Remember, He’s Not Racist

November 19th, 2009 Race Rush Limbaugh 35 Comments


('DiggThis’)

Share

Rush Limbaugh claimed that Gallup was tweaking the amount of blacks in its polling to give President Obama a bump. They aren’t. Then again, my guess is Rush would prefer that blacks polled would be counted as just 2/3 of a white person.

Posted in Race, Rush Limbaugh |
«
»
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

35 Responses to “Remember, He’s Not Racist”

  1. jr says:
    November 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Rush’s Hal Turnerism knows no bounds

  2. Amused Observer says:
    November 19, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    Ollie questions whether or not Gallup over represents blacks in it’s polling. He does nothing to refute Rush’s basic underlying point that IF you wanted to tweak a poll to make Barry O look good, overrepresenting blacks would be one way to do it.

    Ollie predictably thinks this is a case of racism. And perhaps it is. Blacks support Barry O in very high numbers, perhaps his race might have something to do with that.

    • cj says:
      November 19, 2009 at 6:59 pm

      Yea because we all know that Blacks are not the real Americans….that place is only for white people. Geez

    • Oliver Willis says:
      November 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm

      perhaps his race might have something to do with that
      Blacks overwhelmingly supported John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc. Clearly we can’t see beyond race. Or some crap.

    • jrfunkenstein says:
      November 19, 2009 at 10:45 pm

      ‘Blacks support Barry O in very high numbers, perhaps his race might have something to do with that.’

      Brilliant logic there; sort of like how White Americans have overwhelmingly voted for every White presidential candidate that ever ran, even during all those races where a Black candidate had entered.

      Ohhhh…..that’s righhttttttt…..it was just the ONE time…..

    • fafaroo says:
      November 20, 2009 at 11:28 am

      Ollie predictably thinks this is a case of racism. And perhaps it is.

      Amused, Rush’s “underlying point” is most definitely racist. He’s exploiting racial resentment and fear to attack Obama, the press and Gallup specifically. Rush’s underlying point is this: “If it wasn’t for blacks this black man wouldn’t have the authority to push his socialist agenda on us whites and might not even be president in the first place. Damn that liberal media for selling out their race!”

      Naturally, as a racist fuck yourself, you agree with him.

  3. jhe says:
    November 19, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    2/3 is better than the 3/5 in the Constitution. Although to be fair, the Constitution didn’t say Black People, it was “other” people.

  4. NCSenior says:
    November 19, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    2/3 or 3/5’s or whatever. The Constitution is a great founding document, but we have to remember it was written by a different generation with different needs and a different life style. Amendments should be considered normal and desirable. I’m tired of listening to Republicans claim it is a be all and end all untouchable act of law.

    • Indeed says:
      November 19, 2009 at 7:33 pm

      Right. It was written by a bunch of slaveholders who wanted Freedom!

    • Porlock Junior says:
      November 20, 2009 at 12:08 am

      Hasn’t anybody read the bleeding Constitution? With the capability of understanding extremely clear English such as it’s hard to find today?

      What that stupid-ass bit of the Constitution says is not that un-white people are only worth 3/5 of white people; it’s that slave-holding states will get to throw more weight in Congress than their potential voting population allows, because they also get to count 3/5 of the people held in servitude to the slave-masters.

      So, you all would have liked it better if they’d got extra power in Congress for 5/5 of the slaves? Clever, real clever.

      The right propotion of people held in servitude to count for the representation of their masters in governing a free republic is bloody fucking ZERO.

      OTOH, without this outrageous provision, Jefferson would almost certainly not have been elected. His enemies,in fact, referred to him as the Negro President, because of the non-persons whose numbers increased the voting power of their owners. Win a few, lose a few.

      • fafaroo says:
        November 20, 2009 at 11:22 am

        So, you all would have liked it better if they’d got extra power in Congress for 5/5 of the slaves? Clever, real clever.

        The three fifths compromise was not some glorious example of the morality and righteousness of the founding fathers.

        It was a moral failure, an act of political cowardice that enshrined the institution of slavery in our founding document.

  5. Amused Observer says:
    November 19, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    jhe apparently misunderstands the 3/5 compromise. I wonder if this is what Ollie was referring to to with his 2/3s remark. Ollie’s basic political beliefs do not point to a very good grounding in American civics or a very high regard for the Constitution.

    • mambochicken23 says:
      November 19, 2009 at 7:23 pm

      Ollie’s basic political beliefs do not point to a very good grounding in American civics or a very high regard for the Constitution.

      Since you erroneously think that every liberal in existence doesn’t hold the Constitution in high regard, this statement is likely true… but only in your sad, twisted little brain.

  6. mambochicken23 says:
    November 19, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    AO, do you think that a black individual should only be counted as 3/5ths of a person? Serious question.

  7. Quaker in a Basement says:
    November 19, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Ollie predictably thinks this is a case of racism.

    Shorter Rush: “He only has good poll numbers because the n****** like him!”

    Why would anyone mistake Mr. Limbaugh’s evenhanded observation for racism?

  8. Amused Observer says:
    November 19, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    Mambo,

    If you understood the historical forces at play that crafted the 4/5’s compromise you would realize your question makes you look at best rather inflammatory and at worst rather ignorant. You may hold the Constitution in high regard but you have given little evidence that you understand it’s historical significance or the implications inherent in a document founding a nation built upon individual rights and liberty.

    • fafaroo says:
      November 19, 2009 at 7:48 pm

      I love it when you do this, Amused.

      You accuse someone of giving “little evidence that you understand it’s historical significance” and then you provide zero evidence that you’re doing anything more than spewing a bunch of crap.

      Quaker’s retort — “Arglebargle! Regard for the Constitution!! Fleen! Poit!!” — is apt.

  9. Quaker in a Basement says:
    November 19, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    He does nothing to refute Rush’s basic underlying point that IF you wanted to tweak a poll to make Barry O look good, overrepresenting blacks would be one way to do it.

    No, that wasn’t his “underlying point.”

    “Gallup has it just teetering there,” Rush said. “And they’re doing everything they can — they’re upping the sample of black Americans to keep him up at 50%.”

    His underlying point was not hypothetical. He made an accusation based on zero evidence that the Gallup organization is fudging the numbers to give a black man a benefit he can’t earn the same way a white man would.

  10. Quaker in a Basement says:
    November 19, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    the historical forces at play that crafted the 4/5’s compromise

    What?!? FOUR fifths???!? Grounding in American civics! Arglebargle! Regard for the Constitution!! Fleen! Poit!!

  11. Amused Observer says:
    November 19, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    LOL Quaker,
    I typed 4 rather than 3.

    I don’t think we are so far apart here on the Rush/Gallup thing. You say, if I understand you correctly, that Limbaugh is incorrect about Gallups black sampling ratio. I said that whether or not it is true about Gallup’s black sampling ratio that oversampling blacks would be one way to fudge Barry’s numbers upwards and that Ollie said nothing that would refute that basic premise.

    • Lonya says:
      November 19, 2009 at 9:16 pm

      You said: “I said that whether or not it is true about Gallup’s black sampling ratio that oversampling blacks would be one way to fudge Barry’s numbers upwards . . .”

      Not so. What you said was that this was Rush’s underlying point when it was no such thing. You take his simple declarative statement that this was what Gallup was, IN FACT, doing and by some ideological use of transubstantiation turn it into a self-evident hypothetical that if Gallup did A that B would result.

      You conclude by noting that “Ollie said nothing that would refute that basic premise” which is another statement of the obvious in that OW was talking about what Limbaugh actually said and not your wistful vision of his underlying point.

    • jrfunkenstein says:
      November 19, 2009 at 10:52 pm

      ‘I said that whether or not it is true about Gallup’s black sampling ratio that oversampling blacks would be one way to fudge Barry’s numbers upwards and that Ollie said nothing that would refute that basic premise.’

      Yet you, like Bloatbaugh, provide absolutely no proof whatsoever that this is occurring the Gallup’s sampling.

      Why not suggest that Gallup is really Obama’s robot twin spewing out statistics based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead?

      No one would dare argue the validity of that statement either, right?

    • Quaker in a Basement says:
      November 19, 2009 at 10:55 pm

      I said that whether or not it is true about Gallup’s black sampling ratio that oversampling blacks would be one way to fudge Barry’s numbers upwards and that Ollie said nothing that would refute that basic premise.

      By that logic, we can also deduce that oversampling white people would understate Mr. Obama’s approval rating, yes?

    • Quaker in a Basement says:
      November 19, 2009 at 10:56 pm

      I typed 4 rather than 3.

      OW also erred. What was your reaction again?

  12. deus ex machina says:
    November 19, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    The thing about the “3/5 of a person” clause is a bit misunderstood. It wasn’t the slave states that wanted enslaved Africans counted as 3/5 of a person, it was the free states. The Southern states wanted to “stack the deck” for purposes of apportioning House seats by including their sizeable slave populations in the enumeration. The free states, predictably and rightly so, pushed back but only managed to water this down by 40%. A just outcome would have been for enslaved Africans not being counted at all, since “counting” them only benefitted the slaveholding elite, so I often find it a bit curious when people express outrage that the Constitution “only” counted blacks as being 3/5 of a person. It seems to me an inaccurate misplacement of legitimate outrage over the injustices that marked the birth of the nation. That being said, I rarely correct anyone on this for that reason so I hope you’ll forgive me this fit of pedantry.

  13. Zython says:
    November 19, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Ollie questions whether or not Gallup over represents blacks in it’s polling. He does nothing to refute Rush’s basic underlying point that IF you wanted to tweak a poll to make Barry O look good, overrepresenting blacks would be one way to do it.

    How this validate what Rush said in any way, shape or form?

  14. Amused Observer says:
    November 20, 2009 at 1:13 am

    Is Porlock the only one here that gets it? Quaker probably does but he may be loathe to admit it.

    • Quaker in a Basement says:
      November 20, 2009 at 3:27 pm

      The framers faced a difficult problem. In any given Southern state, a group of six persons might consist of one “citizen” who, by right of so-called ownership, appropriates the work product of the other five.

      For the purposes of allocating the resources of the new republic, do you count this group as one person, six, or some other number. When the dust settled, the founders decided this group would be counted as four persons–one citizen and 3/5 * 5 = three “other persons.”

      Try however you might to pretend this doesn’t treat the “others” as three-fifths of a person each, you’re still pretending.

  15. Frank DiSalle says:
    November 20, 2009 at 1:40 am

    Of course I get it, and there’s a good chance that many of the lefties who say that the Constitution counted slaves as “three-fifths of a person” get it , too. They simply convince themselves that the Founding Fathers meant it that way , as if to say , “Our country is so crappy, it was born with a birth defect.”

    For the Lefties, the only thing this country has ever done that was good was to win World War II, and that we couldn’t even have done without the Russians.

    What a creepy bunch.

    • Oliver Willis says:
      November 20, 2009 at 1:52 am

      So are you saying slavery, the oppression of women, and the killing of native Americans wasn’t a defect? Because I’m able to recognize and celebrate the great ideas that founded the nation without pretending as if everyone in the nation at the time got a piece of the action. Which they didn’t.

      • rmrd says:
        November 20, 2009 at 8:29 am

        That’s far too deep for what passes as modern Conservatism

      • lonya says:
        November 20, 2009 at 10:23 am

        No. What they are saying, with the unwarranted self-congratulatory condescension so common in political discourse, is that this factoid vitiates the potency of your 3/5 remark. In fact, it does no such thing.

        Here’s how it works: Don’t you uneducated Stalin-loving Marxists know that the 3-4 compromise related to the apportionment of congressmen amongst the states and was not a philosophical statement on the value of slaves? Therefore, any remark you Trotskyite death panel anarchists make about it is void of meaning.

        In point of fact, the compromise inherent in the 3/5 language does no such thing. I’d suggest it does the opposite. Slaves were chattel. They were property. They had no rights at all let alone the right to vote. The compromise as to how to incorporpate them into the algorithm that apportioned the HOR treated them as no more than numbers to be counted into determining how many white male congressmen white male voters in each state could elect. In terms of rights, treatment etc. counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for the calculus is not substantively different than a compromise that would have counted livestock on a 3/5 basis in making the apportionment decision.

        In other words the fact that they were just chattel going into a calculus totally irrelevant to their lives enhances rather than vitiates the underlying point you made.

  16. White Whale says:
    November 20, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    Shorter Frank: Ignorance is bliss, and knowledge is for creeps.

Oliver Willis

Contact
Email: owillis@gmail.com
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
AIM: oliverwill
Huffington Post Columns
Media Matters Blog Entries