Dems oppose Herman Cain because they're racist…maybe

I like Herman Cain and I hope I get an opportunity to vote for him.  Unfortunately I do not think he can win a national election.  I don’t see the American Independents (the voting base who actually elects Presidents) will feel comfortable electing someone who is not a politician.

Deep down, I think as much as people say they want someone who hasn’t been tainted by Washington, there is always the concern that someone who is outside the political loop may not have the experience necessary to lead the world (I urge the reader to overlook the irony of the 2008 election results).  Sure, I think Cain could easily coast into a seat in the US Congress or the US Senate, but not President, not yet.

But I wonder how the liberals will treat Cain in the media during the primary process.  Will they criticize him or his policies?  Will conservatives be able to call them racists if they do?  They seem to have no problem decrying conservatives for chastising President Obama as racists.

Anyone asking any questions about Obama’s choices for appointments are all racist.  Ask about his chosen associations, and you’re a racist.  I would love to see the look on Chris Matthews’ or Ed Schultz’s, or *gasp*, Bill Maher’s face when someone drops the R-bomb on them.  Oh the stammering and stuttering they will do.

Of course opposition to Cain, or even Obama does not a racist make.  And I think it will take a Herman Cain or Allen West making major headway in politics for liberals to understand that it’s OK to dislike a black person’s political ideology and it doesn’t make you a racist.  Somehow I think they will find a way to spin it so it’s possible for liberals to oppose black politicians with genuine intentions, but we all know conservatives are just racist.

Comments

  1. The one thing I know about him now is that he has made an unconstitutional proposal/promise (“there will be NO Muslims in my administration!”) that smacks of bias and is counter to American ideals. That alone is enough to make me not vote for him…

  2. [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Article 6 of the Constitution

    “No religious test clause states that no religious test is required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the U.S.. No religious test clause is enshrined in Article VI, section 3 of the U.S. constitution. No religious test clause simply means that any federal emplyee, whether elected or appointed is not under a strict compliance to follow or accept any religion.”

    legal definitions

    Fair enough? Wouldn’t demanding that people NOT be Muslim be a violation of that Constitutional tenet?

    • Grewat, I knew that’s what you’d cite. Now can you please cite what the founders meant by religious test. Please use original sources, not opinions from legal analysts from more than a century later. The sources are available.

      • I was not there and don’t know the original intent. Do you suspect the original intent was, “…but MUSLIMS can be excluded freely”? Could be. They intended to keep black folk excluded, so why not Muslims?

        I don’t know the answer to that question, but I know what makes sense – that we DON’T exclude people from office based upon race or religion. It’s contrary to our values.

        Do you think that excluding people based on their faith is a good thing?

        • While you research my question, I’ll ask you what you think is unconstitutional about Cains statement? Taking into consideration that his admisistration would be made of appointees and not elected officials, which the clause has jurisdiction over.

          • I repeat, according to the Legal Definitions dictionary…

            “No religious test clause simply means that any federal emplyee, whether elected or appointed is not under a strict compliance to follow or accept any religion.”

            And I repeat:

            I know what makes sense – that we DON’T exclude people from office based upon race or religion. It’s contrary to our values.

            Do you think that excluding people based on their faith is a good thing?

            • Unfortunately, unless you use legal opinions from the era in which the document was written, I don’t give it much credence. Sorry, I know too much about the founding era to be so naive about the intentions of the founders. I have read far too many first hand writings, the Annuls of Congress (where they recorded the thinking process that guided the language used).

              And yes, if there is a particular religion where the stated purpose is to take over the world whether it be by honest or dishonest means, and to wage war with non-adherents, yes, someone who affirms that religion should not have governmental authority.

              But this is about Herman Cain’s race and the liberal double standard about crying racism. Stay on topic.

            • So, you are saying that excluding a WHOLE religious group based upon a stereotype of their religion is a good thing? I disagree, I think that is antithetical to American ideals, and I suspect you’re in the minority on that point. Certainly, your take on it is not in fitting with current jurisprudence.

              And I don’t really care if the founding fathers MEANT to say, “We ought to exclude purple presbyterians from appointed office,” that does not make it right.

              The founders were imperfect humans. We have the responsibility to take the Constitution and make it continue to work in a growing society. We’ve grown PAST slavery. We’ve grown PAST sexist roles. We’ve grown PAST limiting participation to “the landed.” THESE ARE ALL GOOD THINGS, don’t you think? We don’t hold to each ideal of a group of flawed humans from 250 years ago. Life moves on.

              Do you think that because the “founders’ intents” supported slavery, opposed women voting and held the franchise just for the landed that this is what our laws ought to reflect today? I hope not.

              • The sad reality is, that Islam as part of the religious frame work has a stated goal of world domination by converting or killing non-Muslims. Whether some Muslims refuse to engage this part of their religious is not enough for me to think Muslims in a high governmental position is a good idea.

                Also your lack of the founding history concerning slavery and womens voting is sad.

                Now we can either get back to the topic of discussion, or I can start moderating, your choice. The topic is: Will liberals be OK with being called racists for opposing Herman Cain by conservatives, just as conservatives are called racist for opposing Obama?

                The individual policies of Herman Cain are not the topic of discussion.

            • this is about Herman Cain’s race and the liberal double standard about crying racism. Stay on topic.

              ON topic, you asked specifically, “Will they criticize him or his policies?” I answered, saying, I criticize his one stated policy that I know of, which is prejudiced and anti-American/counter to our Constitution. That is on topic.

              My opposition to him has nothing to do with his race. You’re the one bringing up race. And I get that you’re trying to make a point, but it’s rather a simplistic point and I see no great need to dwell upon it. To the extent that some on the Left may have considered opposition to Obama racist, they were wrong.

              I have not done so, so it’s a moot point for me. None of my friends on the Left have labeled simple opposition as racist. Has it happened? Perhaps, I don’t know. I DO know that the question has been raised, “I wonder if this opposition would have been there if Obama had been white?” and given the behavior of SOME Republicans and Tea Partiers, I think it is a legitimate question to ask. But asking the question and stating it as a fact are different things.

              One should always consider the source: IS the opposition coming from a black person? From a white person in a black community? From a civil rights advocate? IF the opposition is coming from that sort of person, it’s fairly safe to assume that racism is not part of the equation.

              If, on the other hand, it’s coming from someone from a lily white background, someone who has made questionable comments on race in the past or uttered slurs (“welfare queens,” anyone?), that does begin to make at least some wonder about motivations.

              Given our history on race relations in this nation and the very real existence still of some very racist segments of society (and I live in the South, I know it exists because I still see it/hear it), you can hardly blame some folk for being wary.

              • You don’t know if conservatives have been called racists for opposing Obama? Check in with MSNBC.

                So if someone is white and grew up in a white community, they cannot oppose Obama without it being grounded in racism?

            • John…

              So if someone is white and grew up in a white community, they cannot oppose Obama without it being grounded in racism?

              See what I said…

              If, on the other hand, it’s coming from someone from a lily white background, someone who has made questionable comments on race in the past or uttered slurs (“welfare queens,” anyone?), that does begin to make at least some wonder about motivations.

              The combination of things – someone with little or no diversity in their background + someone who makes slurs/questionable comments + opposition to Obama (especially on topics where there was no opposition before when it was done by white politicians – see Birther movement)… THIS combination of things makes SOME people begin to question a person’s motivations.

              Not me so much, but I DO get where such folk are coming from. We are not living in a vacuum. Ours is a nation with a sordid past in how we have treated our minority brothers and sisters. People don’t forget that, reminders of this racist history is very much a part of some communities, and not with no reason.

              Do you have close friends who happen to be black? Are they less than trusting of some white folk who are opposed to Obama? Do you think it’s because your black friends are stupid? That they’re racist themselves? OR, do you – like me – recognize that the past has an impact on the present? The sins of the father are a curse to his children, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation,” the Bible tells us.

              Our actions have consequences and one of the consequences of the sins of past generations is there is an increased likelihood of broken relationships and mistrust beyond just the parties involved. And one can’t blame folk for that mistrust. It’s human nature.

              Do you disagree with that?

              Of course the fact that someone has no friends from a different race does not mean by default they are racist. What it DOES mean, though, is that they are lacking experiential knowledge of folk from at least some different backgrounds, and a little ignorance can go a long way, especially when it’s mixed with demonizing of the Others.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: