The one thing, they are hesitant to understand is that in the past the same people on this site were Dixicrats, then the Dems started supporting civil rights and they moved in with the Repubs, Richard Nixon used what he called “the Southern Strategy” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Reagan was most effective at politicizing their racism with his condemnations of affirmative action, welfare, crime – so these days they use buzzwords instead of robes.

Until I see Republicans fighting against all forms of bigotry within their party, then this opinion will not change

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:51 pm, vickisoup said:

BemusedLib #188, what?? Who talks about Alicia Keys as black, or Vanessa Williams as black? I never hear them speaking about the color of their skin or their racial heritage. Colin Powell rarely if ever discusses it. And Tiger Woods, or countless others of mixed race, who cares?
Barack Obama identifies himself as black because it serves his agenda; period.

Oh, horsefeathers. Entertainers and athletes have always had an advantage over African-Americans in gaining acceptance.

First, they present no threat. Alicia Keys is never going to have her finger on the button.

Second, performance standards are more obviously objective: either Tiger comes in at eight under or he doesn’t.

Third, success takes only a small percentage of the public. If Alicia Keys sells 20 million albums, she’s a goddess. If Obama gets 20 million votes, he gets his butt kicked.

Finally, Colin Powell has spoken eloquently about race, and how the progressive policies of the military allowed him opportunities that he feels he may not have had in civilian life. It was a damn big deal when Vanessa Williams became the first black Miss America. And everybody talked about Tiger Woods’ race when he came up into the tour. I know it’s hard for you, but you should try reading.

Besides, I didn’t bring the question up, I just provided an accurate and sensible answer.

And, PS: while I reserve the right to take issue with individuals here or anywhere, and while I may assert that I find a particular campaign tactic racist or aimed at the minority of Americans who are racist, I have not and will not equate voting Republican with being racist.

I will, however, equate saying “Barack Obama identifies himself as black because it serves his agenda; period,” with being, at best, half-bright.

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:25 pm, Canadian Mike said:

Ok here is something I just can’t understand. If being black is such a disadvantage in the US, and BO is half black/half white, why does he always identify himself as a black man and never as a white man or mixed race??? Clearly he does not believe it is a disadvantage to identify as a black man. That being the case, which group of people does BO believe are more likely to be influenced by skin color?

He doesn’t have a choice: he will be — and always was, as a child and an adult — identified by as others as black. I agree it is odd, but if you’re less than 100% pure, society has always defaulted to the non-white description. During segregation, you were legally black as long as you had one great-granparent who was black — if were an “octaroon.” And even Cher sang of the pain of being a half-breed. (joke)

So, he self-identifies as black because, for all practical purposes, he is.

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm, Weary Citizen said:

Here’s the flaw in your argument: Men’s incomes are higher than women’s (as I’m sure Hillary will point out tonight, in detail) White household income is 60% higher than black household income.
I’ve been white all my life and this whole concept that that masses of middle class whites are being displaced by minorities is a myth. I have no doubt that occasionally some deserving white person gets bumped back by what they consider to be a less-deserving black person, but I also know that there is still widespread racism of the cardinal and venal kind. That same white person is going to get the benefit of the doubt against the same black person on another occasion.

This isn’t an abstraction for me, you know. I’ve got two kids I have to get into college, soon. But, in an imperfect world, if I have to chose between the privileged and unprivileged, as a class, I think we as a nation should be redistributing privilege, not reinforcing it. I’m not on a rant here, but I’m pretty sure that on the balance, white guys are going to get more breaks than the black guys.

btw, I wonder what the middle class kid from Virginia thought when John McCain’s Admiral Daddy got him into the Naval Academy ahead of some kid that didn’t spend high school screwing off.

I thought the democrat party was all about helping the disadvantaged and poor. Or does that only apply to minorities? or perhaps, you beleive that all white males are the same and in some conspiracy to hold minorities and women down? Hmmm, isn’t that being “racist”?

Shhhh….take a deep breath…I’ll put my own words in my mouth.

Why not allow a level playing field for everyone then?

The playing field is inherently unlevel. Affirmative action is a way to try to make it moreso.

Here’s the thing that gets me: life has been getting tougher for middle class families since the early 70s: wages are flat, benefits are being yanked away, the cost of housing, college and health care is rising (housing not so much lately, but still up against income over time) jobs are being sent overseas, and policies are consciously set to transfer wealth to the people who already have a great deal. Why are obsessing over the black guy who essentially wants the same things you do — and be clear, is probably pretty qualified for his job — and not about the politicians who are wreaking long-term havoc on the American dream?

But, back to the original point, white people and men still have substantially more power and money at every level of society than wopmen and blacks.

You can’t be serious. Heterosexual white male Christians control The White House, the Supreme Court, most of Congress, and the vast majority of corporations and personal wealth in this nation. Discriminated againt my butt.

Ok, see here is the flaw in your argument. You use the excpetion to the rule of white males as the rule. The VAST majority of white males do not hold postions that pay $m’s a year. Most are simple working stiffs from middle class and working class parents. Many simply wnat to compete on a playing level filed and try to achieve that brass ring, just like most. Affirmative action policies do not single out the powerful or rich (bush, kennedy, eisner, john edwards, etc) white males to discriminate against. The policy disproportionately harms white males who are poor or middle class. See, the bush’s or the clinton’s would never have to worry about their children not being admitted anywhere due to affirmative action policies as their power and $ assure their children that these policies do not apply to them. It does apply to some poor white kid, who is intelligent, not a genius, who worked hard in HS and simply wants to attend the best college he can (or his family can afford). Then gets denied because the university needs more minorities for their reporting. And this does happen. How about the white working stiff who does not get a promotion for which he is deserving because upper managment has said to increase minorities in the upper ranks. And I know for a fact that happens. I am not saying that seom minorities are not deserving and should not be promoted, but the reverse discrimination does happen. What about them? I thought the democrat party was all about helping the disadvantaged and poor. Or does that only apply to minorities? or perhaps, you beleive that all white males are the same and in some conspiracy to hold minorities and women down? Hmmm, isn’t that being “racist”? My father never finished HS (dropped out in 8th grade to work for family during the depression). He worked hard to help pay for our tuition. I worked to pay for the rest of the living costs. So I am somehow less deserving of a spot in a school because I am a white male (albeit, not a wealthy white male). Affirmative Action policies are not impacting the rich and powerful, only the poor white males. Why not allow a level playing field for everyone then? Apply affirmative action policies only to those whose parents who are wealthy. Otherwise, the policy is breeding resentment amongst a large population of white males. Rather than reducing racists tendencies or resentment, it is actually fostering it among the people who have no power to control it, nor were never repsonsible for the perceived past discrimination.