Bated breath

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale…

From CNN, it seems we are all waiting to see what transpires. We’ve discussed the race factor before, and I still hold that Obama’s election had less to do with his politics than his skin color, and it seems public opinion supports that position.
For anyone doubting that reverse racism exists, and for anyone wondering why our borders are so porous, you have only to look at this great amount of white guilt we seem to be so proud of.

What about you? Planning on watching the inaugucircus?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in faith, family, immigration, language and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Bated breath

  1. jesurgislac says:

    It’s a rather circular argument, isn’t it? If you’ve convinced yourself that the main reason white voters voted for Obama was “reverse racism” or “white guilt”, then you will naturally see a great deal of it… since Obama won by significant majorities in states with a very small black population.

    To be fair, I think probably any Democratic candidate would have had a good chance of winning this year regardless of how good the opposition was; after 8 years of disastrous Republican rule, people were ready for change. To be also fair, I think that McCain was not a good candidate, and that he sank his chances of winning with every thinking person when he picked Sarah Palin to be his V-P.

    …but Obama ran a strong campaign, had clear, specific policies for people to vote for, is a great, charismatic speaker, and, while pretty conservative, is clearly a thoughtful and intelligent person. There were plenty of people who were doubtless voting against McCain, and plenty more who were voting against Palin, but it’s not as if there could have been any doubt that Barack Obama is a terrific candidate.

    It’s a privilege, a bonus, that he will also be, tomorrow, the first black President of the United States of America. That’s a great moment in history. But the notion that that’s why he got elected? You’d pretty much have to see nothing in him but a black man to think that.

  2. evenshine says:

    First, thanks for commenting. Welcome back!

    “It’s a rather circular argument, isn’t it? If you’ve convinced yourself that the main reason white voters voted for Obama was “reverse racism” or “white guilt”, then you will naturally see a great deal of it… since Obama won by significant majorities in states with a very small black population.”

    I don’t see it as circular at all. You might as well say that *you’ll* only see what you want to see as well. Nor do I believe it was the ONLY reason. What do you make of the numbers? Does it say anything to you at all that African-Americans voted for him in record numbers, even when his policies were diametrically opposed to their own? Or that (Latino) Catholics did, in direct opposition to established Church teaching?

    “To be fair, I think probably any Democratic candidate would have had a good chance of winning this year regardless of how good the opposition was; after 8 years of disastrous Republican rule, people were ready for change.”

    Agreed.

    “To be also fair, I think that McCain was not a good candidate, and that he sank his chances of winning with every thinking person when he picked Sarah Palin to be his V-P.”

    Your opinion. You might be surprised to know that “thinking people” differ on this point.

    “…but Obama ran a strong campaign, had clear, specific policies for people to vote for, is a great, charismatic speaker, and, while pretty conservative”,

    I’m sorry- which of his policies did you see as conservative? His stance on abortion? His position on spending?

    “is clearly a thoughtful and intelligent person.”

    I’m not disputing his intelligence. He seems like a very nice person, as well. The point of the post was that many voted for him for reasons other than his intelligence or policies, as evidenced in the opinion numbers presented in the CNN poll.

    “It’s a privilege, a bonus, that he will also be, tomorrow, the first black President of the United States of America. That’s a great moment in history. But the notion that that’s why he got elected? You’d pretty much have to see nothing in him but a black man to think that.”

    First, I’m not debating the historicity, or the grand moment that this will be for the nation. And I think we need something like this to unify us. We do like pageantry, after all. But the continued emphasis on race is telling, and, as the poll makes quite clear, we are very far from any real change in race relations in this country.

    Thanks for the comments.

  3. jesurgislac says:

    What do you make of the numbers? Does it say anything to you at all that African-Americans voted for him in record numbers, even when his policies were diametrically opposed to their own?

    What do I make of it?

    I make of it: African-Americans demographically vote Democratic: the Republican party has a long and thoroughly earned reputation as the racist party, so all too often, African-Americans will end up voting for the Democratic candidate as the “least bad” choice, just as GLBT voters will because the Republican party is the homophobic party. So, as usual, the vast majority of African-American voters would be voting for the Democratic candidate.

    What was unusual this year was a record number of voters. Far more than the usual number of people registered to vote for the first time this election. Proportionally with the rest of the population, that included far more than the usual number of African-Americans – who, as usual, voted Democratic.

    Your opinion. You might be surprised to know that “thinking people” differ on this point.

    No. Pretty much by definition, anyone who believed Sarah Palin was in any way able to be President of the United States was not a thinking person. It is a curious circumstance that, if John McCain dies before January 20 2012 (god forbid) the initial reaction of every single thinking person in the United States, and a substantial proportion of them round the world, will be: “President Palin. My god, what we escaped.” It may not get into his official obituaries, but it’s sure to god what everyone’s going to think. Let us hope, for the dignity of his own memory, that he lives past that date, long enough to live down the last and stupidest mistake of a long and inglorious career in politics.

    The point of the post was that many voted for him for reasons other than his intelligence or policies, as evidenced in the opinion numbers presented in the CNN poll.

    You know you’ve got no “there” there. There’s nothing in the CNN poll about why people voted for Barack Obama.

    But the continued emphasis on race is telling, and, as the poll makes quite clear, we are very far from any real change in race relations in this country.

    The definition of a bigot is someone who won’t change their negative views about a person based on their race. Back when Barack Obama was born, there were at least a dozen states in which his parents couldn’t legally have married each other. Fifty years ago, that was an environment in which racist bigotry was normal. Read Nichelle Nicholls’ autobiography, Beyond Uhura, for examples of the kind of crap that a well-educated, respectable, professional woman would get put through for being black in the 1960s. Yes, things have changed. Barack Obama is part of that change. But yeah: there are a lot of white racists around, and a lot of them still think that the problem is how black people feel about them, not about how they feel about black people.

  4. jesurgislac says:

    I’m sorry- which of his policies did you see as conservative? His stance on abortion? His position on spending?

    Yes.

  5. Evenshine says:

    Interesting thoughts, J.

    “Proportionally with the rest of the population, that included far more than the usual number of African-Americans – who, as usual, voted Democratic.”

    You’re almost there…so, WHY did more African-Americans vote in this election?

    “You know you’ve got no “there” there”

    Not at all. If you look at my original post, the numbers were not making the basic argument, simply confirming a position I already held.

    Case in point: on my local TV station during the election, interviews were done with any number of newly-registered people waiting to vote. When asked why they were voting, without exception, they said that it was “a *historic* election”. What does that mean? Historic because of world events? Hardly. Several young black men even went so far as to say “because my voice will finally be heard”.

    And it’s interesting that you’d say his stance on abortion and spending are conservative, since his stance on both is blatantly NOT. Anyone who spends $170 million on an inauguration patently does NOT have a conservative stance on spending. Anyone who is so far left (even for his own party) on abortion is hard to see as conservative.

    Thanks for commenting. Enjoy the festivities today!

  6. jesurgislac says:

    so, WHY did more African-Americans vote in this election?

    For the same reason as more white Americans voted in this election: it was clearly and plainly an important election.

    Or do you have any other explanation why so many more white Americans than usual voted in the 2008 election?

    You may be right that some of the reason why so many people wanted to vote in 2008 was because this was a “historic election” – not merely because of Obama, but because of the end of Bush. But a record number of white Americans voted in 2008. Obama’s an inspiring candidate, obviously.

    Anyone who spends $170 million on an inauguration patently does NOT have a conservative stance on spending.

    That’s pretty much the same as what Bush spent in 2005, allowing for very different scale of the events – a lot more people want to come to Obama’s inauguration, and security costs are higher. Bush’s inauguration cost about $157 million. That’s including security costs.

    I gather what this latest conservative meme is to give the cost of Bush’s inauguration minus what the security cost, but the cost of Obama’s inauguration including the security cost. Neat sleight of hand, eh? Fooled a lot of people. Actually, Obama’s inauguration will cost the nation less – a lot more people wanted to donate money towards the costs this year than wanted to help Bush “celebrate” in 2005.

    Anyone who is so far left (even for his own party) on abortion is hard to see as conservative.

    I said conservative: he wants to conserve women’s rights and women’s health. I didn’t say “radical pro-lifer who wants women to die rather than have safe legal access”. I don’t consider the people who promote radical anti-woman views about denying access to abortion to be in any way “conservative”.

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s