Like a crack addict, Grover Norquist is one of the figures on the right with power who can’t help themselves.
“Norquist dropped by The Times’ Washington bureau today and, as part of his negative critique of Obama’s liberal stances on economic issues and other matters, he termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee ‘John Kerry with a tan.’”
You may remember Norquist from his foreshadowing of the federal response to Katrina by saying that the government should be drowned in the bathtub.
Related
Grover Norquist: Selling Beepers To An iPhone Nation
Republican Bigot Eruption: Rep. Bill Sali of Idaho
Elections Be Damned, Conservatives Preserve The Stupid
Eh? Sure sounds like episode 8 (not that i’m keeping count) of Oliver finding racism everywhere he possibly can.
In my experience, this is a fairly common figure of speech which means that “despite this person looking different on the outside, they are the same in some non superficial way to this other person that we have seen before”, ie, despite Obama looking different on the outside, his policy preferences are a lot like John Kerry. The analagous description of McCain would be that McCain is Bush with less hair, or something to that effect. (I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Democrats use something like that actually, to give their whole McCain = Bush thing more soundbite kick.) In using this figure of speech it is common to pick something superficial about the person to highlight the ‘different, but the same’ theme.
Wheres the beef?
Um….”bigot eruption?”
I’ve gotta agree with the first comment. This is much ado about nothing. It’s a figure of speech.
Really, you have to be one of the most overly race-conscious bloggers around. Don’t know if you’re sincere in your “bigot eruption” accusations, or if you’re just playing politics though.
But oh well.
So can you explain to me why you think this is racist or bigoted? I don’t think he was slandering the guy or anything. (Other than being compared to John Kerry, which I’ll admit, is pretty bad. LOL!)
I’m sure that Haplo9 or j mccann would react the same way that they are doing here if some liberal activist said that Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas was “Jesse Helms with a tan” (rolls eyes).
Yet another attempt to pigeonhole Obama that is predestined to fail.
“The analogous description of McCain would be that McCain is Bush with less hair,…”
The only way for that description to be analogous to what Norquist said about Obama would be if you believe that Norquist was conflating “tan” with Obama’s skin color (in other words, the way Oliver took Norquist’s comment). That’s not racist? Norquist would have done better to say “Barack Obama is a black John Kerry.” That’s not racist.
daniel,
Ignoring for the moment that the political comparisons between those three figures you mention aren’t as apt (Kerry and Obama are both Senators who became the Democratic nominee for president, while none of the three you mentioned share such clear similarities), no, I don’t see what else there is to complain about. A persons skin color is a distinguishing, if irrelevant, characteristic about them. How is it bigoted to note that Obama has darker skin than Kerry, or that Clarence Thomas has darker skin than Jesse Helms? It’s just a fact. Except for people like Oliver who seem eagerly seek out any reference to race so he can scream ‘bigotry’ or ‘racism’, I’m not seeing how this is particularly bigoted or derogatory. Certainly isn’t a compliment, but clearly directed at Obama’s policies, not his skin color.
>if you believe that Norquist was conflating “tan” with Obama’s skin color (in other words, the way Oliver took Norquist’s comment). That’s not racist?
Er, yeah, seems like he was saying Obama’s skin is darker by his use of the word “tan”. The better question is, how is that racist? All you have to do is compare the relative color of two people’s skin and thats racist? Not buying it.
>“Barack Obama is a black John Kerry.”
vs
>“Barack Obama is a tan John Kerry.”
I don’t see much of a difference. Both sentences seem very clearly aimed at Obama’s policies. Is there some hidden meaning to the word “tan” that I don’t know about?
Perhaps it means that Obama is MORE of an elitist than Kerry because he has time to go tanning?
Just spitballin’, here.
First of all, he didn’t say “a tan John Kerry”, he said “John Kerry with a tan”. The problem here is that he’s implying that Obama’s “blackness” is “faked”, that he went to a tanning salon so that he could run as a minority candidate or some crap like that. At least, that’s the problem I have with it.
In my experience, this is a fairly common figure of speech which means that “despite this person looking different on the outside, they are the same in some non superficial way to this other person that we have seen before”, ie, despite Obama looking different on the outside, his policy preferences are a lot like John Kerry.
Your expertise is fucking stupid. “A fairly common figure of speech?” Mind telling me how many black folks you compliment on their “tans” on a daily basis, asshat?
George Hamilton has a fucking tan. Obama is black.
The fuck is wrong with you people?
I like John Aravosis’s description of Norquist:
I like to think of Grover Norquist as “Liberace with a wife.”
…now THAT’S comedy!
>Mind telling me how many black folks you compliment on their “tans” on a daily basis, asshat?
Well let me think August, about as often as I compliment anyone on their tan, which would be never.
>George Hamilton has a fucking tan. Obama is black.
Try to answer the question without the fainting couch August, it isn’t very difficult – ‘tan’ = racist how? My skin is more tan than my cousin. Obama’s skin is more tan than mine. For all of us, our skin will get darker when exposed to UV light. In other words, it will tan. Oh, the horror!
“…directed at Obama’s policies, not his skin color.”
Good grief. By that logic then, saying that “Barack Obama is the ni…r equivalent of John Kerry” wouldn’t be racist.
“In my experience, this is a fairly common figure of speech…”
So what? The very fact that in one’s “experience,” one finds a “common figure of speech” doesn’t automatically mean that this is the type of speech that should be immune from criticism. Common behavior isn’t necessarily virtous behavior. Look, i don’t always agree with Oliver, but his criticism of Norquist is right on the money here.
“Virtous” should be “virtuous”.
>By that logic then, saying that “Barack Obama is the ni…r equivalent of John Kerry” wouldn’t be racist.
That makes no sense. If you throw a racial epithet in there, well, yeah, it’s obviously racist. Since when is ‘tan’ a racial epithet? Is race such a polarized issue in the U.S. that you can’t use adjectives to describe the color of someones skin? Obama’s skin is more tan than mine is. How scary!
>doesn’t automatically mean that this is the type of speech that should be immune from criticism.
I think I’ve been pretty clear here that I don’t somehow think this comment immune from criticism, just that I don’t think Oliver’s criticism has much merit, or, at the very least, requires more explanation.
>Look, i don’t always agree with Oliver, but his criticism of Norquist is right on the money here.
*shrug* I sometimes agree with Oliver, and I don’t think his criticism is right here. Seems kind of irrelevant, no?
>First of all, he didn’t say “a tan John Kerry”, he said “John Kerry with a tan”. The problem here is that he’s implying that Obama’s “blackness” is “faked”, that he went to a tanning salon so that he could run as a minority candidate or some crap like that. At least, that’s the problem I have with it.
Totally different angle, thank you Zython. Which is more likely though – that Norquist was trying to make some kind of hard-to-define point about Obama’s “blackness”, or that Norquist was trying to tie Obama to Kerry in the minds of potential voters? (Much like Democrats are trying to tie McCain to Bush, which, incidentally, strikes me as much more likely to be effective than Kerry=Obama.)
I find the first implausible, if only because the idea of a white guy trying to tell a black guy that he isn’t ‘really’ black is .. well, seems kind of ridiculous to me.
“That makes no sense.”
Yes it did. You implied that any statement criticizing Obama’s policies can’t be racist because…well, because it is a statement criticizing Obama’s policies. This kind of logic applies just as equally to the sentence I gave (the one with the racial epithet) as to Norquist’s “tan” comment. Both sentences, in a racist manner, were criticizing Obama’s policies.
“I think I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t somehow think this comment immune from criticism,…”
Well, a. you said that Norquist’s remark represented a ” fairly common figure of speech and b. because of this supposed commonality, that it shouldn’t be taken as offensive. So, in that context, you do think that his “tan” remark should be immune from criticism. You apparently believe that if something is “common” then any criticism directed at it is unwarranted. This is not a belief system I share.
“For all of us, our skin will get darker when exposed to UV light. In other words, it will tan.”
So the skin color of an African-American is comparable to something that happens to your skin when exposed to UV light? Unless you believe that such exposure is a good thing, you’re doing a good job of proving Oliver’s point.
Haplo9: “Obama’s skin is more tan than mine.”
…
And welcome to another episode of “How to identify a racist.”
Any time you bring in race when you don’t need to, it is a sign that you are racist. There was no need to talk about Obama’s race is this was just a matter of policy, as you claim. Hence, this is a sign Norquist is racist.
>Yes it did. You implied that any statement criticizing Obama’s policies can’t be racist because…well, because it is a statement criticizing Obama’s policies.
No, I implied that *this* statement criticizing Obama’s policies isn’t racist because, well, I don’t see how it is racist. That isn’t a blanket statement about *any* statement. If you throw racial epithets into a statement about policy, well, yeah, it isn’t a statement just about policy any more, is it.
>This kind of logic applies just as equally to the sentence I gave (the one with the racial epithet) as to Norquist’s “tan” comment. Both sentences, in a racist manner, were criticizing Obama’s policies.
daniel, you are just tapdancing here. All you have to do is explain how ‘tan’ is racist, and you haven’t done that. You keep trying to assume that ‘tan’ is racist, without having to explain why.
>Well, a. you said that Norquist’s remark represented a ” fairly common figure of speech and b. because of this supposed commonality, that it shouldn’t be taken as offensive.
The ‘commonality’ of figures of speech has something to do with whether those figures of speech are offensive or not? Er, no. More tapdancing. My claim is and has always been is that this particular usage of a common figure of speech isn’t offensive because its meaning doesn’t strike me as offensive. That doesn’t mean that one couldn’t use the same figure of speech in an offensive way. I’m sorry if it came across that way, but such a claim would be silly, and I can only surmise that you are purposefully misreading what I said.
>So the skin color of an African-American is comparable to something that happens to your skin when exposed to UV light? Unless you believe that such exposure is a good thing, you’re doing a good job of proving Oliver’s point.
Oof, you jumped the shark with that one. I point out that my skin, Obama’s skin, anyone’s skin, will tan when exposed to UV. Get it? The word “tan.” It applies to anyone and everyone. Once again, I’m asking “how is ‘tan’ racist?” You somehow conclude that I’m (I guess) making some sort of claim about the provenance of African-American skin color. Right. Try to find a smidge of intellectual honesty, if you can.
My theory is this – you and Oliver think this is racist because any time you see something that makes any reference towards the color of a black person’s skin, your knee jerks and you cry racism, and you either can’t tell or don’t care whether the reference was derogatory. Zython was at least able to come up with a reason for why it might be derogatory, which is more than either you or Oliver can say.
Jesus. I can’t even deal with this level of stupid.
He said “Kerry with a tan,” you goddamn moron. Not “a tan Kerry” or “more tan than Kerry” or “Kerry with more tan skin” or any other pathetic little rewording you’re weaseling here. He said the only difference between a black man and a white man was the black man was the white man who went and tanned himself.
I am convinced at this point that you cannot actually be so fucking stupid to actually believe that’s not racially offensive because if you were you couldn’t have actually written some of the larger words in your previous comments. It’s clear that you’re either trolling with insane contrarian arguments, or you’re just too chickenshit to acknowledge how deep the hole you’ve dug yourself is.
You don’t have a single argument here that doesn’t involve “well I personally don’t think it’s racist.” Go say what Norquist said about Obama to a black man’s face. I fucking dare you.
“My theory is this-you and Oliver think this is racist because…”
it is, just as it would be if a liberal activist said that Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas was “Jesse Helms with a tan.”
Any time you bring in race when you don’t need to, it is a sign that you are racist.
Well said.
Plain and simple its was racist.
He should have left out the tan comment and said something else in its stead.
“And welcome to another episode of “How to identify a racist.”
Any time you bring in race when you don’t need to, it is a sign that you are racist.”
LOL,
Is this to be the standard that defines racism? If so I believe we’ll be able to smoke out quite a few on both sides of the political divide.
I would like to nominate Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Donna Brazzile, Reverend Wright, Michael Pfleger, and Robt. Byrd.
Oh my, it looks like we have another Democratic bigot eruption. See how easy that is.
I don’t think that Norquist in any way was saying “Don’t vote for Obama because he’s black,” …. all he was saying was that although the two men may look different, they are still very similar when it comes to policy, which in reality is all that matters.
This is taking nothing and turning it into something for political gain.
I think most of the comments I’ve read here are angry about the fact that Norquist did make a reference to race, which I guess must be off limits, even if the comment wasn’t meant to disparage anyone’s racial background. If anything, I’d have been more angry about being compared to a guy that lost an election to George W. Bush.
Think about it.
Was it racially offensive when Jason Williams was called “white chocolate” for his style of play in the NBA?
There have been tons of references made to people in all walks of life that are comparable to this. I don’t remember anyone ever throwing a fit over it though.
Like I said, this has more to do with being compared to Kerry, and justifiably so if you look at where they stand on many issues, than it does about race. Seems to me that many may be using Baracks ethnic background as sort of a “political human shield” to innoculate him from criticism.
Hmmmm…………
23 comments in before you bring up Robert Byrd? You guys are slacking.
In my experience, this is a fairly common figure of speech which means that “despite this person looking different on the outside, they are the same in some non superficial way to this other person that we have seen before”, ie, despite Obama looking different on the outside, his policy preferences are a lot like John Kerry.
I’m sure it is a common figure of speech where you hang out.
Let’s try and break it down for you.
Shorter Super Grover: Obama’s trying to act white.
And let me break it down for you…
Super shorter Grover: Obama is a lot like John Kerry on policy issues.
It’s not that hard to understand.
Do you get your talking points from Keith Olbermann?
It’s not that hard to understand.
So why did he have to add “with a tan?”
How is a black person a “white person with a tan?” Exactly when has it been acceptable to call a black person a “tanned white person?” Why are you little shits refusing to answer that question?
Do you get your talking points from Bosco cartoons?
Because unfortunately, so many people are obsessed with the race issue that they may be overlooking the fact that Obama’s voting record is hard left, as is Kerry’s. I believe that OW himself admitted this was a pride issue and that a lot of blacks will come out and vote just because of racial loyalty, and also, many whites will be duped by his great oratory skills and vote for him. Obama needs to be portrayed by the right in this country, if they want to have any shot at winning this election, as “just another far-left Democrat.” This is how you do it. Get people to focus on (gasp) his voting record instead of the fact that he’s half-black.
Like I said, this is no more racist than Charles Barkley and Magic Johnson referring to Jason Williams as “white chocolate.”
Obama needs to be portrayed by the right in this country, if they want to have any shot at winning this election, as “just another far-left Democrat.” This is how you do it.
Then do that. You don’t have to try to be “funny” by adding what can be construed by some as injecting race.
Me: “Any time you bring in race when you don’t need to, it is a sign that you are racist.”
SaveFarris: “Well said.”
It’s pathetic that you think this is an attack against Obama. People on the right have already attacked him because of his race. Saying they will do it again is not racist. They’ve even went after his wife as the ‘typical angry black woman.’
Pointing out racism is not the same as being racist. When pointing out racism, you must bring up race, therefore, it is not even a sign of racism.
“Is this to be the standard that defines racism? If so I believe we’ll be able to smoke out quite a few on both sides of the political divide.
I would like to nominate Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Donna Brazzile, Reverend Wright, Michael Pfleger, and Robt. Byrd.
Oh my, it looks like we have another Democratic bigot eruption. See how easy that is.”
There are racist people on both sides, not doubt about that. You can be any colour and be racist, I think we can agree on that. However, the Republican party has used an organized strategy of race-baiting in order to win elections.
j mccann: “And let me break it down for you…”
Super shorter Grover: Obama is a lot like John Kerry on policy issues.
It’s not that hard to understand.”
Then why bring up race?
j mccann: “Because unfortunately, so many people are obsessed with the race issue that they may be overlooking the fact that Obama’s voting record is hard left, as is Kerry’s.”
This is just a fucking lie. Obama is a moderate, especially compared to how conservative McCain is.
LMAO! Some of you need to mellow out.
Honestly, Obama is not a moderate. He rarely, if ever, compromises in a bipartisan way. As for mccain, say what you want. I’m not a huge fan either.
c strowbridge said…
“Then why bring up race?”
Because so many are enamored by Obama being half-black and a great speaker that they may be blinded by it and vote for him based on these issues. This is all a political play to “liberalize” Obama.
Yes, I get it, a black man in the white house would be an accomplishment, but if Obama is the guy, it’s his policy issues that count, not his racial background. Too many people, especially “the young people,” will vote for this guy because they think “it’s cool to vote for the hip, younger black guy.” It’s pathetic to say that, but it’s true.
You should already know this stuff.
I just wasted 2 minutes of my day reading through half of this thread about nothing.
You fools have way too much time on your hands to be debating such a non-issue.
“He rarely, if ever, compromises in a bipartisan way.”
Even if true, big deal. Yeah, I’m sure the Rush Limbaughs and the Natioanl Review writers really bite their nails and worry over whether Republican presidential nominees “compromise in a bipartisan way,” (or “compromise” at all). I guess only Democratic presidiental candidates are supposed to “compromise.”
“Too many people, especially the young people, will vote for this guy because they think it’s cool to vote for the hip, younger black guy. It’s pathetic to say that, but it’s true.”
And you know this how? Are you a pollster who polls young, voting-age Americans about who they plan to vote for this presidential election and why?
“You fools have way too much time on your hands to be debating such a non-issue.”
Nobody cares about how you feel about others spending their time.
“This is just a fucking lie. Obama is a moderate, especially compared to how conservative McCain is.”
While subjective perception is indeed the eye of the beholder, reality isn’t. Pray tell what metrics do you use?
ROTFLMAO!
j mccann: “Honestly, Obama is not a moderate. He rarely, if ever, compromises in a bipartisan way. As for mccain, say what you want. I’m not a huge fan either.”
I know reality isn’t your strong suit…
electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html
electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/con_senator_ratings-2007.html
Additionally, McCain voted for Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and 100% of the time in 2008. He is not a maverick, moderate, or any other such term the media use.
By the way, it is only compromise if both sides are willing to do it. When was the last time the Republicans compromised on anything?
Me: “Then why bring up race?”
j mccann: “Because so many are enamored by Obama being half-black and a great speaker that they may be blinded by it and vote for him based on these issues. This is all a political play to ‘liberalize’ Obama.”
This is just pathetic. You are trying to claim Obama is using race to cloud the issues. You can’t be this stupid. This has to be an intentional lie.
On the other hand, Grover Norquist belongs to a political party that has admitted to using race baiting to win elections (The Southern Strategy). But when he brings up race, he is just trying to cut to the real issues.
No. You are either intentionally lying or are completely blinded by political ideology.
“Pray tell what metrics do you use?”
Voting 100% in lock with Bush in 2008 and 95% in 2007 is one measure I used.
I’ve also posted links, if you are interested.
caged lion said…..
“I just wasted 2 minutes of my day reading through half of this thread about nothing.
You fools have way too much time on your hands to be debating such a non-issue.”
You know what sir, you are right. This is a ridiculous non-issue being turned into a big deal by race-baiters.
I’m out.
I’ll hit you all up on another post that is actually worth wasting my life over. LOL!
j mccann: “You know what sir, you are right. This is a ridiculous non-issue being turned into a big deal by race-baiters.”
World-class projection there. I bet you blamed black people for The Southern Strategy.
j mccann: “I’m out.
I’ll hit you all up on another post that is actually worth wasting my life over. LOL!”
Translation: There’s no way to defend what Grover Norquist said, as it was clearly racist. I’m just going to run away and pretend I didn’t lose this argument.
Typical of the class of Right-wingers we get around here.
Sure, yep. Just sooooo racist to tell people to look past their infatuation with Obama’s skin color and take him for what he is – a partisan leftist.
neener neener neener.
Have fun beating your head into a wall over this one.
Mccann, if the Republicans used the same strategy that you do (declare victory and than leave) than a lot more soldiers would be alive today. Notice the irony?
Just sooooo racist to tell people to look past their infatuation with Obama’s skin color
Specifically mentioning Obama’s skin color is looking past it?
God, you’re pathetic.
You say “partisan leftist” like it’s a bad thing, and that what people want is some mythological “bipartisanship”. Let us not forget that it was the same asshole, Norquist, who said that bipartisanship is date rape. I agree. I don’t want bipartisanship. I don’t want moderation. I want to spend the next 4-8 years kicking Republicans in the teeth and standing on their throats until their bodies learn that the kind of shit Bush has been pulling these last 8 years can ALSO BE DONE TO THEM. (Metaphorically speaking, of course) Once they have internalized this point, THEN we will have real bipartisanship.
And let me grant you this nugget of wisdom before I leave…
“Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able to tell the difference.”
You’re just mad becasue Norquist justifiably compared him to Kerry and (gasp) dared to not be bullied by the political human shield liberals have used for decades now -race!
goodnightandgoodluck.
Olbermann sucks.
“Mccann, if the Republicans used the same strategy that you do (declare victory and than leave) than a lot more soldiers would be alive today. Notice the irony?”
War.
Blogpost.
I’d say the stakes are different.
But anyways, I have the wisdom to not waste my time with people whose mind I can’t change, and are disingenuous in this instance, with their gripes.
Holla.
You’re just mad becasue Norquist justifiably compared him to Kerry
Christ, you’re a fucking idiot.
j mccann: “You’re just mad becasue Norquist justifiably compared him to Kerry and (gasp) dared to not be bullied by the political human shield liberals have used for decades now -race!”
You are beyond pathetic.
You are now using anti-racism as a defense for being racist.
By the way, Obama being liberal is a good thing, especially after the clusterfuck conservatism as brought to the United States during the last seven years.
j mccann: “You’re just mad becasue Norquist justifiably compared him to Kerry”
August J. Pollak: “Christ, you’re a fucking idiot.”
Racist, stupid, and conservative. Now there’s a combination that isn’t hard to find.
He always says he’s leaving a thread but he never does. Guess that makes him a flip-flopper like McSame. Oh yea, and an a-hole.
“He always says he’s leaving a thread but he never does. Guess that makes him a flip-flopper like McSame. Oh yea, and an a-hole.”
It’s better than demanding evidence then running away like some of the other conservative ‘tards do here.
“You’re just mad because Norquist justifiably compared him to Kerry.”
No, he’s mad because Norquist compared Obama to Kerry by using racism.
“Let us not forget that it is the same asshole, Norquist, who compared bipartanship to date rape.”
I forgot about that, Rheinhard. Define irony: complaining that Obama is a partisan in the context of defending a statement from someone who attacked bipartisanship!
Whenever something like this happens, I ask myself if Eric Alterman or Todd Gitlin had said something similar about Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts or whoever, if I’d be more inclined to play the role of apologist.
And my answer in this case is no, no I would not. This is completely and fairly obviously indefensible. I admire your effort, gents, in trying to help the confused to see the light. Although I do question your optimism in thinking it would do any good.
Do any of you conservatives on this thread defending Norquist’s comment honestly think that Rush Limbaugh or a writer for the National Review or the American Spectator or a blogger at RedState would have no problem with a liberal activist saying that Thomas Sowell or Ken Blackwell or Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes or (insert name of any other prominent African-American conservative here) was “(insert name of prominent Caucasian conservative here) with a tan.”
meant to be ….a tan?”
Too many people, especially “the young people,” will vote for this guy because they think “it’s cool to vote for the hip, younger black guy.” It’s pathetic to say that, but it’s true.
Translation: “Young people are stupid.”
Oh mccann, why do you hate America so much?
LMAO! You guys get so worked up.
I swear, I really think some of you have some sort of neurosis…and paranoia to a certain degree.
And going by the type of langauge directed at me from people claiming to be “enlightened, open-minded, and tolerant to dissent,” I really think some of you do your own cause harm.
Look….this debate is over. We see things differently. I’m not going to change your mind, and vice versa.
Oh…and zython…yes, I do believe a lot of young people are horribly uninformed and ignorant. But that’s another topic.
“…yes, I do believe a lot of young people are horribly uninformed and ignorant. But that’s another topic.”
Got any evidence for this belief? Just because a person believes something doesn’t mean it is true?
ugh, I’ve been lazy about proofreading again. Should be “…doesn’t mean it is true.”
Hey mccann, I thought you said you were leaving. I guess that makes you a liar as well as racist.
j mccann: “LMAO! You guys get so worked up.”
How do you know we are worked up? Our side is presented logical and rational arguments. You appears to be sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, ‘La la la la la la!’
j mccann: “And going by the type of langauge directed at me from people claiming to be ‘enlightened, open-minded, and tolerant to dissent,’”
What dissent? Being a racist asshole is not dissent? There’s no reason to be tolerant of intolerance. We were open to your arguments, but being open does mean we must accept your arguments as valid.
j mccann: “Look….this debate is over. We see things differently.”
Yes, we’re smart you are stupid. We can tell when someone it bringing race into a subject when it is not needed. Norquist clearly did this. You admit he brought up race. You just think race is necessary when discussing Obama’s policy positions. This is proof you are racist.
You know, this would have been a lot clearer had Norquist said that Obama’s just Kerry with some shuck and jive.
Of course, then it would just be a commentary on Obama’s appearance on Ellen.
So does racism really bug you guys or is it just perceived racism from the right side of the political spectrum that has you all hot and bothered? I detect more than a whiff of hypocrisy here.
So does racism really bug you guys or is it just perceived racism from the right side of the political spectrum that has you all hot and bothered? I detect more than a whiff of hypocrisy here.
I humbly suggest that I speak for the majority of humanity here when I say – whether it comes from an American conservative, an American liberal, a British Labour member, a Canadian Tory, an Israeli Likud member, a Chinese Communist or a Japanese Liberal Democrat, yes, racism really ‘bugs’ us.
You didn’t mention any specific examples regarding your ‘whiff of hypocrisy,’ although I’d do what I could to help explain (or, if you’re correct, try to figure out why) if you’d like to do so. Did you mean liberals by ‘you guys,’ or just specifically the liberals on this website? And by hypocrisy, are you suggesting that liberals only point out racist remarks when made by a conservative? If so, do you have some examples of racism that liberals ignored or happily forgave? (Aside from Senator Byrd, that is – try to stick to something a little more current.)
This is not complicated. Grover called Obama an OREO. I’m not sure whether it’s more racist or more patently offensive, but either way it’s a pretty awful statement. In addition, it’s an obvious and lame attempt to inject race where it is unnecessary..
Leftists will permit racism from their side of the aisle, so long as it’s against a white heterosexual male, especially conservative ones. With them, it’s win at all costs, and they’ll side with anyone that helps them ideologically, regardless of their character.
See: Robert Byrd, Cynthia McKinney, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Charles Barron, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, etc…..
The left has a monopoly on race-baiting, that’s for sure.
And now people can’t compare Obama to Kerry without them calling it racist, bla bla bla.
Let me ask you this…..would you be in such a pained liberal tizzy if someone called John Kerry “Barack Obama without a tan,” and would that be racist against Kerry, or Obama.
Please elaborate Marxists.
You here to say you’re leaving a fifth time or are you just avoiding answering the question again?
Let me ask you this…..would you be in such a pained liberal tizzy if someone called John Kerry “Barack Obama without a tan,” and would that be racist against Kerry, or Obama.
On the off chance that you’re trying to make a serious point here, yes, this would be racist. Against both.
so long as it’s against a white heterosexual male
I feel compelled to again voice my awe at the ability of white men (usually, but not always, white Christian men) to paint themselves as victims. But no, liberals don’t generally accept racism against white men either, and inasmuch as any of them do, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that white guys are one of the few demographics that haven’t been consistently shit on for the past several centuries.
Please elaborate Marxists.
Are you certain you know what Marxism is? I’m not positive but I’m fairly certain we’re all unabashed capitalists around these parts, although some of us are less eager to return to the unregulated working environments of the early industrial revolution.
“The eight-hour work day was once just a communist plot…”
“So does racism really bug you guys…”
Yes. We were pissed off when Clinton’s camp used the specter of racism to hurt Obama’s chances. (”People won’t vote for a black man, so vote fore me instead.”)
The fact that racism doesn’t seem to bug you leads me to believe you are racist.
j mccann: “Please elaborate Marxists.”
Parthenon: “Are you certain you know what Marxism is?”
Dammit, I was going to ask the exact same question.
I confess a modicum of pride at beating CS to the punch.
“Please elaborate Marxists.”
Arriving late, I see others have addressed this most basic point: J mccann, Barack Obama does not have a tan. He’s black. There’s a big, big fucking difference.
Norquist’s statement is as obviously offensive as if he had said, for example, “John Kerry is a Max Cleland who can jog a mile.”
“The left has a monopoly on race-baiting, that’s for sure.”
Since you are defending Norquist’s race-baiting comment regarding Kerry and Obama, I take this sentence as an expression of admiration for the left.
“Norquist’s statement is as obviously offensive as if he had said, for example, ‘John Kerry is a Max Cleland who can jog a mile.’”
Am I going to hell because I laughed at that?
as long as no one screams reverse racism its all good
syco….
no such thing as “reverse racism.” There is only racism.
Reverse-racism, or the notion that racism is defined as “whites oppressing blacks,” is something that’s been forced down the throats of too many in society by self-loathing whites from the 60’s in order to create another load of self-loathing whites in this generation and those coming. They need whites to feel bad about things they had nothing to do with in order to get them to vote for dems.
“Reverse-racism, or the notion that racism is defined as “whites oppressing blacks,” is something that’s been forced down the throats of too many in society by self-loathing whites from the 60’s in order to create another load of self-loathing whites in this generation and those coming. They need whites to feel bad about things they had nothing to do with in order to get them to vote for dems.”
Paranoia that bad can be managed under the right anti-psychotic medication. I would suggest you consult a psychiatrist as soon as possible.
On the other hand, if you think blacks have been in a position to discriminate against whites in any meaningful fashion, then you are delusional, which can also be managed by medication.
He’s still here. I love it. Keep digging, buddy!
Let me ask you this…..would you be in such a pained liberal tizzy if someone called John Kerry “Barack Obama without a tan,” and would that be racist against Kerry, or Obama.
…
Wow. You’re a complete idiot, aren’t you?
Let me try this another way: mccann, is Obama’s skin color the way it is because he got a tan or is it because he’s black? Answer me.
Goodness!
I turn my back for one weekend and look what a mess you people make.
‘Wingers:
Mr. Norquist could have easily made his point thusly:
“Obama is as liberal as John Kerry.”
“Obama is just this year’s version of John Kerry.”
“Obama is John Kerry 2.0.”
“Obama is John Kerry without the flesh wounds.”
“Obama is John Kerry, 2008 edition.”
Any of those would have served. But where was Mr. Norquist just dying to take us? To skin color, of course. Instead of any of the above, Mr. Norquist gives us, in essence:
Obama is just like John Kerry–and he’s dark!!
Play innocent all you like, but let’s not kid each other. We know exactly what game we’re playing here. Mr. Norquist is seeing just how cleverly he can insinuate race into his comments while leaving himself enough room to deny he’s doing so.
As Farris correctly reminds us, Mr. Obama warned us this would happen. (Yet, oddly, Farris seems to think it’s Mr. Obama who is trafficking in race rhetoric by making a correct prediction about Republican behavior.)
And now people can’t compare Obama to Kerry without them calling it racist, bla bla bla.
As Quaker pointed out, go ahead, compare the two all you want. Knock yourself out. Skin color has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
You know, it’s funny – just reading this comments thread makes me wonder what haplo9’s reaction would be if someone like James Carville said that McCain was just Hitler without a moustache on prime time TV? I mean, if you want to truly compare apples to apples, it would have to be that sort of situation, right?
Considering the amount of Republican’t angst about Wes Clark’s remark about his military experience (or lack thereof), I think I can safely predict that they would be somewhat less eager to rationalize the inappropriate comparisons in that case…