Stifle yourself

March 12th, 2008 3:56 pm · 6 comments

See, you know, when Republicans play the race card, I expect that from them. When Democrats do it, it’s just execrable - but, as Will Bunch notes, maybe in states like this one it’s to be expected:

A sculptor brought in to mold a Hillary Clinton voter would have crafted Geraldine Ferraro from scratch. She’s 72 years old now. White. Female. Ethnic. Catholic. Emotionally vested in the idea that a woman should become president in her lifetime. Hailing from the community that was once the face of white middle-class America. Got where she was with the enthusiastic backing of New York big labor. Has views on the role of race in American politics that aren’t exactly ready for prime time, but well, hey, once they get out there you can’t really put the genie back in the bottle, now can you?

Pennsylvania is chock full of voters like this, many of them Democrats. You can — and should — argue whether “Archie Bunker” is a valid stereotype of Pennsylvania voters in 2008. …

<snip>

[but] exactly how many blue-collar whites in Pennsylvania still hold views on race and politics that are similar to a fictional TV character from the 1970s? Certainly not all of them, and hopefully not most of them, but most likely some of them — and in the end that’s not exactly what matters anyway.

What matters is that the Clinton campaign is convinced that Archie Bunker is voting in Pennsylvania in April 22, and they clearly will not struggle hard to repudiate any idea — no matter how loathesome — that can squeeze out a few extra voters in that regard.

Nice. I mean, look, I lived in Pittsburgh, Archie Bunker does live there. I saw more overt racism there than I think I’ve ever encountered in Lancaster. I always tell the story, there was this bar below where my brother lived for a while, with this nice framed photo of George Wallace, circa 1960. A real, nice, indirect way of saying: Stay out.

But the Democratic Party on the whole, instead of “acknowledging this reality,” ought to be saying: Look, we realize there are animosities out there. But the deal with this party (as opposed to that other party) is that we think the things that bind us together are more important than those differences. And until we stop being divided along those lines, the things that really matter will never get addressed.

Hillary’s calculations are coarser. Animosity? How terrible. But sure, I’ll use that. Whatever it takes. And once again, this is how Hillary is just too much like what we’ve suffered through these past seven-plus years. Whatever it takes.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  6 comments  Tags: Election 2008 · Hillary · Democratic candidates · Pennsylvania

There are currently 6 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
charlie_crystle
3/12/08
10:50 PM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ Mar 12 2008, 04:00 PM) [snapback]365557[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.




If she had taken a different course, she could have inspired a lot more people. Instead she's full of negatives. Instead of elevating the discussion, she's dragged it through the mud.



Pennsylvania Democrats should realize how this kind of callousness, this kind of negative ambition is bad for America and bad for Democrats. And the alternative--refreshing.

Pericles
3/13/08
8:13 AM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ Mar 12 2008, 04:00 PM) [snapback]365557[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.


"See, you know, when Republicans play the race card, I expect that from them."

Republicans are racists. Nice. Well-balanced and objective.

I guess all your neighbors in Pittsburgh were Republicans.

Really offensive though to me personally, and I'm sure to many others who understand that racism transcends political parties, and that Republicans are no more prone to play the race card than Democrats, just as we have seen in the past few months. Notice I didn't say that Democrats are more likely to play the race card. But then I try to be objective. If I weren't, I'd just be a shill without integrity.


grieker
3/13/08
9:28 AM
Gilber, you should heed your own advice.
mam0412
3/13/08
12:23 PM
QUOTE(charlie_crystle @ Mar 12 2008, 10:50 PM) [snapback]365667[/snapback]

If she had taken a different course, she could have inspired a lot more people. Instead she's full of negatives. Instead of elevating the discussion, she's dragged it through the mud.

Pennsylvania Democrats should realize how this kind of callousness, this kind of negative ambition is bad for America and bad for Democrats. And the alternative--refreshing.


Right on! And Gil's last lines say it all as well. Hillary has demonstrated that she is no different than Bush. She's using divide and conquer tactics and she rewards staff loyalty over competance. This is exactly what we don't need..

gsmart
3/13/08
1:21 PM
Two words for you, Pericles:


Southern Strategy


Also, two more words:


Lee Atwater:


Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.'s Southern strategy:


"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N*gger, n*gger, n*gger' By 1968 you can't say 'n*gger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.


"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'n*gger, n*gger.' "


Atwater, who would manage George H. W. Bush's successful run for the presidency in 1988 (the Willie Horton campaign) and then serve as national party chairman, was talking with Alexander P. Lamis, a political-science professor at Case Western Reserve University. Mr. Lamis quoted Atwater in the book "Southern Politics in the 1990's."
Pericles
3/13/08
1:43 PM
QUOTE(gsmart @ Mar 13 2008, 01:21 PM) [snapback]365961[/snapback]
Two words for you, Pericles:


Southern Strategy


Also, two more words:


Lee Atwater:


Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.'s Southern strategy:


"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N*gger, n*gger, n*gger' By 1968 you can't say 'n*gger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.


"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'n*gger, n*gger.' "


Atwater, who would manage George H. W. Bush's successful run for the presidency in 1988 (the Willie Horton campaign) and then serve as national party chairman, was talking with Alexander P. Lamis, a political-science professor at Case Western Reserve University. Mr. Lamis quoted Atwater in the book "Southern Politics in the 1990's."


1981? Come on Gil, Lee Atwater is dead!

Should I start reciting from that time forward too:

Robert Byrd

Ernest Hollings

Dick Gethardt

Andrew Coumo

Maybe you didn't anticipate that Democrats would play the race card, but they certainly are, big time. Republicans have been mainly silent.

Why not reorient your thinking, or at least acknowledge that all political parties are capable of this, which apparently is the case.

Why must you assign evil intentions to Republicans?

On second thought, never mind Gil. Just take care of your baby today. There's always tomorrow.
View Topic | Comment on this blog