« | »

NYT: Obama Is Ignoring Red States — And Blacks

From the New York Times:

Dissent Festers in States That Obama Forgot

By JOHN HARWOOD | June 19, 2013

WASHINGTON — You might call North Dakota the antithesis of President Obama’s political base.

Whites make up 90 percent of its population, which is fewer than one million people and mostly in rural areas. Its proportion of people 65 and over exceeds the national average. There was never a chance that North Dakota would give Mr. Obama its three electoral votes.

So Mr. Obama has not given North Dakota his time. It is one of six states he has not visited as president, along with South Dakota, Arkansas, Idaho, South Carolina and Utah. He has gone just once to Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Wyoming.

Mr. Obama’s near-complete absence from more than 25 percent of the states, from which he is politically estranged, is no surprise, in that it reflects routine cost-benefit calculations of the modern presidency. But in a country splintered by partisanship and race, it may also have consequences.

Wow. This almost sounds like criticism. And from the New York Times. What is going on over there?

America’s 21st-century politics, as underscored by the immigration debate now embroiling Congress, increasingly pits the preferences of a dwindling, Republican-leaning white majority against those of expanding, Democratic-leaning Hispanic and black minorities.

Now that is the New York Times we know and loathe.

Even some sympathetic observers fault Mr. Obama for not doing all he could to pull disparate elements of society closer.

“Every president should make an attempt to bridge the divide,” said Donna Brazile, an African-American Democratic strategist. “It’s a tall order. I wouldn’t give him high marks.”

Al Cross, who directs the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, said, “You’re president of the whole country.” By all but ignoring the state, he added, Mr. Obama has allowed negative sentiment toward his presidency to deepen and harden…

You see? Obama needs to campaign more in the red states, so they too will love him.

While a president’s destinations carry symbolic weight, the entire country sees the chief executive through media coverage wherever he goes.

But Mr. Obama burst onto the national stage as a bridge-builder whose biracial ancestry spanned the white Kansas heartland and emerging minority communities. His 2004 Democratic convention speech gained moral force by scorning the fact that “pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states.”

“There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America,” Mr. Obama said then. “There’s not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.”

The Times is just noticing the irony of this? Where have they been for the last five years while Obama has done everything in his power to divide on along race and class? (In reality, this article ends with a demand that he do more of the same.)

As Mr. Obama’s presidential travel shows, his White House has sliced and diced as finely as any. According to figures compiled by Mark Knoller of CBS News, an unofficial White House historian, Mr. Obama has visited the swing states of Colorado 19 times, Florida 30 times, Iowa 18 times, Nevada 17 times and Ohio 39 times…

The sense of disappointment some feel extends beyond inattention to staunch opponents. Mr. Obama has not, for instance, traveled as president to the overwhelmingly poor, black Mississippi Delta, either.

Ms. Brazile sees the White House stuck “in this postracial box,” determined to present Mr. Obama as a leader who does not reflexively promote the concerns of fellow African-Americans over others.

Huh? So Donna Brazille’s real complaint was that Obama was not giving enough spoils to blacks. Now we get it.

The historic fact that an African-American even made it to the White House, of course, marked a pathbreaking leap across the country’s divisions. But Ms. Brazile hopes Mr. Obama will do more.

“There will be a chapter on reconciliation” in books assessing his legacy, she said. But so far, “that chapter doesn’t have many paragraphs.”

In other words, the real complain here is that Obama has not given enough reparations to blacks. And he needs to do that to help get amnesty passed.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, June 19th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “NYT: Obama Is Ignoring Red States — And Blacks”

  1. Noyzmakr

    Lucky bastards. I wish he’d stay the hell away from North Carolina.

  2. Petronius

    The existence of large cohesive subgroups is always fatal to democracy.

    Whenever government rests on the principle of one-man-one-vote democracy, and the electorate includes cohesive subgroups, and especially sizable groups of uneducated or propertyless persons with limited will or capacity for civilization, it inevitably tends to degenerate into semi-anarchy or into some form of despotism, ruled by demagogues and tyrants who manipulate the electorate and the democratic formula for anti-democratic ends.

    History abounds with examples, as indeed does the modern world.

    Nerobama is unique because he is the first in America since Reconstruction deliberately to abuse the democratic process and develop divide-and-rule into a systematic method of governance. The first to make predation on the innocent and “punish your enemies” a successful path to power and a principle of government policy. Unfortunately he won’t be the last.

    We are already at the point where pollsters are able to take a headcount of each of the left-wing identity groups every four years and accurately predict the outcomes of elections within one or two percentage points. These subgroups of voters will vote predictably in election after election, regardless of the relative merits of the candidates and the conditions, circumstances, and events in the country.

    We are already at the point where elections have become an exercise in demagoguery to “energize the Democratic base” –– i.e., take all the Democrat Party subgroups (racial minorities, foreigners, single women, college students, homosexuals, misfits, moochers, labor unions, and recycled bus-riding voters and reliable dead voters), add them all up, apply a turn-out ratio, and if the result is 51% (give or take a few points), then we can automatically declare their candidate the winner.

  3. … ’cause Obama ain’t Black. That’s why.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »