NY Times Bigotry Test
NY TIMES BIGOTRY TEST . . .
(To see if you suffer from the
Dreadfully Contagious “Bradley Effect”)***
BEFORE YOU VOTE—TAKE IT
NOTE: And before you read this article, take note it is a re-print of the final article to post on the formerly Democratic–formerly “liberal”–now closed DEMOCRATSWRITE.COM website. This piece was written by Dusty Schoch, Managing Editor of DeclaringIndependents.com at a time (August 16, 2008) he was foreign policy editor for Democratswrite.com. By hitting the link to DI’s “About Us” page, you can read all about the reasons this article is appearing here (on DI) and its writer is no longer there (with DW). As you may have gleaned already, it was all about declaring independence from things like….Well, you read the articles and decide for yourself. The article immediately following is followed immediately by another, which read in combination with the present, will pretty much tell it all. Let the music of liberty and independence play on…
Now, here’s the article entitled “NY Times Bigotry Test” as it appeared previously on Democratswrite.come…a North Carolina blog, which for reasons which will become apparent, is no longer. The blog was shut down by its owner and founder before the second article (next trailing) was published (i.e., entitled: “Not All White Voters Who Fail to Support Obama Are Racist”, which article was co-written as a point-counterpoint piece by “Bobby Dees” (lead article writer) and Leonard Carrier and Dusty Schoch (writing counter-points).
***By the way, the “Bradley Effect” for those who haven’t heard, is the neo-con neology and buzzword for that potentially fatal disease of the human hypocriticus closetus which Republicans hope will infect presidential voters everywhere this year…as it did in California in 1982, when voters were polled going into their curtained booths as being 60 percent in favor of a black governor (Tom Bradley), and somehow exited having elected another good ol white boy.
NY TIMES BIGOTRY TEST
Before You Vote, Take It!
By Dusty Schoch, DW Foreign-policy editor.
August 16, 2008
I just read in the NY Times that a black woman gave birth to a white child. Call Guinness! That’s amazing! No, rather, that’s impossible…..Isn’t it? Or is it possibly illegal?
I lied for a reason. There was no NY Times article. But black women have been giving birth to white children in America forever. Just ask Thomas Jefferson.
But before I get to the point, ask yourself another question: If I’d said the Times published a story of a white woman giving birth to a black child, be honest–wouldn’t your reaction have been… “so what’s new?”
Why is it white women can have “black” babies and black women can’t have “white?” I’ll submit to you it has nothing to do with the pigment mix of the bi-racial baby. It has to do with prejudice, discrimination, bias, bigotry, hypocrisy – YOURS AND MINE. Yeah, mea culpa. If I didn’t suffer from the same knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) reaction, I wouldn’t be writing.
The relevance? Couldn’t be more vital to us as Americans. There’s an election coming and there’s no telling how many red state rednecks will vote for a statistically-dead and intellectually-inferior white man just because he’s white. Again–jerk reactions. In Jefferson’s time there were state laws (“anti miscegenation”) against whites marrying blacks that persisted until 1967. This prejudice is culturally hardwired in ALL of us. The NY Times test you just flunked proves it.
My point? Closeted bigotry is splitting the Democratic Party and dividing America. Obama is not only the better man, he’ll unite our racially-sick country because he’s neither black nor white. He’s both. His parents were color blind and their child was produced by the only power capable of uniting and saving us—love. And face it: Anybody Jesse Jackson despises can’t be all bad.
So watch out! – - Especially you white Southern good ol boys… If you flunked this test (and the majority of you sure as h___ did), you’re most likely infected with the Bradley Effect, that closeted neo-con bug that will creep through the curtain of your voting booth with you—hiding inside of you in your hypocriticus closetus– and do its utmost to turn every patriotic, pragmatic and independent platelet in your red-blooded American body WASP white.
“BOBBY DEES” SAYS:
Not All White Voters Who Fail to Support Obama Are Racist !
By: Bobby Dees – with serious rebuttals from Leonard Carrier and Dusty Schoch (trailing, in tandem). Please don’t read one without reading them all.
There have been recent charges by certain political pundits to the effect that, if you are a white American and particularly a white Democrat and do not support Barack Obama, you are probably a racist. (See Democratswrite 8-25-2008) This premise goes against Obama’s campaign assertion that America is not about red states and blue states, but is about the United States of America. Obama advocates that Americans need not be so polarized by political party loyalty. Therefore, it would appear Obama believes it is acceptable to not always vote solely along party lines and all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, have to earn each individual’s vote.
To recklessly label someone a racist due to his political opinion is ignorant and lazy. After someone is called a racist, that usually ends all political debate.
It may not even be a true statement that Obama does not have the support of White Americans in the Democratic Party. A recent poll showed that almost 80% of Democrats are supporting Obama.
It should be noted that in North Carolina in the 2004 presidential election, white candidate John Kerry only garnered 27% of the white vote in North Carolina. Obviously, the 73% of the white voters who did not vote for Kerry in North Carolina did not vote against him due to the fact he was a white man. In all likelihood, they voted against Kerry because they did not support his policies. Therefore, it is extremely reckless to label someone a racist who does not support Obama. Obama is currently leading in many of the states Democrats have recently been winning in presidential elections and is behind in historically Republican presidential states.
At the risk of being labeled a racist, for historical purposes and for legitimate discussion, I will attempt to articulate what are some of the problems if there are problems with Obama and his candidacy.
The first problem Obama has is that he lacks a substantive message. His political message is of change and hope with his message having no real specifics. The greatest part of Obama’s political message is about fancy words and well delivered political speeches. Watching his campaign it appears we have ventured back to the flair of the disco days of the seventies where the production is more important than the actual message. I would suggest that it would help Obama’s campaign if he would attempt to have a more intimate one on one conversation with voters. There are issues in which the two presidential candidates differ such as the Iraq War, off shore drilling, capital gains tax, employee taxes, and tax cuts. Each voter will have to decide which candidate’s political position he supports.
Many Americans could have a real problem with Obama’s lack of experience. One thing that is quite troublesome is that he began running for president immediately after winning his current Senate seat. Failure to begin or to fulfill his Senate obligation could be interpreted as a lack of loyalty to the voters of Illinois that elected the candidate and suggest out of control ambition on the part of Obama. It should be noted that many North Carolina citizens resented John Edwards not fulfilling his first United States Senate term prior to beginning his run for the Presidency of the United States.
Obama does not have a sterling work history. He was a state legislator for the state of Illinois which is certainly not that impressive. He has been criticized for refusing to vote yes or no on many issues while in the state legislature of Illinois and casting only a present vote refusing to put his political positions on recorded record in order that he could latter be held accountable for his vote. Obama is 47 years old and his lack of a significant work history is troublesome. Unlike the other presidential candidate, he has no military background.
Obama’s former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been widely criticized for the publications and philosophies advocated by the church Obama attended for twenty years in Chicago, Illinois. Many of the church messages from the pulpit have been considered by many to be racist, anti -America and sexist. Obama’s explanation that he was unaware of the controversial preaching’s of his church after attending the church for 20 years has caused him to lose creditability with many voters.
There are other things that have brought scrutiny to Obama such as a questionable land deal with a since convicted felon Tony Rezko from whom Obama purchased the lot adjoining Obama’s current residence and his association with controversial former radical Weatherman activist Bill Ayers.
In discussing what harmed the personal opinion of Obama with certain Democrats, you only need to look to the organization Moveon.org. Moveon is an organization that was design to promote Democratic causes and is an organization that solicits Democrats all over the country for political donations. During the presidential primaries, Moveon announced that it was solely supporting Obama for president over Hillary Clinton and Moveon began promoting Obama’s candidacy over fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton. Moveon used financial resources that it had obtained from Democrats all over the country to defeat and destroy a fellow Democrat without any objection from Obama. Moveon released a valuable 1.7 million Democratic e-mail list to the Obama campaign. These actions violated a sense of fairness and did serious harm to unity of the Democratic Party.
Many voters opinion of Barack Obama has been harmed with the ruthless one sided pro Obama blogs like Daily Kos and the Huffington Post whose primary duties have been to attempt to seek and to destroy Obama’s political opponents. These blogs rendered ruthless daily attacks on fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, causing great resentment within the Democratic Party.
The national media has been pro Obama to a fault. Rightfully or wrongfully, Obama’s popularity may have been hurt by a general feeling of unfairness of the national media in favor of Obama. A recent Rasmussen poll demonstrated that 51% of those polled believe the national media is attempting to have Obama elected president of the United Sates with its biased political coverage. Many of the national media attacks against Hillary Clinton have been considered vicious and sexist by many Democrats.
Many believe Obama’s followers went too far when they accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of being racist and running a racist campaign against Obama. Many Hillary Clinton supporters believe that the Democratic national committee members went out out of their way to assure that Obama was the Democratic nominee.
Again, labeling someone a racist has no benefit. Voters have many issues to shift through prior to deciding who will be their presidential choice in the upcoming election. There are many issues that will decide this presidential contest other than a candidate’s race.
COUNTERPOINTS BY LEONARD CARRIER
Bobby Dees makes claims in his article of nonsupport for Barack Obama that either have no basis or are highly prejudicial. The first of these claims is that certain “political pundits” have charged that if you are white and don’t support Obama you’re probably a racist. I challenge Bobby Dees to provide the names of such pundits. I know of no one who has brought forth such charges. Consequently, I think that Dees is guilty of advancing a “straw man” argument, one in which an outrageously false claim is made only to be knocked down.
After presenting his “straw man” argument, Dees articulates what he considers to be some of the “problems” with Obama’s candidacy, the first of which being that he “lacks a substantive message.” Although Republican strategists have also made this claim, it is blatantly false. Obama has detailed proposals on ending the Iraq occupation, shoring up Social Security, providing a universal health plan, and improving public education. Anyone who is not lazy can find these proposals on Obama’s website. In addition, Obama has asked ordinary voters to submit their ideas for planks in the Democratic National Platform—the first time ordinary voters have been asked for their input in a party platform. I personally attended one of these neighborhood meetings, and our ideas were submitted to Obama’s campaign. To accuse someone of not having specific plans solely because he is a fine orator borders on being idiotic.
Dees next mentions Obama’s purported “lack of experience.” Again, this is another Republican “talking point,” but it is clearly false. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had less administrative experience when they were elected than Obama has. Obama had years of experience in the Illinois legislature before becoming a Senator. To say, as Dees does, that someone presently in office is being “disloyal” to his constituency by running for another office would disqualify everyone seeking a higher position. Certainly, Alaska Republicans do not feel betrayed because their governor agreed to be McCain’s running mate after serving only eighteen months in office.
Another of Dees’ claims is that Obama lacks a “sterling work history.” There is again no basis for this claim. The citizens of the State of Illinois must have appreciated his work in the State legislature, because they elected him to be their senator. Of course, there is a perception in the South that blacks are lazy, and I hope that Dees has not been influenced by this misperception in making such a claim. At 47 years old, Obama is older than John F. Kennedy was when he took office. To reject someone because he has “no military background” would also be to reject Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton. Dees must also remember that fine military officers make bad presidents, as witness Ulysses S. Grant.
Dees also trots out the canard about Obama’s being a member of Jeremiah Wright’s congregation, smearing both Wright, the former U.S. marine, and Obama at a second remove. This is “guilt by association,” because Obama has never parroted what Wright said. Wright also is maligned, because snippets of his sermons were tailored to make him look unpatriotic. Anyone listening to the whole of Wright’s sermons would not be taken in by this flimsy hatchet job. More guilt by association charges involve Obama’s supposed dealings with Rezko and Ayers. Anyone who has played the game, “six degrees of separation” would know that you could connect anyone with anyone else in the world, through intermediaries, despite the fact that the principals have nothing in common.
Dees next blasts the political action organization, MoveOn.org for taking sides in the Democratic primary race, and then criticizes Obama for not objecting to MoveOn’s decision. This is a stupid objection. Why should a candidate object to an independent organization’s support over a rival? If the shoe were on the other foot, and MoveOn had supported Hillary Clinton, should Clinton be blamed if she refused that support? I don’t think so. Dees also claims that Daily Kos and the Huffington Post have offended voters by supporting Obama over his rivals. Again, why should this support in any way be blamed on Obama? Does Dees expect a candidate to disavow his supporters? If so, why would he be running for office at all?
Dees next blames the “national media” for being biased in support of Obama. This is another Republican talking point, but it has no basis in reality. The Wall Street Journal has been steadfastly conservative in its viewpoint, and even the New York Times has featured conservative columnists such as William Kristol and David Brooks. Turn on television to Fox News and you will get biased reporting in favor of Republicans. Most of the attacks on Hillary Clinton were made by these conservative journalists.
Finally, Dees says that “many believe Obama’s followers went too far” in accusing the Clintons of running a racist campaign against Obama. I ask, who are these “many” who believe these things? And who are these “followers” making such accusations? And why is all this speculation in any way an objection to Obama’s candidacy?
To sum up, I believe that Bobby Dees has issued a cranky criticism of Obama tricked out as a defense against being called a racist. I don’t know whether Bobby Dees is a racist or not. Perhaps he’s just still sore that Hillary didn’t get the Democratic nod. But whatever the reason he’s angry with Obama, he’d better get over it. Otherwise he’s in for four more years of the policies of George W. Bush.
ADDENDUM BY DUSTY…
(a.k.a. – the “certain political pundit”)
When I forwarded “Bobby Dees’ ” slam on Obama to Len Carrier, I rather suspected (and forecast to “Dees”) that Len would take him to task on his flimsy, Republican talking- point rant on Obama. Len went much further, I’d say, and pretty much blew Bobby Dees out of the water on all points. But I’ve concluded that, in spite of Len’s logical thrashings of Dees, he still needs a more out-right form of literal spanking. I’m honored and pleased to supply it here. He in fact has challenged me to “do my best”. So here goes:
I’ll cut to the chase and cover the points underlying the “issues” pointed and counter-pointed by Dees and Carrier, respectively.
First of all, “Bobby Dees” does not exist. “Dees” is a pseudonym behind which our DW founder and editor hides in order to protect himself (for unknown reasons) in the expression of his political views. I can’t—and won’t—go farther than that lest I risk revealing Dee’s true identity to the few who haven’t already figured it out. But I will say before closing the issue, that any blogger or publisher who won’t sign his true name to his public expressions of opinion clearly lacks the courage of his convictions.
Having said that, I will add that “Bobby Dees” has blatantly hoisted himself on his own petard. No one mentioned him in particular in the article I wrote and posted on this site on August 25, 2008, entitled “NY Times Bigotry Test”. It is evident that Dees took the test, flunked it miserably, and then—recognizing himself in the portrait of bigotry I painted– got defensive enough to write a diatribe against the man towards whom he is in fact racially biased. If the shoes didn’t fit, why did Bobby Dees put them on and squeal so loudly of the pain (of being purported accused of racial bigotry).
I’ll tell it like it is. Dees founded the DW site as an open forum for the purported sharing and debating of freely-expressed political thoughts and proposals. To his close associates, however, Dees has many times informed everyone that he is a big-D Democratic Party member and supporter and that he further intended to maintain the DW site for the pursuit and accomplishment of Democratic (big-D) goals, agenda and political candidates.
Consistent with this end, Dees endorsed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and pretty much steered away from all comments on Obama until it became a fait accompli that he had his Party’s nomination. At that point, Dees amazingly and (to all the DW Staff writers and contributors with whom I have conversed, saving Bobby Dees himself) began publishing Republican-sponsored talking points slamming Obama. This in spite of purportedly being a staunch Clinton supporter and despite Hillary’s Convention-declared call for her supporters to endorse and support Obama—without question or reservation, because they shared essentially the same values and political platforms. Hillary and Bill Clinton had buried the hatchets of earlier dissentions with Obama, but somehow, Bobby Dees could not and still can not follow suit. Why not?
None of Dee’s criticisms of Obama are either original or meaningful, and Len Carrier’s dissection of them point for point demonstrate just that. What conclusion does that leave this writer with? – With the conclusion that Bobby Dees is in fact the present bane of the southern Democratic (predominantly male) voter. The bane of the Democratic party because, when all the smoke is cleared away from the things he says about Obama (merely warmed-over regurgitations of Republican party talking points), one motive for opposing Obama remains as the likely cause of Dee’s anti-Obama defection from his former big-D status as a pro-active Democratic supporter. Maybe the motive is subconscious and maybe it is felt and yet intentionally repressed (closeted) by a turn-coat Democrat who doesn’t want to publicly appear to be the bigot he is. Only Dees himself can answer that question. But as an attorney I have been taught that people in public positions of influence and authority are and morally should be judged on the basis of appearance. One who assigns to himself loyalty to the Democratic party and its policies and ideals and who takes it upon himself to become a public (on the internet) spokesman for that Party should avoid at all costs avoid the appearance of impropriety—in this case– of being a bigot.
I confessed to my own knee-jerk bias in the article I published on August 25th. In fact, I reflexively (early-on when he declared it) shared with Obama himself the view of him as a “black” man, although he is neither black nor white, but a genetic amalgam of both. I used the example of the NY Times “Bigotry Test” (which I contrived for the purpose of demonstrating the danger of bias lurking in us all) challenging everyone to consider why they (all of us) are willing to accept the fact that a white woman can give birth (as did Obama’s mother) to a black child, while no one in America would readily accept the reciprocal situation: i.e., that a black woman might give birth to a white child.
What has caused Bobby Dees, Democratic Party zealot (his entire life), to publicly write articles the natural result of which is to turn the opinions of readers everywhere against the now officially-nominated Democratic candidate for president? I will not here write at length extolling the many virtues of Obama or (because Len Carrier has already done it in spades) compose counter-points for Bobby Dee’s banal Obama bashings, which are clearly now that which I will here denominate them – the APPARENT rantings of an enraged southern bigot, who’d rather America suffer another 8 years of ruinous Republican war-mongering, depression-precipitating rule than elect an African American to the nation’s highest office.
Bobby, if the shoe fits, wear it; own up to it. But don’t expect those around you to withhold their expressions of disappointment, revulsion and contempt. Your negative rantings on the subject of Obama constitute a turncoat betrayal of your espoused membership in the Democratic Party and create the impression (the appearance as opposed to the certainty , because only you know what truly lurks in your mind and heart) of being the bigot of which I wrote on August 25, 2008. I concede that it well may be the case that you don’t have a bigoted bone in your abundantly southern body; but I will maintain with the same solemn degree of conviction that you have certainly given the world abundant cause to say you have given the appearance of being among that element that has the greatest potential for dividing the Democratic Party to such an extent that that Party’s candidate might well lose in the November election. The appearance of the self-righteous, hypocritical and closeted Caucasian southern bigot.
By the way, Bobby Dees, there was one point Len Carrier didn’t make that’s worthy of mention regarding your absurd and impertinent arguments in Obama’s regard. You point to John Kerry’s failure in NC to get the presidential votes, noting that 73% voted against him. From that irrelevant stat, you extrapolate the most amazing leap over logic I’ve ever tried to decipher: You say the 73 percent who voted against him did not do so based on racial bias. Duhhhhh! From that you argue that we should not conclude that a registered white Democrat (such as yourself) who intends to vote for McCain (which you obviously do, or you are a certifiable nut case for campaigning against your own candidate) has chosen to do so because of racial bias. That dog, Bobby, not only don’t hunt – it don’t exist. There is no argument launched…no syllogism…no…anything. The 73% who voted against Kerry were clearly voting for Bush because they are Republicans, voting for the Republican candidate. In your case, Bobby, and in the cases of god-only-knows how many others of your recessive ilk, you are a career card-carrying big-D Democrat who has defected to the Republican side in the most crucial presidential campaign in American history. Neither with your righteous denials nor your logically-vacuous arguments will you continue to fool anyone about your reasons for slamming Barack Obama.
Don’t you just love freedom of expression, Bobby Dees? Why don’t you come out of at least one of your closets and admit to the public who in fact you are? Maybe more of us would listen to (and perhaps be more apt to believe in) you. What are you afraid of, big boy?
September 10, 2008
Our Most Formidable Enemy is War