Yes, some of it is about racism

Joe Wilson didn't yell "You lie" when Obama said he won't sign any bill that will raise the deficit, he didn't yell when the President said there were no death panels. Joe Wilson yelled when the topic of illegal immigrants came up.

He yelled when a half black man from Kenya, Hawaii, Phillipines got up in front of the nation to set straight misconceptions of the debate. And Joe Wilson just couldn't stand it anymore when Obama claimed that the healthcare reform bill that he will be signing will not pay for any illegal immigrants.

"You lie". No dufus, he didn't lie. The bill is still under the process of being written, it has to be written and sign before you can call him a liar. But that is besides the point. Obama and the white house has said that no illegal immigrant will be able to purchase the public option from the government. I have read it in H.R. 3200 myself, it is said on two pages. One is page number two. The second page. THe second time is in section 246.

Why do you describe him as being from Kenya, Hawaii and the Philippines? It seems to me you're trying to deny his Americanism.

As for "dufus," I believe it is spelled "doofus."

You're making my point.

The fact that he has lived in those places at one point or another in his life is often pointed at proof that he is not a valid American President. Hawaii sometimes pointed out to be not part of the United States, that is if you ask some on the right. My statement was a satirical one. Wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Oh and doofus, sorry English is my second language. I am a product of the word processor generation and my spelling skills are as faulty as the rights reading of American history.

And yes i was just echoing your point.

Great article Mike, I love how some say that just because I disagree with Obama doesn't make me a racists. Well that may be true but don't ask me to believe that none of this hate directed towards the President has anything to do with his race. Hell some just come right out and say it and others carefully try to disguise it.

But it's there!

Very interesting point there. There is no question that disagreeing with the president does not make you a racist, but I have to wonder about all these folks calling him a "Muslim" or a "Marxist."

Lots of hate in America these days, because a lot of people are hurting.

Is the hate any different from the crowd who ranted and raved about Bushler a few years ago. A black working man and a white working man do have a lot more in common than Donald Trump both get taxed to death by liberal politicians who claim they are the friends of the working man. The politicians then give the money away to rich white guys like Donald Trump in the name of progress.

Nobody attacked Bush as different or un-American. I have tried to point out here that there is a difference between hating someone's policies and hating the person.

Bushler? Funny how all the Republicans now are calling Pelosi and Obama both Nazis and Marxists, the two opposite ends of the spectrum.

Good catch about the money going to the rich, though. Most right-wingers think it all goes out in welfare and foreign aid, two things that barely exist anymore.

The last people I want to listen to feigning concern over racism are Liberals & Democrats. Lest we all forget, it was the republican party that brought about the Civil Rights movement. It was the Democrats dressed up in Ku Klux Klan outfits that were discriminating against Blacks.
Secondly, Obama is not just a Black President. He is White as well. Please mention that in your insatiable desire to have a "Crazed White Man" bring harm to the President so you can hide behind your keyboard and proclaim, I told you so.
When it is all said and done, it is not any one person that will do harm to the President, It will be the President doing harm to millions.
Please change the subject already. You are inciting this type of mentality by continually bringing up the subject.
I need to hear more about California and how it is going Bankrupt and how the rest of the country should be wary and not make similiar mistakes in governing.

Redhanded,

Concerning your first comment:

To your first point:
You are like a pit bull? Why are you so angry? Everyone knows Republicans and Democrats have switched sides throughout history. I am not a Liberal or a Democrat and I am black. I totally agree with CaliforniaMike. There is an undertone of racism. Will you listen to me? Why is it that some people get so angry when we say it? Racism still exists and ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.

To your second point:
Historically, in the days of Slavery, having a drop of black blood made you black. You may have gotten to work in Massa's house, but you were still a slave. Even today, I think there is the same stigma and the racists don't give one God damn if he is half black or not. To them, he is still a n*gger. To have anyone other than a white man become president is historical. I don't think Mike was trying to deny his white heritage.

To your third point:
I don't think discussing this topic incites a mentality of hate that is taught to people by the intolerant and ignorant. I appreciate the subject, since I for one have not seen a blog about this subject matter. So many people are afraid to "pull the race card" because they are attacked as you have attacked Mike here. Why does it make you uncomfortable to have a conversation about race? If you don't want to engage in it, why did you read the blog and take the time to comment? You can choose to be blind to whatever you choose. So please leave the chat room and stop spewing your venom. Sorry, but I'd rather hear about the subject that EVERYONE is avoiding rather than California's bankruptcy which, shocker, isn't really news when the countries economy is in the crapper. I could sense your high blood pressure when I read your comment. Calm down. Have a glass or wine or something.

This was about public relations, and gaining votes again. And it is amazing to me that at this point the liberals keep delusing themselves. Are we not still in a war? Did Obama not fire the "brothers" and mostly black assembly workers on the Detroit GM line? Are you another "pretender" since it appears this site has an agenda to take the focus off of what is truly occurring.

And continue to play the "race card" and "political parties" as if they truly exist. And most of those civil rights groups would go out of business, if they didn't also take part inflaming matters. Most are headed by lawyers, and lawyers do, after all, only make money when there is dissention, not agreements. That's IS how they earn their livings, after all.

Expect for the literally thousands now that simply hang aroung the state capitols and Halls of Congress waiting for their handouts.

Why do you think those bills are written in the manner they are. Because if you really wrote bills and laws that were both Constitutional, and in the English language rather than legalese, it would put all those British Bar members out of work.

I worked with one of the best. And this generation of lawyers has not only been dumbed down, they have been so propagandized, it isn't any wonder our courts now are also such a mess.

And that's what you truly should be concerned with. Because the race card is used always by liberals, and it is used in order to deflect and detract most of all.

On both sides of the aisle, and obviously also here, in the claimed "citizen" journalism sites, since it is clear a great many here are paid bloggers with agendas for the globalists and grant monies involved, and mainstream media.

Which is probably why most people have simply stopped watching television and voting.

Since they know the law better than the government does,that's clear, especially on those bailouts, the war, and now this health care bill for the insurance industry, and Silicon Valley venture capitalists once again for all that "tehnology." That's whose strip searching you at the airports, and most of them are Democrats as Murdoch and Gates are.

So unbelieveable, and how much is the going rate for writing political fiction now by those foreign investors for their continued agendas.

I know I, as a great many Americans, who have fled the West Coast and what has progressively occurred through liberalism that has now made so many Americans jobless and homeless, just wonder when that big earthquake is really coming....

For all that those Californians have cared about their fellow countrymen over the illegal situation and the liberal agendas that have now resulted in untold loss of American lives, I can only mark it down to either too many drugs in most of their youth, or too much sun.

Since those of us real Westerners know that if you stay out in the sun too long, it will bake your brain, and to wear a hat. And sun and drugs really don't mix. Maybe they should start that as the new public service message for those on the West Coast....I'm sure Ms. Pelosi would be right on board with that one.

Ross,

Why am I commenting on your statement, since I don't understand half of what you're talking about. You are a conspiracy theorist, and you are ranting....again. I forgot what the topic was because you are all over the place. Do you even understand yourself?

To what I could decipher:

"And continue to play the "race card" and "political parties" as if they truly exist. And most of those civil rights groups would go out of business, if they didn't also take part inflaming matters."

I know some would like to silence Mike because they disagree on a site called 'Allvoices' of all things. How does talking about race and racism inflame maters? I went to college in North Cali where there are not many black folks. And the black folks I knew talked about racial tensions from townspeople in their own circles. When I saw a Swastika painted in the bike trail on my way to work, I stopped taking that path. So we all ignored it. And a couple years later a Jewish family's car is defaced with hate propaganda, a student is assaulted on campus by a white supremacist with a machete, a white supremacist newspaper is dropped on the doorsteps of the people who lived in the ethnic communities, Bomb plots unraveled and people wondered "where did this all come from?" Well Ross, it was there the whole time. We just ignored it. Perhaps because we thought that would make it go away. Perhaps because we didn't want to be ridiculed for upulling 'the race card'. So I engage dialogue about race now.

"Because the race card is used always by liberals, and it is used in order to deflect and detract most of all."

What a peculiar statement. On the contrary I find that people who feel a little guilty deep down, probably have been called a racist before, are quick to deflect a valid argument, using their powers of projection, to call racism 'pulling a card' to delegitimize the idea that discrimination or their own personal subconscious internalized racism does exist. No, deny the history of racism in this country, slavery, segregation, institutionalized, and say we are using our race as an unfair advantage, to garner symapathy, an excuse, a weapon, or trump card. No. Discrimination doesn't exist. We're all just sensitive. Or maybe it makes you uncomfortable to be reminded of your own prejudices.

[Comment deleted by user]

are you kidding me?!! To disagree with your President means you are a racist? That's the biggest bull ever!!! I have absolutely nothing wrong with blacks, but I don't like our President.It has absolutely NOTHING to do with his color. That's crazy. I would also not disrespect him, as I was raised correctly, with the engrained concept that we should respect our elders even if they have disagreeing viewpoints. Gosh that's crap whoever said disagreeing with a President is racism!

These are the ludicrous analogies that you get when concerned Americans have an interest in seeing that their President puts his country first and above partisan politics. If the Media does not do their job, it is up to citizens to seek the truth. I think the President himself has used the race card to his advantage and has polarized this country in a way never seen since the 60's & 70's

@ Redhanded

"These are the ludicrous analogies that you get when concerned Americans have an interest in seeing that their President puts his country first and above partisan politics. If the Media does not do their job, it is up to citizens to seek the truth. I think the President himself has used the race card to his advantage and has polarized this country in a way never seen since the 60's & 70's "


My guess is you're a Republican? The problem is that too many people are partisan and want to agree with one party philosophy and if the other side wins, they feel they have to automatically dislike him/her because they don't have the same generic platform their used to following. People like this, really don't give the other side a chance to prove them wrong because they are sooooo brainwashed. They will find a point to disagree on no matter what.

Race is not a card to be pulled, played, trumped. Can Barak deny his identity? Please give examples of how Obama has used this 'card' to his advantage. I'd really like to know. Perhaps he used this 'card' the same way rich white men have used their money and power to their advantage. Who was it that funded his own Senate campaign out of his own pocket? Here's some food for thought, how many times in Barak's life do you think his race was a disadvantage to him? I'm curious. You will never understand what it's like to be black in this country. Black people like me, hate it when white folks say they use the 'race card' like life is a game. Likewise, I don't understand where you're coming from. I think you don't like to talk about race. I think you have a little bit of white guilt. I think that's why you seem so angry. No one is blaming you are calling you a racist specifically. Does that make you feel better?

It absolutely was not Republicans who brought about the Civil Rights movement. What are you, 8 years old? It was Northern Democrats -- liberals -- and the now extinct liberal Republicans.All the Southern Democrats who were racists later became Republicans -- because of race.

As for my subjects, you choose yours and I'll choose mine.

'the now extinct liberal Republicans' - that is pretty much true. I am a Democrat, married to a liberal Republican, but as a liberal Republican the only logical choice he has most of the time is to vote Democrat. Sad.

CaliforniaMike,

You are now bordering on Lying.
But, I will kindly correct you.

Lincoln and the Republican Party abolished slavery in 1862. Republicans passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868 known as the equal protection clause and the 15th amendment in 1870 which granted equal rights to vote.
Republicans also passed an act which guaranteed the right or equal access to all citizens in all public accommodations, whether or not controlled by government. (In 1883 the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional).
It was Aaron Sargent, Republican from your state of California who introduced the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1878, but it didn't become law of the land until 1920 when Republicans gained the majority in the US House and Senate.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933 a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.Dirty little secret should be noted. Democrats held the White House from 1933 to 1952.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (HR 7152) passed the House on Feb 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the Civil Rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34 or 80 percent. Democrats supported it 152 to 96 or 61 percent.

In the Senate the person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois. There were 52 days of filibusters by Southern Democrats before Dirksen got the Senate to vote 76 to 18 to adopt a bipartisan substitute he had worked out. On June 19, 1964 the Senate passed the Civil Rights Bill 73 to 27. Senate Democrats voted 46 to 21 in favor or 69 percent, while Republicans voted 27 to 6 or 82 percent in favor. Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee along with most Southern Democrats voted in opposition.
On the Voter Rights Act of 1965, House Democrats voted 217 to 54 or 80 percent in favor while Republicans voted 111 to 20 or 85 percent in favor. In the Senate Democrats voted 49 to 17 or 62 percent in favor while Republicans voted 30 to 1 or 97 percent in favor.

This was too important to let go unchallenged. Once again, I'll reiterate my point, if it were not for Republicans, Democrats would have never passed Civil Rights Legislation.

Would you like to hear about the Ku klux Kan and their party affiliation?

Gee, I wonder why 90 percent of African-Americans vote for Democrats? I guess they must be too stupid to know how much Nixon, Bush and Reagan loved them.

And why did those Southern Democrats become Republicans?

Yes, you may disagree with the president on matters other than his race, but many of your conservative brethren see it differently. We all know theres still alot of racism in this country, we've seen it and heard it, and most of the racists i've known are conservatives. You can't deny there are people out there who hate obama because of his skin color, and that those people mostly vote republican. You may want to tear down the president on entirely honorable political grounds, but your movement gets a lot of support from unabashed racists, and thats just something your going to have to live with.

so then why did Obama win Iowa? One of the "whitest" state's in the country? There is also the fact that Obama got the black vote overwhelmingly during the democratic primaries for the most part because he was black. Meaning it isn't racist to vote for a black man because he is black but it would be racist not to vote for a black man because he is black?

Ross,

WTF? Are you serious? Just because a state is majority white does not make it a state full of racists. I suppose Barak won Iowa because they thought he was the best candidate.

I, a black woman, voted for Barak Obama because I liked his platform, for the most part, and thought he was the best candidate. What does that say about you that you jump to such conclusions about all the black people that voted for him and say they did so because he was black? Do you know that 92-98% of African Americans vote Democratic overwhelmingly in elections? Could their votes not have been because black people identify more with the democratic party platform?

To answer your question. No, it is not racist to vote for someone because they are black or white. Racism is about disproportionate concentration of power of one group which is then used to discriminate and disenfranchise another group of people simply because they are different.

Stillthinking,

Over the past five decades or more, African Americans have been used by the Democrat Party to win elections under the guise of the Party's support of civil rights. In reality, it is Republicans who have been responsible for most of the civil rights African Americans enjoy today. And that is indisputable fact.

All the bills were introduced by Democrats.

And why did 1964 GOP nominee Barry Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act AND the Voting Rights Act?

CaliforniaMike,

You can't undo history.
Republicans have done more for Blacks in this country than Democrats and you know it.
Blacks need to wake up and get away from the numbing effects of entitlements and not be led like blind sheep by a Party that only cares about keeping them uneducated & unmotivated.

Common characterizations of Black people used to justify First the slave trade, then slavery itself, then the institution of Jim Crow, then everything from the end of welfare to longer prison sentences, to the abolition of the public school system:

1)Lazy, unwilling to work. In other words, Black people are sleeping through life and need to "Wake up", and stop being so "unmotivated" to do what they need to do to get their lives on track.

2) Stupid, uneducated, unteachable. 'nough said.

3)Greedy. They have a sense of entitlement, and just want something for nothing because they're too lazy and unmotivated to work for what they need and want.

4)Dangerous, deserving of one's fear... OK, so you didn't go that far.

But do you understand what I'm saying here? With this centuries-old rhetoric still being thrown around for so long, a lot of Black people, and many people who aren't Black, but just have their ears and eyes open have learned to recognize it when it starts up.

Another common one:

"Shut up and take it". In other words, when I spew some 200 year old racist rhetoric, don't call me on it by "Pulling the race Card" because I'm not explicitly saying that Black people are stupid, lazy and greedy... even though, Redhanded, that is what you're are saying pretty explicitly. You're just using synonyms.

That's why CaliforniaMike suggested that Racism is, indeed, a part of it. I'm just still shocked that we even have to make that assertion at this point.

I couldn't agree with you more. It is hard to take a microscope to your own thoughts and question what is ingrained in your psyche. I'm sure redhanded meant no harm. He is not trying to offend us, but he does so because he doesn't understand what his rhetoric means to us and other enlightened folks. I think you know what I'm getting at yahmsan, but I'm so tired of saying it at this point. I feel like a broken record.

[Comment deleted by user]

You're delusional. Republicans have done nothing for blacks since the 19th century.

Democrats said far worse things about Bush. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lTUB5_l0Mg go here to see one of them. I'm not into Tu queque. I don't believe if one side did it then it's alright for the other side but ugly rhetoric is nothing new. As for there being racists in the crowd, I'm sure you could find them in any crowd.

Redhanded,I'll let california mike argue with you on the basis of the democratic party's promotion of civil rights. I wasn't around at the time.

However, I grew up in a pretty liberal family, and in my opinion, my parents and their friends were almost too eager to be tolerant at times. One of my earliest memories was being told that all people must be respected equally no matter what. I have never seen, met, or heard of a racist liberal.

I have had the displeasure of meeting a good number of open racists at school and at work (when theres only white guys in the room of course) and the great majority of these people held generally conservative political beliefs.

I'm certainly not saying that most republicans are racist, but it's undeniable that most racists are republican.

Of course I am not so petty as to imply guilt by association, like entire republican party was glad to do with the Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright brouhaha. You have entirely political motivations, but the guy standing next to you at the political rally, the guy you're backslapping and teabagging with, quite possibly hates Obama because he's black. And that's something you'll have to live with.

The conservative politician you vote for on honorable political grounds was probably also voted for by a small but substantial chunk of open racists. This means in addition to satisfying his main constituency of fair-minded patriotic persons such as yourself, he has a shadow constituency of bigotted individuals that he can not acknowledge, but has to keep happy.

I'm surprised that a conservative movement full of such tolerant, forward-thinking people such as yourself has done almost nothing to discourage and expose the proud racists within it's ranks.

[Comment deleted by user]

Margaret Sanger.

Democrats do the same thing with the support of real radicals. The problem on both sides is that it's all about winning these days. How you do it doesn't matter.

An excellent comment; hope to hear more from you.

I have learned so much from this article and from the comments posted, one thing for sure, I hate racist, it doesn't matter where we came from or what is the color of out skin as long as we have the goal to have a better place to live in. If one person is citizen of the a country he/she have the all rights to be on the there.

Respect is the most important divide between civilization and the limbic system of the brain. Respect comes from the neo-cortex. Insult from the limbic system, similar to the reptile brain. Let's have some respect for one another.

Thank you Anne for that wonderful comment You took the thoughts right out of my mind

Instead of saying black and white, why don't we all accept that we are just varying shades of brown from beige and chocolate to licorice. Candy just as sweet, regardless of color.

To AsherKade,

These reply's are not posting in the right place.

That's not how I read it. Mike was talking about Republican's strategy of using peoples prejudices to garner more support for themselves. There's no reason to be offended if you are not a racist.

Chexmix,
I wasn't offended. I am a Republican, and don't like how Republican's are being smeared to look like we are haters (media, etc). As to AnneHart, I love candy :) the world should have as many flavors of candy as possible. Who could possibly live with only one flavor of candy?What a boring world that would be!

At it again, I see. Spinning this for partisan purposes, when it was clear it was all an act to begin with. Since every citizen in the State of Arizona knows that the illegals already get health care benfits who have lived there longer than five years. It's hard to find many that have, now that so many are losing their jobs and homes because of that situation "progressively."

And the liberals had a lot to say about Bush for the cameras also, just as Joe Wilson used that for his 15 minutes of fame, Pelosi and Reid use the media for their partisan reasons all the same. And then Reid and McCain got to lunch together, or broker big real estate deals for Del Webb and other develpers for those cookie cutter homes made of stucco and chicken wire, which is the real reason there is an energy shortage in this country, especially in the West and Southwest.

Gee, if homes were built better and with the West and Southwest in mind, as adobe was used (and is cheap, but the way, over cardbord and stucco) by the native Americans, maybe some of those homes would still be standing in a few hundred years such as Montezuma's Castle has in such considerably good shape.

The costs of ownership of those properties is what has also bankrupted quite a few in those states.

And Obama is continuing and potentially might espand this war, so just where are all those labeled other corporate socialists, the "democrats," that worry so much for the "classes" yet actually only for political reasons at most. Since many of the new Americans since Reagan's amnesty actually have been primary victims of those drug cartels, and those banks and lenders fraud.

And they are setting up the next generation as we speak. Depressing the housing now so that they can qualify. And won't be able to understand those mortgages either, just as most fluent English speaking Americans could not - since they are now more than 50 pages, with so many caveats you might as well hand over the keys. And also your wallet. Since then the legislators also give that "class" of citizens, the banks, privileges and immunities.

And most of them were California banks. And isn't California a democratic state? The state primarily for all those losing their homes now due to their lack of any regulation over their banks practices, not even in their own state, much less in marketing across state lines.

You agenda is so clear, and hypocricy at this point rather evident. Both parties are run by "liberals" who "liberally" legislate for their own welfare most of all. And in bed with the British bankers, who are doing from within what they coundn't back in '76.

And you liberals are right on board with this agenda. Pure world and global socialism.

Let's see how many of your precious rights, and health care benefits you get then, when it actually will be the WHO in charge.....

You'll still be pointing your fingers at the puppets...

As far as you heading, baloney....it was about PR and face time for Mr. Wilson and the Republican party. So they can use it come next election when once again the seats may change and the facts, but the agendas and policies actually never due.

Rape the American people for themselves and their puppet masters, the bankers running the Central Bank and Federal Reserve.

And if you haven't realized that yet, you are about a least twenty five to thirty years behind the agenda and times here, Mike.

As I said, they ought to hand out Congressional awards now for best performance by a legislator. And political party.

And it is clear this case, just who the "racists" actually are. The ones labeling and spinning the majority of dissatisfied Americans.

Since Congress's approval rating is down to 12 percent, I guess it is just the one or two government writers here that aren't the racists, it would appear. If that is what you deem the basis behind many Americans who were just as outraged with Bush, if you will recall, and not party affiliated at all.

Redhanded,

"Republicans have done more for Blacks in this country than Democrats and you know it.
Blacks need to wake up and get away from the numbing effects of entitlements and not be led like blind sheep by a Party that only cares about keeping them uneducated & unmotivated."

Neither party cares about black people. So black people are poor and uneducated because they seek entitlements, are lazy, and too stupid to realize it? Someone's always making an excuse, right? People are poor because they want to be, are lazy, or deserve it.

ChexMIX,

If as you say, Neither party cares about Black People, why do you put so much of your trust in Democrats?
They accept entitlements as a payback to Democratic Loyalty. This is how the Democratic party uses you. You are the most rigid voting block in this country. And this is why Democrats continue to dumb you down. They know they have your vote no matter what.

Even though we have taken the discussion away from racism and started talking about racial politics... allow me to offer a bit of unsubstantiated conjecture here:

Most people in this country don't look at a party and say "Wow, this party's platform really represents my ideas and beliefs. Everything they are saying is something that I can really get behind." No, we are all force to decide which issues are MOST important to us, then see which party's platforms aligned closest to how we feel on those issues. Once we've done that, we then look at what the democratic and republican parties have to offer and try to choose from one of them, instead, since third parties don't win in this country.

But it is almost always a choice of who we dislike the least. For Black people, for a long time, that has meant a decision between someone who offers them very little in the way of inclusion in the political process... and someone someone who still thinks that they're called "Afro-Americans".

It's not about rigidity of party identification, it's about lack of a consistently positive option. If anything, the fact that Black people overwhelmingly vote Democratic makes them more - not less - like everyone else in this country. See, "Black", or "African American", or "Afro American" or "Negro" is and always has been a political classification. People who identify as Black are simply overwhelmingly voting in their best interest along that political classification. I'm sure that everyone understands this concept, so I won't expand on it any more than that.

Redhanded, when you suggest that Black people simply want something for nothing, you are confusing what you seem to see as most important to you with what is most important to someone else.

That would be like black people saying "White people who voted for republicans just did so because they like the Iraq War. It had nothing to do with social policy, nothing to do with economics, nothing to do with what might be more important to them."

I vote and I believe most black people vote democrat because they believe they are the lesser of two evils, not because they believe democrats care about them. You continue to use tag lines like 'dumb you down'. Do I sound like I've been dumbed down? Are the right wing Christians who always vote Republican not as rigid and 'dumbed down', whatever that means?

Great article Mike; you've said something a lot of people are thinking. A lot of this 'racism' isn't really even racism as such, just a subtle subconscious difference, which takes an eye to observe. People can do it without realising, myself included. I think it's awesome you decided to bring this to light; people should question themselves and see what answers they come up with; quite often they will be surprised if they are honest about it an don't just think they can do no wrong in these things.

hahahaha yes ross! this is all a huge plot by the british who are still pissed about the revolutionary war!

Racism is likely a small factor other reasons for people hating him even amongst African Americans is that he has done little on his promises that he made during his campaign to become President. He is also simply not a very good President to this point and he needs to drop this health care issue and move on to other looming problems in the United States government.

Well, how would you know racism is a small factor? When I hear people making irrational arguments against him I think, this many American's can't be this dumb. It must be about race. But I've learned to be suspicious about such things given my background.

For example, when people say Obama has done little on his promises in the 8 months he's been in office, I find it funny because it's only been 8 months, not an entire term. He promised heath care and he's working on it. He admonished torture and he's closing guantanamo bay. He said he would send more troops to Afganistan and he's doing that. And since when does a politician follow through on campaign promises? They usually don't. You say Obama is not a good president, which is your opinion, but what makes him a bad president? There are a lot of problems right now in this country. They can't all be fixed at once. I think folks should be reasonable and give the man a chance to do his job.

I see that your support for Obama is clouding your judgement and facts here. Here is where you may be confused or just ignoring the facts: Obama closed Guantanamo Bay, however he is simply opening a similar prison but this time within the American borders. He didn't say he would send more troops to Afghanistan in fact he said he was going to take them out. Obama is crooked like numerous other polticians. Now Obama thinks it is smart to pick a battle with the Chinese government. Obama is ignorant and sometimes down right stupid and these facts have absolutely nothing to do with race. The race card is only played when there are no legit arguments.

@ StuDio

I put a comment up already, but I don't know where it went.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=When+did+Congress+authorize+Use+of+Force+in+Afghanistan%3F&l=1

It was on September 18th, 2001.

Subsequently, Military use was authorized for use in Iraq provided diplomatic efforts failed in attempting Sadaam to abandon his Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, as long as it could be proven beyond doubt that he was engaging in producing/aquiring them and was doing so with intent to use them to harm American interests. Also, if it could be proven that Iraq was harboring Taliban refugees away from the US, Military force was authorized as a LAST resort.

This is why a lot of people feel that the Iraq invasion was not only ethically, morally and fiscally wrong, but was also technically illegal. For the record, I disagree with both wars.

Congratulations for "calling them out" on Gitmo and Afghanistan. By the way, when did Congress authorize a war in Afghanistan? Isn't it just as illegal as the war in Iraq? Oh, the poor Taliban! They are being so persecuted by the viscioius, raping, murdering American soliders! Stop the War! Stop the War!

Well, I respectfully disagree with you. Obama is closing Guantanamo Bay and I have not heard of him opening a similar prison in the states so that's news to me. And you are wrong, Obama explicitly said he was going to take troops out of Iraq and send more to Afganistan because it is unstable and volatile. I remember, because this is specifically one thing I disagree with. I think you are confusing Afganistan for Iraq.

You say Obama is crooked. How so? I just have a problem with blanket statements being made and no facts to back it up. Perhaps Obama is different and this is what makes you dislike him. Why do feel Obama is ignorant and stupid when he has an Ivy League education? His stupidity and ignorance is your opinion, not fact. What warrant do you have for your statements? On the contrary, I don't see you making any legitimate arguments, just blank statements. I am left with no real reason why you dislike Obama beside the general feeling that you dislike who he is as a person. You're not going to agree with everything a president does. I supported Clinton and had a problem with some of the things he did. But I didn't attack his character for it.

Personally, I would have some the same crticisms you have of Obama for Bush Jr. but I can name specific reasons why I feel that way. I don't see the same here. Perhaps you dislike Obama because he was not your choice. Perhaps for other reasons.

And people only say the race card is being played when they have no legitimate arguments. You have it backwards.

Wow... Where to start?You know, I read this article and I actually yawned while I was reading it. I thought to myself, "Self, why is CaliforniaMike (and apparently Maureen Dowd) bringing up the race issue. Why does he feel the need to write a whole article on this subject? It's 2009, forgodsake!"But then, as I began reading the comments, as usual, they were more enlightening than the original article. I wasn't even going to comment at all, but I figured "what could it hurt?"

Here's the thing about discussing racism in America: racism is always changing. You're not going to find a lot of people suggesting that you should "Fear the Black Man" a la "Birth of A Nation." You're not going to see people suggesting that "killing a Black man isn't really 'Murder'"(*), a la Jim Crow. And There is no way you would ever hear someone suggest that Barak Obama is "'different', simply because he is who he is"(**), a la... Rush Limbaugh.

No, racism today is cued up through buzzwords, or "Dog whistle" politics. "Welfare-mom", for instance, means "Lazy black slut". "Illegal immigrant" means "regionally-specific Latino". You know what I mean, In New York, it means Puerto Rican (even though Puerto Ricans can't be illegal immigrants, by definition), in Miami it means "Cubans", and in California and most of the rest of the country, it means "Mexican". "Gang Banger" means "irrationally violent, young Black Man with a gun". Seriously, if you don't believe me, next time you're watching someone talk about those issues, just mentally substitute these words and see if their statements don't make a lot more sense.

But I thought that this was all common knowledge by this point. I thought that we already knew that racism was ingrained into this country and that it was simply more covert now.

I don't think that it's even necessary to prove racism at this point. When there is no rational explanation for hatred and vitriol, in the ways that we've seen it lately, shouldn't we just assume that it's racism? No?And what's up with all of this talk about what Republicans have done for Black People? Come on, we don't live in a historical vacuum. You can't just rightfully point out the many things that Republicans did 95 years ago without also pointing out that Black People voted for Republicans 95 years ago. It is intellectually lazy. ... more to come soon...


OK, so I guess HTML doesn't work, but here are the Links that I tried to put in my comment before.

* http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/14/deranged-baptist-preacher-thinks-killing-obama-abortionists-and-gays-isn%E2%80%99t-murder/

** http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

No, but Harry Reid has called George W. Bush a liar. Nancy Pelosi has called Americans who dare to protest against the rising federal spending levels "Nazis." Peter Jennings called him a coward. And the president himself had said, only moments before, that those who made comments he thought were untrue would be "called out." I say waht Representative Wilson did was no different from that.

Can I redirect here. The article is called, "Yes, Some of it Is About Racism". Is that an untrue statement? Is none of it about race? Please enlighten me. Is there no validity to that statement? Someone called me an Obamanite in another blog. I didn't know what it was so I looked it up on urbandictionary.com. Here's what I found:
Obamanite
stupid n***** who voted for Obama.

"Lynsey hates Obamanites"

I also found these:
obama-n*****

A so called sand n***** running for president who declares to be a christian under the Rev. Wright views.

"One of many raciest black churches was visited by the obama-n***** who refused to wear a lapel pin on his fried chicken covered Sunday suit." (Seriously?)

Obama

The new Version of 'N*****'

"Yo look at that black ass obama over there."

n*****
see barack obama

"Barack Obama is a n*****."

And my favorite definition so far:
obama

1. A puppet of the far left who will sell out to the lobbyists and perpetrate corporate greed across government.

2. Someone who has absolutely zero experience as a leader, yet just may be elected President and leader of the free world by elements of the black population solely because he is black and by elements of the white population because they are still apoligizing for slavery.

3. Heard of a "House N*****"? He would be a "White House N*****".

"Lookit dat Obama! He be a White House N*****! Umm-Humm."

"Thats my obama."

How does this make you feel?