Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism". Mr Carter told a public meeting there was "an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president".
Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson was rebuked on Tuesday in a House vote. He shouted "You lie!" while Mr Obama was delivering an address on healthcare to Congress last Wednesday.
Now I take Mr. Wilson's accusation as meaning, according to the English language, that he felt Mr. Obama tells lies. Ann Coulter has this to say about the Left:
Liberals always take the side of the enemies of civilization against civilization. In the view of The New York Times, every criminal trial is a shocking miscarriage of justice -- except the ones that actually are shocking miscarriages of justice.
In the interests of fairness, let's examine Carter's statement again, in the light of Wilson. Regular readers here, including the sensible left, would agree that many do not want a black as a President. That, by definition, is racist. However, lying can be done by anyone and this man, in terms of his role of president, not as a black, has lied.
So why does Carter play the racist card? Why not accuse Wilson of being a wife beater or a closet Abba lover or something like that? The answer, of course, is that racism is the popular issue of the moment, so if he can't refute Wilson with facts, he has to use the emotive slur, thereby also upping his street cred with blacks.
President Baldrick Insane Obama,
ReplyDeleteThe White Hoose.
Sir,
It would be racist to refrain from accusing you of lying just because you are half black.
Yours in a lucid moment,
Rt Hon Dr James Gordon Brown PM, MP, Loony.
I'm not sure. I reckon Carter knows more about the US South than I do, and he must have a reason for such a serious accusation. Then I ask myself if Wilson would have said the same thing to a white President, and I think the answer is probably "yes".
ReplyDeletePerhaps he would ahve said the same to a white president. On a separate note, do you believe Coulter's drivel about the Left. If you are looking top insult then you certainly are James
ReplyDeleteMaybe, maybe. :)
ReplyDeleteFrom here: http://www.usa-presidents.info/carter.htm
ReplyDeleteThis: "In his 1970 campaign Carter was elected governor on a pro-George Wallace platform. Carter's campaign aides handed out thousands of photographs of his opponent, the liberal former Gov. Carl Sanders, showing his opponent associating with black basketball players. On the stump, Carter pledged to reappoint an avowed segregationist to the state Board of Regents. He promised as his first act to invite former Alabama Gov. George Wallace into the state to speak. Old-line segregationists across the state endorsed Carter for governor.:
I find it jump to infer racism from: "You lie".
Jimmy Carter is not one who ought to be pointing fingers.
Well Coulter is racist- 'raghead talks tough raghead takes the conseqeunces' is one gem from that font of wisdom- she also called for America to invade the Middle East and convert people forcibly to Christianity- if you want to argue that the right aren't racist (and in general I'd agree the right aren't) then Anne Coulter isn't a good person to cite.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your commenter who called Carter into question though because of his support for Wallace. But James the left isn't Jimmy Carter- anymore than the right is Anne Coulter!
Listening...
ReplyDeleteThe Americans who detest Obama do so because he is a Marxist, not a black Marxist. Being black was in fact indespensible to a nobody being elected.
ReplyDeleteIf only jimmy carter were mulatto, that terrible sting would be taken out of a sititng elected President being rejected by citizens in a national referrendum.
"Maybe, maybe. :)"
ReplyDeleteSDoes that mean if you are tribng to offend James?
The left-wing pulls the race card any time they have nothing else in the deck; they work so hard trying to find evidence of racism that all they do is keep it alive. Most of us in the US don't care what color the president is.
ReplyDelete"Why am I going to hate someone based solely on the color of their skin when if I get to know them I can find 1,000 other reasons to think they're an asshole?"
-George Carlin
No, Jams - just putting it up for comment.
ReplyDeleteThe best thing about accusing someone of being a racist (or homophobe) is there is no way to respond or defend against it.
ReplyDeleteMe? I hate everyone equally, regardless of race, sex, creed, or sexual dysfunction.
Just kidding. Mostly.
Thanks for those responses.
ReplyDelete"would agree that many do not want a black as a President."
ReplyDeleteThat is based solely on your feelings :) Of course there are some (there are some that don't want a white president also, but this is the first time they had a shot at making that possible) but there is no way to know how many.
All we do know is that a great many wanted Obama and a slightly lesser great many did not.
Was it his color or simply the fact that a (slightly lesser) great many didn't like his politics, his past and his associates?
I'd say MANY didn't like the latter and certainly SOME didn't like the former.
"That is based solely on your feelings"
ReplyDeleteYou make that statement and then speak of a "less great many". So actually my use of "many' was correct. Your use of "solely" is inaccurate.
Slurs like that are wild and unsubstantiated. The one thing this blog is based on, as is my real life work, is accuracy - that's what it's all about.
That's why I rewrote the Meredith Kercher post - to be accurate, which the first version wasn't.
People can disagree with the overall thrust, e.g. that free market economics is better than socialism but you can't argue with my facts.
The reason you can't is that the moment they're shown to be inaccurate, I change 'em and as you know, there is a standing challenge to anyone to show me where I've been inaccurate.
"Based solely on feelings?"
I've never operated that way - that's for others in the sphere. I issue you the same challenge - show where I'm inaccurate in saying "many".
Where are your stats to support your assertion?
If you can show them to me, to the point where "many" is an inaccurate word or "solely" is accurate, I'll change it.
Until then, your case is not proven.
You get up on the wrong side of the bed today James? The smiley face should have warned you that I was just playing with you.
ReplyDeleteI'm under the hammer just now in a different way in RL, m'lord and that involves blocking someone else's misconceptions and so it just flowed over here. Nothing terminal.
ReplyDeleteSry James, had to goto work.
ReplyDeleteLet me expound on my reply. The first sentence was me tweaking you cause I do know you like to be accurate. The rest of my reply was my explanation of why (imo) I thought you should have used some instead of many. In this case many cannot be proven or disproven making it unquantifiable for your purposes and you normally stay away from words like that.
I have been called a racist more times since BO's election than the rest of my years combined (it seems) and I live in the South, so that's saying something :)
Not a problem.
ReplyDeleteJames if you are so concerned about accuracy how can you describe the entire left through one ex President- Jimmy Carter? Ultimately aren't you doing exactly the same thing as Carter did- picking up one leftwinger (as he has picked up a couple of rightwingers) who has a view you don't like and then identifying a whole group of people you disagree with with that view.
ReplyDeleteTiberius - I knew you couldn't resist it, even as I was writing it. :)
ReplyDelete