Obviously, race.

 

I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all this Tea Party ire. I wonder how he can be seen as "elitist," when he grew up in modest circumstances - his mother was on food stamps for a time - and paid for his fancy-pants education with student loans. I wonder how people who genuinely cherish the American dream can look at a man who lived that dream and feel no connection, no empathy.

I ask myself what's so different about Obama, and the answer is pretty obvious: He's black. For whatever reason, I think this makes some people unsettled, anxious, even suspicious - witness the willingness of so many to believe absurd conspiracy theories...

 

 

We all know coming from Robinson it would be a race article. Open dialogue about race is a much needed thing.... I will not dispute that. But for Robinson and others which have broad sweeping generalizations about the Tea Party - of which most members are not racist - does this really do anything besides further put a wedge in the issue?

Who is Eugene Robinson? My guess is above 90% of the folk who disagree with our current pres have ZERO to do with race.

Obama may have grown up in modest circumstances, but he now believes he is above everyone else.

Those that graduated from the east coast elitist schools leave there believing that they have all the answers in big government programs. They believe that the rest of us have to fall in line, because they are smarter than everyone else.

Student loans for his education? I looked into that and all I found is that there is no clear answer how he paid for his schooling. He may say one thing, but reality is another. For instance, he will not call those who wish to kill us our enemies, but he will call those who oppose his policies his enemies.

Was Mr. Robinson alive, or just living under a rock in 1994 & 2006 when the same thing happened to Clinton & W?

We all know coming from Robinson it would be a race article. Open dialogue about race is a much needed thing.... I will not dispute that. But for Robinson and others which have broad sweeping generalizations about the Tea Party - of which most members are not racist - does this really do anything besides further put a wedge in the issue?

 

While I share many of the sentiments of Robinson's article, I more or less agree with your post here. I think he raises some relevant questions, but the broad strokes used to paint the opposition ensure they remain unanswered and dismissed out of hand. It's an issue that has to be tackled with a certain degree of nuance that draws a distinction between typical partisanship and something more sinister.

 

Here are the questions, distilled down, that I believe Robinson to be asking:

 

• Would a not insignificant number of people believe Obama to be a closet Muslim (where being a Muslim is a very negative thing), a Marxist anti-colonialist, un-American, fraudulent citizen, radical terrorist sympathizer if he were white and had a name like Ben Smith?
   
  
• Very little has changed between the Bush and Obama administrations, if people truly feel the country is being usurped from them why were they not there before and why are they especially scared of the latter president?
  

 

Now, these counterfactuals are unanswerable one way or another, but I think they are fair to ask. At the very least, they bring attention to what many people consider the issue of race to be with this president, rather than simply paint the opposition with a broad brush.

Those that want to blame it on race are the ones with the problem. They're the ones not ready for a black president.

Those that want to blame it on race are the ones with the problem. They're the ones not ready for a black president.

Spend some time with some tea partiers and you may change your mind. I definitely saw at the very least some closet racism among the followers.

Spend some time with some tea partiers and you may change your mind. I definitely saw at the very least some closet racism among the followers.

 

And you'll find the same thing with tree-huggers, libertarians, liberals, etc....

And you'll find the same thing with tree-huggers, libertarians, liberals, etc....

 

I resent that. I'm a tree hugger, and I can say with all honesty that all the tree huggers I've ever met are absolutely not concerned with what kind of tree we hug. Give us the White Oak, the Black Ash or the Redwood. Shoot, we even love the Yellow Poplar.

I resent that. I'm a tree hugger, and I can say with all honesty that all the tree huggers I've ever met are absolutely not concerned with what kind of tree we hug. Give us the White Oak, the Black Ash or the Redwood. Shoot, we even love the Yellow Poplar.

 

:lol: :clap: :clap: Well play RM, well played.

 

Seriously though, I think you know what I meant.

:lol: :clap: :clap: Well play RM, well played.

 

Seriously though, I think you know what I meant.

 

:D:thumb:

Obama may have grown up in modest circumstances, but he now believes he is above everyone else.

Those that graduated from the east coast elitist schools leave there believing that they have all the answers in big government programs. They believe that the rest of us have to fall in line, because they are smarter than everyone else.

Student loans for his education? I looked into that and all I found is that there is no clear answer how he paid for his schooling. He may say one thing, but reality is another. For instance, he will not call those who wish to kill us our enemies, but he will call those who oppose his policies his enemies.

 

It's amazing what those forwarded emails can teach you, isn't it?

 

As to those fancy east coast elitist schools, I guess George W. Bush falls in that category?

While I share many of the sentiments of Robinson's article, I more or less agree with your post here. I think he raises some relevant questions, but the broad strokes used to paint the opposition ensure they remain unanswered and dismissed out of hand. It's an issue that has to be tackled with a certain degree of nuance that draws a distinction between typical partisanship and something more sinister.

 

Here are the questions, distilled down, that I believe Robinson to be asking:

 

• Would a not insignificant number of people believe Obama to be a closet Muslim (where being a Muslim is a very negative thing), a Marxist anti-colonialist, un-American, fraudulent citizen, radical terrorist sympathizer if he were white and had a name like Ben Smith?
   
  
• Very little has changed between the Bush and Obama administrations, if people truly feel the country is being usurped from them why were they not there before and why are they especially scared of the latter president?
  

 

Now, these counterfactuals are unanswerable one way or another, but I think they are fair to ask. At the very least, they bring attention to what many people consider the issue of race to be with this president, rather than simply paint the opposition with a broad brush.

 

Very well thought out. I don't think anyone of sound mind can make the blanket statement that at least a small portion of the disdain for Obama is not driven by race. Race and appearance will ALWAYS influence human perceptions - just at it did when GWB was President. GWB had the most racially diverse cabinet in history, yet no credit was thrown his way. He made Condolesa (sp?) Rice arguably the most powerful woman and the most powerful person of color on the earth, yet no credit. Heck, the African American community did everything it could to distance itself from Condi, as they continue to do with Clarence Thomas.

Spend some time with some tea partiers and you may change your mind. I definitely saw at the very least some closet racism among the followers.

I know quite a few of them, none which are racist. There are racist people of all parties, not just one. Bottom line, the vast majority of people that have a problem with Obama aren't racist, they simply don't like his politics.