My first thought was that good ole' Ralph Nader was just re-tracing Rev. Jesse’s footsteps, for a little press and a dash of relevancy. No big deal, its just politics, and money of course. Then I thought about it. Hey, he just did Obama a big favor, accusing him of acting white.Let’s think about this. McCain and his RNC crew are over there trying to figure out how to paint Barack as black as midnight, so as to pull in white folks in traditional ‘he-ain’t-one-of-us’ fashion. Hillary certainly did it. If anyone having credibility with any part of white America accuses Obama of acting white, it’s a good thing. The accusation, regardless of its stupidity, works against McCain’s strategy. Thanks Ralph.
There is also the added benefit that it pisses off the black electorate, and just might deliver more Obama votes come November from that group. It’s a win-win from where I sit, for Obama. Now the best of all worlds would be if McCain, during one of his senior moments, was to accuse Barack of pretending to be white, we could just call the election right then and there. But this probably won’t happen.
So the best for the Obama camp is help from people like Nader and others who ‘keep race alive’, and balance out the ‘acting-all-black-while-being-half-white’ strategy that is McCain's best hope for knocking whites off the Obama train.
Funny thing, race politics.
James C. Collier
READ MORE ACTING WHITE...
Technorati Tags: Acting White: Oh! Oh! Accuse Me! Please!, Ralph Nader, Obama, Politics, Racism, Acting White
No idea what you are talking about here. I would guess that this story has not yet gained enough coverage that you can reference it without a link or at least a recap.
ReplyDeleteAnd with those few words, I just lost all respect for Ralph Nader. It's time for him to fade into the background like a good little has-been.
ReplyDeleteBig Steve: I forget how far Texas is away from the Times or the Post, eh? Anyway, the clue is at the end of the first paragraph. Ralph says Barack is acting white. No matter why, its a dumb accusation just to get attention.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Uncle Marc just bequeathed my little guy a full-faced helmet, so I guess we goin' racin' on Sat-day.
"Now the best of all worlds would be if McCain, during one of his senior moments, was to accuse Barack of pretending to be white"
ReplyDeleteWould it be more Machievellian for the strait jacket talker to accuse Obama of pretending to be black.
Like I said on my blog, this was a desperate act to get noticed. And what pushes the media's button? Anything on Race!
ReplyDeleteYour comment about McCain and his crew trying to think of a way to paint Obama as a scary black man is waaaaay off base, and only true (and only in your fevered imagination) if you buy into Obamas pre-emptive statement that this is what the Republicans are going to do. There is absolutely NO proof that McCain has made any kind of public statement, editorial, essay or even a campaign brochure trying to paint Obama as Black, with a capital B.
ReplyDeleteWhat utter nonsense.
Trust me, only the lowest brow voter thinks this has anything to do with race. The rest of us, who have critical thinking skills, and were lucky enough to be educated before the liberals got a stranglehold on public education and thus reduced it to mere indoctrination and warehousing, see Obama for the spineless fraud that he is, and his race is pretty far down on the list of reasons why he is totally unqualified to be awarded the most powerful position in our Country. Who cares that Obama is black, half black or chartreuse? I certainly dont. I care more that he would push my country into full on socialism! I care that evidently, the man has no principles that he won't promptly abandon for political expediency. I care that he could so casually toss his 20 year relationship with the man who supposedly inspired his life and books, as well as his grandmother under the bus of political expediency! I care that he's got the unmitigated narcissistic GAUL to co-opt the ultimate symbol of the presidency! Who cares that he's black? There are much more important things that disqualify him for the presidency....
How dare you reduce this to a contest of race baiting.
Duchess: If only the rest of America was a high principled as you. Especially politicians who want to win. Bush kicked the hell out of McCain with a trumped up race card, so you need to come down off that high horse your riding. Sure there are substantive issues at play, but nothing moves large voting blocks like race. You let your dislike for Obama 'color' your view. This this is politics, it ain't personal.
ReplyDelete"narcissistic GAUL"
ReplyDeleteActually, more correct would be gall. Gaul was the name of France before the Frankish conquest. Our society is somewhat narcissistic, but I don't think anyone has accused Obama of being French.
I'm not sure liberals spell any better, just glad the nuns beat the English Language into me.
This article is sooooo good, sooo analytical and soooo ta-rue!!! WOW!!!
ReplyDeleteDuchess: So you can't think - I almost stopped here- of one Repug that has used the RACE CARD? "Got friends"???
'Scuse me for the typo...my blood pressure was high when I wrote that and sometimes I don't proofread my own work so well.
ReplyDeleteJames, I, personally, don't know any conservatives refusing to support Obama because of his race. In fact, the only person to call me a racist for my non-support has been a Princeton educated, white liberal friend of mine, so your whole "it's the race-card, Stupid!" thing, IMO, is overblown wishful thinking on the dems part (and the parts of all the black and guilty white liberal Obama supporters out there who refuse to see what an empty suit your party has saddled you with).
As much as I despise Hillary Clinton for her policies, she would have been the more electable candidate in the long run, not because she's so wonderful, but because she has at least some legislative and executive experience, although her executive experience was aquired second hand. She was there to watch, at the very least, so you could, conceivably, say that her experiences as First Lady was sort of a practicum. Obama doesn't even have that.
If the democratic party chooses to make this about race and to bludgeon the independents and undecideds with the brickbat of guilty white liberalism, there will be a backlash like you've never witnessed in your whole life, and you'll only have yourselves to blame.
Of course *grins* this whole election should have been a cakewalk for the Democrats, but what have they done? First, they pitted their two biggest voter demographics against each other (blacks and women), then decided it would be best to throw the women's vote away by selecting (and make no mistake about it...Obama will be SELECTED by the party bosses because he didn't have enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination on his own) Obama, a leftist empty suit with a pretty face and grand rhetoric, and now they're compounding the disrespect to Hillary's supporters by the slow response to paying off her debt.
To further dig themselves into a landslide loss, the chosen candidate of the party elites flips his stands on not one, not two, but FOUR major issues and co-opts the Great Seal of the US in his campaign's narcissistic, tone deaf sureness of Obama's destiny. I'm sorry, but what, if any of this is change, and why would you think it's for the better?
The Republicans have no reason to paint Obama as a "scary black man." Scary liberal with Marxist leanings who will push our country further left than its ever been is good enough for me. His race is so not even an issue.
* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offsho...
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15781.htm...
* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15863.htm...
* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/10/mccain-flips-o...
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15825.htm...
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion,he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15864.htm...
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/now-mccain-is-flip-f...
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/28/mccains-abo... /
To further dig themselves into a landslide loss, the chosen candidate of the party elites flips his stands on not one, not two, but FOUR major issues...
====================================
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15617.htm...
There's WAAAYYY more where that came from. Now, let me see...which candidate was it that kept flipping his stance on the issues? I wonder who could it be...
That's disingenuous and dishonest. Sure, you can pull a hundred things like that on John McCain and that's just the point. Yes, he can change his stance on things if the evidence and/or times change, but at least he HAS a record. He didn't vote "present" on issues that he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand on....what, exactly, has Obama taken a stand on except "I'm not Bush?"
ReplyDeleteObama's actual legislative record is so thin you can read a newspaper through it, and he's in no position to abandon whatever principles he has to political expediency...it only serves to make him look weak, and American's don't like weaklings, or haven't you figured that out yet? We don't like whiners either.
We also don't like flip floppers. We also don't like people who honestly "don't know much about the economy." We also don't like people who take credit for helping pass bills that, not only did they NOT show up to vote for, they were actually against (see the New G.I. Bill). We also don't like people who keep making the "mistake" of confusing Sunni and Shi'a Muslims (actually, that one just scares the hell out of me), even after they've been corrected more than once. And as the polls show, we also don't like people who vote with George Bush 95% of the time. Oh, but that's right, I forgot he's a "maverick." Please forgive me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not being disingenuous and dishonest, I'm being truthful about his non-existent principles on so many important issues.
And you're right, he does have a record. It's just too damn bad that he's changed his position on so many issues do many times, that has no idea what the hell his own record is.
And with that...it's time for more whiskey and Dr. Pepper. I'm still tippin'!
Isn't voting acting white?
ReplyDeleteI like this blog. And remember when it was cool to like Mr. Nader?
Hmm. How things change--with a few words. I don't completely disagree with his comments but you've gotta balance it out. No one does well with straight critiscms--he of all people should know that!
With all due respect...Ralph Nader has become the Pat Paulson of the 21st century. Exept he's not funny.
ReplyDeleteBut he's a liberal. Critical of another liberal. Fancy that. So of course he's the bad guy now...he must be discredited so that nobody will pay attention to what he says....hmmmm, sounds like you're attacking the messenger and not the message.
The candidates and gov't are all owned by corporations.
ReplyDeleteAs Mr. Nader states this now a corporate state. The is no legislation without representation. Corporations own the legislators, legislators represent the corporations.
Obama is the poster child of the Harvard Law School Elite.
The Liberal Elite Intellectuals want to try their hand at running the Gov't.
So Obama's Harvard class has hooked their wagon behind him (Obama's Dad was a Harvard man) and are exploiting the internet loophole in political fund raising law to break all records in fund raising for him.
Obama wins no matter what. He is now one of them. He had the education now he has the money. What does he care about anything else. If he wins then he has even more power. Win win all the way around.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader09292007.html
If Nader were to get the Presidency
maybe since he is as everyone says "so far left" he might start to get the scales back to center. What do we have to loose at this point as he is the only candidate of "change." And the only candidate with a track record of helping the MAJORITY of Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI5EY5kqiBU
ReplyDeleteMr. Carlin may end up being one of the Greatest Patriots America has seen.