PDA

View Full Version : If Obama Loses It's The South's Fault: Racists



Kathianne
08-04-2008, 03:14 PM
Really:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/150576


Southern Discomfort

A journey through a troubled region.
Christopher Dickey
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 2:38 PM ET Aug 2, 2008

For as long as I've been alive the old Confederacy has been a land without closure, where history keeps coming at you day after day, year after year, decade after decade, as if the past were the present, too, and the future forever. Cities grew and populations changed in the South, but the Civil War lurked somehow in the shadow of mirror-sided skyscrapers; the holocaust of slavery and the sweet-bitter victories of the civil-rights movement lingered deep in the minds of people on both sides of the color line. Yes there was change, progress, prosperity, and a lot of it. Southerners put their faith in money and jobs and God Almighty to get them to a better place and better times—and for a lot of them, white and black, those times came. The South got to be a more complicated place, where rich and poor—which is pretty much all there was before World War II—gave way to a broad-spectrum bourgeoisie with big-time aspirations. But as air conditioning conquered the lethargy-inducing climate and Northerners by the millions abandoned the rust belt for the sun belt, the past wasn't forgotten or forgiven so much as put aside while people got on with their lives and their business.

Now this part of the country, where I have my deepest roots, feels raw again, its political emotions more exposed than they've been in decades. George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama have unsettled the South: the first with a reckless war and a weakened economy, the second with the color of his skin, the foreignness of his name, the lofty liberalism of his language. Suddenly the palliative prosperity that salved old, deep wounds no longer seems adequate to the task.

Last month I set out driving through Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas, roughly retracing the deepest scar in the country—the blazing track of total war left by Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman in 1864 and 1865. After many years away I was exploring my own blood ties (which include an ancestor named after Sherman by his slave-owning-yet-Unionist parents), but also gauging the tenor of a region that has been critical to every U.S. presidential election since 1932, and may be again. "If you don't win anything in the South, you need 70 percent of the rest of the country," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "If you can win some of the South, that gives you breathing space." Polls suggest Virginia is in play. And the Obama campaign is approaching North Carolina and Georgia as if they might be, although like most people, Black (who is white, and from east Texas, which is deep in Dixie) thinks John McCain will win in both those states if only as the default candidate, the un-Obama.

The South I saw was troubled by changes that go well beyond this "change" election. A generation is growing up with traumas more immediate than those of the 1860s—or the 1960s. Shana Sprouse, 21 and white, and born and raised in Spartanburg, S.C., says she's going to vote for Obama because her 26-year-old boyfriend is racked with cancer and she and he have spent the last two years trying to find ways to pay for his treatment or, now, his hospice. Jobs are disappearing to places that are truly foreign, not mock-strange states like California. New immigrants are introducing brown into a color map that has long been dominated by black and white. There is a sense that a world is ending, maybe not this year but inevitably.

The election, and Obama's candidacy, have focused these anxieties like a lens. I found whites frustrated and indecisive about the campaign, families at odds, generations divided. Many who thought themselves beyond prejudice were surprised by their suspicions of the young black man from up north. Meanwhile, many slave-descended blacks, hugely supportive of the half-Kenyan, half-Kansan, Hawaii-reared Obama, seemed afraid to hope too much, inoculating themselves with pessimism about the chances that any man of color could win the presidency, even this man, even today, or that, if he does, he will survive. As I say, emotions are raw.

...

red states rule
08-04-2008, 03:16 PM
Chris Matthews has been saying that for months

avatar4321
08-04-2008, 03:18 PM
It was the South's fault Gore and Kerry lost as well.

So logically, the South opposing a Democrat is inherently a racist because it's about race not about the fact that they hate the Democrat's idealogy.

But to be honest, I am not convinced Obama is going to win the north either.

retiredman
08-04-2008, 03:31 PM
If Obama loses, it will be Obama's fault.

It might be the democratic party's fault for nominating him.

It will certainly not be the fault of people who did not vote for him.

pure and simple.

glockmail
08-04-2008, 03:32 PM
I've found that it is PC to be bigoted against The South and its white residents, just like it's PC to be bigoted against white males who are not gay.

red states rule
08-04-2008, 03:34 PM
It is not only the South the liberal media calls racist when their messiah loses

NBC's Mitchell: Pennsylvania and Ohio Are Racist
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
April 28, 2008 - 23:11 ET

Near the end of Sunday's Meet the Press, NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell boldly stated that racism has been a "real factor" in the Obama vote on the ground in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Apparently, because many voters are racist, they have a "willingness to believe totally erroneous things about Obama," like he didn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. (Ahem, Andrea, there's photographic evidence of that "totally erroneous" charge.)

Let me just say something from being on the ground in Pennsylvania and in Ohio. I think racism is a real factor here. I don't think it's being polled correctly because I don't think it can be polled correctly. I think it is what you see in some of his failure to connect with a particular sector of the electorate.

And I'm not sure how you get your arms around it, but I think it is a real issue that there is a resistance to him on some level in the electorate, and you hear these things from voters when you talk to them. "Oh, I heard that he's not really a Christian." "Oh, well, he didn't, you know, put his hand over his heart." All this willingness to believe totally erroneous things about Barack Obama, which begins to congeal, and I think it's a problem.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/04/28/nbcs-mitchell-pennsylvania-ohio-are-racist

glockmail
08-04-2008, 03:48 PM
Of course when 94% or so of black males vote for Obama, that ain't racist.

red states rule
08-04-2008, 03:49 PM
Of course when 94% or so of black males vote for Obama, that ain't racist.

Not at all

It is the oppressed minority rooting for the underdog :laugh2:

avatar4321
08-04-2008, 04:03 PM
If Obama loses, it will be Obama's fault.

It might be the democratic party's fault for nominating him.

It will certainly not be the fault of people who did not vote for him.

pure and simple.

Something I actually agree with you on.

avatar4321
08-04-2008, 04:06 PM
It is not only the South the liberal media calls racist when their messiah loses

NBC's Mitchell: Pennsylvania and Ohio Are Racist
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
April 28, 2008 - 23:11 ET

Near the end of Sunday's Meet the Press, NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell boldly stated that racism has been a "real factor" in the Obama vote on the ground in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Apparently, because many voters are racist, they have a "willingness to believe totally erroneous things about Obama," like he didn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. (Ahem, Andrea, there's photographic evidence of that "totally erroneous" charge.)

Let me just say something from being on the ground in Pennsylvania and in Ohio. I think racism is a real factor here. I don't think it's being polled correctly because I don't think it can be polled correctly. I think it is what you see in some of his failure to connect with a particular sector of the electorate.

And I'm not sure how you get your arms around it, but I think it is a real issue that there is a resistance to him on some level in the electorate, and you hear these things from voters when you talk to them. "Oh, I heard that he's not really a Christian." "Oh, well, he didn't, you know, put his hand over his heart." All this willingness to believe totally erroneous things about Barack Obama, which begins to congeal, and I think it's a problem.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/04/28/nbcs-mitchell-pennsylvania-ohio-are-racist

Pennsylivania can be racist at times. But the Democrat I've talked to really dislike Obama because they think he is an inexperienced nutjob. I've never heard one of them complain about his race other than the fact that they think that's the only reason he beat Hillary for the nomination.

crin63
08-04-2008, 04:43 PM
If Obama loses, it will be Obama's fault.

It might be the democratic party's fault for nominating him.

It will certainly not be the fault of people who did not vote for him.

pure and simple.


:clap:

Who is this and what have you done with MFM?

red states rule
08-04-2008, 06:38 PM
:clap:

Who is this and what have you done with MFM?

He is showing signs of decency. Obviously insane

Little-Acorn
08-04-2008, 07:07 PM
People are bending over backward to find excuses for Obama's losing, if he loses. Most (some tongue in cheek, some not) center around voters being racist. A few on his gender, a very few on how his ears stick out, some on his flip-flops and inexperience.

They seem to be puting great effort into NOT naming the real reason most of his opponents oppose him: His agenda is the most left-wing, uberliberal ever carried by a major Presidential candidate in the country's history. Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect, to quote one of FDR's top men. Same old tired extreme-left formula.

McGovern pushed such a formula, and lost in a huge landslide. Mondale was almost as bad, and lost in another landslide. Carter was barely elected, mostly as an alternative to Ford and his Nixon roots, only to compile a record so miserable that a new unit was invented to measure it: the "Misery Index".

I hope the liberals will keep making excuses for Obama's current slide in the polls, and his eventual defeat. As long as they keep fooling themselves about the real reason (his and their extreme liberalism), they will never identify and fix the problem, their candidates will slide even farther to the left, and so they will keep losing. This will be good for the country in the long run... especially if the Republicans DO identify the real reason and make a hard right turn away from it, finally starting back into the conservatism they themselves have increasingly abandoned.

mundame
08-04-2008, 07:12 PM
McGovern pushed such a formula, and lost in a huge landslide. Mondale was almost as bad, and lost in another landslide. Carter was barely elected, mostly as an alternative to Ford and his Nixon roots, only to compile a record so miserable that a new unit was invented to measure it: the "Misery Index".


On the other hand, the only poll that counts before the only poll that counts (In Trade, the one where people bet on the result and thus apply collective wisdom to the question) ------------

that's running two to one in favor of Obama. So I assume he'll win.

red states rule
08-04-2008, 07:14 PM
On the other hand, the only poll that counts before the only poll that counts (In Trade, the one where people bet on the result and thus apply collective wisdom to the question) ------------

that's running two to one in favor of Obama. So I assume he'll win.

I am confident most voters will not support his massive wealth transfers, huge increase in government spending, and appeassement policy toward terrorists

mundame
08-04-2008, 07:16 PM
I am confident most voters will not support his massive wealth transfers, huge increase in government spending, and appeassement policy toward terrorists

I would not have thought so either, but look who he's running against! Mr. Forever-War.

red states rule
08-04-2008, 07:18 PM
I would not have thought so either, but look who he's running against! Mr. Forever-War.

Not forever war - you are ignoring the reast of his 100 year comment

With Obama we will have to endure another 4 years of Peanut Carter's second term

McCain is a liberal - but not a liberal moonbat like Obama