Obama '08?

FreeDuck wrote:

I think it is much simpler than that. Note that Lewis represents a district in GA (mine, to be exact) which overwhelmingly supports Obama. Maybe he's just being true to his constituents.

Yes, that's what he says:

Quote:

Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate he could "never, ever do anything to reverse the action" of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinton.html

Congratulations on your promotion, MM!

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Quote:

If that element is the "critical factor" then you'd best get working to have the majority of civil rights legislation in this country overturned.

I suspect that if I set out to hire 50 people and specified in my "Help Wanted" ad that blacks need not apply because I have a prreference to only work with "those like me" you'd see that ad as racist (as most people would and should).

And if your ad specified, "No thieving Irish need apply", would that be 'racist'? It would not be, of course.

Racism holds a particularly acute status for all of us because of our history. And that history is inextricable from that notion of blacks being inferior. And the evidences that this history is yet influencing our culture, to the detriment of african americans, are not difficult to isolate.

You'd allow, I assume, that the way blacks were treated in many parts of the US up to the sixties was clearly racism. Would you wish to apply the same term 'racism' to describe the motives of the young white people who worked for equality in the south and who were murdered for that? We'll note that it was blacks they went to help and they went to help them because they were blacks. Would you use the term to describe MLKing when he acted in order to move blacks into positions more equal?

Quote:

Each dictionary definition stands on it's own (unless it references another!) and you ignored the variious defintions that don't agree with your reply. If you had scrolled down just a bit farther on dictionary.com you would have also found this definition:

"Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

And From your own quote from Webster's:

"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination"

I understand that. You'll note I pasted them all. But it's simply shallow and dishonest to suggest that 'racism', in this culture, is on par with all categorizations which the law finds unjustly discriminatory.

Quote:

George's use fits within both of those.

Only, as I said, if one wishes to be shallow and dishonest regarding the matter.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would add that, as a Republican, you have no doubt supported a White Male in every single presidential election of your life.

Would you like to be called a sexist, racist voter? somehow I doubt it.

Cycloptichorn

Well, as a Democrat you have done exactly the same. So your fate (apart only from your very recent conversion) would be the same as mine. If I am a racist, you are, at best, a recovering one.

I don't think that anyone enjoys these labels cast at them. I don't think that southern blacks would enjoy it any more than Southern whites. Frankly those who so prodigiously hurl those labels around don't impress me much and I pay little attention to what they say. Once one has drunk the PC Kool Aid, the effects seem to be lasting. The spectacle of a few Democrats wringing their hands over the choice between sexism and racism is frankly hilarious.

The point is that neither of us are or were racist for doing so. Yet by the criteria you put forward, it could easily have been said that we were.

It is no more legitimate for you to claim that Lewis' actions were motivated by some sort of racism then it is for me to conclude that yours are. It was a silly comment on your part to begin with.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The point is that neither of us are or were racist for doing so. Yet by the criteria you put forward, it could easily have been said that we were.

It is no more legitimate for you to claim that Lewis' actions were motivated by some sort of racism then it is for me to conclude that yours are. It was a silly comment on your part to begin with.

Cycloptichorn

But I didn't put forward any criteria. I used those that blatham offered - and they were from two dictionaries.

I also acknowledged that Lewis' internal motivations are really unknowable by others - as are those of white male voters in Georgia.

However, I did point out the obvious truth that by precisely the same standard and logic that others, here and on other threads (see "Ole times there are not forgoten"), have referenced white racism in voting patterns, Lewis is certainly displaying racism in his endorsement. There is nothing silly in that.

It is frankly amusing to watch the energetic squirming and hypocrisy this engenders.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would add that, as a Republican, you have no doubt supported a White Male in every single presidential election of your life.

Would you like to be called a sexist, racist voter? somehow I doubt it.

Cycloptichorn

Well, as a Democrat you have done exactly the same. So your fate (apart only from your very recent conversion) would be the same as mine. If I am a racist, you are, at best, a recovering one.

I don't think that anyone enjoys these labels cast at them. I don't think that southern blacks would enjoy it any more than Southern whites. Frankly those who so prodigiously hurl those labels around don't impress me much and I pay little attention to what they say. Once one has drunk the PC Kool Aid, the effects seem to be lasting. The spectacle of a few Democrats wringing their hands over the choice between sexism and racism is frankly hilarious.

The point is that neither of us are or were racist for doing so. Yet by the criteria you put forward, it could easily have been said that we were.

It is no more legitimate for you to claim that Lewis' actions were motivated by some sort of racism then it is for me to conclude that yours are. It was a silly comment on your part to begin with.

Cycloptichorn

George has grasped onto the "politically correct" meme with all the poignant vigor of a lost child finding a puppy. It apparently successfully serves some deep cognitive function for him and for others as well.

The term has an interesting history, used usually as a pejeorative by right and left, but came into fashion with D'Souza book and it now is used almost exclusively by the reactionary right, george's philosophical hometown.

But it's double-edged, of course. If I were to express some derogatory opinion of, say, christian doctrine or Ronald Reagan's memory, I would be violating a 'politically correct' value held by many on the right. It is not as if what this term describes is a failing only or even mainly on the 'left'. Probably a better way to think of it would be to consider that the real value of the notion is to point to ideas which are insufficiently reflected upon and which become almost taboo to call into question AND that such ideas tend to be held by the majority or by those who hold power.

0 Replies

The debate over Lewis' motives are a bit premature. Or, his equivicating puts more light on his motives as he stalls to see which way the polls go in WI, OH, and TX.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/14/update-lewis-switches-vote-from-clinton-to-obama/

February 14, 2008
Report: Lewis backing Obama?
Posted: 11:44 PM ET
(CNN) - Is he or isn't he? The New York Times reported Thursday night that Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights movement veteran and Democratic congressional leader who endorsed Hillary Clinton's presidential bid last year, was switching his superdelegate vote to Barack Obama.

Within hours, according to the Washington Post New York Times had also reported that Lewis had not yet endorsed Obama, and would make a decision on that within a few days.

As of early Friday, there had been no comment from the congressman himself on either report.

"In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit," Lewis said in the Times story, which was published on the paper's Web site Thursday night. "Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap."

The Times also quoted Lewis as saying that he hoped to prevent a potentially bloody battle over the nomination, and that if the two sides were seeking "a mediator, a negotiator or a peacemaker, I'd be happy to step inI don't want to see Mrs. Clinton damaged or Mr. Obama damaged."

0 Replies

Lewis is right. It would be wrong for superdelegates to defy the will of the people in their districts.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

George has grasped onto the "politically correct" meme with all the poignant vigor of a lost child finding a puppy. It apparently successfully serves some deep cognitive function for him and for others as well.

The term has an interesting history, used usually as a pejeorative by right and left, but came into fashion with D'Souza book and it now is used almost exclusively by the reactionary right, george's philosophical hometown.

Nonsense. The only thing which I have grasped here is the hypocrisy and double speak of Liberal claques.

It is true that earnest assertions of political incorrectitude on the part of Liberal spokesmen have diminished greatly - they have become embarassed by the conservative reaction to their smug, thoughtless and foolish use of this essentially meaningless term - and the idiotic concept to which it refers.

I don't know just what Blatham means by the "reactionary Right", so I don't know if it is my "philosophical hometown" at all. I tend to think for myself, and even change by positions in profound ways, occasionally even changing my interpretations of major events. Can he say as much??

blatham wrote:

But it's double-edged, of course. If I were to express some derogatory opinion of, say, christian doctrine or Ronald Reagan's memory, I would be violating a 'politically correct' value held by many on the right. It is not as if what this term describes is a failing only or even mainly on the 'left'. ... .

However the fact is that the term (and associated concept) have not been used by those on the right in countering the many assaults on their beliefs that have indeed occurred. There is no shortage of zealots on the left and the right who would like to see their particular social preferences codified into public law. However, it is the left in this case that has put forward the idiotic notion of some abstract standard of political "correctness" to rationalize their particular version of groupthink.

0 Replies

Withers. Set loose the hounds.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Withers. Set loose the hounds.

Your essential redeeming quality Bernie.

0 Replies

Back atcha, old friend.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Lewis is right. It would be wrong for superdelegates to defy the will of the people in their districts.

I thought that pretty much said it all so, this whole racism/reverse-racism argument is very moot. Just a whole lotta bumping of the gums. (well, in our case, fingertips.)

0 Replies

Obama and McCain have a history of scuffles http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/14/america/senate.php "If you want the same as we've had in the last seven years," Obama said, "then I think John McCain's going to be a great choice."

0 Replies

I believe bring up racism in this election is a moot point; everybody votes for the individual they think best represents what they want in our president. As has been pointed out, Lewis is only following the voters wishes; nothing wrong with that! There will be people who votes for their race or gender; so what? That's going to be with us for a very long time. So how many Catholics voted for John Kennedy? Doesn't mean deadly. T.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

So how many Catholics voted for John Kennedy?

THe Irish Catholics, that's who.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
So how many Catholics voted for John Kennedy?

THe Irish Catholics, that's who.

Yeah, so bringing up race as an issue is still a moot point.

0 Replies

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/02/15/al-gore-to-the-rescue.aspx

0 Replies

Hey, here's a picture of the bar:

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/medium_2mich.jpg

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/michelle_obama_predicts_ohio_w.html

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I believe bring up racism in this election is a moot point; everybody votes for the individual they think best represents what they want in our president. As has been pointed out, Lewis is only following the voters wishes; nothing wrong with that! There will be people who votes for their race or gender; so what? That's going to be with us for a very long time. So how many Catholics voted for John Kennedy? Doesn't mean deadly. T.

Glad to learn you feel that way. Would you then also agree we can end affirmative action and all the government-sponsored programs involving racism-as-a-means-of-combatting racism that so infect business, education and many other elements of American life?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I believe bring up racism in this election is a moot point; everybody votes for the individual they think best represents what they want in our president. As has been pointed out, Lewis is only following the voters wishes; nothing wrong with that! There will be people who votes for their race or gender; so what? That's going to be with us for a very long time. So how many Catholics voted for John Kennedy? Doesn't mean deadly. T.

Glad to learn you feel that way. Would you then also agree we can end affirmative action and all the government-sponsored programs involving racism-as-a-means-of-combatting racism that so infect business, education and many other elements of American life?

I am not clear George.... are you a Clinton supporter? or are you just anti-Obama?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know