Any Criticism of Obama Assumed to Be Racist?; Other Videos
July 30, 2012
In Jim Geraghty’s daily e-mail (you can subscribe for free in the top-right corner of the National Review Online main page), I was very interested to read about a new Republican TV ad:
By telling potential voters “It’s OK to make a change,” the RNC is acknowledging all that I mention above. It’s OK to like the guy personally but not vote for him again. This is not a popularity contest. It’s OK to vote against the black guy. You gave him a shot. He gave it his best shot. He failed. And the most effective message is: “It’s OK to make a change” — and not be thought of as a racist.
. . .
That’s why the “It’s OK to make a change” ad is the most dangerous for Obama’s reelection efforts.
In other words, as William Jacobson puts it,
What keeps some voters in line for Obama — fear of falsely being accused of racism — may not work this time, and the removal of that fear is the most dangerous threat to Obama’s reelection.
Mr. Capehart acknowledges plainly that there’s a lot of it about, this presumption of racism:
Throughout Obama’s presidency, I’ve received more than a few e-mails and tweets from folks complaining that they are branded racist if they disagree with anything the president says or does. And it doesn’t help matters that I have seen more than a few e-mails and tweets from ardent Obama supporters doing exactly that. I have also seen instances of this on television and in print.
Not for the first time, I wonder how much would be left of liberalism if one subtracted assuming bad motives of one’s opponents and other circular reasoning.
Some other recent videos worth seeing:
See more Catholic Vote videos on other topics here.
The Republican Party also points out that, about President Obama’s now-famous “you didn’t build that” remarks, “The More Context You Get, The Worse It Sounds”:
Mitt Romney quotes President Obama saying, “We tried our plan, and it worked!”
In all fairness, the line is arguably taken out of context—in context, Obama seems to be saying that “we” tried “our plan” (i.e., the liberal, big-government, tax-and-spend way) under President Clinton, with good results.
But again, “the more context you get, the worse it sounds”. The whole speech is available from the White House here. Democrats held the White House and both houses of Congress for a whole year (2009). If higher taxes and more spending were such an obvious good idea, why didn’t the Democrats do more of them then? and if they did (the Stimulus etc.), why didn’t it work? (The Obama administration promised that unemployment would not go above 8% if the stimulus passed, but unemployment hasn’t fallen as low as 8% ever since.)
In this speech, Obama says, according to the official White House copy,
Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan — and it worked. That’s the difference. (Applause.) That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.
So if we want to say that the Romney ad (and an RNC ad) is taking Obama unfairly out of context, then the best we can say for Obama is that he is fecklessly pining for the Clinton years and Clinton-era policies, which it didn’t occur to Obama to implement in his first term, but which he assures us he will finally try if he wins a second term!
Earlier in the speech, Obama also says,
Ever since I first ran for this office, I’ve said that it will take more than one year or one term or even one President to restore the dream that this country built.
But that is not true:
Here’s that sentence in context:
A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.
See also Romney’s Web site Obama Isn’t Working .com.