Since President Obama’s “evolution” in his position on same-sex marriage, the media has been beside itself with praise for his “leadership” on this issue. It doesn’t really come as a surprise to me, he seems to support every liberal cause imaginable. Unfortunately the left has not played fair when it comes to criticizing the president’s policies. Labels of “racist” are applied to whoever dares dissent from the most powerful man in the world — to the point where seminars teaching Democrats how to spin racially neutral speech, slogans, and headlines made by conservatives into racist code words (See: Playing the race care requires training).
A tweet by Legal Insurrection asked a very prophetic question: “So now any1 who opposes Obama policies is racist and homophobic?”. I wish it had occurred to me to ask this question first. I hate to say it, but I would not put it past Democratic strategists to take this angle. In fact, I’d be whole heartedly surprised if they didn’t, it’s right up their alley.
I find it wholly disturbing that this particular politician has garnered so much protection from the media. Not even the sainted Bill Clinton received as much protection as Obama has enjoyed. It is as though there is no way — actually that it is impossible to believe anyone could oppose his policies for what they are. Is the man so perfect that the only way one would disagree with him is because of what he looks like?
Regardless, given the left’s propensity to exaggerate and accuse, I am prepared to guarantee Legal Insurrection’s prediction will eventually surface. Remember, you heard it here second.
Sifting Reality 
Sadly, you are almost certainly right. Having said that, I’m encouraged that 70% of independents and even 50% of Democrats know that his “change” was due to politics. Technically, it was 100% due to money.
Neil is correct – it was 100% about money. With politics, all you ever have to do is follow the money. But you are also correct: we will indeed be called “homophobes” as well as “racist” any time we object to something Obamanation does or says.
You’ve got the blinders on on this one. First of all, Obama supports war and signed the NDAA. He also still allows discrimination in hiring for organizations that accept federal funding. Those are just a few ‘liberal’ causes he doesn’t support. For the record, he personally supports gay marriage, but he hasn’t exactly changed the Democratic platform to match his personal views. And guess what – that’s out of deference to you. You’re welcome.
If the right levels racist attacks against Obama, they’re called racists. That’s a pretty fair description of the sentiment among some, not all, of his detractors. Will you really suggest that no objections to Obama’s presidency are primarily due to race? And if people choose to lump him into the ‘homo’ category, then they are homophobic. Do you really think that you, I mean people, don’t hate him more now because some of their homophobia has now been assigned to him. And if we’re all perfectly honest, you considered the Democratic party a bastion of the ‘gay agenda’ already, so it doesn’t really change anything, except to throw a bone to his Democratic base who are so often disappointed at his willingness to compromise to corporate and religious Republican demands.
Jason,
Liberals like you can’t conceive that non-liberals could care less about Obama’s skin color. What we care about is his ideology. The real racists are those who keep calling him a black man and pretending his white half doesn’t exist. HE IS NOT A BLACK MAN!!!! But his ideology is for the complete economic and moral destruction of the nation – just like the ideology of all liberals.
The only reason Obamanation “allows” so-called “discrimination” is because he hasn’t been able to push all his agenda through yet. And the Demokratic platform has been pro-homosexuality for decades, so there is no real change except that they are “coming out of the closet” as to just how far they will push this agenda.
Jason
The left doesn’t do anything out of deference to the right. They do it because only 21% of the country considers itself liberal, and the majority of the country holds views inline with republican ideas. Everything the Obama administration has not tried to put in place is because it wouldn’t fly with the voters, not out of some imaginary respect.
Glenn,
I’m having trouble understanding you. In a previous thread, you said that “There is only one race – the human race.”, yet you now claim that Obama “IS NOT A BLACK MAN” because people ignore his “white half”.
That seems to be admitting that race does, in fact, exist. Which is your position? Does race not exist? Or does it exist enough that Obama is not “black” because of a “white half”?
Or is it that whatever best suits your argument is assumed to be true?
George,
I think it’s pretty clear that Glenn’s statement was addressing the left’s obsession with Obama’s “black half”. It is true that there is never any mention of him being in any way of the white race. They just focus on his black half. Meanwhile, we don’t like either half, but not because of his race(s), but because of his stupidity and woeful unworthiness for the office he holds.
Indeed race exists. It just seems to matter far more to the left than it does to the right, because unlike the left, we on the right agree with Martin Luther King (who, if I’m not mistaken, was a black man) that one should be judged by the content of one’s character as opposed to the color of one’s skin. The right was already doing that and didn’t need an MLK to say it. We still are.
As to the topic, the only thing about Barry’s position that was evolving was the way in which he could find a way to say it openly without costing him. Frankly, I don’t think he cares one way or the other about homosexuals, and likely would prefer they shut up. But that wouldn’t help his political aspirations, so he pretends to give a crap.
On a side note, I heard on a radio show some lib writer stating in an article somewhere that she thought Obama was too intelligent to be president and that the office holds him back from all the wonderful things his incredible intellect would be able to accomplish. The radio show host (I think it was Medved) didn’t seem to act as if it was a comedy piece, except that it was so ludicrous a case of a lefty’s adulation for the messiah, I’d have to say it must have been.
But Marshall, didn’t you read the previous comments Glenn made? He doesn’t think race exists and he doesn’t think Obama is black because he has a “white half”.
His reason directly contradicts his personal ideology. Funny that……
For the record, I’m one of the people who voted “yes” in the above poll. I think Democrats will accuse Republicans of homophobia- both rightly and wrongly. That doesn’t change the fact that many (but not all) Republicans say things that are openly homophobic and racist- or the fact that they cry foul when they are rightfully accused of it. It will also certainly be the case that some Democrats will call “I’m not voting for Obama because of the economy” as being veiled racism and homophobia. They would be what I like to call…wrong.
Arguments are judged on their merits. They should be. I’m telling you that Glenn has made an argument that cotradicts his previous comments. At least have the consistancy to hold everyone to the same standard.
But George, aren’t you above making such goofy statements? For Glenn to say that there is only the human race does not mean that he doesn’t recognize biological differences that distinguish one “race” from another. In the world of politics, an honorable politician would not deal in that realm except to call for an end to discussions, accusations and conflicts based upon such differences for the sake of the human race.
I would also say that to use the word “many” is just as bad as saying “all” in reference to the Republican position on race relations and having a half-black president. “Some” is the best you can say and remain credible because only the fringe of our ideology have issues with race. MOST Republicans do NOT say things that are the least bit racist or “homophobic”, but the left chooses to make such accusations without cause or evidence. In fact, it is done to avoid dealing with the merits of conservative arguments because theirs are so woefully inadequate, to say the least.
George,
My point was the inconsistency of the liberals. They call every one racists because we don’t like Obama’s ideology, and yet by their suppression of the fact that he has as much “white” as “black” in his make-up, they are the ones who are racists. They made up the idea of skin color = race, so they have to be held to their own standards. My point is that RACE is not an issue to begin with because there is only the human race, but when they use skin color to make different “races,” then they have to be consistent. And contrary to Marshall, I disagree that “races” exist. There are skin colors and tribes and cultures, but only one race.
Glenn,
The word “race” has long been associated with the differences between peoples of the world. “Species” works better for human beings, or “beings”. To say “human race” is the odd usage of the word, though I think it’s appropriate as a means of bringing people together, to say that we are all human BEINGS. But “races” do exist. It’s just a means by which we can speak of differences between the various racial groups. And there are differences aside from skin color. The black race is prone to scycle cell anemia and the white race isn’t. I believe there is a condition to which Jews are prone. It’s important to be able to speak to such things without fear of unfounded accusations and it’s important to be able to speak of a particular group without fear, period. So again, I’d say there is no such thing as “the human race”, any more than there is a canine race or a bovine race.
So to both you AND George, I apologize for my misunderstanding of what was being said.
Marshall Art:
“Race” was used to describe what we would now call tribes or cultures. It was only after evolutionism took hold that “race” was used to describe the five major “races” and their progress along evolution. “Negroids” are seen as not as far along evolution, and the “Australoids” are supposedly closest to the ape, which is why in the early 20th century we even had one displayed in a zoo. THAT is why the whole idea of race should be eradicated from our vocabulary. God speaks only of one human race. “Species” is not what humans are – that is for describing animals and plants.
George:
“Homophobe” and “homophobic” are buzz words to silence opposition. It would mean “fear of sameness,” but I don’t know of anyone who is afraid of those who practice homosexuality – we just don’t want it fostered and sanctioned by law. And, by the way, no one is a “homosexual” – that word was developed into noun so as to take away all responsibility from the individual for his choices of sexual behavior. They are just people who like homosexual sex – they are not “homosexuals.”
And I have seen no one, nor heard anyone, who has ever been against Obama due to his skin color. I know a huge number of Republicans/conservatives who were hoping Herman Cain would get the nomination, and he has some pretty dark skin! NO, the problem is that the Demokrats have no valid charge so they claim “racism” and “homophobia” to demonize and scandalize their opposition.
Marshall, I’m not inclined to change my wording. Many Republicans do say things that are racist and homophobic. Not that these things they say are reasons they provide for not supporting Democratic policy, but they say them none the less.
I don’t think it is racist not to support Obama….assuming you have reasons that are not racist. Many Republicans do have good reasons for not supporting liberal policies, but that does not excuse them if they simultaneously make racist or homophobic comments.
Again, context is everything.
Many Democrats say things that are racist and homophobic as well. Many Independents say things that are racist and homophobic. It seems to me, George, you’re bias is drooling out in record levels.
True Story: The 2008 election was fast approaching. I was at a yard sale and sparked up a conversation with a fellow about the economy and the rampant job loss in Michigan. We talked for awhile and then he said, “I don’t wanna vote for a GD nigger, but you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Republicans only care about the rich.”
Quite a few people in Obama’s corner are only in his corner because of what they think he can and will do for them.
So, if we’re going to get all fuzzy, wuzzy and denounce bigotry, let’s not pretend it’s specific to Republicans.
T
Your point is correct. Let’s just not pretend the “many” quantifier belongs exclusivly in the republican category.
But as I have contended in the past, I think the democrat platform manifests an unconscious racism in the form of government programs and the continuance of affirmative action. I.e, you cant do anything on your own with out us [the government] here to help you, you poor thing.
While it is true that certain hereditary conditions occur more frequently within groups, that is not a matter of race. The groups that have them are still human; just humans with hereditary conditions or risk factors. I’ve come to prefer the term “ethnicity” in place of how the word “race” is often used. The concept of “race” implies that one group is somehow more or less human then another. This particular notion grew into full fruition with Darwinism. Of course, the best and purest “race” was white, male, European and wealthy. Even the poor were considered a seperate “race.”
The darker one’s skin was, the more animal and the less human someone was considered to be, and it all had the veneer of “science” to back it up. There were debates as to whether or not the aboriginal peoples of what are now North and South America were human at all. Conveniently, by declaring various groups as being of a seperate “race” and lower on the evolutionary scale, this justified all sorts of atrocities. Our current concepts of race are rooted in this notion that you could tell which group of people were more or less “human” by the colour of their skin or the anatomical structure of their faces. I reject the notion that humanity is defined by the melanin content of one’s skin. There is only one human race, and it is not defined by ethnicity.
Kunoichi
I think you’re right. The term “ethnicity” actually allows the freedom to publicly recognize the differences between the “races” that the term “race” does not allow. When speaking of the differences between races, people are more likely to view you as a bigot or racist. But when speaking of traits of ethnicities, it comes across as more analytical.
In my hasty and time constrained attempt to research the subject, I have not found anything that suggests the term “race” was initially used to do anything more but recognize the differences in populations, amongst which “ethnicity” was only one. There is even usage to speak of people not “racially” different than one’s own physical appearance. Such divisions were used by some to suggest superiority, but that came later and frankly, was a convenience for those who would hold the sentiment to begin with.
A search of five different Bible translations only found the NIV to use the term, which can suggest that it was used as I suggested earlier, as a means of differentiating between other species of creature on earth. The term “human beings” could satisfy the intention just as well. It also suggests, as I did, that the term “human race” brings all human beings into one group, more than to suggest that there are no differences between the various groups of human beings. In other words, God’s use of the term (as indicated in the NIV) does not suggest no racial differences between the various human groups, but only that no physical difference is significant to Him, as it shouldn’t be to us.
I appreciate the desire to remove the term from common usage and the sentiment that drives that desire. I’m just not as sensitive to its use as some seem to demand we be. I’m more concerned that while differences are recognized, differences aren’t held up as an excuse to feel superior.
As to Republicans, I insist that some kind of evidence must be presented in order to allow accusations that “many” Republicans engage in racist speech. To say such suggests it is prevalent amongst Republicans and I maintain that it is not so amongst those Republicans I know. More to the point, it would be difficult to assess just what frequency of racist talk exists amongst either left or right, and focusing on public figures alone would leave a lefty with little evidence to support the claim. Even more difficult would be to determine the intentions of the speaker should he express something a lefty would leap to point out as racist. I recall one incident of lefties getting the vapors over a Republican’s use of the term “niggardly”. It has come to the point where the mere accusation is all a lefty needs to feel assured that what they want believe, as well as what they want others to believe, about the opposition is true.
According to some on the Left, Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes, Allen West, Larry Elder, and J.C. Watts are “Uncle Tom’s.”
Yet another example of leftists using race to divide people…