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:
What’s so interesting about it? Well, one of the liberal writers at the liberal Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart, is scared that it may work, and for an interesting reason:
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:
Catholic Vote .org calls us to fight the HHS mandate (see also “Catholics Could Go to Jail over HHS Mandate”):
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”:
(More Republican National Committee videos)
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.
Enjoyment and Contemplation 
July 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM
What again is the evidence that Mitt Romney’s policies will work better than Obama’s? Or are you just voting for Republicans “just because”?
August 13, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Romney and other Republicans, all other things being equal, will give us smaller government (less spending and lower taxes) than Democrats will.
Most importantly, less government means more liberty, and I consider liberty a great good in itself.
Secondarily but also importantly, less spending and lower taxes, all other things being equal, will mean more prosperity. Tevyeh has offered before to explain some of that to you further, but you weren’t interested. If that has changed, let us know, and I’m sure one of us can at least outline it for you.
August 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM
I understand the economic theories that you and Tevyeh have postulated, but are you willing to acknowledge that alternative economic theories could be just as viable?
August 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM
“For context, the economy now produces as many goods and services — more, in fact — than it did before the downturn officially began in December 2007. But it does so with almost five million fewer jobs.”
This is interesting. For all the complaining that our economy is struggling, it has actually gotten more efficient during the past five years. More goods and services with 5 million less workers! This could actually be viewed as a very good thing – the most talented workers are increasing their output, leaving no need for less talented workers.
In reality, the true bane of our economy seems to be unrestrained population growth, which has no doubt been fueled by an irrational opposition to birth control and an irrational desire to have six, seven, and even eight children or more. China, which boasts one of the strongest economies in the world, has an official population control policy. I’m not saying we should go that far in this country, as such a policy would almost certainly violate basic constitutional rights, but people need to start using some common sense when procreating.
August 13, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Wrong and wrong.
The fact that the Obama stimulus has not brought unemployment down—has, if anything, made it worse—is a bad thing, your valiant effort to make it sound like a good thing notwithstanding.
China’s policy includes abductions, forced sterilizations, forced abortions, and infanticide. It’s breathtaking that you would speak of it as if it were just another policy option. It would be morally repugnant even if it were good for the economy.
Incidentally, it’s not good for the economy, either. For years, people like Mark Steyn have been saying, as even Reuters acknowledges, that China will get old before it gets rich. Oops.
Other than that, I’ll just note that liberals have been spouting Snoodickle’s rhetoric about inordinate procreation since the 1960s and ’70s. Somehow events since have proven their dire predictions very wrong, but they continue to say the same things, as if the last forty years simply hadn’t happened. For more on this, read pages 67-69 or so of Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed. (Actually, I recommend the whole book.)
August 20, 2012 at 8:39 AM
As I said, “I’m not saying we should go that far in this country, as such a policy would almost certainly violate basic constitutional rights.” Did you read that part?
Do you acknowledge that unemployment would be lower if we had twenty million less people living in this country?
August 19, 2012 at 1:03 AM
[…] “Any Criticism of Obama Assumed to Be Racist?; Other Videos” […]
September 6, 2012 at 12:01 PM
[…] the Republican Party also has a new ad out. Not for the first time, they’re able to make a surprisingly persuasive ad with almost no content but Obama’s […]
November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM
[…] agree. I have been concerned for some time (see, e.g., here, here, and here) about poisonous attempts to silence one’s opponents or delegitimize […]