Not sure why this bugs me so much, because it should be expected by now, but apparently I’m not a quick study. I do, however, find myself more and more perturbed with our “new kind of politics” Presidential contender.

Obama tells La Raza in a speech the other day:

“Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk – because I walked,” Mr. Obama said at the National Council of La Raza’s annual convention in Miami Beach. “I didn’t run away from the issue, and I didn’t just talk about it in front of Latino audiences.”

The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate “was both ugly and racist in a way we haven’t see since the struggle for civil rights.”

I’m sorry, but BULLS***, BULLS***, BULLS***.

The REAL debate had absolutely nothing to do with racism. I’m sure there were racists saying racist things, but that wasn’t part of the debate, and Obama knows that. The debate was over a lot of things: national sovereignty, border security, language and culture, economics, but most of all it was about the American Public’s decided lack of trust in Mr. Obama’s august political body to do what they say they are going to do. They believed the Government 20 years ago when Reagan pushed for an amnesty plan, and luckily their memory was long enough not to fall for it again. By saying that all the detractors on the immigration bill are racists is 100% “running away from the issue.”

Connection to the civil rights issue is completely fabricated. African Americans in the Jim Crow era were citizens, and had been in the country for generations. Comparing their plight to the plight of millions of people sneaking over the border is insulting to the social injustice resulting in the Civil Rights movement. No one denies the humanity of the issue, or the fact that those coming over the border are for the most part hard-working decent people, or the obvious fact that they should be treated decently. But pretending that securing the border is “racist” is just childish.

Any semblance of hope that this guy is anything more than an empty suit who writes well, is long gone.

Commentary: The Post Chronicle

Barack Panders to “The Race”

4 thoughts on “Barack Panders to “The Race”

  • Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your post is saying that:

    1) because the immigration debate is about national sovereignty, border security, etc 2) then it cannot be racist 3) and therefore Obama is a racebaiter (or, as you say, “empty suit”) not worthy of our presidency. You say this 4) even though you also make the comment that “I’m sure there were racists saying racist things”

    Although I didn’t watch the Senate debate, I think that Obama is not totally out of line if #4 above is true. And, based on the views of some conservative Senators, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if such comments were made. So, I ‘m not going to disqualify Obama from presidential candidacy just yet.

  • no, I’m not saying any of those things…exactly. I’m saying:

    1) the real immigration debate is about national sovereignty, border security, economics etc.

    2) there are racists in the country, but their role in this debate is irrelevant

    3) Obama IS a race-baiter in this speech because he avoids 1 by talking only about 2 in front of a group that calls itself “The Race”.

    4) When I said “I’m sure there were racists saying racist things” I wasn’t specifically talking about the Senate, even though Obama was, so my mistake. He was apparently accusing standing U.S. Senators of racism. I would love to see some quotes of some of these racist Senators, because their constituents need to know about it.

    But Obama doesn’t have examples (not that he should or needs to in a speech to La Raza). Like you, I didn’t see the debate in the Senate, but of all the accusations of racism, I have yet to see a real quote of anyone of significance (or for that matter anyone without significance) making racist comments. I’ve seen people accusing the other side of BEING racists because of their stance, but it’s innuendo, unless you tackle the other issues at hand.

    In other words if opponents of this bill are racists, then either they are a) saying racist things, or b) their comments about border security, economic impact, etc. are SO ridiculous that they must OBVIOUSLY be racists. Unless you have (a) then you must prove (b).

    Comparisons to the Civil Rights movement are ridiculous, and avoids the real issue:

    -That the American People do not believe Congress will secure the border if they let an amnesty plan like that which was proposed go through.

    And my overall point (which should strike as a sort of theme with Obama) is that I was a little excited about him when I read his book. He seemed to be determined to elevate the debate a little bit, and since then he has refused to do that. I know he needs to cater to a far-left Democratic constituency, but it’s just disappointing to see him unwilling to do what he said he would do.

    That’s what I get for trying to find a Democratic Candidate to latch onto…I would have been better off not reading his book and getting my hopes up.

    Not that anyone on the right is willing to have that debate either. It’s more diatribes, pandering, and the only people who are willing to take on the status quo on either side, are either too low on the totem pole or they’re just muckrakers posing as contenders.

    If Obama gets the nomination he will all of a sudden become more impressive. His entire attitude will probably shift back to that of the “outsider paradigm shifter” or whatever. I just think it’s either:

    a) insulting to Democratic voters who actually have a brain and can listen to a politician acknowledge that the other side might indeed have a couple of good points occasionally (e.g. “Hey look we all want a secure border–even Latin Americans).


    b) terribly depressing that a large percentage of Democratic voters have so little rational thought left that they are unwilling to acknowledge that having a secure border is not racist.

    I’m thinking (a) which is why I think Hillary will indeed get the nomination, because she is willing to tell the left-wing nutjobs occasionally that they’re wrong (e.g. the other day talking about EVIL Lobbyists OCCASIONALLY representing real humans.)

    I’m not looking for a savior here…it’s not too much to ask for is it? Intellectual consistency?

  • Intellectual consistency…let’s see, there’s Ron Paul (who’s speech I happened to catch on C-Span today – it almost brought me to tears a few times) and then there’s everyone else. You are correct that Obama does want to be in the “not politics as usual” category.

    Have you checked to see if Obama has always held such strong views on the immigration issue (pre-campaign)? I haven’t looked into it.

    Regarding not pandering to the base, maybe we need a law that says all states must allow all voters (not just “registered” Dems or Republicans) to vote in each party’s primaries.

  • Yes Ron Paul has been intellectually consistent, and you could say the same for most of the “second-tier” candidates.

    Don’t know Obama’s views pre-election, but it doesn’t speak to the issue of the intellectual dishonesty of categorizing all opponents of illegal immigration as racists.

    This is why I’m glad I live in Virginia and will be voting in BOTH primaries. Not sure whether making that a federal law is the right thing, but I see your point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *