That's what they mean by "classy" and "eloquent"?
Posted by aogFriday, 24 July 2009 at 13:04 TrackBack Ping URL

Gosh, how is that “post-racial” thing with President Obama working out?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Bret Friday, 24 July 2009 at 13:41

I consider the fact that Obama was elected as evidence that the country as a whole is indeed post-racial.

The fact that various individuals still are racist or at least interested in playing the “race card” is neither surprising nor particularly interesting to me.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 24 July 2009 at 14:10

I don’t. I do find it a delicous helping of schaenfruede in seeing this from the person so many Obamatons said would the The One to bring us to a post-racial society.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 09:41

Here’s an interesting comment from Just One Minute

  1. Yes, one of the matters is that of an inappropriate response by the POTUS. A response that: a) would be inappropriate in form in any matter, even one not about race or police; b) would be inappropriate in content. It reveals a anit-american, far left, knee jerk, anti-establishment and anti white hostility. It is not an sober and adult response. It should not be tolerated from a private individual; it certainly cannot be countenanced coming from the POTUS. That is comes so effortlessly from his mouth tells us all we need know about the inappropriateness of Obama holding his office. He has racial contempt for 70% of the population. He has no intention at all of representing them. THey are to be used and humiliated.
  2. But it is not just about this. As far as the particular matter at hand, Crowley is in the right as far as all we can see at this point, and Gates is in the wrong, and glaringly so. This does matter in and of itself. It is not merely a matter of Obama’s response. It will not do to say “wellwhatever happened Obama should not have responded this way”. Though this may be true, it is particularly damning given what actually happened and to pretend otherwise is merely engage an act of moral and rhetorical legerdemain on the part of Obama’s supporters to defect blame and minimize the damage. Here they compound the damage.
  3. If a Republican or a conservative—or even a white person—had done a similar thing, either with the exact same incident or another incident obverted so far as race goes, the Left would be howling loud enough to bring down the rafters.

Those troll posting that “they do not understand why people are upset”, are dissembling. They all too well know why. That is why they try this dodge to make the very fact of the outrage a moral fault. But it is no such thing. IT would be a moral fault not to be alarmed by this, and it is not a trvial matter. It may be true that they feel that this should not upset people, or that they wish it did not, but these are altogether different formulations, and ones, I might add, that shows how arrogant and how out of touch they are with reality.

The last thing we need note is that it is shameful that Gates has the position he has. He has made a fortune out of being a victim. He lives far better than most white people in this country. He does not deserve it.This is the real scandal: he should be nowhere near young minds. He should be nowhere near any institution of learning or scholarship whatsoever.

This is perhaps the deepest scandal of all of this.

erp Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 11:14

This is perhaps the deepest scandal of all of this.

It’s even worse because there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of other “professors/teachers” both black and white preaching the same victimization theology to students of all racial and ethnic persuasions.

I saw where Iraq will be sending students to colleges and universities in the Anglosphere. Won’t they be surprised to learn from their teachers and their peers that the U.S. really is the devil just as their imam’s said we were.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 20:05

Hmmm… Well, when I read 1., 2., 3. I think “nutjob”. Obama Derangement Syndrome.

It reveals a anit-american [sic], far left, knee jerk, anti-establishment and anti white hostility. […] That is [sic] comes so effortlessly from his mouth tells us all we need know about the inappropriateness of Obama holding his office. He has racial contempt for 70% of the population. He has no intention at all of representing them. THey are to be used and humiliated.

That an American adult thinks “that was stupid,” upon hearing that a black man was arrested in his own home for supposedly being a burglar, is not anti-: American, establishment, or especially white. Nor is it far left. It means that said American adult has been paying attention.

Police ineptness and abuse happen ALL THE TIME, in part because police officers are human and make mistakes. YouTube has a hundred videos purporting to demonstrate examples of such.

Obama made a mistake to comment at all, but to say that such a comment demonstrates that Obama is unfit to hold office displays a childish lack of historical and social knowledge. ALL Presidents say stupid or inappropriate things occasionally, because they too are human.

Obama probably does have contempt for 70% of the population, but so do I, and in neither case is it based on race. To suggest that it IS based on race in Obama’s case is in and of itself racist, in that it asserts that Obama’s self-identity is simply and solely “black”. It isn’t, any more than most sane white people base their self-identity around “not being colored”. In fact, the “white supremacist” stereotype is an object of ridicule.

To further assert that Obama intends to “use and humiliate” 70% of the population while having “no intention at all of representing them” displays a deep ignorance of how politics works in a democracy, as well as an astounding misread of actual politicians’ behavior. ALMOST ALL politicians well-represent large blocs of voters for whom they have contempt, because A) most politicians consider themselves to be superior humans and elite, and B) large voter blocs have the power to end careers, even if they do so rarely, and so need to be at least adequately-served.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 20:48

upon hearing that a black man was arrested in his own home for supposedly being a burglar

The only people hearing that are people who are listening to the confused and the fabricators. Gates wasn’t arrested in his home, he wasn’t arrested in the house (which he rents), and he wasn’t arrested for being (or suspected of being) a burglar.

But of course Obama, by his own admission, did not know that. Beyond the error of promoting some local incident to national prominence solely on the basis of Gates being a friend, there is the self admitted error of jumping in without knowing the facts. Yes, all Presidents mispeak. But this is well beyond that.

That said, I would agree that some of the comment is a bit over the top, but I think it’s less over the top than Obama’s original statement or any of his “attempts to calibrate” afterwards.

Obama probably does have contempt for 70% of the population, but so do I, and in neither case is it based on race. To suggest that it IS based on race in Obama’s case is in and of itself racist

Regardless of whether Obama is, in fact, a racist? It is not permitted to accuse him of it, regardless of evidence or facts? How would you say one should call out actual racists, if it’s racist to call them racist? I think it just shows how utterly divorced from reality the very term has become, which is a reason I try to avoid it. I don’t know if Obama is or not, but surely that is possible and I don’t see how your view handles that case.

To further assert that Obama intends to “use and humiliate” 70% of the population while having “no intention at all of representing them” displays a deep ignorance of how politics works in a democracy

On whose part? I think the JOM commentor is keenly aware of how politics works, he just doesn’t think Obama works that way. I suspect that if you told him “using and humiliating 70% of the population while not representing them” is stupid, he would say “yes it is”. Personally, I think it’s unclear whether Obama is going to do that or not, but I would say the evidence is in favor of the hypothesis, as one need merely look at his attempted legislative efforts.

erp Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 22:00

Rough, are you aware that Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, made the off-the-wall remark apropos of nothing, that the police endorsed McCain implying that they harassed Gates because they were racists for not voting for Obama. Odd because Crowley apparently did support Obama.

These guys politicize everything.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 22:36

Obama may well be a racist, and some of his past associates clearly are. What I was attempting to say, obviously poorly, is that this incident ALONE does not support a charge of racism, and the quoted comment specifically claims that it does:

A response that […] would be inappropriate [even] in [context]. It reveals […] anti white hostility. […] He has racial contempt for 70% of the population.

A black guy initially siding with a person he knows, who is also black, against an anonymous cop, is not evidence that Obama hates whites, or even that he feels that colored people are automatically superior to white people. That is my basis for saying that accusing Obama of racism based on this incident is a racist reaction: The underlying worldview is that it’s race that’s the determining factor here, and not the entirely plausible view that it may be about past police blunders and fraternity.

If Obama IS a racist, he’s the slickest racist that I’ve ever encountered, and further, even if he were a racist at heart, as long as he doesn’t act on it what does it matter?

What Obama is, is an elitist.

These guys politicize everything.

Much like the Clinton admin; one of their more distasteful, (but less-harmful), attributes.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 23:19

this incident ALONE does not support a charge of racism

Ah. That’s a good point. I think we also agree that whatever his motive, Obama’s action were a demonstration of his personal lack of grace and class.

Tom C Tuesday, 28 July 2009 at 13:03

Obama is a narcisistic egomaniac. A local matter where he has no business unless he believes that everything is his business. I though he was a constitutional ‘scholar’. The man-child should grow up.

Post a comment