And I am done with this now. All yours. Giddyup.

Bush Derangement Syndrome didn’t strike until he’d been in office awhile. By that time he had implemented major tax cuts without paying for them, implemented extremely draconian anti-terror policies, and was trying to start an unnecessary war in Iraq.

These guys were talking Gestapo, and claiming Obama was not American, BEFORE election day. This indicates these particular protesters hated Obama before they knew much about him, and as the first thing you learn about Barack Obama is that he’s not white that implies an awful lot of them hate him because he’s black.

And when they try to keep their kids from hearing him say controversial things like “study hard.” it’s hard to conclude their racism is not involved.

What Jimmy said:
Racism. (rey-s?z-?m) – noun. (1) The admission, on behalf of the accuser, that one has lost an intellectual argument or debate. (2) The lack of substance or compelling evidence to continue presenting a rational or well-formed argument. (3) A means to smear an opponent so as to avoid confronting legitimate counter-arguments or evidence that may invalidate one’s point of view. See Also: Hitler

You seconded:
You saved me some time Jimmy. I was going to go back and look up and list a reprise of MR’s tiresome racism epithets in the comments – maybe a duet between MR and Jim S – but just don’t think it necessary now.

You lose.

And you expect a rational observer to conclude from that:
I never said “don’t talk about racism”. You can keep saying I said that, but i didn’t. Sorry – no one said it. No one implied it. I said you lose the argument when you invoke racism to explain opposition that has other, better, explanations, particularly when the opposition you cite is completely consistent with the kind of numbers, the insanity and ferocity that we saw on the left under GWB.

Not credible.

You were clearly saying that no one should ever impute racist motives to anyone. In other words: don’t talk about it. You want to exempt racists from criticism. That’s the crystal clear import of your words.

You didn’t say, Michael, I don’t think these guys are racists. You said, Michael, even suggesting they are racists means you’re wrong.

You attacked not on the specifics but on the very notion that it’s even possible these were racists.

Older, white people screaming hatred and paranoia about our first black president mere months into his tenure, and you dismiss even the possibility that racism might play a role. You don’t think I even have the right to suggest such a thing.

How dare I? Even to suggest that raging old white people who shout ‘Hitler’ at Obama might just be racists is to lose!

Why it’s impossible! Right? They couldn’t possibly be racists. Zero chance.

So you and Jimmy think we should formulate an aphorism to be used as some sort of magic rune to stave any future possible suggestions that people who screech in livid hatred might be motivated by racism.

Totally not buying it.

Hey – but yet another great argument that racism is bad! You really knock that one out of the park.

The qualifications such as “may” were mostly tongue in cheek. As in “you might be a redneck if . . .” jokes. “It may just be racism.” I don’t have any doubt these are racists. Not all, but racism is the soil in which this brand of crazy grows.

And the GOP has a long history of pandering to racists.

And the GOP relies on the electoral support of racists.

Doesn’t make the GOP racist, just makes them creeps who will cozy up to anyone to win.

You and Jimmy tried to formulate a rule that denied anyone the capacity to accuse anyone of racism. That’s what you tried to do, that’s quite clear.

So we’re back to the question of why you would want to formulate a rule that denied the legitimacy of any claim of racism. So don’t pretend you were doing something different. You were either 1) denying that racism exists or 2) denying that we have a legitimate reason to discuss racism. I’m at a loss as to how you can admit racism exists but then formulate your cutesie little aphorism that denies we should discuss it.

Rape exists. Should we refrain from ever discussing it? Should we not call rapists out?

This is the problem you have and share with your friends on the right. You know you have to, when pushed, admit racism is real and still around. But you hate ever admitting it because your side is in bed with racists. They are your political allies. So you don’t run around saying “racism is dead,” you just say, “no one can talk about it.”

Because it would upset racists.

Who you don’t want to upset.

Too many Mike’s here. I should use my first name for a handle and really confuse the comment threads.

Ok. I’ll play one more time. Then its all yours and you can have the last word.

Okay then, you agree that racism is a serious continuing issue and that we can talk about it.

Yes. But I never said anything different. If you recall, that was you creating a strawman and putting words in my mouth so you could change the subject and make a strong passionate argument that the world is not flat. It was a very persuasive argument. I just don’t know who you were arguing with.

Then let’s start over.

Okey dokey.

I assert the strong likelihood that older white people who have in the course of eight short months conceived a virulent hatred for Obama — a hatred that expresses itself in calling him Hitler, a fascist and a communist — may be motivated by race.

Well – maybe that is what you are saying now. But that is not quite what you were saying at the beginning of the thread. the big difference being the qualifier “may”. It leaves open the possibility that some “may” not be motivated by race. It leaves open the possibility that some are and some are not. Let us contrast that slightly more reasonable construct with what you were saying earlier.

Racists never seem to get tired of being racists. The birthers, deathers, um . . . speechers, that’s what they are.

That statement has a more absolute, all inclusive quality – don’t you agree?

Also you do not explain why it is necessary to invoke racism on the right for calling Obama a Hitler and a Fascist, when we just completed eight years of virulent hatred from the left calling Bush a Hitler and a Fascist. Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome? What is it? – calling him a Communist too that makes all the difference?

I further suggest that older white people who deny in the face of all the evidence that Mr. Obama is an American citizen and insist that he is not only a foreigner but a fraud and a Muslim to boot, might just be motivated by race.

Again the operative word here is “might” which implies a subset of the group. See above discussion and compare with your earlier statement in the thread. Also the combination of foreigner, fraud, Muslim is interesting. Question: Do you have to believe all three to be a racist? Or is any one of them sufficient? I am wondering, because I think Obama is certainly a fraud when he positions himself as fiscally responsible, moderate or centrist. I think he is fraudulently misrepresenting health care reform when he says it will contain costs, the costs are understood, and it will all be paid for. I can go on.

I think that combining those three in the way you do, goes to your actual unspoken belief – that virtually all opposition to Obama is racist. I feel comfortable commenting on your motivations and state of mind on this question, since that is exactly what you are doing with large swath of Americans, so it is fair game.

I would suggest that many conservatives are deliberately using racially-charged code words, for example Mr. Chambliss of Georgia who insists that the president needs to be “humble” and that he has not in the past been sufficiently “humble.” (If you don’t like that example, I can find a few dozen more.)

No. You can’t take “humble” away. Too useful a word. I used it a lot when quoting Chuck Hagel in complaint of GWB’s arrogant foreign policy. If you have a president adopting an arrogant posture (as I consider GWB to have done on foreign policy) you need to use the word “humble” to describe the preferred policy or posture. We have a president now whose domestic industrial policies can only be described as arrogant. We need more humble domestic policies.

Finally, I’m at a loss to explain why — other than racism — an American citizen would insist that their school-age child could not watch a speech by the President of the United States. A speech calling for kids to work hard and stay in school.

I am good with Democrat and Obama supporter Camille Paglia’s explanation quoted above – “…imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to “help” the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure).” It is perfectly reasonable to strongly oppose that kind of blatant political “coercive” overreach to students. If you don’t include that lesson plan – you don’t trigger the reaction. Once the emotional cat was out of the bag,it went too far. Once the lesson plan was retracted and modified, the reaction – as I said – turned into a ridiculous overreaction. But that just looked pretty much like politics as usual to me.

Now that we’ve disposed of your and Jimmy’s attempt to dismiss all suggestion that race might play a role in the widespread hysteria on the Right, perhaps you could explain some of the above. And explain how race could not possibly play a role.

Just some more semantic sleight of hand by Mr. Reynolds. No one, not me, not Jimmy, anywhere in this thread tried to “dismiss all suggestion that race might play a role… or asserted that “race could not possibly play a role” Pure straw men.

What has actually taken place is that MR has dramatically changed his tone from the unsupportable absolutist statements charging racism he was making at the top of this thread to the somewhat more reasonable heavily qualified statements on racism he is making at the end.

What we have actually done is dispose of MR’s original contention that virtually all the opposition on the right is racially motivated, and I take this change in tone as acceptance and acknowledgment by MR of the point I was making in my original comment.

One last point. Given the virtually identical percentage of “birthers” in the GOP under Obama, and the “truthers” among Democrats under GWB, I think the burden of proof belongs to the one making the charge – why racism must invoked as the primary motivation on the right, as opposed to the simpler explanation of usual paranoid political nutcase parity on the right and left.

One way to find out is ask yourselves this: If the president was a democrat with the same policies named Bob Johnson who wasn’t half black would there have been this reaction?

Or how about a democrat named “Bill Clinton” who proposed something similar in 1993, which was killed off by conservatives in Congress amidst a huge grounswell of opposition from the regular population.

It was so unpopular that it led to the republican takeover of both houses a year later, and some would argue, put conservative talk radio on the map.

But then again, Clinton was considered our first black president, so maybe you have a point.

Okay then, you agree that racism is a serious continuing issue and that we can talk about it.

Then let’s start over.

I assert the strong likelihood that older white people who have in the course of eight short months conceived a virulent hatred for Obama — a hatred that expresses itself in calling him Hitler, a fascist and a communist — may be motivated by race.

I further suggest that older white people who deny in the face of all the evidence that Mr. Obama is an American citizen and insist that he is not only a foreigner but a fraud and a Muslim to boot, might just be motivated by race.

I would suggest that many conservatives are deliberately using racially-charged code words, for example Mr. Chambliss of Georgia who insists that the president needs to be “humble” and that he has not in the past been sufficiently “humble.” (If you don’t like that example, I can find a few dozen more.)

Finally, I’m at a loss to explain why — other than racism — an American citizen would insist that their school-age child could not watch a speech by the President of the United States. A speech calling for kids to work hard and stay in school.

Now that we’ve disposed of your and Jimmy’s attempt to dismiss all suggestion that race might play a role in the widespread hysteria on the Right, perhaps you could explain some of the above. And explain how race could not possibly play a role.

It still has little or nothing to do with the topic in this post.

Except, presumably in your mind.

But hey… knock yourself out.

The extreme right thought he had actually murdered Vince Foster to cover up the cocaine-smuggling operation he ran out of Little Rock Airport.

People said some nasty stuff about him, but they usually waited for him to do something (such as seduce an intern) before they let loose publicly.

They certainly would not have wheeled their disabled son to a local Congressman’s forum, seized control of said forum, demanded to know why said son was being screwed by the bill, and then kept on ranting after the Congressman explained that oversight had already been corrected via an Amendment.

They would not have gone on to claim they only did so because they were so angry that the Congressman was using an “apparently disabled” woman to advance his agenda.

mw then:
I think we need a variant of Godwin’s Law. If you invoke racism in the defense of the policies of a sitting president. You lose.

So racism exists. We just can’t talk about. Or we can’t talk about it at the same time we talk about a president.

Racism exists but we are not allowed to confront people we think are behaving as racists. Right.

Perhaps it is useful to keep in mind that this country with racism “deep in its blood” elected Barack Obama president.

Interesting statement, mw. So you’re not denying that racism exists you’re just denying that racism is “deep in the blood” of the US?

And now that we (53%) elected a black guy all the racists disappeared?

Why don’t you clarify because I’m finding this fascinating:

1) Is racism still a serious problem in this country?
2) Can we discuss racism?
3) Can we suggest that some people are racists?

if you deny the existence of racism…You’re denying that evil should ever be called out… he and mw are trying to deny that racism can even be discussed… – mr

No one in this thread, not me, not jimmy, made any statement that can even vaguely be interpreted as denying racism exists or asserting that racism cannot be discussed.

That makes MR’s assumed posture of the indignant righteous warrior wielding a white hot sword of justice to smite the evils of racism to be – just another straw man.

His generalization to “racism denial” is as preposterous as claiming that MR and the liberal extreme find racism to be the motivation for every single criticism of Obama’s policies and the base nature of everyone who voted against him. Oh wait…

I find what Democrat and Obama supporter Camille Paglia said in her column today to be apropos, and at least on the topic of politics and education, which is a bit closer to what this post was about:

“An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House operations was the way the president’s innocuous back-to-school pep talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to “help” the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically, some major school districts, including New York City, were not even open yet…

Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote “critical thinking,” which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms (“racism, sexism, homophobia”) when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it’s positively pickled.”

Perhaps it is useful to keep in mind that this country with racism “deep in its blood” elected Barack Obama president.

and “cutesy-poo”???

The answer is a clear no.

“If you invoke racism in the defense of the policies of a sitting president. You lose.”

To this should be added “If you invoke patriotism in the defense of the policies of a sitting president. You lose.”

I do agree with some of what Michael proposes..”Denying that racism is deep in the blood of this country is about as rational as holocaust denial.” I have good (white) friends who become apoplectic to think a black man is now the president of the US. I have had many overtly racist emails sent to me (a photo of Air Force One with the call letters spelling nixxer on the tail) with the phrase “only joking” used to justify no harm meant. Maybe you live and associate in a more accepting culture, but from where I have lived across the US, I don’t see it the same.

I think you’re naive.

People don’t grow the kind of rage and hatred the right wing has in the soil of policy. People don’t spit in rage and hold up “Obama is Hitler” posters because they have a problem with health insurance policy. That’s absurd.

And people do not hide their children away from the president of the United States because they dislike TARP.

This heat did not flow from policy differences. And this heat could not have been artificially ginned up by Fox News if they were not tapping into some pre-existing condition.

You’re younger than I am. I’m old enough to have seen segregated drinking fountains and 45 years ago to have my family threatened by the KKK for having a black person in our home. 10 years ago I have relatives who decided against using a diaper service for their kids because n—- used the same service. I’ve worked for companies that refused to hire blacks.

Denying that racism is deep in the blood of this country is about as rational as holocaust denial. Racism did not disappear suddenly. And it is no coincidence that all of the hate-filled, screaming faces we see are older white people.

Jimmy is not “trying to be funny” he and mw are trying to deny that racism can even be discussed.

As for the charges of racism, well, I think that’s an overly simplistic answer to a complicated problem. Of course there are those who do have genuine, misguided prejudices about Obama, but do they make up the majority? Doubt it. Trust me, I’m frustrated too, but nothing good ever came of calling people racists and stopping there intellectually.

So what’s happening?

Well, people have been so scared by the right wing that Obama is some sort of crypto-communist-facist that they’ll believe literally anything that comes from the noise machine and Fox News. But this is nothing new. It just spreads faster because of the internet and the 24 hour news cycle. So the trick now is to continue to call it out in a way that makes sense for the majority so these scare tactics don’t spread any further.

What’s nice about Obama is that he’s NONE of these things, and the right wing is setting the bar so low that all he has to do is show that he’s NOT these things and the majority of folks will see it, acknowledge it and stop listening to those who are spreading smears, lies, etc. This is EXACTLY what happened during the primaries and the general election and he beat these folks at every turn. And if this persists and the right wing doesn’t come up with any genuine criticism, 2012 will be a cake walk.