Not all law professors are this clueless
Posted by aogThursday, 17 September 2009 at 16:45 TrackBack Ping URL

Ann Althouse writes

Lots of people who voted for Obama believed that his election would reflect the extent to which Americans had moved beyond racism. […] Little did we realize that it would turn every criticism of the President into an occasion to make an accusation of racism.

[…]

Imagine if, before last year’s election, someone had argued: If a black man becomes President, anyone who dares to criticize him will be called a racist.

I am flumoxed that someone would actual put this in to print. As the commentors point out, exactly this was predicted by basically the entire conservative blogosphere. I suspect many MALists also saw it but simply gloated about it silently so as to not tip their hand. So why would we have to imagine it? It happened thousands of times. Even Instapundit made that argument and he’s hardly obscure in the online community.

Wow. It’s like hearing a co-worker say “I didn’t realize the card could go in the slot only one way”.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
erp Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 19:28

I’m flumoxed that Althouse voted for Obama and admitted it.

Bret Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 23:19

Well, McCain was a pretty weak candidate. I don’t blame her.

cjm Friday, 18 September 2009 at 00:43

althouse isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer — that’s why she teaches law.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 18 September 2009 at 00:59

I voted for Obama. On the issues that I most care about, I very much doubt that “Keating Five” McCain would be doing any better than O-dog. (Whoops, racist!)

After the GOP refused to back Gingrich in any meaningful way, and the implosion of Bush the Younger, the GOP would have to throw up another Reagan before I vote for them again. Fat chance of that anytime soon.

Except Palin, I like her, although she doesn’t strike me as Presidential. Or even very Gubernatorial. Maybe in the fullness of time she’ll become qualified - as did Hillary.

erp Friday, 18 September 2009 at 08:34

I voted for Obama. One of those irrevocable decisions?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 18 September 2009 at 09:00

LOL

Technically, yeah.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 18 September 2009 at 18:44

Hey, let’s not forget I commented via a poster on this subject too.

Except Palin, I like her, although she doesn’t strike me as Presidential. Or even very Gubernatorial. Maybe in the fullness of time she’ll become qualified - as did Hillary.

Had it been Palin vs. Obama, who would you have voted for?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 19 September 2009 at 07:11

Well, that would have been a nightmare race, supporting contention that our political system is broken. Like David Duke vs Edwin Edwards in Louisiana. Although primary votes did chose Duke, Edwards and Obama to be candidates; maybe the issue is that our VOTERS are broken.

Neither Palin nor Obama have resumés impressive enough to support a candidacy for President in normal times, although as I have written several times in this forum, a sterling resumé is no guarantee of a successful Presidency: Buchanan and Grant, for instance. Or in this case, even Carter and Clinton were far more qualified to be President than either Obama or Palin using standard criteria, but Carter was a disaster and Clinton a disappointment. (Disclosure: Ford voter in ‘76, Clinton in ‘92 but not ‘96. [Anti-Bush the Elder vote, really; supported Dukakis in ‘88 for much the same reason.])

Judging just by the top of the ticket I probably would have gone with Palin, because I like her bearing and I like that she was a reformist zealot who triumphed not once, not twice, but three times over the corrupt, wicked, big-money, good ol’ boy old guard.

But she would have been hopelessly at sea in Washington, in a fathom over her head, so it would have depended on who was on the underticket. Palin/McCain, Romney, Huckabee or Paul vs Obama/Biden, I probably go with Palin. Palin/Romney vs Obama/Clinton I go with Palin, but Palin/Anyone else vs Obama/Clinton I go with Obama.

So in essence I like McCain as Vice President, in an advisory role, but not as President - at least not vs Obama or Clinton.

Harry Eagar Saturday, 19 September 2009 at 14:01

Well, some at least of the criticism of Obama IS racist. I get calls.

How representative they are, I cannot say.

I didn’t vote for anybody. Nor in 2004 or 2000.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 20 September 2009 at 14:50

I don’t see any of in except on the fringe, certainly less of it than is the case with the Obamatons or Obama himself, for that matter. Some at least of the criticism of Bush was racist too, which means … what?

Harry Eagar Monday, 21 September 2009 at 13:17

That’s a tautology, I think.

I am not aware of any racism coming out of ‘Obama himself.’ His attendance at Wright’s church was, but that was private until recently. His attendance at the church was the main reason I didn’t vote for him, but his racial behavior since resigning has been, so far as I have seen, impeccable.

Perhaps he has been making nasty racial comments that the newspapers have suppressed?

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 21 September 2009 at 13:55

The Henry Louis Gates incident for one. His appointment of and support for Attorney General Eric Holder, who is busy implementing race based policies in the Department of Justice. His “typical white person” remark about his grand mother.

P.S. Can I take it then that you support the view that a person should not be held responsible for the actions and statements of his political allies and supporters, even if he never repudiates them?

cjm Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 06:41

obama makes pro forma denials about his opponents not being racists, but they are always sly and misleading. he could easily shut it all off if he wanted to, but it’s about all he has left now. the ironic thing is, the election of obama has pretty much obsoleted the racism charge, even if the dems don’t see it that way.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 13:26

I am mystified about your take on Gates.

‘Can I take it then that you support the view that a person should not be held responsible for the actions and statements of his political allies and supporters, even if he never repudiates them?’

Well, hardly ever for the actions. For statements, depends. What issue, what supporter? How close?

But if you mean should Sarah Palin be held responsible for the guy who ranted to me on the phone about ‘that black bastard in the White House,’ no.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 10:51

I think that Obama jumped in because he saw “white cop, black citizen” and judged the entire incident on race. Obama himself said he didn’t know what happened. I certainly think the “acted stupidly” is based on that.

And, rather than random anonymous ranters on phones, what about political appointees, or publicly acknowledged political allies? I.e., X states Y is a political ally — to what extent is X guilty by association with Y for Y’s actions / statements if X doesn’t repudiate the relationship?

erp Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 12:13

Probably not guilty by association for political views and other opinions. For egregious name calling and vulgarity, probably yes. For bare-faced lying, absolutely.

Post a comment