I have a father in law who is as sweet a guy to his grandchildren, as they could ever wish for. He is also a hard headed verbal racist in the presence of his family, particularly in this time of a black Presidential candidate. I will still go (yesterday) to his home for Easter dinner. And when he says -(when "have you ever tried collard greens" becomes part of a conversation)- "If Obama gets elected you'll have to eat those all the time"... then I will disagree with him as politely as I can. Whether it's through a doubtful look and tilt of the head, or a "there are good and bad people of every sort" remark.
What I think about 'black' people and 'white' people being no different than star-bellied Sneeches vs. those that have none ~in all that matters most~ in the end, won't change 'his' thinking on the matter. But his grandkids get indoctrinated by me on that, and they know without a doubt how I feel about judging people based on their race.
As a grandfather to them he does the yeoman's work quite well as Byrd and Thurmond did perhaps for their constituencies, but I only get to have my say on Pennsylvanian politicians.
I do believe, that when confronted with offensive thoughts, "I disagree" is a better start than "go to hell". And even if I can't change him, I know there is someone in some circumstance that can. Though that day may never come, it can't kill us to prepare for it.
Hope that's not too incoherent.
Makes good sense on a personal level. Perhaps we also agree that there maybe a different standard for elected office or appointed office. In those particular cases the individual *must* exhibit a higher standard or threshold, in my opinion.
Concerning Obama, I wouldn't vote for him because he is a socialist and I think socialism is anti-liberty. I think Clinton is no difference in any meaningful way. At least McCain is not a socialist, but he is a big gov Republican of the Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, George HW & George W Bush. Not much value in my book.
Over the next 6-8 months I have no doubt that more and uglier revelations, both true and false, will work its way into the media. Obama's peculiar public embrace of his spiritual advisor, a bigot, is a tough hurdle to overcome. Clinton's indefensible assertion of danger in the Balkans and McCain's shaky cognition is going to result in a contest of pygmies. F**k'em all.
B
__________________
I wasted my vote on the Libertarian Candidate. Who did you waste your vote on? -- Immodorator
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. ---- Voltaire
I suppose those who vote for them can tell you what standard they are expected to achieve.
If politicians weren't chosen in spite of their failings we would be ungoverned... now there's a thought worth considering.
Sadly, big government, married to socialistic policies and spending, isn't even up for debate anymore. At least as far as any candidate, 'as far the eye can see' is concerned. Neither has the notion that our 'interests' abroad are based on securing access to resources, with no regard to the sustainability of the markets for our children or their future partners there been.
The question before us, effectively, is: "who will steer this supertanker, we've embarked on, through the straits". As we are forced to choose 'more of the same' from one of these three pilots, I'll take Obama's peculiar path over Clinton's static spin, and McCain's narrow field of competence. Not so much because of what he proposes to champion, but because of how he has been observed in action by his peers, and the way he proffers to go about the job. Should he be elected, I would expect him to accomplish some things seen as landmarks, while leaving some great type of 'deficit' to contend with.
In the end it is up to our representatives, and therefore you and me, to tax ourselves, to spend only that, and to allow ourselves the freedom that makes us what we would be. If there will be any real 'change' in the country's future, it will come from those who fill the house and senate with it's members. As no cure for what we need is in sight or ever will be past the bathroom mirror. And the expectation of that cure from elsewhere is bound to sink us if we forget it, no matter who is at the helm.
Recent events - Reverend Jeremiah Wright's mass media debut and Barack Obama's speech about race in response - have focused the political spotlight on Obama's race and its role in the Democratic primary contest, and potentially the general election. What few are talking about, however, is how race was, and has been, an issue to voters in this contest long before Reverend Wright was a household name.
Since Super Tuesday, when a question about the candidates' race was first added to the exit polls, there has been a demonstrable connection between the issue of race, less-educated white voters, and their choice of Hillary Rodham Clinton. More recent polling on race by the CBS News Poll also supports this connection.
Significantly, this pattern of support for Clinton among less educated white voters has been consistent throughout the primary season, starting with New Hampshire and lasting through to Ohio and Texas, in states as diverse as Missouri and California, in states she lost by sizable margins as well as those she won in landslides.
There is no evidence that racial animosity or “racism” is, or has been, at work in Democratic primary voting. What there is evidence of is the existence of candidates' race as an important issue for some Democratic primary voters. It is an issue that seems to give them pause in supporting Obama in the primaries.
Clinton has consistently won the votes of less educated (high school education or less) white voters - an important part of the Democratic Party's base of support.In New Hampshire, the first primary, Clinton won 39 percent of white voters as a group, but 49 percent of less educated white voters, beating Obama among this group by 19 points. As recently as the Ohio primary, the results were similar - Clinton beat Obama by 57 points among less educated white Democrats in Ohio, versus the 30-point advantage she enjoyed among all whites in the state.
This support is not limited to states Clinton has won. Even in states Obama has won by large margins, Clinton has managed to retain an advantage among these voters. In Obama's home state of Illinois, where he bested Clinton by an overwhelming 32 points - 65 percent to 33 percent - carrying white voters overall, with 56 percent support, less educated white Democrats still went for Clinton. She won 55 percent of this group's vote, among the highest support she received from any demographic group in Illinois, having lost most other groups, even within her base (for example white women and voters over 60) to Obama.
In fact, while much has been made about white males’ preference for Obama in the primary elections, among less educated whites there is not a consistent preference gap between men and women. For example, in Ohio Clinton won equal proportions of less educated white men and women, 78 percent and 77 percent respectively.
The consistency with which less educated white voters have supported Clinton, even in contests where other portions of her base deserted her, makes the group unique. Perhaps it should come as little surprise then that some of their social views also separate them from many Democrats. Of central interest is their views on race and their willingness to support a black candidate.
The exit polls have been asking Democratic primary voters about the importance of candidate race in their vote since the Super Tuesday contests. The proportion of Democratic primary voters who have said race was important to their vote has rarely been more than one-quarter of any state's electorate, making it easy to overlook. In addition, the specific exit poll question does not ask voters which direction candidate race swayed their vote.
Precisely because it does not explicitly ask the direction of candidate race's influence, it ended up measuring both directions - one for whites, and a different one for blacks. For example, in Missouri, some black primary voters may have been led to Obama by race - 28 percent of black voters said that candidate race was important to their vote, and 96 percent of them supported Obama. Seventy-eight percent of black voters who said race was not important to their choice also supported Obama.
In contrast, white voters in Missouri who said candidate race was important to their vote choice supported Clinton. Among the 17 percent of white primary voters who said candidate race was important to them Clinton won 65 percent of the vote, versus 49 percent among whites who said race was not important. This pattern repeats itself throughout the primary states - the importance of candidate race as an issue for voters boosting Obama's support among African-Americans while boosting Clinton's support among whites.
Candidate race plays more of a role for some voters than others. Clinton's core support base of less educated whites is one of the groups for whom it plays more of a role. In Missouri, 29 percent of less educated whites said candidate race was an important factor to their vote, while only 10 percent of whites with more than a high school education said the same. Again, this is not an isolated finding: in Connecticut the comparable numbers are 18 percent to 11 percent, and in Ohio, 29 percent to 13 percent.
The finding that less educated whites are hesitant to support black candidates is not new - these attitudes have been evident for decades. A Gallup Poll from 1978 shows that white Democrats with less than a high school diploma (one-third of the sample at that time) were significantly less likely to support a hypothetical black nominee from their own party than were those with more education - 65 percent compared to 82 percent.
This difference has narrowed over time, but was still evident as recently as last year, just before the hypothetical black candidate became a reality. A 2007 Gallup Poll showed that 86 percent of white Democrats with a high school diploma or less expressed willingness to vote for a black candidate, relative to 92 percent of those whites Democrats with more education.
The very real candidacy of Barack Obama seems to be witnessing this same hesitation to support a black candidate among less educated white Democrats. A national CBS News Poll on race from last week reveals that 59 percent of white Democratic primary voters with a high school education or less believe that America is ready for a black president. In contrast, however, over three-quarters of their more educated counterparts think the country is ready - a difference of 15 points.
This belief appears to be impacting candidate preferences. Among less educated, white Democratic primary voters, belief in America's readiness for a black president boosts support for (or reduces opposition to) Obama by 13 points. Thirty-nine percent of those less educated white Democrats who think the country is ready for a black president support Obama, while only 26 percent of those who feel the country is not ready support him. Primary voters with higher levels of education evidence no differences in support for Obama based on whether or not they think the country is ready for a black commander-in-chief.
Candidate race is and has been a clear factor in the Democratic primaries to date, for both white and black voters. While it is clear that the issue matters to a range of voters, less educated whites are among those most affected by candidate race both historically and in this election. They are also a group with whom Obama has been unable to make much headway.
Despite Obama's attempt to defuse the issue of race in his major national address last week, it is unlikely he did so. In a CBS News follow-up survey after Obama's speech, his overall favorability ratings were unchanged, and the speech appeared to have made as many viewers less likely as more likely to support him. While those who followed the speech gave it very positive ratings, alleviating the long-held and entrenched racial concerns of some voters will require much more.
__________________
"I respect faith but doubt is what gets you an education."
- Wilson Mizner
"Once you label me, you negate me."
- Soren Kierkegaard
I suppose those who vote for them can tell you what standard they are expected to achieve.
If politicians weren't chosen in spite of their failings we would be ungoverned... now there's a thought worth considering.
Sadly, big government, married to socialistic policies and spending, isn't even up for debate anymore. At least as far as any candidate, 'as far the eye can see' is concerned. Neither has the notion that our 'interests' abroad are based on securing access to resources, with no regard to the sustainability of the markets for our children or their future partners there been.
The question before us, effectively, is: "who will steer this supertanker, we've embarked on, through the straits". As we are forced to choose 'more of the same' from one of these three pilots, I'll take Obama's peculiar path over Clinton's static spin, and McCain's narrow field of competence. Not so much because of what he proposes to champion, but because of how he has been observed in action by his peers, and the way he proffers to go about the job. Should he be elected, I would expect him to accomplish some things seen as landmarks, while leaving some great type of 'deficit' to contend with.
In the end it is up to our representatives, and therefore you and me, to tax ourselves, to spend only that, and to allow ourselves the freedom that makes us what we would be. If there will be any real 'change' in the country's future, it will come from those who fill the house and senate with it's members. As no cure for what we need is in sight or ever will be past the bathroom mirror. And the expectation of that cure from elsewhere is bound to sink us if we forget it, no matter who is at the helm.
Nuthin' much I care to argue with there. I'm nearly dead certain I will be voting for a 3rd party candidate. This will be my bumper sticker.
"I wasted my vote on the Libertarian Candidate. Who did you waste your vote on?"
I've heard that once you've made up your mind who to vote for it's pretty much a done deal. That from then on, you will then take any information gained about the candidates and spin it for yourself to support your choice. It would explain this thread at any rate.
I've heard that once you've made up your mind who to vote for it's pretty much a done deal. That from then on, you will then take any information gained about the candidates and spin it for yourself to support your choice. It would explain this thread at any rate.
That phenomenon is a real bitch for small minded people. Take Jayhawk for instance...
Linear Mode
