This is the second in an occasional series on issues of race, identity and politics ahead of Election Day, including a look at the optics of politics, a white Southern Democrat fighting for survival and a civil rights icon registering voters.
By John Blake, CNN
(CNN) - A tall, caramel-complexioned man marched across the steps of the U.S. Capitol to be sworn into office as a jubilant crowd watched history being made.
The man was an African-American of mixed-race heritage, an eloquent speaker whose election was hailed as a reminder of how far America had come.
But the man who placed his hand on the Bible that winter day in Washington wasn't Barack Obama. He was Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first African-American elected to the U.S. Senate.
His election and that of many other African-Americans to public office triggered a white backlash that helped destroy Reconstruction, America’s first attempt to build an interracial democracy in the wake of the Civil War.
To some historians, Revels' story offers sobering lessons for our time: that this year's presidential election is about the past as well as the future. These historians say Obama isn't a post-racial president but a "post-Reconstructionist" leader. They say his presidency has sparked a white backlash with parallels to a brutal period in U.S. history that began with dramatic racial progress.
Some of the biggest controversies of the 2012 contest could have been ripped from the headlines of that late 19th-century era, they say: Debates erupt over voting rights restrictions and racial preferences, a new federal health care act divides the country, an economic crisis sparks a small government movement. And then there's a vocal minority accusing a national black political leader of not being a "legitimate" U.S. citizen.
All were major issues during Reconstruction, an attempt to bring the former Confederate states back into the national fold and create a new era of racial justice. And many of the same forces that destroyed Reconstruction may be converging again, some scholars and historians say.
Hiram Rhodes Revels became the first African-American elected to the U.S. Senate in 1870.
Ruha Benjamin points to this as proof that change is fragile - and reversible. The backlash that swept aside Revels lasted nearly a century.
"When white Americans helped put this African-American in the Senate, it seemed that they were really welcoming African-Americans and they wanted them to have full equality," said Benjamin, an African-American studies professor at Boston University. "We know in hindsight that it was about to get worse."
The notion that the country is poised to enter a new post-Reconstruction era may seem outlandish, even offensive. That period, known as the Jim Crow era, saw the establishment of American apartheid: segregated public facilities, race riots and white racists murdering blacks and their white allies with impunity.
Today, too many white Americans are "militantly anti-racist" for the country to return to the post-Reconstruction era, said Mark D. Naison, a history professor at Fordham University in New York City.
"You hold a racist demonstration in this country and the anti-racist protesters will have as many whites and blacks in their group, maybe more," Naison said. "We are definitely not post-racial, but we aren't going back to the days of legal segregation."
Yet there is another slice of white America that seems stuck in a time warp, as if it never left the post-Reconstruction era, other historians argue. While not calling for the return of Jim Crow segregation, some white Americans are recycling the same political rhetoric and legal strategies that snuffed out Reconstruction, these historians say.
They are also resurrecting some of the most racist images from the post-Reconstruction era, some black commentators say.
While it is no longer acceptable to call a black person the N-word publicly, people do it all the time in social media, video games and in the comment sections of online news stories, said Nsenga Burton, a writer for The Root, an online news site with an African-American perspective.
Much of this racism is aimed at Obama, she says. Among examples, he’s been called "tar baby" and "the ultimate Affirmative Action N******" and depicted as a chimp. People are not shocked anymore by overt displays of racism, she says.
Burton said in a Root essay entitled, "It's a Great Time to be a Racist," that Obama's presidency didn't inaugurate a post-racial era. "Try post-Reconstruction," she said, "because the harmful slurs and images being tossed around the public space hark back more to a racist past than to a racially ambiguous future."
A recent Associated Press online poll concluded that racial prejudice in America has slightly increased since Obama's election. The survey said that a majority of Americans, 51%, express explicit racial prejudice toward blacks, compared to 48% in 2008.
While the poll on its own doesn’t prove the country has become more racist in the last four years, it does offer evidence that the “post-racial” world some thought Obama’s inauguration would bring has yet to materialize.
"We're in a racist renaissance," Burton said. "It's a rebirth of the oldest forms of racism. It's not new, not different. It's like the 1800s, the most archaic abusive terms are applied to black people every single day."
Some conservatives have a different take, on history as well as current events. Everyone who criticizes the president is labeled a racist, they say. And describing Obama as a post-Reconstruction president is absurd.
"It's race-baiting of the highest order; it's bunk," said Niger Innis, a black conservative and son of civil rights activist Roy Innis who has defended the Tea Party movement against accusations of racism.
"The America of today is not the America of the 1870s," Innis said. "When the American people voted for their first black president, the Union Army didn't occupy the country."
Some conservative commentators also say Obama isn't a victim of racism, but to the contrary has inflamed racial divisions to advance his political agenda.
"Obama was falsely portrayed in his campaign as a post-racial president who would bring healing to the nation's racial divisions," said Larry Schweikart, co-author of "A Patriot's History of the United States."
"Obama has done everything he can to ensure that there were stark racial differences. … Obama has focused his entire administration around racism, a sort of reverse racism on his end," Schweikart claimed.
It is a view that has been reflected by conservative talk-show hosts such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh’s brother David, author of "The Great Destroyer." David Limbaugh would not talk to CNN for this story.
Hope and change in another time
Reconstruction, which lasted from the end of the Civil War in 1865 to 1877, was filled with dueling perceptions of race as well. The political changes unleashed by the Civil War unnerved many white Southerners: As blacks achieved positions of power that previously had been reserved for whites, historians say, many whites felt like their country didn't belong to them anymore.
After the Civil War, the U.S. Congress passed the 13th, 14th and 15th "Reconstruction Amendments" that abolished slavery, granted citizenship rights to blacks and prohibited denying the right to vote to newly freed slaves.
The term "civil rights" was coined during Reconstruction, said Eric Foner, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution." A century before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a segregated bus, Congress passed the 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts, which banned the discrimination of blacks in "public accommodations" such as streetcars and theaters.
The reforms provoked what some historians say was white Southerners' greatest fear: "Negro Rule."
During Reconstruction, at least 2,000 blacks were eventually elected to political offices throughout the South. They included congressmen, judges, tax collectors, sheriffs, even a governor, said Philip Dray, author of "Capitol Men," which examines Reconstruction through the lives of the first black congressmen.
"Expectations were high," said Dray, who has also written books about the rise of labor unions and lynchings in America. "People felt like there was change, and they were going to be part of it."
Revels rode that wave of optimism into high office. In 1870, he became the first African-American elected to the U.S. Senate when the Mississippi legislature appointed him to fill a vacancy left when the state seceded from the Union.
Opponents initially insisted he wasn't a legitimate U.S. citizen because the Constitution required a senator be a citizen for at least nine years. He also had an unusual background, having been born to a free black family in North Carolina when slavery was legal.
"He wasn't radical or over the top," Dray said of Revels. "He was a minister, a conciliatory figure. The idea was that it would be easier for him to weather the scrutiny."
Revels himself would anticipate the white backlash that would follow when he told the Senate early in 1871: “I find that the prejudice in this country to color is very great, and I sometimes fear that it is on the increase.”
Obamacare, 19th century style
Beyond Revels, there are other parallels between today and the post-Reconstruction era, according to some historians.
The most commonly cited link revolves around the debate over voter ID laws. Since Obama's election, 34 states have considered adopting legislation requiring photo ID for voters, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Seven have passed such laws, which typically require voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls.
During the post-Reconstruction era, many white Southerners viewed the onset of black voting power in apocalyptic terms. They created a thicket of voting barriers - "poll taxes," "literacy tests" and "understanding clauses" - to prevent blacks from voting, said Dray.
"The idea was to invalidate the black vote without directly challenging the 15th Amendment," Dray said.
This political cartoon highlighting voter intimidation appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1876.
Many contemporary voter ID laws are following the same script, he said.
"It just goes on and on. They've never completely gone away. And now they're back with a vengeance."
Some opponents of the voter ID laws note that these measures disproportionately affect the elderly and the poor, regardless of race.
Supporters of voter ID laws say they're not about race at all, but about common sense and preventing voter fraud.
"That is not a racial issue and it certainly isn't a hardship issue," said Deneen Borelli, author of "Blacklash," which argues Obama is turning America into a welfare nation.
"When you try to purchase over-the-counter medication or buy liquor or travel, you present photo ID. This is a basic part of everyday transactions."
Historians say there are other ways the post-Reconstruction script is being dusted off and that some of them appear to have nothing to do with race on the surface.
Consider the debate over "Obamacare," the nation's new health care law. The controversy would be familiar to many 19th-century Americans, said Jim Downs, author of "Sick from Freedom: African-American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction."
The notion that the federal government should help those who cannot help themselves wasn't widely accepted before the Civil War. There were a few charities and municipal hospitals that took care of the sick, but most institutions ignored ordinary people who needed health care, said Downs, a Connecticut College history professor who studies the history of race and medicine in 19th-century America.
Reconstruction changed that. Post-Civil War America was marked by epidemics: yellow fever, smallpox and typhus. Freed slaves, who were often malnourished and had few clothes and little shelter, died by the "tens of thousands," he said.
The federal government responded by creating the nation's first-ever national health care system, directed at newly freed slaves. It was called the Medical Division of the Freedmen's Bureau. The division built 40 hospitals and hired hundreds of doctors to treat more than a million former slaves from 1865 until it was shut down in 1870 after losing congressional funding, Downs said.
"It absolutely radicalized health care," he said. "You can't argue that government intervention in health is something new or a recent innovation. It originated in the mid-19th century in response to the suffering of freed slaves."
Critics at the time said the new health care system was too radical. They said it would make blacks too reliant on government. The system was expanded to include other vulnerable Americans, such as the elderly, children and the disabled. Yet some still saw it as a black handout, Downs said.
"The whole notion of the modern day "welfare queen" can be traced to the post-Civil War period when people became very suspicious of the federal government providing relief to ex-slaves," Downs said. "They feared this would create a dependent class of people."
A campaign to 'save' America
Economic fears in the post-Reconstruction era also fueled the white backlash, a pattern that some historians say is repeating itself today.
A national economic collapse took place just as freed slaves were gaining political influence. The Panic of 1873 started with a banking collapse and a stock market dive. The result: Tens of thousands of workers, many Civil War veterans, became homeless. People lined up for food and shelter in cities across America.
"It made it more economically competitive for everybody," Dray said. "You saw whites become even less generous to African-Americans [than] they might have been."
Some white Southerners channeled their economic anxiety into a systemic attack on the federal government, historians said.
Before the collapse, Southern states controlled by Northern politicians and their allies had built hospitals and public schools and created social services to help freed slaves as well as poor whites, said Jerald Podair, a historian at Lawrence University in Wisconsin.
But the notion of an activist federal government helping blacks amid tough times created an opening for Reconstruction opponents. One group that took advantage of that opening was the Redeemers, a popular movement led by conservative, pro-business politicians who vowed to "save" the South, said Podair, who is writing a book on Bayard Rustin, a close aide to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
The Redeemers gained control of most Southern statehouses and pledged to reduce the size of government. They defunded public schools, closed public hospitals and halted road construction, Podair said, all while cutting taxes for the wealthy plantation owners, the 1 percenters of their day.
The Redeemers cloaked their rhetoric in the need for more government efficiency, but their goals were also racial, Podair said.
"The Redeemers were interested first and foremost in power," Podair said. "If freed slaves received education and medical care, they were that much closer to economic and, eventually, political power. And if the federal government had a major role in the South, that also meant less economic and political power for the Redeemer class."
Some historians say the backlash against Obama mimics late 19th-century resistance to black political progress.
Podair said some contemporary governors are recycling the same talking points used by the Redeemers. They are invoking the need for austerity while cutting government jobs that employ a high number of blacks and reducing public services that help the poor, a disproportionate number of whom are black.
"There may well be a new post-Reconstruction era of slashed federal budgets and policies that transfer power and resources to state and local governments," Podair said. "Once again, initiatives that sound race-neutral on their face will have a devastating racial impact."
Innis has a different take.
He said state and local governments can't afford to keep the same number of jobs because of generous benefits negotiated by unions. Race has nothing to do with it.
"If you have a government job and the pay and benefits is more than a private sector job, something is wrong," he said.
Government cutbacks are designed to help the economy, not inflict pain on any particular group.
"Until we get our economy on track, black and brown people are going to suffer," he said.
'White Girl Bleed a Lot'
The primary weapon white Southerners used to halt Reconstruction was violence. Mobs attacked and killed blacks gathering to vote. They assassinated black officeholders and their white allies. Newspapers sparked race riots and warned of race wars by printing false accounts of black-on-white attacks.
We are not seeing anywhere near the level of violence toward black people that followed Reconstruction. But some people fear that the inflammatory rhetoric that helped trigger racial violence in that era is returning.
A Google search of the phrase "black mobs attack white people" yields tens of thousands of hits. Conservative bloggers and columnists say a "wave" of black mobs attacking whites at random has spread across the nation in places such as shopping malls, downtown tourist spots and even "Beat Whitey Nights" at Midwestern fairs.
Syndicated conservative columnist Thomas Sowell - himself African-American - wrote in a May 15 column for National Review Online that "race war" has returned to America because black gangs are "launching coordinated attacks on whites in public" across America. A Republican state legislator in Maryland, Patrick L. McDonough, warned earlier this year in a letter to the governor that "roving mobs of black youths" had been attacking white tourists in Baltimore.
One author, Colin Flaherty, wrote a book about this alleged wave of racial violence called, "White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Race Riots to America." The various accounts follow the same pattern: Black "flash mobs" suddenly attack whites in public, followed by a media cover-up.
Flaherty, also a talk radio show host, said he first noticed the attacks in 2010. Since then, he claims he has seen "thousands" of videos of black mobs attacking whites.
People have called him racist, but Flaherty said he's just a "guy standing on a corner" reporting what he sees.
"White liberals go nuts on this," he said of his book. "When people use names like 'racist,' they're using it to shut down conversation, not engage in it."
The return of race war rhetoric has disturbing historical echoes, said David Godshalk, author of "Veiled Visions: The 1906 Atlanta Race Riot and the Reshaping of American Race Relations."
Godshalk said neither Sowell nor Flaherty have offered any statistical evidence that reports about "black mobs" are anything more than isolated cases. Sowell did not respond to interview requests.
Scores of blacks died during the post-Reconstruction era because newspapers spread false or grossly exaggerated reports of blacks as predators, particularly accounts of black men raping white women, Godshalk said.
Some whites used those reports to justify violence and political oppression against blacks, he said.
"Longstanding notions that African-Americans were criminals were used to argue that they shouldn't be leaders in society because they didn't have the same capabilities as whites, and they weren't trustworthy enough to hold positions of authority," said Godshalk, a history professor at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania who has also written about Reconstruction and lynchings.
Those notions of black inferiority eventually infected the legal system during the post-Reconstruction era, historians say.
The post-Reconstruction Supreme Court played a major role in destroying what Congress had created through its racial reforms. The court delivered a series of decisions that nullified the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 as well as additional laws designed to protect blacks from mob violence at the voting booth, said Peter Irons, a civil rights attorney and author of "A People's History of the Supreme Court."
In 1883, the court imposed a judicial death sentence on Reconstruction in the "Civil Rights Cases" decision, which allowed private individuals and businesses to discriminate against blacks. Associate Justice Joseph Bradley wrote in the decision that freed slaves should stop being "a special favorite of the laws."
The most notorious post-Reconstruction decision involving race took place in 1895 when the Supreme Court legally sanctioned Jim Crow laws by enshrining the "separate-but-equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson. The court upheld a Louisiana law requiring that federal rail cars provide different facilities for white and black passengers.
By the late 19th century, the Supreme Court had "turned its back on the claims of blacks and opened its arms to those of corporations," Irons said. It was the onset of the Gilded Age, an era of widening income inequality that saw the court first introduce "corporate personhood," the concept that a corporation has the legal rights of a person.
"People were getting tired of concerns about racial minorities," said Irons, an activist whose book on the Supreme Court was partly inspired by the late liberal historian Howard Zinn and his book, “A People’s History of the United States.”
"The court is generally a mirror of the broader society, and that was the way most people felt at the time."
Irons and other liberal observers fear the current Supreme Court is drifting in a similar direction and anticipate that it will overturn or weaken a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as affirmative action in college admissions.
The court is expected to hear a challenge from Shelby County, Alabama, to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires nine Southern states and parts of others to "pre-clear" with federal officials any voting measures that could potentially restrict black voters.
The court is also due to rule on a case on affirmative action in college admission policies in Fisher v. University of Texas.
Irons said the conservative majority on the contemporary court would be doing what their counterparts did during Reconstruction, avoiding a frontal assault on civil rights laws and other measures that protect women and workers, while eviscerating the laws.
"It's unlikely that the court would render any decisions that would be totally reactionary on issues of race," said Irons, "but what they're doing in the current court is whittling away and cutting back very gradually on things like racial, gender and wage discrimination."
From post-racial to most racial
Some conservatives, though, have a different perspective on Reconstruction and any modern parallels.
Most historians say Reconstruction ended with the disputed presidential contest of 1876. An election too close to call was resolved when candidate Rutherford B. Hayes agreed to pull Northern troops out of the South in exchange for the presidency.
Schweikart, co-author of "A Patriot's History of the United States," said the United States abandoned Reconstruction because the nation could not call itself a democracy while keeping half its population under military occupation.
"Reconstruction ended, pure and simple, because the North could not afford economically, politically or socially to maintain a standing army in a part of the U.S. for an indefinite time and still call America a democratic republic," said Schweikart, a history professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio.
Borelli, author of "Blacklash," does see one contemporary link with 19th-century America. She argues that Obama is actually encouraging a new form of servitude to what she calls the "Big Government Plantation."
Since Obama became president, a record number of Americans, at least 46 million, now receive food stamps. And one in six Americans receives some form of government aid as the nation struggles to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"There are a lot of people who are relying on government for their basic everyday needs: food, clothing and shelter," said Borelli, who is outreach director for FreedomWorks, a Washington-based group that advocates for smaller government and lower taxes. "When you rely on government, your liberties are reduced."
Another conservative said Obama has tacitly endorsed reverse racism.
"You can't have a legitimate disagreement with the president if you're white without being called a racist," said Stephen Marks, creator of FightBigotry.com, a Super PAC that produced a television ad accusing Obama of not standing up to racism.
Marks said Obama said nothing when Vice President Joe Biden recently told an audience of black and white voters that Republicans were "going to put y'all back in chains."
"They're the ones who play the race card, 100% of the time," Marks said of Obama and Democrats. "The Republicans don't have the gonads to respond because they're so afraid of being called a racist."
What happened to Revels?
There's little disagreement among contemporary historians about what happened to the South when the nation abandoned Reconstruction. The region became a divided society where race filtered into everything, said Dray, author of "Capitol Men."
"It had a paralyzing effect. Business interests didn't want to invest there. Immigrants didn't want to go there," Dray said. "The South became this tainted place. Instead of moving into the 20th century, it stayed put in the 19th century."
The Jim Crow laws that marked the end of Reconstruction stayed put for at least 60 years. It would take a century before the contemporary civil rights movement restored the political and civil rights of blacks. Some historians argue that the United States did not actually become a democracy until 1965 with the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
Black pioneers like Revels disappeared from the history books. After serving his Senate term, he didn't seek reappointment and returned to Mississippi, where he eventually became president of Alcorn State College and pastor of a church.
He lost much of his black support for not speaking out against the abuses that ended Reconstruction, said Benjamin, the Boston University professor.
"He was an accommodationist," Benjamin said. "He was in the Senate standing up for white folks and telling people not to be so hard on Southern plantation owners. He didn't use his platform to represent African-Americans."
In 1901, Revels collapsed and died during a church meeting in Mississippi. That same year, the last black member of the House of Representatives finished his final term. Congress resumed being an all-white institution. Blacks had been driven out of office by beatings and assassinations.
Revels' death barely got a mention in the Southern press. His fellow black congressmen received the same treatment. Revisionist historians were already depicting Reconstruction as a fatal example of government overreach and Northern "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" coming South to profit off of the regions' misery, said Dray, author of "Capitol Men."
"When some of them passed away years later, the Southern press barely mentioned it," Dray said. "It was a part of American history that people did not want to remember. No one wanted to talk about it or think about it."
One group of Americans, however, never forgot what Revels represented.
During the Great Depression, Dray said, the federal government dispatched interviewers from the Works Progress Administration to the South to collect oral histories from former slaves.
The interviewers noticed a curious sight as they walked into the shacks of the former slaves. They saw faded copies of an 1872 lithograph depicting the first seven black members of Congress, including Revels.
The image is still haunting.
A group portrait of the first black African-American U.S. lawmakers, including Revels.
Revels and his fellow racial pioneers are posed together, dressed in vested suits and bow ties. They exude pride and determination, even though only several years earlier they weren't even considered fully human by many Americans.
Revels sits in the front row of the group portrait. He stares forward in the picture, a man who seems confident in what the future would bring.
What would he think of Obama if he could somehow see him today? Would he be delighted at what America has become in 2012?
Or would he think the future he embodied still seems far away?
Its important to read and understand the past, it let's us see through the eyes of the individuals of the time. I believe America and the world will continue to see racism as a reality in the future, what becomes important is that we and our children continue to educate ourselves, and be aware of what we see in our society. We have entered the 21st century and things are changing not only domestically but internationally as well, the are countries out there vying for the top spot, to become the next global leader.
American's can ill afford to fight amongst themselves and must put aside such things for their country as a whole to survive, prosper and lead the world in this new century. Those that continue to think their backwards thoughts, will be relegated to less than foot notes in history.
Don't just dismiss the writer or the subject, to do that is a mistake.
I have read quite a few comments that have danced around racism during the last three or four months. All anyone can do is educate, educate, educate.
I'm not a soft man, rather the opposite, but even my type knows there's way to much stupidity to think you can change it with a stick.
The president has done the best he could with what was left to him. The worst depression since before WW2. Cleaning up after two wars that were begun before he was in office. Two years of a republican party that has stood in his way of making progress for the country. Yet he has still manage to move the country forward.
He's still the man for the job and I hope he is given the opportunity to prove it.
Quote – "Two years of a republican party that has stood in his way of making progress for the country."
Really? What about all the NON-progress made during the first two years when he had both houses of Congress?
Did he worry about jobs? No.
Did he worry about homeowners in the real estate mess created by Clinton? No.
Did he even try to pass a budget? Only once and it was so bad his dem's in Congress wouldn't even touch it.
So what did he spend the first two years worrying about? Siding with his Cornell professor when he cried racism, and throwing the police officer (WHO WAS RIGHT) to the curb, taking care of his s0d0mites, partying at mega-thousand dollar plate dinners and with rap stars and such other filth, and touring the world saying how wrong and arrogant America has been, instead of realizing that if it wasn't for us stepping in to conflicts this last century we might very well not be here.
Nope, he's a failure. As for racism, it's the MOST overused word around.
The ease with which you refer to other people as 'filth' says something about you.
Racism in America is about is dead as it is ever going to get. Black people use the notion of racism as a crutch to make up for their shortcomings and to intimidate, especially when so many black people kill each other in the commission of a crime. White people resort to name calling and stereotyping as a reaction to the challenge to the status quo and reflects a diminished intellectual capacity. The true problem is tribalism. What is the difference? White people are happy to praise their sport teams on one hand and make derogatory comments about the inner city on the other. And black people will have no problem selling their own race down the river for money or if it keeps them out of prison. Obviously it is much more complicated and nuanced than the examples mentioned. For myself, I am just a shade darker than vanilla and have more animosity for my boss at work, who is white, than I have ever had for the combined peoples of another race.
I completely agree... and I have been saying this for years... In fact I feel that racism is used far too often as the easiest cop out. I get it alot, and I have a mixed child! How racist can I be?
I'm married to a woman how misogynist can I be? I have aged parents, how ageist can I be?
Thank you Lord for giving us a wonderful President for the past four years. We are hoping to be blesses with four more years but if that were not to happen the memories will abide for those that trust and respect him all over the world.
Did you all know that RACISM is what Satan is using to divide the World ? Unfortunately a lot are falling for it !
When someone commits a crime or hate, it has nothing to do with the color, it's an individual thing....
Read the Holy BIBLE while there's time for you. If you don't have Jesus in your life you will have no PEACE and just all Worries........... : )
Well said Derek, hopefully your peaceful post will be heard and read by more.
I think most people are missing the point of this article. It's not saying that all Republicans are racist or even that most Republicans are racist. It's simply using history to put the issue on the table. I believe this nation is more divided then it has been in quite some time and, what's worse, there isn't a clear concenses on where that comes from. Some would say it's Obama's "socialist policies", others would simply point to the "#1 goal is to make Obama a one term president" comments from a republican congress, still others will point to racism or a "welfare state". The truth is unclear and, while I have my opinions, I cannot say with certainty that they are fact. Maybe that's the problem. Just look at the comments section.
We have people saying this article is absolutely true(although the article simply shows different sides of the issue), others blame liberals for using the race card and then explain their reasons for not supporting Obama, still others respond with racist slurs and, my personal favorite, those who insist they are not racist before expressing their stance on Obama in terms that can only be described as racist. So take a step back people, read the article again if you need to, and take it for what it is.
The scariest thing in this story is "ANOTHER LIMBAUGH" ?
The "crack" vs. "regular" cocaine incredibly biased US drug laws ensure that only the poor "dealers" fill our jails. And for poor, read black. Well to do white users and small time sellers just get a slap on the wrist. Look up the numbers.
What is your measure of worth to Humanity.......NONE....I am sure that you do not have a measure of worth to yourself!
Sadly the United States is somewhere about 200 years behind what passes for civilization in the rest of the World. The vast majority of the rest of the World realizes that and unfortunately the rabble that make up the new Banana Republican Party doesn't.
Sadly there's always some racism mixed in there, no matter what you say and the more you deny it the more you affirm it.
Obama is doing fine and a lot of people don't want to see that either because of his skin color or because they believe everything the right wing crazies tells them.
For me it wasn't rascism. The President is supposed to be a leader, and he (Obama) was more interested in dividing. A real leader could have SOLD the healthcare system to the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just 51%. A real leader, who states his admin will be transparent, will make it transparent. Etc.. Etc.. Etc.. Its time for a leader in office, not a political clown. And no Romney doesn't make the cut either.
I think that this article isnt disputing the presidents qualifications, actions, or anything else. I think and feel free to correct me on this that the author was trying to draw historical parralels to the reconstruction era and was making observations and allowing the historians to expand on them. I found it very interesting from a historical stand point. any clarifying replys would be appreciated
Absolutely. And the same culture would I suspect like to see the civil war re-fought for the opposite outcome.
No the article is trying to point out that the same bias against black people exist as it did back then and then tries to realte that this same bias exist in relation to Obama who is black. It says nothing about his qualifications. This is interesting, because it you were going to give a reason why these biases shouldn't exist, then you should lead with his qualifications. The problem is he has no qualifications.
The article is far more nuanced than that. The thesis is how do some members of the dominant racial group react when their assumptions about power structures as aligned to race are challenged? The author asserts that there is a backlash, and that this was true in the 1870s as it is now. He is not implying that racism now is at the same levels as it was then, or that any white person who doesn't vote for Obama is racist (Though obviously race will figure when assessing a candidate. We tend to inherently prefer people who are like us)
I think he can spell "relate" better than you can
The only "R" word at play here is resentment. In virtually every urban area there are all too many black ganstas committing a lop-sided (per capita) amount of violent crimes (murder and robbery among them) which is glorified in rap-songs, videos, and movies. Will the community in question (as a whole) ever completely say no to this mind numbing tripe? If America were truly so racist Obama would have never won in 2008 – enough of this silly "woe is us" stuff.
Thanks for putting it so simply J.Williamson. Obama would have NEVER been elected the first time if this country was racist. The man just hasn't performed end of story. I fell for the hype. NO LONGER. What a disaster I voted for. Shame on me..
President Obama has performed admirably; the evidence is abundant and clear.
The only possible explanations for opposing him are racism and stupidity.
This country is well on the right track; the 'little government' republicans keep expecting the government to be the fix, or choose to blame it for THEIR OWN failures.
Cant have it both ways. If you dont live in a blue state, our taxes are paying for your 'share' of roads, national defense, and pretty much everything that enables you to 'build it yourself'
Yes Im angry, and yes afraid – of the ignorant stupidity thats letting racist twits shout so loudly.
Obama could do a better job, but he definitely is better for this nation than ANY GOP option presented pretty much ever.
Reagan sucked, get over the delusion.
Why do you think there are higher crimes per capita among blacks in inner city areas? Let's go beyond stating the obvious and analyse the underlying factors.
If anyone thinks that racism does not persist in this country read the comments related to this story.
I agree.. 97% of blacks voted for Obama in 08... That is true racism..
I don't think anyone would argue that racism exist, in many forms, all around the world - including here. But to say that it is racism that keeps many from wanting to re-elect a president that WON THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION is false. Racism exists and is still a problem in some forms, of course, but I don't think I'd use an anonymous board like this one as evidence of widespread racism. The most powerful man in this nation is a black man, and a majority of Americans voted for him. Does that not mean anything?
In highschool I wandered how it is that there can be "African American" scholarships, but if there is a "Caucasian" scholarship, it would be considered discriminatory. I often though of how I might apply for an "African American" scholarship just to see if my application was tossed out because of race.
Can anyone explain why reverse discrimination and racism is tolerated and accepted at ok?
*rolls eyes* Whenever I wonder how badly poor widdle me is being hurt by reverse discrimination, I feel pretty fortunate about half a second later when I realize that I'm white and have it far easier than I would if I were black. Stop embarrassing everybody by whining about how you wish you had it even easier than you already do. Take a moment and reflect on how you can walk into a job interview and not have your race be the very thing noticed about you. Sheesh.
Never said "I" was hurt by reverse racism. Funny how you get on the definsive so easily. I do have it pretty easy. My problem is that there are double standards and while I do have it pretty easy because I am white. I have friends who are white also, but come from very, very poor families. Briliant minds. Amazing people. While they apply for scholarships and miss the mark due to so many applications – with no race limitations, they watch as someone with less qualifications receives a scholarship with qualifications based largely on their race.
I see, you can defend racism when it's convenient.
Doesn't seem the way to overcome racism. It has to go both ways.
So, it's OK to be blatantly racist if the end justifies the means? WOW! We've come such a long way!
I think you miss the point. I truely understand the need for equality. But, in a world where one seeks equality shouldn't that equality be equal? How can one be equal if in order to achieve equality one must exclude others?
What if a hispanic, were eligible for one of these scholarships, with the exception of race? Do they not deserve "equality"? Has the discrimination against them not ensued long enough to warrant it?
@PeteH. It's not "blatantly racist" to offer scholarships to help black kids achieve some educational parity. I'm a white guy, I'm a teacher, I'm a conservative, but I can tell you this: educational opportunities in this country need to be more equitable. The way we fund schools, the way tax dollars are used, deteriorating inner-city schools, etc. There are THOUSANDS of scholarships offered, but the few that cater to black kids are the ones to be singled out. Ridiculous.
That's like Romney saying, "There's racism in America because there is no food stamps program for billionaires"
For a very long time whites had rights that minorities didn't have access to. Example, eating at the lunch counters, being able to use clean restrooms, and being able to vote without being intimidated. Yes, there were some whites who stood with minorities and were threatened, but those things and others were afforded to the whites only. Do you really think things should have remained that way? Have you looked at the fact that blacks literally fought a tough battle to get to where they are. You may not believe it but blacks were not always able to get an education so when certain scholarships became available it opened up a whole new world for most blacks.
Great essay–to some it must really sting, to others they must shake their heads, to others things aint changed much, and to others there may still be some hope for this great country. One thing for sure in some countrys you would not be having this discussion openly! Hang on America we can move forward and be better.
You know.. Alot of whites voted for Obama in 08 and >97% of blacks... What does that say about the racial bias of the black community? I am white and I vote based on which man most reflects my core beliefs not the color of the skin.. Shoot, I was excited when I thought that Allen Keys might run and I am looking forward to Rubio running and there is another black women from the mid-west that I think is going to be awesome...
Yet, many voted for Obama not based on his past accomplishments because he didn't have any.. He was in the senate for less than a year before starting his campaign for president in that time he voted mostly "present"... They voted for him because they didn't like Bush and they bought the whole hope and change lines along with all the promises like deficit reduced in 1/2, no lobbiests, etc.. and etc.. Well; it just not that way and with Ambassadors and other American's dead and there were cables that requested more security that were denied, cables from August that described the embassy as a sitting duck and notes of terrorist organization and camps all over, then that dreaded night when cries for help were ignored and Obama when to bed...
No.. I'm not voting for him because he black.. I'm not voting for him because he left 30 people to die in Libya after repeated cries for help.. Thank God some could not take the cries any longer and went and helped anyway resulting in their death.. Where was Obama? Asleep.. That sir is not only Un-Presidential but Un-American and not worthy of the office...
Blacks vote democrat in overwhelming numbers. >90% voted for Clinton, so you don't have sufficient data to support your claim. About Libya, please don't make up your mind too soon. There is usually a lot of noise around controversial issues like this. Wait until the facts come out (not speculations and surmisations from parties with vested interests) then direct blame at whoever deserves it.
really.... get over it people racism is bred into some people its never going to vanish into thin air, ignore those who hate and move on! its that simple
P.S. robmey and obama bin laden will kill this country enjoy voting on your demise
Everyone needs to get past this "Slavery/civil war/white man keeping the black man down" BS and look at the facts at hand. The old slavery, civil rights, etc is over and done with. Former Secretary of State Rice (appointed by Bush), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell is black, several US Senators, state governors, representatives, etc.
So lets stop with the racial pity party and start looking at facts.
1. Unemployment is still at an all time high.
2. The national debt is the highest it has ever been.
3. National Security policy is struggling.
4. Foreign policy is failing,
Now those who want to use the racial card as a way to motivate/manipulate the rest of the US to vote can do so...but it's a lack of integrity on your part to focus on race rather than facts!
look at the facts in hand?Sure....in 2008,under republican leadership we suffered the greatest recession since the Great Depression......not only did the US economy fall,the entire world suffered.So......now you think Obama will wave his magic wand and transform everything into candyland like that?Your facts are skewed,unless you look at the root cause.
Most of the other nations are suffering because of thier liberal policies. Greece and the other European nations are hanging by threads because they are bleeding out due to the socialist programs that pay thier people with money that their people don't make. We borrow from China and oen day China will cash in. Canada has turned its economy around by lowering its taxes on businesses.
Apparently he thinks he had one.. He said he was going to stop the rising oceans and cut the deficit in 1/2 after his first term, not hire any lobbiest, unemployment would never get above 8%, HIS budget that HE submitted didn't get ONE vote from ONE DEM.. He has flip flopped on government paid abortions, mandated birth control, debt ceiling limits, automatic spending cuts, Israel, Russia, Iran, involvement in other countries, etc.. I could go on and on..
Face it.. He is an academic whose plans only work in an essay.. Give me Romney who has not spent his entire life on the dime of the taxpayer.. Who has started and ran successful businesses, who came into a failing Olympics and got it in the black, who doesn't just vote "present"... Yeap.. I'm ready for a change..
Republicans need to get grip and start to focus on a viable candidate for 2016. Romney fails on so many levels it is just breathtaking that he polls so close to the President. Obama/Biden 2012!
DWIGHT said: "...Most of the other nations are suffering because of thier liberal policies..."
I say – Hogwash and/or Blarney. What a ditto-headed, scripted-intp-your-brain reguritation – verbatim – of a "talking point" you probably heard from a dozen confusative lackeys.
The TRUTH is: These so-called "liberal" policies worked supremely fine for almost half a decade until the "greatest generation", whom had thrown them out of Washington (the GOP didn't have a majority an eother house from 1932 until 1994's low-turnout midterms = SIXTY TWO YEARS) maybe either died, forgot or quit voting and the GOP started to get a bigger share of seats in both houses in the late 60s. Then they started to corrupt the very systems that made this the greatest country on the planet to live in.
Those "other countries" were also doing just fine until they started having "Conservative" governments. Like Margaret Thatcher and John Major in Britain in the 80's, Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schroeder in Germany in the 80's and 90's, the "bunga bunga" guy who ruled Italy for a decade and a half, and Jacque Chirac in France in the 90's/early 2000's.
THE TRUTH is that "liberal policies" were done in by CONSERVATIVE MALFEASANCE where these countries – and OUR COUNTRY'S – conservative functionaries robbed the public tills with the ruse/lie of "privatizing" and "deregulation" by which they made billions directly out of the public treasury.
I was a republican but after the conservative Democrates started joining the party I left. Not every Republican is a racist but their sin is allowing racism to florish within their ranks. If there is anybody who doesn't think most of America's avowed racists are now Republican you just haven't been paying attention. I usually keep my political beliefs to myself and I was shocked at some of the blatantly racist E-mail I have been sent by conservative Republicans thinking I was of a like mind.
Sometimes it is hard to keep the wrong people from crashing your party. The Democrats have never disavowed the Black Panther party either because it would mean the loss of votes. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Remember, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln. They passed the 1960s reforms when the southern Dems tried to block it.
Racists have no party.
As it becomes Obama is going to lose...the liberal media is trotting out the racism excuses
Republicans need to get grip and start to focus on a viable candidate for 2016. Romney fails on so many levels it is just breathtaking that he polls so close to our President. Obama/Biden 2012!
[almost] always: yes.... bizarrely though... this might be the only time [ever] your reply is incorrect...
The blacks are the BIGGEST racists of them all! 98% of blacks voting for Obama is proof.
Actually the core of many hospitals and home health care systems are black women and you better hope you never need neither.
its funny that people get wound up about the libya incedent as political, lacks on foreign policy when a nut job kills more in our own country. just becuse it happened to a diplomat its a big deal politics. i guess you blame the oval office for the nut jobs mcveigh,mr orange hair killed people cause of a movie get real
I see a lot of comments here, but none mask the fact that this article is true. So many hard core Democrat friends suddenly are now staunch GOP supporters. Politics and stances of the parties haven't changed, just the race of the man in the office. Such thinly veiled racism in FL and NC where I lived the past 4 years is sickening. Grow up, bullies. Racism...Thats all it boils down to, really, when you sit the Obama haters down.
Right all those white Obama voters suddenly became racists in 2012
Wow. White Girl you are truely amazing. It all boils down to racism? Really? What a sad day it is in America, when the left believes anything the media says. Seriously racism? I am speechless. This is the reason people are going away from the left. I am 30 yrs old and I am so dissapointed in the people my age that are voting for Obama and repeating the crap the liberal media puts out. So very sad. A true picture of what America is these days.
OR perhaps your "hard core Democrtaic friends" have seen the nation not go in the direction they thought it would go over the past four years. It is called buyers remorse. When you cannot accept any other explination you have to blame it on something else.
I love you and so does Jesus.
From an African-American girl
Race has nothing to do with why so many American's can't stand Obama. Even those that supported him were hopeful that he would bring the country together. The country today is more divded. And its not "whity's" fault, as this article seems to suggest. Obama is the man at the top. And to still claim that this country is "racist".........completely wrong.
race has nothing to do with why so many of us want him to serve another four,either. ;)
The fact that blacks give so little support to whack-a-doo African-American candidates like Herman Cain or Allen West is proof that blacks won't vote for anyone who happens to be black. Barrack Obama got roughly the same level of support form the African-American community as Bill Clinton or Al Gore.
Herman Cain and the other guy are too intellectual to appeal to most blacks; that's why they didn't endorse him. Obama is all folksy and "hope and change", but he doesn't address the issues deeply.
I read one commentary about how the 'obamaphone' discourse disregarded the fact that free cell phones were already part of a program that originated before obama, therefore the discourse was bogus.
The fact is, the woman the shouted out about how she had an "Obamaphone" was objectionable because she attributed it to Obama, not a program that originated before Obama came to office. It was an example of how ignorant many people are about what is attributable to Obama and what is not. Even more, the woman who claimed her aid was coming from "Obama's stash". Obviously there was no understanding of how US economy works, or where her aid came from.
Do we want or need ignorant people to vote? I say no, and I hope they are convinced Obama will win, and stay home on November 6th. Think "Obamaphone", and "Obama's stash" and you'll agree with me.
America will be "post racial" when racists like Burton and "some historians" quit insisting that any time a white person points out the failure of a black person that it's due to racism.
The election of Obama may have been historic, but the more important event will be the defeat of Obama for re-election because it will prove that the country is no longer terrified of being wrongly accused of racism by firing an incompetent individual simply because he's black.
Of course racism is alive and well. Just recently there was a study done about employment. They found that it was easier for a white person with a criminal record to get a job compared to a black person with no criminal record. White man is trying hard to keep a brother down.
How did the find the black man with no criminal record?
So what you are saying is that a black employer would rather employ a white man with a criminal record than a black man with no criminal record. That's rough.
More racial crap from the liberal left...
I live in a solid red state. (Been called the Republican stronghold of the south by the GOP). I am an independent forced to vote Democratic because of the extreme stances of the Republican party. And I hear Republicans whine about Obama daily (they think I'm a Republican to), and in my travels around this region, I can honestly tell you...60% of it is racism. I'm sorry if that offends Republicans but that's just how it is..I hear it in and out on a daily basis, along with the usual slew of garbage (opinion) from fox news that people think is true. So all the people saying the hate of Obama isn't about race are just being dishonest, because no matter where I go in this area I see it day in and day out (I won't use the exact wording these people slip up and use around me).
Certainly Not News strikes again! If you want to lament racism, then be honest about which party invented the KKK, and Jim Crowe. And that nice little image of the "black lawmakers' ... ALL OF THEM ARE REPUBLICANS.
You are confused. The parties flipped during the Goldwater/Rockefeller debates in 1964. Before that Democrats were highly states rights oriented and going back further, Republicans were by and large the abolitionists. That said, Republicans of today are Democrats of yesterday, and vice versa. So you make your claim in name only. Factually, you are correct, but the parties have since switched places. The abolitionist point of view has always been represented by progressives. Whether they are called Republicans or Democrats is irrelevant with respect to their flipping. I'd be willing to bet the face of both the GOP and Dems will change moving into 2016 should Romney lose his election bid. The GOP is poised to fall off a cliff which would swing it back to the middle. They'd lose the tea party but shore up blue dogs forcing the Dems further to the left in 2016. As of right now, that scenario appears likely considering Obama's (let's look at reality and not your emotions please) growing electoral lead. It seems more and more unlikely Romney can make it happen and maintain the GOP status quo into 2016.
Incisive fact based analysis. If I have to wade through all the dross posted here to get to a comment like this, then it's worth it.
There is one major difference between the 1800s and today. America including American whites are nose deep in debt. One wrong move by any of them will bring this country crashing down...yes, I mean market crash, economic crash, etc. I did not live in the 1800s, but I can say that if all what history says is true....Rosewood, Tulsa, St. Louis, etc....are things of the past. Another thing is that it is easier to impose segregation when there are two groups, in this case, blacks and whites. It is a lot more difficult if there are more...and now Hispanics are larger in number than the blacks and then there are a large number of Asians as well. Like the person on death row, some white Americans are afraid of their predicament...the day when they become a minority, and if I had committed the crimes their ancestors did, I would be scared too!
You must hate waking up in the morning. The truth is that if your family has lived in America for over three generations the chances that you are of a mixed race are pretty certain...black, indian, etc. My father's side came from Germany two generations ago, but my mother's side has blackfoot indian in it, because they have lived here in America for over five generations. Obama is half-caucasion, so you must partially like him, but the chances are pretty great that you are not-pure white so you must really hate yourself.
Seriously, did you doubt for a minute that racism was gone. Give it up. It will always be around. You can create laws that force behavior you can not change peoples hearts, especially by constantly pointing out differences in us rather than what unifies us. When you have a Black History month or advertise a "Black college, black magazine, black pride..." you are pointing out differences. And so not come out with the "celebrating our differences" routing. It is- in and of itself- biased. What if I celebrate how different I am from a black person? What if I have a "white club, white college or white pride.." it is seen as 'hate' rather than celebrating my differences. I was born into an era where equality was already established so the 'in our past' doesnt wash with me either. All I know is what I have lived, seen and been taught. Looking at it from that perspective, I am truly weary and tired of pointing out differences and fueling campaigns with racism and trying to win votes based on dividing Americans down ethnic lines. Lets grow up as a people and celebrate our American heritage and our American pride and move on!
Really? Racism will "always be around" you say? Why do you think that? I see no reason for racism to always be around.. I'm over the race thing – so are many many others...
That was very well said sound off.
Let me guess.... you're white?
You're right. People are people. Some are better at doing certain things than others. Has nothing to do with skin color. I believe Romney will do a better job than Obama. So I'm voting for Romney.
Please, please stop calling black people African-American when they were born in the United States. I swear that's almost as inflammatory as intentionally using derogatory language. Are black people not wholly American so there has to be a caveat? Are white people born in the US ever called European-American? I know a white guy born in South Africa who is rightfully an African-American. But black people born here on US soil are NOT, I repeat NOT African-Americans. Just Americans. For crying out loud...
Neither are trolls.
Sure Sam Bucket – but the TARP was a bailout reacting to the subprime mortgage crisis which Bill Clinton started during his administration – don't blame Bush.
Bush had 8 years to fix it......what happened?He had 8 years to fix the problem,what happened?His watch,his fault.He should've done something about it,but he didn't.
The Sub Prime Housiong Bubble is called a bubble for a reason in that the point at which it popped and collapsed was during Bush's time, but it was initated during Clinton's term and supported by the Democratic Congress during Bush's term up to that point. Bush hasn't stepped all over and past Congress the way that Obama has constantly done.
funny how republicans want Obama to own up to some of the things that happened under his watch,but when we go back to Bush-–ITS CLINTONS FAULT! You have your own cop-out,huh?
Calling BS here. Sub- prime debacle was not a Clinton government induced problem. Check out Sheila Bair's book. It was Wall St. behaving badly with regulators with their head in the sand. Once you understand how WS works you will realize it wasn't a problem caused by too many people trying to live above their means. It was WS making supremely leveraged bets with other peoples money and then trying to distance themselves from the risk by securitizing debt and packaging off for the 'muppets' to buy.
while we are calling out bs here,let me call out yours......wall street was not the problem.The problem was the insurance companys giving out bad loans,and the banks giving them the go-ahead with the money.Then,when the floor came out,which was inevitable,the banks suddenly went under,and the USA and world along with it.What did wall street have to do with that?
Bush had 8 years to fix anything Clinton did,that could hurt the economy.He didn't....bottom line.I suppose if you don't want to accept that,its your problem.Keep believing in your 'hero'
Please tell me how Clinton is responsible for the sub-prime bubble? There's a quote from Krugman back in 2002 about why creating a mortgage bubble in response of the 2002 downturn was a good idea. The article is called "How Krugman Got it Wrong". The bubble was created to hoist up stalling markets still struggling from the stock bubble burst and subsequent slowdown that rolled from 2001 to 2003. It worked until that bubble burst. Don't blame Bush. Don't blame Clinton. Blame Greenspan, Bernanke, and other like minded idiot economists who sold us all a bill of goods.
I'm a white conservative Southerner and that is the dumbest statement I've ever heard. They allow you to breed.
Yes and there is a lot of press about the hate and negativism towards Pres. Obama and yet you don't see signs, protest or hear comedians express the hate and negativism like they did towards Bush and these were on national TV. Comparitively Pres. Obama has it easy. Funny you don't hear the noise over our involvement in Afganistan and the deaths of our people, even in Benghazi by the liberals.
Articles like this are what divides America. When you point out differences, dramatize them and magnify them only to glorify some and downcast others, you divide Americans and YOU create the rift. This article is a perfect example!
This article is just discussing what is so evident to minorities; it discusses the undeniable racist atmosphere that America is falling back in to and many would say- never left. Any psychologist will tell you to acknowledge what others feel. You can't continue to sit in a corner with your eyes closed and say "it's not happening." I can tell it is very obvious to minorities at large.
Racism is alive and well. Just look at that idiot Truth's comments. All you idiotic conservatives trying to re-write America's horribly racist past better tell him to keep it down; he's saying what you really think.
He's a troll wanting this reaction. Congratulations for giving him what he wants.
Yes, because a couple of comments on a website equals white America. Brilliant logic sir.
"Truth" is an idiot without a village. Much of 'white" America doens't share his sentiments and shouldn't be judged by his ranting, just like I'm sure that the Jeremiah Wright or the Black Panther association doesn't represent all of "black" America.
"Nobody is better or worse; we are all created equal."
I disagree. Prove me wrong. You can't.
This piece is dishonest on its face. If this country does not choose to re-elect Obama, it DOES NOT Implicate the country as racist. What would be racist is not allowing the man to stand up for re-election, just as every other president in history has done, based upon his record of achievement or lack of achievement. If we are treating Obama differently because of the color of his skin, then we are being racist. He shouldn't be given an extra chance just because he is black if it is the opinion of the country that he has not kept his promises; not done a good job governing and a majority feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Personally, his race HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with my not supporting him in 2012. It is his poor job performance and my philosophy on limited government. If there were a black conservative running against a white liberal, I would WITHOUT HESITATION, vote for the black, Hispanic, Asian whatever conservative candidate. I don't know why this is so difficult for the left and elite media types to understand!!!
maybe thats not your reason for voting against him,but for many,it is.......read up on the 5 steps to fascism,and america is on that path.America has taken 3 steps toward becoming a fascist state--only two remain.
I can give you a list of reasons this country is headed toward Marxism. This is all rhetoric. It is not based in fact.
The voter id laws are all about the racist America we live in.
Interesting that it was required for Obama in liberal Chicago to show his ID to vote. It was caught on tape. Was that a racist law put into place way back when?
Thanks for even insinuating that all those who didn't vote for Obama consider him a "N."
Once again perpetuating the stereotype like a good little liberal.
When will you people get over the fact that the vast majority of those who didn't vote for Obama could care less about his color and more with the fact that he is a Democrat?
Do you think we'd support a white Democrat any more or less than we've done for Obama? Think again.
feel sorry for you.....
Wanted to repost my list of why Obama's race has nothing to do with why he will not be re-elected with the requested corrections.
1. 23 million unemployed
2. 43 strait months of 8%+ unemployment
3. 45 million on food stamps
4. African-American poverty at record highs.
5. Gas prices doubled
6. African-American youth unemployment at over 40%
7. Hispanic unemployment at 10.3%
8. Food Prices up more than 25%
10. Average household income declined $4,300
11. Heath Insurance increases $1,500
12. Only President to have US credit downgraded (TWICE)
13. Over 100 million people on some form of means tested welfare.
14. $6 Trillionadded to our debt; More than all Presidents combined.
15. US AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA RAPED AND MURDERED BY TERRORISTS AFTER REQUESTING MORE SECURITY
16. Wispering to Russian Leader he will have more "flexibility" after election
maybe you should throw in the recession that caused it all in 2008......when republicans held office.And you want us to give them another shot at it,so they can dig us deeper???Not me.
Tell me what Obama has done to help the situation? Please. So far no one has answered this question. I have asked it six times I believe.
First of all,he has ended the costly war in Iraq......what was it,a trillion a year?Thats BIG.Secondly,tax cuts.Thirdly,he is signing multiple trade deals with various country's,to try and gain american profit from overseas trade deals.Those are a few.However,it is not an easy task......do you remember how many people lost their homes under the Bush recession?Kind of hard for them to find jobs,when they have no home,isn't it?I guess thats Obamas fault,too?
sarah-–now that I have answered your question,answer this....why should we give the republicans another chance,since the great recession happened under their watch?What about them should we trust?
How about this?
Romney has said he can "fix" the economy in 8-10 years.
Yet, he's only giving Obama FOUR?
anony--I heard him say that in the third debate as well! Funny,huh?Even Romney knows its no quick fix to this mess.I guess he gave himself 10,so that if got elected,then reelected,and he couldn't fix the economy,he could say,"I told you so!" lol
And a great many of the policies that helped lead to our current economic situation began under the Clinton administration. It is a fact that both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration were culpable. It is also fact that President Obama has increased the deficit and helped create more economic problems. Both parties are to blame - it cannot be laid on one of them. It's just funny to me that the president's supporters will blame GWB for the entire recession, while exempting HIS predecessor (Clinton), but it's ok to blame all of the current president's problems on his predecessor (Bush).
So, let's get this straight. All of Clinton's successes were ALL Clinton's doing. All of Bush's failures were ALL his doing. And all of Obama's failures are ALL Bush's fault. Ok.
1) We are still at war. Although, I agree with you... Obama is trying to save money by defunding our military and foriegn security... hence why security was not provided to Chris Stevens in Libya upon request.
2) Tax Cuts = Bush. Thanks, but weren't you blaming Bush for this? And Obama keeps his tax cuts and his budget... hmmmm nice work there.
3) Overseas trade deals? How are those working out?
Wow – Thank you Obama for all of your HARD work over FOUR YEARS. Three policy items and one you kept from the administration you say caused it all!
I look at Romney's record in MA. I like his bipartisanship and results he gets with whatever he wishes to accomplish. And at the very least... He's not Obama and I'm not going to get four more years of this failed Presidency.
greg-I will repeat myself again,for your benefit.Sorry,but Bush had 8 years to fix anything in the economy that wasn't good.If there were things about the economy VClinton did,that were destructive,Bush did nothing about it.Bush's watch,Bush's fault.
You Libs just love to blame everything on W, don't you. It was Clinton that signed the Repeal of Glass Steagall in November 1999. Clinton even said "that is one thing I would want to take back". Makes you wonder if he wanted that "do over" more then CigarGate.
Also, the Democrats had the house and senate from January 3rd, 2007 to January 2011. Remember the President doesn't make the budget, congress does. Bush wouldn't sign the budget for 2008 because it had too much pork in it. So, Nancy kept passing resolutions to keep the goverment running (and 0bama voted on the resolutions whilst in the senate) until 0bama could get into the White and sign that pork laden budget. I'll say one thing about you democrats, you guys love to spend the taxpayers money.
you want Obama to not blame Bush for what happened,and yet you want to blame Clinton now?What hypocrisy......your 'hero',Bush,had 8 years to fix the economy....instead it fell out from underneath him.Now,we pay the price.
Phil--unfortunately for you,we are only 4 years removed from the greatest recession this country has seen,since the Great Depression.And you think that has no bearing on today?That would be foolish to think it has no repercussions today.History is relevant,especially when it still affects the present.
Mr. Sparks... What about Libya? Love to hear how you think Bush caused Obama to reject his requests for security and then lie about what caused the attack, blaming America's right to free speach.
I think we've already seen that he has failed in economic policies over the last four years. Interested in your thoughts on foriegn relations. You like that comment he made to Russia regarding "more flexibility" don't you?
aaaaah sarah.....why is it I KNEW when nobody could respond to my logic on the economy,we would suddenly go to Libya?Just lucky thinking,I guess? lol Is this the first time the gov't has not been completely honest about something?C'mon,seriously?I can remember not so long ago,we had to have a congressional hearing just to get the republican president to be honest about 3,000 dead on 9-11.If you think the gov't,republican or democrat,is going to be completely honest with the american people,you are living in a dream world.
Many of these are the same reasons I won't be voting to re-elect the president, whom I voted for four years ago. I has zero, zip, nada to do with his race. But two things are wrong with your list:
1. You are a racist, so you're viewpoint is skewed.
2. All of the above are George Bush's fault alone, and President Obama was just digging out of his mess.
I joke, of course, but those of us who have serious disagreements with the president's policies and the direction he wants to take this nation have had to deal with the above for four years. It has become sport to label all of us racists and to blame every single problem on GWB. I was not a big fan of GWB's presidency, and I had some real problems with some of his policies and actions, too. But when you've been president for four years and we are crawling along with almost no growth, millions out of work, millions more have stopped looking, the deficit is skyrocketing...well, I think there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of another four years. But anyone who levels a racism charge at me or anyone else who has legitimate policy disagreements with the president is the bigot.
We were told that to disagree with the president and the government when believe we are going the wrong direction was patriotic when GWB was president. And I agree - that is patriotic when done for the right reasons. But now anyone who disagrees is racist, or at least a "closet" racist. Ridiculous.
But of you call Obama
Then, you are.
I love it when folks like you post a list of cherry picked facts like you've proven something. Let me try to get something across to you that you seem to be unaware of: HE INHERETED THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC CRASH SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!
I'm not going to blame Bush – deregulation under Clinton got the bubble going – then again, Bush fiddled while Rome burned, which is what he was really good at.
Thanks to his economic policies, Obama saved us from breadlines. So you're list about the unemployed and people on food stamps and all that crap? It would have been worse – much, much worse if the federal government hadn't stepped in. And had the Repulicans been at work trying to get things going instead of utterly failing in their duty to this country, we would not have lost our credit rating. They decided that a bad economy would help them win more seats and maybe even the presidency. So, we have conservative policies – deregulation of financial industry – leading to a massive crash under Bush that was then handed to Obama who has had to fight a bunch of Republican do-nothings in congress (worst congress in history – look it up) and has still managed to get the economy growing again. In case you missed it, hiring is picking up, unemployment is heading down. If Europe can hold it together we will be in much better shape this time next year. But only if Americans aren't stupid enough to elect Mitt Romney – whose plans are mathematically impossible.
Obama's plan to help private business = Create more government (a.k.a. A Business Secretary?)... Seriously??? This guy knows nothing about business and yet he's supposed to lead our country back to economic prosperity. I really don't blame him. I couldn't do it either. It's time we put someone qualified in the White House! Mitt Romney 2012.
Defund the military? Did you really just type that? You are stupid beyond words. We have the most bloated, rediculous military budget on the planet – MANY times over! I can't believe people like you get to vote. Wow. Defund the military. Did Rush say that? Or Glen? Which was it? Moron.
please inform me: Where did u hear that the US Ambassador was raped? Can you elucidate with facts?
Who said obama was intelligent? It won't release its college transcripts. At least W and Gore released their college transcripts.
Harvard law review always appoints the dumbest person in the class to be president.
Playing the race card is the ONLY thing the komrade libs have left Dave B. Their prez can't run on its abysmal record so the only thing the komrade libs can do is to deflect from each and every American SHOULD be judging Maobama on, its record.
Ah, hahah! Isn't sarcasm great?
Your views are shaped by the media. What do you really know, I mean really know–your research, reading, and reviewing the relevant data. This is how you know something and can speak with some sense–not let others do the work for you–you have been played and sound so.
Speaking of the past, why is Obama still using Bush's budget if it was so bad. In fact, why won't his opwn party even consider his last two.
maybe you didn't read the article.....lol
Maybe you haven't been reading the comments posted by the resident race baiters. That is what I was referring to, the resident race baiters.
my reason for voting for Obama has nothing to do with race(as I am white male),but all about economy.I see the republican held presidency in 2008 as responsible for our current situation.You may disagree,but that is my view.Anyway,it is not about race for all....but for some it is.
What has Obama done to help the economy in the 4 years he has been President?
What has he done? He passed the stimulus, saved the auto industry, expanded student loans programs, and had other plans like a jobs plan that fell through thanks to the do nothing obstruction Congress, that has filibustered everything, even a bill to help veterans get jobs. They are fine with paying to get them into war, but heaven forbid we spend money on helping them when they come home! You want someone to blame slow progress on? Blame it on House and Senate republicans. They wanted the president to fail. Considering what he was up against, he has done good. Unemployment is GOING DOWN. The dow is up. Stocks are up, 401ks are back. Companies are making RECORD PROFITS. And yet you people call him a socialist? What socialist runs a country where companies are making record profits? Wake UP! Please, for the sake of our country, wake up! No party or politician is perfect, but Obama is the right path forward.
Not to mention saved the auto industry. You have any idea how many jobs would have been lost if that had failed. Not just the auto makers, but dealership employees, parts employees. You cannot imagine the magnitude of jobs saved based on that alone. And now they are doing good. Romney can try to whitewash it all he wants, but he wanted to let it fail. The stories now claiming otherwise are BUNK. And he specifically said if they did what Obama did, the auto industry could be kissed goodbye. He was WRONG. The Right is always wrong. At what point does being continually wrong about everything finally get people to wake the hell up?
Very reasonable view. I disagree, but nothing wrong with that. Solange, I keep hearing the mantra that the president "saved the auto industry." Going through bankruptcy, which is what companies do when they make an inferior product and aren't making enough money, would not have equaled the end of it. They simply would have gone through the bankruptcy process. That's not something any company wants, but it sometimes happens. Many companies have survived it.
Because Obama had to go so far right to please the repubs in congress the democrats wont even consider it. The republican party of today is nothing like what it was. They are more extreme than ever. They are slowing progress, they need to be voted out. And if I have my way, they will be.
In the end,the love of most will wax cold.......nation will rise against nation,kingdom against kingdom.......but he who endures(in love)to the end,will be saved.
Wow- alot of absolute "yes or no" statements on this board. Racism either exists or it doesn't. Obama is either this or he's that. Everything's 100% this or 100% that. Silly, and the sign of a simple mind IMO.
I voted for Obama in 2008, and I'll vote for his again this year. I don't care what his racial make-up is. Based on current polling, he will receive a majority of the vote from every racial demographic in the country on Tuesday. It is also a fact, however, that he received over 95% of the African-American vote in 2008. No candidate from either party has garnered such strong support from one demographic. It is intellectually dishonest to think that race did not play into that support. I'm not suggesting that it's the only reason he got elected, or any of that silly nonsense, but it suggests that race is very much a factor in our society's decision-making. The amount of vitriol toward his racial make-up from other segments of society does so as well. Did it help him get elected? Yes, and that's not arguable based on the numbers. Was it decisive? No, and again, that's not arguable based on the overall voting stats.
that was well put. I myself will not be voting for Obama but it has nothing to do with skin color. I've never voted for a Democrat and never will. At least not until they change their stance on killing babies.
And the vitriol from the right pales in comparison to that I've seen from the left on these chat boards.
To even think that Obama lost more votes because of his race than he got because of it is plain idiocy. The facts and the statistics prove, as you've indicated, that Obama carried the African American demographic by historic proportions. That certainly wasn't only because he was a Democrat.
I vote not for the man but the substance of that man's, or woman's, character. A person who condones the killing of unborn children is, in my opinion, without any positive moral character. That makes them unworthy in my eyes.
If Obama is reelected, it will the first time in my life I hate my country and will act accordingly
Hate to say it but you're just asking for an LEA visit aren't you?
Really, Robert? I mean, really? What exactly will you do?
No offense, but this is an example of that "all or nothing" thinking I mentioned above. "I love my country" or "I hate my country." Either way, it's your country, and it has its good and its bad. No matter who wins an election, there are always people on the opposite side who say they will "move to Canada" or "take matters into their own hands".
It's a presidential election, not the apocalypse. Six different political parties have been represented by this office, and none of them destroyed the Republic.
Well done, sir. Or ma'am. :)
would that be before or after he murdered millions of them?
most likely: yes.
The fact is that nowadays racism flows from both sides. Lets all be honest and not try and sugar-coat against one group or the other (White/Black).
Also, the sad truth is that Mr. Obama and the Democrats have advanced and used racism more than any other elected group of politicians. I realize most Blacks don't want to hear this. However, if we are really honest with ourselves; IT IS the sad truth.
I totally agree!
I agree....racism flows both ways.......I disagree that Obama has used racism.Please name the things he said,and when that were racist.
truth-–its not the fact you are full of hate....its that one day you will answer to God for your life here on earth.If you don't change,I feel sorry for you on that day.
Thanks for this timely piece. As election day looms, I and friends have been wondering about the closeness between candidates as spoken by the polls. It is easy enough to understand a close race....but not when one campaign has been run as poorly as has Gov. Romney's. Our recovery as a nation is, of course easy to see by just about anyone. We have universal healthcare, we have an auto industry, the Bush wars are close to history, finally....simply stated: It should be easy for America to weigh this particular choice and to see that an Obama presidency offers clear benefits to a giant majority. The elephant in the room has seemed to be the only hope for Mr. Romney's campaign since early-on to me...but the closer we get to election day, the tightness of the race just becomes more heart-wrenching as more and more we have to look beyond the applicable issues and the obvious superiority of the case made by one of the candidates...for answers. I believe President Obama will win and in doing so, show the world that we are growing here still....but it is still sad.
Yes the auto industry...one owned by an Italian company, one owned by the gorvenment and then there is Ford. Chevy is continuing to go down and the stocks owned by America are goign down as well. Even if GM would have gone bankrupt it wouldn't have dissolved into nothingness, it would have leaned down and gotten stronger and emerged as a stronger company. Romeny who has been in business knows how businesses work. Right now GM is making cars that no one wants at the governments behest and they will never pay us back.
A very prolific writing by Tom Luken, but unfortunately inaccurate. Obama does not stand a chance of re-election. When you pass the largest tax increase in American history and cram the "government socialized medicine" program down the throats of voters when they clearly do not want it does not ensure Obama a victory. Remember the polls said, and continue to say – only 38% of Americans favor the healthcare plan. Second, Bush started the bailout of the auto industry before the elections, which were a huge mistake. The auto industry is moving the manufacturing overseas. GM and Chrysler have all announced plans to move most of their manufacturing overseas. What about the tens of thousands of shareholder's of GM stock that were told their investment was worthless, so the Unions could be stabilized and given more ownership in the company; these were retirees, pension funds, and private individuals that lost everything so the Unions could be made whole. Finally, your comment about the Bush wars. I guess you forgot the 85% approval rating in going into Iraq. America was being attacked on a daily basis while my friends and family flew the no fly zones over Iraq. Bush got a coalition of more than 130 countries to go in with the United States. Thankfully we now have a candidate that will restore America back to the great country it is; get our respect back, and move this country economically to where it should have been before the collapse of the housing industry that was caused by bills passed by a Democratic congress as far back as the Clinton Administration.
since I'm sure some obama-lovers will want to refute your last comment about Clinton-era legislation:
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992
That defined what an "eligible" person was and mandated banks to use the definition therein to decide who they "could" lend to. That legislation during Clinton's first term required banks to lend to people who simply put were High Risk. Then, Mortgage Backed Securities were "invented" as a way to keep the lending business moving. Truly, MBS's only obfuscated how toxic those government mandated loans really were... Fast forward to October 2008: bubble collapse.
No, that wasn't The Cause of the collapse – it was just the first big step towards it.
Romney is criticized because he is rich and yet Obama lived in a multimillion dollar house in Chicago and went to all of the best schools, raised and supported by his white mother and white grandparents. This is complaining about someone who has has seven million dollars when you only have two million dollars. How unfair?
I disagree Dwight. Romney's criticism by persons like myself comes from his lack of reality and the lack of any caring nature at all. He hasn't shown knowledge necessary to be a world leader and has made many, many spoken blunders.
YOu have to agree, it's a fact we all see what we want to see, and hear what we want to hear. Same goes with reading. You tend to read the article you want, that favor your side. Obama's made more spoken blunders than anyone I've seen. It's probably the news sources you choose to read, as to why you're not aware of this. That's my point.
As far as Romney being uncaring, everything Romney's done in his personal life makes that statement untrue.
So the fact is, your post is not what you meant to say. You meant to say you're voting for Barrack because ... blah blah blah. But don't blame it on Romney with lies.
He's not criticized for being rich; he's criticied because he tries to paint himself as an average Joe, and he's anything but. He hasn't known poverty or military service or discomfort. AND, flip flopping and changing his mind on what he stands for doesn't give anyone a definite idea of what he stands for. With that, why should he be President??
Any comparison of their backgrounds is ridiculous. I have no problem with a person being born into wealth and privilege - but the distinction becomes one of a self-made success like Obama as opposed to being born on third base. Romney was born very, very rich. Obama was not. He may have made enough money to live in a million dollar house - at the age of 40 - after getting an education at Columbia and Harvard and publishing a best selling book –but he was not born into one.
And you mention 'raised and supported by his white mother and grandmother' like that is some kind of luxury?
Most welfare recipients and food stamp recipients and unemployed people in this country are white. Most alcoholics and drug addicts are white. Most arrests are of whites. So, who are you supporting with your tax dollars?
Funny how all over the internet you see American's making comments about everyone else being 'uncivilized barbarians' and so on...
America is still very racist. 95% of the power structure is still white anglo men!!! That alone is enough reason that racism is still alive and well in america
Really? because the country is predominately white, whites are racist? So in Africa, are the blacks racist since they are the predominant race? Lets see...how would you want your country to be, like the countries in Africa or western Europe? Hmmm...that is a tough one.
sounds like you are on the right path,to fascism,that is.Keep it up,you'll be an SS operative,or Nazi within a short amount of time
in your statement,it is obvious you would rather have a white or mostly white society......nice going.....racism always exposes itself in time.
So the alternative is a Mexican power structure or North African or Middle East power structure where you can bribe your way into anything and be shot for doing nothing? A racist White structure would have never allowed PRes Obama to be president and yet here he is. America is built on the backs of many ethinicities.
I do find it funny when people lump "whites" together as one demographic. On the other hand, I find it equally humorous when Americans of non-native descent start going off about how Mexicans, Indians, Pakistanis, Cubans, etc are going to destroy "our America" because they want to keep their own customs and language. Somehow this country has absorbed waves of Italians, Germans, Swedes, Russians, etc, etc, etc over the centuries doing the same and the country has somehow miraculously survived!!
before Hitlers ascension into power,there was a world-wide economic crash-similar to today.Hitler got people to blame a minority,and focus all their hate and aggression on them,giving power to his party,and legitimacy.Today,america is on the same path,as one race blames another,and division is rampant.We have a national history of racism,so the precedent is there.Which path will america choose?
sparks, while I'm pretty sure you're aware of the similarities, I want to expand briefly on your comment so others reading might learn something pertinent to this election-cycle:
Hitler CHOSE the Jews because they were the most successful ethnicity. They had the biggest target painted on them because while everyone else was struggling, they were [mostly] doing just fine – and everyone "knew" it!
It wasn't fair. It wasn't valid. They were successful because Jews value intelligence and prudence – fiscally and otherwise.
So if people would look at the new ethnicity to hate: Whites.
Obviously, they must be an evil lot... How else could they succeed where others fail? It must be because they've cheated everyone... Never mind the imprudence most people in our society exhibit with regards to fiscal 'responsibility'... Can you believe people buy a new car every 3-5 years – not because it's old or having problems. No, most buy a new car because they want it.
I'm a white man. I'm doing well enough for myself. My first car..... a 1986 Ford Tempo: $600. no AC. power windows-that didn't work. No radio. No speakers (place for them existed, but they were removed). Slashed seats (all of them). etc.. etc.. etc..
I drove that thing until it died. Then I bought another car – a used one – for $1000. It had issues too, but it was a dream car compared. That car died, but saw me through college and my 1st job. Then I got really "lavish". I bought a [used again] 2000 Camry – I still have it. My first new car was purchased (out-right – due to saving) in 2009 – 18 miles on it :-D. I will drive BOTH of them to their grave. (I've already fixed multiple things on the Camry)
Things I didn't waste money on:
movies – wait for them to come out on DVD and rent them.
eating out all the time – I can make better food @ home for less.
cable – had it, but nothing on all the time so it wasn't worth keeping
new cell phones – I still have my 2nd phone which I got in 2007
iPad/iPod/i-Anything: cost vs return simply isn't there. Get a laptop. put Linux on it – it's free.
Many of those things I will enjoy later in life, once I've secured my financial future – but not before then.
My point is: Delayed Gratification. It tends to exist more in White families – not as much as it used to – but those people who still exhibit it stand out all the more because it's becoming more rare.
Bringing it full circle to your comment, sparks:
The white "race" (we're all human, aren't we?) is the latest target and Romney is the personification of that "evil lot". So yes, unfortunately racism does still exist in this country, but it's closely tied to peoples' successes: others are envious of them and assume it's due to their skin color instead of "The Content of their Character" (remember that quote?)
Denial, do you have any sense how the government works before you shout?
The president is never responsible for assigning anybody's protection or detail.
Truth be told...One of the main reasons Obama won in 2008 is that he knocked Hillary out of the primaries by calling her and Bill racists. Now, it seems we're all racists if we do not vote for Obama's re-election. It's a perfect story. If Obama wins, it must be due to the intelligence of the country. If he loses it's obviously due to racism. Give me a break.
And, so it is in all areas of society where their need to be an accounting. We need to ask ourselves, what do we want? Results, progress, save tax payers money, quality schools, etc. or just Sh**?
Will we one day see SS troops marching down the streets of america?Will the home of the brave one day be the home of tyranny?Will the destroyers of the third reich fall so far,they will help usher in the fourth?there have been 5 steps every fascist state has undertaken,throughout history.5 steps that led them away from democracy into the path of fascism.The USA has taken 3 of those steps.....only two remain.....For information on how the USA is becoming a fascist nation,you can go to .....www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/200908 or search for Fascist america:are we there yet?/our future.org
you are the reason why racism still exists today
America is and always will be a racist country. Just wait till an Asian or Hispanic american is voted in to high office.
you truly are disgusting. Why don't you remove that word and replace it with YOUR heritage,and say it out loud?? See how it sounds when someone hates you merely for what you are!!
truth--or should I say half-truth,don't believe ya....sorry.
While not elected... are you perhaps referring to Sonia Sotomayor...? Newsflash dude, it's already happened.... notice no one (but her) brought race into the arguments for / against her?
Fact is,there have been 5 steps that have recurred throughout the history of every fascist state to ever exist......5 steps that led them down that path,the same as Hitler led Germany down.We are on the third step......only two remain.
All of ths is just fadder to take attention away from the TRUE ones poised to steal the election, i e. persons who were BORN in this country (other than to illegals) and I been here ALL of their lives, claiming to not have IDs, criminals, felons, those voting for dead folks, those voting twice, those wh sell their vote for alcohol and drugs...Then, there is that SAD old soul in that Mike Moore political ad. Taking about who let the INSANE out? If she were my mother, I'd have her old Senile a s s committed.
lol... no one's corrected me on "do to well" yet..?
I guess I will: It's spelled "too" not "to" :-p
It's funny to see how racists try to defend their decisions, seriously. All the reasons you're giving that you're REALLY voting against Obama, they're really funny, albeit 100% transparent.
Mitt Romney, during a DEFICIT, wants to give the richest 1% (those making more than $250,000) a tax cut. That makes sense, it's the world he grew up in, that's the world he knows, it's the world that's granted him his incredible wealth and lifestyle, and position. This top of the 1% is richer now than yesterday, and that's true back to 1978. That's right every American EXCEPT the top of the 1% has LESS a share of our national wealth than they did going back to 1978. We're at the point now where a few HUNDRED people own MORE THAN HALF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY'S WEALTH! Our economy is more inequitable than the likes of Egypt and Tunisia, according to CIA rankings used to predict coupes. And we know what happened in Egypt. The Repubs will try to cry and make it look like everyone in blue is a class-warrior out to persecute the rich, when actually their crying about Obama raising taxes back to the SAME RATE there was under Clinton. And I'm pretty sure everyone in the 1% did just fine during the Clinton years when EVERYONE was doing better and unemployment was at it's lowest rate ever. Trickle-down isn't working because people are really greedy, and so the people with all the money are putting up a big fight.
Mitt Romney wants to portray Obama as this meddling nay-saying curmudgeon who wants to REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE. This one is great. It's like a 10 yr child who instead of listening to their parents, or the voice of common sense when they've been caught cheating, they just pout more and shout angrily at their parents, despite knowing they are wrong. This is Wall St., only now it's not 10 yr olds with the fate of their afternoon at stake, now it's adults with the fates of millions of investors and the national/global economy at stake who are the ones complaining and adopting the persecution complex (very popular with Repubs this election) about regulation. We will all spare a thought for those whose favorite loopholes are being closed up. I suppose you'll have to settle for 2.5 million this year, rough, I know. Oh and remember, IF YOU DON'T WANT REGULATION, THEN DON'T EXPLOIT THE SYSTEM. If you do exploit the system, then expect regulation. How hard is this to understand?
So don't try to pass off any economic bs as your reason to vote Romney, just be who you are and say what you want. You want no more black people in our country, then say it! You want to wage a religious war because you think Obama is a Muslim, then do it. Until then, shut up.
You didn't have to post a novel to show how ignorant and racist yourself is. I will sum your post up for everyone. You say that if a white person doesn't vote for Obama he is a racist and if a black person doesn't vote for Romney it is not because he is a racist, it is because Romney sucks.
Man you keep proving everyone elses points you knock on.
Bozo... just so you know – you did not make a point.
Dont know what you been drinking, but its more than you can handle. I only stated the facts as to what happens and if this would have been someone else, they would be chanting in the streets 4 more years. If you understand the business world, you know that it would be true. If he wasnt doing a good job, I would not vote for him. I vote against shareholder proposals if they dont make sense. I want the best person to get the job done. Get off your horse and stop showing your colors.
@observer....I hope when this is taken to the streets I have the opportunity to confront you face to face.
Back @ TheObserver: Obama receives nearly 100 percent of the black vote but black folks are not racist, right? Obama receives more than 50 percent of the white vote and they, the whites, are racists, right? To be sure: African Americans are the most racist people on the planet. And, because of that racism, they make some the most stupid staements because they refuse to study facts.
I think blacks tend to vote democratic at a 90% clip (or more) almost every year for a while. That tends to happen when the other party offers you nothing but contempt.
Truth – Was HS gym class really that traumatic for you? Tme to move past that "incident" in the locker room.
There's no question that much of the criticism I hear is racist – much of it from my own family. I did not vote for Obama but this is highly objectionable.
Why do southerners touch billy goats and nanny goats naughty bits
You know using the term racist is getting old. The term is bigot. A racist is a person who believe that their race is superior to all others. Please use it correctly, or not at all.
llatpoh:I'm not underestimating the people of America at all and I trust they will re-elect President Obama.
This has NOTHING to do with race.
It has everything to do with a man who made some 501 promises to America that he NEVER kept.
Please don't make it a racial issue CNN because it's not one.
Mostlly because the Republicans refused to co-operate and allow him to pass bills that might have helped. God forbid they do anything to that might look as doing their jobs. Better to elect a white guy who changes his mind 20 times a day, doensn't know what he stands for, and has to portray himself as so right-wing to win the support of a small portion of his party to get the nomination.
The only racists in America are the liberal elites, i.e., fascists, and their media propagandists (Communist News Network among them)!
um no, the only racists are the right wing conservatives who are so afraid of minorities actually getting educations and getting good jobs.
Yes, Lee... thats what I'm afraid of. Because I enjoy paying people to sit on their asses all day... NOT. And this goes for everyone of every race, not just African-America. Lazy is a disease that knows no race. And the fact that the education system SUCKS in this country is EVERYONE's fault.
Oh I know it's just horrible. Equal rights for all people, equal wages, voting privileges, it's just deplorable. Shared wealth, crackdowns on corruption, equitable funding, caring for the environment, and child workers in Asia. You're right it's downright fascist, oh wait....
in total accord with you on that!!!
So Romeny ran Bain Capital. At least it was successful and continues to thrive, what would be bad is that he allowed it to go into the ground by restricting it growth and moving money around to stimulate its growth without actually making any money.
I just watched mayor bloomberg on TV. It is great having a man who built a multi-billion dollar business run our city. We also have Rangel in NY- but who wants a black career politician when a real leader is needed?
So Romeny ran Bain Capital (and got bailed out by Obama). At least it was successful and continues to thrive (in Asia where labor is cheaper/illegal), what would be bad is that he allowed it to go into the ground (as he wanted to do with the auto industry in Detroit) by restricting it growth and moving money around to stimulate its growth without actually making any money.
hahahaha. Thank you for the laugh today!
I doubt you even read the article......I bet people in Nazi Germany laughed when they said Germany would one day be a fascist state and try to conquer the world.BTW-they did.
I'm a white male under 50 with a white collar job, and the only reason I am a racist is because all the African American people keep telling me I am a racist! I have never done anything racial, I have no reason to be a racist but all the African Americans keep telling me I am because I am a white male with a good job and I won't vote for Obama. Keep telling people they are racist and sooner or later they will be.
African Americans are more racist than anyone else in US.
when you have a people who are oppressed,it takes time for them to get out of that type of mentality.if the roles were reversed,would you feel different?Fact is,racism abounds in all forms,all races,all walks of life,every social status.....its a cancer to our souls,and the stench still lingers in the air.
Great job Scoop for not being a racist. The fact remains racism is still rampant in the US and the majority of racists are republicans that would never vote for a black man and will never listen to or enter into reasonable discussion about the problems the US face. The blinders are on, supported by Fox, Rush, Glen and the rest of the haters. And based on this, we can expect racism to continue for generations to come.
Why does Obama have to be known as the first black president? Why can't he just be known as the 44th president? Until people stop identifying themselves by using race, there will always be controversy. I consider myself an American, not an Irish, German, Slovakian, Caucasian, white American. This country needs to focus more on what we have in common and less on what makes us different. How about we judge people based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.
You're correct, he shouldn't be the 'first black' president: he should be known as 'the first black, fascist' president!
Hahahaha, now Obama is fascist too. What next?!
Very idealistic but unfortunately racism is very real.
obama has not completed any of his election promises....why would he be reelected???? He is the one that made the promise that if he does not cut the deficit in half he should not be re-elected..WELL HE TRIPLED IT, unemployments still high, more people on foodstamps...so why would anyone vote for him? he had a super majority for 2 years and did SQUAT........him and michelle are only concerned with going on the view and spending tax payers money travelling the world......
does any president ever fulfill all his campaign promises?You must have a lot to learn about politics,friend.It took Bush a total of two weeks to start going back on his campaign promises.Dem or republican,doesn't matter.Politicians say what they want you to hear,to get you to elect them.Romney,if elected,would be no different.Watch politics long enough,you'll get the point. lol
Sean, please learn the difference between the budget deficit and the national debt. Bush increased the deficit at a rate over 8% per year. Under Obama, less than 1.5%. The Bush tax cuts plus two wars, plus TARP added trillions to the national debt and it has been Obama who ended one of those wars and is in the process of ending the other.
You should vote for him because he is black and evil white people owned slaves 200 years ago.
Take the voter intimidation cartoon, make the victim white, make the two bad guys New Black Panthers and you'll see just how far things have come.
sure....the victims are white.....thats how it all starts......read the website I gave above and you will see just where your thinking leads
the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Simpletons? Take a real good look in the mirror, you see a simpleton don't you?
Really! So you were for the president up until 2 months ago when Libya happened and then all of a sudden after all of his accomplishments, whether you agree with them or not, it was Libya that took you over the edge and caused the president to lose your vote. Uh huh! So before that it was all good. Uh huh.
The only accomplishments obama has is leaving americans to die in libya....he has zero record to run on and has zero plan for the next four years....why would anyone vote for him after tripling the deficit, no budget, fast and furious, benghazi etc....he lies and the zombie lefties actually believe his crap? Are we watching the same thing?
Lets not forget that the President is half white. So why can't the racists recognize that half or is that just not pure enough. Did the whites have any problem with black Americans voting for their favorite white candidates or paying taxes to lesten the burden on white America over the last 200 years. Grow up America and accept all of your fellow Americans as equal citizens be they black, brown, yellow, rainbow or white.
why does it have to be about race ? can't you ignorant people see his economic and monetary policies are killing this country? you gotta play the race card , he is a complete and utter failure as a president . over it already odds is he is gonna lose and you people can't seem to deal with tath fact.
I won't be voting for Obama again. I guess I must be racist. Oops, I just rememebered that I voted for a black man on my mail-in ballot (Republican congressman in my district). Of course, I'll bet the lefties have some very choice racial slurs for this man who dares to be a republican.
If that's the only reason you voted for Romney then you really need to educate yourself on the progress our POTUS has made.
Please list the "progress" please. Can you also point out what the President has done to help the economy?
The world is full of ignorant, insecure racists. The fact that a good majority of them live in the USA is not news.
Obama (BoB) called the Seals and they got bin Laden. When the Seals called Obama (BoB) THEY GOT DENIED. Only a complete idi-ot like corrupt Democrats would support the Kenyan King, AKA The Butcher of Benghazi (BoB.)
rants like yours are so old... you should join the Romney campaign. There's a good white man for you.
So the request of American political citizens in a foreign country in thier own embassy for aid is old news.
Oh... did you vote for Bush who pulled our forces out of Afghanistan and redirected them on a wild goose chase looking for WMDs in Iraq? Obama said he would commit to bringing Bin Laden to justice after Bush in 2006 dismantled the task force assigned to find him. Get over it.
You didn't read any of this did you?
Butchher of Benghazi... lol my god, you people are bizarre.
Dang.. so you missed the part about the white girlfriend.... Oh yeah.. and Mother!!!!!!!!
ha ha, TW. Good response.
haha, you liberal trolls...read obamas book and see exactly how he treated his mother....terribly, I belive he disowned her for being white...hey what ever happened to obamas aunt that was here illegally?
Those nineteenth century prognosticators who thought federal government wealth transfer programs would create a dependent class were correct. Today that class is about 47% of the population. Whenever one subsidizes something, one gets more of it. Whenever one taxes something, one gets less of it.
Interesting – can you cite that 1860s federal health care act?
Some of the biggest controversies of the 2012 contest could have been ripped from the headlines of that late 19th-century era, they say: Debates erupt over...a new federal health care act...
All were major issues during Reconstruction,
Anyone who thinks the president is the one who micromanages security decisions in the 280 plus embassies we have world wide deserves to live in a world with Romney for president. I just wish it weren't the same world the rest of us have reside in... Does it mean nothing to you that two of the victim's families of Benghazi have come out against Romney and the spin by the republicans? Do you think if the president were so evil and responsible for this as you say, the victims' FAMILIES would be the ones to tell you all to shut it? Get REAL!!!!
Considering Obama but blame on a movie for 12 days instead of saying that this was a terrorist act, even then His Sec. of state had to take the fall to keep Obama looking clean. Come on. If W Bush was in office when this happened the media and most commentators on here would be calling for his head. Obama's rose garden speech did not state that this attack was an act of terror. Else why did Obama continue to blame a movie for 12 days. The emperor has no clothes and very few are pointing it out.
These comments are disturbingly ignorant. Clearly many FOX viewers here. President Obama has been and will continue to be an outstanding President. Republicans, with Mitt Romney in the WH, wish to privatize everything including education and social security. They want to eliminate what little regulations were put on the banks after they went wild and tanked our economy under Bush. They want to spend on defense to the benefit of their cronies in the defense industry, despite the Deense department not needing any spending. Romney has spoken out of both sides of his mouth more than any other candidate, lying his way through this whole campaign. Obama did the right thing saving the US auto industry. I look forward to his re-election. Anne Romney says she worries most about Mitts mental health. Well after Nov. 6 she can take him to the sanatorium for a respite.
blah, blah, blah...obama is going down
tjp44, again with the witty insight. Too bad America's just a sport for the simpleminded and diffident.
Another proud member of Obama's Coalition of Morons. On your way home to mommy's basement stop and buy (OK steal) some tea, better for you then the kool aid. Then ask mommy who daddy was. She will not know because she banged everything in the hood with 2 or more legs, but you can Asks. Do not forget your free Malt 40 the corrupt DNC gives Obama voters.
As usual, those who have had too much of the Obama Kool Aid resort to name calling when they don't like what they hear.
The truth hurts sometimes. Deal with it.
Heh? The only namecalling Ive seen prevalent was the people slaughtering Obama's name over and over as if that makes them great debaters or something...
Hi Solang... Will you tell me what Obama has done to improve the economic situation you say he inherited and also why you called me "dense" for stating that Chris Stevens is the first US Ambassador killed by terrorists since 1979?
Oh yes, they were rooting for him to be a great success! Like Rush, the birthers, the "you lie" guy, Mitch McConnell who publicly said his number one goal was to make Obama a one term president, etc... Dont you people get tired of having your lies refuted over and over? Does NONE of this sink in, ever?
I would like to offer an insight into this that may be different than every comment that I have read. First, as a black man, I have known absolutely wonderful white, Asian and Hispanic people all my life. I go out in my town and I see blacks whites and other nations eating, sharing life, watching movies, laughing and being genuinely happy to be around each other. To my biggest point....after reading multiple CNN headlines , I am convinced that CNN and the media are agent provocateurs in the conjuring up of racial animus and hostility. I go out everyday and experience life and I still see some kinds of prejudice in ways, but I actually experience more classism than racism. I am a professional and I have a degree and have always worked very hard to give myself the good life that I enjoy. And I don't care how many trumped up " studies" and statistics tell us how racist we all are, I don't see it. CNN is the premiere race baiting media in the world in my opinion. I know lovely, kind, white people who would take their shirt off their back to help their fellow man. I am tired of the media stirring up anger and resentment where it should not exist. CNN and other media are doing their part to divide us and I say ignore them. Live life. Love your fellow man. The media uses the Internet to study us as much as we use it to study them. By the comments and responses, they can see their manipulation works, and they rouse people up and by doing that they can control you. Stop falling for this. Don't let them tell you how your life is. I love you all.
you are awesome felllow American....read up people
Nice to see you show your true colors (below)
Stay myopic. It must be very comfy. Google black male police shootings and incarceration statistics and then go read some Cornell West. You're eloquent, but you don't sound like any African American I've ever talked to.
Mental health researchers propose treatment for dysfunctional prejudice, treating pathological hate as a psychiatric diagnosis, treating patients for racial paranoia by administering a form of psychotherapy. Harvard medical school thinks patients who suffer from pathological hate might benefit from antipsychotic medications and other therapy. Admitting the patients have a mental issue could get the help needed to treat their delusional hate and fears.
Had your medication today?
My friend, I am not like any PERSON you've ever talked to, let alone "African American". I believe your comment betrays more of a malady on your behalf than on mine. I am well-studied on Cornell West, and as a matter of fact, my late father was a member of the Black Panther Party. I didn't say racism didn't exist , it truly does, however the broad brush that paints every white soul as racist is insulting and untrue. How many white hands clasped Dr. Kings as he marched? How many whites helped slaves learn to read and write, and escape to the north. Many. And these days , police brutality makes everyone wary of authority. Statically blacks are incarcerated at higher rates, but that's the system, not every white person is involved in that. I'm asking people to know the enemy. I have seen the enemy and it has nothing to do with color or religion, or gender. I'm sorry I haven't lived up to you're shallow understanding of how a person who is of African heritage is supposed to talk or sound . Soldiers are trained to know their target and not waste ammo, all this racial blogging and regressive interaction is shooting in the air. As I said before, I love my brother and I know my enemy.
Wonderful commentary, thank you for being a beautiful, rational human being. Wishing you the best!
I am a white male living in TN. I hear racist jokes all the time and see small minor racist acts almost on a weekly basis. I agree with this article racism is very much alive at least in Tennessee. I am glad there are African Americans on here who say they dont see it and White Americans who say they dont see it. However, I promise you racism is very much alive and if its not right in front of you its hidden in other comments such as bumper stickers saying "Dont blame me I voted for the American" or Shirts that say "Lets put the white back in the White House" My favorite argument to have with some of my fellow but less politically educated TN voters is when they argue that the only reason Obama won in 2008 was because people voted wanting to prove they were not racist. I gurantee, at least in my state, there were more people who voted against Obama because he was black vs voting for him to prove they were not racist.
You hit the nail on the head, Malcolm. What we have in America is not racism but classism. The rich look down on anyone that does not have money and poor people think people with money are selfish and don't help the less fortunate. I personally think not one person in this universe is more important than any other person. Not everyone has the same opportunities in life and nobody should judge someone else without knowing what trials and tribulations they have been through in their life.
Well said sir, well said. Just because one does not agree with another, this does not mean that someone is hateful or racist. We can disagree or agree without making it about someone's skin color. It is horrid to see such stories printed in main stream media. It is a great theological discussion for academia but it does not belong as news of the day.
This sounds like someone who voted for the idiot who took us into Iraq at a cost of over 4,000 American lives, 30,000 American wounded, and a cost to each taxpayer of over $5,000 so we could root out the WMDs. Only problem was that there weren't any WMDs and talk about a cover-up, it took the Bush administration over a year before admitting their little error. Why should this matter in 2012? Because Romney hand selected 17 of Bush's foreign policy advisors to fill his team. BTW, our cost under Obama to remove a dictator in Libya who actually authorized the killings of Americans? Less than $1B.
If I recall then Senator Obama voted for the war in Iraq because he too believed in weapons of mass destructions like the Democrtatic Congress did. Hmmmm.
Breed11, you are not Black! Stop Lying!
You just set off my bullsh#@ometer.
well you have set off everyon'e troll meter
shame on CNN and most of the lib media for playing the race card and trying to push Obama on us....back firing miserably isn't it....voter are turning away from your brawn as they see you are not using your brains...assuming they exist
Get back to Faux Nooz quickly. You aren't equipped to function in the Real World.
let's meet and greet tough guy.......we will see whose equiped
"let's meet and greet tough guy.......we will see whose equiped"
You are not much of a scholar, that is for sure. No one cares how tough you think you are – it just makes you look really dumb.
I tend to think Obama benefitted from racism. A lot of people (including whites and especially blacks) wanted a black president.
You are the epitome of ignorance. Obama benefited because he was a good candidate, ran a good campaign, and people realized after 8 years of disaster what another republican president meant for this country! The fact that you want to believe that it's just because people wanted a black president, shows how much in fantasy land you people actually live. It's DISTURBING
Who are "you people" you are referring to you angry racist dark man!
If you seriously believe that no one voted for Obama solely on account of his race, you are sorely mistaken, and in no position to be calling others "ignorant". There are many people that voted for Obama, and will be voting for him this election because he is part black, and they wanted to finally be able to say that "we have a black president". In many cases, such actions make sense, for example, when coming from those who have dealt with prejudice in the past, but does not change the fact that Obama owes his presidency to his skin color as much as, if not more, than his policies.
I'm not saying no one did, but I'm sure it was cancelled out by the many who are still uncomfortable with a black president. The majority who voted for him would have voted for Hillary Clinton as well, no one was voting in McCain, after Bush. There's a reason why bush is in hiding, no where to be found this election. That is COMMON SENSE. Use it
kls817, you have a right to your opinion, it is just an opinion however. No truth to it at all.
If that was racism, then what do you call the 200+ years without an African American president (or any other non-white American for that matter), a coincidence?
Bullsh@# on every misrepresentation of the facts in your gibberings. If anything, Obama has been so centrist that he has lost much support in the far Left, proving that you're a flatulent ideologue on very thin stilts.
Racism in America is present and historical. Those who deny it are racist and the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
if the shoe fits.........
You can do better than spewing abuse. Go on you know you can.
tjp44 – simple solution to your problem. Just wear all of your issues printed on your shirt and walk around in several
"diverse crowd" areas. To just hide behind a keyboard with insults is nothing less than cowardace. Walk the talk and get back to us.
What defines you? Maybe it’s the shade of your skin, the place you grew up, the accent in your words, the make up of your family, the gender you were born with, the intimate relationships you chose to have or your generation? As the American identity changes we will be there to report it. In America is a venue for creative and timely sharing of news that explores who we are. Reach us at email@example.com.
Send Feedback | Subscribe