ickes is right.  And he didn’t even have to leave New York to prove it.

Comments (2)

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. 

Comments (10)

Same day, same outlet, different stories

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Race | Posted at: Tuesday, 7 October 2008

If John McCain wins it will be because of racism:

By far the most likely thing that could derail Obama’s victory is a racial backlash that is not visible in today’s polls but is waiting to surge on Election Day — coaxed to the surface (to the extent coaxing is needed) with the help of coded appeals from McCain and his conservative allies.

But if Barack Obama wins it will be because of black turnout:

 . . . in recent days, [the Obama] campaign was ramping up a massive parallel effort in big cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Miami.In the largely black precincts of those metropolises, radio broadcasts blast constant reminders to vote for Obama, field organizers swarm, and megastars including Jay-Z, Russell Simmons and LeBron James have led massive rallies, working to reach not just the substantial portion of the black community who regularly come out to vote but also the younger people and others who have never before cast a ballot.

Though the rallies are publicized, much of the advertising directed at black voters isn’t. Get-out-the-vote ads on radio and television aren’t released to the media, and the number of new voters Obama has registered is a closely held secret.

So when McCain targets his efforts on rural, blue collar, and mostly white voters to drive up their turnout, that’s racism, but when Obama targets urban blacks that’s outreach?

I call both strategies “smart politics”.


A slightly different story:  Black Congressmen Declare Racism In Palin’s Rhetoric

Until I read this story I didn’t know that “hockey mom” and “Joe Six Pack” were racist terms.

Seriously, this kind of rhetoric of imagined racism is going to undermine Obama if his defenders keep it up.

Comments Off on Same day, same outlet, different stories

I’ll trump your race card with a hag

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Race | Posted at: Thursday, 13 March 2008

I love how in defending his candidate from the charge of racism, Obama supporter Sean Braisted refers to Geraldine Ferraro as “the washed up hag from New York.” (Or maybe he meant Hillary; it’s unclear from his statement.

While in 2008 my party has usually civilly discussed issues like taxes, and war, and borders . . . you know, important things, the Democrats are busy doing the only thing they know how to do:  call their opponents racists and sexists.  Only their opponents are now themselves–and each camp is giving the other plenty of ammunition to justify the charges.

What great fun!  Pass the popcorn.


More background here and here.

Comments (2)