Race Cards and Speech Codes
"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
So said Bill Clinton in New Hampshire of Obama's claim to have been a constant opponent of the war. Clinton cited Obama's voting record, which was the same as Hillary's in his early Senate years.
Yet, for this, the ex-president, designated by Toni Morrison as "our first black president," was charged with playing the race card.
Clinton spent days explaining the "fairy tale" remark.
Came then the morning of the South Carolina primary, where Barack was rolling up a smashing victory. Bill volunteered: "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina, twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign, and Sen. Obama's running a good campaign."
That broke it. Bill Clinton was openly "playing the race card."
Now, undoubtedly, Clinton was trying to belittle, to diminish the importance of the South Carolina vote for Obama. But why is it racist to say what Clinton was implying: That, in a Southern state where a huge share of the Democratic vote is African-American, a strong black presidential candidate can be expected to do well?
Political history proves this. What is racist about saying it?
Aware of the truism, every political analyst was looking closely at the racial breakdown of the South Carolina vote.
Last week came Hillary's turn. After her victory in Indiana and loss in North Carolina, which pundits said rang down the curtain on her presidential bid, she advanced an argument candidates have used since primary elections began. "I can win—and my opponent can't."
The argument was made against Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan.
In an interview with USA TODAY, Hillary argued that the coalition she has put together would be stronger against John McCain than the coalition Barack has cobbled together.
She began by relating an AP article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," said Hillary. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."
This shot Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post into low orbit.
"As a rationale for why Democratic Party super-delegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency—African Americans—and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry ...
"Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say ... that Obama is black—and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist."
But Hillary was saying no such thing. Describing her coalition, she was implying that Obama's coalition—a George McGovern-Jesse Jackson combine embracing 90 percent of African-Americans, plus liberals, students and cause people—has less chance of beating McCain than does she and her more Middle American coalition.
Democrats, not liberal Democrats, are the swing votes who decide presidential races. Here Hillary beats Obama three to two or two to one, North and South.
Has she no right to make this argument? Can Brother Robinson explain exactly how Hillary can describe her Ohio-Pennsylvania coalition without using the dread word "white"?
Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.
They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.
The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.
Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks.
Bill and Hillary have lost luster and sustained damage to their reputations because, in the Democrats' universe, such smears stick. The question for Republicans is whether they will let themselves be intimidated, as they too often are, from using legitimate political weapons to defend what they still have.
It is thus a sign of trouble ahead that John McCain declared the Rev. Wright off limits and berated the North Carolina GOP for bringing him up. Let your adversaries circumscribe the content of your campaign, and you usually end up losing your campaign.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
This is probably just more of Mr. Buchanan as political analyst. (He certainly adores the US version of the "great game.") But one can see the emerging groundwork for supporting McCain (as he did Bush in 04), all politics is tribal, the GOP basically reflects our tribe, we must support our tribe.
I don't disagree that the Clintons are getting mau-maued. Of course, I also can't contain my amusement at the spectacle considering how often they mau-maued dissidents on the Right.
I am starting to think this is the first election that Mr. Buchanan may openly endorse 'no one'.
I can understand (although i disagree) with his reasoning for supporting Bush in 04, but McCain is terrible in basically 90% of the issues.
Mr. Maxwell, if you'd like to place a little bet, I'll be glad to take it.
I believe Mr. Richert is hinting that Pat Buchanan will endorse John McCain, Pat's reasoning being that a President John McCain would likely name replacements for Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsberg, Justice Kennedy and maybe even Justice Scalia.
Shackled to the war in Iraq, the longer the Republicans will wallow in defeat. And John McCain is devoted to the neo-conservative project in Iraq. Which means political defeat for the Republicans in 2010 and a Democratic presidential victory in 2012, the winner probably being either Barack Obama or , less likely, Hillary Clinton. Conservatives should accept the fact that Barack Obama will be president, either in 2009 or in 2013.
The immigration question is the most vital issue in the United States today. A President McCain will clearly move to pass something similar to the old Kennedy-McCain immigration amnesty bill. Out of duty, many Republicans will carry McCain's water in Congress on the issue. A sign of Johnny's mood with regards to conservatives and immigration, McCain just last week proclaimed his plan to attend a LaRaza Convention in July, a slap in the face of conservatives. McCain disdains conservatives and will happily ignore conservatives on the immigration issue. Meanwhile a President Obama, inexperienced in the machinations of executive government, will probably thrash about incompetently in his first two years as president, much like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
I hold out hope that Pat Buchanan and other conservatives realize that a President Barack Obama is better for the long range future of conservatism, such as it is, then a second coming of Richard Nixon, John McCain.
Scott,
Can you explain why Pat continues to provide aid and comfort to the Party after all they have done to eliminate, belittle, embarrass, marginalize and berate him and his supporters ? Sure, politics is a dirty business but his enemies went beyond filth. People have lost in supporting Pat over the years -- past over for promotions, lost respect from the "stalwarts" within the party and guilt by association.
The means they have used to effect his demise have also been vile, corrupt, organized, and wreckless . Don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Buchanan has been fearless, courageous, intelligent, and relentless in fighting the good fight, but there comes a point in leadership where satisfying the role of useful idiot becomes synonymous with contempt for your soldiers. Why can Pat see this with McCain and his base, but not with the folks who have supported, defended and encouraged him in his own uprising for the last two decades ?
Pat's party is over, they kicked him out, volunteered the greyhound buses for his followers and smeared them with contempt. There is nothing to do now but to retrench and re-arm in a strategic retreat. Or as Nixon was fond of saying, "Or am I wrong ?"
Interesting. It seems that in the liberal elite's pantheon of oppressed peoples, blacks are more highly regarded than women. I wonder for what reason- have they both not suffered equally at the hands of domineering white men like me?
I tell you, with all the oppressing I do, I barely have time to eat and sleep!
I think that Mr. Buchanan supports the Republicans out of habit, as I can't imagine that it's out of principle. It's tough to dislodge old convictions, and he spent much of his life fighting the democrats.
Indeed, Mr. Obama seems to me to be the most conservative politician out of the three. I can't see him passing an amnesty bill, because it would alienate his base of black Americans, who are just as angry at latinos as they are at whites. And he may in fact have some positive influence on young black males, who are in desperate need of a good role model. Go Obama!
I agree with all that Mr. Leaberry wrote, with one exception: I don't think that a President Obama will be any better for the future of conservatism. The choice in this election will not come down to the lesser of two evils, because there is no lesser.
Robert, I wish I could. I'd like to think that it's simply a question of loyalty, even to those who have shown no loyalty to him, but the fact that Pat left the Republican Party once pretty much blows that theory out of the water.
The second-best explanation is that Pat loves politics and can't stand not to be in the game. It's one thing for him to go third party, because, as a candidate, he's still in the game; but if he endorses a third party, fewer national media outlets are going to call on him for his thoughts. (And don't discount the idea that he actually thought he could win as a third-party candidate, but he doesn't think anyone else can, so voting for a third party is throwing your vote away.)
And last, I'm afraid, is a certain nationalist streak in Pat that is truly nationalism and not patriotism (though I think he is mainly a patriot, not a nationalist, despite his preference for the latter term). Whatever else the Republicans may be, they are the nationalist party.
@robert reavis
"Pat’s party is over, they kicked him out, volunteered the greyhound buses for his followers and smeared them with contempt. There is nothing to do now but to retrench and re-arm in a strategic retreat. "
Indeed. This is is the reason that I will under no circumstances vote for McCain. Let him pander with a will to all his newer pets, it will avail him naught if the base sits this one out. We have been taken for granted by Republican's for too long. Each election that the conservative wing of the party falls in line and salutes, in spite of the candidates attitudes and policies, merits contempt. We see the erosion of all we hold dear and still vote R. The contempt displayed by McCain, the neo-cons, the plutocrats...is justified and we are to blame.
Scott: You think that Buchanan will endorse McCain? He's still quite negative regarding McCain. I sure hope he doesn't. I could see him endorsing Bob Barr, especially if Barr picks up speed.
Tom: And, no, Obama isn't any better than McCain. Why do you think he is? Because Obama's given lukewarm criticism of the war (but favors one in Darfur), and is wrong on 99.9% of the issues? Obama favors amnesty*, and will create a politically correct regime ready to harass and condemn anyone who won't follow the PC program. The only advantage to an Obama presidency would be a potential right-wing backlash, but that's a big gamble.
* http://grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=IL&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=1162
Matthew (@10):
He’s still quite negative regarding McCain.
At this point in 2004, he was still pretty negative regarding Bush, too. On the other hand, Pat definitely dislikes McCain more than Bush.
If Mr. Maxwell will take the bet, this is one bet I'd be all too happy to lose.
I just listened to a live interview with Pat. Though he didn't endorse McCain he gave every indication that two things would make him a better vote then the Democrat.
1.) Pat believes that McCain could appoint the judge that takes SCOTUS from two pair to five of a kind.
2.) Pat believes that McCain won't raise taxes.
Now PB had a number of critical things to say about JMc but my take on the subtext of the interview is that JMc is better than a Democrat.
Bret
Yes, I hope too that that's one bet that Scott loses. When Scott hands over the bill, he can write "Thank God" on it. I do, though, think that things are quite different than they were in 2004. I'll bet you a drink at the next JRC meeting that he doesn't endorse McCain (and not even because I necessarily think you're wrong - but, heck, it will give me an excuse to buy you a drink).
Derek: I agree that Obama may be less likely to pass amnesty than McCain - but not because Obama is any less pro-amnesty. (He too addressed La Raza a year or two ago.) I think he will be less successful because Republicans (and populist Democrats in the House) will more readily oppose Obama on the issue, not because Obama will less likely attempt it.
What I don't understand is why so many 'conservatives' (talk radio and other more mainstream outlets) completely disparage McCain as being just as liberal as Obama and Clinton, but then proceed to say that 'Oh, well of course I will vote for him.' This idea that 'Well you can't have a perfect candidate' is ridiculous. They tossed Ron Paul to the side solely because of his stance on the war, meanwhile he was by far the best candidate (even if you agree with the war). This 'lesser of two evils' nonsense is incoherent. If you vote for McCain you are responsible for all of the damage he will do regardless of who else is running. How can anything ever be done to reverse the current state of affairs if people keep choosing the 'lesser of two evils.' The argument itself is fundamentally unprincipled. Why should I care whether McCain or Obama or Clinton are elected when they are all essentially the same?
As far as Pat is concerned, perhaps he feels that it is imperative to eventually come down on someone's side. This country has this twisted notion that voting is some sacred act in itself irrespective of the candidate to whom the vote goes. Frankly, though, at this point in time coming down on no one's side is the best course of action. Any 'conservative' who votes for McCain should never be allowed to complain about the current state of American politics again.
Mr. Richert @8:
You stated: "The second-best explanation is that Pat loves politics and can’t stand not to be in the game. It’s one thing for him to go third party, because, as a candidate, he’s still in the game; but if he endorses a third party, fewer national media outlets are going to call on him for his thoughts. (And don’t discount the idea that he actually thought he could win as a third-party candidate, but he doesn’t think anyone else can, so voting for a third party is throwing your vote away.)
And last, I’m afraid, is a certain nationalist streak in Pat that is truly nationalism and not patriotism (though I think he is mainly a patriot, not a nationalist, despite his preference for the latter term). Whatever else the Republicans may be, they are the nationalist party."
I think this is a bit childish and falls generally into the form of blogging recently shredded by Dr. Fleming. Its one thing to back up these statements with some level of facts. Your post seems to imply that Pat Buchanan is so vain that he won't endorse the right candidate simply because it will reduce his air-time. Then, again without providing some substantial proof, you state that while he believes he could win, he doesn't believe anyone else could. On what grounds do you base these assertions?
I'll be as disappointed as the next person if Mr. Buchanan endorses McCain, and it may be likely that he will. Imputing petty reasons for doing so, however, is uncharitable and unbecoming of a gentleman.
God Bless.
Edward @#14
"How can anything ever be done to reverse the current state of affairs if people keep choosing the ‘lesser of two evils.’ The argument itself is fundamentally unprincipled. Why should I care whether McCain or Obama or Clinton are elected when they are all essentially the same?"
Exactly right. The current hand wringing and angst over Clinton, Obama or McCain is like telling a man on death's door that traditional burial is a thing of the past and he must now choose between being picked clean by vultures, drug away by wolves or devoured by maggots. Better to go like Socrates and take the hemlock instead of endorsing poppycock ! IMO
Melchior Cano (@15):
Your post seems to imply that Pat Buchanan is so vain that he won’t endorse the right candidate simply because it will reduce his air-time. Then, again without providing some substantial proof, you state that while he believes he could win, he doesn’t believe anyone else could.
It's not vanity; it's love of the game. Those who know him better than I say the same thing. And as for the question of whether he could win, I actually agree with the assessment that I suggested he holds: I thought that he had a better chance of winning in 2000 than any third-party candidate has of winning today. Sorry; that doesn't rise to the level of proof. On the other hand, I wasn't attempting to prove anything, but simply to offer a response to Robert Reavis.
By the way, I served on Pat's Illinois Steering Committee in 2000. I have no desire to impute "petty reasons" to him or to be uncharitable, and that certainly wasn't my intention.
I look forward to reading your own response to Mr. Reavis's question.
Touché, sir. I was unaware that you served on Pat's Illinois Steering Committee in 2000 or that those points were made by way of your own thinking. I clearly misinterpreted the meaning of your post and apologize. By way of explanation, I was offering that "defense" of Pat because many commentators (not authors) on this journal seem to take a keen delight in throwing a little mud Pat's direction.
Tua Frater in Christo
Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) proved time and again that elections are won by pandering to the white male vote. I think Billary is smart enough -- or at least Southern enough to know this. On the other hand, Obama is little more than the hand-picked bum-boy of the leftie Chicago radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and is either not smart enough -- or else living in their dream world -- to cotton on to that harsh reality.
As the days go by we learn more and more about Barry Hussein's own bigotry against the white working class, his petulance over remarks about his big ears, and a general shallowness of intellect. Coming to think of it, a black candidate should try to avoid using "change" as a slogan because it makes voters think he wants a buck fifty to score a bottle of Steel Reserve.
So what does that leave us with? John McCain of the Keating Five scandal who stood before the Conservative Political Action Conference and in essence promised to crack heads in a new improved police state. He was applauded, but probably only by the college students he trucked in to support him. Seeing as how I'm stuck choosing between the Stupid Party, the Evil Party and wasting my vote, I guess I'll vote Libertarian -- again. I'd prefer to vote for Pat!
@ 18
A minor, very minor, correction: I believe that should be Tuus Frater in Christo, not Tua.
Scott @8. You hit the nail squarely on Mr. Buchanan's unfortunate tendency to support the Republican candidate.
But his endorsing McCain will certainly be no worse than endorsing Bush in '04.
Mr. Roberts, I agree with your point regarding how, at least in the House, Republicans and conservative/populist Democrats will unite to fight any sort of amnesty. I would also add that a President Obama will spend much of his energy in attempting to pass some sort of universal health coverage plan, leaving little time for immigration. Universal health coverage and a national health insurance plan are the next logical steps for the Left.
Too bad Pat spent his arrows in 2000. If he had sat it out, he might have done better than Ron Paul this time around in obtaining the GOP nomination (notwithstanding the last 12 years of anti-Buchanan propaganda from the neoconservative pundits). A strength of Buchanan (lacking in Paul) was Buchanan's ability to obtain votes from the religious and mainstream conservatives. Buchana's strategy of "steering towards the right" in 1996 proved more successful than Ron Paul's 2008 strategy of straddling the middle in the hope of attracting disgruntled leftist voters. Also, Buchanan's frankness on issues like free trade (vis-a-vis Paul's convoluted responses on "real free trade" versus "managed trade," which 99% of voters do not understand) made him popular among populist conservatives.
Pat's problem is that to appear in the national media he must take liberalism seriously.