Liberals have not only failed to acquit themselves well with their self-righteous deployments of race allegations—they have encouraged conservatives to follow their lead. Conservatives, unsurprisingly, have acquitted themselves equally poorly. The clip of Clarence Thomas making his “high-tech lynching” claim looks worse by the year. The one from last week of Cain on Fox News—when asked whether racism is behind the charges, all he came up with was “I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it”—now joins it as a quintessential demonstration of flabby reasoning and sociopolitical cynicism.Read the whole thing.
November 11, 2011
"Herman Cain Played the Race Card, But Liberals Are the Ones Who Dealt It."
John McWhorter:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
73 comments:
No one is asking a few questions here.
Why did the Cain controversy happen now and not months ago?
Who hired Gloria Allred, who is paying her fees and expenses, and where is the money coming from.
She is not doing this pro bono- no matter what any loons say or think.
My answers:
Why did the Cain controversy happen now and not months ago?
Despite popular wisdom to the contrary, Cain is the most dangerous candidate for Obama to face. The reduction of the block black vote Obama plans to win from 90% to 85% may put a Republican in office.
Cain has become a real threat.
Who hired Gloria Allred, who is paying her fees and expenses, and where is the money coming from.
David Axelrod, as a proxy for the Obama administration. I'm sure they've kept this operation at a safe, deniable distance from the president.
She is not doing this pro bono- no matter what any loons say or think.
No, she isn't. Nor is she finding the bimbos who are looking for a payday.
I thought the "high-tech lynching" comment was over the top, but that's because I am/was an ignorant whitey. It occurs to me now that Thomas was making a comment on the kind of attack, rather than the degree.
Otherwise, what is there to see here? Prominent liberal "finds Jesus" on the race card when a conservative seeks to play it.
And color me shocked when McWhorter stops caring about this issue the second Cain stops being a threat to his lib cause.
d-day,
You must have read a different article than I read.
I think this was done by Axlerod. He has done this sort of thing to Obama's Democratic opponents before. He thought that sexual allegations would be best because the "racist" tea party and Republican types would be so offended and frightened by the black rapist myth.
Instead Cain's contributions went up.
Poorly played because they do not understand the American people.
Trey
Axelrod has done this before. Politico should release the source or at least tell whether it was democrat party operatives or not.
I haven't noticed all that much for claims that this is motivated by racism, except for the notion that it's motivated by the fact that Herman Cain is black.
Let me 'splain.
The one is... let's bring down Herman Cain because we don't like/are afraid of, black men.
The other is a recognition of an element that is in Cain's favor. He's Black. This is a favorable thing, not an unfavorable thing. It's not the only reason he was doing so well in the polls, well enough to fully catch the attention of those who might be inclined to political dirty tricks, but it is definitely one of the major reasons.
So is he being attacked because he's black? After a fashion, probably.
But that's quite different from what we usually consider racism. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to say it, because race is an unavoidable issue. But it has got to have been his rise in the polls that triggered this, not his skin color.
I suppose we ought to congratulate McWhorter for stating the blindingly obvious.
"But liberals should keep in mind that they’re the ones who have enabled this kind of thing. They may have cloaked their conspiracy theories with scientific terms like “institutional racism” and “legacy”, but the hollowness of their logic and the density of their paranoia is the same."
Even if he did stick plenty of balm in the article for liberals, including "You lie!" as an example of one of the legitimate instances.
And I think that the suggestion that the internet and not being alive/aware during previous administrations, account for the weird notion that the crabbing about Obama is unprecedented, was particularly cogent.
Further reason Cain must be torn apart at all costs.
Cain is a threat to the continued success of every Democratic Party candidate in every election.
Democrats are absolutely dependent on that 90% block vote from blacks.
Cain is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.
After Clinton, Liberals have NO credibility on the sexual harassment issue.
Except among idiots and those to young to remember.
PS - I always like to read JW even though he's wrong 50% of the time.
"Further reason Cain must be torn apart at all costs.
Cain is a threat to the continued success of every Democratic Party candidate in every election.
Democrats are absolutely dependent on that 90% block vote from blacks.
Cain is an existential threat to the Democratic Party."
This.
And if it wasn't the charges of sexual assault, it was the charges of Uncle Tom, and the other nasty things.
Is it because he's black within a particular context? Yes.
But is it because he's black? No.
Is Palin attacked because she's female in a particular context? Yes.
Democrats think they own minorities and women.
Is Obama attacked because he's black within a particular context? No. Because he's not treated any different than a white male politician in the same context. (Michelle might be, I think.)
Why can't you call a high tech lynching a high tech lynching? How can the truth be over-the-top?
When McWhortar complains that Cain answered yes when queried about the racist motivations behind the attacks, are we to believe instead there WAS NO racism in the attack on Cain?
Come on.
Hasn't anyone been watching and reading the nastiness of the racist charges about blondes and Black sexuality, and all that stuff? Geez. It's about as racist as you can get.
Read the whole thing.
John McWhorter? I will do no such thing. The man's a putz.
And the race shit is still for the birds. You may think "race is an unavoidable issue" but that's only because, like y'all and your infernal belief systems, you just won't let it go. You like to wallow in it. But it must be the right kind - I noticed there were no parades (or blog posts) for Cain saying he's not an "African-American," a position I've voiced loudly and often. See, after most of that Black Power nonsense, blacks who identify with the dream of America ARE actual progress, but that story ain't got the sizzle of schoolyard blather about "the race card" and who and how it get played. Or the absolutely irresistible allure of Da White Womens who are strong and perfect in every way.
That's the good stuff.
Jesus, the upcoming election is going to be a blood bath!
Crack, do you see it coming, too?
Everybody wants revenge. Everybody wants a blood letting.
The demons are coming out of their ratholes.
I don't buy his crap about Clarence Thomas.
The wind began to cry in rage
As the winter sky grew dark
You can hear the voices crying
Hear the dogs being to howl and bark
There's a storm about to break tonight
Snow falling at your feet
You'd better find yourself a shelter
You'd better find yourself a place to sleep.
My original song.
I feel all hell breaking loose.
Nice article exposing a race card played in every deck by the Dems since 1968.
The balancing of that expose with the false allegation that Cain plays a race card is too is one more in a long line of equivalence defenses.
Cain has not got a racist bone in his body.
The racial mind set that all black men are lusting over the white flowers they plan to rape is literally what made the South insane in the first half of the 1800s and lead to War in 1861.
That is what Gloria Allread and her cast of character actors ( Only 1 in a speaking role) has been playing like a John Phillips Suza march since 2 weeks ago.
Part of that insanity is to blame the black man for our fears...he caused it!
Well Herman and Martin both got a full education in good character under Dr Benjamin Mays at Morehouse, and they will be the end of racism the day the white's wake up and see what is real and what is a tale.
How much of the opposition to Cain is race-based, such that it is an accurate card to play?
On the other hand, how much of the support for Cain is race-based?
Is Cain being rated higher than he objectively deserves because some want to see a black man succeed in running the team?
The idea that there is an element of Donovan McNabb at play here is not entirely out of the question.
Ah, a conservative playing the race card means it's time to be circumspect about race.
Like the shooting in Arizona was time to be circumspect about violent sounding rhetoric.
This shows why Cain is really is, in a unique way, a very strategic choice. With Obama alone, race is an issue to use whenever the opportunity arises. With Cain in the race... well, let's think about how race has been used by both parties in the past...
McWhorter's essay is the height of cynicism. Where was this incisive introspection over the last three years? Where will it be once Cain recedes back to obscurity?
The race card is to left wing politics as Super Awesome Force Field is to a children's game of dodgeball. Once the other side uses it, it's suddenly overused, not fair, and needs to be retired. But when the other side can't use it, well then it's game on, mofos.
Shouting Thomas,
Jesus, the upcoming election is going to be a blood bath!
Crack, do you see it coming, too?
See it coming? It's LATE! But dead bodies are showing up at OWS locations, so there's that.
That was a joke. Really, no matter how this election comes out (and, keep in mind, my horse isn't in the race) I'm looking forward to once again seeing an American presidential election without media-enhanced halos around Obama's head, Deepak Chopra, and charges of cultism with singing indoctrinated school kids. Let them scream racism, let them do whatever it is they do, and as long as I don't sense NewAge in the mix, all will be well. Even a bloodbath, born out of Leftist desperation.
dreams,
I don't buy his crap about Clarence Thomas.
I don't either, and I was happy to see him in the Cain commercial. John McWhorter says it looks worse every year. John McWhorter looks worse every year.
Hey, Ann, you ever read any blacks who matter? Other than me, I mean? [giggle]
Bender...If I may comment back to you, no one has ever accused me of favoring blacks. One great grandfather ran the Fulton County (Atlanta)Chain Gangs after the War and got rich.
We grew up thinking the N word was a normal name for the servants that lived across town and worked for us for a dollar an hour and "Cah Fah" .
In the case of Herman Cain, he is not a race hustler and has never been one.
He is a very intelligent man, and a very sociable, good person without a noticeable skin color when you are around him.
We used to say men like Herman were our cousins and by that we meant they think like we do. The Black middle class in Atlanta has been 80% or more northern European ancestry since the re-construction ended and Jim Crow began.
Check out Andrew Young and Maynard Jackson who were Atlanta Mayors...their facial structure and minds are like our uncles and our cousins, only with tanner skin and curly hair.
So I may be a racist, but this racist can assure you that Herman Cain is not one.
Synova - "The other is a recognition of an element that is in Cain's favor. He's Black. This is a favorable thing, not an unfavorable thing."
-------------
The progressive Jewish media agree with you, better a black man than a competent white bitch like Hillary anyday!Only black people have moral superiority!
"Is Cain being rated higher than he objectively deserves because some want to see a black man succeed in running the team?"
No doubt he is. Though "higher than he objectively deserves" might not be quite right. Geraldine Ferraro got in trouble for saying about Obama what she said was true about *herself*... that she wouldn't be the VP on the ticket if her name was Geraldo, but she said that her being female did bring with it, objective benefits. Having a black president brings with it objective benefits, which aren't entirely negated by the fact Obama is hopeless, even if it would be far better if he weren't.
Cain being black, Palin being female, has objective political benefits. There's the practicality of simply having something that makes you readily identifiable. But there are other benefits as well.
Cain being black is a plus in his favor.
So was Obama being black a big plus in his favor, no matter how how how we were supposed to believe it made him the underdog trying to win against a nation full of people who would get all uncomfortable because he didn't look like the guys on the money. That was BS then, and still is.
Now, supposedly, we're supposed to clutch our pearls over the black man and the white wimmen, according to some. Because we're racists, don't cha know.
"better a black man than a competent white bitch like Hillary anyday!Only black people have moral superiority!"
Among liberal/progressives women have moral superiority, but yes, black people seem to have more. So Hillary loses. Not that I care for Hillary or think she's brilliant, but I think she hasn't got the ideological blinders Obama seems to have.
Watching Hillary get eaten by her own made me almost like her, though. Libya, not so much.
I've been rereading McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom and one thing that struck me is how much the response of modern liberals to Black conservatives is like the response of antebellum plantation owners to runaway slaves.
It's not just Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas; it includes Claude and Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, and Michael Steele (no relation to Claude and Shelby). Not to mention Juan Williams when he strayed a bit.
Gee, TNR criticizing conservatives. Who would have thunk it?
Herman Cain never really had a chance to get nominated. But he can get "coverage." The media, having nothing else to do, have been touting him.
Then, came Rick Perry's brain freeze. And, Rick Perry's appearance on Letterman.
Rick Perry has shot ahead.
Oh, yeah. I believe the women.
If "conservatives" are having a boxing match with "liberals," good luck to both condendahs.
Most voters aren't either one.
As to "influence," the democraps know who is going to be on top of their 2012 ticket.
The republicans?
Are they in a dither?
I'm betting, if it's not Rick Perry, it won't be Mitt Romney, either.
And, I'm placing a side-bet on an independent run. With either Donald Trump or Sarah Palin on top of the ONE NATION ticket.
I just want to say no White person loves Black people more than me.
Even more than Althouse.
But not in a sexual sense - so don't get uptight Crack.
I saw Gloria Allred on the teevee for like ten whole seconds yesterday. Just enough time to hear her say in retort to not having anything substantial, "Well, whutabout Cain coming out and admitting what he did? He's the one who knows what happe *click*
A quick perusal of sites like NewsBusters will show the MSLSD crowd are saying things far more racist about Herman than any of the Althouse Hillbillies ever dreamed of.
The Lefties do project.
PS Carol Herman says she believes the women.
Need we say more?
I'll say this for Gloria Allred - I never have to turn up the TV volume when she comes on.
Would Cain be attacked if he was white? Sure. But then again, would a white democrat president inspire a tea party? Yep. So by whatever standard put forth by Obama's defenders, I guess the Cain attack is racial. Not as viewed by rational people, but we apparently don't do that anymore. It must be nice to be a democrat, they all seem to have ground hog day disease. No matter what was done or said yesterday, ever morning is a new day with no history.
Way to go Crack!! Black humor at it's best :-)
@ Crack I noticed there were no parades (or blog posts) for Cain saying he's not an "African-American,"
I noticed. Thought it was really interesting.
Cain, IIRC, stated that he is a black American.
You're right. No one seemed to notice, much less any parades.
The Tutsi slaughter Hutu slaughter Tutsi cycle seems to be the rule and not the exception in human affairs. The only reason it hasn't repeated in America in recent years is because neither side has majority control of the situation, including capital, power, and people.
The moderates (or independents) by playing to both sides, may have been integral in maintaining the peace and perpetuating the conflict.
In any case, there appears to be diametrically opposed interests in this nation. At least with the two most principled positions. Specifically with respect to how and when dignity is assigned to human life. To what degree it is acceptable to compromise on this fundamental principle.
As with historical events, and the 20th century in particular, this also seems to be little more than an argument over consolidating capital and power. Well, not quite. It is supported primarily through redistributive and retributive change. No, actually that is exactly what led to the extraordinary abuses of the 20th century by authoritarian interests and their supporters.
I have to call BS on McWhorter's conclusion:
"But liberals should keep in mind that they’re the ones who have enabled this kind of thing. They may have cloaked their conspiracy theories with scientific terms like “institutional racism” and “legacy”, but the hollowness of their logic and the density of their paranoia is the same."
In what sense is the "density of their paranoia" about racism between right and left the same?
Someone point me to the conservative argument that the attack on Cain is all about "racism." To buttress his argument, McWhorter cites Cain himself saying in response to whether racism was behind the attack, “I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it.” Get that. "We do not have evidence to support it" means that conservatives play the race card just as much as liberals. The "density of their paranoia" over racism is "the same."
Earlier in the piece, McWhorter claims
"It borders on absurdity that the very conservatives who have harped on the importance of “moving past” racism are defending Cain as a victim of discrimination."
Who are these conservatives? In a fairly long piece, McWhorter cites the one quote from Cain himself and adds the Clarence Thomas "lynching" quote from over 20 years ago. That’s the extent of his evidence.
Conservatives do make a race-based argument about Democratic motivations. The right has said that given the electoral dependence Democrats have on the black vote, the left tends to go after black Republicans with a special ferocity. Is it accusing your opponents of "racism" to say that?
McWhorter's piece has a lot of smart observations in it, but his central thesis is utterly unsupported and lazily depends on false liberal assumptions about what conservatives believe.
I read this in the NYT. But, could not get back to it? Who is the author?
==============
Folks, when I get to Washington DC, I will make the Federal Government inconsequential. As matter of fact, the fact of the matter is that our government is too big. When you are too big to fail, you fair. So, what I am going to do is: I am going to eliminate every department. There will not be any agency. Who needs State? Why should we pay money to foreigners? There will not be NIH. Why do we need to hire foreigners and why do we need more diseases? I say we eliminate everything. In fact, I plan to not have a VP. Why waste?
When I become the POTUS, you have a problem, you call me - direct. I want to tell Americans, you have the direct contact me with me. We will be open for business. No more bureaucracy. In fact, this will create immediate surplus. This is my stimulus package - no government. I ask your vote - you need me to do what we should have done - to eliminate the government.
++++++++++
Who said this?
You know there's no magic wand that turns a story "viral."
When the news first broke about Cain, it dealt with "settlements" made back in the 1990's. No one mentioned that the women were white.
I didn't think they were black, either!
It was a missing detail.
Until Bailek came forward.
Anyone who is gonna face lots of cameras would probably be grateful for a lawyer like Gloria Allred to stand by her side.
I don't think Bialek had to pay for these services, either. It was just the smart recommendation. And, Allred is always ready to trot out in front of cameras. It's how her name got known.
Maybe, the bigger question is "how come conservatives thought Herman cain would be a good answer to Obama?"
Isn't this on par with choosing McCain? McCain was supposed to win. "He was a war hero." He got 47% of the vote. And, he picked up a lot of conservative votes because Sarah Palin was on his ticket.
I think a majority of viewers go to the stories they want to see.
Like the unfolding one at Penn State. As much as "powers that be" try to keep the lid on things. Basically, they can't.
It's like trying to change the weather.
So now, after the race card is dog earned and worn thin, now we are finally going to examine it. Thanks for that, but nobody really falls for that bluff anymore, but it is nostalgic to remember those halcyon days.
How about that triangulation too?
@Bender:
On the other hand, how much of the support for Cain is race-based?
Is Cain being rated higher than he objectively deserves because some want to see a black man succeed in running the team?
I ask myself the same question about my motivations. Negative to me is the regressive nature of his 9-9-9 plan, but on the other hand, the current system sucks.
So then I ask myself, who else can I support? Romney? No thanks. He reminds me of a Democrat with all that big thinking nuance junk. I am not drawn to this guy at all.
Gingrich? I like Gingrich, but I can't imagine him getting the nomination. But who knows, maybe yesterdays warmed over pizza is OK.
Perry? Too confused.
Cain? I like the way he talks, I like the way he thinks.
And I would like him to get the nomination for the pure theatrics of it. Imagine how Democrats are going to have to behave. We've already seen the first salvo.
Oh please, if this was another white candidate he would be receiving the same treatment.
Do independents sometimes change party affiliation at the polls in order to vote in the primary then revert after the election? The internet just now told me they do.
Sex sells, it doesn't matter what color it is.
"Isn't this on par with choosing McCain? McCain was supposed to win. "He was a war hero.""
He was about my last choice.
Maybe Ron Paul was my very last choice.
McCain was my penultimate choice.
Fred, Giuliani, even Romney would have been better. But the media and everyone else said that Fred was tired, Giuliani too socially liberal, and Romney wore funny undies.
Process of elimination.. plus it was McCain's turn.
Still don't know what the accusations were by the former employees of NRA/Cain.
When those allegations actually get reported, then I'll care about the rest of it.
"Oh please, if this was another white candidate he would be receiving the same treatment. "
I don't think so. If Cain was White, the Dems would care a lot less. They mistakenly believe the race card still has power. Cain would take it away. They don't go after him because they are racist, they do it because he can take away their favorite and default excuse for everything with their candidate.
The other thing is that Obama is pretty safe on the sexual scandal thing (let's face it - he wear the Mom jeans in the family), so going after Cain for sex is a great distraction from other comparisons.
bagoh20 said...
"Oh please, if this was another white candidate he would be receiving the same treatment. "
I don't think so. If Cain was White, the Dems would care a lot less.
===================
Dems wouln't care mainly because a white guy 15 years removed from his last executive fast food position, with no elective office experience, and huge knowledge holes - would never be considered a credible candidate for President. They wouldn't be in the race.
Obama lowered the bar for blackfolk vs. Asians and whites..Now any black that does good preacher-speak is considered a credible Presidential candidate.
(I also love how like the Feminists, the religious right is twisting themselves in knots to excuse a philanderer on Their Side.)
I don't know that anyone is in a particular hurry to excuse a philanderer, if that's what he is.
But I also think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what part of philandery (?) the "religious right" finds most vexing.
How often did we hear that the Lewinsky thing was about sex? And the counter-charge is that people are prudes because it was nothing more than him cheating on Hillary (and who wouldn't, right) but it was also lying about it under oath and the fact she was his extremely junior employee.
Usually a Dem peccadillo seems to include something like oh, prostitution carried on from the guy's office, or sloppiness with government resources, and then it's supposedly only about the disapproved of sex?
It matters to me if Cain was a cheater and philanderer, but it matters more to me if he was misbehaving at work.
But I still want some evidence before I'm willing to turn on someone, because the consequences of allowing smears to work is far too serious. Can anyone possibly be surprised if the smart capable people refuse to run for office? Getting what we deserve may be inevitable, but we could actually *try* to deserve better.
And the lists of "lies" are usually so ridiculous.
And it gets to be... it doesn't *matter* if he's guilty or not, or if the accusations are pure fiction... he lied!
For what it's worth I don't think that Hillary "lied" about getting shot at in Bosnia. I think that she was briefed that the landing area was not safe, that there was the possibility of snipers, and that it was all a very exciting event for her and that they, quite reasonably, acted as though there was an active threat and that any unfortunate pronouns were meant inclusively when she told the story. Inaccuracy isn't the same thing as "lie." And I will give it to the other side, too. Al Gore *was* involved with setting up the initial internet infrastructure.
Cain's inaccuracies probably matter in a variety of ways, but they seem the same sort of squishy as he's trying to figure out how to answer and calling them "lies" is just as much spin as anything he attempted. Any accusations to HR at the NRA were taken care of, mostly without him, and without formal proceedings... legally was he ever charged with anything? Did he ever have to defend himself or prove anything? Did his accusers ever ever have to prove anything?
Answer specifically to general questions, or else?
But we're supposed to believe that his muddled avoidances of explaining are actually more important than the truth, whatever the truth is.
Which makes me think that the truth is probably in his favor.
It may not be. But I'd prefer to know.
I'm not sure why, but Bill Clinton is the only President in my lifetime that I can imagine doing the sex act. Obviously my imagination is limited, but in this case I consider that a bonus.
"(I also love how like the Feminists, the religious right is twisting themselves in knots to excuse a philanderer on Their Side.)"
Consider the alternative: To abandon someone who is otherwise your champion. Defending is really the only level-headed response. But when you see people as caricatures, you tend miss their depth, while assuming your own.
It's the attack on the philanderer not the defense that I find overblown in both cases. It's seems to not be very indicative of performance in this job. I suspect Obama is faithful and proves my point.
It was a high tech lynching.
When Clarence Thomas said those words: "high tech lynching", I knew exactly what he was talking about.
The Crack Emcee wrote:
I'm looking forward to once again seeing an American presidential election without media-enhanced halos around Obama's head,
Don't kid yourself, my friend. The media will paint halos around Obama's head, whether they're there or not. And I can picture scenarios in which Obama will be anointed by the media as the only acceptable, non-treasonous candidate. All we need is a Reichstag fire or two.
bagoh20 wrote:
The other thing is that Obama is pretty safe on the sexual scandal thing (let's face it - he wear the Mom jeans in the family), so going after Cain for sex is a great distraction from other comparisons.
Does the phrase "on the downlow" ring a bell?
But alas, he's safe -- there are certain things that the media do not talk about, ever.
I'm not sure why, but Bill Clinton is the only President in my lifetime that I can imagine doing the sex act. Obviously my imagination is limited, but in this case I consider that a bonus.
Jebus! I tried to picture Barack and Michelle doin' the nasty, and my brain began to curdle.
When I think of Bill and Hillary Clinton having sex, I see a cigar and no Hillary.
Yo Allen and 666
cut that out
you are creeping me out at 8:45 AM.
Yeccchhhh
"AllenS said...
When I think of Bill and Hillary Clinton having sex, I see a cigar and no Hillary." Heh.
When I think of Bill and Hillary Clinton having sex, I see no Bill. As a matter of fact I see no dude at all.
It's the McWhorter Hypothesis.
Language determines thought.
It almost makes me feel sorry for Hillary. Oh, hell, who am I kidding.
it was the charges of Uncle Tom
Can you please document this. I have not heard or seen this in reference to Cain.
The whole idea that liberals or Democrats initiated and are perpetrating these charges is ridiculous. It makes no sense. First off, Cain is not a threat to stealing away the black Democratic base--I can think of a couple (i.e., Colin Powell and Condi Rice) who might be if they ran. But Cain, give me a freaking break. He is such a bad candidate--especially his stupid regressive tax plan--that there is no reason that any Democrat should worry about him stealing away the Black base.
Freder Frederson
Can you please document this. I have not heard or seen this in reference to Cain.
Google is your friend: Herman Cain uncle tom
Google is your friend: Herman Cain uncle tom
Gee thanks, as I thought; it is of course easy to find somebody calling anybody anything on the internet (some of the things said about the president on this site should make Althouse blush). But to claim that the "Uncle Tom" accusation is widespread is contradicted by the very link you provided.
I like McWhorter and used to read him regularly. He just got out of the circle of people I read. Thanks for putting him back in the rotation.
@ Freder Frederson said...
Can you please document this. I have not heard or seen this in reference to Cain.
The whole idea that liberals or Democrats initiated and are perpetrating these charges is ridiculous. It makes no sense. First off, Cain is not a threat to stealing away the black Democratic base--I can think of a couple (i.e., Colin Powell and Condi Rice) who might be if they ran. But Cain, give me a freaking break. He is such a bad candidate--especially his stupid regressive tax plan--that there is no reason that any Democrat should worry about him stealing away the Black base.
Petard. Hoist. Assemble as needed.
@ Freder Frederson said...
Gee thanks, as I thought; it is of course easy to find somebody calling anybody anything on the internet (some of the things said about the president on this site should make Althouse blush). But to claim that the "Uncle Tom" accusation is widespread is contradicted by the very link you provided.
About 162,000 results (0.07 seconds)
Sheer genius!
I see no problem with Cain playing the race card. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen the racial questioning of Cain in the MSM.
You fight fire with fire, and the Left is a nauseatingly out of control.
Post a Comment