vision wrote:Will Robinson wrote:If I had read the original article and realized the context I wouldn't have titled my post the same way but I don't believe for a minute Obama doesn't cite racism as a reason he has lower poll numbers.
You don't see it do you? This is an instance where you are being led around by the nose by false, inflammatory media blurbs and you are perfectly content to ride the waves because it reinforces what you want to believe. Sure, maybe Obama has said off-color stuff about race in the past, but not in this article, not by a longshot. I'm just pointing out this thread is a circle-jerk where facts are put aside to stoke each other's unreasonable hate for a man doing what is currently the hardest job in the world.
No. You are wrong.
I see what you mean. I/we assumed, based on the headline, that he recently tried to blame his dropping poll numbers on racist intent, deflecting any substantive motive instead.
I totally get it, that I believed what the
headline implied. That this was a recent use of that tactic. etc.
However, the reason I, and probably others, went with that perception IS BECAUSE HE DOES THIS OFTEN.
You are trying to dance past that distinction.
You have implied the others in this thread jumped on the bandwagon out of hate for him as a person. I'm telling you it is much more likely they too recognize the race card excuse as Obama's typical play.
Your decision to assign hatred to their motive instead of their having substantive dislike for the excuse that racist are at work is every bit as much an indication of YOUR prejudice as any you think you have identified in them/us!
vision wrote:Will Robinson wrote:And he isn't a rightwinger blogger....that was a random act of journalism by a lefty...a Freudian slip of sorts.
You didn't read the whole article, which obvious.
You are wrong, which calls into question your ability to recognize the obvious.
vision wrote:It is rather unforgiving in spots. Also, major magazines like this don't have random Freudian slips. Teams of editors scrutinize articles until they are fully crafted works, which means things that a clear are deliberately clear and things that are vague are deliberately vague.
And here you totally affirm my other point. That it was no mistake that the author introduced the condition of Obama dropping so low in the polls and then describing Obama's perception to those conditions by citing his race card excuse! (A Freudean slip is not an accident)
Like you said, lots of editors....deliberately stated. There was nothing vague about that point. It sounds like you are trying to make it vague....
With all that journalism muscle you allude to they could have discussed Obamas policy, his opponents objections to it....ACA, Immigration, Jobs, etc
Yet they didn't cite any disagreement over policy being at the heart of how Obama see's the cause for his dropping numbers. The very first thing they put in 'print' to assign to Obamas perception of the polls was the 'racist bogeyman'! Quite deliberate. Journalism 101 lead with the main point....put the filler down below the fold. On the topic of the reason the polls went down they led by quoting him ( and the part I highlighted in bold destroys any illusion of objectivity he was trying to create. He just can't help himself):
our community agitator in chief wrote:“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.” The latter group has been less in evidence of late.
And they followed with his suggesting even legitimate substantive objections are intertwined in old racist motives!
our community agitator in chief wrote:“There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country, and sometimes it’s hard to disentangle those issues,” he went on. “You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government—that it’s distant, that it’s bureaucratic, that it’s not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments. But what’s also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states’ rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There’s a pretty long history there. And so I think it’s important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there’s some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans.
He tries to sugar coat it but to have that as his default perspective....that one has to look for the racist content in all objections to a black president and try to measure it correctly...isn't as reasonable as it is a backhanded slap to the face of objectivity. When your only tool is a race card every problem is caused by a racist.