Michael Meyers Didn’t Like Obama’s Speech. His Judgment Is Suspect.

3:35 pm EST March 20th, 2008 | Media | 9 Comments

michael myers

Not surprisingly, the anti-Obama blogs are flogging this LA Times editorial by Michael Meyers which pooh-poohs Sen. Obama’s speech on race this week.

Meyers argued in favor of Don Imus not being removed from the air for his nappy headed hoes remark and also said that nooses were no big deal. He also said that racism is “not a deal killer”.

Yeah, Michael Meyers strikes me as one of those guys the media is endlessly going to for the “black” opinion when what he says is far removed from what most black people think.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

9 Responses to “Michael Meyers Didn’t Like Obama’s Speech. His Judgment Is Suspect.”

  1. cousin vinnie says:
    March 20, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    I’m an Obama guy, big-time. But I’m struggling with the fact that one hand it feels great to be excited about politics and supportive of a candidate with such extraordinary qualities. But on the other hand, the Democratic Primary process is reminding me of just what an unsophisticated and abysmal political culture we have in this country. I don’t worry about whether Obama can rise to the occasion; I worry that the American people can’t.

  2. Duros62 says:
    March 20, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Did you say “yoots”?

  3. fafaroo says:
    March 20, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    “I don’t worry about whether Obama can rise to the occasion; I worry that the American people can’t.”

    I don’t know about that. I have faith. An Obama/McCain match up would present such a stark choice between the old and new, both literally and politically, that I believe most people will break for the new direction.

    A Clinton/McCain match up is iffier. In terms of politics (as oppossed to policy) that a six and one half dozen choice and presented it with, I think more people will default to McCain because they just don’t like Clinton.

  4. Jay says:
    March 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Sweet Jesus, why not just call him an Uncle Tom and get it over with?

    God forbid the man has a different viewpoint than what “most black people think.”

    Having met Michael Meyers on several occasions (I used to work in the same building where some of the WSJ offices were located), I can understand where he’s coming from with regard to Obama’s speech. He’s a true believer in human rights.

    Oh and your little smear of Meyers includes a link to something he did not say.

  5. Oliver Willis says:
    March 20, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    I didn’t say he was an Uncle Tom, I said he’s a person the media finds to publish opinions for black America that don’t sound like opinions from black America.

  6. bill l. says:
    March 20, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Jay, what didn’t Meyers actually say? C’mon, you can’t just accuse Oliver of smearing someone by posting false information and then not specify just what wasn’t true. I checked all the links, and all at least appear to be factual, so which is it? Right now, it doesn’t appear to be Oliver that’s doing the smearing.

    As for Meyer’s take on human rights, OW didn’t say he didn’t have a different perspective, simply that his opinion seems to be regularly at odds with that of many in the black community. He then backed up his assertion with links to a number of examples (one of which you dispute put can’t be bothered to be specific).

  7. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    March 21, 2008 at 4:58 am

    “God forbid the man has a different viewpoint than what “most black people think.””

    Jay… it’s not even worth my effort to insult you.

    Nooses. He said hanging nooses was no big deal. It is at least a direct threat against an individual, if not a hate crime. His opinion on the subject isn’t just different than most black people, it is not based in reality.

  8. Duros62 says:
    March 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    I said he’s a person the media finds to publish opinions for black America that don’t sound like opinions from black America.

    ‘Cuz Michael Steele wasn’t home.

  9. fafaroo says:
    March 21, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Michael Meyers wrote:

    “What does slavery have to do with the price of milk at the grocery store?”

    Well, let’s consider that many impoverished inner city neighborhoods have few if any major grocery store chains in them. That was, at least, one of the issues that emerged in the wake of the LA Riots in 1992. Residents of the these neighborhoods had to shop for basic groceries at mini-marts, liquor stores or corner markets were prices are indeed higher than at major chains. To the extent that the neglect of inner city neighborhoods can be attributed to long standing discrimination in housing, zoning, economic and other civic policies, themselves rooted in long-standing systemic racism, one could make a good case case that slavery has something to do with the price of milk at the grocery store. Acknowledging that is important and necessary, unless, of course, you think that identifying a problem and its root causes isn’t the first step to coming up with a solution — or unless you have a political ax to grind.