Calvin Woodward, AP, July 31, 2009
{snip}
The White House said in advance that the moment would no doubt be “poignant,” a sure sign everything was being managed to achieve poignancy.
“Sure it’s a gimmick,” said damage-control specialist Eric Dezenhall, “but Obama’s gift is making gimmicks look visionary.
“In fact, the whole post-racial routine is a gimmick,” he went on. Dezenhall compared it to the “Mission Accomplished” banner that symbolized a premature Iraq war victory celebration for President George W. Bush.
“Only it works better, largely because people want it to work; they like the whole theater of healing.”
A striking 80 percent of respondents were aware of Obama’s comments about the Gates-Crowley dispute in a Pew Research Center poll out Thursday.
The president’s approval ratings, down overall, slipped markedly among whites in the days after Obama weighed in on the dispute: to 46 percent from 53 percent before he spoke on the matter.
In the same period, his approval went up among racial minorities and Hispanics after his comments—to 74 percent from 63 percent before he talked about it.
{snip}
Absent hard evidence on both sides, did whites reflexively support the sergeant because he’s white? Did blacks cry foul because of a hair-trigger sensitivity about racism?
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on July 31, 2009)
Comments
Yes, it was a dog and pony show meant to distract people to make them feel that something was being done to address ‘racism’. The White House wants it to go away and not be discussed anymore. I doubt the WH is going to propose a national dialog on race. Mr. Holder was correct about cowards although AR readers know who the real cowards are. While blacks say they want a dialog on race, enough people know too much honesty would be revealed. Blacks want to talk about racial profiling but they don’t want to discuss the causes and need for keeping an eye on blacks.
As I said on a post yesterday, “what people refer to as “white privilege” is the fact that whites commit fewer crimes and, in public, act more civilized and respectful of people around them. If whites acted as badly as many blacks do, whites would have this “privilege” taken away by means of dealing with authorities and public scorn.”
You can’t talk about profiling without talking about why blacks are perceived as criminals (because a disproportionately large percentage are).
In a national dialog on race, all we would get is the standard list of excuses and gripes.
Non-whites are going to always support non-whites over whites by substantial margins, generally. Blacks have been given affirmative action jobs, money, grading in school, cerification, while Hispanics have been graciously allowed into the country by whites, so blacks and Hispanics show their gratitude to whites every chance they get by spitting in their faces and spitting on the graves of their ancestors.
This has been going on for decades now. It will not change. In fact it will only get worse.
Historians will wonder often how a race of people could be so generous and be hated for it, yet continue on with the same policies.
They will eventually come to the inescapable conclusion that nearly ALL white leaders were no more than spineless cowards.
No, because blacks have a hair trigger sensitivity to take the side of any black v any non black in any situation no matter the facts of the case. And this is across the board in the black community, from the bottom to the top, poor to rich, underclass to the most elite of the elite. If White’s could only muster 1/4 of this solidarity things would be so much better.
I think the whites who supported Sargent Crowley for the most part did so reflexively. However, it was not because of race. They saw the most powerful man in America verbally attacking a local cop for the foul it was.
Say what you will about Bush but he was much more professional than this clown. He started meetings on time, he got up early, he had a White House dress code, and he had better things to do than invite two private citizens to the White House for beer. I mean, seriously, there are certain things a president does and certain things a president DOES NOT do. I can’t believe this man is currently our president. But hey, at least he is a cool guy.
I wonder, is Barack going to invite Sonia Sotomayor and Pat Buchanan (or Rush Limbaugh) to have a beer with him, to resolve things… Or maybe, he could invite Mahmoud Amadinejab and Tzipi Livni? I don’t know; but while he’s at it, he might try to solve other conflicts this way.
>No, because blacks have a hair trigger sensitivity to take the >side of any black v any non black in any situation no matter >the facts of the case. And this is across the board in the >black community, from the bottom to the top, poor to rich, >underclass to the most elite of the elite. If White’s could >only muster 1/4 of this solidarity things would be so much >better.
What this shows is that Native Born White Americans are not all that eager to be race-replaced at the hands of the anti-white kenyan bigot and foriegner in the White House. The more exposure Native Born White Americans have to aspects of the Reublican-Demcratic parties race-relacement policies, they have a negative gut-reaction to it.
So the big question is:what happens when there s a full-blown Native Born White American-these are the real Americans-to their race-replacement at the hands of post-1965 hispanics,KENYANS,nigerians,ghanians,muslims and asians?
White Nationalism is the only game in town for Native Born White Americans.
What’s happened to the prestige of the highest office in the land? This matter is beneath the President of the United States and has racial connotations written all over it. The message seems to be if you see a black man breaking into a house just ignore it because you and anybody involved in it will be labeled a racist.
“Bush but he was much more professional than this clown”
Bush is a more professional liar and traitor, pandering to people of color to use extorted tax dollars to buy minority votes…another of his failures. At least so far Obamalama has not started any NEW wars that I am aware of…his only + to date.
Check out this examples:
Bush panders to the Mexican Invaders with AMNESTY:http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070603_amnesty.htm
Bush panders to the Mexican Invaders with no-down, 110% guaranteed mortgages.http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm
Bush slaughters tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American solders on the basis of lies.http://www.vdare.com/francis/bush_war.htm
Bottom line, the only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats want to drive America off the cliff to destruction at 120 MPH while the Republicans want to drive us off at the speed limit.
Caucasian European-Americans need a political party of our own.
I’m just wondering if anybody but a couple of posters realize that Obama is a racist who intensely dislikes whites and is in the process of invoking laws and policies that are intended to interject blacks into every facet of American life, because they can’t earn positions on their own?
For example, does anyone know that the healthcare bill has provisions in it that state medical schools must have a certain percentage of blacks and Hispanics? Plus there are other provisions that are designed strictly to exclude whites from participation or employment.
Does anybody know that a reputable FORENSIC psychiatrist on the Glenn Beck show attests that he has evaluated the situation and determined from actions and words that Obama is a racist who doesn’t like whites?
Does anybody know that other reputable figures recently have written that this entire situation is going to explode into a racial conflict?
Well, I would invite the few people on here who are intelligent enough to want to examine what these people have to say, in order to make their own evaluations and determine for themselves that what they say is true, to watch the below brief videos.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6363.4823.0.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfw6ie6Pgak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aigoscTpwus&NR=1
One particularly irritating bit of this for me is the “teachable moment” comment. It’s an arrogant statement insinuating that a certain group of people need ‘taught’; that you or I am ignorant and need ‘enlightening.’ I beg your pardon; I’m well educated, both academically and practically, and I don’t need your version of education.
