NY Times and the race card

[JohnnyLingo]

I can't decide what is more disheartening: a major columnist in the biggest newspaper on earth throwing down the race card with enough vehemence to set off car alarms, or the fact that those commenting on her piece agree so heartily with the ideas expressed.

That's a fair assessment, Maureen, because that's exactly what I heard too! Heard the same reframe, not-so-cleverly disguised, during the Teabagger Mini-March-Hatefest on Washington, D.C. on Saturday.

The disrespect of our duly elected president by right-wingers is total and totally unacceptable.

Go Maureen! It is about time that the gloves come off. Disagree with the man's politics on a political level but get over the fact that he is smart and black ( the opposite of W.) and that his wife is gorgeous (again an opposite). The majority of this vocal opposition is about our president simply being an intelligent black man. Let's call them out into the sun light where they will melt.

Excellent column, Ms. Dowd. I, likyou, tried to believe that racism was not a big part of the anti-Obama movement. Mr. Wilson's outcry forced me to recognize the truth about which you have so aptly written. Thank you.

I followed the long campaign Obama undertook to become your President.
Along with the majority of we overseas observers, I cheered at his
election as a validation of the finest principles of your Constitution
- all men are created equal.

It has therefore puzzled me when I have read the absolute virulence of
opposition to Obama the man, as opposed to a President and his policies.

You Ms Dowd have bravely identified what I have long suspected, this
President's legitimacy is being questioned by opponents on the basis
of his background and colour.

You could not be more accurate. The undercurrent of basic rejection of a black man has been building all summer.

Mr. DeMint appears to be one of those liars. He along with Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are setting us on a dangerous path. I wonder has the revolution started? I think it is too late for America. The right has gone too far, forgetting the very notion of loyal opposition.

Finally, someone has called the assault on Obama by its right name. Thank you! Why has everybody been so silent about the blatant racism that is driving much of the anger against Obama?

I especially appreciate the glaring hypocrisy of "respect the office!" coming from those who decried W. as a warmongering, murdering, lying monkey.

It's embarrassing, frankly.

[Non Sequitur]

I especially appreciate the glaring hypocrisy of "respect the office!" coming from those who decried W. as a warmongering, murdering, lying monkey.

It's embarrassing, frankly.

GWB is not a monkey.

[KillerDog]

I don't know how anyone can be worked up into outrage over this piece of political argument. It seems like more of the same. When GWB was president, those who didn't like him attacked him personally. Now that Obama is the president, those who don't like him are attacking him personally. In the first case, the response of the GWB supporters was that the attackers were "anti-american" and not "patriots." Now the Obama supporters are saying that his attackers are "racist" and "bigots."

Interestingly, both in her opinion piece and in all of the articles defending and attacking both of these presidents, nobody is putting forward balanced information concerning the positions of these men. There was a belief in colonial days that one of the protectors of liberty and freedom was a free press that would shine a balanced light on political discussion. That type of press didn't exist then and it doesn't exist now. Sound bites from radio, snippets from TV, and editorial commentary from newspaper's dominate our political landscape and nowhere does it inform. Instead we are left to find our way through a maze of biased reporting and editorializing and somehow determine whether we think Obama or Bush is doing a good job. Frankly, I think we are better informed on the merits of various American Idol contestants.

At the end of it all, I read the article and had learned nothing new about Obama's health care plan. Print, TV, radio and internet add nothing to our knowledge of political issues. Regardless of whether we vote or not, most of us are disenfranchised.

[JohnnyLingo]

I don't know how anyone can be worked up into outrage over this piece of political argument. It seems like more of the same. When GWB was president, those who didn't like him attacked him personally. Now that Obama is the president, those who don't like him are attacking him personally. In the first case, the response of the GWB supporters was that the attackers were "anti-american" and not "patriots." Now the Obama supporters are saying that his attackers are "racist" and "bigots."

Interestingly, both in her opinion piece and in all of the articles defending and attacking both of these presidents, nobody is putting forward balanced information concerning the positions of these men. There was a belief in colonial days that one of the protectors of liberty and freedom was a free press that would shine a balanced light on political discussion. That type of press didn't exist then and it doesn't exist now. Sound bites from radio, snippets from TV, and editorial commentary from newspaper's dominate our political landscape and nowhere does it inform. Instead we are left to find our way through a maze of biased reporting and editorializing and somehow determine whether we think Obama or Bush is doing a good job. Frankly, I think we are better informed on the merits of various American Idol contestants.

At the end of it all, I read the article and had learned nothing new about Obama's health care plan. Print, TV, radio and internet add nothing to our knowledge of political issues. Regardless of whether we vote or not, most of us are disenfranchised.

Bravo.

[il Padrino Ute]

Johnny, it's Maureen Dowd. She's a nobody. She's doesn't even register on the insignificant meter.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...There was a belief in colonial days that one of the protectors of liberty and freedom was a free press that would shine a balanced light on political discussion. That type of press didn't exist then and it doesn't exist now.

Newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were far more partisan than they are now, and I think the framers recognized that. Their notion of a free press didn't depend on any one source being balanced or entirely accurate. But rather, by allowing a wide, unfettered range of opinions and reportage to flourish, the hope was that an informed citizenry would eventually separate the wheat from the chaff and truth would prevail.

If one uses only a single colored spotlight for illumination, one will see the world as all red, green, blue or whatever. Only by using a variety multicolored light sources can one expect to cast a balanced light on the stage.

The responsibility for getting a balanced view of things doesn't lie with the media, but rather with us, and too many of us rely on light from a limited range of the political spectrum. The funny thing is, pretty much everyone (including me) will say, "Not me! I carefully examine all sides of an issue and glean as much information as possible from a multitude of sources." But it just ain't so.

[YOhio]

Newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were far more partisan than they are now, and I think the framers recognized that. Their notion of a free press didn't depend on any one source being balanced or entirely accurate. But rather, by allowing a wide, unfettered range of opinions and reportage to flourish, the hope was that an informed citizenry would eventually separate the wheat from the chaff and truth would prevail.

If one uses only a single colored spotlight for illumination, one will see the world as all red, green, blue or whatever. Only by using a variety multicolored light sources can one expect to cast a balanced light on the stage.

The responsibility for getting a balanced view of things doesn't lie with the media, but rather with us, and too many of us rely on light from a limited range of the political spectrum. The funny thing is, pretty much everyone (including me) will say, "Not me! I carefully examine all sides of an issue and glean as much information as possible from a multitude of sources." But it just ain't so.

Great post, PAC. Especially the last paragraph.

To echo Il Pad, I can't get worked up over MoDo or her commenters. She has always been outrageously liberal and I don't like to read the comments sections on news sites.

[venkman]

Johnny, it's Maureen Dowd. She's a nobody. She's doesn't even register on the insignificant meter.

If you ever see her on TV, you can just tell she's very unhappy. Didn't she used to date Michael Douglas? Then he dumped her and is now hooked up with Catherine Zeta-Jones. Boy, what was he thinking?

[wuapinmon]

Newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were far more partisan than they are now, and I think the framers recognized that. Their notion of a free press didn't depend on any one source being balanced or entirely accurate. But rather, by allowing a wide, unfettered range of opinions and reportage to flourish, the hope was that an informed citizenry would eventually separate the wheat from the chaff and truth would prevail.

If one uses only a single colored spotlight for illumination, one will see the world as all red, green, blue or whatever. Only by using a variety multicolored light sources can one expect to cast a balanced light on the stage.

The responsibility for getting a balanced view of things doesn't lie with the media, but rather with us, and too many of us rely on light from a limited range of the political spectrum. The funny thing is, pretty much everyone (including me) will say, "Not me! I carefully examine all sides of an issue and glean as much information as possible from a multitude of sources." But it just ain't so.

Very wise points, though I will say that I examine all side of an issue when it's important enough to me to warrant the considerable time investment required to do that which I preach.

Great post, PAC. Especially the last paragraph.

To echo Il Pad, I can't get worked up over MoDo or her commenters. She has always been outrageously liberal and I don't like to read the comments sections on news sites.

The comments sections on news sites are about as uplifting as the comments on YouTube of gangbangers posting brag videos.
[YOUTUBE]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JO1Gbyf7opg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JO1Gbyf7opg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[venkman]

I can't decide what is more disheartening: a major columnist in the biggest newspaper on earth throwing down the race card with enough vehemence to set off car alarms, or the fact that those commenting on her piece agree so heartily with the ideas expressed.
















I especially appreciate the glaring hypocrisy of "respect the office!" coming from those who decried W. as a warmongering, murdering, lying monkey.

It's embarrassing, frankly.

It has nothing to do with race, obviously. Do you remember how much conservatives hated Bill Clinton? I absolutely despised the man, myself, couldn't even watch him. Oh wait, but he was the first black president, so maybe they are right.

As for Barry, when he starts acting presidential, and less like a perpetual campaigner and professional speech maker, leading union crowds in vacuous chants and spewing his lies without shame, then maybe I'll respect him. Probably not. But maybe.

Seriously, the man is a joke. Absolutely no governing going on, just galavanting about the land, mindlessly parroting whatever the teleprompter tells him to. I don't know who's in running the asylum, but it's not him. It's embarrassing.

(And yes, Bush was just as bad, or worse. But at least he wasn't a leftist radical.)

[wuapinmon]

It has nothing to do with race, obviously. Do you remember how much conservatives hated Bill Clinton? I absolutely despised the man, myself, couldn't even watch him. Oh wait, but he was the first black president, so maybe they are right.

As for Barry, when he starts acting presidential, and less like a perpetual campaigner and professional speech maker, leading union crowds in vacuous chants and spewing his lies without shame, then maybe I'll respect him. Probably not. But maybe.

Seriously, the man is a joke. Absolutely no governing going on, just galavanting about the land, mindlessly parroting whatever the teleprompter tells him to. I don't know who's in running the asylum, but it's not him. It's embarrassing.

(And yes, Bush was just as bad, or worse. But at least he wasn't a leftist radical.)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were far more partisan than they are now, and I think the framers recognized that. Their notion of a free press didn't depend on any one source being balanced or entirely accurate. But rather, by allowing a wide, unfettered range of opinions and reportage to flourish, the hope was that an informed citizenry would eventually separate the wheat from the chaff and truth would prevail.

If one uses only a single colored spotlight for illumination, one will see the world as all red, green, blue or whatever. Only by using a variety multicolored light sources can one expect to cast a balanced light on the stage.

The responsibility for getting a balanced view of things doesn't lie with the media, but rather with us, and too many of us rely on light from a limited range of the political spectrum. The funny thing is, pretty much everyone (including me) will say, "Not me! I carefully examine all sides of an issue and glean as much information as possible from a multitude of sources." But it just ain't so.

Full disclosure: that is so good that I am likely to steal it. And I may not acknowledge you when I do.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Full disclosure: that is so good that I am likely to steal it. And I may not acknowledge you when I do.

I would be honored and no acknowledgment is necessary; indeed, it would undercut whatever value the thoughts might otherwise convey. It would be like saying, "As Paris Hilton once observed...."

And as previously noted, I've borrowed ideas from this board and used them in my Gospel Doctrine class. Referring to Jeff Lebowski, pelagius, Solon, wuapinmon, etc. would create some unintended (but awesomely entertaining) assumptions on the class's part. But I do mention "my internet board", which the class has come to respect as a collective cyberoracle.