Go build a house

[Elvado]

Didn't Jimmy Carter make enough of an ass of himself while in office?

He really needs to shut up and keep building houses for the unfortunate. It is the one thing he did competently.

His latest salvo on the Joe Wilson controversy is beneath contempt. Where was his outrage during the lambasting of George W. Bush? Was it not equally vile when he was portrayed as Hitler?

Linking Wilson's outburst to racism is a cheap shot not worthy of a former president, even one as lousy as James Earl Carter.

[Boz]

I thought this was a fair and measured response:



You tell 'em Hank!

Remind me again how one inappropriate outburst naturally leading to folks in white hoods riding through the countryside intimidating people is the "logical conclusion"?

[Elvado]

Sept 16, 2009 10:58:58 GMT -5 Boz said:

I thought this was a fair and measured response:



You tell 'em Hank!

Remind me again how one inappropriate outburst naturally leading to folks in white hoods riding through the countryside intimidating people is the "logical conclusion"?

You just couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

[hoyainspirit]

Personally, I thought Carter accurately profiled the current situation. While I agree that one must not extrapolate to racist motives the genuine, heart felt criticism of Obama and his policies by many Americans, to deny that an ugly undercurrent of racism runs through much of the activities and criticisms of many protesters is to view this situation with one's eyes closed.

[fsohoya]

Sept 16, 2009 11:51:29 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

Personally, I thought Carter accurately profiled the current situation. While I agree that one must not extrapolate to racist motives the genuine, heart felt criticism of Obama and his policies by many Americans, to deny that an ugly undercurrent of racism runs through much of the activities and criticisms of many protesters is to view this situation with one's eyes closed.

Are you kidding me? I mean, are you kidding me? The problem isn't people with their eyes closed, its people with them open who see racism -- or at least say they see racism -- where nary a hint of it exists!

If people cannot take issue with anything Obama says or does without being attacked as racists then this nation is doomed to racial rancor without end, and it won't be those deemed racists who are to blame! For the sake of the nation, President Obama needs to make one of his now-patented prime-time speeches to very clearly condemn the despicable, baseless charges of racism repeatedly being levelled by his supporters. He shouldn't blame "the right," he shouldn't hold a national beer summit, he should show real leadership and firmly condemn those people who are his allies who are shamelessly crying "racism" about any and all opposition.

There are lots of hugely important issues that we need to debate based on the merits of different arguments, and no one should shy away from doing that. Using the nuclear rhetoric of racism, however, does anything but that.

[TC]

Does anyone have a link to the video where Carter actually linked it to Joe Wilson? I've seen it widely reported, and I've googled around to try to actually watch what he said, and haven't been able to find where he actually links "that racism inclination" to Joe Wilson. Was this a case where someone asked a question about Joe Wilson and he kinda answered a different question, or did he actually make this link?

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 16, 2009 9:52:53 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Was it not equally vile when he was portrayed as Hitler?

I recall that there was an ad submitted in a contest to MoveOn that portrayed W. as Hitler. The ad appeared on MoveOn's website with other contest entrants. There was outrage on both sides of the aisle, and the advertisement was removed from the website promptly. It never aired on television, let alone international television, and was not sponsored by MoveOn, but, rather, an individual looney. Undoubtedly, there were other individual looneys making the same comparison, repugnant as they were.

The difference these days is that the looneys are on national radio and international television and sponsor and provide venue for gatherings of Republican citizens and elected officials. The bipartisan outrage that once existed is noticeably absent here with the result that there appears to be an effort to make the characterization a genuine controversy to some degree. Absent that, to the extent a dispute exists as to the characterization, one side is content not to dispute the characterization. I am not aware of a single Republican organization of considerable stature that has come out forcefully against it, although I hope to be proven wrong. Frankly, it is a gross form of politics, and they fully know what they are doing with it.

Now, it might be said, as has been said (perhaps rightly) with the Carter comments about racism, that it simply "isn't nice to say" or point out that the behavior or characterization at issue is vile to the core. Perhaps this is true, and perhaps it isn't. All of this distracts from the need to reject it all the same because the defense is used to provide cover for people, such as Joe Wilson, who have, at least, unclear records in these regards.*

* I would point to his strange remarks about Strom Thurmond's (his self-described "hero") child out of wedlock as an example. Why was it a "smear" for the child to come out and explain her story? I don't know the answer, but it does not appear to be the kind of thing most level-headed people would say, I suspect.

[Elvado]

Is Joe Wilson's "record" any worse than President Obama's when it comes to race? Obama jumped in with two feet to declare the Cambridge police acted stupidly in the Gates matter while admitting he had less than all of the facts. Was that not potentially racially motivated commentary from our "post-partisan" and "post-racial" President?

Maybe Joe Wilson simply thought Mr. Obama was lying to him. I don't know his heart or mind well enough to know. I do know that it seems like "racism" is bandied about whenever Mr. Obama is questioned on anything.

Maybe it's policy not race. He had a 70% approval rate earlier this year. Now it hovers at 50% or so give or take. Is he any more black today than then?

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Yo, Elvado, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Matt Drudge is the best wingnut race-baiting conservative of all time.

[Elvado]

Sept 16, 2009 12:44:56 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

Yo, Elvado, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Matt Drudge is the best wingnut race-baiting conservative of all time.

get back on the school bus and finish beating that kid...

[TC]

Rush Limbaugh is very talented! I like the hate-rhetoric about Obama's America and armed guards on white-only buses! His race-baiting is the best race-baiting of the decade!

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 16, 2009 12:29:42 GMT -5 TC said:

Does anyone have a link to the video where Carter actually linked it to Joe Wilson? I've seen it widely reported, and I've googled around to try to actually watch what he said, and haven't been able to find where he actually links "that racism inclination" to Joe Wilson. Was this a case where someone asked a question about Joe Wilson and he kinda answered a different question, or did he actually make this link?

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/15/carter_claims_there_is_racist_tone_against_obama.html

Here is the video I have generally seen when looking for it. There is no connection in Carter's clipped comments linking Wilson to racism. The link seems to be made more general and, frankly, it has not been disputed in fact as yet in the thread.

Why people believe his comments were directed at Wilson is a strange, though maybe telling, development absent some transcript of Williams' question showing otherwise, and I don't think there is reason to believe from the video that Williams' question was about Wilson specifically.

[TC]

That's what I don't get Ambassador - the question isn't shown in the video, they precede it with an intro about Tea Party Marchers, and then the lede is "Carter calls Wilson's Outburst Racist". If you're going to make that claim that a former US President called a sitting Rep a racist straight-out, usually you show it right away.

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 16, 2009 13:00:24 GMT -5 TC said:

That's what I don't get Ambassador - the question isn't shown in the video, they precede it with an intro about Tea Party Marchers, and then the lede is "Carter calls Wilson's Outburst Racist". If you're going to make that claim, usually you show it right away.

It is hard for me to explain too. The best thing I can come up with is that it is easier to defend Wilson - with Strom Thurmond as his hero - on these issues than the 9/10 protestors.
* * * * *
Another interesting sidebar is the fact that prominent Republicans have called Barack Obama a racist on international television. These characterizations have not been rebuked by Republicans.

[Elvado]

I'm not defending Wilson's behavior here. He was an ass and did himself or the Republican Party no favors with his outburst. That said, it's not like he's a real Klansman like Robert Byrd used to be.

[Boz]

A few points:

1. I think you are right. I don't think Jimmy Carter was referring directly to Joe Wilson. I think his comments were aired at a time when the Joe Wilson thing was pretty high on everyone's minds -- and just as nutbar Maureen Dowd WAS calling Wilson explicitly a racist -- so it was extrapolated to be that. In the full clip, available on MSNBC.com, Brian Williams introduces it without mentioning Joe Wilson. Of course, we still don't hear the question, but I don't think it's fair to assume that was in the question.

2. This is 100% supposition on my part, but I'd be willing to be my life savings -- AND give you odds -- that if you asked Jimmy Carter directly (particularly if he was off the record, but maybe even while on it) he would say that he believes Joe Wilson is a racist. Again, just supposition on my part.

3. Even without direct reference to Joe Wilson, Jimmy Carter's comments about those who object to this administration are reprehensible and unsubstantiated. He is perfectly within his right to say them, as unbecoming as it might be for an ex-President, just as I am perfectly within my right to think he is a senile old fart who has no relevance in today's world, hates Jews and thinks everything (except what he writes about Jews) is racist. It's a free country after all.

4. People are saying that the march on Washington this weekend was racist, and I am pretty DAMN sure Jimmy Carter WAS referring to that, even though he probably wasn't referring to Joe Wilson. Yes, there were some inappropriate signs -- as there were at nearly every single anti-Bush rally. Most of the signs I saw were protesting policy. Let's be clear about something: calling Barack Obama a socialist is NOT a racial slur. Having a picture of Barack Obama as The Joker (while it may be a bit of a non-sequitur) is also NOT a racial slur. Saying "Stop stealing from our kids" is NOT a racial slur. Having a sign with an untoward comments about Ted Kennedy, while in very poor taste is DEFINITELY not a racial slur against Barack Obama.

I would add that there were NO instances of violence at this march and NO arrests -- something I think the anti-Bush protesters pretty much never pulled off when they gathered in volume. I suppose, though, that may be because the DC Metro police are racists too, you can make up your own mind on that.

While there was not a large representation of minorities in this march, they were not absent. Let's remember that caucasians still make up 75% of this country. Just because a March is heavily populated with whites does not mean it is exclusive or racist. Anecdotally, personally I have heard many African-Americans, both friends and those on TV decrying this administration's policies. But I suppose they could all just be Uncle Toms. You can make up your own mind about that too.

5. Having said all of that, I will acknowledge that protesters, no matter of which political stripe, invite such things. I have said all protesters are morons in the past. That still holds. The reason I think that is because protests invite commentary on their worst aspects, never on their best (though I'd say the media certainly focused a lot more on the positive in anti-Bush protests than they are doing with protests during this administration).

6. I have no idea what Rush Limbaugh has said, so I can't comment on that. But I will reiterate what I have said before. If you want to hold the conservative movement responsible for everything that Rush Limbaugh, an entertainer, says, that's fine with me, as long as you allow me to hold every liberal in America responsible for the bilious words of the likes of Keith Olbermann*, Michael Moore and Janeanne Garofalo.

*6a. Yes, I still refuse to watch NBC's pre-games on Sundays and will continue to do so for as long as they have that idiot on the air. (For what it's worth, I also thought Rush sucked on ESPN and had no business on that show; I almost never watched him either.)

[thebin]

Frankly I'm just surprised it took people this long to start tossing out racism charges for anyone with sharp disagreements with the Administration. But then again, people were generally scarred $h itless to disagree with Obama for the first 6 months or so of his presidency. Because......they knew they would be called racists, the Allegation Which Requires No Evidence and Is Its Own Verdict.

Notice that Carter didn't even have the stones to call Wilson racist, because he has no evidence of that at all, so he went with the cowardly "based on racism." Which is a great way to weasle a racism allegation at someone without having to risk being called on its baseless-ness.

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 16, 2009 13:34:54 GMT -5 Boz said:

A few points:

1. I think you are right. I don't think Jimmy Carter was referring directly to Joe Wilson. I think his comments were aired at a time when the Joe Wilson thing was pretty high on everyone's minds -- and just as nutbar Maureen Dowd WAS calling Wilson explicitly a racist -- so it was extrapolated to be that. In the full clip, available on MSNBC.com, Brian Williams introduces it without mentioning Joe Wilson. Of course, we still don't hear the question, but I don't think it's fair to assume that was in the question.

2. This is 100% supposition on my part, but I'd be willing to be my life savings -- AND give you odds -- that if you asked Jimmy Carter directly (particularly if he was off the record, but maybe even while on it) he would say that he believes Joe Wilson is a racist. Again, just supposition on my part.

3. Even without direct reference to Joe Wilson, Jimmy Carter's comments about those who object to this administration are reprehensible and unsubstantiated. He is perfectly within his right to say them, as unbecoming as it might be for an ex-President, just as I am perfectly within my right to think he is a senile old fart who has no relevance in today's world, hates Jews and thinks everything (except what he writes about Jews) is racist. It's a free country after all.

4. People are saying that the march on Washington this weekend was racist, and I am pretty DAMN sure Jimmy Carter WAS referring to that, even though he probably wasn't referring to Joe Wilson. Yes, there were some inappropriate signs -- as there were at nearly every single anti-Bush rally. Most of the signs I saw were protesting policy. Let's be clear about something: calling Barack Obama a socialist is NOT a racial slur. Having a picture of Barack Obama as The Joker (while it may be a bit of a non-sequitur) is also NOT a racial slur. Saying "Stop stealing from our kids" is NOT a racial slur. Having a sign with an untoward comments about Ted Kennedy, while in very poor taste is DEFINITELY not a racial slur against Barack Obama.

I would add that there were NO instances of violence at this march and NO arrests -- something I think the anti-Bush protesters pretty much never pulled off when they gathered in volume. I suppose, though, that may be because the DC Metro police are racists too, you can make up your own mind on that.

While there was not a large representation of minorities in this march, they were not absent. Let's remember that caucasians still make up 75% of this country. Just because a March is heavily populated with whites does not mean it is exclusive or racist. Anecdotally, personally I have heard many African-Americans, both friends and those on TV decrying this administration's policies. But I suppose they could all just be Uncle Toms. You can make up your own mind about that too.

5. Having said all of that, I will acknowledge that protesters, no matter of which political stripe, invite such things. I have said all protesters are morons in the past. That still holds. The reason I think that is because protests invite commentary on their worst aspects, never on their best (though I'd say the media certainly focused a lot more on the positive in anti-Bush protests than they are doing with protests during this administration).

6. I have no idea what Rush Limbaugh has said, so I can't comment on that. But I will reiterate what I have said before. If you want to hold the conservative movement responsible for everything that Rush Limbaugh, an entertainer, says, that's fine with me, as long as you allow me to hold every liberal in America responsible for the bilious words of the likes of Keith Olbermann*, Michael Moore and Janeanne Garofalo.

*6a. Yes, I still refuse to watch NBC's pre-games on Sundays and will continue to do so for as long as they have that idiot on the air. (For what it's worth, I also thought Rush sucked on ESPN and had no business on that show; I almost never watched him either.)

Thoughtful post, here, Boz. I will try to respond on a point by point basis.

As to #1, no disagreement here.

As to #2 and #3, we begin to part ways and, for this purpose, I will assume you are right and that Jimmy Carter would consider Joe Wilson a racist. Why is it acceptable to make this assumption - even considering Carter's questionable comments in the past - when it is not acceptable to evaluate the behavior of Republican protestors as racist in light of the culture displayed by them?

There are social controls preventing Carter from calling Joe Wilson a racist. I think thebin probably displays them or, at least, communicates the thinking behind them, right or wrong. The accusation is a virtual third rail/Godwin's Law kind of endeavor. Yet, we are somehow compelled to think that, absent these controls, Carter would make the accusation. Similarly, there are controls against Republican protestors showing Obama as Hitler or something of that ilk. Nobody, even true believers, would want their employers to take action in response to a photo of such in a newspaper and probably believes their employer would be justified in doing so. I suspect most people would not want to cause conflict with neighbors/family/friends on this basis, even though it undoubtedly happens. Yet, what would these people do in the absence of these kinds of controls? That is the essence of it and where I get lost in your suppositions about Carter and why those are more acceptable as against those that could similarly be made against the protestors. I don't have an answer for this one but would be curious as to any ideas. In fairness, perhaps you were getting at this in #5.

My questions are - what would the gun-wielding folks at Obama rallies do in the absence of the controls imposed by the Secret Service? Would they hunt pheasant or hunt the President? Could it be that these folks would be more apt to say that they would vote for a white male rather than a black male, ceteris paribus, because of race? Would your average 9/10 protestor display the Obama-as-Hitler posters absent any possible negative consequences or otherwise support the underlying message more forcefully? At least to the latter, I would give an emphatic yes.

As to point #3, there is the obvious factual quibble that Carter's comments did not relate to the opposition as opposition, but, rather, a segment of the opposition that was narrowly defined. It may be in dispute as to whether this opposition exists, but I think some segment of the protestors at least prove the existence of the "intense opposition" on its face.*

To some extent, there is also the notion that the allegation of race-baiting requires no proof in today's society as well. Indeed, there is no written or video proof that Barack Obama called the Cambridge incident one of racial profiling. Indeed, quite the opposite. Yet, because racial profiling was mentioned in the same speech, the association is made based on some guess as to Obama's state of mind or what he really meant by his statement. This is where the notion that Democrats have called small business owners racist because of opposition to health care and like-minded accusations surface.

As I have said and stand by, the race-baiting allegation is one that I think provides cover to certain people who might indeed be racist. Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh accuses Democrats of race-baiting only to then host a rally/protest in which people depicting Obama as an African medicine man are accepted, promoted, or otherwise welcomed. That is their right, obviously, but this is not a First Amendment discussion if you get my drift.

I don't think either side is more or less blameworthy for it. We are almost socialized to be uncomfortable in any discussion of race or racism and, in any event, to view disagreements through a lens which may not be factually meritorious.

* My observation that Wilson somehow somehow, strangely felt compelled to respond to the comments goes unchallenged. It is worse than Wilson himself taking umbrage. He had his brother trot out a statement. Why? They believed the allegation applied to him or could be applied to him. If it is so astonishingly ridiculous, why respond since it is a tortured game to prove one is not a racist?

[Boz]

Wow, we are having a remarkably civil discussion for all of the things about which we disagree. Maybe you and I should run for Congress and kick these bums out. (Plus, then if I disagreed with you, I would get to cane you! ;D)

Just a couple of quick side points:

1. On guns. I would submit that your supposition about what those people's intentions were belies a lack of familiarity with gun owners. I could be wrong, as I do not know who you hang out with. But most of the gun owners -- who I know anyway -- love, absolutely love having their guns with them. They never carry them around with the intent of using them, they just like them. Some may think a display of a gun as a deterrent, I grant that (and yes, some may think of it as an intimidating presence, which it surely is), but for the most part, they do not carry guns with the mindset you proposed (i.e. - "if the Secret Service wasn't here, I could probably get a shot off). That is not your average gun owners attitude, at least to my knowledge, and I know a fair number of people who love their guns and who have concealed carry permits.

2. On the "narrow" definition of racists/racism. This is all well and good, but if the "racists" are such a minor part of the opposition, why is this topic increasingly dominating coverage in most of the media? Why are so many public figures bandying the word about? Even in this thread, we had a poster who succumbed to this, and probably wasn't even aware of it. "an ugly undercurrent of racism runs through much of the activities and criticisms of many protesters" [emphasis mine]. Much and many are not descriptors of a minor sliver of opposition. They are a generalization that is being accepted far too widely when it comes to opposition to this President. You want to say "Joe Schmo is a racist because he had a sign that depicted Obama as a monkey," you will get no argument from me. But when much of the media is accepting the meme that racism is "growing" and "prevalent," even "indicative" and other misleading adjectives I have seen used, that is where you lose me forever. And Jimmy Carter is as guilty of that as anyone, IMO.


And finally, not in response to you, but just a general thought, I really think the casualness with which the word racism is being applied lately threatens to remove all meaning from the word. You keep calling people racists time and again, with very little substantiation, and sooner or later, people are just going to stop listening. And while I am not one who thinks words should have some overpowering juju over all of us, I think debasing that word to meaninglessness is not a good thing, at least not for those who would aim to stamp out genuine racism..

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 16, 2009 16:01:29 GMT -5 Boz said:

Wow, we are having a remarkably civil discussion for all of the things about which we disagree. Maybe you and I should run for Congress and kick these bums out. (Plus, then if I disagreed with you, I would get to cane you! ;D)

Just a couple of quick side points:

1. On guns. I would submit that your supposition about what those people's intentions were belies a lack of familiarity with gun owners. I could be wrong, as I do not know who you hang out with. But most of the gun owners -- who I know anyway -- love, absolutely love having their guns with them. They never carry them around with the intent of using them, they just like them. Some may think a display of a gun as a deterrent, I grant that (and yes, some may think of it as an intimidating presence, which it surely is), but for the most part, they do not carry guns with the mindset you proposed (i.e. - "if the Secret Service wasn't here, I could probably get a shot off). That is not your average gun owners attitude, at least to my knowledge, and I know a fair number of people who love their guns and who have concealed carry permits.

2. On the "narrow" definition of racists/racism. This is all well and good, but if the "racists" are such a minor part of the opposition, why is this topic increasingly dominating coverage in most of the media? Why are so many public figures bandying the word about? Even in this thread, we had a poster who succumbed to this, and probably wasn't even aware of it. "an ugly undercurrent of racism runs through much of the activities and criticisms of many protesters" [emphasis mine]. Much and many are not descriptors of a minor sliver of opposition. They are a generalization that is being accepted far too widely when it comes to opposition to this President. You want to say "Joe Schmo is a racist because he had a sign that depicted Obama as a monkey," you will get no argument from me. But when much of the media is accepting the meme that racism is "growing" and "prevalent," even "indicative" and other misleading adjectives I have seen used, that is where you lose me forever. And Jimmy Carter is as guilty of that as anyone, IMO.


And finally, not in response to you, but just a general thought, I really think the casualness with which the word racism is being applied lately threatens to remove all meaning from the word. You keep calling people racists time and again, with very little substantiation, and sooner or later, people are just going to stop listening. And while I am not one who thinks words should have some overpowering juju over all of us, I think debasing that word to meaninglessness is not a good thing, at least not for those who would aim to stamp out genuine racism..

My thoughts:

#1 - I added the gun point not too make it a substantive issue, but perhaps an illustration of what can happen. The merits of that are probably less valuable as compared to the other examples. I also liked the pheasant/president phraseology. In any event, I guess my question is whether the displays at Obama events are by ordinary gun owners. In response, my thinking is that they are atypical. At least one has been tied with a separatist movement, and more than one have also displayed threatening slogans as to the President. Whether they would then act on these sentiments, obviously, is an open question.

#2 - This is really the substance of the issue and relates very much to your postscript. When Republicans believe they are being accused of racism, they view it through the lens of the "stringing up a tree" variety and typically believe the definition of racism ends there or close to there with some obvious showing of racism (i.e. the monkey depiction). There is no doubt from any responsible analyst that this sentiment exists. Let's call it 1-2% of Americans for the purpose of noting it to be a sliver of the population.

The term "racism" is then applied by Democrats to new contexts and has evolved just as kchoya argued the term "carpetbagger" has. The ground underlying the term has changed because the "up a tree" racism is largely absent from today's society. What is in existence now is more passive. For example, think of the cab driver who passes over a black male to go down the block and pick up a white male. Ask African-Americans how many times this will happen even in a sophisticated metropolis. Would the cab driver string the first up a tree if given the chance? No. Would he deny him service because of his race? Yes. This is less salient, but think of a typical secondary school cafeteria. To what extent are the tables racially homogenous? Do the whites sitting together want to squirt their juice boxes at the blacks? No. Do they sit together (and do the African-Americans sit together) at least in part because of race? Probably so. None of these would have been racist a century ago but are considered so by at least a sizable part of the population.

This is where we are in terms of politics, in my mind. There are some positions taken, unknowingly or consciously, that are inspired to some extent because of racial views. It is hard for me to put my finger on because of my background as a white male, but I will try nonetheless. Look at differences in where people live or have the opportunity to live because of real estate policies/regulations, as one example. We might be able to think of other policies where an effort is obviously not made to create racial differences, but somehow it just happens that way in application.

As part of the 2008 campaign, I phone banked for Obama and usually was given "hard cases" of difficult-to-persuade Republicans or independents. Without fail, I would get every hour at least one call to a person who "could not vote for him because he is black." That is racism, but of this different variety because undoubtedly these people would not express it in churches, community gatherings, family reunions, or such as they may have in Virginia a century ago. Telling someone over the phone is more passive in these regards. Then, there were the 3-5 or so calls an hour where someone "simply could not vote for him." When asked about policy differences, they would give you the "I don't know. I just can't." Well, not saying you have to vote for him, but that is a position devoid of identifiable substance. Not all of these folks are racists (and may just not want to engage which is completely racist), but how many are? Of course, you would get from some callers the nuanced approaches on budget, foreign policy, and the like, which are not the topic of this discussion. In any event, it is this behind-the-scenes racism or racial thinking that we now confront - hard to prove, but that is how the people behind it want it as with the accusers.

You accuse the first category of person I mention - the person who voices racism over the phone but not in family gatherings - of racism, and you get the vitriolic rebuke of race-baiting. You accuse the person "who just can't" (and has no other reason), and you get the same rebuke. You accuse the cab driver, and you may end up in the Hudson River. ;D

In this context, it is no mistake in my mind that African-Americans tend to vote overwhelmingly in one direction, and it is not because, as some have suggested, that they are brainwashed or welfare queens. How many pure policy disputes in any demographic lead to a 95-5% or 90-10% electoral breakdown nationally?

The question also involves degree. To what extent does this behind-the-scenes racism exist? That is where I depart even possibly from Jimmy Carter and probably find myself out of the mainstream, which is socialized to think it does not exist or does not have effect. If we look at the protestors, I think if you secretly video-taped all 60,000 who showed up on the Mall, you would hear 50,000 of them use a racist term or make a racist comment in the comfort of their homes. Maybe they would just applaud the sign depicting Obama as an African medicine man. That is more than a bad apple.

Is the opposition itself racist? No. Does racism find expression or safe harbor in the thinking of at least a portion of it? Yes.
-----
On the media points, I don't want to debate the media because I find that they generally stink at their jobs. See the Joe Wilson response to Jimmy Carter's analysis as one example. Such sloppiness should be expected from an RNC fax machine but not from mainstream media.
-----
On these issues, the connection to elected officials is obviously going to be attenuated because the proof is largely in the private actions of people and state of mind. All I can say is that I find the elected class to be at least connected to the 50,000 population mentioned above. Quick [war] story from my days as a summer volunteer on a Congressional campaign in NJ. We're running against a purportedly-centrist Republican in a slightly Democratic district, at best. I engage in the sport of reviewing Free Republic for intelligence and come across interesting posts by someone in the candidate's immediate family that were to solicit funds, among other things. He was more of your "lurker" variety, but how is it that someone comes to lurk on sites of that variety much less try to pass their family off as centrist? In any event, I think most would agree that these folks are the height of the vocal opposition and where one is most capable of finding the most aggressive, shall we say.

On Edit: One of Andrew Sullivan's readers made some valuable illustrations today that are helpful, particularly the last paragraph (brilliant and succinct), which ties into what I was trying to get at after my real estate point: tinyurl.com/m77zdc