The Last Race-Baiting Campaign...

[_beastie]

That's fair. I'd also recommend the article from The National Review as an inside look on how conservatives feel about this allegation. I found it online, here: National Review

I'll warn you that reading The National Review can get to me once in a while as I really find the general tone grating. It's one of three politics-based magazines I subscribe (the others being Reason and The Nation) and of them it's the one I relate to the least. In fact, I usually disagree with most of the articles. But I try to use the fact I get a negative response to the writing as a tool, in that I find myself forced to confront the emotion and engage the writing itself. I've found it helpful in understanding the conservative arguments for their positions as well as why some things they say that seem so irrational are more grounded than I would have accepted otherwise.

I think this is one of those cases. I do agree that race was part of the national campaign, but I disagree that there was as much as the right was accused of. And frankly, I think true progressives should recognize that going out of our way looking for racism can undermine our argument for being the grown-ups in the room.

EDIT: To change link so it connected to the 1st page of the article.

Thanks, honor.

I agree that we should avoid racial hypersensitivity. OTOH, we shouldn't be afraid of recognizing true racial dogwhistles, either. Birtherism is a particularly noxious form of racial politics. Trump was the national posterboy for birtherism. He was a Romney surrogate, to the extent of making robocalls for him.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't think it's fair to Romney to saddle him with Trump and Gingrich. Sununu's a different story.

I'll give you Gingrich, but Trump was a fundraiser and Sununu was designated an official surrogate.

Sununu was officially part of the campaign. That's why I said he was a different story. I don't think it's proper to designate everyone who raises money for a candidate as a surrogate. Trump is a looney toon, and I don't ever recall anything from the Romney campaign denominating him as speaking for them.

[_MeDotOrg]

One of the most interesting political maps I've seen is from the 2008 Election, showing the counties that gave a higher percentage of their votes to McCain than Bush in 2004:



(For a larger image, click here, then click on 'Voting Shifts')

If you throw out Alaska and Arizona because of favorite son and daughter status, virtually all of the places that voted for McCain more than Bush are either in Appalachia or below the Mason Dixon line in the Old South.

I don't think it's coincidental.

Racism is deeply woven into the fabric of America. I grew up when the Civil Rights movement was unfolding, and the shock I felt watching the brutality of southern police officers against black Civil Rights protesters is something that has stayed with me my entire life.

In 1968, the year Martin Luther King was assassinated, British Pop singer Petula Clark touched Harry Belafonte on the arm during a television show. A white woman touching a black man! The advertisers went nuts. It was a scandal! Being British, poor Petula didn't recognized that, for some Americans, marrying your cousin was less of a taboo than touching a black man.

Too see how far we've come we must look from where we started. Early European visitors to this country were amazed to see members of 'the English race' and 'the German race' living peacefully side by side, a concept that seems odd to our modern sensibilities. The 'Know Nothings' railed against the papal hordes from Ireland. There were the Japanese 'relocation centers' during World War II.

This country has made great progress in fighting racism, but we our journey has not finished. Right now I think the problem is less white on black racism than it is a general xenophobia, a fear of the 'other'. The 'real' America, the 'traditional' America is being overrun. The identity of the country is changing and people who were firmly invested in the old identity feel threatened.

[_beastie]

Sununu was officially part of the campaign. That's why I said he was a different story. I don't think it's proper to designate everyone who raises money for a candidate as a surrogate. Trump is a looney toon, and I don't ever recall anything from the Romney campaign denominating him as speaking for them.

I disagree. Romney knew what Trump was before choosing him to raise money for him. And, as I've said repeatedly, at the very least he could have had a sister souljah moment.

I actually don't believe Romney is a racist. I cannot bring myself to believe that a son of George Romney would be a racist. However, I think he wanted to win so badly, and was so afraid of offending ANY part of the republican base, and so wanted to get a certain portion of his base more excited about him, that he chose to allow these people to make race baiting statements.

[_beastie]

This country has made great progress in fighting racism, but we our journey has not finished. Right now I think the problem is less white on black racism than it is a general xenophobia, a fear of the 'other'. The 'real' America, the 'traditional' America is being overrun. The identity of the country is changing and people who were firmly invested in the old identity feel threatened.

I agree.

Whether or not today's republicans want to admit it, the fact is that the republican party made a deliberate choice to go after the southern vote when the Democrats decided to fight for civil rights. And that decision included using ads and statements in such a way that signaled to the racist element of the south that they were welcome on the republican side. It was deliberate, and, as I've repeatedly referred to, was the "Southern Strategy".

I do believe the republican party has been trying to move away from that strategy to a certain degree. But when they feel pressured to get more votes, I think that some republicans are not above reverting to that strategy, on a more "subtle" basis.

We haven't even discussed Romney's misleading welfare ad. No, he didn't use the words "food stamp president", but he chose to make a very misleading ad about Obama removing the work requirement for welfare, which did not have one ounce of truth in it. Why? Certainly the republican party is not friendly to government benefits or aid in general, but why go on the attack against welfare to the extent that he was willing to risk being seen as a liar? It's not like welfare is the main drain on the federal revenue.

And yes, of course all races benefit from welfare. But to insist that focusing on welfare above, say, medicare, isn't also about a dog whistle to the south is denial in my opinion. And to focus on the "work" element ties into the belief among some people, often in the south, that the black culture feels "entitled" to be given money and food without working for it.

[_honorentheos]

That's fair. I'd also recommend the article from The National Review as an inside look on how conservatives feel about this allegation. I found it online, here: National Review

... I do agree that race was part of the national campaign, but I disagree that there was as much as the right was accused of. And frankly, I think true progressives should recognize that going out of our way looking for racism can undermine our argument for being the grown-ups in the room.

Thanks, honor.

I agree that we should avoid racial hypersensitivity. OTOH, we shouldn't be afraid of recognizing true racial dogwhistles, either. Birtherism is a particularly noxious form of racial politics. Trump was the national posterboy for birtherism. He was a Romney surrogate, to the extent of making robocalls for him.

I agree. Romney failed to show courage or backbone on a number of occations where he could have and maybe pursuaded people he had true character. The Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke 'slut' comment was an example during the primary campaign. And the birthers - at least John McCain would stand up against people calling Obama muslims like he did. Failing to stand up to extremists in one's own party is a bad way to make the case someone is a principled candidate.

OTOH, I dislike the term 'dog whistle' for similar reasons. It's a dialog ender and it implies things about the other side that I don't think are accurate. And it's a "dog whistle" for some on the left, if you know what I mean. Again, I'd like to think we're the grown-ups in the room.

[_Jason Bourne]

Actually, I retract my apology for being testy this morning. I just read your post where you compared my statements on this thread to droopy's idiotic statements.

You know, you can disagree with me on whether or not Romney ran a race-baiting campaign, but to act like this accusation is the equivalent of some wild-eyed conspiracy theory is just insulting and, frankly, ridiculous.

Ok comparing you to Droopy's post was over the top. But I still stand by my view that there was not race baiting in the Romney campaign and that was used by the opponents to sour people on Romney.

I said before this:

Saying the president is handing out welfare checks is racism? I don't think so. That is what the left spins into it. People from all races receive welfare checks. If that is racist then then Obama campaign's successful painting of Romney as a rich out of touch white guy that only cares about other rich white guys was racist too.

Sure there were some isolated inappropriate remarks here and there. Do I think it was part of a strategy? Hardly. And again, what was done to Romney certainly played on race feelings minorities may carry.

[_Ceeboo]

Whether or not today's republicans want to admit it, the fact is that the republican party made a deliberate choice to go after the southern vote when the Democrats decided to fight for civil rights.

Thank God (Or thank the the random mixture of gases with no origin, if you prefer) that we have these rational, reasonable, and level headed democrats to shed light on these clear and obvious facts!

I support removing the sheets from the heads of all republicans and I am sincerely thankful to and for all the democrats who have and continue fight for civil rights!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_beastie]

Whether or not today's republicans want to admit it, the fact is that the republican party made a deliberate choice to go after the southern vote when the Democrats decided to fight for civil rights.

Thank God (Or thank the the random mixture of gases with no origin, if you prefer) that we have these rational, reasonable, and level headed democrats to shed light on these clear and obvious facts!

I support removing the sheets from the heads of all republicans and I am sincerely thankful to and for all the democrats who have and continue fight for civil rights!


Peace,
Ceeboo

Are you suggesting that it's inaccurate to state that the republican party made a deliberate decision to go after the southern white vote after the Democrats decided to back civil rights?

[_Jason Bourne]

Beastie I am sorry I was pissy in this thread and that I compared you to Droopy and his thread. I still am not sure I agree with your premise in this thread. But that did not justify my swearing and meanness.

Again I am sorry.