Prejudice

[geezer_also]

Thinking about the discussion the other day on how the tea party is: bad, evil, bigoted, ignorant, etc (choose your favorite adjective). Accepting, for the moment, the general consensus, that there is no ism without power (the idea that there can be no reverse discrimination, since there is no power on the other side). Accepting also that it is

Comments

[luvdovz]

I thought most voted for him because he's handsome, eloquent and can speak on many topics without looking like a dumb imbecile; others voted because his platform was appealing, and still others (moderates) just cast a protest vote against the years of Republican rule. You could argue his race was a factor, but remember that his main opponent was a woman, and that's a factor too. And a huge one, if we're to follow this theory that people vote out of merely elementary sight signals.

[mrbogey]

I don't believe he argued that people as a whole vote over elementary sight signals but that this one did indeed help him with a part of the electorate.

Also,

'I thought most voted for him because he's handsome, eloquent and can speak on many topics without looking like a dumb imbecile'

Except that there are times he says something stupid... just like that other guy before him. Or when he fumbles with words and stammers... just like that guy before him.

[luvdovz]

Having occasional errors of speech is not what I had in mind when I mentioned about being imbecile.

[mrbogey]

Almost all politicians generally only have a few occasional errors. How much people care about them stems from how badly people hate them.

[mrbogey]

'...is it fair to assume that so many people on the left just have a knee jerk reaction of hate to things they disagree with?'

That's true of a great many people. The thing that pisses me off so much with the people on the left is they act as if they're beyond it because they've progressed past childish selfish ideals.

First people disagree; then they hate. After that they go about filling in the reasons for their hatred with post-hoc reasoning.

To that end there should be no citation of "tu quoque" when it's pointed out that others they have no problem with possess these same qualities. Yet they can't overcome their desired mental outcomes.

That's really what it's all about. Not logic but a desired final outlook being achieved.

[mahnmut]

I often disagree with you but I don't hate you. How does this go along with your generalization?

[mrbogey]

It doesn't violate it. I said a great many. Not all.

And IIRC we've never gotten into petty squabbles over why "x" is a retard or why "y" issue is something that only evil people support.

[mahnmut]

Of course we haven't, and we probably won't.

[underlankers]

There is one major difference with the Tea Partiers and the Hope & Changers. People warned from the first that Obama was not the FDR-type that people mistook him for and some even listened to that and believe it. The Tea Party thinks it can do a lot more than it will ever be able to do and understands the Conrad Henlein definition of compromise.

[underlankers]

As to why so many people voted for the incumbent, in the primaries Hillary's campaign started the whole Birther and slimy-smears business, a no-win situation for the Clinton campaign and during the actual election the two were neck and neck up to when the "nation of whiners" learned that Bear Sterns imploded. At that point the majority of the US masses realized that McCain-Palin didn't have a clue about the crisis and assumed the new Great Communicator did.

Unfortunately Mr. Obama's a very nice man but a mediocre placeholder President when we needed someone with Lincoln's political skills and FDR's charisma.

[luvdovz]

He IS mediocre. I cannot explain in comprehensive terms why it appears to me so, but it does.

[underlankers]

The problem with the President is that he assumes he can lead by simple statements the Democrats in Congress. Congress and the Presidency have never worked like that and it's never worked any time it's been tried. Pelosi and Reid are people he'd need to either conciliate (the carrot) or browbeat (the stick) into working according to what he wants and the evidence to me indicates that Pelosi and Reid ran two separate parts of the Democratic Party while the President ran a third

[udoswald]

If there's this huge "racist" component of the Democratic electorate who will vote for any black person just to stick it to whitey why didn't Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun do better? While I'm sure there were a few people who voted for Barack Obama out of anti-white racism, it's not nearly as many people as voted for John McCain because he's white. Also, there's a clear trend in the African-American community to vote for the Democratic candidate (regardless of race) and, as I said, it's clear that they will not vote for an unqualified candidate of their own race.

As for the tea party, those adjectives are based on their own actions. If they wish to be considered differently, they should change their tactics. As long as they shout racist expletives at black Congressmen, and hold up signs of Barack Obama as a witch doctor, they will be regarded as racists.

[mrbogey]

'...and, as I said, it's clear that they will not vote for an unqualified candidate of their own race.'

You should realize that black people are not the majority in any state, nor are they even the most sizable minority in the US anymore (Hispanics are).

So it's really not a massive issue outside of urban elections. At most it's a quarter of the black vote if polling is any indicator. A quarter of 12% is only 3% and that isn't enough to get an unqualified jackass like Al Sharpton into federal office.

[udoswald]

'...and, as I said, it's clear that they will not vote for an unqualified candidate of their own race.'

Well, at least you admit he's qualified to be President. Baby steps. I'll take what I can get.

You should realize that black people are not the majority in any state, nor are they even the most sizable minority in the US anymore (Hispanics are).

They're still a large enough portion to make a difference. There are far more African-Americans than there are Jews and yet Jews have a significant amount of clout in politics because they use their numbers wisely. African-Americans are the same.

So it's really not a massive issue outside of urban elections.Maybe not in local elections in Mayberry but even in big states like Pennsylvania, where most of the rural population is white, the African-American demographic in the big cities can have a huge effect on state-wide elections (do you think Rendell would have won if not for Philly? Casey

[mrbogey]

'They're still a large enough portion to make a difference.'

Not in federal elections or many state elections to the degree they can get a worthless candidate elected just because he's black.

'There are far more African-Americans than there are Jews and yet Jews have a significant amount of clout in politics because they use their numbers wisely'

Well, putting up decent a qualified candidates for office, for one.

[hey_its_michael]

In fairness, your friend is not an elected representative sitting in a formal setting shouting disrespectful terms at the President during a joint-session of Congress.

There is a difference between common people calling Bush or Obama names and doing so in a formal, professional setting.

[hey_its_michael]

That's where you and I disagree. I consider the formality of the setting very important.

I would have thought a liberal Congressperson shouting the same to Bush during a State of the Union address just as disrespectful as Joe Wilson was.

In our society, the setting is very relevant.