Obama plays the race card.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Butterbean

I saw a quote I like: "Obama's jive talk express - your on the bus or under it."

Noting the lack of ANY credible attribution for the term, "jive talk express," I searched Google for it and found it's from certifiable Bushwhacko sycophant whore, Michelle Malkin in Bill Krystol's Bushwhacko sycophant rag, "The National Review."

Credibility: 0/10

The fact that you spewed that term with nothing to substantiate it says a lot about the value of your opinions and motives, none of which is good. :thumbsdown:

Do you foam at the mouth and smash your keys when you type out replies?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Butterbean

I saw a quote I like: "Obama's jive talk express - your on the bus or under it."

Noting the lack of ANY credible attribution for the term, "jive talk express," I searched Google for it and found it's from certifiable Bushwhacko sycophant whore, Michelle Malkin in Bill Krystol's Bushwhacko sycophant rag, "The National Review."

Credibility: 0/10

The fact that you spewed that term with nothing to substantiate it says a lot about the value of your opinions and motives, none of which is good. :thumbsdown:

Do you foam at the mouth and smash your keys when you type out replies?

Do you foam at the mouth and smash your keys when you can't back up what you support?

 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Butterbean

I saw a quote I like: "Obama's jive talk express - your on the bus or under it."

Noting the lack of ANY credible attribution for the term, "jive talk express," I searched Google for it and found it's from certifiable Bushwhacko sycophant whore, Michelle Malkin in Bill Krystol's Bushwhacko sycophant rag, "The National Review."

Credibility: 0/10

The fact that you spewed that term with nothing to substantiate it says a lot about the value of your opinions and motives, none of which is good. :thumbsdown:

Do you foam at the mouth and smash your keys when you type out replies?

Do you foam at the mouth and smash your keys when you can't back up what you support?


:confused:
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Butterbean

I saw a quote I like: "Obama's jive talk express - your on the bus or under it."

Noting the lack of ANY credible attribution for the term, "jive talk express," I searched Google for it and found it's from certifiable Bushwhacko sycophant whore, Michelle Malkin in Bill Krystol's Bushwhacko sycophant rag, "The National Review."

Credibility: 0/10

The fact that you spewed that term with nothing to substantiate it says a lot about the value of your opinions and motives, none of which is good. :thumbsdown:

Do you foam at the mouth and smash your keys when you type out replies?

Do you foam at the mouth and smash your keys when you can't back up what you support?


:confused:

That's it? A "confused" icon? and you seem to be so full of piss and vinegar - are you going to debate or not?
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
I eagerly await the Obama fans on this board posting examples of racism that has occurred so far in this campaign. Until then, I think this comment from Obama is inexcusable and a pathetic attempt to try to portray his opponents as racists when they have done nothing to suggest this is true. And I'm a huge Obama fan so this really upsets me.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
No sarcasm. I like Obama a lot, although less and less since the crap he has pulled in the last couple of weeks (refusing debates, campaign financing backtracking, this race BS).
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I eagerly await the Obama fans on this board posting examples of racism that has occurred so far in this campaign. Until then, I think this comment from Obama is inexcusable and a pathetic attempt to try to portray his opponents as racists when they have done nothing to suggest this is true. And I'm a huge Obama fan so this really upsets me.

The problem is that when people talk about political racism, everyone expects to see assholes in white sheets running around. But it's not like that, because everyone is pretty much opposed to that kind of blatant racism (or at least they want to appear like they are).

Instead what you get is "racial coding". You (the generic you, not you personally) don't attack Obama for being black, you attack him for the negative traits that are perceived as black by some people, then let the intended audience draw their own conclusions. So despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, there has been a BIG push at portraying Obama as a racial, religious and cultural extremist. And because he's got a "funny" name and darker skin, the theory seems to be that those charges will stick when they otherwise wouldn't.

It's basically an extension of the very successful "southern strategy" employed by Republicans during and after the civil rights movement, only now it can be applied directly to the candidate himself. Jokes about watermelon and fried chicken would be counterproductive, the intended audience ALREADY dislikes Obama because of his race, the secret is giving them justification for their prejudice so they can let it guide their vote without feeling guilty.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
No sarcasm. I like Obama a lot, although less and less since the crap he has pulled in the last couple of weeks (refusing debates, campaign financing backtracking, this race BS).

I can't help but think the reason people dislike mentions of "this race BS" is because we like to think we as a society have moved past the exceptionally racist periods in our history, and we really hate reminders that maybe we haven't come as far as we think.
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Butterbean
This is no surprise from Obama. Everyweek he has racists, criminals, terrorsits, radicals pop up in his life and he makes one jive excuse after another (with help from media). Now he tries to accuse others of what he is (Lenin instructed operatives to do so). He's been a typical Alinsky Democrat from the begginning. I saw a quote I like: "Obama's jive talk express - your on the bus or under it."

Duwelon, how's this for an example? You think Butterbean would have described white politician excuses as "jive"? Come on...


Outside of Hillary Clinton most white politicians dont do jive accents when before black crowds - like Barack does. Obama's is also one of few campaigns who tries to get mostly whites in in photo backgrounds (oh and they do try to avoid those muslims with the head gear)


"While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama?s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan?s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, ?Get me more white people, we need more white people.? To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, ?We?re moving you, sorry. It?s going to look so pretty, though.?

?I didn?t know they would say, ?We need a white person here,??? said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. ?I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn?t know it would be so outright.?


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/8/21333/06951

Obama is a phoney

 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Craig234
Telling the truth makes someone a douchebag - at least to a douchebag it does.

What "truth" are you talking about? You've seen these racist ads already? racist picketing calling for him to be lynched? subtle racism in the media?

You must be joking. Racism doesn't have to look like the KKK, and there has been plenty of subtle and not so subtle racism and bigotry trotted out by the Republican side of this election. You think the "Obama's a radical Muslim" rumor just sprouted out of thin air? Or how about the speculation that Obama hates white people? None of that seems very based on reality, but it damn sure sounds racist to me.

Not joking.

1) Cite some of your "plenty of subtle and not so subtle racism and bigotry trotted out by the republican side".
2) I've never heard obama being called a radical muslim... and neither have you. His father's side of the familiy was mostly/all muslim though, the only people have ever brought up "radical" are people like you who try to turn the muslim thing into a strawman using hyperbole by yelling "RADICAL MUSLUMMMMSSZZ!!" as loud as you can.

Obama is a douchebag who doesn't know anything about how to run a country like the USA.

Here you go, from the same guy that brought us the Willie Horton ads. He is just waiting for the funds to go all out.

UNIVERSITY PLACE, Wash. - A Bible verse taped to a whiteboard in Floyd Brown?s office that he uses to track his efforts to attack Senator Barack Obama reads, ?That is why for Christ?s sake I delight in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties.?

Mr. Brown, 47, a 6-foot-6 bear of a man is perhaps best known for his involvement with the Willie Horton television advertisement that helped sink Michael S. Dukakis?s candidacy in 1988. Mr. Brown has had much in his career to be delighted about as the source of scores of conservative assaults on Democrats that have earned him their lasting enmity.

Mr. Brown is back to his trade of bludgeoning a Democratic candidate for president, producing an innuendo-laden advertisement that is being televised this week in Michigan, albeit sparsely on cable, questioning Mr. Obama?s religious background.


The Obama campaign singled out Mr. Brown on Thursday as emblematic of the threat that independent groups on the right posed to him. On Friday, Mr. Obama, at a news conference in Jacksonville, Fla., again named Mr. Brown while defending his campaign?s rejection of public financing for the general election.

Yet if Mr. Brown?s struggles are any indication ? he has so far failed to raise much money ? it is not clear that Republicans will be able to repeat their successes in 2004, when independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had a significant role in undermining Senator John Kerry?s campaign.

?It?s all about reaching a tipping point,? Mr. Brown said. ?Swift Boats achieved the tipping point. I was part of a team that reached the tipping point in 1988. In 1992, we didn?t reach it. We might not this time. But that doesn?t mean we?re not going to try.?

No major independent effort to help Senator John McCain?s campaign has materialized. Although Republican operatives say something will eventually develop, alarm has spread among many, especially after Mr. Obama?s announcement on Thursday on public financing, raising the prospect that he will wield an enormous financial advantage over Mr. McCain in the fall.

Many reasons explain the absence of a serious independent effort at this point, Republican strategists said. Many wealthy donors who might be in a position to finance a 527 group, named for the Tax Code section that covers them, or a similar independent effort that is free to accept unlimited contributions are wary this time because of the legal problems that dogged many such groups after the 2004 election.

Major donors are said to be uncertain of Mr. McCain?s chances as Republicans face a decidedly unfavorable climate in the fall. Lingering, as well, is the possibility that they may anger Mr. McCain, who has a record of campaign finance reform and has in the past been critical of such groups.

Perhaps in recognition of financial realities, the McCain campaign has softened its statements on such groups, repeatedly saying it cannot be expected to ?referee? them.

Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, said Friday that although Mr. McCain had made clear his objections to such groups, he also recognized that a number of them were poised to work on Mr. Obama?s behalf. Mr. Schmidt said Mr. McCain understood that ?people who want to participate in the process because of what?s going on on the other side are going to participate in the process.?

?He?s not going to be a unilateral referee,? Mr. Schmidt added.

Frank J. Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, predicted that Mr. Obama?s decision not to use public financing would energize Republicans.

?We are going to be ready,? Mr. Donatelli said.

Enter Mr. Brown, who says it is his calling to tread where the campaign is unwilling to tread in finding malicious gossip on a Democratic nominee.

Several Republican strategists interviewed voiced skepticism about Mr. Brown?s chances of operating at anything other than the periphery of the general election this year, citing the amount of money needed, the difficulty of spreading a message that incites the grass roots and stricter regulation of independent groups.


?There?s a lot of people who are trying to catch lightning in a bottle, but there?s very few people who have,? said Chris LaCivita, a Republican strategist who helped organize the Swift Boat effort.

Mr. Brown conceded that his operation was in its infancy, showing $40,000 in the bank between two committees at the end of March for its first-quarter filing with the Federal Election Commission. Nevertheless, he appears to be at least mounting a serious effort that offers a glimpse at the challenges for such groups, as well as their potential.

At the heart of the effort is a Web site, ExposeObama.com, that has featured two Web advertisements, one on Mr. Obama?s record on crime and the other on his religious background.


The second spot highlights a Roman Catholic elementary school roster from Indonesia showing that Mr. Obama registered as a Muslim. The campaign said that the notation was probably made because Mr. Obama?s stepfather was nominally a Muslim but that the candidate had never been a Muslim. He is a committed Christian.

The site has helped Mr. Brown raise $100,000 in a month and a half. On Friday, after Mr. Obama?s announcement, Mr. Brown received 400 contributions, more than the usual weekly figure, totaling more than $15,000.

Mr. Brown is spreading the word about his videos through an e-mail list that he said had 2.5 million names. His goal is to produce at least one Web advertisement every two weeks, spread the word with e-mail and hope they catch on.

Mr. Brown is also using two conservative direct mail businesses to raise money, Response Dynamics and the Richard Norman Company, which ran the mail campaign for the Swift Boat effort, as well as two telemarketing businesses.

Although he said he was mostly in the testing phase with the mailings, Mr. Brown has put out 700,000 pieces and collected more than $600,000 by mail this year, a vast majority in the last two months. That period is after his last campaign finance filing.

Mr. Brown has also created a network of organizations that he can use to attack Mr. Obama, including two political action committees, the National Campaign Fund and the Legacy Committee, that are governed by strict limits on campaign donations, as well as a 527 group, Citizens for a Safe and Prosperous America.

Mr. Brown?s financial limits were obvious with his most recent advertisement, questioning Mr. Obama?s religious background. He spent $5,000 to broadcast it. A cable company in the Detroit area approved it. Another kept Mr. Brown in legal limbo.

With most big-money conservative donors remaining cautious, Mr. Brown is focusing more on his political action committees. That could limit his ability to raise large sums. The maximum donation to such entities is $5,000.

Political action committees are much freer to attack candidates than 527s, which are technically limited to advocating on issues and cannot expressly call for a candidate?s election or defeat.

For conservatives hoping to repeat the Swift Boat effort, Federal Election Commission rulings 2004 put such advertisements, which questioned a candidate?s character and fitness for office, off limits to 527s specifically.

Mr. Brown, a gregarious evangelical churchgoer who likes to boast that he has slept with one woman in his life, his wife, said that he merely enjoyed the interchange of ideas and that there was nothing personal about his attacks.

He said he earned a living as an investment writer and a speaker, working in politics part time. His résumé includes setting up a 900 number in the 1992 election so people could listen to recorded telephone conversations purported to be between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers.

But there are boundaries even Mr. Brown is unwilling to cross. He said many potential large donors had lost interest after he explained to them that certain harder-hitting advertisements that they favored were not possible through a 527.


His estimates of what he might be able to raise by the fall, assuming that he does not reach his imaginary ?tipping point,? are in the $8 million range. That would be hardly consequential, especially in the face of the expected advertising onslaught from Mr. Obama.

Mr. Brown is hopeful, however, that major donors will step forward. ?The vehicle will be there,? he said. ?The talent will be there. Everything?s prepared.?

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
One only has to watch West Virginia voter interviews to know that the race card is being played against Obama. He might as well play it back.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
The North Carolina RNC ad didn't play the race card, did it?

Calling Michelle "Obama's baby mama" is totally race neutral, right?

I guess you're right. It's impossible to find anything, even with tons of digging. What a douchebag
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Butterbean
This is no surprise from Obama. Everyweek he has racists, criminals, terrorsits, radicals pop up in his life and he makes one jive excuse after another (with help from media). Now he tries to accuse others of what he is (Lenin instructed operatives to do so). He's been a typical Alinsky Democrat from the begginning. I saw a quote I like: "Obama's jive talk express - your on the bus or under it."

:roll:
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Telling the truth makes someone a douchebag - at least to a douchebag it does.

No one, as far as I know, on the R side has played the race card. Do you have evidence to support your "truth"?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I eagerly await the Obama fans on this board posting examples of racism that has occurred so far in this campaign. Until then, I think this comment from Obama is inexcusable and a pathetic attempt to try to portray his opponents as racists when they have done nothing to suggest this is true. And I'm a huge Obama fan so this really upsets me.

The problem is that when people talk about political racism, everyone expects to see assholes in white sheets running around. But it's not like that, because everyone is pretty much opposed to that kind of blatant racism (or at least they want to appear like they are).

Instead what you get is "racial coding". You (the generic you, not you personally) don't attack Obama for being black, you attack him for the negative traits that are perceived as black by some people, then let the intended audience draw their own conclusions. So despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, there has been a BIG push at portraying Obama as a racial, religious and cultural extremist. And because he's got a "funny" name and darker skin, the theory seems to be that those charges will stick when they otherwise wouldn't.

It's basically an extension of the very successful "southern strategy" employed by Republicans during and after the civil rights movement, only now it can be applied directly to the candidate himself. Jokes about watermelon and fried chicken would be counterproductive, the intended audience ALREADY dislikes Obama because of his race, the secret is giving them justification for their prejudice so they can let it guide their vote without feeling guilty.

Right, it's not overt racism...it's a secret code that we all know and we give the old wink and nod too... :roll:

I happen to think this is a bit of projection by the Democrats...
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: jpeyton
One only has to watch West Virginia voter interviews to know that the race card is being played against Obama. He might as well play it back.


Wow, you normally say intelligent stuff. That was stupid though. Some voters in West Virginia may be racist, sure. But just because they were interviewed doesn't mean that the Reps. played the race card (not saying they did or didnt, just saying your statement doesn't conclude anything).


Do you not think there are black people in this country that hate white people? I'm sure someone could find some people to interview that will say "We don't need another fucking white man in office, they are holding a brother down" or something along those lines. That doesn't mean the Dems. played the race card either, it simply means there are racist fucktards in this country.



And like I said before, Obama AND McCain are assholes for bringing this up. I really wish one of them would be the bigger man and not say shit about race, regardless. All it is going to do is create a white vs black candidate, and create a whole lot of strife between the two cultures, especially in the uneducated and lower class. I have a feeling this election is going to divide America rather than unite it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,545
6,144
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I eagerly await the Obama fans on this board posting examples of racism that has occurred so far in this campaign. Until then, I think this comment from Obama is inexcusable and a pathetic attempt to try to portray his opponents as racists when they have done nothing to suggest this is true. And I'm a huge Obama fan so this really upsets me.

The problem is that when people talk about political racism, everyone expects to see assholes in white sheets running around. But it's not like that, because everyone is pretty much opposed to that kind of blatant racism (or at least they want to appear like they are).

Instead what you get is "racial coding". You (the generic you, not you personally) don't attack Obama for being black, you attack him for the negative traits that are perceived as black by some people, then let the intended audience draw their own conclusions. So despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, there has been a BIG push at portraying Obama as a racial, religious and cultural extremist. And because he's got a "funny" name and darker skin, the theory seems to be that those charges will stick when they otherwise wouldn't.

It's basically an extension of the very successful "southern strategy" employed by Republicans during and after the civil rights movement, only now it can be applied directly to the candidate himself. Jokes about watermelon and fried chicken would be counterproductive, the intended audience ALREADY dislikes Obama because of his race, the secret is giving them justification for their prejudice so they can let it guide their vote without feeling guilty.

Right, it's not overt racism...it's a secret code that we all know and we give the old wink and nod too... :roll:

I happen to think this is a bit of projection by the Democrats...

You shouldn't try to use psychological terms and remain as intuitively ignorant of your own psychology as your almost perfect capacity to get everything wrong reveals you to be. What Rainsford referred to happens on an unconscious level which means that unconscious biases are triggered that cause one to vote ones fears rather than on objective consciously considered data. The target audience remains totally unaware they are being so manipulated. There is no bull shit secret code they recognize and understand.

Everybody hates negative campaigning but it works because people are unconscious of their hate and they are unconscious of their hate because their hate is of themselves. All hate of the other has its source there.

Almost all human intelligence is devoted to rationalizing one's unconscious prejudice and providing the conscious mind with 'real reasons' to believe as it does. The bigot is completely blind to his bigotry because he has convinced himself that he is for 'the good' so any thinking that seeks to divert his reason is inherently evil. This is why you can tell a bigot a mile away, but you can't tell him anything at all. A bigot is a self-encapsulated fool, a person whose radar for truth is pegged by his bigotry. He can't do other than get everything wrong.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I eagerly await the Obama fans on this board posting examples of racism that has occurred so far in this campaign. Until then, I think this comment from Obama is inexcusable and a pathetic attempt to try to portray his opponents as racists when they have done nothing to suggest this is true. And I'm a huge Obama fan so this really upsets me.

The problem is that when people talk about political racism, everyone expects to see assholes in white sheets running around. But it's not like that, because everyone is pretty much opposed to that kind of blatant racism (or at least they want to appear like they are).

Instead what you get is "racial coding". You (the generic you, not you personally) don't attack Obama for being black, you attack him for the negative traits that are perceived as black by some people, then let the intended audience draw their own conclusions. So despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, there has been a BIG push at portraying Obama as a racial, religious and cultural extremist. And because he's got a "funny" name and darker skin, the theory seems to be that those charges will stick when they otherwise wouldn't.

It's basically an extension of the very successful "southern strategy" employed by Republicans during and after the civil rights movement, only now it can be applied directly to the candidate himself. Jokes about watermelon and fried chicken would be counterproductive, the intended audience ALREADY dislikes Obama because of his race, the secret is giving them justification for their prejudice so they can let it guide their vote without feeling guilty.

Right, it's not overt racism...it's a secret code that we all know and we give the old wink and nod too... :roll:

I happen to think this is a bit of projection by the Democrats...

You shouldn't try to use psychological terms and remain as intuitively ignorant of your own psychology as your almost perfect capacity to get everything wrong reveals you to be. What Rainsford referred to happens on an unconscious level which means that unconscious biases are triggered that cause one to vote ones fears rather than on objective consciously considered data. The target audience remains totally unaware they are being so manipulated. There is no bull shit secret code they recognize and understand.

Everybody hates negative campaigning but it works because people are unconscious of their hate and they are unconscious of their hate because their hate is of themselves. All hate of the other has its source there.

Almost all human intelligence is devoted to rationalizing one's unconscious prejudice and providing the conscious mind with 'real reasons' to believe as it does. The bigot is completely blind to his bigotry because he has convinced himself that he is for 'the good' so any thinking that seeks to divert his reason is inherently evil. This is why you can tell a bigot a mile away, but you can't tell him anything at all. A bigot is a self-encapsulated fool, a person whose radar for truth is pegged by his bigotry. He can't do other than get everything wrong.



Oh, so you're talking about that "code" that only you "enlightened" liberals are able to see...

...or maybe the whole thing is BS and you people are looking to continue a narrative despite having actual evidence.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,545
6,144
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I eagerly await the Obama fans on this board posting examples of racism that has occurred so far in this campaign. Until then, I think this comment from Obama is inexcusable and a pathetic attempt to try to portray his opponents as racists when they have done nothing to suggest this is true. And I'm a huge Obama fan so this really upsets me.

The problem is that when people talk about political racism, everyone expects to see assholes in white sheets running around. But it's not like that, because everyone is pretty much opposed to that kind of blatant racism (or at least they want to appear like they are).

Instead what you get is "racial coding". You (the generic you, not you personally) don't attack Obama for being black, you attack him for the negative traits that are perceived as black by some people, then let the intended audience draw their own conclusions. So despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, there has been a BIG push at portraying Obama as a racial, religious and cultural extremist. And because he's got a "funny" name and darker skin, the theory seems to be that those charges will stick when they otherwise wouldn't.

It's basically an extension of the very successful "southern strategy" employed by Republicans during and after the civil rights movement, only now it can be applied directly to the candidate himself. Jokes about watermelon and fried chicken would be counterproductive, the intended audience ALREADY dislikes Obama because of his race, the secret is giving them justification for their prejudice so they can let it guide their vote without feeling guilty.

Right, it's not overt racism...it's a secret code that we all know and we give the old wink and nod too... :roll:

I happen to think this is a bit of projection by the Democrats...

You shouldn't try to use psychological terms and remain as intuitively ignorant of your own psychology as your almost perfect capacity to get everything wrong reveals you to be. What Rainsford referred to happens on an unconscious level which means that unconscious biases are triggered that cause one to vote ones fears rather than on objective consciously considered data. The target audience remains totally unaware they are being so manipulated. There is no bull shit secret code they recognize and understand.

Everybody hates negative campaigning but it works because people are unconscious of their hate and they are unconscious of their hate because their hate is of themselves. All hate of the other has its source there.

Almost all human intelligence is devoted to rationalizing one's unconscious prejudice and providing the conscious mind with 'real reasons' to believe as it does. The bigot is completely blind to his bigotry because he has convinced himself that he is for 'the good' so any thinking that seeks to divert his reason is inherently evil. This is why you can tell a bigot a mile away, but you can't tell him anything at all. A bigot is a self-encapsulated fool, a person whose radar for truth is pegged by his bigotry. He can't do other than get everything wrong.



Oh, so you're talking about that "code" that only you "enlightened" liberals are able to see...

...or maybe the whole thing is BS and you people are looking to continue a narrative despite having actual evidence.

I am not arguing the existence or not of racial attacks on Obama. My post focused only on your notion that where was some secret code that was recognizable. Likewise there is no code that liberals can see. I simply pointed out that a bigot is engaged in a constant process of rationalization and your post here looks like more of the same. As Shakespeare pointed our a few years back, A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I punch you down and you pop back up because you are a schmoo. One thing the unconscious hate is having their games exposed. The one people stumbling around in the dark hate more the guy with a flash light, is the one pointing out that it's dark because you've got your hat pulled down over your whole head.

A bigot can't reason his way out of his bigotry, but he can learn to relax. You have been forgiven and are without sin. All your fears are of things that happened long ago and lies you were made to feel. Not any of it was ever true and there is noting wrong with you. Your job is to relax and be happy. The good really is good even if we don't know what it is. Our problem is our lack of humility.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: jpeyton
One only has to watch West Virginia voter interviews to know that the race card is being played against Obama. He might as well play it back.


Wow, you normally say intelligent stuff. That was stupid though. Some voters in West Virginia may be racist, sure. But just because they were interviewed doesn't mean that the Reps. played the race card (not saying they did or didnt, just saying your statement doesn't conclude anything).


Do you not think there are black people in this country that hate white people? I'm sure someone could find some people to interview that will say "We don't need another fucking white man in office, they are holding a brother down" or something along those lines. That doesn't mean the Dems. played the race card either, it simply means there are racist fucktards in this country.



And like I said before, Obama AND McCain are assholes for bringing this up. I really wish one of them would be the bigger man and not say shit about race, regardless. All it is going to do is create a white vs black candidate, and create a whole lot of strife between the two cultures, especially in the uneducated and lower class. I have a feeling this election is going to divide America rather than unite it.

I mostly agree with you, but when did Mccain bring up race of any kind other than maybe a response to a question from a "concerned democrat"
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
McCain hasn't brought up the issue of Race. First off, given the past and the players, he doesn't have to, and I think he'd personally be loathe to do so.

That doesn't mean, however, that the whole issue of coded racism in the Repub message is unintentional or that it doesn't exist. It stretches back a very long way, and has been the key to their successful southern strategy from the beginning. Perhaps one of the more interesting descriptive terms is dog whistle politics-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

A rather wide variety of groups have certain touchstone phrases used to identify each other, the rest of us being largely oblivious to what's going on. It's a way for insiders to communicate, reagardless of the group in question.

Howard Dean's gaffe wrt rebel flags on pickup trucks reveals just how effectively various insiders mislead others as to their true sentiments and aspirations... Dean really didn't understand the hidden implications of that particular display, at all...

There are a variety of other communications that carry messages that most of us can't hear. RR didn't kick off his presidential campaign in Philadelphia Miss extolling States' Rights by accident, nor are references to Law and Order, Welfare Queens, Dependency, or Laziness on the part of any opposing non-white candidate intended to sound the same to different parts of the same audience, at all. If Willie Horton had been white, he'd barely have make a blip on the radar. The same goes for the Rev Wright, as well...

Even as working class whites' sense of victimhood is often reality-based, the redirection of it onto blacks with the vilification of affirmative action &etc has only served to make it more profound. Wealthy whites, I'm sure, have laughed their asses off while convincing working class whites to vote against their own interests through the exploitation of such lingering prejudices and stereotypes...

Demonizing anybody not onboard with the repubs version of the WoT carries racial implications, as well, and the success of the State of Israel has exploited the whole issue of ethnicity quite blatantly. When yesteryear's victims become today's oppressors, we're led to think of them still as victims...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Craig234
Telling the truth makes someone a douchebag - at least to a douchebag it does.

No one, as far as I know, on the R side has played the race card. Do you have evidence to support your "truth"?

Obama's statement was predictive, about what some will do in the future. The question isn't the one you tried to ask, what has been done, but is what will be coming. Here's what he said:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me.

What he's doing is a pre-emptive strike to innoculate against the attacks - it might even help prevent them.

It's normal that people will respond one way when they hear something, but might respond differently if they're warned about it.

For example, let's say Hillary ran ads showing her 'strong on defense', to counter people's doubts about her in that area. It might work. But let's say before they ran, Republicans got out a message, 'watch for Hillary to try to fool you with her ads that she's 'strong on defense' - she knows she is weak there and has to say otherwise'. People then might watch the ads with a lot more suspicion, and they may have less effect in her favor.

If people just see the race-coded messages to scare people about Obama - and he didn't just say it's race, he mentioned other 'scare issues' like inexperience - they might respond to those messages; but by his 'innoculating' people this way, they may dismiss the messages quite a bit more and make them less effective, reducing the chance they'll be run at all.

Note, this technique can be used 'honestly' or 'maniputaively'. Most people know that JFK was good at challenging the (real) anti-Catholic bias in the country; but a case can also be made that he 'used' the issue, by going beyond the actual discrimination at times to get a lot of 'guilty' non-Catholics proving their lack of bigotry by voting for him, all the while still getting the benefit of the Catholic vote. Wrong, or effective politics? You decide.

There's enough history of the Republican party using race to justify Obama's warning, IMO.

I know people personally who are otherwise 'good people' who say they won't vote for Obama with race being a factor (though they tend to identify exceptions like Colin Powell who they would vote for). I think Obama is right to try to reduce the issue as one that will hurt him. He didn't make any specific accusations about McCain, any false accusations that something has been done that wasn't done. His comments are pretty harmless if the race campaigning doesn't happen.

Candidates use techniques to mitigate their perceived weaknesses. Reagan used a joke about age, referring to Mondale's 'youth'. JFK appealed to the notion of 'should there be a religious test for the presidency, when the constitution prohibits it' (of course, there is - try electing a Muslim). Bush used phrases and slogans like 'compassionate conservative'. Clinton used an intimate conversation with his wife participating against charges of 'womanizing'. Nixon had his 'Checkers speech' against charges of corrupt donations, where he spoke like a hurt puppy about the cheap coat his wife wore proudly. Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick pu himself at 'the mercy of the voters' whether he should resign, gaining him sympathy and support.

This is one technique for dealing with the 'weakness' of his inexperience and his race.