-
Website
http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/ -
Original page
http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2008/05/david-gergen-speaks-truth-denounce-racist-vote/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I'm not watching them. Yet. However, David Gergen certainly earns a place with me as someone who is at the very least, intellectually honest.
If Hillary Clinton is going to cry sexism while courting the self-proclaimed racist vote, she is as much of a sellout as John McCain.
It's the media that continually stokes the fire of racism!
This is the reason why conservatives think that we’re elitists. We throw around the words "bigot" and "racist" at people that we don't like. I bet there are plenty of racists in the woods of Oregon. Of course, you'd probably call them Republicans.
What about Barak? He's not spending much time telling Hamas (a bona fide racist group) that he doesn't want their endorsement. What about their sympathizers? There's a reason why sympathizers of Hamas and blach power groups LOVE Obama.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
It's the media that continually stokes the fire of racism!
When people walk out of exit polls and say yes, race is a factor, and when the percentage of those people also adds up to the spread between winning and losing, I think it's surely fair to say that yes, race is a factor. Ignoring it, and statements like the one from the 24-year old who wanted a 'full-blooded American', or the lady that said 'He's a Muslim, I don't care what he says, I know he is" because goddamn, he's a black guy so he must be...
Yeah, you betcha race is a factor. and you betcha that KY had plenty of the racist vote going there. Hillary's 'hard-working white folks" characterization pretty well nailed it.
David Gergen says Sen. Hillary Clinton should tell "racists" that she doesn't want their vote. He made the suggestion in reference to the high percentage of white voters who voted for her in the Kentucky democratic primary.
This comment by Mr. Gergen is racist. Please allow me to explain.
Mr. Gergen is urging Hillary Clinton to reject the votes of white voters who vote for her because of her race and/or Barack Obama's race.
But Mr. Gergen is not urging Barack Obama to reject the votes of black voters who vote for him because of his race.
This is so even though blacks have more consistently voted for Barack Obama because of his race than whites have voted for Hillary Clinton because of hers. Even in Kentucky, a higher percentage of blacks voted for Obama than voted for Hillary. This has been consistently true of the black vote in each primary state.
Why are whites being singled out by Mr. Gergen? Why is it okay for blacks to vote in huge percentages for Obama, but it's not okay for whites to vote in huge percentages for Clinton? Because of racism against whites.
Moreover, I'm offended by Mr. Gergen referring to "red necks" in Kentucky. Again, this is racist. Rather than referring to white voters in Kentucky as "white voters," he describes them as "red necks."
Can you imagine a similar term to describe "black voters" being used? Of course not, that would be racist against blacks. But it's okay to be racist against whites, as Mr. Gergen demonstrates with his "red neck" epithet.
Dear Mr. Gergen, I am white and I am proud of my heritage and I am offended by being called a red neck. If Jeremiah Wright has taught us anything, it is that whites can be the victims of racism too. Please refrain from racial epithets directed toward any race, that includes whites.
I am an African American who supported Obama during this election. I didn't vote for Obama because he and I share the same skin color. I voted for him because he has the right ideas for our country. Bill Clinton disgraced the White House with his affair, he signed the NAFTA agreement sending our jobs overseas, and he signed the 3-strike prison rule that is sending thousands of Blacks, Whites, and Latinos to jail for 30+ rules. The Clintons did this because they accepted money from Lobbyists and PAC money.
Obama is not accepting money from lobbyists for his campaign. If you want to vote based on race that's your decision. If you don't like Blacks then that's your decision. However, Blacks like myself vote based on our economic interest. We vote for the person that is going to do more to provide, "Working Class jobs." So that is why we voted for Obama. It has nothing to do with race. Some things came out during this election that made Clinton look like she was lying and pandering and we won't real change.
So you can vote for the white candidate if you like, but the white people like Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and BushII have done nothing for poor people. They have kept the working class in the poor house by shipping our jobs overseas and they pander toward helping corporate America stay on top of us.
Poor Blacks and Whites share the same problems and they have common interests and Barrack knows this. We need to stick together for a change so that we can at least keep our jobs here. This is what Barrack has represented in this election and this why Blacks and alot of Whites have voted for him.
It's very naive for you to think Blacks are just voting for a Black guy because he is Black. It's downright stupid.
It's time for that to end and Hillary promises everything to everybody and she appears not to be sincere. McCain is not a good choice either because he is going to give us third Bush term and I am struggling to make ends meet now. So I know that I don't want that.
This is not about race. This is about doing what is right for America so we can have good jobs right here.
Al Sharpton ran for the presidency back in 2004 and he didn't get 90% of the Black vote. Jesse Jackson ran for the presidency twice and he didn't get 90% of the Black vote.
Why didn't they get 90% of the Black vote??? They didn't get it because they didn't have the right economic ideas for this country.
Blacks are not just voting for Obama because he is Black.
What is not understandable is why Candy defends blacks but not whites?
Mr. Gergen did not attack black voters, he attacked white voters. This kind of race based attack is not acceptable. None of us of any race should accept it. Certainly, the arguments that you make Candy are well-made and would be on point if they were made to someone who singled out blacks, attacking the way they vote, and then calling them an epithet. But Gergen did not do that to blacks, he did that to whites. I did not hear Mr. Gergen call blacks any derogatory names, as he did whites.
This is the lesson of Jeremiah Wright. There is racism against whites. Just as there is racism against, Latinos, Blacks, Orientals, etc. Whenever we hear or see this kind of hate, we have an obligation to stand up and call it out. Whites have as much right to expect respect as any other racial group.
I never said that racism didn't exist among Blacks. There is no secret that older Blacks have difficulty dealing with the way they were discriminated against during Jim Crow. Older Blacks still carry this divisiveness that resulted from Jim Crow.
My own father has his racial opinions regarding Whites that I don't agree with, but that has never stopped my father from voting for White candidates. My father has voted for local White candidates over Black candidates because he thought the White candidate had better ideas.
I did not agree with Jeremiah Wright's positions and I know alot of Blacks who didn't. David Gergen did come down hard on Obama about Jeremiah Wright and he was one of the first pundits that called for Obama to denounce him. So I really think that you are absolutely wrong about Gergen. Gergen has been fair about this.
Younger African Americans don't have the racial hang up, and all they care about is improving their economic situations.
To characterize such a person as "fair" indicates to me that you don't believe that whites can be discriminated against? Or if you do, you seem to not believe that it's as serious as discrimination against blacks?
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with black voters voting for black candidates. Just as there is nothing wrong with white voters voting for white candidates. Gergen believes that it's fine for blacks to vote in large numbers for black candidates. But it is not okay for whites to do the same. Racism.
Candy, I'm not asking you to justify why blacks vote for Obama. Just as I am not justifying why whites vote for Hillary. What I am asking is that political commentators such as Gergen refrain from racist remarks. Whites have as much right to be treated with respect as any other minority group.
I notice that you do not denounce Gergen's "red neck" slur. Perhaps you agree with it? As a white person, I find it extremely offensive. I think the comments on this blog suggest many people found it offensive. And I think if more people spoke out against such epithets, it would go a long way toward ending racism.
With that said, Hillary Clinton HAD the majority of Black voters in the beginning. She's the one who lost them. They didn't abandon her. Some of this nation's most respected African-American leaders wholeheartedly endorsed (and still endorse) her.
I'm a white person and I fit right into the so-called Hillary demographic. White, age 49, some college but didn't finish, and female.
I'm firmly in the Obama camp, because Hillary Clinton doesn't understand how to communicate with me on an equal level, choosing instead to lie, manipulate and tell me what she thinks I want to hear instead of what the truth of the matter is.
As to the term redneck, I don't know where you get the idea that it's racist. Here is the definition of redneck on Wikipedia.
It is a stereotype, just like "hard-working white people" is a stereotype. But it is not racist.
Here's part of the Wikepedia definition you cite:
"Destitute whites were increasingly labeled "poor white trash" (meaning financially and genetically worse off than others) and worse; “cracker,” "clay eater," "linthead," "peckerwood," "buckra" and especially redneck only scratched the surface of rejection and slander."
Redneck has historically been a racial slur used against Apalachian whites.
I want to also add though, that Wikipedia is often not a reliable source of information as anyone can add information there. There is no guarantee that the information is accurate.
So I looked up "redneck" in the Random House College Dictionary the definition is: Disparaging. An uneducated white farm worker.
The very first thing it says is disparaging.
Perhaps you feel that "redneck" is not a racist slur because you don't consider yourself from the south and, therefore, certainly such a "name" does not apply to yourself. The dictionary says the name came historically from the south, but now it is applied to whites generally.
But, in my opinion, one can tell it's defamatory because we certainly know it's no compliment to be called a "redneck." Would you be proud to be called that? I think the vast majority of whites would not be.
The idea that whites cannot be discriminated against and/or defamed is false. Whites have the right to respect, just like any other racial group. I thought equality applied to all races?
Referring to the "redneck vote" is not a defamatory term. Disparaging, yes. Negative, yes. But not racist.
“Destitute whites were increasingly labeled “poor white trash” (meaning financially and genetically worse off than others) and worse; “cracker,” “clay eater,” “linthead,” “peckerwood,” “buckra” and especially redneck only scratched the surface of rejection and slander.”
So, genetically worse off. In other words, whites are genetically inferior. I can't imagine a more hateful thing to say about a race.
Can you imagine the reaction if blacks, latinos, or orientals were referred to by Mr. Gergen using a similar term that, among other things, means that their race is genetically inferior? Calling a race genetically inferior sounds like, hmmm, uhhhh, racism? Yeah that's it. Oh but wait a minute, whites can't be the victims of racism. Gee whiz. You got me there.
Afterall, whites in Kansas deserve to be called genetically inferior by Mr. Gergen because they're white. That's why it's not something to be upset over. Blame the victims for being white. If they'd been black or latino, it would be an outrage.
Kudos to Karoli for the citation. :)
“Destitute whites were increasingly labeled “poor white trash” (meaning financially and genetically worse off than others) and worse; “cracker,” “clay eater,” “linthead,” “peckerwood,” “buckra” and especially redneck only scratched the surface of rejection and slander.”
So, genetically worse off. In other words, whites are genetically inferior. I can't imagine a more hateful thing to say about a race.
Can you imagine the reaction if blacks, latinos, or orientals were referred to by Mr. Gergen using a similar term that, among other things, means that their race is genetically inferior? Calling a race genetically inferior sounds like, hmmm, uhhhh, racism? Yeah that's it. Oh but wait a minute, whites can't be the victims of racism. Gee whiz. You got me there.
If Mr. Gergen had referred to blacks or latinos as genetically inferior, it would be an outrage. But when it's done to whites, that's not racist, it's not even objectionable.
Kudos to Karoli for the citation. :)
If you're an anti-racist and you don't like people making judgements based on race then you should be upset about David Gergen. Unless you're a hypocrite and anti-racist really means is anti-White.
What Gergen said was anti-White. He assumed voters who were White who said race mattered to them were bad people. He didn't try to account for why they might say that. He didn't show any interest whatsoever in what the black statistics were or how they might compare.
I wrote about this at my blog. You anti-racist liberals think it's historic when somebody disparages Whites. You are what you hate.
Gergen's remarks were right on the money. He pointed at the elephant on the table that no one wants to identify.
Those Kentucky/WV folks are my relatives too. And they're rednecks. I have never, ever heard the term redneck associated with genetically inferior.
As you point out, wikipedia definitions are often incorrect, particularly when you get to the secondary definitions.
Also, if you listen to what Gergen said, he didn't denounce the people saying what they said. He denounced Clinton's embrace of it.
They're entitled to have racist opinions. They're also entitled to read and forward idiotic emails invented by racist missionaries working in Africa, of all places. He didn't deny that. All he said was that Clinton should reject it.
You can spin what he said, but you're not being intellectually honest if you continue to assume he took aim at the voters as some kind of personal attack. He never said they weren't entitled to their opinions, or to vote the way they wanted. He DID say that Clinton shouldn't court them.
If you're going to make a big deal about Whites but not these other groups then your're anti-White. If you can't admit that you're in denial. Most liberals have both problems.
I object to all of it. I object, and have said so on this blog more than once, to the assumption that I should vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. I object to the notion that the topic of Israel is tiptoed around by everyone for fear of offending someone or invoking Godwin's law.
People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons, from the way they comb their hair to the way they talk. That's their right. But Jews are not racist for wanting to choose a candidate that they believe will protect Israel any more than Iranian-Americans are racist for choosing to vote for a candidate that they believe won't attack Iran. A vote SHOULD express the hopes, desires and best interests of the voters.
Again, don't confuse a call to reject a premise for a vote by a candidate with the voter's right to vote that way.
When Clinton said she appealed to "hard-working white voters" she legitimized the racism inherent in that statement. Are there "hard-working black/hispanic/asian/indian/etc voters"? Of course. But if you're someone who really hates blacks, that single phrase gave permission to vote for Hillary on the belief that she would stand for the white folks who worked hard, to the exclusion of others.
That's what Gergen said she should reject, and not only did she NOT reject it, she embraced it.
The bashing is shaming, and a scare tactic to keep people who vote differently than you to stay away. It is a sad day in our world, when the supposed leading country of Democracy, does not actually practice freedom.
Instead of bashing people for who and why they vote, we should be encouraging more people TO VOTE.
Can't you give Whites the benefit of the doubt and say, you know what, these race-related issues swirling around Obama, despite the press' attempts to downplay them, they really are something Whites might have legitimate concerns about?
Do blacks who fret about whether White candidates really have their best interests in mind freak you out too? Do you assume they hate Whites?
Do jews who are very concerned that their children only marry other jews concern you? Do you scream "racist" in their face? Do you think they do it because they hate anyone who isn't jewish?
Do you think pundits should call for politicians to reject the votes of blacks and jews who think this way?
Your point is well-taken. Getting out the vote is crucial. I just wonder if it's too much to ask that the vote be informed, too.
Taanstafl,
In response to your specific questions:
Can’t you give Whites the benefit of the doubt and say, you know what, these race-related issues swirling around Obama, despite the press’ attempts to downplay them, they really are something Whites might have legitimate concerns about?
Not when they parrot idiotic and UNTRUE statements like "He's a Muslim, I know it." even as they cite Rev. Wright and his involvement with Wright's church for 20 years as a reason not to vote for him. Since when does color disqualify him from leadership? Moreover, why isn't the fact that he's half-white ever mentioned?
Do blacks who fret about whether White candidates really have their best interests in mind freak you out too? Do you assume they hate Whites?
Blacks have traditionally come out in force for white candidates. They are the one voting bloc that Democrats have been able to count on. I certainly don't see a lot of 'fretting' about that.
Do jews who are very concerned that their children only marry other jews concern you? Do you scream “racist” in their face? Do you think they do it because they hate anyone who isn’t jewish?
Who Jews marry is of no concern to me. It has absolutely no bearing on the leadership of the country I live in and love.
Do you think pundits should call for politicians to reject the votes of blacks and jews who think this way?
The Jewish issues you raise are red herrings. They do not have any bearing on the outcome of an election. I see no evidence that the black vote in this election was made on a racial basis until Bill Clinton and subsequently, Hillary Clinton, as well as Hillary Clinton's surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro tried to marginalize a legitimate contender for the Democratic nomination on the basis of his race.
Of course, Geraldine Ferraro's argument AGAINST Obama was a dog whistle calling all good white voters to reciprocate, which was the point of Gergen's comments.
The only players of the race card here have been the Clinton campaign, and they've played it over and over again. What's pathetic is how easily it's used as an excuse to bolster racism in this country.
Many blacks vote as they do because they think it is in their best interests as blacks. They say it out loud. That's why they call blacks who vote republican "uncle Tom" or "oreo". And that's fine by you. But if Whites learn about Wright, and black liberation theology, and they say it affects their vote, you just can't abide it. You call it "idiotic". You dismiss White concerns as "UNTRUE". You assume Whites are driven by ignorance and hate rather than driven by a legitimate concern for themselves.
That's anti-White.
You don't absolve yourself of that charge by dismissing White concerns as illegitimate. You cement it.
Accusing Hillary of "playing the race card" is an absurd inversion of reality. As usual the race card is being played against Whites - we're the ones being called names here, we're the ones you're smearing.
You're not alone in this twisted thinking. Most of the media pundits and politicians and professors are in agreement with you. Whites are ignorant racists and everybody else is just doing what is normal and natural. That's anti-racism. It means anti-White. It's a poisonous, reality-denying, genocide-inducing idea.
Can you handle that truth?
When Clinton said she appealed to “hard-working white voters” she legitimized the racism inherent in that statement.
What is the inherent racism in appealing to hard-working white votes? The only inherent racism is that they are white.
Appealing to hard-working black voters, there is no inherent racism.
Appealing to hard-working latino voters, there is no inherent racism.
But appealing to hard-working white voters, that's inherently racist.
Some people might think this is strange, or wrong. But in America it is situation normal. Whites are considered inherently racist by virtue of the color of their skin. They cannot be victims of racism only perpetrators. I'm glad that there are people out there like Tanstaafl who are willing and able to embrace the concepts of equality and respect for all, including whites. That means not degrading any race -- including whites -- at any time for any reason. Such truly fair minded person find Gergen's comments hateful, shameful, and denounce them.
think about it for a minute. the exact quote was "hard working people...hard-working white people.."
Does the specificity of the correction imply anything at all to you? Anything?
Why do you think it implies?
I don't know, show me where she's specifically reached out and tried to meet black voters where they are. Knocking back shots of crown royal and talking about shooting out in the wilderness with Daddy isn't likely to say much to them.
Those "brown lips" who are the Marxist media have consistently promoted the interests of blacks, browns, and other spectrums of the "rainbow" which they aspire to use in order to disarm and destroy traditional America. They are a vanguard and spokemen for the disparate elements of minorities and the divisions of society (much of it their creation) which can be termed most appropriately as anti-American.
It does no good to argue that it creates discussion among the people and challenges them to do better. That is the classic thesis/anti-thesis of the leftist dialogue which they promote. Division and change of any type, guided and led by their exclusive national ability to communicate, is their objective. They create dialogue because they have the power to do so, and that dialogue consistently challenges American values and the values of the whites who are (or who, at least, once were) the representatives and proponents for American values. Those values were once for the interests of all races and promoted a better society for all. Media and leftists would not want that message to prevail because it does not promote their interests.
The consistent oppression of whites and America by media is plainly led by leftist anti-Americans. That this is overlooked and so weakly denied in the face of evidence otherwise emboldens the anti-white elements and the loonies among the anti-American "disaffected" groups to mouth about the various ways in which they are "oppressed". I think we are sick of hearing all of them.
I would vote for anyone for President who would disband national media and let the people create their own, and who would ban the use of that most objectionable of terms - racist. Anyone, white or black, who has a legitimate belief of any type can be and will be banged over the head with it. That is a Marxist creed used to create division. It is not a descriptive term for any other reason.
It doesn't imply anything to me. What it explicitly says to me is that there are hard working white people.
Now explain to me what is "inherently racist" in the statement "hard working white people?"
Why did you edit the statement? The statement was "hard working people...hard-working white people".
The second phrase standing on its own doesn't imply much of anything, until it's combined with the first phrase, which clearly then distinguishes hard-working people as white.
that's what's inherently racist. Get serious. There's racism in many cultures around this country. Then there are folks like Flanders there, who sort of ramble on about utopian ideas that no candidate or country will ever achieve because yes...there are oppressed people (white, black, brown and mixtures), there are racists and there are media conglomerates. Let's all at least live in reality.
According to you, "The second phrase standing on its own doesn't imply much of anything until it's combined with the first phrase, which clearly then distinguishes hard-working people as white."
That's what it says explicitly. That whites are hard-working. I agree. What's racist about that? It seems to me calling whites rednecks is hateful and racist. Calling them hard-working is a compliment.
And combining the two phrases, "hard-working people...hard working white people" still means she's singling out white people as hard-working. That's a good thing.
One often hears the praise of illegal aliens that "they're so hard-working." Using your logic, that's racist. Calling browns, blacks, or orientals hard-working isn't racist. Calling whites hard-working isn't either, unless you're racist against whites.
You're the person who needs to "live in reality."
You have affirmed the exact point upon which we disagree. This is not a point we will ever agree upon; however, I appreciate the civil discussion, at least, for the most part.
Only White people are capable of racism.
Does anybody not see through Karoli?
Karoli how many Blacks were polled and asked if race was a factor in the election? What does that mean? I would vote for a Black man who had the best interests of Whites at heart!
Kevin, you are right that it is disgraceful that Black people could not recruit a decent and legitimate candidate from amongst their ranks for over two hundred years!
Candy, will Barrack get rid of NAFTA? Is he simply a Black Pat Buchannan? An economic nationalist?
You're hardly coherent. If you look at the polls as we progressed through the primary process, the shift for blacks factoring in race to their vote happened after the Clintons made Obama's race an issue in the campaign. Also, the polls have consistently indicated a higher percentage of whites voting based on race than blacks.
Your comment about blacks 'not being able to recruit...' speaks volumes. As if they were PERMITTED to recruit when they HAD NO VOTE.
Does anyone not see through Daniel? He comes and tosses around big words that he doesn't fully understand while baring his racism wantonly in the statements preceding.
Clearly race is an issue. It long predates Clinton. It is both primal and universal. "Racism" is the attempt to pathologize Whites for having perfectly natural human instincts to favor their own - which ironically they express in far weaker form than can easily be found amongst blacks, jews, latinos or asians. But you seem not at all interested in that.
Stop spewing anti-White hate. Is that coherent enough for you?
It's one thing to say birds of a feather flock together, and another to oppress the other birds because they look different.
Whites have oppressed blacks for centuries. That blacks would push back on that is unsurprising.
As a white person, I don't view applause for calling out racism for what it is spewing anti-white hate. I do think it's high time that all of us, black and white and brown and any other color, start figuring out that it's in our best interests to look beyond race to other, more important issues. That is as true for whites as it is Hispanics, Asians, blacks, etc.
Since I'm the owner of this particular blog, I will say what I want here, just as I've given you a forum to express an opposite view. Not only is your characterization of what I said erroneous, it's intended to bully me and it's not going to work.
And with that, I think we've all had an opportunity to say what needs to be said, so comments will now close on this post.