Let's Talk

[truthseeker]

I hear ya big bruh.

I understand how for people like those in the civil rights community, and also your average everyday black person for whom there is typically a high priority placed on certain symbolic racial issues (I think Shirley Sherrod became an example of such a symbolic racial issue), the Prez is very guilty of not being assertive enough, outspoken enough, on a variety of race related issues. But I think such people tend not to make an effort, to really think about and understand, what the Presidency is really all about.

Imo, he has to be the President of the nation, before he's anything else. As President, I think his priority #1, has to be the immediate, most pressing, often most threatening things, that affect the prosperity of the nation as a whole. Therefore for me, him focusing "like a laser beam" on things like our two ongoing wars, our "war on terrorism", our economy in the forms of jobs, the effective functioning of our capital markets etc.. is WAY more important than any "bully pulpit" type of thing he might say on the issue of race.

As another example, I have expressed on this message board before, how I like how he actually does things that either benefit most blacks, or represents something that most blacks are in favor of, without bringing a lot of attention to the "pro-black" nature of what he has done. And for me, I think health care reform is an example of this.

I believe if you or I conducted a scientific poll dc, that poll would show that the vast majority of black Americans, are strongly in favor of the changes in health insurance, that the recently enacted law brings into being. And if analysis was done on which demographic groups of Americans fall into the class of who most directly benefits from the law, that black Americans would be greatly represented in that number. (Btw, in addition to black Americans as a group, I think working class white Americans will also be a group that most benefits from the reform.)

But the Prez, nor anyone else in his Administration, ever did much trumpeting, of the "pro-black" nature of the health insurance reform. Of how the reform is likely to benefit a large number of black Americans, in a direct way. (FYI I am making no commentary at this time, about the budgetary long term impact of health care reform. I'm only discussing in this post, how I believe the provisions of the reform, are provisions that in a vacuum directly assist many black Americans.)

And I think not trumpeting such a thing, asserting these "pro-black" ramifications loudly and publicly, is wise on the President's part. That for him to racialize the reform, in a manner that would please civil rights types, and their intellectual allies in the media (a person like pundit Mark Lamont Hill for example), would only make the reform even more unpopular with moderate whites and independents, than it already is.

So in a nutshell dc, I think a majority of the commentators I encounter who clearly want the Prez to say more bold things on the topic of race, and design more policies and initiatives with clear cut race-based goals, (such as programs that specifically target black unemployment, as opposed to unemployment as a whole) are people for whom their job, is not to come up with sensible, effective means, to get things done in the country. Most of these commentators' job, is to voice a point of view. Or to lobby and advocate for certain segments of the society. Sometimes to sell newspapers and books or draw people to a particular website.

I don't think most of the people who want the President to be outspoken or aggressive on race, could themselves ever be elected to ANY national political office. And if we were to take that magic wand of yours dc, and make someone like Dowd, or Tavis Smiley, or Cornel West the President today, they wouldn't be able to get anything passed in Congress, that would help the black people they want to help.

Governing and jaw jacking, are two entirely different things. lol
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[truthseeker]

Btw dc, this point I'm making about what I view as the nature of most (not all) pundits and media visible commentators, is the area where I often feel I have more divergent views with people on this message board, than on any other topic we discuss here.

In my process of attempting to follow and understand political events in our country, determining who amongst the people out there disseminating information, and expressing their point of view, are the most serious, sincere, objective and non-sensational/inflammatory opinion makers, is an EXTREMELY important exercise for me. I do not want to be entertained, by the people who most influence my political views. I'm not looking for people who are "edgy" or funny, I'm looking for people who are serious, thoughtful and mainly fair.

At times on this message board, I feel that many posters’ favorite pundit, is determined by whoever it is who says things they immediately agree with. Or gives voice to some particular outrage, they share with that pundit. But I am totally against this trend, where the main thing people seem to want, is a pundit who seems to agree with them on everything, and who expresses those point of views in a funny or mocking way.

Dc I do not take the majority of pundits or commentators seriously. I think most of them are business men and women, who first are interested in selling themselves as media personalities, and only a distant second are interested in figuring out sensible ways to solve our nation's problems.

And this perspective of mine, without a doubt, goes into how I view a lot of the people, I have heard saying the Prez should be more outspoken on race. I’m not saying everybody who calls for this change in his approach is just a “jaw jacking” political entertainer, but I think the majority of such people in the media who are calling for this, are. Are people for whom figuring out what is responsible and actually doable, is not their main mission.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[dcwash]

[DarkStar]

[dcwash]

[Mongo_Slade]

I just read the Maureen Dowd piece. I essentially agree with both of you...but I'm not as eleoquent as either of you so I'll have to answer in my own way:

This chick is wrong. Dowd said this:

[DarkStar]

[dcwash]

DS, I think the book on him is that he has accomplished this top legislative agenda even in the midst of a recession...two wars...and a Congress that is not always helpful. I think you might not like the way it looks or he might not be bring about the blissful change that many thought would come with his election but I think objective measure would say the man has been pretty productive.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/07/obamas-record

[truthseeker]

Excellent thread! Love the most recent group of comments. Some very good and intriguing stuff imo.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[truthseeker]

[truthseeker]

[truthseeker]

[truthseeker]

[DarkStar]

[truthseeker]

Thanks for your responses DS.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[DarkStar]

[truthseeker]

DS, I see you having made two different claims on this issue now. (I say different claims, not inconsistent claims.)

1. You are now saying that the President took an approach of leaving many/most of the details of the bill, to be hashed out in the Congressional committees. i.e. He stood on the sidelines while this was being done.

and

2. The bill had nothing to do with Prez Obama. And had everything to do with Pelosi and Reid.


I essentially agree with you on point #1. The point you made in your most recent post on this topic.

It is my understanding too, that in an attempt to avoid some of the pitfalls that Prez Clinton ran into in the early 90s while pursuing Health Care Reform, that Prez Obama and his aides took the type of approach you refer to in point #1.

But for me, even though it's my impression that point #1 is true, that doesn't make point #2 also true. I think your point #2, as articulated in your post from Friday, is quite inaccurate. Ignores a critical role I think the President most likely played, in the bill actually getting passed.

You say you don't trust history books. So I take that to mean when various memoirs and other accounts of what happened behind the scenes in the Health Care Reform saga come out, those literary pieces won't have any effect on your view of this. But as for me, I look forward to the time those written (and spoken) accounts come out in detail. I look forward to being able to compare many of them, and come to a better informed belief of what happened, and who gets responsibility for the passing of that bill.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[DarkStar]

[dcwash]

[truthseeker]

Dc who have you heard or read, accuse the President of favoring blacks over whites? Anybody other than conservative radio talk show hosts and conservative bloggers?
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[dcwash]

[truthseeker]

Dc, in general, throughout American society, does the average black person who works in a predominantly white environment, shy away from discussing racism, and other racial topics with their white co-workers, superiors etc.. I know I do. And I know most black people I associate with who work in such environments do.

And the reason such black people, are reluctant to discuss race in those environments, has NOTHING to do with some fear, of appearing to favor blacks over whites.

Yes dc, I too think Prez Obama, is cautious, even reluctant, to deal with matters of race in public. But I don't think that caution, has much of anything to do with some fear of appearing to favor blacks over whites. Any commentator you've heard put that out, as the reason Obama is so cautious in when and how he discusses race, has totally misstated the reason for that caution imo.

Once again I repeat. Imo, the reasons Obama does not speak about race as often, or as openly, as say a civil rights activist does, are very similar to the reasons why no intelligent black person who truly aspires to succeed in a white dominated environment, goes around talking about racism, and race related topics a lot.

Don't let stupid pundits, put stupid ideas in your mind. I think your own personal life experience dc, gives you a good sense of why Obama does what he does in this regard. This stupid, "he favors blacks over whites" accusation, does not play a significant role in the approach the Prez takes to race. His public approach to race would be the same, even if NO ONE in America was currently making that claim against him.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[truthseeker]

dc I feel I asked you a simple, straight forward question, that you have not answered. (I made a really short, two sentence post, and you've totally ignored the first sentence. You quoted the post, by omitting the first sentence. The main idea of the post.)

Who have you heard make this claim against the Prez? Can you give me just one name?

If the answer to my question is that you don't remember where you've heard or read it, then I have no problem accepting that answer from you.

p.s. I'm having a lot of trouble getting my posts to go thru this morning. So if I disappear on you, that is what has happened. I'm not ignoring or avoiding you.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[truthseeker]

I just took a look at the Dowd column B posted, I see she mentions the "favoring blacks over whites" thing, in her description of what she believes is going on with Obama's advisers.

So I'm not sure whether her column is what prompted you to say what you've said on this, or not.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

[dcwash]

Ok....ts1 you have got to come back on this board so my brother ts2 will stop jumping on me!!!


I thought I was addressing your point to me since you asked whom I had heard make this charge besides the conservatives. I have only heard the charge discussed on a show like Morning Joe or on blogs like Talking Point Memo, but it was more in the context of my answer to your original question. So to be clear I have not heard or read this point being made by anyone other than some conservative pundits, as reported by the likes I mentioned above.

Does that make my previous answer clearer?
_________________
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." Elbert Hubbard
Many on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints,Aaron Brown