Obama's critics racist?
89Its the issue, not the tissue
Last week I wrote a HUB about Jimmy Carter's comments regarding racism and how it relates to President Obama's critics. It was probably more of a rant than a HUB. In case you couldn't tell, I'm no fan of Mr. Carter. I believe he was probably the worst U.S. President during my lifetime. That’s quite a chore since there have been many polarizing fellows in the Whitehouse during my life. I went back and read the HUB and decided that my distaste for Mr. Carter got in the way of me getting my point across. In this HUB I will try and stay more focused and explain why I believe the President's approval ratings are slipping. In fact the Presidents ratings are slipping because he is addressing the wrong issues. The idea that Jimmy Carter has put forth is this. Americans are upset, not because they don’t think health care is important, but because they are racist. Race has nothing to do with the popular dissent that abounds across America.
"It’s the economy stupid"is the quote that came to my mind when I started to write this article. James Carville made this phrase popular while the campaign manger of President Bill Clinton in 1992. According to a September, 2008 Gallup Poll, this issue was one of the top reasons listed by voters who stated they intended to vote for President Obama. It certainly wasn't the top reason. Below I have a chart that depicts the results of the Gallup Poll. The top two reasons where "Change/Fresh Approach" followed by "Economy/His economic plan". "Change/Fresh Approach" makes great campaign rhetoric. That's because it really doesn't nail you down on an issue but when expressed eloquently it really energizes your base. The economy is measurable. In America we are bombarded daily with T.V. business analyst who recites from indices, charts and graphs. They drone on forever about what to buy and what not to buy. How things are getting better, how things are getting worse. All of this is choreographed with the applicable commercials that fall in between each diatribe. The bottom line is this. The economy was on the minds of the American voter. American's elected a President who they believed could help the American economy. The problem with this idea is obvious. The President has, or should have little or NO power over the U.S. Economy. We are a free market based nation. Governmental tampering with the economy, generally speaking, will make things worse not better. The government does not have this power explicitly; however the American voter has given it to the government implicitly, at least up until recently. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum to varying degrees operate under the misunderstanding that it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure a stable economy. In an attempt to stabilize a crippled economy both the Obama and Bush Administrations authorized stimulus packages to try and get the American economy on stable footing. The economy has not improved quickly enough or significantly enough for the average American, who has grown accustomed to instant gratification. The problem with both attempts is they both used borrowed money. This is not helping, only deferring. Again, we want instant gratification. According to the constitution there is absolutely NO responsibility on OUR government to provide stimulus monies to anyone. Our financial problems are not simply because of bad business decisions made by a few large American businesses. John and Jane Q. Public have made many more. The accumulative effect of the later has had just as big of impact as the former. Simply blaming the problems in the economy on Bush or Obama or big business is completely irresponsible. The President has simply continued a failed policy of Bush. The President did so because it is safe. The opposition can't say, “you ruined the economy.” He only continued the previous administrations policy, with a different spin of course. Wait a minute! Reason number one for electing President Obama was Change. While we still don't know what this change is, we now know what is not. We also know that the failed economic policies that coddle big business and encourage fiscal irresponsibility on every level will continue.
What did not seem to be of a major concern to the Obama voter was health care. If you take a look at the chart below health care came in 8th on the top reasons voters chose Obama. Obama was elected for change, for the most part undefined change. Is it no surprise that so far his administration can’t find a change that is popular with the people as a whole?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that in order to improve the economy one must spend less. No policy put forth that dramatically increases debt while taking away personal freedoms will be popular. It doesn't matter if these loss of personal freedoms are real or simply a precept put forth by the media and political pundits. The American public forms its opinions based on both. Like it or not thats the truth.
If the Obama administration wanted to improve its political standing among all Americans they only have to look at the poll results below. The people have spoken. They had done so prior to the actual election. The key issue in my opinion is the war in Iraq. Its goals have been accomplished. Sadam is gone, so should we. War is expensive. The Iraqi people are swimming in oil while we swim in debt. The war is also unpopular on both sides of the ailse. If the Obama administration would simply withdraw from Iraq, take the savings and apply it to securing our borders and improve our inteligence gathering both the right and the left would be getting something they value. Thats not going to happen of course. The administration has set its withdraw schedule to coincide with its next campaign run. Typical politics, but we voted for change? The administration has decided to go ahead with investigations regarding the CIA's interigation tactics. This is not only dangerous politically, its also going to be a huge waste of time and money. OUR MONEY.
Why America Voted for Obama
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
James,
Thanks, I personally believe Carter should at the very least have his passport revoked! You would think his own party would find a way to silence him. I thought it was absurd, even when he was out and about causing trouble for Clinton. What he did during the Bush administration was treasonist. Certainly even the Obama administration can't believe he's helping their cause!?
Recent cultural trends have made it very difficult to criticize a person of color without having the race card thrown around...One such cultural trend is that only a person of power ( read White Male ) can be racist...A person of color is powerless and therefore cannot be called a racist...Of course common sense denies this, but then, where is the common sense in any political correctness, social engineering, cultural trends of today..?
Well written and thought provoking Hub...Thanks, Larry
maven,
Thanks, unfortunately I'm afraid your right about the current state of afairs in this country. What amazes me most is not that people "play" the race card, but that some actually buy into the idea. Meaning the idea you described..."A person of color is powerless and therefore cannot be called a racist..." Is this not a racist idea? Amazing isn't it? It would seem that the very people who claim to stand in defense of a ethnic minority hold racist views of that very same minority.
One of their tactics is to accuse others of what they themselves are doing. As for why the dems don't shut Carter up - only one answer - they like what he says !
Great hub CJ :)
Thanks Madame,
Maybe they do like what he says. But if you listen to what this guy spews, he's got something anoying for everyone!LOL At one point he refered to Obama as a "Black Boy". Of course in common American speach (in the last 20 years) any reference to African Americans(invented by Jesse Jackson)by any other term, by a white person is racist. Especially if you use "boy". Normally context normally matters less than the person who said it. I think as a whole its simply race baiting vice racism. Those who engage in it dimish the strugle so many Americans have endured in the name of Civil Liberties.
It's nice to see you all touch and agree, but it's time to rock the boat. Where shall I start:
1. Well done hub. Very well written, fair points that I can agree on. As I've stated many times, I think partisan politics have more to do with those opposing Obama than does race. Of course, white people are far more obsessed with "the race card" than they will ever admit, so my stance consistently falls upon deaf ears. People prefer to dwell on my stance that racial undertones in the way this debate is playing out are extremely evident (see my latest hub for details). I believe firmly that it is the "race issue" that's driving the "ire" towards the president far beyond just a disagreement on the issue of health care.
2. White people throw the race card around just as much as everybody else, if not more. I will concede, without complete agreement, that "racism" requires power over another race of people is outdated and inaccurate. I will concede because lately we (all Americans) use the word racism out of context. Racism is a result of prejudice, but is not synonymous with prejudice - however, that's the way the term is used most often. Therefore, to make the distinction as a way of excusing the prejudice of Black people or any other race of people is a cop out.
3. Jesse Jackson didn't invent "African-American", he was just the first person White people heard say it. The reference "African-American" is not an invention anymore than German-American or Asian-American is, it is an identification of an American from the decent of another region. The use of the word "boy" towards a Black man is offensive because of America's ugly history, however "Black" is not. Black Power was a movement, the civil rights campaign of the 60s and 70s were rooted in the Black Power movement, with the rallying cry that "Black is beautiful". So a White person referring to an African-American as a Black person is not considered racist- you're making sh!t up now! If you want to be taken seriously, be for real. Comments like that generate ire in Black people because it's blatantly false, and is actually one of YOUR ways of "playing the race card".
We accepted, and still accept the reference "Black" contrary to your tainted dictionary that painted the color with negative associations - rooted in racial prejudice. When you look up the word black in your dictionary you find words like: gloomy, pessimistic, dismal, harmful, inexcusable, evil, wicked, hostile, threatening, disgrace, misfortune, morbid, illegal, (and my favorite 2) sub-standard, and "potentially dangerous". It also points it out as "the opposite of white", which in turn you can look up white and find the opposite of all those negative terms. So when you say "Black man", all those words can be associated with him - replace "Black" with one of those adjectives, and you've created a racist. That's the kind of lessons this country has been teaching it's youth for years beyond any of ours. Don't blame us for recognizing it. It is those that choose to ignore it, that diminish the struggle so many Americans have endured in the name of Civil Liberties.
T_Agustus,
Great comments. Thanks for reading. I think we agree on a lot of the issues. The comments are where we differ. I do stand by my comments; however I do think some were interpreted incorrectly. I like how you outlined your comments with numbered paragraphs so I will respond in kind.
1. In this paragraph I find that we totally agree in principle. What’s interesting is that while we agree in principle we arrive at different conclusions. Here is what I got from your first paragraph. You conclude that racism is fueling the Presidents critic’s. That people on capital hill(media, politicians, etc) are using the accusation of racism (AKA “playing the race card” ) to further their own political agenda by saying, “if you don’t support health care, you’re a racist. You infer that its white people who do this more often than not. I happen to agree with you on that. My conclusion in the HUB was its President Obama’s policies that are fueling critics. I supported that argument with polling data. I don’t think that I ever stated that any race did this more than the other. I simply stated that it was a common phenomenon in today’s political discourse.
2. In this paragraph I find we agree again. Once again I never stated anything in terms of one particular race playing the race card. I agree, white people use the race card on one another far more than black people do. Of course that’s a hard argument to prove. It’s just my opinion. It’s been popular lately, especially in the political arena, to threaten someone with this label. In my opinion while it’s wrong and slanderous to use it when it’s unjustified. I do believe it makes a statement about where Americans are as a Nation. I think it’s a good indication that we believe racial prejudice is wrong. That wholesale descriptions of any race are shortsighted and generally wrong headed and that this issue is in the forefront of the American conscious.
3. On the issue of Jessie Jackson. Ok, instead of “invented”, how about I say popularized? Semantics. It’s a fact. Jessie Jackson “popularized” that term in the 1980’s. When it comes to the term “Black” you are making assumptions. Again I NEVER stated that one particular race makes the claim. In fact it’s my opinion that it’s not Black people who have a problem with it. White people do. Again, white people use the threat of being called out as a racist on one another a lot. I never said they didn’t. You assume, sir, first that I’m white. You assume sir, that since I make these statements about “people” that I’m putting words in black people’s mouths. How do you know what race I am? You can determine race from the written page? It must be the ideas that I express. Idea’s can be associated to a particular race sir? What’s the definition of racism sir?
Rhetorical question. I’m afraid we all can, can’t we. What does that say about us? Do you speak for all black people? You can with out question assure me that no black man or woman will be offended by being referred to as a “Black person”? No, I don’t think so, neither can I. I have seen and heard otherwise from lots of people, both black and white.
In your summary, you then tell me what my definition of black is? Certainly you are being intellectually dishonest. I can tell by your writing that you are an intelligent man. Certainly you know the difference between denotation and connotation. You end your comments with that. As if to infer that people having negative connotations about a color is what diminishes the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement. No sir, those people who take a painful ugly issue from America’s past and use it to support their own political agenda do. I stand by that comment.
I think while we disagreed on semantics we can both agree on this.
If I’m black and your white and we disagree, it doesn’t amount to racism. That sir was the point of the HUB and comments. Definitely going to read your Hubs. Thanks again for your visit and comments.
CJ, thanks for the thorough response. I'll start at the end by saying: yes - I 100% agree with that last paragraph.
Now to address some misinterpretations of MY comments:
1. I don't make the assumption or come to the conclusion that the president's criticism is fueled by race, it is the tone in which the criticism is communicated that is being fueled by race. I would go further to say that there are "powers that be" feeding race into the frenzy to increase the negative passion in which the protests are conducted. The disrespect, the pics of Obama with a Hitler mustache, a gorilla with Obama's face, the "Obama Care" sign showing him dressed as an African witch doctor - those things are obvious, and riling up the ugliest underbelly of America. I think it is intentional, there's a lot of money at stake here. A lot of super rich people will lose money if this bill passes, and people often exploit your most passionate beliefs to motivate you - religion and race can be extremely effective motivators when used against you.
2. The tone of paragraph two was set by maven101's comments, not yours. I didn't make the distinction because you touched and agreed.
3. a. You said, "Jessie Jackson “popularized” that term in the 1980’s." - yes, that makes me feel much better thank you. :)
b. You're right again, I did make the assumption that you are White. Guilty as charged. I hate it when that happens.
c. I don't speak for all Black people, and never will claim to. No I can't say that no African-Americans will be offended by being call Black, in fact, I can say with confidence that there ARE some African-Americans that will be offended. I speak in general terms from a perspective I live within, not with a broad brush of "all" or "none". I can't...no one can.
d. Ah - now you're mistaken, I didn't tell you what "your" definition of black is, I said "your dictionary"...referring to the standard American English dictionary that you and the average American uses. Those words were pulled directly from the text of the dictionary within the compounded definition of the word "black". That wasn't finger pointing, that was a documented, literary fact. Did that diminish the Civil Rights movement? No, the movement moved on despite it. That was the underlying power behind "Black is beautiful", it was a term to counter the dictionary's teaching of what the word "black" means.
e. You said, "...those people who take a painful ugly issue from America’s past and use it to support their own political agenda do." I get your point and partially agree with it. Those people do exist, and they are part of the problem. What gets missed oft times in my opinions, is that sometimes I'm speaking out against them at the same time as I'm speaking out against people of other races. Our racially tensed society is a 2 way street, there is no doubt about it. It is as hard to get Black people to admit that, as it is to get White people to admit they play the race card. I can only speak for one, but I can speak from the perspective of many, in hopes to educate a few, and stimulate meaningful conversation for reciprocal knowledge.
Now...I need a drink of water.
Augustus,
If we are not careful we will end up having a civilized discussion on one of America's most contriversial issues.
I did not mis interpret your conclusion. However I did mis-type it in my follow on response. Instead of saying "You conclude that racism is fueling the Presidents critic’s." I should have typed: You believe that people are using the issue of race to hide their true feelings. That the color is green, not black and white. I also think their is some truth to that. However we are a capitalist society. It is government's interference with health care insurance that has caused the increase in price. When you artificially increase demand for a product via legislation you will ultimately increase the cost. I have read much of the health care legislation that is being proposed. Most of the members of the house and senate have no idea as to its scope. How is that possible? They didn't write it, nor did the Presidents Administration! How is it that American's aren't getting that. It is the legislative branch that writes bills, not some special intrest group.
Health care could be made affordable if the middle class would do one simple thing. Stop buying health insurance as it exist today. This would force doctors to see you as not just the patient, but also as the payer, not the insurance company. The insurance company would have to respond to it's customer base and begin to provide policies that match what customer's want. Of course we, the middle class will have to get our state legislative bodies to remove the over 1200 mandates that are forced on insurance companies today.
Now health care is solved, but guess what, it wasn't why President Obama was elected. The number one reason was the economy! How is a tax increase that results in 0 benefit going to help the economy? Its not. Thats right, the current health care bill provides for no public option. What it does do is require all people to carry private insurance. Further it will make employers contribution to health care cost taxable. Mandating that will only cause the cost of insurance to go up while reducing your disposable income. If you regulate the cost via legislation you will have no choice but to either increase taxes...again, or ration/restrict access to health care. Its simple economics. You can't drive fast and save gas.
The President in my opinion should get a lot of gone between the US and Iraq (another VERY popular reason for voting for President Obama). Its a money pit. Use that money to sure up the economy. I.E. Pay off the loans made for TARP and STIMULUS. That will restore confidence in both the world and here at home.
In short the people hold the answer to health care, not the government. The government on the other hand, needs to get out of the business of using our tax dollars to police the world and prop up foriegn governments.
I need rest before messing with you CJ, you're good at this.
a nice informative hub, thanks for sharing. Godspeed. creativeone59
Why does race or ethnicity have to be brought into just about everything? I am white, have friends of all colors and nationalities. I agree with some and don't with others and it has NOTHING to do with their race but their ideas.
What about the color of someones ideas? If that is the case, I rarely have anything in common with Jimmy Carter except that we are both white, so am I racist because I dislike his beliefs? No.. this is a stupid argument and is very petty. People should feel free to agree, or disagree and not be called a racist!
Augustus,
Thanks again for reading. I definitely enjoyed the health debate. You are a skilled orator/writer yourself sir. It would not be a good debate if one party was awfull!
Creativeone,
Thanks for reading. I took a look at your pages and I'll definitely be reading. Is there a topic you haven't written about?LOL I found a lot of hub's of varied topics, all look interesting.
JDub,
Thanks for reading. I completely agree with you as far as Carter is concerned.
CJ, you and T covered a lot of ground, and I won't interfere. Great debate. I do have a comment on that poll finding, 13% agreed with his values and views, that is disturbing. Great Hub, I'm glad I stopped in.
jiberish,
Yes, but thats really not very descriptive is it? I lump that in with "Fresh Approach" and "I allways vote for that Party". Those responses really don't tell you much. Actually, the latter tells me alot! Clearly the Economy and the War were on the forefront of peoples minds when they headed to the polls. That being said....what in the world is going on? Bottom line, the Dem's argued against the war and then funded it. Argued against the patriot act but have no intention of repealing it. Made a huge deal of GTMO but are delaying on closing it. Basically they appear to use popular public opinion as political cover to TAX AND SPEND! Distract with one hand while picking your pocket with the other.
What they have done is continue this stimulus/tarp/CARS garbage. The administration stated that if they didn't do this unemployment would rise. Well they did it and guess what? It rose even higher than they said it would if they did nothing! You infuse the system with Billions and wait a week, its going to look better. If you haven't addressed the real issues though, things will get worse in the long run. Thats where we are today.
Thanks for reading! I've read a few of your HUBS. Definitely enjoyed your last one. Kind of speaks to the slight of hand tricks politicians are playing these days.
I think the most poignant message was actually in one of your responses:
"In short the people hold the answer to health care, not the government. The government on the other hand, needs to get out of the business of using our tax dollars to police the world and prop up foreign governments."
You have summed it up nicely, essence of the REAL debate.
steffsings,
Thanks for reading! Appreciate the comments. Good point, it really is the big issue for me. I would not be against a public option as long as it stopped there...an option. However I can't support it while my government is spending money hand over fist to support things that absolutely do not serve the greater good of this Country. Again thanks for reading!
I find your point of view interesting and conflicting at the same time. While I agree with you on some points, I still fail to see why it is so difficult for some people to see that this president's greatest opposition is racism. He has only been in office for a little over 8 months but it is the opinion of some that he should have cleaned up the mess he inherited by now. It took the previous administration 8 years to create the mess but we give this president 8 months to clean it up. I guess he should waive the magic wand that came with his presidency.
Its the idea that while Change makes great campaign rhetoric, its very scary in practice. People resist it. Some of the proposed changes are radical. Look at the approval ratings of the Congress. They are much worse than the Presidents and its not getting any better. The President is the "face" of our government. I suspect that some of angst is mis directed.
You said: "The idea that Jimmy Carter has put forth is this. Americans are upset, not because they don’t think health care is important, but because they are racist. Race has nothing to do with the popular dissent that abounds across America."
In my opinion, you make the same mistake as many Hubbers and others. It's called the dualistic or either/or fallacy in the field of logic. People seem to want to take a position one way or the other when the truth, can better be reached by asking "To what extent (zero to 100 percent) is racism fueling opposition to Obama." I don't know what the correct percentage is, but I'm pretty sure it's not zero!
A significant number of Americans in the North as well as the South are racist, and they aren't fans of Obama. You can't rationalize that away no matter how hard you try. ( I'm not saying there's no truth in your theories about Obama's ratings decline. (Actually they aren't so low compared to other presidents after 9 months.)
Ralph,
Thanks for dropping by. I do enjoy discussing the issues with you. Its an honor Sir.
Actually if you read my quote carefully I said "Popular dissent" That to me means majority. If you read carefully the quotes from Carter you will find the words "overwhelming", "many" that I interpret as majority. So while neither Carter nor myself used percentages we also did not speak in absolutes as you state.
By the way Carter has backtracked in the weeks since he made his comments. Also President Obama, clearly distanced himself from Carter's comments.
I had a long discussion on this HUB with T_Augustus as I'm sure you have read. What I pulled from that discussion is "TONE" to me it came alive in the pictures/posters. That while ugly and overtly racist is not the majority. Again I said Popular Dissent.
I didn't read all the comments but will do so.
Wow, that was some reading, Augustus stated that racism is a 2way street, I'm not just talking about black and white, but yellow to brown, green to black or whatever. It has been a part of society probably from the dawn of time. Its unfornuate that we have to deal with such ignorance. Someone commented to me that I did not agree with Obama on health care simply for his skin color. I could give a rats ass. I am in an interatial marriage! When Bush was President who was crying out about the political cartooning he indured. The inbread, big eared, unable to articulate, only got somewhere with out his Dad... We as people shpuld try to have and build our memories. I will admit I do not have the savvy to tango with Augustus or C.J, I just felt as a Italian-Dutch-German-AMERICAN we are the ones to make the change, within each one of us. Thank you Dutch
Thanks for reading Dutch. I think what we all can take from the discussion is this. Racism exist. Its not the problem it was of the past, however it is the type of problem that should never be tolerated. Falsely accusing someone of racism is just as destructive as being racist.
Hi C. J. Wright. Keep the hubs coming.
Join Leonard Pitts, Jr. and shed a tear for poor Rush!
As you sow, so shall you reap, brother
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
We are gathered here today in sympathy with our brother, Rush Limbaugh.
As you are no doubt aware, these have been difficult days for Brother Limbaugh. There he was, happily revealing that he was part of an investment group that had submitted a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League. Next thing you know, Al Sharpton is on him like ugly on King Kong, urging the NFL to reject him.
And NFL players, not previously known for commenting on or even visibly caring, who owns a team so long as the paychecks clear, are saying they would not play for him.
And owners, who must vote to approve him, are telling reporters they will not.
It all came to a head last week as the talk show host was dumped by his fellow investors. Whose heart is so stony that it does not weep for Brother Limbaugh to find himself humiliated so? Put yourself in his shoes.
You're a college dropout and OxyContin junkie who somehow managed to climb to the top of the media pile. You've made yourself one of the most popular and influential voices in the national dialogue and that, in turn, has made you rich beyond dreams of avarice. How satisfying must that be.
And you're an avid sports fan, too, so naturally you jump at a chance to fulfill every sports fan's dream -- to buy yourself a team. You picture yourself watching games from the luxury box with a babe or two on your arm, evaluating talent and signing off on trades, partying in the locker room, champagne stinging your eyes, at the end of a championship game.
How cruel to have it all snatched away from you. And why? Because a bunch of black African-American Negroes start making noise? What reason do they have to be upset with you?
Just because you once called Philadelphia Eagles star Donovan McNabb overrated, the victim of media too eager to see a black quarterback do well?
Just because you referred to Barack Obama and Halle Berry as ``Halfrican Americans''?
Just because you told your listeners Obama's economic program is ``reparations''?
Just because you called Obama ``the little black man-child''?
Just because you said the NFL ``all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips''?
Just because you once told a black caller to ``take that bone out of your nose and call me back''?
For those trifles the sensitive pansies of the NFL don't want to have anything to do with you? Why do they even care? Just because 65 percent of their players are black African-American Negroes? Oh, the shame! Oh, the humanity!
So yes, the rest of us should rally around Brother Limbaugh. If they can deny one rich, racially inflammatory media lout his constitutional right to own a football team, what's to stop them from denying another? This is a clear and present danger. Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck . . . none of us are safe while this injustice stands.
And besides, what lesson does this teach our children?
That there are things (like respectability) even money can't buy? That there are doors (like the one to the owner's box) even fame can't open? That you only have one reputation and it's not stain-resistant, so you'd better not soil it? That karma is a female dog?
Do you really want your children to learn that sort of socialist claptrap? I don't. How dare the high and mighty NFL act like the things we say carry consequences?
So let's stand up for Brother Limbaugh. Indeed, here and now, I am starting a legal fund to help him carry on the fight. I will make the first contribution -- a shiny new Franklin Roosevelt dime.
What about you? Wouldn't you like to see poor Rush get what he deserves?
Please give generously.
The Miami Herald
James, Thanks for reading. I certainly intend to keep hubbing!
Ralph,
I find it hard to feel bad for Mr. Limbaugh. Another great Hubber, T_Augustus has written on the Limbaugh situation. You may want to take a look at it.
sometimes the race card fits. I remember campaigning for Professor Mel King for Mayor of Boston in the 80's. Boston had been the site of much strife in integrating the school system.
I lived in a predominantly white neighborhood and held a party for him.
Needless to say, my neighbors were shocked, and I wasn't appreciated much. They were racists.
That was about 30 years ago. Obama's use of the race card (I don't look like the guy on the dollar bill) was totally out of line.
Unfortunately, America got a worse president than Jimmy Carter, and who holds very anti-American views.
vrajavala,
Thanks for reading and your comments. There will allways be pockets of racism in any society. Overall though, I believe the country has come a long way since the 60's. It was a painfull time, but it produced healthier idea's about how we value people. Again thanks for reading.
Have you seen the SNL skit? http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/weird
vrajavala, no I haven't. I'll have to check it out, thanks!
Thanks for reading!
A fantastic hub...my favorite line..."John and Jane Q. Public have made many more."....so glad someone is not affraid to say that out loud...the blame game has gone too far...it is time for each and every one of us to stand up and be held accountable for the current state of this great country...if we don't it will be a great country no more!
eyeofh,
Thanks for reading!
I agree, there will be no real economic recovery until there is a re-affirmation of personal responsibility. This pain train was built in the 60's. By the 1980's the majority of American's were on board. We have been headed towards an economic collapse since. People have been placing the blame on big business and/or government. My take is that popular personal attitudes towards money are far more powerfull.
I enjoyed reading your hub.
James A Watkins says:
2 months ago
"Issue not the tissue" is a very catchy line. I agree that Carter is a numbskull. Another fine Hub by you. I enjoy your writing. Thanks!