the race card / the turnabout tactic

Rich
Member Offline
Rick Davis, chair of McCain's campaign, accused Barack Obama of playing the race card when he said he does not look like the presidents on dollar bills. Am I the only one who thinks that Davis's statement is a much more blatant intrusion of race into the campaign than Obama's remark? A favorite tool of Rove and his disciples is to make a point by accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you are doing. Whenever they want to politicize an issue, for example, they accuse the Democrats of politicizing it.

They want to make sure that anyone uncomfortable about electing a black president is reminded of that discomfort. And how do they do that in a way that affords deniability? They claim Obama is the one who is doing it!

They have used this turnabout tactic time and again, and I don't think the press has ever called them on it.
Anonymous
Rich wrote:Rick Davis, chair of McCain's campaign, accused Barack Obama of playing the race card when he said he does not look like the presidents on dollar bills. Am I the only one who thinks that Davis's statement is a much more blatant intrusion of race into the campaign than Obama's remark? A favorite tool of Rove and his disciples is to make a point by accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you are doing. Whenever they want to politicize an issue, for example, they accuse the Democrats of politicizing it.

They want to make sure that anyone uncomfortable about electing a black president is reminded of that discomfort. And how do they do that in a way that affords deniability? They claim Obama is the one who is doing it!

They have used this turnabout tactic time and again, and I don't think the press has ever called them on it.


Hope you're not losing sleep about it - this is only the beginning of campaign season. Your panties are really going to be in a bunch by the end of September. Hope you can take it.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Hope you're not losing sleep about it - this is only the beginning of campaign season. Your panties are really going to be in a bunch by the end of September. Hope you can take it.


You seem pretty pleased at the prospect of McCain dragging the campaign into the gutter. Is that what Republicans stand for these days?

I doubt Rich gets his panties in a bunch very often. Can't speak for his boxers, however.

Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Hope you're not losing sleep about it - this is only the beginning of campaign season. Your panties are really going to be in a bunch by the end of September. Hope you can take it.


You seem pretty pleased at the prospect of McCain dragging the campaign into the gutter. Is that what Republicans stand for these days?

I doubt Rich gets his panties in a bunch very often. Can't speak for his boxers, however.



Pretty pleased - no - just realistic. I'm a registered Republican, and I've carried my ACLU card for 28 years. I am also a member of the Sierra Club and the NRA. So, as a Republican I would have to say that dragging campaigns into the gutter is probably not what I stand for. I do however expect people to understand that this is a campaign with many issues at stake - important issues that should not be decided by who wins the popularity contest, but by who has the resources to make the best decisions for this country. While some the liberals are worrying like a bunch of sissies over who plays the "race card", I am more worried about who is bundling for Obama and what that is going to mean if he is elected. There is no free lunch on Capitol Hill, and those people will expect to be paid.

I really don't care what names they call each other in the campaign, I am worried about the power behind the scenes, and you should be too.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
I really don't care what names they call each other in the campaign, I am worried about the power behind the scenes, and you should be too.


You are apparently a person of many contradictions. You care about the bundlers behind Obama,but not those behind McCain? You want to focus on issues, but don't think its important when candidates head for the gutter?

McCain decided to go negative on Obama. Comparing someone to Paris Hilton is not the most effective means of addressing important issues. It is, however, a pretty good way to distract people from the fact that you really have nothing to offer. Similarly, calling other posters sissies and running down a list of organizations to which you belong does not effectively address any issues either. Other than bundlers behind Obama and the "power behind the scenes" (both of which I assume are the same in your mind), what issues matter to you? How does name calling and attack ads help draw attention to those issues? If, to the contrary, attack ads divert attention from "important issues", why wouldn't you oppose them?




Rich
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:While some the liberals are worrying like a bunch of sissies over who plays the "race card", I am more worried about who is bundling for Obama and what that is going to mean if he is elected. There is no free lunch on Capitol Hill, and those people will expect to be paid.


TURNABOUT, in spades! Perhaps it was habit rather than intent, but notice that you accused me of raising the race card as though Davis never said a word. And Democrats are the ones banlrolled by the lobbies, not the Republicans whose answer to all energy problems just happen to be things that will boost oil company profits. I am more convinced than ever that to learn what Republicans have up their sleeves, you should always look at what they accuse Democrats of.

By the way, thanks, Jeff, for defending my underwear, but I confess, Rovian tactics do get my jockeys in an uproar. I still think the intent of the "celebrity" ad was to put Obama's face next to those two blonds. Never underestimate subliminal suggestion!
Anonymous
What about McCain's ad accusing Obama of relying on "Foreign" oil -- with the word "Foreign" right next to his head? Do you not think there was, at a minimum, a double message in play there? Most people refer to it as "overseas oil" or "oil from overseas".

And what about the RNC's latest ad: "Both ways Barack." Now, this I may be reading too much into, as there is no question about Obama's sexuality. Nevertheless, that phrase immediately connotes something less than wholesome in my mind. And I don't think my mind is in the gutter to start with. I need to be pushed.

Bottom line is that there is simply no innuedo, no attack. no strategy beneath the Republicans.
Rich
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:What about McCain's ad accusing Obama of relying on "Foreign" oil -- with the word "Foreign" right next to his head? Do you not think there was, at a minimum, a double message in play there? Most people refer to it as "overseas oil" or "oil from overseas".

And what about the RNC's latest ad: "Both ways Barack." Now, this I may be reading too much into, as there is no question about Obama's sexuality. Nevertheless, that phrase immediately connotes something less than wholesome in my mind. And I don't think my mind is in the gutter to start with. I need to be pushed.

Bottom line is that there is simply no innuedo, no attack. no strategy beneath the Republicans.

By the way, wasn't there a time when Obama commented on one of McCain's flubs, saying McCain was confused, and McCain's people immediately accused Obama of attacking McCain's age? Isn't that "Playing the age card"? And it worked -- Obama's campaign has kept hands off all the McCain gaffes since then. One more example showing that you can uncover Republican tricks by looking cartefully at their charges against Democrats.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
And what about the RNC's latest ad: "Both ways Barack." Now, this I may be reading too much into, as there is no question about Obama's sexuality. Nevertheless, that phrase immediately connotes something less than wholesome in my mind. And I don't think my mind is in the gutter to start with. I need to be pushed.


The problem is that your mind is not far enough in the gutter. A guy called Larry Sinclair has been running around saying that he took drugs and had sex with Obama. Sinclair even appeared at the National Press Club, but got arrested by the DC police on an outstanding warrant before he left. The guy is a well-known liar, but has become a hero to the anti-Obama crowd. One correction, the ad you describe was produced by Let Freedom Ring, a band of right-wing nutjobs, rather than the RNC.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Pretty pleased - no - just realistic. I'm a registered Republican, and I've carried my ACLU card for 28 years. I am also a member of the Sierra Club and the NRA. So, as a Republican I would have to say that dragging campaigns into the gutter is probably not what I stand for. I do however expect people to understand that this is a campaign with many issues at stake - important issues that should not be decided by who wins the popularity contest, but by who has the resources to make the best decisions for this country. While some the liberals are worrying like a bunch of sissies over who plays the "race card", I am more worried about who is bundling for Obama and what that is going to mean if he is elected. There is no free lunch on Capitol Hill, and those people will expect to be paid. I really don't care what names they call each other in the campaign, I am worried about the power behind the scenes, and you should be too.

OMG! And I can't believe I'm writing this, but I AGREE with the so-called "contradictions" poster. I'm a self-confessed Obama-Mamma from way back and born & raised Blue, BUT - 15 years in DC definitely make me worry about all kinds of power behind every scene. You never know until their butt's in the Oval Office.

I do have a crush on Obama. I'm just not 110% convinced he's lifelong-partner material. (Although I'd give a limb to have Michelle in my book club.) Not that I'd give McCain my number, I just agree that a big dose of salt is always needed when politics are involved. Not to mention a frequent change of underpants, errr, parties.

As to the race card, if there weren't a card, nobody would have to play it. Sissies, girly-men, Gray Panthers, Angry Black Women (like me), whomever. In this town, everybody's got an angle to work.

Now how the heck do I get an inaugural ball ticket?
Anonymous
Rich wrote:Rick Davis, chair of McCain's campaign, accused Barack Obama of playing the race card when he said he does not look like the presidents on dollar bills. Am I the only one who thinks that Davis's statement is a much more blatant intrusion of race into the campaign than Obama's remark? A favorite tool of Rove and his disciples is to make a point by accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you are doing. Whenever they want to politicize an issue, for example, they accuse the Democrats of politicizing it.

They want to make sure that anyone uncomfortable about electing a black president is reminded of that discomfort. And how do they do that in a way that affords deniability? They claim Obama is the one who is doing it!

They have used this turnabout tactic time and again, and I don't think the press has ever called them on it.


And exactly what you think Obama meant when he said that they want us to believe that "...he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"?

How else could you possible take that? I'm sincerely curious. Because before the media grabbed it I immediately thought he was "playing the race card".
Anonymous
...what DO you think...

sorry, I'm not awake yet.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Obama was referring to this McCain ad that ran a month before Obama's remark. Obama was speaking to a 98% white audience in Missouri -- not exactly the place one would play the race card:



Anonymous
Ramussen: Only 22% Say McCain Ad Racist, But ...ill Comment That Way

Guess I'm a member of the majority in seeing Obama's remarks as being racist and not McCains.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:Ramussen: Only 22% Say McCain Ad Racist, But ...ill Comment That Way

Guess I'm a member of the majority in seeing Obama's remarks as being racist and not McCains.


According to the page to which you link, the respondents based their perceptions on news coverage of the commercial and Obama's statement. That makes sense because initially McCain hardly ran the ad -- he depended on the news media to disseminate it -- and Obama's statement was only heard live by his audience. So, the bias of the news media would have been perpetuated in the poll. For instance, how many reports of Obama's statement have you seen that included a mention of the commercial I posted above?

More importantly, McCain has not and would not ever be openly racist. Instead, he includes "dog whistles" which are only understood by specific audiences. To the majority, including two sexually-available white woman in an ad attacking a black candidate is not racist. But, to a particular audience -- such as that targeted by an ad run against Harold Ford in Tennessee which included a white woman asking Ford to call her -- the message is clear. To quote the following spoof ad, Obama wants to f*ck your sister:



Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: