AM I THE ONLY ONE OF THE INSTAPUNDIT BLOGGERS AND GUEST-BLOGGERS who loathes the Daily Caller’s exploitation of the 2007 video of Barack Obama stirring up the black churchfolk? I don’t think this is helping Mitt Romney with the swing voters at all. Like last week’s playing and replaying of the Obamaphone lady’s ravings, it repels me from Republicans. I’m a swing voter — I voted for Obama in 2008 and Bush in 2004 — and I am genuinely undecided this year. Those of you who are pleased with these seemingly exciting new weapons to use in the fight to defeat Obama are losing perspective. You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince. Here’s a clue: You look ugly.
October 3, 2012
I identify myself as the outlier at Instapundit.
Here:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
715 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 715 Newer› Newest»Really Anne?
You are currently undecided?
That's ugly.
I certainly don't want to vote, but vacillating between Obama and Romney?
Letting squeamish feelings because it's sad that there are people out there who are racists (the Dems)and ignorant and inarticulate (Obamaphone girl)impel you to condemn the other side for noticing these episodes?
That's sad.
If I were a liberal I would be allowed to use the word "typical" for said reaction, but that's a freedom of speech they have already abrogated, along with my freedom to observe Obama's actions and those of his supporters, merely observe, without recrimination.
The SCOTUS appointments are downright scary.
How many from the 9th circuit are on the shortlist?
It's true Undecideds will determine the outcome.
That's discouraging.
I'm so disappointed with the lack of clarity, and foolishness of both being undecided at this point, and thinking this is having perspective, that I will just need to ignore this whole Althouse aside so I can still have enough respect to continue to read here.
Both suggestions: 1) that the relative qualifications of these two men is somehow unknown and therefore a tough decision, and the worn out idea that only the right can be ugly racists is nothing more than a fear of commitment and being labeled anything uncool even if you know it's a lie.
Grow a pair.
Imagine Pat Robertson inveighing against the Obama administration by saying he's aligned with the devil.
American Family Association: Satan May Be Grooming Obama But ‘It’s Too Early To Say’
Then again, the American Family Association is a certified Christian hate group, so maybe this isn't too surprising.
I thought growing up that what made racism, sexism, and judgment based upon other charactheristics was because it was prejudiced. What I was thought growing up was that prejudice was wrong because it was judging individuals based upon perceived (whether accurate or not) group charactheristics.
But if this is this case how is it that you would proceed to judge the individual (Romney) based upon some shared group charactheristics.
I get it that voting is part logic part emotion...the problem is that by its nature emotion cannot be reasoned with, if it could it would be called logic, and emotion appeals to all in an inconsistent manner.
The Bible tells a story about a man named Jeremiah and some people came to him claiming to be "undecided" about whether they should go to Egypt or stay in Israel. Jeremiah, recognized as a prophet, went to the Lord and inquired, and told them that in fact God's desire was for them to stay in Israel. But the people proceeded to claim that Jeremiah was wrong, and that they should go to Egypt. They proceeded to get furious with Jeremiah stating that he, Jeremiah, was lying to them...Jeremiah had told them that their claim to impartiality was self-deception. They had already set in their hearts what to do. You can read this in Jeremiah 42-44.
The reality is the people were committed not to do what was right or logical (to obey God), but instead they ultimately chose to do.... What they wanted to do...and this is key.....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Jeremiah did or did not do would ultimately matter try were set on doing what they wanted...they were only self-deceived as to their initial to professions to desiring to obey God. I guess Ann... Why given that your comment reveals you are okay with prejudice in some directions should I not believe that your heart is like those who ultimately would not have listened regardless of what Jeremiah said or did...they're heart had decided already what they were to do.
Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful above all else and desperately sick....who can know it?
Before I close..let me say I know...that my heart is just as equally capable of self-deception.
"Here’s a clue: You look ugly."
That's more than a clue.
Sean Hannity was manic last night, sputtering and spitting, which likely had exactly the opposite effect he intended.
The excuse I would offer for him and some of the others pushing this video so aggressively is the total frustration they must feel that the MSM absolutely refuses to hold the President accountable for seemingly anything.
Who knew that posting an unedited speech by Obama would be obviously racist and ugly.
This is what doubling down on stupid looks like.
And I am talking about you Dear Lady.
Should be another 600 comment post.
Mitt Romney takes over the Denver Chipotle for a campaign event and you look ugly...
so unfair...
Ann
Do you think it's ugly because race is involved? I, personally, would also like to see a speech from him in front of a group of environmentalists.
But this does show how easy it is for Obama to mislead--I'm referring to his remarks on Katrina. As a senator he knew very well that billions were handed to N.O. with no strings attached.
Misleading blacks is a form of oppression. Certainly you don't think this is right?
It's also very divisive at the same time he is telling the rest of us he will do the opposite. A stark contrast to the Obama he wants you to believe in.
And it was pretty to air a secretly taped video, edited selectively, which spun Romney's electoral strategy ("I've got my 47, he's got his, we're fighting for the remaining 6%") as some sort of racist, fat cat rant.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.
Ah I see the bee keeper is shaking up the hive again, good job! Bees need a good shaking now and again, but it sure does make them mad.
Ann Althouse said...
I'm showing you where there are doors, and you're claiming it makes sense to try to exit through the wall. And preening about your rationality.
You show us only where the door is for you. Don't think that just because you claim to be a swing voter other swing voters think like you. You're a cultural liberal. The vast majority of people with that background are already voting Obama. Worrying about how to appeal to undecided cultural leftists would be to focus on a minute fraction of the undecided vote.
Come on, Ann. You made a bad choice in 2008. Either you didn't know who Obama really was, or you did and voted for him anyway. No problem, that's your right.
Just suppose DC/Hannity had got hold of the Khalidi tape that the LA Times supposedly is keeping under wraps? Would releasing that be ugly too?
Or should we only talk about Romney's behavior in high school? It politics, Ann - grow up!
What about the video of Paul Ryan Rachel Maddow is waving about? Or are you just offended by Republicans?
What's to loath about showing blacks making racist comments? The blacks making racist comments or the people showing blacks making racist comments? You want to hide from some ugly truths, especially if they make one of your preferred groups look ugly. Complaining about the truth being spread about, makes you look ugly and irrational.
I said this before, you guys should give a sober read to the comments here from some really ugly people.
Actually, I do read the ugliest, most vile stuff posted here: yours, AF's, garage's, Jake Diamond's, Purplepenquin's, Allie/Inga's, Andy R.'s, ritmo's.
But I have to admit, I skip shiloh's most of the time.
Thank you, Althouse.
"…and I am genuinely undecided this year."
That seems unlikely.
Republicans replay a speech of Obama's and the Republicans are the ugly ones?
Really Professor, how would you grade a student presenting that kind of logic in a paper?
Christopher in MA,
Frankly, putting this complete video out is citizenship. In fact, Crack, it embodies the sort of truth-telling that you peddle as your stock in trade,...
Oh, now you're supporting truth-telling, Chris? Then defend this - and tell me when it'll be featured on Hannity's expose on the Mormon "church":
Marion G. Romney—a first cousin of George who was a former member of the First Presidency of the Church, its highest authority—famously related the instructions he’d received from the Mormon prophet:
“Always keep your eye on the president of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”
That's what is taught in all good "Christian" churches across the land, right?
To me, this video demonstrates the divisiveness of this president.
The racial divisiveness AND the class divisiveness.
I thought I was gonna crap myself when he compared 9/11 to Katrina. I live in Katrina zone. There is no comparison. He should be comparing the selective outrage about New Orleans versus Pass Christian. And then he display where he and his rich white guilt-ridden celebrity friends are huge hypocrites exhibiting a stunning degree of cognitive dissonance.
Some pigs ARE more equal than others.
When Obama implies he doesn't care about the suburbs but he does about the cities, that is code speech for him putting the needs of one selective group over another group. A group based on race and class.
Why should I feel bad that this video exposes that?
You and every Obama voter should be deeply ashamed that you voted for the most divisive president in modern history.
You and every Obama voter should be deeply disturbed by the subterfuge and negligence of the main stream media.
You and every Obama voter should accept that you were so thoroughly hoodwinked. If you could accept that you could move on, renewed and unburdened by your protective bias.
The only things that looks ugly from my perspective is Obama and his vast team of apologists and the group based political ideology that they thrive on.
Meanwhile, the more we push the Obama Racism angle, the less credibility we will have for focusing on Fast & Furious, Libya, and Unemployment.
You are in the right, but like everyone else with sense here you are being buried under an avalanche of spleen and bile that is decidedly bad PR for Romney and the GOP.
Syl said...
Ann
Do you think it's ugly because race is involved
Racial issues are fine, otherwise she'd hold this against Obama also. She believes Republicans mentioning race is ugly, even when all they're doing is pointing out Obama's lies about race.
I find this more a reflection of the bias in the media than anything else. They've shaped and feed this cypher to the American people; this video just shows the American people that all is not what it seems.
AM I THE ONLY ONE OF THE INSTAPUNDIT BLOGGERS AND GUEST-BLOGGERS who loathes the Daily Caller’s exploitation of the 2007 video of Barack Obama stirring up the black churchfolk? I don’t think this is helping Mitt Romney with the swing voters at all.
Althouse, it's not the Daily Caller's job to help Mitt Romney. Are you actually suggesting this video should be censored and hidden? Why, for fuck's sake?
The four most unwelcome words in the English language are "I told you so."
Althouse at 11:48.
The best case for projection I've ever seen you make.
I don't entirely agree or disagree. I view the negative impact of the tape as Preaching to the Choir. Wont affect them. Obamaphiles - no change there. Others have heard that this is the REAL Obama from, what is called "the right-wing extremest" by the MSM, all along; so the impact is lessened, lack of shock factor.
I can appreciate, "Is this all they got?" retort. Surprise, he is a liberal who favors Gay marriage, big government, distribution of wealth, etc.
Actually, I do read the ugliest, most vile stuff posted here: yours
Oh, please Nathan. My comments ugly, vile? You must think people who disagree with you by definition are ugly and vile.
Professor Althouse you're just not young enough to be post-racial in America, I think.
Gerald Hibbs at 12:17: "What is more important: being right or winning?"
Being right -- that is, doing the right thing. Of course.
And giving these uninformed swing voters more information (showing them this video) is right; giving them less would be wrong, even if they're incapable of properly processing it.
Actually revealing what a race-pandering sheister Obama actually is, is right.
So if Althouse's argument is that the Republicans shouldn't run this video because it hurts them politically: That doesn't matter as much as doing the right thing. It's that sort of realpolitik amoral shit that's gotten us into the $16 trillion mess we're in.
Those of you who are pleased with these seemingly exciting new weapons to use in the fight to defeat Obama are losing perspective. You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince.
Your premise, as I understand it: Promoting videos of black people saying unappealing things is, above all else, a calculated attempt to bypass white people's higher reasoning skills and appeal to their underlying fear and hatred of black people.
From that perspective, I can understand why the video of the Obamaphone Woman would be offensive: She's some random black woman saying random things, and it's wrong to exploit her ignorant statements to damage the President. And it's especially mean-spiritied to make fun of her stereotypically urban-black speech and mannerisms.
I disagree, and I think that misses the point entirely, but I can understand that position.
But I honestly don't understand how this same reasoning applies to a video of Mr. Obama, now our President, making offensive, incorrect, and racially-charged statements in a public forum. Did he not know what he was saying in 2007? Did someone deceive him into saying things he didn't believe? Was he just pretending to believe those things, and, if so, is that not itself offensive? If he really does believe these things, as many prominent black politicians proudly do, why doesn't the President simply say so?
I'm pretty good at playing devil's advocate, but I don't get it. Honestly.
"Replaying the speech was divisive and ugly, but not giving the speech."
Perfesser Ann Althouse.
I can understand not liking the Obamaphone video because the person in the video does not represent the president, but why is it ugly to show the President making a speech and to criticize it for being racial baiting?
My other question is why is this uglier then the things the DNC has done in the name of Obama?
I have watched a number of elections come and go, and if you want to become President you sign up for the fact that your proxies will do nasty things in your name. Bushes have done it, Obama has done, Clintons have as well. Why call out one party instead of the other - what makes this worse?
"You are in the right, but like everyone else with sense here you are being buried under an avalanche of spleen and bile that is decidedly bad PR for Romney and the GOP. "
B.S. The media has barely cared about F&F, Libya and even now spins the economy as somehow better than it is. It doesn't matter -what- Romney or Republicans do, we won't get a serious look at any of those things at this rate. I'm on record as thinking the video isn't that big of a deal, but to pretend that it is somehow distracting from piles of dead bodies in Mexico or our own dead ambassador is stupid. To pretend that it is Romney or Republicans' fault the media isn't covering the other issues instead is willful stupidity.
Ugly can often be fixed, Ann, but it seems stupid is going to be with us forever.
Go ahead and vote for whichever candidate and party that seems less ugly to you, and the adults will face all the ugly truths and make appropriate decisions.
With a little luck there will be a few more of the latter.
Ann, I think the answer is yes. You're the only one. If people who point out what a phony Obama is - talking one way to white audiences, and another way to minorities - are ugly in your eyes, then so be it. But your sights are off - it's the truth that's ugly, not us.
And why should what you think of us influence whether you vote for Obama again?
When I first read your comment, I thought to myself, "why on earth should I trust ANYone who voted for Obama last time to read what's going on?" But then ... you do have a pretty good track record watching and reporting on all the ructions that have been going on in Wisconsin, so I'm cutting you slack and continuing to read and respect you. The one thing that struck me about Obama's comments in this latest video was him saying that we don't need more roads to the suburbs -- we need to build was for black people to get to jobs ... with the people in the suburbs paying for them. Here in California and Los Angeles, Jerry Brown is pushing for a gazillion dollar bullet train from SF to LA. No one wants it, no one will use it, and there's no way to pay for it. It's being sold as creating jobs in the building of it. Here in Los Angeles, the powers that be are pushing for an underground subway extension from downtown LA to the ocean, which would also link up South Central Los Angeles (i.e., Watts and Compton) to Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. Guess who wants it and guess who doesn't? And guess who will pay for it. So far, Beverly Hills folks have been rich and powerful enough to run a successful "no under my backyard" campaign, and I've literally read quotes from that neighborhood that they do not *want* an influx of shoppers from poorer sections of the city -- shoppers who can't possibly afford the prices that Gucci, Fendi and Tiffany charge, but who have perfected their smash and grab tactics elsewhere so that downtown jewelry stores now have cameras AND armed guards AND locked doors to get in. I thought this was merely a ditzy California granola idea, spending exhausted taxpayer money to enable unskilled unemployed people to be able to visit the wealthier parts of town. Now I see it's also part of Obama's grand scheme of "wealth redistribution".
Hey, Fox and Drudge: Here’s Video of Mitt Romney Attempting a Southern Accent From March – Not Five Years Ago
Someone please to help me to my fainting couch.
It is pretty funny that it is considered racist to show a video of the President talking about what he believes in.....why is that wrong?
Don't believe your lying eyes. Just believe what an elitist college professor projects.
My goodness my Dear Lady....you are really off the rails.
I think we should pick apart this word "ugly" as the Professor is using it.
3: morally offensive or objectionable
It is clear that the Professor is using it in the sense of #3. But this sense of the word actually conveys nothing. It is a statement of moral valuation or personal taste -- akin to saying "YUCK!" -- where the Professor has not given any beginnings of an objective basis to decide if or why we should, in fact, be morally outraged.
But yet the Professor says "Here’s a clue: You look ugly."
That's simply not a clue. That is an endpoint. What is the process that brought you to the endpoint, Professor?
You are upset by the fact that others are not pandering to you and can't figure out why people respond to this by shaking their heads. Here's a clue: When you write posts like this, you look ugly.
How helpful was that criteria for you to figure out, introspectively, what you can do to communicate with us better?
Also, Republicans trying to talk about Obama's speech intonation without knowing what code-switching is meander between ignorance and racism.
Tell me, Hat, how did you feel when Hillary channeled her inner Aunt Jemima in front of a black audience and drawled that she "wa'ant no ways tarrred!"?
Jana said...
To be as informed as you are and still not able to pick a side, well, I don't know. I suspect it has something to do with blog traffic.
APPLAUSE!!!!
Irrespective of Ann's leanings, I really fail to see how her thinking-out-loud approach to voting is of any use to either campaign. Just how exactly is a campaign supposed to thread this needle to suit her, the archetypal undecided independent? Airing anything negative may, note may, cause her to be sympathetic to the target of the negative ads. And following her lead would require a campaign to dictate what the press would cover.
Sorry Ann, this isn't 1952 in the USSR. The Daily Caller and Fox News can air what they want to air. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to control and dictate press coverage based on contrarian sympathetic voting patterns.
Andy R-
I'm not going to click on your link, but any politician changing his accent to make a speech to a particular audience is dopey.
"I am genuinely undecided this year"
I can't comprehend anyone being undecided. Obama has been a dismal failure and the outlook for his second term is even worse.
Crack,
Don't you want to expose Romney like Obama is being exposed? So what the heck are you Woo Hooing about?
If we go down the Althouse way Romney want be exposed because the New York Times won't report on his magic underwear.
BWAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gerald Hibbs at 12:17: "What is more important: being right or winning?"
Pastafarian said:
Being right -- that is, doing the right thing. Of course. And giving these uninformed swing voters more information (showing them this video) is right; giving them less would be wrong, even if they're incapable of properly processing it.
Pastafarian, I respectfully disagree. If Ann is right that they cannot process it, as evidenced that she cannot process it, then it does not help reach the goal of getting Obama out of office. To my perspective reaching that goal is what matters. There are other tools to help reach that goal. I would rather people support Romney and see blow-out numbers than see merely a Romney win. We need blow out numbers to show a massive repudiation of Obama and his policies and to give Romney the mandate to remove Obamacare. Giving them information that causes them to shut down and stay home is counter productive at best.
Again, Limbaugh, Drudge, Breitbart's ghost, fixednoise etc. "trying" to make Obama look like the boogeyman worked really well in 2008, so why not do attempt that meme in 2012 also.
blessings
The racism here (to the extent that it exists) is all on Althouse's end. She simply can't see an ignorant jackass as an ignorant jackass, she can only see a "black" ignorant jackass. I (and I expect most decent people) see an ignorant jackass who will vote for Obama no matter what. That's the point of people playing it, to show voters Obama's team (she was being paid by SEIU at the time of the taping) and how they think.
I couldn't care less what color her skin is, stupid people supporting stupid candidates for stupid reasons is as old as the hills, no racism required.
I don’t think this is helping Mitt Romney with the swing voters at all.
It's astounding to me how Althouse continually conflates media (like Rush or the Daily Caller) with the Romney campaign.
That's not the way journalism works. You don't run stories or kill stories in order to hurt/help Obama or hurt/help Romney. Sorry, it's evil to think that way.
You run stories that are newsworthy.
Is this newsworthy? Certainly it's old news. It should have been covered in the 2008 election. (Why wasn't it?)
To me, the non-coverage of the Obama campaign in 2008 is newsworthy. And we might compare the honesty of Obama's campaign rhetoric with his behavior in office. That's newsworthy too. And as our first black President, I think his racial attitudes are newsworthy. I think all of this is newsworthy, which is why you're blogging on it, and people are responding.
Does this make the criticism seem racist? Obviously to you it does. Fine. But it's far better to have the truth. Have this speech. Have this discussion. I dislike intensely this urge to censor and hide. And the political threat! It's obnoxious.
You want a media that hides and censors in order to protect our government? Fuck that. I don't want that at all, and it's one of the reasons I come here. For truth! Not for bullshit.
Is this video a lie? Or is it truth? That's the only question a journalist should asking. You want to ask propaganda questions, report to Pravda.
I don't think that the video is going to change a lot of minds. However, I think your outrage out of it, derives more from your liberal paternalistic pieties toward blacks than it says anything negatively about the people releasing this video.
Kanye West said George Bush hates black people and we were all rightly outraged. Barack Obama says the same thing and you claim we're mean for pointing it out.
So yes, I think you're wrong.
I think Althouse is making a serious point. When Obama voters confront this video, they have to face the fact that Obama is much, much smaller than they convinced himself he was. That produces a legitimately uncomfortable feeling, and many people will profess this feeling by again rationalizing their Obama voting - human nature isn't big on admitting foolishness. If enough moderates are thus emotionally compelled to vote for Obama again, the video hurts Romney.
It may be unfortunate, but it's probably reasonably accurate.
Like last week’s playing and replaying of the Obamaphone lady’s ravings, it repels me from Republicans.
OK, you don't like the use of "got my cell phone, gonna vote for obama." You claim it might stir up anti-black sentiment.
Now this Obama one is a bit more complicated.
a) Obama mischaracterized facts.
b) Obama cemented stereotypes into a group of black people using the misrepresented facts as a springboard.
That's pretty ugly on Obama's part.
Why is pointing out Obama's ugliness ugly, Ann? It's factual, unlike what Obama did.
You yourself have railed against the Democrats use of the Vagina in the race. Is that ugly of you, Ann?
I see no consistency here. Taking about vaginas, in a stupid way, not OK. Talking about entitlements when the face on the cover is black, not OK. Showing Obama stirring up racial resentment through misrepresentation, not OK.
I see no consistency in your position, Ann. Please, help us all to understand how this is consistent with your esthetics, Ann.
Until then, I'll use Occam's razor.
You wrote a post saying you were undecided, and got a lot of flack. You are now desperately trying to find reasons why it makes sense you are undecided, and you are willing to throw your self-consistency down the toilet for it.
It seems rather childish of you (of course, I have no way of knowing if it is or isn't, but you aren't telling us how YOUR position is consistent from YOUR perspective).
Ann,
I agree with your distaste for many of the reactions to this video. I'm a bit more understanding -- I think many conservatives feel pretty beaten up by having their every word scrutinized while President Obama seems to largely get a pass (bitter-clingers is the exception, not the rule). But, you make a compelling case that the right should conduct itself better.
As for the substance of the video itself...I guess it's a yawner for me. I mean, yeah, the president says some stupid things. But we already knew most of this based on how he's governed. I don't believe he deserves a second term, but this video...meh.
I don't understand why the right is being racist, though. The point of the uproar over the video is to point out how the president thinks, and what he believes. To the extent that this video accurately reflects his thinking, why is criticizing it not fair game? Similarly, this video is out of step with most of Obama's public statements at the time. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask which version of Barack Obama is reflected in his governance, or his likely policies for a second term.
I guess...I get where you're coming from. I agree with your point but disagree in how intensely you loathe the general reaction to this video.
"Process", not "profess"
"What's the point of saying again and again that people who support Obama are wrong? If you can't put yourself in the minds of the people who don't agree with you, you have no way to speak to them. You are simply choosing to forgo the possibility of being persuasive."
Lawyerly, fine, but ultimately non-decisive. There comes a point where all that's left is, who is right and who is wrong? That point has been reached and for many long since past. The issue to be decided is, a culture of death or a culture of life? The truth is if death is chosen, life will overwhelm and nullify the choice. On that, lawyering is powerless.
You and Meade split? This Medea-like theatricality reminds me of the line in Cyrano: "Yes, tell this to all the world, and then to me say, very softly, that [he] loves you not."
Ann
If you're going to to vote for Obama, JUST DO IT. Get it over with!
I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE.
Why not go find something else to do? Why do you bother?
Trying to reason with the willfully emotional IS pointless. Trying to emote to the reasonable gets you pushback. Which you ignore.
Please stop trying to see every attempt to present facts and truth - Obama in his own accented words, the Obamaphone lady- as some failed attempt to swing the Emotion Voters like you. We have written you off already because you voted for this fool of a charlatan in the first place.
Your presumption of the Right's motivations are often completely off base, leading you to false conclusions of your false assumptions. As Obama might say 'You ain't one of us", but you sure think you got us pegged. You don't.
Thread after thread you get pushback about your mischaracterizations of conservatives and you almost NEVER respond to it. It's cowardice. Why blog if you do not engage your commenters who disagree with you? Multiple posters make multiple strong, reasoned points and you continually ignore them, yet exhibit exasperation and befuddlement as to what motivates us. Do you read your own blog?
You are like a Hollywood version of a Moderate, you think that an ocasional disagreement with Joan Walsh makes you privy to what is in Mitt Romney's head.
Moving voter's into the Romney camp is not the purpose of showing this video.
It's purpose is to shame emotional rubes, like you, who voted for a vaporous promise of Hope when he is anything but.
It is to reveal yet again to the reasonable - not the Emotional, like you - that the Media is complicit in the con game. That we were told this event was OLD NEWS, yet we had only seen 9 minutes out of 40,with all of the race-baiting and blaming edited out.
That is not a Free Press. That is Pravda. And you are OK with that because: boyfriend. Really?
BREAKING: Tenured Lib law prof in Madison votes Obama because she can afford to weather the continued disasters of his policies without much personal pain, blames those actually effected for their lack of sufficient pandering to her.
Pathetic.
Remember how the Republicans were going to be all about the economy this year and not be distracted by the other crap? That was the formula for a win, right?
Social issues - you can't hit 'em, you can't lay off 'em.
So....Sean Hannity impersonating Al Gore impersonating a black preacher to make a point about how Barack Obama talks too black...is journalism?
hmph...
Bryan C said...Your premise, as I understand it: Promoting videos of black people saying unappealing things is, above all else, a calculated attempt to bypass white people's higher reasoning skills and appeal to their underlying fear and hatred of black people.
From that perspective, I can understand why the video of the Obamaphone Woman would be offensive: She's some random black woman saying random things, and it's wrong to exploit her ignorant statements to damage the President. And it's especially mean-spiritied to make fun of her stereotypically urban-black speech and mannerisms.
Thanks. That's a bit more of an explanation for me. Not that I expected Ann to respond to my question, but it's somewhat frustrating. Sure, making a deliberately provocative posts like this generates plenty of traffic, but it also inhibits real discussion somewhat due to all the noise from the hundreds of "me too" posts wanting to weigh in with their 2 cents.
Of course it's also possible if Ann keeps it up she'll end up driving away most of her conservative commenters and turn this blog into another boring lefty echo chamber.
Crack,
The NY Times hasn't suggested worse about Mormonism than magic underwear?
Go find us a video of a speech of Romney's given within the confines of a Mormon event. I'd like to watch it.
Both sides look ugly to me, Ann.
(Gary Johnson looks even worse as a Libertarian. iow, he's no kinda libertarian.)
At this point, it's all a sham, to me. It all needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up...and that ain't happenin' short of TEOTWAWKI.
Incredible,...
Or perhaps you meant to say unpossible?
It is called speculation. Agree or disagree, but don't presume to know that which you clearly cannot know either.
...
Back to ugly.
You know what is ugly?
Images of black kids getting hit with fire hoses.
Yet we still show those images routinely, and with purpose. Maybe even psychological ones.
Yes, incredible, isn't it?
Face it. Most people are stupid. They need to be hammered with the obvious. Seeing Obama's racism in his own words is what will convince them. Taking it over the heads of the media directly to the people will work. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general voting public. Dumb it down.
That is why "Honey Boo Boo" is number one in the ratings instead of "Downtown Abbey."
Ultra-liberal elitist college professors and politically engaged blog readers are not the audience for this exercise.
It is Archie and Edith. Peg and Al.
Ralph and Alice.
It will be an eye opener.
phx said...
Remember how the Republicans were going to be all about the economy this year and not be distracted by the other crap? That was the formula for a win, right?
Notice how the economic issues won't go away either? They sorta linger like a judgement.
Perhaps it's the glee, the sheer joy that right wing pundits display when they engage in "exposing" Obama's supposed racism that puts some people off. Actually it puts many people off to see Hannity and Limbaugh practically foaming at the mouth over something that most people would yawn at. A video from 2007, ho hum.
It makes them and Romney, whom they support look desperate, willing to use race for political gain. That IS ugly. That IS off putting, not to hard right wingers, but to swing voters and independents like Althouse.
To me, a lefty, it's ho hum, how desperate. Don't these talking heads know they are hurting Romney, or maybe, just maybe they don't care, because they think he will most likey lose and they are just venting their spleen.
Oh, now you're supporting truth-telling, Chris? Then defend this - and tell me when it'll be featured on Hannity's expose on the Mormon "church":
Marion G. Romney—a first cousin of George who was a former member of the First Presidency of the Church, its highest authority—famously related the instructions he’d received from the Mormon prophet:
“Always keep your eye on the president of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”
That's what is taught in all good "Christian" churches across the land, right?
Care to show me the proof that Mitt Romney himself agrees with that statement, Crack? Or am I supposed to believe that because his dad's first cousin said something loopy, Mitt must agree with it?
Oh, I know - George is a Mormon, Mitt is a Mormon, ergo Mitt would obey a "wrong" order from the president of the church. Which would be the equivalent of asserting that since some priests were sex offenders, all Catholics are in favor of sexually abusing altar boys.
If you want to go down that road, go ahead.
At the 19:20 mark in the Daily Caller video, Obama shows he doesn't know the Lord's Prayer.
Typical.
I have to agree with bagoh20 when s/he says, "I'm so disappointed with the lack of clarity, and foolishness of both being undecided at this point, and thinking this is having perspective, that I will just need to ignore this whole Althouse aside so I can still have enough respect to continue to read here."
Today's undecided voter is well-caricatured in the recent SNL clip (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/undecided-voter/1418227).
I'm still voting blog traffic. If she goes all-in on Obama this soon, a lot of her regulars will probably tune her out, at least until after the election. I think there is a desire, among regular readers, to "capture" Althouse, to drag her over to their side. She knows that, and I can't help wondering if there isn't a bit of exploitation of that desire with her ongoing stance of cruel neutrality and supposed inability to pick a side.
Professor Althouse you're just not young enough to be post-racial in America, I think.
You said it better!
BILL WHITTLE.
You got a thoughtful comment from Bill F.N. Whittle.
Wow.
Althouse's history of strong emotionalism regarding racial issues dates back a long way. Once she attended a select group of scholars and had a row with Jonah Goldberg and others about race. She blogged it. It was years ago and I think she was in Chicago.
But Bill Whittle is right. If we want to throw off the chains of the soft tyranny that is the Obama Administration, we're gonna need to CONVINCE some who voted for Obama to switch their votes. It's a sales job, people.
With that in mind, I ask Althouse, "What would you need to know or hear to drive out of here today as a Romney voter?"
When she answers that, then we will know her need, fill the need and earn a vote for Romney.
Until you folks acknowledge that something's bugging her AND that she hasn't been sold yet on the alternative, you're pissing up a rope.
HI BILL WHITTLE!!
If you think showing that video is "ugly", wait until you see the Republican who'll be elected to pick up the pieces after a disastrous Obama second term.
The video is damning.
Who could watch that and not wonder what the President really believes about the country he leads? The fact that it's being oversold by the right perhaps makes it less of a political weapon, but no less disturbing.
Notice how the economic issues won't go away either? They sorta linger like a judgement.
So all your sayin' is "The advice to stay on topic with the economy and ignore the other stuff is bad. Let's go for the social issues, too."
If you think you can with that. Other people managing Romney didn't think so. I don't either.
Inga said...
To me, a lefty, it's ho hum, how desperate. Don't these talking heads know they are hurting Romney,
An Obama voter says a video she has not seen and will not watch, hurts Romney.
You're stupid.
The proof that these videos are very very effective is the degree that Obama partisans like machine, phx, Inga the She Wolf and the Nutty Professor will attack it.
They are hurting the Jug Eared one badly.
If not they would just shrug or not try to get them suppressed. If it is hurting Romney they should be all for them. Instead they are on the attack.
Why do you think they are doing that?
If you think showing that video is "ugly", wait until you see the Republican who'll be elected to pick up the pieces after a disastrous Obama second term.
That Republican will probably be a Democrat, too.
"Oooh, look at me, over here! I'm undecided! Yes, undecided! It's so exciting. Who ever will I vote for? Where's my fainting couch? This is just so, so tough to decide."
GIVE ME A FRICKING BREAK.
Ann,
You need to explain your twisted logic. Obama lied. He stirred up racial hatred by defaming America.
You think that it is ugly to point that out? Would it be ugly if the candidate was white? Would it be ugly if the audience was white?
BTW -- if you are undecided, you aren't using logic anyway.
Professor Althouse: OK, you're undecided. How about making the rational case for Obama?
You have not done so. All you tell us is that some of the behaviors of some of Obama's opponents make you feel icky.
You are welcome to your emotional response, of course, but is that all you've got?
I'd like to read some reasoned support for Obama, but I have seen next to nothing. Certainly not from the liberal commenters here, nor from you either.
Do a few icky feelings really counterbalance all the rational arguments you yourself have made against Obama?
It seems that the only time you bring up the question of your vote is when you feel negatively about some conservatives, which to many of us here is a betrayal -- not of conservatism but of rationality.
"I am genuinely undecided this year"
hold on just a damn minute. what's with the "genuinely" and "this year" qualifiers? You have written you never decide until the walk to the polls. was that all just cruel neutrality bullshit?
Ann, you have exposed yourself as a member of the Obamanoid Cult of Personality.
How DARE they insult your hero, Kim Jong Obama?
But thanks for speaking from the heart: as they say, "the hypnotized never lie".
I'm starting to think that Ann is using these posts (and our responses) to try to gauge what life might be like in a Romney administration with a Republican controlled Congress.
As we saw with her analysis of her McCain/Obama choice, she fears an unchecked Federal government. And, rightly or wrongly, she is afraid that rights she's fought for will be in jeopardy in a Conservative dominated government.
The majority of the comments here give her no solace. Response to her actual concerns (regardless of what you think about their validity) are few and far between, which must be frustrating for her. Because, I think it's been pretty clear that she sees the myriad failures of the Obama presidency, but that isn't enough for her to embrace a completely Republican controlled Federal Government. She needs to believe that Romney & Congress won't attack the progress that's been made on issues she feels are vital. The way we've responded to her concerns over race are not helping convince her.
I don't agree with her concerns, but that doesn't change the fact that they are her concerns and will need to be met with responses she finds sufficient before she'll be able to vote for Romney.
Ann, if you read my post from a few days ago about the violence in my neighborhood (a stone's throw from Obama's Chicago neighborhood), you'll know why I'm voting for Romney. To gain the office, Obama tapped into very powerful hopes that many had for healing this country, and he has turned his back on them by pursuing an entirely partisan agenda that has driven divisions even deeper.
So pointing out that the so called post racial President who would be a racial healer is really a race baiter is bad.
There is somethng wrong with people like you.
Ann, You see a video clip of Obama dishonestly smearing hundreds of millions of Americans while inciting racial hatred, and you say Romney's supporters look ugly? You see a video of a woman proudly proclaiming that she has sold her vote for a free phone, and you think conservative voters are ugly?
Race-baiting is ugly, Ann.
Stirring up racial hatred is ugly, Ann.
Buying votes with handouts is ugly, Ann.
Selling your vote for narrowminded greed is ugly, Ann.
Failing to educate yourself so that your vote is meaningful and well-informed is ugly, Ann.
Obama has consistently chosen, throughout his education and career, to use race and class to divide Americans for his own benefit. This is not new information, but it is an important reminder -- voters beware.
That woman's gleeful declaration of her greed deserves to be mocked -- she should be ashamed, and her heinous behavior should serve as a dire warning to Americans that our democracy is always in peril from the irresponsible and the uninformed.
Ann, there are many ugly things in the world. Putting on blinders so that you don't have to admit them, deal with them, or coexist with them, is not an option.
Ugly behavior requires sunlight -- expose it. Shame it. End it.
Anything else would be . . . ugly.
1. Denial and Isolation
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
-----
lather/rinse/repeat ... blessings
Please.
The Nutty Professor is not undecided.
This is just a fan dance.
Rubes.
Facts are facts, Ann.
Why anyone still reads this asshole when she thinks you're all "RAAAAACISTS!" is beyond me.
I don't agree with her concerns, but that doesn't change the fact that they are her concerns and will need to be met with responses she finds sufficient before she'll be able to vote for Romney.
Romney didn't put out the video.
Neither did any Republican party group.
Which is why Ann's commentary on the matter is so idiotic.
Worthless woman. Voted for Obama last time (and says she regrets it) yet is "undecided" now.
What on this green earth would convince this pseudo-intellectual NOT to vote for Obama?
Apparently, posting a video which gives reason other than incompetence to many of Obama's decisions - a video which shows that his 20 years in Reverend Wright's church were studiously spent - makes the POSTER of the video "ugly" rather than the speaker of the ugly words.
Worthless.
Here's a little history on Althouse, race and Jonah Goldberg, or at least a start.
Ann, you're going to find any excuse to vote for Obama again. How does Obama's fact-free race-baiting make him look? What does it tell you about the gulf between how he presented himself in 2008 and what he really was. You were fooled in 2008. Admit your error and move on.
Lyle,
Crack,
Don't you want to expose Romney like Obama is being exposed?
I'm waiting,...
So what the heck are you Woo Hooing about
An act of defiance. Not going along. Tossing a grenade as the Stormtroopers march by. Shaking this place up and - by her actions - demanding it stay shook.
Like I said, I'm not even sure I agree with Ann's premise (I've joined other wingers in criticizing her recently) but, Goddammit, Instapundit readers HAVE to hear something other than his partisan bullshit line.
That was POLITICS!
If we go down the Althouse way Romney want be exposed because the New York Times won't report on his magic underwear.
And how it's a symbol - to him and us - he's NOTHING like the rest of us?
Oh, wouldn't you love that?
Perhaps it's the glee, the sheer joy that right wing pundits display when they engage in "exposing" Obama's supposed racism that puts some people off. Actually it puts many people off to see Hannity and Limbaugh practically foaming at the mouth over something that most people would yawn at.
If you think "most people" should yawn at video - deliberately edited and misreported by major media - of a candidate for the highest office in the land blatantly lying and race-baiting, it says much more about how little you value your vote than anything else.
A video from 2007, ho hum.
Lalalala. I don't care. Obama is awesome.
Is that all you have, Allie - blacks can't be racist, whites are always racist?
I'll bet a dollar this blog shuts down before the election. It will be because she's disgusted by the comments section.
Just my gut feeling.
It is a bit of a cesspool at times like this.
Sorry Ann, I am a fan of your blog, but you are off on this one.
People need to wake up to the fact that this video is who the President really is. And the fact that this has been deliberately covered up by the complicit legacy media. It's as big a deal as his "you didn't build that" moment, because it is equally revealing of his true agenda and desires. It's President Teleprompter being honest and offscript.
And I personally know people who still think he's a "nice guy", who have come to me after seeing this video, very troubled by it, and feeling they were fooled by Obama. So it's reaching an audience.
Also, fighting with gloves on when the other guy is using a sledgehammer is a tactic designed to lead to cascade failure. This isn't even particularly nasty, it's juts quoting actual video of Obama and letting the chips fall where they may. If we can't even quote the guy without looking ugly, what do you suggest we do? Sit around with our thumbs up our extremities while he accuses us of being racist, murdering homophobes?
The truth is our only defense in this election, you shouldn't feel bad about saying true things. Any ugliness comes from Obama. He said it after all.
Not for someone who wants Obama to win.
They want to suppress the truth.
That Obama is a miserable failure and a racist to the marrow of his bones.
They will never be proud of America again if they reject him
Rubes.
Ann is apparently under the impression that the right-wing media is in the business of helping or hurting a particular candidate's campaign when they post unedited videos of that candidate or of their supporters.
The left-wing media are NOT in the business of helping or hurting when they post edited versions, however.
It is to laugh.
The video will plant a seed in the mind of voters that will be there when they consider the important issues that impact them. Obviously the economic issues which tend to affect tenured professors less.
But it won't swing the vote any more than Clint Eastwood's speech to an empty chair did, which Althouse seemed to think was so persuasive, but was certainly more "ugly" a gesture than showing a video of Obama's own words.
"I'll take that as a 'yes'... 'cause if I have to come back here, it's gonna get fuckin' ugly."
posting what obama said is not ugly. what he said and how he said it is ugly. if he really is "post-racial" then the speech is pandering. if the speech is honest, then he's scamming us about the whole post racial thing. to be honest, i don't know which way is correct.
Huey L. Golden said...
and says she regrets it
No. She did not.
I'm surprised at how visceral my reaction to your post was. I don't think the video was particularly damaging to Obama and it certainly wasn't anything new to anyone paying attention.
But damn! I've had a bellyful of being thought of as a racist for the past four+ years. This racially demagoguing SCOAMF, along with most of his supporters, have dismissed everyone who disagrees with him as racist bigots. Screw them. And if you honestly look at that racist speech and your first thought is that it makes US look ugly, screw you too.
It always comes down to Spike Lee's movie, "Do the Right Thing" (Barry and Michelle's first movie together BTW.)
Conservatives are frustrated with Barry and the media and this is an opportunity to vent. Perhaps they are being manipulated by Drudge and Hannity -- which is the best possible light in which to see Althouse's comment. Rush also has second thoughts -- only because there are so many other better things to skewer Barry on.
I was disappointed in Drudge's big "scoop." But whatever. It is fog-of-war time. Both parties are throwing everything at the wall because no one knows what will stick. It is already the ugliest election EVER. The ugliness probably plays to Barry's advantage because he wants fair-minded folks to turn away in disgust -- it makes it easier for him to win. So maybe Ann is saying "don't fall into Barry's trap." Maybe.
Back to Spike Lee though. Did Mookie do the right thing by throwing the trash can through the window? Was the destruction necessary to save Sal? Is it ever? I think Barry thinks he is Mookie. Does Drudge too?
That's all I got.
Drudge and Hannity are Mobys. You guys should be talking about the economy, or even Libya.
I mean wow, just wow:
One of the reasons 9/11 had such a big impact on me is that it was such a profound demonstration of the fact that these people are serious. They really believe.
You need to get out of Madison more Ann.
Maybe when you retire you'll move?
I mean, I can't imagine being that sheltered at your age...
Actually Obama is Mookie Wilson.
Let's just hope Mitt is not Bill Bruckner.
BREAKING VIDEO: Obama throws up all over a white woman in 1962.
This, this will finally be the video that takes Obama down!
Prof. Althouse--
This will provide useful information to those around you. They're probably wondering how many times they can make you a promise and break that promise before you catch on. Evidence seems to be that they can do that for a while.
And a great point from Saint Croix: "It's astounding to me how Althouse continually conflates media (like Rush or the Daily Caller) with the Romney campaign."
This is such a good and salient point. Why is Althouse, cruelly neutral, talking about her vote being affected by media coverage from a particular news outlet?
It isn't the Daily Caller's job to be an arm of the Romney campaign. It isn't the Daily Caller's job to look at a piece of news and judge whether or not to run it based on its potential to affect the almighty swing voter's opinion of Romney.
You're not showing anyone any doors in this post Ann. You are making weak accusations of racism without giving any supporting arguments (I like how you use the cute NYT codeword "ugly"). When people ask you for supporting arguments you respond with a flurry of non-sequiturs. "You're supposed to be convincing me! Why should I support my accusations!" If I want that kind of tripe I can get it from Amanda Marcotte.
Try supporting your argument. Why is showing a tape of Obama speaking racist?
Here's my prediction: Ann will not support her argument. When she gets emotional about something, and can't figure out why, she likes making conclusory accusations of sexism and racism, and NEVER backs them up afterwards.
As some others have noted, when you do this you go into a different mode that's very different than your usual tone, and usual high level of reasoning. It would probably be worthwhile to ask yourself why you have that pattern.
Nobody is trying to convince you Ann. They are angry at you for making dumb accusations at them. And they should be.
I think there is a desire, among regular readers, to "capture" Althouse, to drag her over to their side.
I can't speak for everyone here, but I suspect many read Althouse because she has a great way of shining a light in a corner and finding something interesting.
I agree with your point, that perhaps this is merely a way for Ann to capture blog traffic. There is a pattern here.
"Ann: Dems using vaginas is wrong."
"Ann: I am mighty, because I am in the middle, and Oh, by the way, I'm not decided"
(regulars, WTF?)
"Black face on entitlement video is out of bounds because it might invoke racial stereotypes."
"Showing Obama misrepresent facts to cement racial stereotypes is wrong."
I'm getting pretty disappointed too. If this is Ann's way of getting traffic, I don't want to be a pawn.
If Ann can't provide a consistent picture of what's in bounds and what's out of bounds, I don't want to play with her mercurial rules.
If Ann is attempting to say she represents a huge group of undecided people, and oh, by the way, it's all about this third order racism crap, well, I doubt she is correct, she doesn't understand what the actual argument is, and she is frankly boring.
Instapundit readers HAVE to hear something other than his partisan bullshit line.
he's a pro-abortion, pro gay marriage libertarian type.
Instapundit said:
SO, ANN, criticizing Obama’s racial hypocrisy looks ugly? I see your point, actually, but I think that’s largely in response to a media environment in which any pointed criticism of Obama has been defined as ugly. And that’s a common lefty-media trick, setting things up so that any effective argument is somehow pre-defined as somehow impolite. There’s an instrumental argument that folks on the right need to take this into account, but beyond that, I confess I don’t much care. Obama’s politics are, and have been, ugly in the extreme: Dishonest, personal, vicious. Compared to that, noting that the whole post-racial feelgood vibe of 2008 was, to put it in ugly-but-true fashion, a complete and total lie, seems minor. Perhaps it will nonetheless alienate swing voters, but if swing voters are that easily alienated, and that immune to facts, then maybe it doesn’t matter anyway.
Romney can fix this supposed problem by running a campaign that makes people want to vote for him and not simply against Obama.
This keeps these shiny object videos away from the Sean Hannity's of the world.
2008 Obama voters can fix this supposed problem by accepting that they didn't have all the evidence about the candidate they voted for.
Then they can ignore the lasting shiny object of their 2008 perception of Obama and look at the results of Obama's presidency.
Surprising that Ann declares the republicans look "ugly" because these two videos have been highlighted. My wife had a similar reaction that it would not help persuade undecided voters (she did not have the silly/emotional ugly reaction, but probably is not too far removed from it).
Some of the early comments presented clear intellectual criticism of Ann:
"Obama speaks racism in 2007 and I look ugly."
"A black woman admits she sold her vote for a free cell phone, and I look ugly."
"Funny in that an educated, adult woman simply can not engage in the substance of Obama's remarks - note that a sitting Senator lied about the Federal Government's response to the Hurricane - so she will go with it's so ugly!"
"What is also tragic is you can't seem to understand this is also a criticism of the media."
However, whether it is funny, tragic, dumb, emotional or anything else, the fact that Ann has an emotional "ugly" reaction is a cause for concern. If she, who is obviously smart and intellectually disatisfied with Obama has that reaction, the exposure may hurt Romney.
My reaction to the videos was not enthusiastic. It was more of a "more of the same" reaction. I was not surprised to see either, I did not like that Hannity was the guy showcasing it, and I did not think it would help Romney. Undecided voters are unlikely to be affected and the problem is that they see this and not more persuasive information. I think many undecideds will feel sorry for the pitiful lady enthralled with her Obama phone and will think "I don't need to see that again" when seeing video of Obama kissing up to Rev Wright and other black racists.
Assuming folks like Ann likely will get over their emotional reaction and these videos don't get much play, probably no effect on election.
When Edith Bunker sees that video while Archie is watching Fox News she may have doubts and not vote to give that nice young man a chance.
That is the voter this video will reach.
That is why Obama partisans are in a frenzy to get it off the air.
Yipes!
Is there no consideration at all of the racial politics implicit in 95%+ of African Americans voting for Obama? Isn't that a bit ugly, too?
I'm curious why Ann feels uncomfortable about this.
I'll speculate (and correct me if I'm wrong) that its because she's white and in academia. Pointing out ugly behavior or beliefs in black people is just plain uncomfortable for many such people.
You do realize that you are what Eric Holder was calling out as a coward?
You've got the biggest balls on a blogger chick I've ever seen.
Crack,
She hasn't got any balls. It's a woman's right to be inconsistent, is all.
Ann, I very seldom post here, but I read you every day. I can not reconcile what I have come to expect from your usual writing with this post and your earlier post, reference the phone lady. Both events held up for our examination ugliness, but in my opinion not on the part of Rush or Daily Caller.
I would waste my time trying to convince you that, in an existential sense, you are wrong. So, vote as you will and sleep well while you still can.
Since Ann is posting on Instapundit, it's only appropriate to comment "another rube self-identifies!"
Yup, it's become clear and very apparent ... Outhouse -er- Althouse has no real core beliefs.
It *is* all appearances.
I am so out of here never to return.
_Jim
I have to agree with bagoh20 when s/he says, "I'm so disappointed with the lack of clarity, and foolishness of both being undecided at this point, and thinking this is having perspective, that I will just need to ignore this whole Althouse aside so I can still have enough respect to continue to read here."
Today's undecided voter is well-caricatured in the recent SNL clip (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/undecided-voter/1418227).
I'm still voting blog traffic.
bagoh20 and Jana have good points. Further "lack of clarity, and foolishness" comes from the fact that this video only highlights a samll facet of Obama and his followers, as did the Obamaphone video. To give this so much weight in comparison to the economy, foreign policy, civil liberties, etc is beyond absurd.
I spent years not knowing who Ann Althouse was, I have to consider if the few minutes I'm spending here each day is worth it and if I should contribute to her blog traffic. With the exception of shiloh, the resident lefties here are making more sense than Ann.
And here's Althouse, deep in the comments of a very thoughful discussion, explaining what bothered her about the pure Libertarian angle of the conference she attended.
In the slightly different category of "battleground" states identified by Politico, Romney leads by 2, 49-47. Romney's lead over Obama is powered primarily by his edge with independents. Romney leads Obama by 4 among the important swing voters. By 11 points, these voters think Romney would do better on the economy than Obama, 51-40.
Romney also has a big edge with middle class families, who prefer him over Obama by 15 points, 56-41.
-------------
Racists!
I think you are just afraid that some of the 'moderates' that don't pay attention & never knew who Obama is will not vote for him now. You're blaming Romney for what someone else did. I notice you have a double standard when the situation is reversed,& never tie others actions to Obama. There was never a doubt in my mind that you are voting for Obama again. When push comes to shove you will do just what every 'blue-dog' dem. always does & that is revert to type.
Christopher in MA,
Oh, I know - George is a Mormon, Mitt is a Mormon, ergo Mitt would obey a "wrong" order from the president of the church. Which would be the equivalent of asserting that since some priests were sex offenders, all Catholics are in favor of sexually abusing altar boys.
If you want to go down that road, go ahead.
Dude, I am so far down that road you can't see me:
I KNOW the whole point of being in a cult - and, especially, to be a bishop - is that you ACCEPT the ideas of the cult. Otherwise, you would leave. The Mormon SYSTEM is top-down. Mitt Romney has no more freedom to think for himself than Tom Cruise. He even asked the "church" if it was O.K. for him to run. He asked them what position(s) he should take on abortion. He asks them about everything - he's a Mormon - and gaining power for the cult is everything. That's their - and his - history.
You can keep playing like he's a normal person but that shit won't wash:
There's not a single normal thing about him.
I absolutely want that video on the air and I hope they are asked about it tonight in the debate.
Is there no consideration at all of the racial politics implicit in 95%+ of African Americans voting for Obama? Isn't that a bit ugly, too?
This is a good time to be bringing this question up, too. Keep hammering on it until November. Or until we can talk about women's body parts again. Or something Rush said.
How dare those Rascally Republicans use the Presidents own words out of his own mouth!
Racist!
Vile!
Cesspool!
Quick stop doing that because it is hurting Romney!
Listen to us we have Mitt's best interest at heart.
Vagina!
(I just wanted to say that)
phx said...
Drudge and Hannity are Mobys. You guys should be talking about the economy, or even Libya.
They bring up those topics too, phx. But thanks for revealing your real interest.
Crack,
If we follow Althouse logic, Romney and Mormons will never be exposed because it is just too ugly a thing to do.
She's not throwing a grenade like you and the Daily Caller are, but putting flowers in the guns.
I take her point that conservative media need to reach out to people like herself and should think hard about what they put out there and how it looks. That said, Obama's record on helping black America should be attacked, I think cause he's totally failed at it since his community organizing days.
... and you're right it is all just politics. Ultimately Protestant Barack Obama is not any weirder than Mormon Mitt Romney.
"I'd like to see you so a posting on how a woman as educated and obviously intelligent as you are could even think about voting for Obama again."
She isn't "thinking" about voting for Obama - she is going to vote for Obama. Is anyone seriously buying the "genuinely undecided" BS?
If, with all the copious evidence at hand she is still undecided, NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE will convince here!
She is voting her elitism like she did in 2008.
The presentation of the video was indeed ugly, but then its a Hannity production so that's redundant.
Having watched the whole thing, rather than being led through it by partisans, I have to say that Obama does not come off well.
What I don't get, Ann, is how you can be so blind about what Obama IS? He's a demagogue, a Marxist-influenced "progressive" and a sociopath. We've all seen this since 2008 at least, and it takes an especially active willingness to believe to ignore all of the clues.
Sure, Romney isn't Lincoln, but who is? He's a LOT better than what we got. How the F can someone be undecided?
Perhaps it's the glee, the sheer joy that right wing pundits display when they engage in "exposing" Obama's supposed racism
Supposed? He blatently lied in his comparisons to stir up racial animosity and that's Ho hum.
Does anyone remember Trent Lott's comment to Strom Thurmond and how the left went apoleptic?
The double standards the left exhibits is pathetic.
Oops, she did it again.
I found Ann's comment/explanation and thought it very interesting. She essentially is backing away from the ugly comment and switching to the point that there are better arguments to make if republicans want to persuade voters. She may well be correct about that, but it is not really what she said the first time. So she already is getting over her empotional "ugly" charge.
Actually, the video was completely unsurprising. Obama asked a good question as to why Katrina wasn't waived the Stafford fee, while 9/11 and Hurricane Andrew(?) were.
So let me get this straight its ugly to take video and selectively edit it so that it makes your opponent look like a racist and its equally as bad take a previously selectively edited video and restore it to its entirety and that also is ugly? Yeah that makes a lot sense. In fact that's the kind of logic that gave us this disaster of a president in the first place.
Keep in mind much of this is just Althouse stirring up the pot much as she did from 2008 through 2010 by dropping "Sarah Palin did/said___________."
Then standing back as the Fundie goobers and gay hysterics like Downtown Lad flocked like flies to shit.
Talk about shooting the messenger. It is Obama that is ugly in the video. You think it is ugly for people to see it? You blame Daily Caller for exposing you to this ugliness? Holy cow.
Go read the epic riffs from Ace of Spades about how the swing voters are the vainest most morally vacuous people on the planet. Fits you to a tee.
But it does raise an important question for us non-swing voters. How can we possibly reach people like you who get viscerally angry if anyone points out anything ugly about the ugliest person in American politics?
ARE you really a swing voter? CAN you be swung? After all, you voted for Obama in 2008 and you are informed enough to have known then that he his entire pre-electoral career was spent as one of the few paid professional communists in the history of the country. You knew that Obama was in the employ of organizations founded by the students and acolytes of Saul Alinsky, right, and that he taught Alinsky's methods and ideology to ACORN and other left wing groups? And you knew that Saul Alinsky was the leading American small "c" communist of the 20th century right? The American Gramsci, laying out his own version of Gramsci's "long march through the institutions"?
And yet you still voted for Obama. So in what sense are you a swing voter? Isn't that kind of like Obama calling himself a racial healer?
Crack MC -
You may not be aware of this system glitch, but I have some experience in these problems so please consider this advice from a wellwisher:
You may have either a computer virus or perhaps something is loaded incorrectly or you have filled the cache in MS Explorer if you have a PC, or on whatever Mac browser you are using. Whatever is causing it, the result is:
for the last 6 months your computer has been posting numerous and exactly identical comments on Althouse.
I'm sure that now you know you will want to fix this computer error, as I'm also sure most commenters have been missing your always engaging and thought provoking posts.
So you loath and find repelling when a conservative reveals the truth about Obama.
But you're not repelled by the Democrats when they tell lies about Romney and Ryan?
After the foreign and domestic policy disasters by the Obamites, the enormous increase in the deficit, the Libyan scandal, Fast and Furious, the failed surge that has resulted in the 2000th death in Afghanistan, You're still undecided?
I wonder what Romney's team thinks of this? Boon or bane?
Keep voting with your lady parts, and feelings, Anne -- I'll vote principles. We can't talk about things that are right in front of our faces? Because that might look ugly to some? Why can't we talk about all the lies this man has told us and the gaps in his background we can't get answers about? Because he's black? In 2012? Sheesh. You "smart" people make me ill.
Anyone who is still undecided about Obama is obviously clueless when it comes to the economy or foreign policy, so arguing those points won't help. What might help is pointing out that he does, in fact, make race relations worse, rather than being what he claimed to be - a uniter.
You guys should be talking about the economy, or even Libya.
We have but Obama said the economy was Bush's fault and Libya was some obscure filmaker's fault.
Unlike fellow Democrat Harry Truman, the buck never gets to Obama much less stops with him.
You guys should be talking about the economy, or even Libya.
Excellent point. Tell me, how do you feel about the Obama administration knowing within hours that the Benghazi attack was a preplanned assault by Al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with the amateurish "Mohammed" video, yet they lied about it for nine days?
Or is pointing that out racist, too?
Do Obama's specific remarks matter at all?
Good Lord you are blind. A lawyer (a legal scholar, no less!) contending that simply drawing attention to something that was actually said is somehow unseemly.
Your argument seems to be: it's racist because shut up it just is, ugly head.
Pathetic and sad.
JeffM,
Did Mookie do the right thing by throwing the trash can through the window? Was the destruction necessary to save Sal? Is it ever? I think Barry thinks he is Mookie. Does Drudge too?
I'm no Spike Lee fan, but you missed the point:
NOBODY in "Do The Right Thing" does the right thing - including Sal.
The question is, how can you "Do The Right Thing" in such an environment?
When does that begin?
In America - as in the movie - it usually seems to be after somebody dies.
Where do you think this partisanship is leading us?
Many, here, have already predicted riots if Obama loses - oooh - knowing full well whites are already buying guns by the basketful, for ANY eventuality, win or lose. (No, no, no - they're all hunters,...)
Life does NOT have to be a fucking movie,...
Balfegor: If you want them to vote for your side, you have to be sensitive to their feelings. Doesn't matter whether they make sense or not.
Understood, but up to a point. 'Likeability gap' gets as much press as 'Job Approval' or 'Better Able to Handle...'. The Khalidi tape (still embargoed by the LA Times), the "bitter clingers" fundraiser (broken by Huffpo), now the "angry-preacher" (released by Daily Caller) were bills-of-particulars that never filtered through mainstream news cycles with the immediacy and depth of coverage that, say, Trent Lott's valedictory for Strom Thurmond, George Allen's 'macaca moment' or Romney's 47% comments did. How did that turn out for the first two?
The hectoring 'Hannity' approach is eye-glazing and...oh, heck, ugly, but how is disclosing the President's own words in full and in context insensitive? If it doesn't change any minds, move on. When Republicans raise the hard truth about the money running out the Democrats will accuse them of pitching Granny and abandoning Brittany. Paul Ryan should be used to that by now.
Poor Ann. Can't stop thinking with her lady parts.
Oh please, Prof. So posting a video of what a man actually said makes the Daily Caller look bad? Verbatim quoting of the President looks "ugly," does it? Never mind the outright lies, never mind the racial dog sirens. You, who voted for Obama last time, think it looks bad to post what the man actually said.
You're undecided? I think you're desperately grasping for a reason to vote for the idiot again. Because it must suck being the campus pariah at the U of W.
I agree with you. There are many other possitive ways to attack Prersident Obama's record and character.
"Then standing back as the Fundie goobers and gay hysterics like Downtown Lad flocked like flies to shit."
No shit. A couple weeks ago and two days ago, I got the sense of a co-dependent marriage between Althouse and her commetariat. One night they're cussing her up and down over the Obamaphone post, the next day she the best thing evah in the post about the journalist mischaracterizing her.
Gerad Hibbs,
Instapundit said:
...I confess I don’t much care.
Then nobody else has to either.
Fuck you, slimeball,...
Rob Crawford: That's called 'the soft bigotry of low expectations'. 10/3/12 12:21 PM
I know what it's called; that doesn't make it any less true. We don't win by whining about unfairness because fairness is not a conservative value. We don't want fairness, we want liberty and prosperity. Obama has destroyed both by promoting fairness and "soft racism". If you try to turn the tables you are conceding the validity of his game. It won't work and it annoys the pigs.
We have but Obama said the economy was Bush's fault and Libya was some obscure filmaker's fault.
Well certainly. By all means, change the topic. More social issues.
I knew you guys didn't have the attention span to stay on topic.
I can't believe Fox News would cover this up for 5 years!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
They are complicit....
There seem to be two separate discussions going on here. There isn't anything in Ann's posts endorsing the substance of Obama's remarks, she is explaining that, based on her own reaction, that attacking Obama in this manner is probably going to be counterproductive.
A reasonable point, I had concerns too, but I disagree on the merits. It seems to me that a typical voter who is "undecided" at this late stage of the game would be someone not seriously engaged in the fine points of policy debates. I think this type of emotional appeal is effective in that context - and, just as important, it tends to balance the similar attacks you constantly hear regarding Romney (war on women anyone?), making it all noise.
But I have a more basic question. Ann, how is it possible that someone as engaged as you are is still "undecided"? The last four years of Obama constitute FAR better evidence of what his next four years would entail than anything you will hear him say in the next few weeks. For me, Romney as "not Obama" is enough. But if this isn't enough to sway you, what would you want to see/hear from Romney at this point?
Ann, you can't possibly be serious. You don't know whether you'll vote for Obama again or not? Really? Really? Freaking really? Wow.
Then again, the American Family Association is a certified Christian hate group, so maybe this isn't too surprising.
Thanks for proving my point, Andy R. Note the double standard for how these two peoples' speeches were treated.
If you are already firmly against Obama and you reflexively reject what I am saying, will you at least contemplate whether you are in denial?
What's the point of saying again and again that people who support Obama are wrong? If you can't put yourself in the minds of the people who don't agree with you, you have no way to speak to them. You are simply choosing to forgo the possibility of being persuasive.
You condemn others as emotional/irrational, but take a minute to consider how emotional and irrational it is to engage in politics without trying to get more people to agree with you.
Why not go find something else to do? Why do you bother? You're beating your head against the wall and I'm showing you where there are doors, and you're claiming it makes sense to try to exit through the wall. And preening about your rationality.
The issue, Professor (calling you Ann seems a bit too familiar), is that there is this overwhelming "Man, he is so NICE! He is so THOUGHTFUL! What a guy!" strain that conservatives have been force fed about him.
Meanwhile, we see Romney treated as if he was an unfeeling robot in spite of many, many good works he has done.
Our conservatives supposed to just accept that Obama is a good guy? That he's really super nifty once you know him?
If somebody wishes to say "You know, he's actually kind of a prick", you need some evidence to back it up.
This video is evidence of that.
If "likeability" is the most important electoral trait this week --- then discussing his likeability is suitable.
Obama has called Romney a felon. Republicans are racist. Republicans caused ALL of the financial problems ALONE.
That isn't ugly? That isn't unbelievably ugly?
The October Surprise was a speech unearthed by Fucker Carlson from June 2007 that he covered in June 2007.
For the win.
It is difficult to conceive that someone genuinely informed could be genuinely undecided at this point. So the necessary inference here is that the decision will not be rationally based.
You're really pathetic on this issue Ann.
Treating black people like grown ups is ugly. Calling them out when they're full of shit is mean.
Woo hoo.
Well the blog traffic is probably up as a result, so there's that.
Another thing that's completely ludicrous about many of the commentators is how shocked, shocked they are that someone, Althouse or anyone fairly intelligent someone, hasn't made up their mind who to vote for.
You're so self-centered you think everyone sees the world the way you do - you can't understand how they don't.
Bravo. Well said. I look forward to the day when the choice isn't between a Dem we are not crazy for or a Rep that we loath. As a former Republican I would like to see the party renounce the crazies on the Right, welcome moderate voices and start working with the other party on constructive change. I hoped that would be in 2008 after the shellacking the Reps took in the election. Instead they went Rove, juiced up the nut cases and started an all out Agit-Prop war to try and make Obama look like a Tyrant who has usprped our fair nation. And they tried to make racism look chic again. When you empty the glass of moderates all you have left is the scum at the bottom. And when given a choice between those who I am not crazy about and those who is just plain crazy, I will err on the side of sanity. Maybe after the whopping O puts on Mittens the adults will finally take control of the GOP again. I am starting to see more and more Reps speaking out against the direction their party is going.
I think the point missed by Althouse is how ugly the tape itself looks to swing voters, and that's why it's being pushed. Maybe both the pushing and Obama's words are ugly, but neither is Romney's fault. Try to think clearly, lady.
Inga said:
Ah I see the bee keeper is shaking up the hive again, good job! Bees need a good shaking now and again, but it sure does make them mad.
Really, Inga? Does something like this really give you the jollies? Because you seem like you're enjoying it.
I'm not. I've come here for some time now, to get intelligent political discussion. Then the post of today (and the few from last week) throw all of that into question.
By the way, Inga - it's this attitude you have that makes certain people think you're not posting in good faith.
I haven't read through the entire comment list ...to know if this has already been asked.
But, in response to your comment: a question.
Why is your focus on the subject of the tape, with the appearance of ugliness you ascribe to the presenters, rather than the objective content of what Obama said IN the tapes?
I'm missing something here.
Is it all about the show? Is it, ever, about the substance?
Shouldn't it be?
If the prosecution introduces as factual evidence that they're still digging up scores of arsenic laced bodies in my basement, but the defence suggests I dress up all pretty in pink, then you're good?
Why? Because the prosecuter has harshed your cool?
Jeezus, Ann.
Jeezus.
Lyle,
Crack,
If we follow Althouse logic, Romney and Mormons will never be exposed because it is just too ugly a thing to do.
I hear that - Ann has participated in the "bigotry" scam - but that's my issue, not hers, and I think she's making it very clear where her parameters are when it comes to siding with the Right.
I applaud her for it.
She's not throwing a grenade like you and the Daily Caller are, but putting flowers in the guns.
The Daily Caller isn't throwing a grenade with that video - this is silly, obsolete "gotcha" bullshit, that's no more newsworthy than reporting Obama goes to the bathroom.
I take her point that conservative media need to reach out to people like herself and should think hard about what they put out there and how it looks. That said, Obama's record on helping black America should be attacked, I think cause he's totally failed at it since his community organizing days.
Yes, I agree, but this isn't that either.
... and you're right it is all just politics. Ultimately Protestant Barack Obama is not any weirder than Mormon Mitt Romney.
No, but Mormon Mitt Romney is waaaay weirder than almost everybody else, other than maybe Scientology.
Call me when The Daily Caller reports THAT,...
We saw the result in 2008 when Obama's racism was not emphasized enough.
You're beating your head against the wall and I'm showing you where there are doors, and you're claiming it makes sense to try to exit through the wall. And preening about your rationality.
Ann: No, you may be showing us the door to your particular, precious sensibility, but oddly enough, you are not the only voter in America, and you seem unable to understand this.
If Rush Limbaugh plays a video too often for your taste, it's because he is trying to reach the maximum number of people who tune into his show in ten or twenty minute snatches, as opposed to worrying about a quasi-liberal who listens for a couple hours straight.
If the Daily Caller emphasizes an Obama 2007 video that shows Obama as a clear race-baiter etc, that may bother you but probably reaches more people for whom that video is news.
So, no, I don't take your pragmatic point either. It's not all about you.
And if there is a person "preening" here it is the one declaring, "I am the outlier."
The emotions around race are deep and complex. I recommend not toying with them. Move to something more optimistic and positive.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Says the woman who voted for Hope & Change!
What silly, silly vacuous, bullshit.
Phx, I wasn't aware that pointing out the President's lies was a social issue.
As I said earlier, to devout Obama supporters, Obama can do no wrong. I myself think its fair to hold the President accountable for his words and actions regardless of party affiliation.
Does something like this really give you the jollies? Because you seem like you're enjoying it.
I'm not. I've come here for some time now, to get intelligent political discussion. Then the post of today (and the few from last week) throw all of that into question.
Your rights are totally being violated.
Your remarks recall the old saying "Fool me once, shame on thee. Fool me twice, shame on me".
Shame on you.
Saying the pushing is ugly, while dismissing the ugly of Obama's words is what can push swing voters to make a bad choice. You are doing exactly what you claim is foolish.
The emotions around race are deep and complex. I recommend not toying with them
Damn right, Ann!
Obama gets all jive talk & racial: no comment
Daily Caller points out Obama gets all jive talk & racial: How Dare you!??
Good God are you embarrassing.
Apologies in advance if this has been covered in a previous comment but I don't think it's fair to say that it makes conservatives look ugly to post the video when they're only posting it BECAUSE THE MSM WON'T!
Conor Friedersdorf said "If the New York Times was constantly searching for archival footage to prove that Mitt Romney doesn't like black people, or that he is "whipping up race hatred,...""
Um, if there was any indication that Romney held such views, they would be. In fact, they probably are anyway. In fact, even when they don't they'll still call him (and me) a racist. Enough.
Pragmatist,
The GOP took back the House and now holds 29 governorships. It looks like the Rove strategy worked.
Even if Obama wins, he's not getting a Dem House and many of the states aren't going to expand Medicaid, leaving a huge gap in Obamacare. You have to give Republicans their due. They were politically very smart about getting more power and wielding it.
Whether their ideas are any good is a different issue. But they absolutely put Obama and the Dems on the defensive after they themselves were on the mat after the 2008 election.
Trying to help the right see your point of view by calling it "ugly" is not exactly helpful. Many among the commentariat have requested clarification but none is forthcoming which leads to the conclusion that white guilt is the motivating factor. So it's not really about black people, as usual, it's about maintaining a lie in order to allow white people feel better about themselves.
Woohoo.
Phx, I wasn't aware that pointing out the President's lies was a social issue.
Right, well you just try to tease this out of the racial issues that are stupidly being talked about here.
Let me know Nov. 7 how that worked out for you.
gargage mahal said: "Romney...For the win."
I just used 25% of your post and made up the rest...like the media's video reportage in 2007.
Idiot.
I am astounded. Politics ain't beanbags, as someone (forget who) once said. And if Obama's rantings don't turn you off....
"You're so self-centered you think everyone sees the world the way you do - you can't understand how they don't."
I can understand why someone would vote for Obama. No, I do not understand an intelligent, informed person being genuinely undecided at this point. Because it would mean she is willfully ignoring a mountain of evidence sufficient to make a decision.
Let me state first that I think the tape wasnt that big a deal and was extremely overhyped. Pushing Libya would have been better, but not for the lame chris-matthewesque reason Althouse states.
Seriously, whats wrong with you, Althouse? I can understand that low information voters are undecided, but when you, a prominent political blogger, proudly proclaim to be "genuinely undecided" AFTER THE LAST FOUR FRIGGIN YEARS, then you are genuinely nuts as well and your vote just isnt worth the effort.
re: furious_a:
When Republicans raise the hard truth about the money running out the Democrats will accuse them of pitching Granny and abandoning Brittany. Paul Ryan should be used to that by now.
Yes, but even if Democrats don't want to engage, that's an important discussion to have with the public, and an important message to communicate, substantively.
Communicating that the President is a mild racist who panders to racists is not really that important a message. He's just one man, and Black racism is really only scary to people who live within striking distance of Black racists, which does not actually include many voters who are open to voting for Republicans. That message is only important if it helps electorally. Evidently, it does not.
In your post on Instapundit, Ann, you urged avoidance of racial issues because they are troubling, urged Glenn to focus (as you say Romney and Ryan want to do) on something more uplifting.
Couldn't you say that to Obama also? Just this once?
To paraphrase Ann: *sticks fingers in ears* BLAH BLAH BLAH I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Althouse often has some sensible insight into politics from the ostensible middle, but on this she's tone deaf. Probably because she fully intends to vote for Obama again, and, well, this makes it uncomfortable for her to do so.
"The emotions around race are deep and complex. I recommend not toying with them"
Advice Obama and his supporters have not bothered to and will not bother to heed.
I want to know who my president is. I want all the information available.
That makes me "ugly"? Wow.
Post a Comment