So if Obama loses - its all because or racism....

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Takeda - we could go back and forth on this all day playing the "well this side always sees the other side like X" game. It won't get us closer to agreement.

The thing is - I don't think its unreasonable to say that 3% of the population is racist enough to consider that as one reason not to vote for Obama. My issue is the basis for the claim is based of incomplete information and makes a number of generalizations that are totally unsupported by the data. To say that race could be a factor for 3-5% is fine - to say that it is THE factor IF Obama losses - by a 3-5% margin is totally off the wall, political and divisive. Given the link between the researcher and the established power on the left, is skepticism and critical thinking somehow uncalled for?

My point was the study appears - to the naked eye - highly political in its intent and usage. We can agree to disagree on it. I am fine with that. But its hardly consistent to call my point of view mental gymnastics when compared to this study.

Then the established power of the left (a Limbaugh-esqe term if I have ever heard one) had begun this work two years ago when he forumulated this thesis and began his program of original research. Much of what you posted demonstrates a lack of understanding about how these sort of papers are written, as well as the time frame for such an undertaking.

It, again, really comes down to the Right's hatred for academia and intellectuals. This is usually because they are telling them things that conflict with their world view. It is one of the few traits that they do not seem to share with the Left, as the Left does seem to be less dogmatic in their world views; ie willing to accept the concept that America is imperfect, racism is a problem and that our efforts do not always work out for the better.

[Rockin Robbins]

Looks to me like any possible objection to Obama is then crammed into that triangular mold called racism. Fine. Call me racist, now that the term has been rendered without meaning by redefinition.

You know, the argument goes:
Obama is black (not true at all. He is half white and shares none of the "black urban culture.")
Most whites are racist. (define everyone not black as white. Make an unsupportable assumption and grin heartily)
Therefore all opinion not endorsing Obama is racist. (Since both premises are faulty the conclusion is rotten to the core)

Racist people elected Obama. They are free to elect somebody else. So racism cancels out of the equation anyway. Or is racism a new phenomenon of the past four years? If the statement is true that Obama can't win because of racism, how did he get elected four years ago?

You know, dumping leaders after important victories is a fine, established tradition of Western constitutional governments. It was good for Winston Churchill, tossed in the garbage after the complete victory of WWII. If it's good for Churchill, why should we be surprised at the same thing for Obama and why would we be willing to repudiate such a hard-won victory? Are we not willing to act in our own best interest? Is our hatred of ourselves sufficient to destroy our ability to accomplish anything good? Or are we going to recognize the racism argument as the garbage that it is.

He was elected because he represented a nebulous and earnestly wanted hope. It was a shapeless, undefined, shadowy, colorless, hope but that was enough for us, racist or not, we voted for him. Now there are shapes and definitions and the hope was not revealed as accplishment. Disappointment is inevitable and he will have a very tough time obtaining votes for the very reason that Jimmy Carter did. But there was no race card to play for Jimmy Carter. There is no real race card to play now. If this is the best that Democrats have, the election is over.

Obama said it best himself right after his election. Paraphrasing here, he said that now the work begins to fix the problems the country has, foreclosures, bankruptcies, joblessness, etc. He said that if he didn't have these problems solved in four years he'd be a one-term president and he was fine with that. His solutions would work. He didn't say that his plans would be thwarted by racists. He had just been elected in total triumph over the concept that the United States is a racist country. The fact of his election discredited that notion once and for all. Regardless of anything he could ever achieve in office, that is the crowning glory, the most important possible accomplishment for the presidency and for the American people. The door is open to the presidency regardless of your race. That is astoundingly triumphant and important to our nation.

However, now the strategy seems to be, if we are going to lose the election anyway, why not lose one of the greatest achievements in American history as well. We can bring racism back! What a great plan. It won't work. You cannot win an American election by telling the American people they are trash, by telling them their accomplishment was not real.

Do we have racists? Yes. Are they marginalized, defeated in a completely humiliating way and in full retreat, no longer a guiding force in our society? Absolutely, and that is as it should be. Let's complete the victory and dispose of this foolish demagoguery. People, regardless of race, have the right to be wrong. People, regardless of race can be disagreed with for reasons unrelated to race, and that is what is happening now. The right to disagree is part of what equality means. Deal with it or surrender our greatest achievement of the century.