Tennessee GOP: Obama Responsible For All Things Black

August 13th, 2008 Barack Obama Newsweek Republicans 37 Comments

Conservative bloggers are pushing a new video trying to link Sen. Obama with disgraced Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Why? Well, they’re both… black. Did you know?

Posted in Barack Obama, Newsweek, Republicans |

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

37 Responses to “Tennessee GOP: Obama Responsible For All Things Black”

Quaker in a Basement says:

August 13, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Now see how you are? There you go playin’ that there racecar again.
JWG says:

August 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Yes, I’m sure it has nothing to do with the mayor endorsing Obama, Obama calling him “great,” and then us finding out he is corrupt. Since both men are black, then that can be the only reason. They probably just forgot the rule that a black man can never be shown in a political ad with white women or other black men because that’s just automatically racist.
Jay says:

August 13, 2008 at 3:36 pm

JWG, of course it’s racist! Haven’t you learned by now? Any criticism or attack on The One is racist. Simple as that.

It is a silly guilt by association ad, but as I’ve pointed out before, Democrats and the left have feasted on the tactic for over 10 years now, so the easiest thing for them to do any time it happens now is just shout “RACISM!” to temper the charges.
SpiderJ says:

August 13, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Yes, I’m sure it has nothing to do with the mayor endorsing Obama, Obama calling him “great,” and then us finding out he is corrupt.

Oh my goodness, a pair of politicians referred to each other with positive endorsements. Slap the irons on them both.

Republicans, I am sure, never speak well of other Republicans who are later found to be corrupt. In fact, I’m sure that they never even continue to speak well of them after they are found to be corrupt.

Abramoff what? DeLay who?
Duros Hussein 62 says:

August 13, 2008 at 3:55 pm

There you go playin’ that there racecar again.

HA!

VROOM! VROOM!
Vanessa says:

August 13, 2008 at 4:12 pm

The GOP are desperate these days. Obama is our next president.
JWG says:

August 13, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Slap the irons on them both.

Exactly. Both side play this political game. Oliver personally loves this trash when it’s used against Republicans. It has nothing to do with racism (or desperation).
Duros Hussein 62 says:

August 13, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Keep telling yourself that, JWG. It’ll help you sleep at night, I’m sure.
fafaroo says:

August 13, 2008 at 5:10 pm

“It is a silly guilt by association ad, but as I’ve pointed out before, Democrats and the left have feasted on the tactic for over 10 years now …”

Jay, this “the Dems did it first” response of yours is so tiresome. Could you please come up with a new schtick?
Jay says:

August 13, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Fafaroo, I’m not using a “the Dems did it first” response. I’m saying it’s the chickens coming home to roost. They (nor you) can’t be blubbering about it being used on them, so take your strawman and stick it.
Jay says:

August 13, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Oh and just to be clear to everybody why Fafaroo’s retort is bullshit. If my response on this had been, “But Democrats did it before!!” and ended it at that, then he’d have a point (aside from the one on his head). But merely pointing out that Democrats are just getting a taste of their own medicine while at the same decrying such stupidity (the stupidity being guilt by association tactics) doesn’t fit into Fafaroo’s goofball comment towards me.
Duros Hussein 62 says:

August 13, 2008 at 5:34 pm

But Jay, you’ve said several times that you have never resorted to that line of defense or attack. You’re not flip-flopping on this, are you?
JWG says:

August 13, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Well, at least we know Oliver would never resort to such obviously racist tactics as associating a black politician *cough*michaelsteele*cough* with any “disgraced” black man. He especially would never show them together in a picture. Clearly that would only be done by filthy haters.
Jay says:

August 13, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Duros, my point is, it is rather hypocritical of Democrats to complain about a tactic they’ve perfected being used against them. Simple as that.
Enlightened Liberal says:

August 13, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Yes, the GOP connecting Obama to a black criminal, McCain ads connecting Obama to white starlets, nothing racist here, no siree.
JWG says:

August 13, 2008 at 6:06 pm

connecting [a black politician] to a black criminal

So you agree that Oliver is a filthy racist.
Oliver Willis says:

August 13, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Are you discussing Michael Steele and Mike Tyson? Mike Tyson, who endorsed Steele after serving time for rape? And Steele, who had no problem with that? Yeah, I wrote about it.
Quaker in a Basement says:

August 13, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Haven’t you learned by now? Any criticism or attack on The One is racist.

And any criticism of The Zero is disrespecting his war record.
daniel rotter says:

August 13, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Of course, no conservative believes that any attack on Condoleeza Rice is racist (rolls eyes).
JWG says:

August 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm

attack on Condoleeza Rice is racist

So depicting a black person as speaking ebonics with exaggerated big-lips is NOT racist, but showing a black man with a white woman or with another black person IS racist.

Ladies and gentlemen…this is your “reality based community” at work.
duh says:

August 13, 2008 at 9:42 pm

So of course this means the whole “McCain=Bush” meme is verboten as well, n’est pas?
Zython says:

August 13, 2008 at 11:26 pm

I’m saying it’s the chickens coming home to roost.

So you’re saying you hate white people?

So depicting a black person as speaking ebonics with exaggerated big-lips is NOT racist,

Wut?
daniel rotter says:

August 13, 2008 at 11:45 pm

“So depicting a black person as speaking ebonics with exaggerated big-lips is NOT racist,…”

JWG, the key word that you conveniently left out of your excerpt of my post was “any”. Either you are deceptive or you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I’m guessing the former, that it was a deliberate smear on your part to make it falsely seem like I believe that even a blatantly racist attack against Condoleeza Rice as the one you mentioned can’t be categorized as such.

“…but showing a black man with a white woman or with another black person IS racist.”

The posters here have said that connecting Obama with another black person(Kwame Kilpatrick) WHO IS A CRIMINAL (and who Obama praised BEFORE the mayor’s criminal behavior came to light) is racist.

In your favor, however, JWG, your criticism of Oliver’s criticism regarding Michael Steele and Mike is spot-on. Someone running for public office should not distance themselves in any way from the endorsement of someone KNOWN BY THE FORMER INDIVIDUAL to be a convicted rapist (rolls eyes).
JWG says:

August 14, 2008 at 5:34 am

the key word that you conveniently left out of your excerpt of my post was “any”

Perhaps you could point to “any” complaint made by conservatives that an attack against Rice that didn’t involve racial stereotypes (such as ebonics or gigantic lips) was racist? Since they’re weren’t any, your point has no merit.

In your favor…(rolls eyes)

Ahhhh…so we’re finally understanding that there can be some nuance in showing a black politician with another black man. It doesn’t automatically have to be “Why? Well, they’re both… black.”
someone KNOWN
So you think no one in the Obama camp knew that Kilpatrick was having legal problems beforehand? Do you really want to stick with yet another “This is not the [insert disgraced individual] I knew” moment?
SaveFarris says:

August 14, 2008 at 7:34 am

So it’s only applicaple if Obama accepted Kilpatrick’s endorsement AFTER he knew about Kwame’s legal troubles?

Well then…

Kilpatrick, who has been charged with lying under oath about an affair and his role in the firing of a top police official, became the fifth Michigan superdelegate to endorse Obama on Tuesday.

You were saying?
Jay says:

August 14, 2008 at 8:06 am

SaveFarris you….you…..you RACIST!
Quaker in a Basement says:

August 14, 2008 at 9:45 am

Go ahead, wingnuts. Twist yourselves into knots trying to connect Mr. Obama to a corrupt elected official. No matter what, it will never be as simple as connecting The Zero to corruption–for us, it takes just one word: Keating.
Jay says:

August 14, 2008 at 10:58 am

for us, it takes just one word: Keating.

That’s already been whipped out so that’s not any surprise.

http://www.google.com/search?q=keating site:democrats.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Quaker in a Basement says:

August 14, 2008 at 1:55 pm

That’s already been whipped out so that’s not any surprise.

So?

Surprise is overrated. Besides, what percentage of the electorate do you think actually knows what the Keating scandal was all about? It’s news to many.

Keating!
fafaroo says:

August 14, 2008 at 6:53 pm

“Fafaroo, I’m not using a “the Dems did it first” response. I’m saying it’s the chickens coming home to roost.”

I fail to see the difference. You’re essentially saying that Dems have no room to complain about this kind of tactic because they’re the ones who mainstreamed it in the first place. That’s exactly what “chickens have come to roost” means.

I notice, of course, that you seem a tad defensive on this subject. Perhaps it’s because you do indeed respond this way on a regular basis but then deny that you are in fact doing it.
daniel rotter says:

August 16, 2008 at 4:14 am

“Perhaps you could point to ‘any’ complaint made by conservatives that an attack that didn’t involve racial stereotypes (such as ebonics or giant lips) was racist”? Since there weren’t any…”

Actually, there were several. When Richard Clarke wrote in his book that he could tell, after a meeting he had with Rice, by looking into her face that she didn’t take the threat of terrorism that seriously, Ann Coulter and Robert Novak accused Clarke of racism. When Barbara Boxer, at a Senate committtee berated Rice for the lack of WMD’s found in Iraq, Joe Scarborough implied that Boxer was racist. worldnutdaily.com (oh, excuse me, I mean worldnetdaily.com) carried a column by conservative Ellis Washington in which he proclaimed Boxer racist for stating to Rice that neither of them had loved ones serving in Iraq.

“…your point has no merit”.

Shorten that part of your sentence by one word, and, as I have shown above, you are absolutely correct!

“Ahhh…so we’re finally understanding that there can be some nuance in showing a black politician with another black man.”

Straw man time. No one here, including Oliver, has ever said that negatively connecting two black individuals is automatically racist.

“So you think no one in the Obama camp knew that Kilpatrick was having legal problems beforehand”?

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that’s exactly what I think.

“That (McCain’s role in the Keating Five Scandal) has already been whipped out…”

And rightly so.

“…so that’s not any surprise”.

Brilliant logic, that dubious behavior should be dismissed because the mentioning of it by one’s opponents is not “surprising” (rolls eyes).
JWG says:

August 16, 2008 at 7:30 am

there were several

And I’m supposed to take your word for it without being able to see what was actually said?

No one here, including Oliver, has ever said…

Um, did you even read this post?
1) Obama & “disgraced” Kilpatrick
2) Why?
3) Because they’re black.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that’s exactly what I think.

SaveFarris already demonstrated it was public knowledge. Unless you’re going to argue that Team Obama doesn’t read the news about the super delegates?
Jay says:

August 16, 2008 at 8:50 am

You’re essentially saying that Dems have no room to complain about this kind of tactic because they’re the ones who mainstreamed it in the first place. That’s exactly what “chickens have come to roost” means.

Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. That’s not what you accused me of. Your claiming that all I am doing in response is saying, “Well, Democrats did it first!” and leaving it at that.

I notice, of course, that you seem a tad defensive on this subject. Perhaps it’s because you do indeed respond this way on a regular basis but then deny that you are in fact doing it.

I get defensive when people such as yourself are deliberately dishonest. Approach the issue without being a dishonest tool and I won’t get defensive.
fafaroo says:

August 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Jay, saying “Well, Democrats did it first!” and saying “Well, Democrats have no right to complain because they did it first!” is saying the same fucking thing.

But since you seem to have a lot emotionally invested in the oh so subtle difference between the two so maybe you could try to tease them out for us.
Jay says:

August 16, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Jay, saying “Well, Democrats did it first!” and saying “Well, Democrats have no right to complain because they did it first!” is saying the same fucking thing.

No jackass, it isn’t. Maybe if stopped to think for a moment instead of being a knee-jerk stooge, you’d see that.

There’s a distinction. If I attempted to defend this ad by saying that, you’re bitching about me using the “They do it too” fallacy would have merit. But I clearly stated that I don’t support guilt by association tactics – at all.

I merely pointed out that it’s rather hypocritical of Democrats to complain about a tactic being used against them that they’ve perfected for quite some time.

Comprende, el stupido?
fafaroo says:

August 16, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Oh I see. So you’re just deciding who is “allowed” to criticize a political ad.

In this case, you’re arguing that the Dems “are just getting a taste of their own medicine” because they’ve been doing the same thing for “over 10 years now.”

Jay, you’ve got a whole lot of stupid working overtime here. First, you assign origination of the tactic to the Democrats by saying it’s “their own medicine.” Then you tell us that this tactic is somehow new to American politics, having been introduced some 10 odd years ago by the democrats who went on to perfect it against innocent, naive Republicans.

All of this is, of course, total bullshit, so even if you are arguing what you say your arguing it’s an even more idiotic response than the one you’re at such pains to distance yourself from. Your claims for the moral superiority of your argument are based entirely on, again, total bullshit.

If you we’re really opposed to guilt by association ads, why not just leave your first comment at “It is a silly guilt by association ad”? Of course, even in this statement you are shielding conservatives from criticism by suggesting that, well, this is just a “silly” example of a tactic that the Democrats have honed into something far more serious and cynical.

You can profess your opposition to “guilt by association” attacks as much as you want, but every time you post comments like the ones in this thread, and you do it all the time, you are still providing cover for Republicans who use the tactic by first diminishing the seriousness of the Republican ad before deflecting ultimate responsibility for Republican actions on to the Democrats who are, in your mind ultimately responsible for injecting the tactic into American politics. In other words, the Dems did it first.
Jay says:

August 16, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Blah blah blah blah.

A whole bunch of nothing BS in all of your paragraphs. I’m not providing ‘cover’ to anybody you moron. But let’s count your bullshit assertions here:

1. First, you assign origination of the tactic to the Democrats by saying it’s “their own medicine.”

Bogus. I didn’t “assign origination” of the tactic to anybody. I said that Democrats have used it to their advantage over the last 10-12 years. Actually, I would say it goes a few years prior to that.

2. Then you tell us that this tactic is somehow new to American politics, having been introduced some 10 odd years ago by the democrats who went on to perfect it against innocent, naive Republicans.

Bogus. It’s been far more prevalent over the last dozen years or so because of the advent of the Internet and how much faster information is able to get out. The 24 hours news cycle was the first part of this and the Clinton administration used that to their advantage.

3. All of this is, of course, total bullshit, so even if you are arguing what you say your arguing it’s an even more idiotic response than the one you’re at such pains to distance yourself from.

Unfortunately, your making shit up to support your assertion and as such it is bogus.

4. Your claims for the moral superiority of your argument are based entirely on, again, total bullshit.

Whose claiming moral superiority? I don’t agree with guilt by association tactics. It’s a bullshit political tactic.

If you we’re really opposed to guilt by association ads, why not just leave your first comment at “It is a silly guilt by association ad”?

Because I chose to make a broader point which you then chose to lie about.

5. Of course, even in this statement you are shielding conservatives from criticism by suggesting that, well, this is just a “silly” example of a tactic that the Democrats have honed into something far more serious and cynical.

Man, you really are like, really dumb. I criticize the ad which was created by conservatives and somehow that means I’ve covering for conservatives. Are you really that stupid? Really?

6. You can profess your opposition to “guilt by association” attacks as much as you want, but every time you post comments like the ones in this thread, and you do it all the time, you are still providing cover for Republicans

Actually, only stupid people like yourself reach that conclusion.

YOU. ARE. STUPID.

7. by first diminishing the seriousness of the Republican ad before deflecting ultimate responsibility for Republican actions on to the Democrats who are, in your mind ultimately responsible for injecting the tactic into American politics.

And you’re a liar.

Good night asshole.

Jaim: I love how you’ve gone to trolling a liberal blog, 24 hour a day, to being so hurt and upset by trolling...
Jaim: How’ the E-trade account going Dennis? Have you made back the 14.99 this month required for your family...
Jaim: It sounds like the muslim world is getting involved with mainstream, hard-to-object-to Oprah. Kind of the...
Jaim: If only we had a president willing to lead on this issue and take political risks.
calling all toasters: The Republican health care plan: James Bond: Do you expect me to pay those rates? Goldfinger:...

Oliver Willis

Like Kryptonite To Stupid

Tennessee GOP: Obama Responsible For All Things Black

37 Responses to “Tennessee GOP: Obama Responsible For All Things Black”

Meta

Recent Comments

Coverage

Blogroll

Disclaimer

Breaking News