Re: Sanctimonious Jimmy Carter
I just wanted to post a quick thank you to those individuals who came to my defense on this post by Rutabaga Ridgepole. I simply forgot that some have moved on after the 2008 Presidential Primary season while others linger in self pity. It really makes sense after I went back to the post to read how much agreement there was with Lalo. I see that those who didn't like Jimmy Carter's words in the Primary don't like his words now. I have asked Lalo to let it go. And now I am asking Mr. Rutabaga Ridgepole a.k.a Jacob Freeze to let it go, move on and grow up.
It doesn't matter how many times you spew venom at me, toward Obama or anyone who might support him, it will not change the fact that he won the Democratic Primary and ultimately the General Election.
It doesn't matter how many times you spew venom at me, toward Obama or anyone who might support him, it will not change the fact that he won the Democratic Primary and ultimately the General Election.
Advertisement
I wasn't around the Cafe during the primary. How did Carter affect the discussion here, pardon my ignorance. I have only gotten glimpses of who supported whom, and how vehemently.
I see Anna Karenina is one of your faves; there was an old movie (40s maybe?) on last night, but lightning hit the tv halfway thru. Bet the first part's good, though.
September 18, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't read the book and ever have a chance to - it's one of the best ever written.
September 18, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, i read it probably 30 or more years ago. Nope, not when I was six years old!
I remember now! I was 16; tragedy appealed mightily. I musta been a queer kid; i even read andre gide, et.al. back then. Jeez.
September 19, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read it every few years and always discover something that I didn't pay attention to before.
September 19, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't affect the discussion very much at all. That's why the sudden surge of Carter devotion is surprising.
September 19, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well the Clinton followers have spoken so it must have had some affect.
During the heat of the campaign Carter said in April that Clinton should drop out of June 3rd primary. The Clinton supporters understandably wanted her to remain in the race all the way until they had that meeting in Washington to decided what to do with Floria and Michigan.
We had the best mathematicians in the forum saying as much. I followed along using the New York Times and I tried giving Clinton seventy, eighty percent of the remaining delegates but it just didn't add up. I don't think I am capable of truly capturing the tone of this forum when the math was clear.
As far as Anna Karenin, I read that book when I was deep into Russian writers during the mid to late 90's. I read most if not all of Dystoyesky. I tried and made it a good ways through the Sebastopol Sketches. Turgenev's Father's and Sons is another one of my favorites.
September 19, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, 1849. I had forgotten that Carter weighed in her dropping out then.
September 19, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well thanks for your flattering words about me, but I wasn't there to talk about Carter.
My point was the transparent idiocy (I mean calculation) of accusing all Obama opponents to be racists. I could be wrong, but I suspect that Rutabaga used Carter only because of his recent teachings on racism.
Meanwhile, David Brooks, who is applauded at TPM when he criticizes the Republicans, suggests that everyone takes a short trip down the memory lane:
"...my impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
That would also explain the perennial South vs Coasts.
Perhaps you disagree and prefer to stick to Carter's version of what's going on. That of course is up to you. But why not let others think differently?
September 18, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks is as intellectually flabby and dishonest in the column you cite as he ever has been, and completely misrepresents Kazin, who answered Brooks's column earlier today saying this:
"In the history of the modern right, producerism (which is the core of populist ideology) has almost always been linked with racism. Wallace and Reagan (and many others) appealed to white wage-earners by attacking pro-busing judges and liberal pols who they charged were taking the people's money and wasting it on lazy minorities. The racial undercurrent never lay far from the surface."
Or, in other words, in this column you recommend as the antidote to Jimmy Carter, Brooks once again has proves himself to be the horse's ass he really is. He probably never got past the dust cover of Kazin's book.
So gobble him up as you like, Lalo.
Or, if you'd like to educate yourself a bit on the kind of sloppy editorializing Brooks does, go here:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2009&base_name=michael_kazin_responds_to_davi
September 18, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sloppy.
Everything Brooks said about Jefferson, Jackson and the attitude of the time is true and he happens to be spot on about the emergence of populism and the antagonism between various parts of the country.
What Kazan (who is not the inventor of producerism but was quoted by Brooks) says is that the history of modern Right has been linked to racism.
First of all, I think that's too sweeping and broad (but that's obviously the reason you liked it).
Secondly, I understood Brooks' point as not related to organized, politically active Right.
It's the same people who voted for Hillary over Obama in the primaries and for Obama over McCain in the election. You know, the ones who cling to guns and religion.
At least Brooks says "Well, I don’t have a machine for peering into the souls of Obama’s critics, so I can’t measure how much racism is in there."
Kazan and you obviously do.
September 19, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Brooks:
That's absolutely true, LOL!
September 19, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's Kazin, not Kazan. Michael Kazin and he is the historian who coined the term producerism, and whose theory Brooks quotes in support of his thesis.
And yes, if you want to rely on highschool textbook history you can trace the line from Jefferson to Jackson and talk about populism in the terms Brooks does. He's made a career out of this kind of feel good middlebrowism masquerading as informed commentary.
But, again, take a look at Kazin if you want to get beyond 11th grade social studies.
For the rest, my best guess is that our current "populists" would lump Jefferson in with latte drinking liberals. He would've been far too well spoken for their taste.
They would've liked Injun killer Jackson, however. His hand in clearing the Indians out of the Southeast so white farmers could take over the land without so much as a by your leave would probably sound just about right to people who are lose sleep over the prospect of Latino illegals getting a crack at health care and free influenza shots.
September 19, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm familiar enough with Kazan, a former radical, to know about his complete neglect of racism and black nationalism in the North just so that he can see the history of America entirely through the romantic glasses of civil rights that he's never been able to take off.
Secondly, you can dismiss "high school textbooks" all you like, but you can't dismiss the fact it speaks to. That to every "Federalist Papers" there were "Anti-Federalist Papers". Hamilton vs Jefferson. Urbanization vs Countryside. Industrialization vs Agriculture. North vs South. Welfare collectivism vs individual liberty.
Brooks speaks to something bigger that the partisan cat fights over health care reform, but the New York Intellectuals, stuck in 1968, give you a great cover to dismiss it. Aren't you lucky.
September 19, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks speaks to his paycheck.
September 19, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, on this occasion, he certainly seems more thoughtful, prepared and responsible than Kazan who evidently didn't get paid for his rebuttal to be taken seriously.
September 19, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks is a whiney milquetoast always anxiously appealing to the bullies in effort to avoid being punched again.
A moral coward, and a defender of the white upper-class suburbs from when he learned all his "racial awareness".
Follow Brooks for six months -- to give him a fair hearing -- and you'll see a constant intellectual dishonesty. When Obama is up in the polls, he falls all over himself to praise Obama. When Obama is down in the polls, he piles on with all the other bullies.
Brooks is a pseudo-intellectual joiner who writes with one hand, because the fingers of his other hand are always determining which way the political winds are blowing.
September 19, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That to every "Federalist Papers" there were "Anti-Federalist Papers".
_____
Unfortunately for your "argument," the anti-Federalists lost the argument: the Constitution was ratified.
"Welfare collectivism vs individual liberty."
Typical extremism from the racist "states' rights" crowd which ignores the limits on the states imposed by the Constitution.
And the fact that public safety -- a "collectivism" -- trumps individual "liberty".
What you crackers don't get is that your white betters in the South dictate that all their lessers, including whites, shall be constitutionally stupid. And you Southern whites enthusiastically conform to that dictate.
The Founders/Framers were for "ordered liberty" -- liberty WITHIN the law, NOT in spite of it.
September 19, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fool.
State rights refers to the balance and division of power between states and the federal government. By clearly limiting the power of the federal government.
You must have really sucked in school.
September 19, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which, of course, explains why the South thought they could expand those rights to include succession when slavery was threatened ......
September 19, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"States' rights," as used by racists -- which includes you -- rejects the supremacism of the US Constitution. It is called "interposition and nullification".
Your citation to the anti-Federalists as "defense" of your use of "states' rights," in effort to pretend it isn't what it is -- racist code-speak -- is, again, horseshit:
That the anti-Federalists LOST the argument means, law-illiterate, that we DON'T interpret the law based upon the views of those who LOST the argument.
It's the same standard as applied to case law: a dissent in a court decision may be interesting, but it is the LOSING argument, therefore NOT LAW.
And your anticipated end-run around reality -- that the Bill of rights was an accomodation of the anti-Federalists -- is also horseshit. A FEDERALIST named JAmes Madison, also considered "Father of the Constitution," co-opted and drafted the resolution which would become the Bill of Rights.
And the state that started that process -- the submission of pproposed amendments with their notice of ratification -- Massachusetts-Bay, submitted proposed amendments drafted by Theophilous Parsons, who was a Federalist.
Last but not least: the sop to the anti-Federalists, to induce sufficient of them to support ratification of the Constitution -- was the Second Amendment.
If you bothered to read the Constitution -- all of it, not just the phrase you anti-Federal gov't nuts love to distort -- you'd discover to other referneces to militia, the first of which stipulates the purposes of the militia, which include SUPPRESSION OF INSURRECTIONS, and the second of which stipulates that the militia is to be under the regulation of CONGRESS -- were not at all affected by the subsequent ratification of the Second Amendment.
"Staes' rights" isn't about the anti-Federalists and their LOSING argument; it is racist code-speak -- a respelling of the words JIM CROW.
September 20, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
How anyone can deny this I don't know. From Nixon's southern strategy to Reagan's holding his first campaign appearance in 1980 in Philadelphia MS where 4 civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 to Bush's announcing his DOJ would fight against "quotas" in U of Mi's admissions policy just in time for the Martin Luther King holiday in 2003.
Signals like these may have flown under your radar but I assure you hardcore racists and black folks didn't miss them.
September 19, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody is denying that someone has been purposefully linking it to racism.
People like Anna Am believe that racism is related to the segregation and discrimination struggles in the South and the subsequent fall-out in the 1970s and the 1980s, because it helps them peddle the "racism on the Right" meme, thanks to Kazin et all.
They don't care that much about racism on the Left, racism in the North, social organizing on the right in the 1960s or the fact that people like Moynihan admitted that the 1960s movement failed not because of the southern racists but because it was oversold, under-financed, etc.
Again the reason they do it is because they like to replace "high school textbooks" with their own simplified and streamlined understanding of what was a very complex history.
And now it's clear why - because they can triumphantly link the history of modern right to racism.
Be that as it may, the point Brooks makes is a different one, in my opinion, and it deals with conflict and its resolution in American society and goes back all the way to the founding of this country.
September 19, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So does the slave trade and the extermination of native Americans.
September 19, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you don't mean the annexations of Indian territory made by the Jacksonian Democrats in the 1840s in the name of their beloved Manifest Destiny?
Even if you did, the point would be??
September 19, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you know that the 19th Century Democratic party was largely racist in policy and practice.
September 19, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And..? Was there a point....?
September 19, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that the Republican party defeated the Confederacy, and with that the Democratic party.
Thus the Democratic party was discredited, while the Republican became full of itself and aligned with the plutocrats. So the Democratic party, in order to survive, reached out to the "left overs" -- the disenfrancchised, which ironically included . . . the ex-slaves.
Certainly the Democratic party -- in the South -- continued the cultural norms with Jim Crow. But it would be the Democratic party that ultimately enacted laws which both enforced civil rights for minorities, and lost the South to the Democratic party as LBJ predicted.
At which point Nixon opened the doors of the Republican party to the worst of the worst, in cluding the far-right lunatic fringe white supremacist terrorist organization -- they admit as much -- KKK.
And with KKK came all the other far-right lunatic fringe America-hating racists.
Your position is as rancid as the racism it expresses and defends.
September 19, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the modern right does as much as it can to link itself to racism. Take the election of Audra Shays as president of the Young Republicans. That is not history, that is the GOP 2009.
Joe Wilson's tie to the Sons of the Confederacy are current. Wilson admonishing Essie-Mae Washington for exposing the fact that she is Thurmond's daughter is not ancient history. Wilson's vote against moving the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol is not ancient history.
September 19, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair points and hopefully GOP knows what to do.
But I'm guessing you're not using these to support the thesis that any opposition to Obama comes from the racism in the modern Right? Or are you?
September 19, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...the thesis that any opposition to Obama comes from the racism in the modern Right? "
It is more like leaven in a lump of dough. It doesn't take much racism to spoil the whole batch.
Especially when the non-racists do nothing to resist, correct or re-educate the racists, and then willingly accept their support and party fellowship.
Obviously, the non-racists you speak of as some sort of mysterious, missing Republican majority don't seem too concerned to be sharing the back seat with The Devil.
Looking at the way the last election went, my only question is "who's on top?
September 19, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. There is a history of racism in Republican Party
2. Most Republicans oppose Obama's policies
3. Therefore, anyone who opposes Obama is a racist Republican
This is called "the fallacy of accident"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29
September 19, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your intellectual honesty continues, racist, based as it is on the falsification of Jimmy Carter's statement as being about "ALL" Republicans/right wingers.
He said no such thing.
And from there you avoid the issue by other deceits and dodges, including bashings of the Democratic party based upon the "You do it too!" fallacy, which obviously and deliberately does NOTHING to address the racism correctly identified by Jimmy Carter, which racism is lodged in the far-right lunatic fringe, and exploited for political gain by Republicans.
Limbaugh has been jabbering for years about "racism" -- always being certain to bring it up, over and over and over again in order alwwyas to attribute it to "the left". He never attributes it to himself, or to "the right".
One wonders why, if he isn't racist, does he constantly have racism on his mind. And if he's being truthful about it, why does he attribute ALL of it to "the left," as if there isn't any on his extremist end of the political spectrum, where it has ALWAYS been endemic?
September 19, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction: intellectual DIShonesty
September 19, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh give me a fucking break, you intellectually honest nitwit.
It was none other than Jimmy Carter who said he had nothing against people who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19760415&id=AAwQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XIsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4229,2250543
Would you like a link about Carter complaining about black intrusion?
Carter has a long history of using racism, one way or another, when there's something to be gained out of it.
Come back when you find something that's REALLY honest intellectually.
September 19, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh give me a fucking break,"
We might ask the same of you. Stop inventing simplistic facts to match your prejudice, you only perpetuate the very myths that have led to this mess. Your slanted arguments are getting less intellectual as the Republicans look more and more like obstructionists.
Let me elucidate;
"1. There is a history of racism in Republican Party"
No, the real truth is that there is a history of racism in America, promulgated by and passed through the generations by abject miscreants, and the latest refuge of these scoundrels is the modern day Republican Party, (with Nixon and Reagan and their southern strategies as the principal destroyers of what WAS the party of Lincoln, TR and Eisenhower;)
"2. Most Republicans oppose Obama's policies;"
No, most Republicans simply oppose him, personally, and anything "Democrat" politically and have no concept of what Obama's policies are. Their opposition is not always racial, but certainly it is a big factor in the whole of their opposition to him, particularly in the deep south. I have yet heard one single Republican voice concerns based on facts, or specify what they don't like about the reform package, they really have no idea of what Obama's plans might be. So stop pretending you or any other Republican has opened their mind long enough to actually study Obama's proposals. You are all embarrassing yourselves by claiming you know what he is planning.
"3. Therefore, anyone who opposes Obama is a racist Republican.."
Considering that his poll numbers have dipped a bit, it seems to me there's a large collection of sincere lefties who oppose Obama on grounds quite diametrically opposed to the Republican excuses. Surely the Republicans have not contributed to his dip in the polls, they were opposed to him long before these new polls transpired.
"This is called "the fallacy of accident"
No, all your premises are just simple fallacies. And obviously, considering your obsession with this blog, that is no accident.
You're a bona fide pro-troll. That is no fallacy.
September 19, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Stop inventing simplistic facts to match your prejudice"
- I'm not the one who's inventing facts and have a prejudice. It's people like who you invoke racism and invent simplistic facts to defend it any time there's an objection.
Yes, I've been on this thread longer than you and I've yet to see a single fact, simplistic or not, from you. All you keep coming up with is "pro-troll", "stop inventing", etc.
Why not just call me racist and dismiss all of this? That would be easier and you've obviously got a lot of practice.
September 19, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nyah Nyah Nyah back at ya" doesn't work here, Mr. "I've been here longer." We have seen it a lot, but it usually, as in this case, represents a subconscious admission of defeat in the ongoing discussion.
Just answer your own question, Lalo... are you a racist?
You seem determined to accuse ALL of us of accusing ALL Republicans of being racists, which Carter did NOT do, and no one here has done, despite your persistent insistence..
Seriously, Lalo35, ARE YOU A RACIST?
Just tell us, in one of two simple words. Do you consider yourself a racist? I don't care what race you are, I just want to know if you consider yourself a racist.
Yes or no.
September 19, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about you read and think before you write something? Since you're obviously have trouble, let me repeat, slowly, just for you:
- I wasn't mentioned in the OP in connection with the post on Carter
- I pointed out I talked about blanket accusations of racism coming from the Left
- I quoted Brooks who I believe thinks it's nothing to do with racism but all to do with history of conflict dating back to the foundation of the country
A small amount of predictable and unoriginal push back later, you're asking me if I'm a racist.
I think not. What do you think?
September 19, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for "yes" or "no."
September 19, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than you can handle?
Funny that it's not only Obama and I who disagree with Carter, but other black people do too:
"Racism is real. It is very likely an element of some people’s opposition to President Obama, but everyone who wants smaller government is not a racist."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/opinion/19blow.html
September 19, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a racist liar.
And if anyone else wants to ask me how many times I'll call a racist a racist, this is how often:
Every time they show themselves to be that.
September 20, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. The point is not that all Republicans are racists, the point is that the Republicans don't speak out against the racists in their midst.
Take the Fox morning show anchors. They twist Nancy Pelosi's concern about violence being created by the venom spewed on the right into stating that Pelosi is putting violent thoughts into the minds of disturbed individuals.
How can you not hear such a distortion and not come to the conclusion that the Fox anchors are willing to give cover to the racists on the right?
September 19, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with a single thing you said except to say that the point of this thread was whether or not racism is what's driving all Obama's opponents, per Brooks vs Carter debate.
And to add that it's unfortunate that only Fox (for obvious political reasons) is prepared to give the opponents a microphone, so to speak.
I know very well that there are racists in GOP and in the South. But, again, I disagree with the use of that fact to brand all Obama opponents as racists. And that's what Carter did.
September 19, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans"
Continued Carter, who is famously from Georgia: "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."
"I think it's based on racism," Carter said of the tone of the opposition, in response to an audience question. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
Signs carried by protesters at the 9/12 anti-government march on Washington such as "we should bury Obama[care] with Kennedy, for instance, and Obama is a Nazi and Obama's pictures with Hitler's mustache on it -- those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate over whether we should have a national program in health care or not," the former president said. "It's deeper than that."
---------
Carter didn't just focus on the South, but the entire country.
September 19, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the intellectually dishonest who are thorwing in -- and repeating ad nauseum -- the read herring that "ALL" who criticize President Obama are motivated by racism.
And in so doing, it is both a lie and a full-bore smoke-screen apologia for the racists.
September 20, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, on what basis do you have any hope that the GOP 'knows what to do' about this? Last time I looked they -- racists and GOP -- were locked in a tight embrace.
Or did I miss the GOP leadership expressing misgivings anywhere about pictures of people in loin clothes? I mean before they got caught!
September 19, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't believe that racism is related to the segregation and discrimination struggles in the South?
September 19, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no need, racist liar, to "look into the souls" of racists in order to see the racism -- as was made clear about, as example, Reagan.
Where did Reagan, who lived almost all of his life in CA, announce his run for the presidency. CA? Nope. Mississippi -- and, as was noted at the time, he did so in order to appeal to racists, including the worst of them: segregationists.
From whence did we get "welfare queens" racism?
From whence did we get the "Willie Horton" racism?
September 19, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My point was the transparent idiocy (I mean calculation) of accusing all Obama opponents to be racists."
Carter said no such thing as "all," racist liar.
September 19, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president"
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/09/jimmy-carter-says-there-is-inherent.html
September 19, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"many" is not "ALL," lying asshole and racist.
September 19, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your style is a perfect match to your avatar. And I'm not expecting more from you than you already shown on this thread. To quote Anna Am, high school text books...
Desperate...
September 19, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter said "MANY" not "ALL" -- DEAL with that HONESTLY, or continue to show yourself as a deliberate, intellectually dishonest racist, and apologist for racism.
As concerns my avatar: it represents the fact that I have -- juvenile -- a youghtful spirit, instead of a hateful, fashionable cynicism who is still arguing the revised Southern "cause" as if it weren't defeated well over a century ago.
September 20, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many times are you going to call Lalo a racist?
September 19, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As many as he likes, I don't mind .
September 19, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you willing to acknowledge that there is an undercurrent of racism in some -- make that much -- of the over-the-top nature of the criticism of Obama? That too many are willing to believe ridiculous lies without evidence because they *just know* there is something wrong with Obama? Believing in non-existent death panels is not a function of believing in small government.
Obama, himself, is in many ways post-racial: he was raised in a white household without any direct inculcation in what had been done by American whites to American blacks in the past. No one told him that his great-uncle was lynched, that the first person in his family to get a PhD worked as a Pullman Porter and that his parents, let alone his grandparents, were not allowed to vote.
So when the idea is raised that he is being opposed because he is black, he states the obvious -- my race is irrelevant to what we are arguing about.
Intellectually he may know better but on a gut level he slips the punch.
Nonetheless, Carter is right --- part of the willingness to affront the dignity of the Office of the President -- by precisely the people who insist that the smallest (and largest) arguments with Bush were treason -- is because they feel no obligation to respect any one who is black.
September 19, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As often as s/he shows her/himself to be that.
Perhaps, in time, punk, you'll learn to recognize it, instead of challenging those who are teaching you how to recognize it.
September 20, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh Forty-Niner.
All I know is that Jimmy Carter is one of the greatest people ever to call himself an American and so is his beautiful wife.
September 18, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
September 18, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
and Amen again. And not sanctimonious by any definition of sanctimonious recognized by dictionaries formal and informal.
September 19, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely.
September 19, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
hear hear
September 19, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! All the detractors are simply jealous. Or too damned stupid to be jealous.
Unlike 99.99 per cent of Republican "family values" "Christians," Jimmy Carter ACTUALLY LIVES in accordance with the Christian values he holds and espouses.
September 19, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love him or hate him, Jimmy Carter has, unlike most American politicians, maintained and built upon his reputation for speaking his mind without rancor about some of the most difficult and vexing political issues facing the nation and the world. His reputation for personal integrity has only grown with time and thus, a certain moral authority and weight has accrued to him. I think this is rightfully so.
September 19, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby recommend this comment, fwiw.
September 19, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I wish I hadn't missed it because I would have jumped in! Jimmy Carter has more moral authority than any other living President, he does exactly what he thinks is right. Good for him and anyone who defends him is A-OK in my book.
I can't take anyone seriously how uses Rutabega as their first name.
September 19, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would love rushabaga; any disagreement and it's flame-on. He's pretty much a one trick pony, lies, distortions etc...
September 19, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would love rushabaga; any disagreement and it's flame-on.
And astonishingly vicious, too.
September 19, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No disagreement here, though ...
Astonishingly interesting and erudite, too, once you get through the ... flames.
;0)
September 19, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, the vege can get carried away, but just remember there's a real person behind that avatar.
September 19, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree; I think he's a bit of a love on the inside. But he does almost anything to hide it. Eh wot, Rootie? Come on; gimme some sugar!
September 19, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wish he would remember he's talking to real people, as well. His behavior is inexcusable.
September 19, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, ruta is no fool, but far too often when facing disagreement ruta responds with insults designed to destroy his opponents rather than rational arguments that destroy his opponent's arguments. So its rare to see competing ideas well debated in his blogs. The blog may start well but usually degenerate into uselessness.
September 19, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"ruta is no fool".
"ruta" is a racist. A racist is a fool.
September 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I've never seen anything I'd consider racist in ruta's posts. I think its slanderous to accuse someone of racism without including clear evidence of that racism. I think you're too quick to jump to that conclusion.
September 19, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there someone -- "ruta" -- attacking Carter for his comments about racism, instead of addressing those comments?
Yes, I believe there is.
Now why do you suppose that might be?
September 20, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
1849, the venom that came out in the blog that you site was palpable. The poster has some serious issues. The dismissive attitude shown to you is no different from the bile that is emitted by the wingnuts.
The comments made about Obama being half-bright harken back to Ralph Nader who speaking about Obama said: " 'He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician,' Nader said. 'He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.'"
As the Nader comment shows there is a subgroup of Progressives have a very paternalistic view of African-Americans. African-Americans are placed in a box, you are Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or you are nothing. This subgroup feels that they can dictate hoe African-Americans should respond to certain issues.
The trap that this creates was shown in California's Prop 8. Progressives felt no need to do outreach to church-going African-Americans. Without the outreach, the vote result was disastrous.
The "Sanctimonious" poster exposed many things about himself. His response to you was very telling.
September 19, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the bailouts, do you see Obama as threatening to the corporate structure of any thing besides the auto companies?
Agreed that there is a certain sub-strain of paternalisim but I think it overlaps with the empathy that drove white participation in the Civil Rights movement. Also Nader and Jesse Jackson who are both fuled by righteous anger are far closer to being soul mates that either is with Obama who does not share that type of anger.
September 19, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Obama disagrees with Jimmy Carter: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/health/policy/19obama.html?hp
September 19, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, jeez louise, the President has to stay above the racism-driving-resistance-to-health-reform angle. The one time he knee-jerked about the treatment of Louis Gates cost him dearly; he really stepped in on several fronts.
I still think that the racism angle isn't altogether Black Bigotry, that it's all wrapeed up also with immigration issues, and that's Brown Bigotry and fear.
While the overt racists may be getting the most media attention, the fact reamains that none of the Republican leaders are calling them out on it. By their silence, they are complicit. By their silence on implied violence, they are complicit.
Once, ONCE, during the campaing, John McCain talked down a wingnut on Obama's Muslim takeover of America. Now he has the credit for it, but where is he??? Nowhere. Silent. Complicit.
September 19, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't read TPM, that's what his problem is. Our resident racism experts would have set him straight in no time at all.
September 19, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks the avatar doth protest too much.
September 19, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could I get a cast of your head? Until the original is...uh...available?
(Phrenologist/Physician to Sherlock Holmes, Hounds of the Baskervilles)
September 19, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take the whole head she doesn't seem to have much use for it.
September 19, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the chuckles, Lalo and truthseeker. I love rebels. ;-)
September 19, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama doesn't read TPM,"
YOU LIE!
September 19, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As is his right. But choosing to believe Obama because he says what you want said, but not with Carter because he says what you don't want said, is not truthseeking.
Then again, we already know, and have for a very long time, that you're a wingnut troll.
September 19, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conversely, choosing to believe a white man because he says what you want said, but not a black man because he says what you don't want said, is not truth-seeking.
Then again, we already know, and have for a very long time, that you're a stubborn obstinate fool, for whom Obama is but an occasionally useful prop.
September 19, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I leave the intellectually dishonest simpleton's either/or//black-white to racists such as you.
Again, liar: Carter said "MANY" not "ALL".
September 20, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it against TPM rules to post a blog about another TPM member? Guess I'll email TPM and find out!
September 19, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon gasket, 1849 got a flaming he/she didn't deserve on the other blog. If this 'evens the score', then fine. Let's just move on, this is getting ridiculous, imo fwiw etc...
September 19, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Toughie toenails, Obey! This is not the way to handle being flamed.
Using Jacob's name? No! That doesn't "even the score"! That's some totally fucked-up shit!
Why? Because it encourages a group-bashing mentality that happened all the time during the primaries. I'm thoroughly sick of it and I'm sure you are too. It needs to stop.
September 19, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
He readily makes his name available when he wants to promote his art.
September 19, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be, but no one deserves being named in a separate blog solely for the purposes of group derision. This blog has nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. It has to do with settling a personal score with Jacob, and dragging Lalo in for good measure. That's just just bullshit.
September 19, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"no one deserves being named in a separate blog solely for the purposes of group derision."
I have searched exhaustively through the extensive and ancient Golden Rules of blog decorum and can not find a single reference to this convenient new truism you are trying to invent.
I agree, anyone who promotes themselves openly while using a nom-de-blog has let thier cat out of it's bag. Once that info crosses the screen, it's everyone's business, especially when it helps people understand the character of the blogger.
If you don't want your name published on a blog, don't publish your name on a blog.
September 19, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama Responds Through His Sock-Puppet, Jacob Freeze"
was a post put up by Rutabaga.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rutabaga_ridgepole/2009/09/obama-responds-through-his-soc.php
September 19, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
TOENAILS?!?! REEALLY?! I always thought it was titties...
I'm just tired. And would really like to see everyone's talents otherwise engaged, friend...
September 19, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the original Latin is toenails.
But otherwise I agree with you. ;-)
September 19, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a flaming he/she didn't deserve.."
One thing I've noticed since the toobz first began, the sign of a good blogger is the inability of their reader to determine their sex.
September 19, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is. I am sure you missed it, engaged as you were in the typical rather embarrassing mentarbation, but it is also against the rules to post personally abusive comments and articles, so it may not be the wisest idea to start enforcing the rules too strictly.
Take what you deal out etc.
September 19, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Not to mention the obvious detail that Ridgepole's "secret" identity is pretty well-known and easily reachable- including several mentions by himself and you. So, you know, buck up.)
September 19, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, mentarbation is the word I'm thinking of.
Sorry, you still don't get the contradiction in Seaton's argument. That's okay, neither does he.
September 19, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know when to quit.
You jumped on Seaton for his perceived slight of "accusing" Clinton of calling himself "the first black president", which he did not, and which Seaton did not suggest, and which was beside the point Seaton was making anyway. You, however, had already dug yourself deep enough trying to find justification for your anger that I figured you would not reflect on the issue rationally. Perhaps you have had time to find a new perspective on that triviality?
But, of course, that is again beside the point. It is quite funny that you jump in here defending Ridgepole over something spurred by a post about sanctimony. Revealing Batm--I mean Ridepole's "secret identity" is a non-starter so far as enforcing the ToS goes.
September 19, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know when to quit, he said, continuing the argument....
I wasn't angry at Seaton; why would I be? I disagreed with his bloated, ungovernable, and nearly incoherent argument. Big deal. I'm not about to correct his copyediting and logic errors in this thread, however, since trying to duplicate his faulty antecedents will only confuse people, and I don't have my copy of Words into Type handy.
But he concocts a theory about the U.S.'s racist founding (not exactly accurate, but facts be damned when your theory moves you!), and then manages to diminish black achievement through an obsessive focus on whites and a selective historical memory (he basically said blacks achieved nothing until the 1952 publication of Invisible Man). That kind of mangling takes a special talent. Never mind the Calvinist predetermination part, which kicked off his theory about losers and which doesn't quite hold water in the Baptist South.
But think whatever you like, Karl! I'm not going to cut Seaton slack for writing garbage, but I don't have time to do his research for him. I certainly don't have time to reduce his post to rubble (although glancing at it again, I definitely could). People like you love the meme of the ongoing psychological impact of our Puritan heritage, anyway, so what's the use?
In any case, it's not a reader's job to mentally correct for a writer's mistakes. It's the writer's job to write clearly.
September 19, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
QED, it seems that you read an entirely different text, and are arguing against this imagined argument.
And, as I pointed out, I only responded to that one particular misinterpretation of yours. I really have no interest in disabusing you of the rest of it.
September 19, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was simply against cafe conventions to do so. but then, I've never bothered to read the rules.
September 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, no they are not conventions, they are formalized here:
Specific enough yet conveniently vague for wiggle room.
September 19, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
- that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, false or inaccurate, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
Rushabaga regularly violates these terms.
September 19, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
September 19, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway. "
- Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/quotes
September 19, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then we should call on Captain Teague to settle the dispute.
September 19, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
er, Arrrrr
September 19, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then it's settled!
September 19, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
While generally I think posting a blog about another blogger is bad form and could lead to some very bad results for the cafe and the site as a whole if it became common I don't think anything in that list of rules explicitly precludes it. It reads much more like a legal document to protect the site owner than rules for behavior here. As written they really are unenforcable. Anyone of us has at some time said something that could be considered harmful or hateful.
The rules don't apply strictly to a blog but to all uploads including comments. There have been quite a number of comments written by many if not most at some time or another that were much more hateful and abusive than this blog, including by me. If those rules were truly enforced most of us would have been warned or banned already.
I continue to believe that the idea of not blogging about other bloggers here is a cafe convention, that it is frowned upon is something I agree with.
September 19, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree there's plenty of room for interpretation, although Josh points to that list all the time to reinforce the blogging etiquette here.
Anyway, I think using someone's name (which that person uses professionally as many people have pointed out), is beyond the usual blog or comment. This blog is on the front page, of course.
I also think the comment thread clearly demonstrates why this kind of posting is more than just bad form. It inspires group bashing. Again, the post has nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. It's a personal public vendetta. Period.
But it's the weekend. I doubt anyone is around to interpret much of anything.
September 19, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, bad form was a poor choice of words that implied a trivialization I didn't intend.
September 19, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why can't we all just get along?" :-{}
Now. For reals. Can't we all just agree to take a High Enema (or two), eat more Roughage, and admit to being powerless over our favorite drugs of choice, in this case ANGRY BLOVIATING and pissing on each other??? Take a look at dear Curt's diary; he is connecting the dots on his rage and brittle rigidity.
The only sure way to confront a bully is to get under their defenses. Or physically connect in a loving way. We can't do that here so much.
To all the pissants: I love you Virtual Cranks. But that doesn't mean you should keep up your fronts; we know that underneath there be monsters and insecurity.
Go with god, or goddess, or the Higher Atheism. Whatever.
September 19, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love your comment. There's clearly not enough love on this thread.
However, I wonder if all you're suggesting is to use seduction instead of direct confrontation because the latter didn't work.
Clever, you!
:-)
September 19, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not accused of being clever very often. Naiive, over-earnest, maybe. I am trying to say we all really need to behave better. I'm not sure what you mean by seduction, maybe it's a humorous quip. Getting under someone's defenses is just a way to de-escalate tension in a debate. I'm not sure what you get out of ramoing up a pissing contest; i figure you're debating someone in your past. That's for you to figure out, and Rootie, all of us, really.
I know that I have hated being dissed and cursed by folks here. I took a break for awhile, because it hit me hard during a hard week in my life in the real world.
I have said before, it was liberals who were cursing me, it seemed so strange, as I thought I was a dyed-in-the-wool leftie. When i step off the reservation, BAM!
Tell you what, lalo; switch avatars and attitudes; i'll ditch my dumb yellow bird if ya want. If you're gonna stay here in theis TPM world, please don't piss where you choose to live. Please.
September 19, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it was a quip and I actually agree with your point. I had my own dark period here at TPM when all I wanted to do was to curse and shout and yell. Since then I decided I won't be the first but I will always respond in kind. So I think I took care of my attitude, occasional slips notwithstanding. As for my avatar - no way!!! It wasn't meant to insult and was only picked because of its ambiguity and the hard time people have figuring out what it stands for.
September 19, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rootie said he switched his once cuz it was bothering people. (It is lovely now...) I switched my yellow bird to a nice raccoon whose name is gracie.
You know your obmama-in-a-top-hat is just like giving a person a pinch before you speak to them; it would me a gesture of goodwill if you would switch. It must be meant to insult; it's hideous, lalo.
September 19, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter's statement is health care pushback. It muddies the waters. Instead of debating ideas, we impugn the motvation behind the ideas. This political firestorm is silencing/distracing the entire debate while the Baucus with Sugar plan is getting its final edits before being signed into law and changing all of our lives.
And most of the public is falling for it.
I mean, look how EASILY Carter's statement divided up the political landscape. His little generalization that may or may not apply to strains of criticism is as good a wedge as accusations of anti-Americanism.
Carter played Americans against each other in order to obfuscate the debate. At root, his statement is meaningless blather. It lacks specifity. It was ethos and pathos. No logos.
Color me unimpressed.
And some of the shit being flung in this thread is unacceptable. Lalo is a human being. Labelling Lalo a racist does not grant a license to hyperbolise. And it doesn't protect you from your own stupidity and close-mindedness.
Yes, there is a racial strain in some criricism of Obama. But to narroqw the focus to racialism is to do a disservice to political discussion. Because once someone is a racist, their ideas are worthless. So to hang a few teabaggers around the neck of political criticism is RED-BAITING.
September 19, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean well, but your argumentation is not up to its usual standard.
Are you saying that Carter intentionally set forth to divide? He did not make an unnecessarily general statement. His opponents say he did.
The issue of anti-anti-racism is very complex, and I have to assume that you are perhaps not able to gauge the impact of always being told that what seems to be clear racism should be swept under the carpet for some greater good (again, and again, and again.)
"Narrowing the focus" is the other trouble spot. Granting that there are always idiots who will try to label every as a negligible constant, the narrowing is done by the other side (and apparently by Ridgepole) by, for example, distorting the argument to have been that all criticism is racism: something far easier to argue against. It seems that you are trying to play assuming you have already lost a part of the battle: you take it for granted that such a distortion will work and set your tactic accordingly.
That may be practical, but that is also the reason why it works.
And, without addressing Mr. Lalo35adm in particular, you would do well to keep in mind that all racists are human beings.
September 19, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter's statement was made in response to a question posed to him by Brian Williams of NBC. He wasn't just talking somewhere. He was asked to comment and he did.
September 19, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I know he did not accidentally say that racism was alive and well; I inquired whether Zipperupus was saying that Carter intentionally said it to divide.
September 20, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a blog. One expects a little heat on blogs. It is obviously worse to be accused of muder like the man alledged to have killed the Yale graduate student, or a pedophile.
Many African-Americans realize how the race card is played in American. talking about race is a distraction, so Americans never really talk about race. There will always be a reason to stop the conversation.
Because we don't talk about race, Pat Buchanan can be an analyst on MSNBC. If Al Sharpton, who was also a one-time Presidential candidate,occupied the same place, the outcry would be deafening. Lou Dobbs can go after Latinos with abandon on CNN, but let's not raise the question of race-bias in the reporting on Dobbs' show.
Given the importance of health care, many agree with the President's attempts to quash the race issue. But don't for a second believe tha African-Americans don't realize the pass that the country is giving to the racist's.
African-Americans are socially conservative on many issues, but find the condescension and racism coming from the GOP so bad, that their vote goes to the Democratic Party.
As long as we don't talk about the hate speech going on in the GOP, it will only get worse. They are given cover by a press corps and public that refuses to address the issue.
But I'm sure that we'll talk again after a health care bill passes.
September 19, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes, seems like you got thread jacked, bummer.
September 19, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink