« | »

NYT: Risk For GOP In Racial Themed Attacks

From New York Times:

Newt Gingrich campaigning Tuesday in Florence, S.C. He said he had “struck a chord with the American people” at Monday’s debate by calling President Obama a “food stamp president.”

Risks for G.O.P. in Attacks With Racial Themes

January 17, 2012

CHARLESTON, S.C. — South Carolina has the nation’s first female Indian-American governor (a Republican), the highest-ranking African-American in Congress (on the Democratic side) and a rapidly growing population of Latinos, all evidence, longtime political players here say, that the state is shedding its racially charged past.

But like the historic slave plantations that draw tourists on the outskirts of town, the legacy of that past has not been totally wiped from the politics of today. And if the general election campaign by Republicans against President Obama, the nation’s first black president, goes on to include a fraught, multilayered discussion about minorities and entitlements, work ethics and what it means to be American, then it will have gotten under way in earnest here this week.

So it was that on Tuesday Newt Gingrich gleefully said his description of Mr. Obama as a “food stamp president” at Monday’s Fox News debate had “struck a chord with the American people”; the White House press secretary asserted that it was “crazy” to say so, and then Mr. Gingrich doubled down — releasing an ad with his debate-night assertion that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.”

Mr. Gingrich was clearly making the case that he is the candidate most able to take the fight to Mr. Obama in the fall, but he was also laying bare risks for his party when it comes to invoking arguments perceived to carry racial themes or other value-laden attack lines.

Mr. Gingrich has been engaging in such arguments here and there for the past couple of weeks…

Who is the racist here? Isn’t it the New York Times reporter, who assumes that only blacks are associated with food stamps. When in fact more whites receive food stamps than blacks. (Whites 64%. Blacks 12%. Hispanics 16%. Other 7%.)

And note the gibberish of "arguments perceived to carry… value-laden attack lines." Aren’t we supposed to talk about issues? Aren’t political issues ultimately about our values?

Mitt Romney, who regularly says Mr. Obama wants to create an “entitlement society,” often suggests that the election is about saving “the soul of America.”

What a racist!

But it took a Republican debate in South Carolina on Martin Luther King’s Birthday and an African-American debate moderator for the Fox News Channel, Juan Williams, to bring it all together for a national audience in a state that has tended to make issues of race, religion and class central for both parties.

Pressing Mr. Gingrich specifically at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center on Monday night, Mr. Williams asked Mr. Gingrich if his comments calling Mr. Obama a food stamp president were not potentially belittling to black people.

Mr. Williams was channeling the view of Democratic African-American stalwarts like Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, who likened the approach on Tuesday to a modern version of the Republican “Southern strategy” to win over disaffected white voters in the South when the Democrats embraced the civil rights movement.

When the Democrats were ’embracing the civil rights movement’ by filibustering the Civil Rights Bills?

“It tends to equate the president of the United States with dependency, with a lack of status, or tends to try to lower the president,” Mr. Clyburn said in an interview. “And I believe it’s another way to separate his presidency from the presidencies of all the others before him.”

You have to give Mr. Clyburn credit for being consistent. He has claimed that each every bit of criticism leveled against Obama is due to racism. In fact, Mr. Clyburn was one of the Obama supporters who "played the race card" on Bill Clinton.

And never mind that Mr. Clyburn is himself probably one of the most racist people on the planet.

In an interview, Mr. Williams said he questioned Mr. Gingrich about his “food stamp president” comments and his suggestions that poor children lacked a work ethic and should be put to work as janitors because he found the remarks to be “racially charged.”

“That’s more than a dog whistle,” Mr. Williams said. “It’s a hoot and a holler.”

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you are obsessed with race, everything seems to be racism.

Mr. Gingrich drew a standing ovation when he responded that a historically high number of Americans were on food stamps under Mr. Obama, and defiantly declared, “I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn someday to own the job.”

What a damned racist! You would never hear Martin Luther King, Jr. talking this way!

By the way, note the photo that The Rimes ran with their story. Note how it shows Gingrich’s audience. Note how they are all of the white persuasion. The racists!

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, January 18th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

46 Responses to “NYT: Risk For GOP In Racial Themed Attacks”

  1. River0 says:

    The “racism!” charge is the last refuge of a desperate Demonic Party. Which shouldn’t surprise us. What do they have to run on? What specific accomplishments can they trot out?
    Nothing, zip, nada. Perhaps a little bupkus.

    Take note of this from the article: “…President Obama, the nation’s first black president…” They must think – or know – that their audience is ignorant.

    The NY Times has sunk to new depths.

  2. ezra says:

    Devil’s advocate: “Racial coding” is real and has been pretty well established by all the studies exploring it. Are we all denying that it exists? If so, you can quit reading here.

    The fact that you may trigger some baser instincts among the electorate should not keep us from discussing the important issues of entitlements, crime, etc.

    If I were Newt “the educator”, I would always qualify such remarks with a statement like “And I’m not talking about folks ‘on the other side of the tracks here’, I’m talking about your neighbors: whites, blacks, hispanics, urban, rural, etc.”

    Instead of that, his qualifications have been to the effect (I’m paraphrasing): “And I’ll keep on saying these things. I’ll go to the NAACP and tell them they would be better off with jobs instead of food stamps.”

    So as the candidate who will supposedly best educate us, I do agree that Newt “the politician” is dumbing down these issues intentionally and can be rightly accused of racial coding.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      But what really irks the left is that it’s the truth. Since the equal rights amendment passed, blacks have struggled and largely due to their own desire for a quick, easy fix. No, it’s not just a black mechanism but when it’s coupled with a defiant, self-induced “cultural barrier” in order to “maintain their identity” they have shot themselves in the foot over and over and over.

      I know some blacks who do not subscribe to the garbage that “whitey bad/brotha goood”. They function in society and are accepted wherever they go. They speak plainly and clearly without any “negro dialect” and don’t care to. They pay their bills, work at their jobs and believe that people should be held accountable and are largely angry at….(drum roll please) not the white majority but the blacks who think they speak for ALL blacks.

      Newt is not “carefully parsing words” and race-baiting. He’s laying it out there plainly though and he prefaced one remark with, “I know among the politically correct you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.” Something I have heard at work and among friends for over 25 years now. Frankly, it would be ridiculous to think that even blacks don’t realize that the vast majority of people on government assistance are blacks and other minorities. But one who is of a rational mind has to ask, “Why is that?” and if they arrive at the answer that it’s a choice they’ve made then they win the prize.

      And add to that the left-wing apparatchiks who like to control the black and minority populations by insisting to them that they NEED the assistance; That it’s the ONLY way they can survive while simultaneously trumpeting that conservatives want them to starve and live in the street and to die. In one confrontation I’ve had, I put it like this, “Well, if you can’t feed and clothe and house yourself without the aid of the government, and you’re quite capable of learning a trade, a job or other means of self-support then you deserve to live in the streets and quite possibly die. Who in the hell owes you your own life? There’s only one person on the face of the earth who’s responsible for that, and that’s you

      That resulted in a scowl and silence. I was right and they knew it.

      The right to fail. That is what makes this country great because the right to fail allows (automatically) for the right to succeed.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “This is [a] way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him both due to nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

      – Eric Holder on the ‘racially coded’ motives behind Republican inquiry into Murdergate Operation Fast and Furious.

      People are savvy to the Party that cried Raaacism. Time to Moveon.org

    • SinCity says:

      By the way you’re describing “racial coding”, yes I am denying its existence. It’s largely, in my opinion, an invention dreamed up by the race baiters, and amplified by their accomplices in the liberal’s media. You say, ezra, that “all” the studies prove it. That type of assertion should not go un challenged. If you’re going to assert such a thing, cite the studies!

      By the way, do you actually believe that the liberal’s media would give him a pass with using “racial code”, if Newt qualified his statements the way you had suggested? It would be foolish, in my opinion, to think so.

    • tranquil.night says:

      SC, the studies ezra doesn’t cite regard Social Security, etc as White Welfare (notice Rusty is saying ‘government assistance’ not just Welfare and not programs that are supposed to be paid for by specific taxes like Medicare/SS); so that’s part of why they’ll argue minorities are the minority when it comes to who’s more on the government dole too.

      Notice also how it’s the Left who at each and every point are the race baiters and agitators.

      SG already points out:
      – There’s no way to argue that Newt calling Barack ‘the best food-stamp President’ is racially coded. The person making the racial connection is the person (and by extension the ideology) which is projecting its own racism.
      – There’s no way to argue that saying “Poor people can have a poor work ethic” is racially coded unless, once again, you are the one who personally associates poor and black/hispanic as synonyms.

      The whole foundation for this type of thinking is that the entire system legally, economically, and culturally is slanted against minorities. Reason cannot penetrate this fortress from reality. This is where they barricaded the plantation during the Reagan reform years too when African-American owned businesses and communities were growing and improving (same as the Bush years). The media never let that be known.

      Meanwhile under Obama, minority unemployment and misery skyrockets. Harry Reid: “It’s a great day when only 32k jobs have been lost in America this month.”

    • ezra says:

      “If you’re going to assert such a thing, cite the studies!”

      Gosh there are many. Doesn’t anybody google anything anymore? A good start would be here: https://www.google.com/search?q=study+politics+race+coding


      There may be some studies disproving the point, and that would be interesting. However, including “disproves” and/or “does not exist” and/or “deny” didn’t really find anything.

    • ezra says:

      “SC, the studies ezra doesn’t cite regard Social Security, etc as White Welfare …”

      I was speaking of studies looking at racial coding in political discourse, not welfare stats.

      But since Rusty threw out the “vast majority” claim, and even if we consider only food stamps, the figures I’ve seen say that whites account for over 40% of recipients and are the fastest growing group. Obviously, the participation rates among the races is far higher for blacks than whites, and perhaps this is what Rusty refers to.

    • SinCity says:

      TN, you have artfully stated what I was thinking about ezra’s claim. While I don’t deny that racism exists, and I’m not so naive to think that there aren’t folks who automatically think about minorities when the subject of government assistance comes up. However, I am convinced that among those who have bothered to educate themselves generally don’t get all riled up in a racist lather against minorities when a candidate broaches the subject of welfare reform and the ones who do are the exception, not the rule. It’s a not so subtle tool that the real racists use to cut off the discussion.

      I especially didn’t like how ezra used absolutes in framing their argument. I violated my own rule of feeding the trolls though. I read the three whole studies cited, and it seems to me that they all were written to prove the preconceived theme of every non minority gets into a racist lather, when a politition broaches the subject of welfare. I simply don’t buy it, especially judging from the years of posts I have read in this very blog.

      The resentment comes from the implication that we are all a bunch of knuckle draggers, that can get whipped up into a frenzy by the subtle choice of words that some dim-bulb politition uses in a meaningless speech or debate. I’m just simply not convinced.

    • ezra says:

      “I simply don’t buy it”

      I respect that, but I would personally need some actual evidence that studies such as these are inaccurate in their conclusions (which seem pretty obvious to me).

      The $64K question (aka the “risk” addressed by this article) is whether or not Republicans emerge as net gainers or losers by playing these issues “this way” (by subtlety reinforcing racial stereotypes) or “that way” (by attempting to rectify misconceptions such as Rusty’s “vast majority”).

  3. ezra says:

    “vast majority of people on government assistance are blacks and other minorities”

    Where do you get this information?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      From the liberals’ own Wikipedia:

      In FY 2009, African-American families comprised 33.3% of TANF families, white families comprised 31.2%, and 28.8% were Hispanic.[32] Since the implementation of TANF, the percentages of black and Hispanic families have increased, while the percentage of white families has decreased.[33] In 1992, blacks represented 37% of those on welfare; by 2002, this number increased slightly to 38%. In that same time period, the percentage of Hispanics rose from 18% to 25%. On the other hand, the percentage of welfare recipients who were white decreased from 39% to 32% in that same time frame.[33]


      But also remember that blacks are a percentage of the total population so the numbers don’t tell the whole story. If a certain percentage OF a percentage takes an equal or slightly larger share than the whole govt assistance pie, then it naturally follows that more of them are on tax subsidies than not. For example, if the population is just 100 people and 14 of them are black and the total payout for welfare is 100 bucks but the blacks get 40% of that 100, and the whites get 35% of that, then how many of the 14 are on welfare? To be correct, let’s say welfare is locked to $4 per individual. Therefore, 40 dollars (40% of 100) divided by 4 equals 10 people or, 71% of the black population in this sample (10/14). Let’s also say that the other percentage of the population is all white..and they get 35% of the total or 35 dollars…with a limit of $4 per person, that’s roughly 9 people. Or, 9 out of 86 white people or 10.4% of all whites. 71% of the black population on govt money vs. 10.4% of the white population.

      I have oversimplified by not including hispanics, asians, etc just to keep it easy to understand. But it becomes obvious that in this exercise, 71% (10/14) of the blacks a person would randomly meet on the street would be on welfare, while 10.4% (9/86) of whites would be in a similar predicament. My point being that even if there were more white people on welfare taking a bigger percentage of the whole pie of tax dollars, the larger percentage of the whole white population would still be working types, not taking government(tax) money from those who work. That wreaks of an entitlement mentality fostered by the left.

      So I’ll just say “the majority” rather than the “vast majority” but again, it’s not just welfare. Free meals, housing, even cellphones provided by GovCo. Clothing, transportation allowances, and how about free abortions paid for by tax dollars? That’s a form of government “assistance”. Food stamps, help on utility bills, etc etc etc. The tax PAYERS have been subsidizing the tax TAKERS for generations now. It sucks.

    • ezra says:

      OK, that’s good. TANF is $17B (not chump change). Food Stamps are $78B. Check out food stamps here: http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2010Characteristics.pdf

      36% White, 22% Black, 19% Unknown Race

      This is consistent with all summaries I’ve seen stating whites are +40% of food stamp recipients. Also, whites are fastest growing group!

      But you are right that blacks have the higher rate, by far, of participation!

      Where you are wrong is in your math stating that 71% of blacks would be on welfare. When you see blacks on the street, does this really make intuitive sense to you? Yikes! The “vast majority” of blacks are not on welfare.

      Thanks for your clarification!

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      “Where you are wrong is in your math stating that 71% of blacks would be on welfare.

      In the microcosm of the numbers I used, it is absolutely accurate. If you were on an island with but 100 inhabitants, 14 of whom were black and 86 of whom were white and 10% of the blacks were on welfare there, 10/14=71% and thus, there would be a 71% probability that if you passed a black person on the beach, they would be on welfare. That’s how statistics work.

      Although I’m not making a blanket statement here, the fact remains that handouts from the government (your and my tax dollars) are increasing while the government supposes that it will lead to more votes for the party that gives the most money away.

      Also see:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/newt_is_right_obama_is_the_food_stamp_president.html

      For every working person to have to come up with $240 to pay for someone else’s “needs” is wrong. This is not the same concept as church and volunteer groups helping. The taxes that the government take are, essentially, wasted money. First, the notion that the government should take care of anyone who doesn’t want to work, and have 11 kids and free abortions is a warped path and template. But it is, nevertheless, the template that is being used, all under the misconception that conservatives are “insensitive” and “want people to die” which simply goes back to the biblical reference about giving a fish vs. teaching a man to fish.

      Nobody likes freeloaders. I recall that some of the new stories I read in the 60’s about hippies being violent had to do with cases of one hippie not helping to support the commune but eating much of the food. Kind of ironic, given the setting.

      In the past of human history, families took care of their own infirm, injured, elderly. One might say that the US has become a very youth-centric and self-centered society but I recall my parents shelling out big money to help care for my grandparents. I feel equally compelled to help my own family as much as I can though my resources are limited.

      But somewhere, somehow, people got the idea that GovCo. should not only provide a retirement stipend (social security, the biggest load of crap to hit this nation up to that time) but that the government should pay for abortions, education, meals, transportation, etc etc. The argument being, “I live in the wealthiest nation in the world….Where’s my cheese?”

    • ezra says:

      “In the microcosm of the numbers I used, it is absolutely accurate. If you were on an island with but 100 inhabitants, 14 of whom were black and 86 of whom were white and 10% of the blacks were on welfare there, 10/14=71% and thus, there would be a 71% probability that if you passed a black person on the beach, they would be on welfare. That’s how statistics work.”

      Ummm … Wrong again.. Rusty, with all due respect, do you really think that 71% of blacks in our country are on welfare?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      So, it took awhile but we finally got to the basis of your position. You want to race-bait.

      Doesn’t matter what I say here. You have now (finally) asked “So, why do you hate blacks, Rusty?”

      However, if you had comprehensive reading skills, the microcosm of the example that I used of 100 persons is not the millions of the people who are in society in all their various forms. I was simply using a very basic example to get to a point where the taxpayers pay too much into the welfare system.

      It doesn’t matter WHAT I think. The fact remains that I don’t like the government taking my money and giving it to people who won’t work. I don’t care what their race is. But that’s not where you wanted to go with this. You seem to want to have me “expose” myself to your system of logic, whatever that might be.

      So I’ll make it easy for you. You win, ok? You refuse to see the logic in the argument and instead ask emotion-based questions. If that’s where you function that’s fine. It won’t get you any further in life except in the democrat party. Your entire goal here seems to revolve around “divulging the racists” here. A dubious task, to say the least and you have tried to hide it with a pseudo intellectual charade. I simply laid out a hypothetical and you took it to mean that I believe 71% of all blacks are on welfare.

      But ok, I’ll play along. Using data I found on the internet, I found that there are approximately 10 million black families living in the US as of 2007. I couldn’t find completely consistent numbers for constant years but I tried. http://www.theroot.com/views/poor-state-black-families

      Of the total number of families collecting welfare, ~4 million, 37.3% are black. http://www.ehow.com/info_8581331_welfare-demographics.html

      Therefore .373×4,000,000=1,490,000

      Therefore, 1,490,000 divided by 10,000,000=14.9% of all black families are on welfare.

      For whites, it was hard to find the number of white families in the US but I think I found it.http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html (Households 2005-2009)

      Total number of households in the US = 112,611,029 for 2007. I had to fudge in the next number because I could not find the percentage of households that were white. But…I used the 55% in this graph for 1998: http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_BlackandWhite_ChapterVI.pdf

      It’s a .pdf file and scroll down to Fig 3. So, if 55% of 112,611,029=60,936,065 and 34.5% of the total (4 million) are on welfare then you have a figure of 1,380,000 white families on welfare.

      So you have 1,380,000 out of 60,936,065 or, ~2% of white families on welfare vs. 14% of black families on welfare.

      Several of the articles I read also went on about the fact that there are fewer and fewer black families since 71-77% of children born to black mothers are without fathers so the concept of “families” is becoming rather subjective. Still, though there is a fairly equal number of black families and white families on welfare, the percentages of the total tell a very different portion of the story. But you have assumed that I assume that 71% of blacks are on welfare. My point was to use simple, basic math to provide a key to the percentages and somehow give light to something that people refuse to talk about. 14% of a demographic vs. 2% is a very wide margin. 14.9% of 10 million vs. 2.2% of 60 million. At least according to the data I was able to find. Interestingly, it’s very hard to find “number of white households in US” in a simple search. But I can do research and I can extrapolate and see what the numbers can tell me.

      The .pdf file also has more interesting data that was assembled and collated by a person or persons far better qualified than I.

    • ezra says:

      Thank you for checking your numbers, Rusty.

      I admit I’m foaming at the mouth a bit here. You should know that I travel internationally for my work and frequently get into political discussions with foreigners. Your math error struck a nerve since I am constantly defending our countrymen against the foreigners’ views that conservatives here are closet racists.

      As for you, and again with all due respect, the idea that you would come up with a number like 71% and that this would jibe in any way with your perception of reality (in which a “vast majority” of welfare recipients are blacks and minorities) is a little disconcerting. Speaking for myself only, if I am walking around with a lump of peanut butter on my nose, I would hope that somebody would tell me so, and I would furthermore thank them for doing so.

    • ezra says:

      Just following up on the numbers. Interesting links. I think I see that “welfare” is what we call TANF today (used to be AFDC). This is cash in hand and accounts for $17B in the recent HHS budget. The ’96 welfare reforms targeted and significantly reduced AFDC, so older stats are apparently not reliable! Food stamps (today called SNAP) accounts for $78B in the Ag Dept budget. SNAP seems to skew “whiter” than TANF for whatever reason, with approx 40% of participants white vs 25% black.

      – Yes, black participation rates in both programs is significantly higher than whites!
      – Yes, more whites than blacks are beneficiaries of these programs!

      Go tell it on the mountain.

  4. Reality Bytes says:

    Democrats’ claim that they’re the champions of equal rights is the same as the Taliban’s call for peace. It just doesn’t go together; that is unless they are allowed to define it. That’s the argument.

  5. mr_bill says:

    Wasn’t it just a few months ago that the nerobama regime awarded bonuses to a few states for dramatically increasing their food stamp enrollment? Now its racist to call him the Food Stamp President?! Nancy Pelousi was extolling the virtues of unemployment checks, now the left wants to back away from being the entitlement party? Well, they don’t actually want to have less entitlements, they just don’t want to be a part of the conversation when a Republican is talking about empowering those on the government dole. It’s far easier to stand back and shout “racism” than it is to join the conversation about teaching people to work instead of giving them “free” money.

    There were a lot of people, during the Great Depression, who starved to death or killed themselves because they couldn’t bear the thought of taking a government handout. Now people wear their entitlement status as a badge of honor, until a Republican comes along and starts talking about jobs instead of handouts. Then they’re “insulted, offended, and patronized.”

    Particularly amusing is that when a Republican says he/she would prefer people (without any reference to racial groups) to have jobs than be on welfare. The democrat reaction is to call the Republican a racist. The implication from the left is that all welfare recipients are minorities (or all minorities are welfare recipients), otherwise how could it be racist to discuss welfare?

    I can curtail the problem of entitlement spending: Institute a lifetime limit on welfare. Citizens can be eligible for benefits for a cumulative total of 36 months in their lifetime, except in cases of documented, permanent mental or physical disability which prevents the individual from working. Those individuals lose their voting rights and become wards of the state, if no family member can look after them. No more welfare checks, food stamps, and “free” government housing for life for those who could work, but choose not to.

    • ezra says:

      “Particularly amusing is that when a Republican says he/she would prefer people (without any reference to racial groups) to have jobs than be on welfare. The democrat reaction is to call the Republican a racist. The implication from the left is that all welfare recipients are minorities (or all minorities are welfare recipients), otherwise how could it be racist to discuss welfare?”

      I agree. (However, I still think that because it is widely understood that these issues do in fact trigger racial imagery among audience members, I feel that candidates would be best served by going out of their way to not reinforce any racial stereotyping.)

      Particularly NOT amusing is that when a Republican says he/she would prefer people (WITH reference to racial groups) to have jobs than be on welfare …:


    • TerryAnne says:

      Darn, Newt, and his desire to see people make something of themselves versus wasting away on the dole. That’s so mean and racist.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Lord grant me patience.

      “(However, I still think that because it is widely understood that these issues do in fact trigger racial imagery among audience members, I feel that candidates would be best served by going out of their way to not reinforce any racial stereotypes).”

      Quiz time: What party (and their media) is it that attaches a racial stigma to EVERYTHING – especially policy designed to ‘help the poor?’

      What party is it which sewed the conditions for the subprime crisis first on the premise that poor minorities weren’t being given loans (by predatory lenders nonetheless) because of discrimination.

      This racial coding theory is great insight into the mental gymnastics Liberals go through to justify their anger and need to be looked at as victims. It is great insight into why it’s useless to try to persuade some people with a common sense discussion. They just have to be defeated and marginalized politically. Judging by how much people loved the Reagan years and the successful reform of Welfare signed by a Democrat, this isn’t the political taboo ezra is trying to make it. It’s deadly to Leftism, thus the aggressive attack to try and push us into politically correct self-censorship so they can frame the issue, which is that Republican voters are racist.

    • ezra says:

      TN – I agree that it sucks that conservative politicians are supposed to tiptoe around the issue and it is satisfying in the short term to have someone just let it all hang out. But good grief, when it comes to race (and gender!), why on earth would a politician not be politically correct? You’re in a state where Obama won 45%. Obama won North Carolina and Virginia. You’ve got a female, Indian governor who you are going to need by your side. Keeping talking about the issues … just use some common sense when doing so!

    • tranquil.night says:

      “But good grief, when it comes to race (and gender!), why on earth would a politician not be politically correct?”

      Because political correctness has us to the point where people like you think there’s racial prejudice if not motivating then at least associated with a man who says nothing more than that he wants to help persuade an individual to stop believing that they deserve to be taken care of because somebody else screwed them, and instead learn to do better for themself despite whatever hardship or roadblock, because they are capable.

      Because the government and the Democrat Party are never going to care as much about them as they and their families do. They will say whatever they can to get people to think they care because they need the votes, but at the policy level they want more poor, they want more dependency, because that creates more demand for them and their twisted political doctrine.

      Conservatives don’t look at people or their principles through the prism of race or gender. The victims we see are the victims of Democrat Party propoganda and false state-created utopianism; but we still look at all law-abiding Americans as individuals with near limitless potential if they choose. I love it every time a candidate basically says “No I’m not going to defend [statement x], I don’t have to accept your politically correct group-think premise, thank you very much. You can stamp your feet all you’d like, I’ll repeat and explain [statement x] again because this is how I and millions of others who don’t have their perspective represented fairly by the media think it is.” Hunch tells me from all these primary debates and the like that the electorate which turned out en masse in 2010 likes being treated like adults, too.

      Exit questions: When are Democrats ever held to the standard of the rules you believe it is wise for Republicans to play by, ezra, and do you hold Democrats as accountable as Republicans when they make statements that aren’t racially coded, because there is no “coding” to them (c.f.e. Eric Holder, Rep. Clyburn, et al.)?

    • ezra says:

      “Conservatives don’t look at people or their principles through the prism of race or gender.”

      That’s the point I am hopefully making. But I don’t see how statements such as those in the videos above support this argument. When Santorum and Gingrich bring up blacks and the NAACP in the context of government assistance, I know they are going to be accused of being victims of racial coding themselves (e.g., they conflate “black” and “welfare” in their own minds) OR they are going to be accused of using racial coding to appeal to the electorate.

      Did you watch the videos? Do they say “nothing more than that he wants to help persuade an individual to stop believing that they deserve to be taken care of because somebody else screwed them”? No, they explicitly say they are going to “tell this to the blacks”. Because we all know that blacks are the ones on welfare. Not us. No way! (I am positive that Newt Gingrich is well aware that far more whites than blacks are on welfare! What Santorum actually knows is anybody’s guess, bless his heart.)

      I’m viewing this as constructive criticism for our party’s candidates, not as some stupid forum “-ism” debate. If standing on your principles requires that you defend every boneheaded and unprincipled comment made by “conservative” candidates which, by the way, have a good chance of costing us in the general election, then go for it.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Did you watch the videos?”

      Yes, which is hilarious that you’re actually inviting me to respond to them directly.

      Video 1 (Santorum) – it was a word garble. Not even a gaffe. I still can’t believe you cited it as serious evidence towards your argument.
      Video 2 (Gingrich) – his statement begins by explicitly saying “there isn’t a neighborhood in America that wouldn’t want paychecks over foodstamps. If the NAACP invites me..” Last time I checked, that organization claims to be for the advancement of African Americans (blacks). Is that what they achieve? Well, Newt’s much more cordial than I would be there

      “I’m viewing this as constructive criticism for our party’s candidates”

      I’m viewing this as another pointless distraction by either a Liberal agitator/baiter/troll, or – just as likely – someone representing the mainstream thinking and all the problems within the Rovepublican Establishment consultancy brigades. Too much paranoia to how the Liberal’s media lie and mischaracterize Conservatives.

    • ezra says:

      “Exit questions: When are Democrats ever held to the standard of the rules you believe it is wise for Republicans to play by, ezra, and do you hold Democrats as accountable as Republicans when they make statements that aren’t racially coded, because there is no “coding” to them (c.f.e. Eric Holder, Rep. Clyburn, et al.)?”

      I personally hold all candidates that I am voting for to the highest standards. As for Holder, he is Obama’s responsibility. I don’t vote in Clyburn’s district. Honestly, house districts are so gerrymandered that I don’t really give US Reps much _political_ credibility (includes Paul, Bachman, Gingrich, by the way).

      Any candidate with a chance of winning a state-wide or national election is not going to get stuck in this ditch, I assure you. What do you think Chris Christie, somebody who knows how to go about being politically incorrect, would say about the little “help me help the poor blacks” dance?

      Which brings me to a rant: As a church going, Eagle Scout, 80’s college republican who has been thrown out of my own party and branded a RINO (aka “marxist” in these parts) I can’t believe these Republican candidates. Can we all agree that any credible party candidate should at least prove they can win a state-wide election? And what does it say about the “Tea Party” that they can’t produce such a candidate?

    • tranquil.night says:

      “And what does it say about the ‘Tea Party’ that they can’t produce such a candidate?”

      Don’t get those panties in a twist now. We got 5 candidates left, 4.5 of whom are singing from one page of the Tea Party hymnal or another. We’re just getting them in shape for November while we decide which one will be best to clean Obama’s clock.

      The energy that fueled the biggest electoral tidal wave in a generation is still out there. You don’t have to worry about that.

    • ezra says:

      Well, I wouldn’t buy the dress until you get the ring.

    • tranquil.night says:

      As an identifying Republican, I wouldn’t deride that which is the sole political bulwark currently preventing America’s downward spiral away from Constitutional Republicanism, and is essential to victory in 2012 whether their preferred candidate is the eventual nominee or not.

    • ezra says:

      So now is the time for blind loyalty? I’ll be following your lead, TN, after the next two primaries are behind us. We’ll keep each other company, alone at the altar.

    • tranquil.night says:

      If you paid attention to some of the controversy surrounding other issues being talked about on this site lately rather than pop in every so often to stir up grief on non-issues, then you’d understand the irony in that post ezra.

    • mr_bill says:

      ezra, did you watch the videos you posted? The Santorum bit is just some garbled unknown word, as TN pointed out. The first 5 seconds of the Newt video is what I said (also as TN pointed out). I paraphrased, but Newt says there isn’t a neighborhood in America where the people would prefer welfare over paychecks. He was talking about all people and continued that he would speak on that issue if the NAACP invited him to speak. If the NAACP had a counterpart in other demographics, I believe his speech there would have the same theme…..JOBS. In the context of the larger picture of the current US economy, encouraging an activist group to demand job-creating measures from elected representatives is not racial in any form or fashion. Look at the bigger picture. There is a president pushing dependency over self-determination, in his words, actions and policies. Newt is absolutely right to address the issue, as it is a critical difference between conservative and liberal ideology. I have yet to see nerobama be called racist for pushing for increased welfare enrollment, yet Newt is called a racist for encouraging people to demand job-creating policies. Have we slipped completely into bizarro-world? If your “racial coding” theory holds any water, where’s the outrage against nerobama from the groups that are “outraged” over Newt? They address the same issue, it stands to reason that the “racial code” language they used would be targeting the same groups of people, right?

      It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people who are spending their time on phantom racism, i.e. “racial coding” and other newspeak gobbledygook, rather than spending their time on things that matter, like the trajectory of our economy, unemployment, national security, energy policy, strengthening ties with our allies, and providing for our posterity. There is a lot of following and not much leading going on. The problem is the few people leading the conversation are taking it in the opposite direction of solutions. We’ll be legislating the usage of the word “retard” before you know it (too late), instead of trying to solve our government’s spending problems, or dealing with some crazy Iranian intent on levelling the Holy Land with a nuke. I don’t know if you are being distracted by these people or happily following them, but your preoccupation with some imagined racial slight is unbecoming, in my opinion. It’s counter-productive and exactly where the liberals want to keep you: arguing over language while the US becomes a footnote in the pages of world history.

      I proposed an idea to curtail entitlement spending (and encourage people throw off the shackles of government dependency) and rather than join the conversation on that idea (improvements, criticisms, different perspectives) and attempt to move things forward, you fell into the quagmire of some perceived “racial imagery.” I never do this, but I’ll quote myself because it’s very appropriate here, “It’s far easier to stand back and shout ‘racism’ than it is to join the conversation about teaching people to work instead of giving them “free” money.” I’ve read your dialogue with some of the venerated members here, and all I see is an attempt to paint racism into everything. No solutions, no attempt to see things from a higher perspective.

      When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      And the best answer coming from the man himself: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/01/19/gingrich-slaps-down-charge-nbcs-curry-hes-playing-race-card

      …when conservatives care about the poor, and conservatives offer ideas to help the poor, and conservatives suggest that the poor would rather have a paycheck than a food stamp, the very liberals who have failed them, at places like The New York Times, promptly scream racism, because they have no defense for the failure of liberal institutions which have trapped poor children in bad schools, trapped them in bad neighborhoods, trapped them in crime-ridden situations. Liberal solutions have failed.

      I do not see the word “black” in there anywhere, (I’m talking to you ezra) I see the word “poor” and if that means to you, “black” then you have to realign your thinking.

  6. Reality Bytes says:

    To quote Ann Coulter: The equivalent of Democrats’ claim that they championed civil rights in the ’60’s would be their co opting the pro life movement as their own all these years.

    Tranq is right, the racism lies with the one who sees it everywhere but within themselves (Tranq said it better).

  7. GetBackJack says:

    Freed negro people from slavery? White people willing to die so others might be free?

    Republican Party

    Drove America into a war between our States, killing 600,00+ fellow citizens, destroying a third of our economy, ruining a third of our agricultural base, making 1.3 million homeless and causing decades of untold horror, pain, suffering? Demanded that slavery be recognized as a God-given right? And founded the Ku Klux Klan in order to beat, intimidate, rape, murder and burn their way back into power?

    Democratic Party

    Sucks to be you, Democrats …

    • Petronius says:

      There were four political parties in the 1860 election and three of them were for peace: the Northern Democrats, Southern Democrats, and Constitutional Union Party.

      There were anti-slavery people of good will in all four parties. However, there was only one party in 1860 that contained elements who were willing to destroy the Constitution and the Federal system in order to abolish slavery, and that was the Republican Party. Only the Radical Republicans were prepared to drench the country in blood in order to achieve immediate abolition of slavery, without thought of what would replace it.

      For now S&L readers may wish to note that the estimate of Civil War dead was recently revised upward from 620,000 to 750,000.


      The economic base that was destroyed was entirely that of the South. As a matter of deliberate Northern policy, it was the people of the South who were disenfranchised, raped, murdered, looted, and pillaged for decades after the War––politically, economically, and socially.

      The “Conquered Province” was divided into five military districts and ruled by a combination of military dictators and Radical Republican carpetbaggers, scalawags, and freedmen. Corruption, graft, fraud, bribery, ignorance, confiscation, heavy taxation, and public indebtedness were rampant. Civil liberties were abolished by the military governments, including suspension of the vote, courts, juries, habeas corpus, newspapers, public assemblies, parades, etc. Prominent Confederates were imprisoned. Regiments of Negro militias were deployed to terrorize the population, both white and black, in order to whip them into line. The original KKK was a reaction to these harsh conditions by a people driven to the point of desperation.

      The military occupation lasted 12 years, until the corrupt compromise that resulted in the disputed election of Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate, over Samuel J. Tilden, the Democrat reformer who had fought against New York City’s infamous Tweed Ring. The Republicans promised to withdraw the troops in return for Southern Democrat support for Hayes’ election. Hayes was thus elected and in 1877 the troops were withdrawn. On that day Reconstruction formally ended. The Republicans deserted the cause of the Southern blacks and accepted Democrat Party white supremacy in State governments. The Republicans abandoned the long-term interests of African Americans in the South in return for short-term electoral gains.

      Although the troops were withdrawn in 1877, the destructive effects of government by Radical Republican military despots, carpetbaggers, scalawags, and freedmen lingered much longer. Republican candidates and office-holders waved the bloody shirt in every election until the end of the century. Some of them are still waving it. Punitive Federal taxes on cotton and tobacco were not repealed until the New Deal. The long history of political corruption in Louisiana and Arkansas was a tradition that was started in 1866 by carpetbagger and Black Republican misrule.

      The Republican politicians were interested in Reconstruction as a means to control the black men’s votes and thereby assure Republican majorities in Congress. The Northern people, on the other hand, had a humanitarian interest in the freedmen but regarded the South primarily as a field for economic exploitation.

      Today it is the Democrats who betray the long-term interests of African Americans, offering them special treatment and spoils in return for votes, instilling in them a sense of victimization and feelings of revenge while seeking to undermine their sense of belonging and loyalty to their country.

  8. tranquil.night says:

    Adam Corolla Interview on Glenn Beck: My Mom was on Welfare and it Made a Cripple out of an able-bodied person (h/t Ace)

    How dare he put it so provocatively.

  9. sticks says:

    Newt just jumps out there and states what he believes, maybe because he knows that it will not matter, and that even if he was totally politically correct the media would savage him anyway. At least he comes accrost as an honest put your cards on the table kind of person. The exact opposite of Obama.

  10. Petronius says:

    The rules governing race relations have been established within the framework of Liberal ideology. This is true for both blacks and whites. 

    Unfortunately, however, Liberalism is an ideology based in white guilt, but which offers no answers, no solutions, no redemption, and no real-world explanation for that guilt . . . instead, it offers grandiose procedures, which only serve to aggravate and irritate the guilt: the emphasis on black victimology and, for whites, on continuous correction, on continuous reeducation, on heightened sensitivity, on revisionist history, on method and activity, on more taxpayer dollars, on more affirmative action, on more government tribunals, on more tebowing to the latest black fetish, fad, demand, or gimmick.

    For the Liberal, there is no end, no terminal point, to the problem of guilt. There is no saying, “Our work is finally done.” There is no sitting and enjoying. There is no let-well-enough-alone. There is no stick-to-your-own-cabbage-patch. There is no moment for the soul to be at peace. 

    Liberal guilt can never be appeased. Liberal guilt is obsessive and insatiable.

    The upshot is that the white person is always morally disarmed before the black person.
Liberals will constantly remind us that we must go to ridiculous lengths to police our every word and thought. They constantly remind us that we must adopt a demeaning racial etiquette that is so extensive, so demanding, so humiliating, so impossible and unpredictable, that ordinary day-to-day living with blacks becomes problematic, becomes filled with tricks and tension, with dangerous, hidden, racial land mines just waiting to explode.

    That is why it is so very refreshing when someone like Newt says, “To hell with the mines in your stupid Liberal minefield,” and courageously plows ahead as a matter of principle, as if they did not exist, ignoring all the subtle, obscure, and tortuous rules so carefully built up by decades of pee-in-the-pants Liberal guilt-mongering.

    “To thine own self be true.” 

    On a personal level, how much better to break off contact with them altogether, or at least to the maximum extent possible? Far better simply to avoid them at all costs. Many blacks openly pride themselves on avoiding white people; perhaps this is a smart policy. 
Why lead a life that is full of stress, without fun and laughter, where we must re-think and then re-re-think our every thought and every move, where all enjoyment in life is compromised or denied, where our best intentions are always met with suspicion or hostility, where every joke becomes problematic, where our every word is subject to misinterpretation, where our every innocent remark is rebuked with an insult, where our most sincere apologies are never accepted, where our genuine friendship is not reciprocated, where our utmost generosity is never good enough, and where we are constantly reminded of the transgressions, real or imagined, of our hated white ancestors?

    When people no longer accept common rules in their mutual intercourse, when white people are no longer allowed to move peacefully through the streets of life, when all whites are “racists,” then civilization ceases to exist. 
The destruction of order and civilization, as a means of dealing with irrational Liberal guilt, is the chief end product of Liberalism. It is the only significant accomplishment of Liberalism.

    • sticks says:

      I worked for two years in a nursing home that was owned by a black man, I was one of four white paople who worked there. Probably 95% of the employees were black, I never felt threatened by any employee while I worked there, but I did make a lot of friends. This was back in the 70’s before the marxist psychopaths realized that one way to gain power was to split the country into groups and pit them against each other. Now there are many stories in the “news” which are meant to fuel fear, hostility, and suspicion between these groups. Blacks and whites are only two of many such groups. Many “leaders” have risen to power by doing the same thing. Who ever takes this road to power is only going to make people from all groups miserable,come to think of it thats whats happening now.
      I doubt my experience would be the same today as it was then, and that is a shame.

  11. Mithrandir says:


    Newt: Obama is the food-stamp president.
    Black Reverend: RACIST!
    Citizen: What makes you think he was referring to black people? –maybe you should look at your own racial stereotypes and attitudes. . .


    App That Would Guide Users Away From High-Crime Areas Proves Controversial
    CBS Local: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/app-that-would-guide-users-away-from-high-crime-areas-proves-controversial/
    January 17, 2012
    An in-development Microsoft smart phone app designed to help drivers and pedestrians avoid unsafe neighborhoods is proving controversial among some minority rights groups that find the software potentially discriminatory.

    Ha! “Controversial” –to whom? People who don’t want to get stabbed? raped? robbed? No one said it was an anti-black app, they said it was a high-crime app. and the data was compiled from UNION POLICE REPORTS. NAACP leaders just voluntarily equated black people with high-crime….nice job.Only guilty people act this defensive.

    “Can you imagine me not being able to go to MLK Blvd. because my GPS says that’s a dangerous crime area? I can’t even imagine that,” she said. (NAACP President Juanita Wallace)

    Yes, the VOLUNTARY app takes over your car’s GPS, or cellphone navigation, and steers it away from MLK Blvd…..forever! You have no control over your travel habits what-so-ever, in fact you can’t even crank the steering wheel over to MLK Blvd without breaking the steering column. –You’re right, I can’t even imagine that either.

    Check out the reporter’s picture in this story, Sharrie Williams. She didn’t even bother to correct the god-awful stupidity of the people she was quoting. Usually with Republicans they don’t agree with, they turn the story into a democrat fact-check editorial, but decided to let the insanity speak for itself this time. It’s too bad, she should have balanced the report with some logic. DUH!

    • ezra says:

      I hate this as much as anybody. The point of the article is important, though. It’s not about whether or not Newt is a racist. It’s about whether or not he is perceived as one by independent voters. Splitting the hair even finer, realize (believe it or not) that the only people who hate Obama as much as you are members of his own base. No they will not vote for Romney, but they won’t show up at the polls either, unless you decide to go and push their buttons.

      So, bottom-line is that Obama has done nothing with food stamps and would love to be handed that line by Newt during a debate. (The fact is that more people have become eligible for food stamps under Obama, which is what Newt should be talking about.) Why insist on summing up the entire sh*tstorm that Obama has wrought by deciding that he is the “food stamp” president? I know you are cynical enough to figure that one out, and that is why he’s being called out for pushing the wrong buttons.

  12. Dupree says:

    “It’s about whether or not he is perceived as one by independent voters.”

    See, this is the problem. Instead of wasting our energy on cencoring ourselves, because it doesnt fit the template “mainstream” or independent narrative, we must change the narrative. With the MSM’s help, Liberals currently own it and use it to beat us upside the head and box us in. Ezra claims he agrees, but attempts to do the same. I’ve seen that tactic before. He throws stones from behind his fortress walls. Do not let liberals frame the conversation, because they always wrap themselves in emotional arguements and double speak. The denizens of this site are great at avoiding this, which is why I always return to learn.

    Newt spoke plainly and people reacted with immense positivity. We need more of this from all the candidates.

    • BigOil says:

      Right on the money Dupree.

      Liberals want us focused on phantom bs like ‘racial coding’ because it is an emotionally charged distraction. All the while…they proceed to steal our liberties and dismantle our Constitution unabated.

      We need to keep our eye on the ball and not waste time on their bs.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »