« Barney Frank: Joe Wilson's "you lie" remark wasn't a big deal | truthseeker77's Blog | Josh Marshall goes racial »

In 1994, a man opened fire at the White House. 29 shots. Eric Holder said: "very disturbing"


Racism? I don't think so. In my view, this was just a wacko who thought that disagreement with a President should be handled in highly irrational ways? Washington Post

By Toni Locy
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON

Francisco Martin Duran, the Colorado man who allegedly opened fire on the White House last month, was charged Thursday with attempting to assassinate President Clinton after several friends and co-workers told investigators that he had said he wanted to kill the president.

Even though those people have now come forward with the information, U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. had harsh words for them Thursday during a news conference announcing Duran's indictment by a federal grand jury.

Related link: Bob Somerby tells Colbert King to stop race-baiting and to remember Duran and the guy who crashed a Cessna into the White House south lawn and died, in a possible suicide attempt.

Plus: Glen Greenwald: Is the Right's attack on Obama's legitimacy new or unprecedented?

A question for you guys and ladies: How come the race-baiters never bring up this regrettable incident, in the context of armed men near townhalls and people yelling lies at President Obama? Is it because the race-card argument suffers once we understand that ultraconservatives hate Big Democrats regardless of their color? 

6 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

You ask "Is it because the race-card argument suffers once we understand that ultraconservatives hate Big Democrats regardless of their color? " Gee, I thought I was pretty clear at expressing that I hate democrats (big or small, black or white). Did you guys not get that? Pay attention!

user-pic

Another nearly silent comment section on an interesting thought. Can it be true that they have nothing to say, if there is no way for them to accuse the blogger/poster of racism?

user-pic

I've before made the argument that the GOP is using exactly the same strategy against Obama as it did against Clinton. To de-legitimize his presidency. The tactic they used on Clinton was to attack his character - Slick Willy, White-Water, Vince Foster, Travel-gate, Haircut-gate, etc. until finally Clinton himself handed the right Monica Lewinski.

With Obama, the tactic has been to attack his "Americaness". He's a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Marxist, a Terrorist, - he's black! The tactics are different from what they tried with Clinton, but the strategy is exactly the same. However, just because the objective of the right is the same for Obama as it was for Clinton doesn't mean that there isn't genuine bigotry behind the anger and irrationality.

It seems obvious that the tactics of the GOP leadership has been purposely designed to stoke the latent bigotry among it's base and exploit such stupidity to for political purposes. You, no doubt, will plausibly deny that such is the case. You will, no doubt, ask for proof while those who have been victim to bigotry know it when they see it.

The problem with your isolated examples against Bush is just that, they are isolated examples. Surely, you don't deny that there has been a orchestrated widespread campaign to "otherize" Obama - he's a Marxist, he's a Terrorist sympathizer, and that was just from the McCain/Palin campaign. I don't recall any similarly widespread and, indeed, coordinated personal attacks on Bush.

The problem with any form of bigotry is that unless someone is outright called a nigger, or a faggot, or a wetback there is always plausible deniability for those who wish to deny such ugly thoughts occupy many minds. But, for those who have been called those names before, they know. Smart bigots also know, and usually are careful not to make such blatant name-calling slip-ups. They still hide behind hoods, only now, they are more metaphorical.

If you have never been a victim of bigotry, great, but that really isn't an acceptable excuse for failing to perceive the bigoted aspects partially motivating the right. Deductive reasoning and other critical thinking skills guide us when we don't have clear hard evidence. Just open your eyes and your mind and use your intelligence.

user-pic

Very well stated. I rec this comment.

user-pic

I'll go so far as to say that if George Bush had gotten OBL in Afghanistan; (killed him there, or dragged him to court in the Hague) and stayed out of Iraq, our economy would have survived his other mistakes, and he would have left office a relatively popular guy. So you see? It wasn't "going after" Bush that did him in; it was his own horrible and tragic mistakes. When he had the good will of most of the world, and our country, instead of using it for good, he squandered it; used it for absolute selfish and venal purposes.

The GOP hates democrats like the dog at the top here, just because we try to keep their utter selfishness in check.

user-pic

IMO, this is just willfully obtuse. I mean hell, someone actually shot Regan - so by that we can infer that the fringe actually hates republicans more than democrats, right? This is an exercise in taking unrelated events, unhinging them from history and trying to use them to make a point that can't possibly be supported by the facts presented. Sloppy-ass GOPish non-logic here.

Stirring racial tensions has been a device used against Obama - because he's black and it works. That's what political operatives do: they figure out what angle of attack will move people and then exploit it. Hillary's folks did it, McCain's folks did it, and now the Insurance industry is doing it through GOP operatives.

SRSLY ... a postcard with a watermelon patch replacing the White House lawn (distributed by a GOP lawmaker) and jokes about "Presidential Rigs" (also from a GOP lawmaker) ... and those are just two trivial examples. What would YOU call that?

The objective is the same as with the campaign against Clinton, and some of the tactics are similar - but Clinton NEVER had to deal with the element of racial incitement. Obama does. It's the nature of being black and powerful. He's attacked because of his power not race - but the racial tactic is successful because he's black and there are plenty of racist white folks in America who can be stirred to anger easily as a result.

Surely you aren't arguing that racism in America no longer exists? Or are you arguing that racists aren't bothered by Obama being president? If I may be so bold, what it seems you are really saying is that you wish everyone hadn't called Hillary out for stoking racist sentiment in 2008 - and now want to try and pretend that similar tactics used by republicans don't cross the line because criticizing them would be to acknowledge that Hillary also crossed the line. My 2-bit advice: get over it, most everyone else has (except that guy who badgers Dijamo).

Leave a comment

truthseeker77

user-pic

Following: 2
Followers: 13

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address