September 16, 2009

Jimmy Carter says "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president"...

... and asserts that Joe Wilson's "You lie!" was "based on racism." 

Lots of people who voted for Obama believed that his election would reflect the extent to which Americans had moved beyond racism. That was part of why some people voted for him. Little did we realize that it would turn every criticism of the President into an occasion to make an accusation of racism. Racism is revolting, but so is the notion that we aren't allowed to criticize a President!

Jimmy Carter's supremely sleazy accusation requires a solid, sound rebuke. It is an effort to place the President of the United States beyond criticism.

Imagine if, before last year's election, someone had argued: If a black man becomes President, anyone who dares to criticize him will be called a racist.

1. I would have viewed that argument itself as racist. If that is really true, I would have said, then it means that we have to vote against the candidate because he is black, since it is not acceptable to have a President who can't be criticized.

2. I would also have said: It is racist to say that it's racist to criticize a black President, because you are being patronizing and you are saying that a black person needs to be coddled and protected in some special way that doesn't apply to white people.

Jimmy Carter is doing something that, before the election, he would not have revealed that he planned to do. It is a low and despicable political move that he should be ashamed of.

And since demanding apologies is all the rage, let me say that I would like the wizened old husk of a former President to beg our forgiveness.

431 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 431 of 431
miller said...

Sadly, this is probably the last post.

frogsaresexy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
frogsaresexy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cedarford said...

Mark - It certainly shouldn't have been the primary reason to vote for him, but had you assumed he'd be at least as good a President as McCain (which I believe was Althouse's position) then it is a perfectly valid reason to be proud of your vote, and of your country.

Personally, I believed McCain would be a bad President, but I also believed Obama would be a worse President for reasons that I think have proven to be true. Still, while I believed the majority was making a mistake, it was a mistake that made me feel good about racial progress in this country.


Despite Obama's failures, I detect little or no "McCain regret" out there. No one at the rallies is blubbering that "if only McCain had been elected, none of this would have happened".

What people seem to have concluded about McCain was the more he campaigned, the more people were convinced he would have been a horrific President...erratic, incoherent, wanting a new major war with Iran. And prepared to send US troops to Georgia to face down Russians to help "our beloved Georgian Freedom-lovers".
Palin, despite what followers of her cult of personality maintain, was a downside in the election and continues to be "box office poison" to moderates and independent voters...who tend to think she is unfit for high office.

Had McCain been elected, we might have had major war with Iran, more troops in Iraq...all to help out McCain's "Special Friend" Israel, with Neocons again calling the shots and oil at 400 a barrel and the world locked in Depression.

And everyone knows McCain's long record of treachery against Republican values. He would have been out their clasping Pelosi's hand and holding it high as he announced his "Bipartisan bailout of Wall Street" and his "Bipartisan Healthcare package".

No. people who knew McCain well and saw Palin as unqualified... shifted to a candidate who at least they could hope was not the backstabbing dolt militarist and DC insider bought and coopted for 25 years McCain had demonstrated himself to be. Obama was what many feared could be a bad, untested candidate. But one with at least the potential not to be as awful as McCain-Palin promised to be.

That is what Republicans deserved, frankly, after years of Bush bungling and licking the feet of the Religious Right and the Corporatists of Wall Street.

Had they been smarter and had Romney as the nominee, possibly Fred Thompson....they very well could have had a shot when the financial system fell apart and Fred or Mitt had shown, unlike McCain-Palin or Obama...they were tested leaders who knew what they were talking about.

And people now WOULD have been saying, if they lost...darn! Should have gone with Mitt or Fred! Now we are stuck with community organizing, slick-talking, con artist!

Cedarford said...

Whoops, we have another Lefty sock puppet, appearing saying what others of his ilk in NYC or San Fran imagine a bigoted Southern man would talk like.

Frogsaresexy - go away. You are too stupid to fool anyone with your fake "nigger this, coon that" impersonations.

In fact, I hope Althouse deletes your slimey remarks when she gets up.

Meanwhile, have fun at your ACORN, ACLU, or moveon,org meetings doing your "ever-so-cunning" impressions of what you imagine "deep south people" must sound like.

Doc Rampage said...

Not that anyone is still reading this thread 400 comments down, but given that it is my only correct political prediction so far, I think I should get some credit for having predicted that an Obama presidency would use charges of racism to intimidate critics. I predicted it in September, 2008: "But if Obama is elected, we can look forward to four years of intensely racial politics that will change the political landscape very much for the worse. Race will become an Obama administration's goto charge for anyone they are angry at, anyone who opposed a substantive policy initiative."

I may have been wrong about this making the political landscape worse, though. It may, instead finally make Americans impatient of the misuse of this accusation.

Anonymous said...

Surely, the moby will ruin Althouse this time.

Unknown said...

This is ridiculous...Why couldn't we have been more critical and concerned about what a president is doing when we had a nincompoop like Bush in the white house...

Unknown said...

Carter owes more than just a public apology, he owes reparations.

Power to the People!!

Shanna said...

Frogsaresexy - go away.

I'll echo this. It's telling that these assholes show up at 3 in the morning after never commenting here before to say this kind of shit. Not sure what they think they are accomplishing.

miller said...

Prolly some sophomore, up late partying, and after an INTENSE political discussion with his friends, who's decided to REALLY SHOW ALTHOUSE that he's not afraid to speak the TRUTH and show her what REAL RACIST REDNECK REPUBLICANS (are there any other kind?) think.

I'm surprised he was able to find the keyboard, drunk as he was.

Oh yeah, it was a he.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

MUL, bottom line, you accuse white southerners of racism for no other reason than that they are white southerners. So what does that make you.

That is my point.

Scott M said...

@MM


LOOOOOOOOOL!! So it appears Joe Wilson hangs out with people who make racist jokes. But it's ok 'cause he doesn't laugh.

LOOOOOOOL! There are no racists in South Carolina.


You know, I rarely go pejorative in a blog because I try to remember WWWFBD.

And, further, you're comments are "generally" a bit more thought out.

This one, however, just makes you look like an idiot. A shallow idiot, at that. Worse, it damages your credibility for no good reason.

Unknown said...

As an a Black-American I have to say that Jimmy Carter is the racist. From my experience, the one that shouts "racism" is usually the racist. I did not vote for Obama. The reason that many voted for Obama was because he was black. that's not a smart way of voting. I don't care what color you are. If the candidate held the views that he has, I oppose him. Yes there are Americans that oppose him because he's black but there are lots more that oppose him because of his views. the ones that have a basis of not wanting him as president are liberals. I loved the battle between him and Hillary. It brought out the true colors of the Democratic Party. They are always calling eveyrone else a sexist or a racist. Now they wetre in a position where their own accusations were going to be used (against them) but this time with validation. Oddly enough Hillary could've won because many Democrats actually didn't want a black person in the office. Hillary didn't win because Obama exposed the Clinton's involvement in NAFTA- something our liberal media deliberately hid from the public. Suddenly the tide changed in Obama's favor because of that. I still can't understand how the party that gave birth to the Klu Klux Klan gets the vote from the majority of minorities. Wake up people!! Racism will continue because Democrats need it or they have no position. In all honesty, Carter is a culprit of it. FYI, most Black leaders (including MLK) were Republican.

hombre said...

Pompous Montanus wrote (11:30 PM): But most of all, I'm just plain sorry.

Finally, MUL, among the sorriest of the leftist lot, gets it right!


WV "cults" = The last bastions of support for Obamacare.

hombre said...

Hopefully, even the Dems have the scruples to ostracize Carter after this mass slander.


WV "shilts" = Obots in kilts.

miller said...

Would I ever consider voting for Obama? I don't think so, but I hate to say never. However, given what he was as a Senator (a do-nothing), I don't think I'd ever change my mind.

Would I vote for any non-white compared to any white? I don't know how to answer that question, because I don't think melanin is the mark of character. I think character is.

I think people like Foley (of both parties) and Frank and Cunningham and Jefferson & the like deserve to be booted as soon as possible from the political world. I don't care about the melanin.

Would I vote for someone with the class, dignity, and intelligence of Sowell? Sure. Did I support Clarence Thomas? Of course, and only because he was smart, knew his stuff, and didn't back down at a high-tech lynching.

Would I vote for someone like EMK? No, because he drowned a girl.

I don't look at the party or the skin color. I look at the character.

But go ahead and use the 'racist' label, because, you know, that really convinces me.

You must feel so powerful to use such powerful words.

former law student said...

1. Even with word verification, spam ("satish") gets through.

2. The value of comments drops precipitously after the first 200.

ryanshaunkelly said...

(((fear & smear)))

to: All Shills & Trolls
from: AIPAC Neocon Megaphone
re: Demonization of President Carter

Ventura Sheehan Perot Paul Nader McKinney Kucinich Kaptur Gravel Gonzalez Clemente Choate Carter Baldwin Anderson

Israel-first dual-nationals of AIPAC
Willful major media disinformation
Federal Reserve scam
Anthrax intimidation
9/11 sham

Methadras said...

former law student said...

1. Even with word verification, spam ("satish") gets through.

2. The value of comments drops precipitously after the first 200.


And yet here you are telling us what how valueless comments are after 200. Irony much?

former law student said...

meth -- did I except myself?

I think not.

Big Mike said...

I still can't believe that a thread about Jimmy Carter -- Jimmy Carter!!! -- went well beyond 400 comments.

He's the last Democrat I ever voted for in my life. If you were a young adult around that time trying to land a job and buy a house and car, you'd understand why.

ken in tx said...

The Confederate flag is a racist symbol today only because later day people have made it so. Originally it was a Christian symbol. It incorporated the white on blue cross or Saint Andrew and the red on white Saltire of Saint Patrick, borrowed from the British Union Jack. The idea was to get the British to recognize the Confederacy. All this racism stuff has nothing to do with the flag. It’s a shame because it is a beautiful flag.

former law student said...

The Confederate flag, so-called, was never the Confederate flag at all, but a battle ensign.

Big Mike said...

Quite right, FLS. These days it's a one-fingered salute to liberals. Childish, but understandable. Some of you folks can be pretty insufferable.

Unknown said...

Plz go to this place: http://www.roblox.com/

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Whoa! I can see that working during the day really holds me back on these things. But Methadras said some things that merit response:

"I'm not an emotionless man as you suggest, but I've learned from being on the other side what a dangerous attraction of what envy/jealousy/feelings are with respect to political policies and political ideology are."

Yes, that's nice and all well and good. But I don't see why envy/jealousy are so much more malign a set of motivators than a self-protective sense of defensive omnipotence. I know the ideology du jour (well, the ideology d'hier) was/is to say "I don't need anyone in life - least of all, the government. If I don't have a family who can provide me access to the sense of prestige which should motivate me in life, I will find a way to obtain that for myself (even though odds are, I will fail). I will substitute whatever emotions allow me to bloat my own ego to the degree necessary to make me believe that my chances of being highly successful are greater than they are for most people."

I'm not saying the preceding sentiment isn't better than the one you describe. I'm just wondering why it's not worse.

"I thought I knew what right and wrong was, but I was wrong. Iron-clad, emotion free sense of right and wrong? Hardly. It's just that dealing with prigs like you, it's best to minimize the emotion in favor of trying to at least be reasonable. But your sense of reason is rooted in the principals I highlighted above and I seriously doubt there is hope for you."

Why do so many people I meet on here come across as disgruntled former lefties, who believe it is their over-riding obligation in life to make sure that neither I nor anyone else ever subscribe to the ideology they once did? Why are they so threatened that I or anyone else would even dare to consider what anyone on the left has to say? Is their definition of a national threat really that paranoid? Is their understanding of the the political landscape really that ominous, and desperate?

What these outbursts reveal is the obsession with ideology that they possess and now project onto others. I once said something to Bunny about trying on new ideologies like they were shoes. It might come as a surprise to you that some of us don't really do that. We really aren't concerned much with ideology, yours or the lefties. We discuss issues, matters, without much preference for a specific ideological lens or another through which to see those things. But we exist, we are pragmatists, and we like the debate that you are stirred to by virtue of your obsession with a sense of ideological purity that is no less ugly now that you call yourself a conservative than it was when you called yourself a liberal.

The new generation that rejected the GOP is much less partisan or ideological than you know - and that is why the right-wing has been driven crazy. The Democrats are simply not driven by ideological purity and anti-pragmatic attitudes to the degree that the right is, and hence more youth and independent voters are not as turned off by them as you wish they would be. And that drives you nuts. But it doesn't make your ideas right. And it doesn't make your attitudes attractive, and it doesn't make your positions interesting.

"Good luck at life, so far you are failing it."

Not by the standards for what your party considers a "successful" life, I'm not.

Talk about taking liberties with your own assumptions!

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Oh, and Laura - aversion to busing? Not a great way to demonstrate your anti-racist credentials.

Keep trying, though.

ryanshaunkelly said...

Wall Street
Art students
9/11 snow job
Chicken hawks
Moving company
Propaganda media
DNC stealth neocons
Anti-semitism accusers
The chosen the superior
2-3% of the US population
Extortion blackmail bribery
By deception ye shall wage war
AIPAC's Israel-first dual-nationals
For profit NotFederal NoReserve scam

Words are plentiful deeds are precious!

Anonymous said...

Sorry 'bout the duplicate, I had a bit of trouble signing in. Too many blogs!

Mike, this post became more than about just Jimmy Carter before it was even written, in fact as soon as the words left his mouth. Carter just threw five gallons of gas on an already growing fire.

Unknown said...

Who cares what Carter thinks. There is a large amount of evidence that the democratic party harbors racists. It isnt surprising to me to see a neutered white man like Carter calling out his own(white people) for the same things that every other ethnic group in this country do E.G look out for each other.

I love how I as a white have to walk on egg shells and yet there is a mountain of evidence that organisations and people associated with Obama are outright anti-white(or Pro their ethnic group of choice), and their sole purpose is the destruction of white culture(or the sole promotion of their own).

And I am the one being called racist...

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 431 of 431   Newer› Newest»