the black tea partier. Yeah he does exist.

[BmoreAkuma]

Ok if that is the case of it being "proud americans" then a number of the tea partiers need to stuff racist assholes like that out of their rallies. If you see someone with a racist sign and you are tea partier but then dont say anything about, it just looks bad.

[michaelintp]

Thank you Redjack and BmoreAkuma.  That's two 'no' votes so far.  Anyone else like to weigh in? 

Does the CNN article alter your opinion in the least?  If yes, what got you to thinking?  If no, why not?

[Francisco]

At least they are smart enough not to insult and/or harass the "black" guy reporting with the camera and the microphone.

[michaelintp]

Shannon Travis is not a Tea Partier.  He was, I believe, attempting to engage in objective journalism, with the primary theme of his article being that viewing the Tea Party Movement through the lens of prejudiced stereotypes is both wrong and inaccurate.  That you cannot rely on the distorted picture painted by a few offensive incidents or signs, nor can you generalize from them.

Not that his article is not without some flaws.  At the outset he still refers to Conservatives as "angry" (the mantra in the mainstream media) when they express strong views.  Those on the Left, in contrast, are often called "passionate" or "outraged" or "showing solidarity" when they express views in a strong manner.  Also, I understand there is some question as to what really happened in D.C. with the slurs, whereas he states it as unambiguous fact.  But overall, I was impressed with the degree Travis is really trying to be objective here.

As to the signs at Tea Party Rallies -- What he said is that there are "a few" signs that may be "offensive" to African-Americans.  He does not describe those signs.  Did they contain outright racist slurs?  Or just parodies of Obama (as the Joker, for example), no more offensive than the signs we saw during Leftist demonstrations against Bush?  Be that as it may, it is important to remember that the content of signs is "unregulated."  There is no central authority passing on the content of signs.  From the Tea Party website that I saw, the suggested text for signs does not contain any reference to race.  You nor I know if some folks at a rally might have responded negatively to a truly offensive sign another person wrote, but even if they did, they would not have the authority to require the other person to tear up his sign.  Indeed, a major theme of the Tea Partiers is respect of the Constitution, including the First Amendment.  As mentioned earlier, when some pro-Obama activists tried to confront some Tea Partiers, my understanding is that the latter responded with applause and smiles, at this exercise of their opponents' First Amendment Rights.

Travis noted that nobody speaking at these rallies has said anything that can even remotely be considered racist.  He then goes on to describe the message and demeanor of the vast majority of those who participate in the rallies, and (while you might not agree with them) it is a very positive picture.

It seems that you guys are jumpting through hoops to disregard the observations of a professional journalist who has been traveling with the Tea Party Movement from city to city precisely in order to get a realistic picture of what this Movement is all about, and to report that to the public on CNN.

Your responses reveal why some of you think it is so hard for people to overcome negative prejudiced stereotypes of others.  Even in the face of strong evidence that those stereotypes are unwarranted, you're clinging to them yourselves.  

[Reginald Hudlin]

Michael, I've known really nice people who treated me very well (and this is before I was anyone remotely famous) who were prejudiced.  I've known people who treated me really well who were racist.  That's the wonderful, funny thing about people;  they don't fit into nice simple boxes. 

The Tea Party is clearly full of all types of people with different agendas who have united under a general anger with the current government.  Here's an interesting piece about them from the left winger site OSBORNE INK:



Capping a week of MSM rethinking on tea party coverage, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic asks whether conservatives have gone mad:

I want to find Republicans to take seriously, but it is hard. Not because they don’t exist — serious Republicans — but because, as Sanchez and others seem to recognize, they are marginalized, even self-marginalizing, and the base itself seems to have developed a notion that bromides are equivalent to policy-thinking, and that therapy is a substitute for thinking.

Bob Cesca responds to Ambinder by asserting that tea party activists are “afraid of no longer being a majority in America.” He’s right, of course. Referring once again to the Democracy Corps survey last October:

In our focus group discussions, we quickly noted how they routinely used plural first person pronouns to describe a group of individuals (including all those in the room but extending far beyond those walls) who share a set of beliefs, knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority of the country.

[...]
Conservative Republicans passionately believe that they represent a group of people who have been targeted by a popular culture and set of liberal elites – embodied in the liberal mainstream media – that mock their values and are actively working to advance the downfall of the things that matter most to them in their lives – their faith, their families, their country, and their freedom. (Emphasis mine)

Meanwhile, the internal contradictions of the tea party phenomenon are under increasing examination. For those who missed it, there was Jonathan Raban’s long and excellent insider-look at Nashville’s Tea Party Convention in the March 25th edition of New York Review of Books:

It’s one thing for pro-life evangelicals and secular libertarians to march shoulder to shoulder behind banners saying “Kill the Bill!” and “Oust the Marxist Usurper!” or displaying a portrait of Obama rouged up and kohled to look like Heath Ledger’s Joker in the Batman movie Dark Knight. It’s quite another to coop up the same people for three days in a hotel, where they must talk to each other through breakfast, lunch, and dinner. At the march on D.C., there were T-shirts proclaiming “I am John Galt” and “Atlas Has Shrugged” alongside others that said “Obama Spends—Jesus Saves” or had the legend “Yes, He Did” beneath a picture of Christ on the cross. At Opryland, devout, abstemious Christians were breaking bread with followers of Ayn Rand’s gospel of unbridled and atheistic self-interest. The convention, designed to unite the Tea Party movement, was helping to expose fundamental differences of belief and mindset between people who, before Nashville, had appeared as interchangeable members of a single angry crowd. (Emphasis mine)


Now we have a POLITICO-TargetPoint survey of Tax Day protesters on the National Mall shining a light on the split between Sarah Palin fans and the Ron Paul crowd. These two charismatic cults do not care for one another; thus the “movement” is all about identity politics, yet it cannot settle on a single identity. Remember the CPAC straw poll?

It’s a recipe for fail. Combined with the ineptitude of the national Republican Party, you have potential fiasco in the making.

[michaelintp]

Interesting article.  Other than his predictions, I can't say I disagree that there is diversity in the Tea Party crowd. Which is why the Left's attempt to negatively stereotype Tea Party Protesters is so stupid. What unites them is their opposition to where the Left is leading our country (for the many reasons, in my view not only legitimate concerns, but correct ones, that I have discussed on this Forum, which I need not repeat).

What the author doesn't acknowledge is that there is likely also a significant segment in the middle, perhaps the largest, like myself and my son, who are very concerned about values and fiscal responsibility and national defense, who are neither libertarian absolutists nor born-again Christians. That probably largest segment may be the glue that holds the movement together both this November and two years after that. Thus I am skeptical of his prediction that the entire movement will unravel.  Also, one could argue that the strength of a political movement is its ability to unite different segments of the electorate in the pursuit of common goals.  Presently, the focus is on the November elections. I'm not saying the author is wrong in his predictions, only time will tell, but I do think he is engaged in some wishful thinking at this point.

What amused me about the article was the following passage: "The Tea Party is clearly full of all types of people with different agendas who have united under a general anger with the current government."  Yep, always portrayed as "anger."  Not outrage at destructive policies or policies that will undermine our future, but instead .... just "anger."  There is a difference in the choice of these words. An intentional choice of words.  "Anger" is a term that focuses on the mind-set of the "angry" person (a negative term generally viewed as a bad character trait) whereas "concern" or "outrage" or "conviction" focuses the reader on the thing or things that the person is concerned or outraged about or positively believes in (and thus are more positive characterizations).  With Conservatives, in much of the Media, it is almost always portrayed as just "anger." "Anger, Anger, Anger." Funny. 

[michaelintp]

Michael,

Let me say something about black conservatives. To be respected, you've got to give respect, and that's something that many black conservatives have not done in regards to the black community. Supported by white right wing institutions, be it the Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, newspapers, FOX News, or other right wing organs many black conservatives lambaste the black community largely for the benefit of their white patrons instead of honestly trying to build bridges in the black community or using conservative solutions to address continuing community problems. Browbeating the group you say you want to convince to join your side is not the best approach.

So, what you call vilification, I call telling it like it is. Don't get me wrong, many liberal blacks are also supported by white patrons too, but at least the Democratic party has made symbolic gestures and thrown the occasional policy bone in the black community's direction. They have made an effort to at least speak the language of the community, if not fully understand its heart, respect its mind, or acknowledge, and value its soul. What has the GOP done, or the black conservatives, in particular, to garner the black vote? Merely called the GOP the party of Lincoln and that's that. They don't even talk about enterprise zones anymore, their one major urban initiative that seemed at least heartfelt though its effectiveness was doubtful. To be honest, I don't think a majority of white GOP politicos want black votes. They've had too much success playing of white fears about black people to really want black votes. Almost any attempt at outreach is to allay the concerns of some white independents about the GOP's specious racial past.

A few years ago I would've contended that the GOP would also feel Latino voters were more desired than black votes, because they could still use a modified Southern Strategy with Latinos to keep them separated from blacks, but with this hue and cry about immigration, I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Well, with the moderate, corporate side of the GOP I could see more interest in securing Latino votes because they are thinking long term. But the GOP moderates are receding into the background and allowing the louder, angrier, nativists among the GOP to emerge.

It's funny that many black conservatives and their white allies will say these people are being victims for being 'independent' and 'bold' bu turn a blind eye to any talk about the root causes of poverty or the idea that racism didn't end in 1965. The only black people who are victims are black conservatives. And for many white right wingers, IMO, the only true victims today are white folks. Now some might say its white working class folks, but I believe a lot of the GOP elite believe the white middle class and the white elite are the true victims. The white poor and working class are just chess pieces they move on a board.

And now with McConnell and Barbour and the Confederate veterans issue, it just shows how tone deaf the GOP continues to be regarding black people, and how some appear to be gleeful in dismissing black people-either their history or their concerns. Black support is strong for Obama because he is the first black president, but also because of his campaign positions, and the historical relationship the Democratic party has developed with the black community since the 1960s. Despite what Rush Limbaugh and others infer, blacks aren't mindless drones who vote based on race alone. Douglass Wilder, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton didn't get much black support in the Democratic primaries at all, and black people didn't bolt from the party when Jesse Jackson was passed over even for a VP nod in 84 and more importantly in 88. And Alan Keyes probably got zero to negative black support during his presidential runs. Who Obama was, what he represented, and what he seems to embody, inspired many African Americans to support him in record numbers. But they also gave strong support to Kerry, Gore, and Clinton before Obama.

I find it funny that some whites can easily see how blacks are always racially motivated, but can never fathom if they themselves are in turn, when it comes to politics or anything else. Some whites are quick to charge blacks or other non-whites with playing the race card, but never believe that whites could play this 'card'. Personally I've never liked the terminology because it reduces real pain and loss caused by discrimination into some type of cynical game that non-whites inflict on hapless, innocent whites, which is bullsh*t IMO. If there is a race card, some elite whites centuries ago created the card, heck, they created the whole deck.

One more thing....about the town halls. I think you glossed over the fact that many of the people causing a commotion at the town halls weren't simply their to talk about their concerns or state a case, they were there to hurl insults at Congresspeople and accuse them of being communists, socialists, or Nazis. Of course they have the First Amendment right to do so, but let's be real and call it like it is. I don't have a problem with people expressing their displeasure in a public forum, but at the same time, some of these people were out there just to cause a disturbance and prevent other citizens from speaking, expressing their views, or allowing the Congressperson to explain health care legislation.

It's not about soft balling people or not talking hard questions, of course you're totally oblivious to the warm and fuzzies Hannity gave Dick Cheney during the Bush years or the T-ball games he played with Sarah Palin. And I'm sure you got steamed about how the leftist media mistreated poor Sarah Palin. But you're not so sanguine in terms of seeing skewered treatment of President Obama. It's about being respectful and acting like a responsible citizen, which I felt many who participated in the health care forums did not do. And I feel that some who participate in the Tea Party rallies also do not do.

Emperorjones, my first impression when I read your email was your thinking, "I better distance myself from michaelintp as much as possible after he favorably cited my screen name." (Hahahahahaha, just kidding).

As to what the "Black Community" perceives to be in its "best interest" ... it is not my place to speak for the Black Community. You are free to express your views in that regard, I really am not.  It does mystify me how any American believes that flushing the United States down the economic and geopolitical and "moral values" toilet will benefit them over the long run ... but a lotta folks are not thinking in terms of the long run. Which, I believe, is a point that some "black Conservatives" make. We have had extensive discussions of this topic in the past on the Forum, in terms of what public policies are beneficial, what policies are not, over the long run.

What I do feel free to speak about is the mistreatment of black Conservatives, or really any black person who sways from the Party Line.  It is shameful, with the name calling and the like. Most are not pawns of the White Man or the Republican Party.  They are just folk who are willing to think independently, despite profound peer pressure to conform.  Most are not even known to the general public. Going beyond Conservatives, but proving my point, I still remember the crap that was slung at Bill Cosby a few years ago when he dared to make some public statements that diverged from the Liberal/Left Mantra.  And I think it is fair to say that Mr. Cosby is not some right-wing ideologue.

As to your comments regarding Republicans (or Conservatives, whatever) vs. support for the Democratic Party:  This really goes to the issue of how shortsighted people are willing to make themselves. Because, again, when our country goes down the tubes, and it is not immune from doing so, everyone will suffer. Everyone. Both in this country, and worldwide.

Also, as to Republicans, not that it matters, it is ancient history at this point, but the majority of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

As to African-Americans not supporting the other black candidates you listed, nobody saw them as realistic candidates at the time. Including black Americans.

Finally, I hope you don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that most blacks support Obama out of racism. Some small number do, of course, but that would be a simplistic and wrong-headed characterization. There is the preexisting strong propensity to support Democratic candidates. There is a positive aspect, the pride in having a black President of the United States.  There is the (perceived) sense of shared values and interests and (to some extent) shared experience. So sure, I wholly understand what you are saying. Anyway, just wanted to make that clear, so that you don't misunderstand me. All of which goes to the reason why the overwhelming majority of blacks support Obama, and the intensity of that support, and thus do not participate in the Tea Party Movement. Also explains the peer pressure against anyone who might even dare to think about participating.

I could go on, about your Media comments, but instead I would just ask you to think about the interviews, and to what extent the interviewer was really interested in getting illuminating answers to meaningful questions, without evasion, to provide the public with a sense of where the politician really stands on controversial or difficult issues, as opposed to just playing partisan games.  Though, most likely, one's view of that will turn on where one is politically to begin with, so I guess that "analysis" won't prove much to folk who are already committed.

[Emperorjones]

Michael,

Re: America the Doomed,

I can see why many Americans would not join the Tea Party because to prevent the things you listed because the GOP/right wingers did a pretty good job of wrecking the country's economic, geopolitical, and moral standing. I think some of the things that happened under Bush-Cheney showed a disdain for the Constitution and the American people and ideals far greater than anything Obama has been accused of doing. Regarding morals, I think the values campaign of the GOP has been one of the biggest hoaxes, but smartest political tricks, they've ever pulled off. The idea that the GOP is somehow morally better than the Democrats is laughable. I'm not going to list the scandals, I'm sure you are familiar with them.

Re: Black Conservatives,

Most of our perspectives on this topic are shaded by our ideological leanings. What you see as being bold and independent, I see as being cynical, opportunistic, and for some self-loathing. If some of these black conservatives truly believe that left wing policies are going to lead African Americans and the US to doom why don't they work harder at engaging and tailoring their message to their supposed target audience? This is something that black conservatives have largely failed to do. IMO, black people aren't the target audience of the majority of them, their white patrons are. And having a few dark faces sprinkled among a sea of white faces puts some conservatives at ease that their policies or positions aren't racially insensitive.

You see them as courageously fighting peer pressure. For a good deal of them, I imagine they are being contrary just for the hell of it, or to make a quick buck. A black conservative is sure to stand out in a crowd more than a black liberal. Some are quick to tell many blacks to have a thick skin or to dismiss racist or perceived racist slights, but some of these people can go on for days about how bad black people are treating them. I think that's b.s. geared more for white ears and purse strings than to apply conservative solutions to black urban/rural problems or issues.

With Bill Cosby, I think there are quite a few black people who agree with him. He came to MD a few years ago and spoke at a black event, reported in the Post, and got a lot of applause. I don't think its necessarily an issue of what Cosby says for many blacks, its how he says it and who it seems to be directed to. I don't think he needs to come off like a cranky senior citizen or talk down to people. There was a whiff of classicism in some of his statements and that opens him up to criticism that he is unfairly targeting the black poor, and that his message isn't a constructive one, but is being used like a bludgeon.

I don't think Cosby is necessarily in the avowedly black conservative/right wing camp like Armstrong Williams, J.C. Watts, Shelby Steele, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Larry Elder, John McWhorter, Jesse Lee Peterson, Walter Williams, Angela McGlowan, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, etc. It is many of these that I have a problem with because they don't build bridges they just hurl bombs a lot of times. Like calling Jesse Jackson a shakedown artist or referring to some civil rights leaders as poverty pimps. Or they just co-sign or ignore racially insensitive comments or behavior from their white colleagues. And Michael Steele is in a league of his own with some of his comments.

There have been many polls taken and I agree with the findings that many African Americans tend to be socially conservative in some of their views. I think the GOP has largely failed to capitalize on that because they've had a lot more success using issues perceived as 'black' like crime, affirmative action, and welfare as wedge issues to get white support for some 40 years.

Re: Black Presidential Candidates

Forgot to mention Shirley Chisolm, Lenora Fulani, and Cynthia McKinney. I can agree that many blacks probably thought that the other black candidates didn't have a chance and perhaps that was why they garnered soft or almost zero support. However, I doubt many black people thought Jesse Jackson really had a shot to win in 1984, but got behind his campaign. Now I'm sure that Jesse's civil rights record also inspired a lot of black support. Not sure about 1988-he might've been seen as a more legit contender then but I'm not sure. And Obama pretty much secured the black vote after Iowa when he proved he could win white support. But the point I was getting at was that these actions don't suggest that blacks are mindless drones who vote just for racial reasons alone. They try to vote for someone who they feel can be represent their interests but also win. And for the last 40 years this hasn't been the GOP for the majority of black people.

Re: GOP

What you're leaving out about the GOP vote for the Civil Rights legislation is what happened to both parties after those votes. Many of the segregationist Democrats jumped to the GOP and changed the complexion of that party to harder right and more Southern. And Nixon, seeking to steal George Wallace's thunder; Wallace remained a Democrat though he ran for president as an independent in 1968 at least; not sure about 1972. Anyway, Nixon concocted the Southern Strategy to play on racial fears and resentments and almost each GOP presidential campaign since has used some version of it. I think Sarah Palin's paen to 'real' America was the most recent version of it. This type of dividing, smearing the cities and the coasts, while lifting up the heartland and the south, the small town over the big city. And generally what color of people are associated with each? Also, the 'hockey mom' stuff, these were soft cultural cues, a way to identify with other whites without openly saying so. She was much more polished at it than Hillary who stumbled when talking about 'hardworking white Americans' as if no one else works hard in this country.

I don't think its simply a matter of blacks supporting Obama as the reason why more aren't joining the Tea Party. I think its the party itself, what it seems to represent, and who is leading and/or speaking for it. It isn't a general citizen's revolt and I doubt that the Tea Party has reached out to black communities or other communities in any concerted efforts. I don't think the various Tea Parties really want to in any event.

[michaelintp]

Emperorjones:  OK, I get you don't like Republicans, that you poo-poo that the current policies of our Government will run us down the road of Greece and Spain (or at a minimum will result in horrific economic hardship for our children and their children), weaken America's ability to respond to military threats, and that the undermining of traditional moral values is not the top item on your radar, etc. [based on how you characterized and dismissed my comments, above].

I obviously disagree. 

It is similarly clear that your view of black Conservatives is different from mine. I have, for example, the greatest respect for Clarence Thomas.  If only all our Justices were so willing to respect the Constitution, our nation, and our judiciary, would be be in much better shape.



While your mentioning of Justice Thomas ticked me off (as I view him as the most principled Justice on the Supreme Court), there is another thing ... that really got my goat ... 

When has Sarah Palin said anything that could remotely be characterized as racist?  Please don't give vague characterizations based on your own ideological spin. Her references to true Americans relate to those who adhere to American values, most certainly not to race. Give quotes from Palin herself.  Because, I challenge you to find any instance where she has advocated anything that could be fairly characterized as racist.

If such statements do exist, I would like to know about them.  In the meantime ... get outta the way ... buster!



To this day, I have not heard a public statement made by Sarah Palin that I do not agree with.  I love what she has to say.  I love her sense of humor.  I love how she sticks it to her political and Media adversaries, cutting through their blaa blaablaa bullsh*t.

Needless to say ... if Sarah Palin has proclaimed anything that is really racist, I would have to reconsider.

Based on what I have seen, of what she has said, I kinda doubt she's done so.

My impression of Sarah Palin she is a really a decent person. You betcha! 

[Kristopher]

To this day, I have not heard a public statement made by Sarah Palin that I do not agree with.  I love what she has to say.  I love her sense of humor.  I love how she sticks it to her political and Media adversaries, cutting through their blaa blaablaa bullsh*t.

Really? Nice to know where you stand.
Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, were exaggerated at best if not outright horsesh*t. No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, had denounced Ayers' radical views and actions. Obama's a MUCH better man than I am, I would have called Palin out on her crap.

[michaelintp]

Palin was calling out Obama on his Leftist connections. Obama knew perfectly well who he was working closely with. Pointing this out was wholly justified. Sure, Obama threw his pal under the bus, along with his pastor of many many years who inspired the title of his book.  So what? 

But, as to the question I asked, this has nothing to do with the allegation that Palin has said anything that is remotely RACIST.  Provide me with the quote ...

[BmoreAkuma]

Palin was calling out Obama on his Leftist connections. Obama knew perfectly well who he was working closely with. Pointing this out was wholly justified. Sure, Obama threw his pal under the bus, along with his pastor of many many years who inspired the title of his book.  So what? 

Well with a racist piece of sh*t like his pastor you throw him under, drag his ass out from under the bus and do it again a couple times.

Re: Black Conservatives
One of the things that I don't like about them and hesitant to admit that i am slightly one is that they have a tendency to say that "Martin Luther King was republican". Now the one thing that I have to disagree with you emperor is that in actuality when a person admits they are one in many cases they are automatically assumed to be a "tom" without even knowing the person. I find it a bit far fetched to say that a number of them "geared more for white ears" It is not like a number of the dems are doing any better in providing views for "black issues". When it comes to these issues, the black american shouldn't rely on the govt to do or seek suggestions from them. It is up to that person of color to get up and do something about it. Yes a number of blacks had to start from the ground floor but again no one is going to get you out of that unless you do that yourself. Do i find that a number of them have a tendency to lamblast a number "liberal blacks"? yes but I also say the same for liberal blacks that lamblast conservatives too much.

[Emperorjones]

Michael,

I never said Sarah Palin was racist, but yet she does nurse white anger and resentment. She uses symbols and codes that primarily represent white culture and she talks in an us v. them way that appeals more to some right leaning white people. A lot of Republicans do this. Look at who fills out the auditoriums and rallies where she speaks. It isn't a lot of people that look like me. Why is it that so many of these 'true' Americans are white, these people you claim have 'true' American values?

Nixon never said anything publicly racist, but he played on white fears to get elected in 68 and 72. I think Palin is drawing from the same playbook. And I think a lot of some white folks fears or concerns about race get masked behind labels like socialism, communism, leftist, or attacking the cities while praising the heartland (and as I said before, cities are seen as much more diverse, and the word 'urban' has become a new way to say black without having to say black, when talking about music, literature, culture, etc.) And small town America is still seen as largely populated by whites.

I don't dislike the GOP per se. I think some of their ideas and policies aren't bad. We do need a strong national defense for example. And some of their positions in theory aren't repugnant. But I don't like the genteel race baiting of the Southern Strategy that they have been using for 40 years. Nor the phony moralism or fiscal responsibility. When they get in office they spend money just as much as the Democrats, but its just who they and what they spend money on might change.

I don't like Clarence Thomas. For one, I don't like people who talk bad about their family which he did back in the day as he was coming up. He insulted his family for political gain. You think he's been a great justice, from what I've read the man doesn't even talk. He just finds out what position Scalia is taking and gets behind him. From what I've read about him, I think he has a chip on his shoulder. Perhaps he thinks he is owed more respect for the high office he has achieved from the black community, but its not about getting there sometimes, its about how you got there, and what you do when you get there. And I haven't seen much love from Thomas and he gets no love in return.

Bmore,

I disagree with you that Rev. Wright was racist. Racism has a power component behind it. Wright might have been biased, but he had no power to negatively impact the life outcomes of white folks or others. It's funny that many people jumped on how Wright said things without looking at the content of what he said. The language was inflammatory, but from the clip I saw, I can't say that his listing of some of the actions our country has been involved in over the years wasn't wrong. Getting angry about the language neatly skirted a discussion about if what Wright said was actually right. As for Ayers, that was something overblown. What does palling around mean exactly? Kristopher pointed out the extent of their 'relationship'. In any event Ayers had paid his debt to society so I didn't see what the problem was and I fault Obama for ducking the charges and accusations instead of taking them head on.

It's funny that so many of these so-called Christian right wingers have such hard hearts when it comes to rehabilitation and redemption, unless its the white Redemption of the South, Post-Civil War (Governors McDonnell and Barbour, I'm looking at you). And once again, Palin was just playing on the fear of the Other with statements like the Ayers thing and questions like "Who is Obama?" when she had only been on the national scenes for like five weeks. Obama had written two bestseller and been in the national spotlight for four years at that time. But little statements like that go to the heart of what I feel is a fear that many whites still harbor concerning blacks, that we are inscrutable, that we are so different and therefore threatening unless we bend over backwards to prove we are safe to them, which is largely what I think Obama has attempted to do.

You are correct regarding black conservatives. Perhaps I overplayed my characterization of black GOP members/right wingers. My comments were meant to be aimed at the black conservative pundits that often are on TV or in the op-ed columns. I agree that sometimes black folks are too quick to judge black conservatives. Michael might be shocked, but I've often told people that I was a Republican just to get their reaction and start a debate. And some people have asked me straight up if I was a Republican without me prompting them to. I think its best to listen and read what black GOP members or other conservatives are saying before making judgments. I've read some of their material-I don't disagree with all of it. I used to read Walter Williams's columns quite a bit back in the day. I've also read some of Shelby Steele-two of his books-but I think he lives in another world, an ivy league world that has little in common with day-to-day living. And I don't totally disagree with some of what John McWhorter was talking about in his Losing the Race book. Though I think he works mighty hard at trying to say racism is no longer a problem, though to his credit he admits it still exists.

I don't think there should be a rush to judgment and I think we need to look at the Democrats just as critically. I could skewer them too but the focus of this discussion seemed to be on the GOP/conservative blacks. Back to the CB pundits, if they really wanted to do outreach to the black community they should change their tactics and come at people respectfully and not talk down to them. Show how conservative ideology, public policy, etc. actually benefits them and just not the white elite financially and other whites culturally and psychologically. And I think the GOP might have to make some concessions, like moderating their stance on affirmative action, to at least show they are willing to want to open the tent toward blacks.

[Kristopher]

Palin was calling out Obama on his Leftist connections. Obama knew perfectly well who he was working closely with. Pointing this out was wholly justified. Sure, Obama threw his pal under the bus, along with his pastor of many many years who inspired the title of his book.  So what? 

But, as to the question I asked, this has nothing to do with the allegation that Palin has said anything that is remotely RACIST.  Provide me with the quote ...

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But was there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Portraying Obama as "not like us" was another potential appeal to racism. It also suggested that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

I'm 46 years old, I've seen, heard, and experienced more than enough racist behavior, both overt and covert, to know it on sight. The same way women knows sexual harassment when it's in the room. Sorry, pal, you're heroine is a racist. Palin's racism is so much a part of her, that she didn't have a chance to think about what she was doing, for the most part she doesn't even she it herself,it's just...normal, inherent, like so many of her followers. At least the Klan was easier to recognize.

[Francisco]

Emperorjones:
Racism is the believe that one race or group of races is superior to other race of group of races. Power has nothing to do with it. Racism is racism is racism. Whether you're a beggar or a billionaire it doesn't matter. If you believe someone is inferior, superior, evil, good or whatever just because his/her race. You're a racist.

The rest of your post I mostly agree with.