The Jackie Robinson Theory of the Obama Presidency
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
This adapted from is an old post from my blog, that I consider an “oldie but goodie” to give you guys a little content while I handle some personal matters. I hope you enjoy it.
Ever since Obama has become president there has been a hyperracialization of every issue of mere politics. The climax came for me when I went to the Tea Party protest down at the Capital just before Obamacare was passed. When I got home I started hearing claims of some kind of racial incident. You can recognize intellectually that politicians are liars, but to hear them lying about you is another matter, a real baptism. And it made me try to understand where this was all coming from.
Now some of it is pure hucksterism. There is no two ways about it.
But there is also an honest, albeit mistaken, belief that this is a racial issue. One honest, albeit misguided reason for believing that racism is behind it is that to many liberals, Obama is so self-evidently awesome one cannot rationally be opposed to his policies. But there is one other reason why liberals assume that the criticism that Obama richly deserves is based on race. I call it the Jackie Robinson Theory of the Obama presidency.
Let’s go back to Jackie Robinson. I take it as a given that you know that he was the first black player in Major League Baseball. But he was also something else: a test case. He was brought into the league first because they believed that he had the disposition, class, and intelligence to keep what was important in mind. So if some racist fool dug his spiked cleats into Robinson’s leg, Robinson couldn’t grab a bat and give the jerk the beating he richly deserved. He had to take it, play through the pain and never give back what they threw at him. It was unjust, but at that time it was necessary, and he got that. It wasn’t about him, it was about his whole race. Just as we celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ, we can take a moment to recognize another man who suffered unjustly and did not strike back. What more in the name of love, right? And maybe that doesn’t merit a tribute song by Bono, but with his quiet courage, and dignity, Robinson opened the door so that people of all colors could play baseball together.
So is Obama the “Jackie Robinson” of the presidency? In the sense that he is the first black man to come into this position, undeniably. But what about in the second sense, that he is a test case?
I would bet that the majority of the conservatives, the Tea Partiers, etc. would absolutely say “no.” I could be wrong, but that is my sense of it. We simply don’t believe Obama has to prove anything about black people, or that his conduct reflects on anyone but himself. Obama is a terrible president, and that’s just him. It doesn’t shake my faith in the equality of the races, and it doesn’t make me one bit less likely to vote for a black person next time.
But in the minds of many liberals, I think they believe he is a test case. They think that if Obama is a bad president, that this means we will never elect a black man again, or that whites might take it to imply something about all black people.
So they are rooting for him to succeed not simply because they like his policies, but because if Obama turns out to be seen as a bad president they think it will set race relations back. And if you say you oppose his policies, if you say he is a terrible president, if you say, like Rush Limbaugh, that you hope Obama fails, in the mind of such a liberal that becomes a racist thing to say, because the only correct thing to want is for Obama to be seen as one of the best presidents we have had. Because he is Jackie Robinson, in their mind, in every sense of those words.
However, that requires a very pessimistic understanding of race relations, and it makes you wonder why they feel that way. I have said this before, but I have observed that many people fall into the fallacy of believing that everyone is like them. It’s a common mistake to assume that everyone is basically alike and thinks like you. So on one hand, it sometimes makes it hard to get a truly post-racial white person to understand that racism really does exist. But the converse of that is that those people who struggle with racism, but consciously want to oppose racism, believe that everyone else is having the same struggle.
So you take two liberals who have accused the Tea Partiers of being mainly racist. On one hand, there is Chris Matthews, who said during the State of the Union that for an hour he forgot Obama was black. That means the rest of the time he views Obama it never leaves his mind. He is a racist who consciously wants to be against racism.
And then there is Keith Olbermann. In his now infamous rant on the Tea Party he started off by saying that all white men, without any exceptions, have a little prejudice in their heart they have to struggle against. That is itself a racist comment. And doesn’t it fit my template exactly?—a liberal who doesn’t want to be racist, having to struggle with it, and imputing that same struggle to his entire racial and gender class?
And then he went on to say that there were no non-white people in the Tea Party crowd. That was objectively untrue. But I don’t think he was consciously lying. Rather instead, those non-whites were “invisible” to him in a Ralph Ellison sort of way.
Now I am not saying that this explains 100% of this phenomenon. Like I said in the beginning, some of this is just hucksterism, or the belief that no one can rationally oppose such an awesome guy. It’s stupid, but it surely exists. But this one element, the “Jackie Robinson” element, I think is undeniably there.
Update: Slight correction. Thanks to Jeff.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Obama’s not a test case because every prominent Dem screeched to the heavens ad nauseum that Clinton was our 1st Black POTUS. Then they went overboard to smear Hillary when their saint was imperiled during the primary. So screw ’em.
Dmac (2110b5) — 10/23/2010 @ 2:19 pmAnd then he went on to say that there were no white people in the Tea Party crowd.
Do you mean “no non-white people”?
jeff (31e059) — 10/23/2010 @ 2:26 pmThe fundamental difference is that Jackie Robinson was a talented, gifted, skilled athlete. Barcky is an incompetent boob that can read from a TelePrompTer.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/23/2010 @ 2:26 pmSorry, I don’t buy any of it. There was nakedly overt racism in baseball pre-Robinson. Whatever racism existed in politics pre-Obama was (and still is) covert. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but I think even a liberal sees the difference.
I prefer to look to baseball’s other Robinson — Frank Robinson. After being hired as the first black manager in the major leagues, he was asked if his hiring meant racism no longer had a presence in baseball. He replied that this would only happen when baseball mustered the courage to fire the first black manager.
beer 'n pretzels (3d1d61) — 10/23/2010 @ 2:28 pmOpposition to Obama’s policies is overtly racist.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/23/2010 @ 2:35 pmIt’s official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Presidency
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/
BTW… remember this, as soon as America elects a white president, this teabagger shit will quickly fade, as will this hysterical Islamophobia.
W (9df40f) — 10/23/2010 @ 2:38 pmI believe he is a test case.
I believe he was elected because black people voted for him because he is black, the whites voted for him because they wanted to be part of “this historic moment”.
And I believe he has failed.
And I believe that is tragic, because there are black people out here that should be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Larry Sheldon (7d77d0) — 10/23/2010 @ 2:43 pmObama is fahrvergnügen. He was sold to the American people like some local beach market beer ad, “coldest beer” in the[insert your favorite beach].
People's Front of Judea (aefe1c) — 10/23/2010 @ 2:53 pm____________________________________________
So they are rooting for him to succeed not simply because they like his policies, but because if Obama turns out to be seen as a bad president they think it will set race relations back.
I don’t buy into much of that for the simple reason that I bet if Obama were a conservative — if he were a dyed-in-the-wool Republican — many liberals would be muttering “Uncle Tom!,” “sell-out!” or “I supported the idea of civil rights and diversity just to get stuck with crap like him?!” IOW, if many liberals perceived Obama as being a rightist who was promoting non-liberal ideas and policies they disliked, they’d gladly sacrifice their respect for good race relations (real or otherwise) on the altar of leftism.
Mark (411533) — 10/23/2010 @ 3:01 pmBarack has turned back race relations 25 years. He serves as an example to many whites of the following:
1) Blacks reflexively blame whites for problems which are actually the fault of blacks (Beer Summit)
2) Blacks reflexively vote black regardless of competence or experience. (Hilary only got 10% of the black vote in the primary — yup only 10%, the great Clinton, wife of our first black POTUS)
3) Blacks celebrate the concept of getting over on the man with social programs. Health Care Vote. Higher taxes for middle class via Bush expiry.
4) Blacks like the money as much as any white guy and are no more principled than whites about. Kobe Steak anyone? Malaga trip? Lying about pork. Lobbyists in the WH. His fund raising for POTUS.
5) Black on white crime does not matter b/c that is how blacks get even. Hell it is like Muzlims get even. Black Panther Case and general disposition Holder/Baracky have on the black “political” crimes. Handling of the Major Hasan case so far.
6) Sucking foreign cock for feel good points.
All of this fuels anger by many FAIR MINDED WHITES who desperately wanted to believe that a black man could defend their interests AND THEIR COUNTRIES as well as he does minorities/blacks.
Frankly he is the Manchurian Candidate in so far as I am concerned. I can not imagine a POTUS more hell bent on creating problems than him.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/23/2010 @ 3:04 pmMark
If BHO was a Conservative his name would be Tom and he would always be on the Porch.
Liberals care not a whit about blacks when they vote “not liberal.”
At that point blacks are disposable and who cares if you (the liberal) act like a racist piece of filfth.
Torquemada (a8a9b2) — 10/23/2010 @ 3:06 pmThat could cut both ways.
I honestly don’t think another black presidential candidate will be hurt by Obama UNLESS he’s an empty suit type. It won’t be hard for greater men, black or not, to look comparably better.
The ‘historic’ aspect has been killed, but hopefully not too many hold Obama against black folks in general, any more than they hold Carter against whites. Hopefully, anyway.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/23/2010 @ 3:13 pmThe amazing thing about the Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann quotes is that both expressed an inward racist tendency and yet neither rose to the defense of Juan Williams when he was fired.
Jimpithecus (8c3911) — 10/23/2010 @ 3:34 pm__________________________________________
He serves as an example to many whites of the following:
I don’t think in terms of white or black (or whatever) as much as I think in terms of people’s ideological orientation and biases. IOW, I’d prefer a black, gay, secular female who was a conservative (or even a true centrist) to a white, straight, non-secular male who was a liberal.
Of course, you’d need a powerful magnifying glass to find folks like the former, and even if you were dependent on a seeing-eye dog could easily find folks like the latter (eg, Jimmy Carter, etc, etc).
^ All the mindless pro-liberal, pro-Democrat-Party sentiment contributes to a lot of the socio-economic dysfunction that undermines a large percentage of black America, or certainly makes it harder to lower that dysfunction.
Mark (411533) — 10/23/2010 @ 3:41 pmBlacks turned decisively to the Democrats in 1960 when MLK was arrested and confined in jail during the presidential campaign. John Kennedy called him in the jail; Richard Nixon wanted to do so but was convinced that it would be a political stunt. Eisenhower was the one who ordered the 101st Airborne to escort black children into the Little Rock schools.
The stunt worked and the action was ignored. Before 1960 the black vote was split as a remnant of the Emancipation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act closed the deal. Barry Goldwater made a disastrous decision to vote no in spite of Hubert Humphrey’s statement that he would eat the bill page by page if it resulted in racial preferences.
It didn’t matter that it would not have passed if the majority of Republicans had not supported it.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 10/23/2010 @ 4:05 pmGood job Humphrey’s dead, isn’t it? Otherwise, he’d have the most awful case of indigestion.
Technomad (414683) — 10/23/2010 @ 4:43 pmI don’t really think that Obama represents anything in race relations in this country, because he is not the descendant of slaves.
When a descendant of slaves occupies the White House (and I hope it comes soon and s/he has an R after his name) then I will know that this country has finally put its founding sin to rest.
But Obama is the descendant of a foreign African man and a white American woman. His experience simply is not the same, and to equate him with the African American experience solely on the accidental similarity of his pigmentation is to engage in the grossest form of racism.
Being Black in America is a different kettle of fish from having African ancestors.
Pious Agnostic (f24095) — 10/23/2010 @ 5:00 pmObama is every liberal undergraduate social studies major secret chocolate fantasy. He is the “cool” professor that they all wanted to f**k. And he gets major bonus points because of his race. In the run up to the election all I heard about was how smart he was, how worldly he was, and how educated he was especially compared to that dunce Bush and conservatives in general like yours truly. I heard about how the country is changing and we need to be rid of all of the old white guys who ran things into the ground (tell that to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc). The irony for me is that I share a similar (not exact) racial make up to Obama, but in their eyes I don’t count since I am a conservative. To them I am just another out-of-it-white guy despite my rather non-white color.
BT (74cbec) — 10/23/2010 @ 5:20 pmThey didn’t get it then and they certainly don’t get it now. Obama is the ultimate diversity hire. He is the Mario Mendoza of presidents. He should not be in the big leagues.
Spot on. As a black person myself, I get to hear this thing first hand, and you are exactly right. Obama represents every black person who has ever felt that their qualifications and performance are under extra scrutiny because of their race. Black folks and white liberals bought into Obama as the ideal candidate to validate affirmative action and “diversity” and multiculturalism and all of the rest. If he “fails”, it’s not just him, it’s the liberal project that has failed, and every black beneficiary of affirmative action/diversity initiatives is called into question.
It’s not the rest of the country’s fault that this is so, however. They set this situation up this way, by extolling his qualifications, he went to Harvard Law, edited the Law Review, sounds intelligent, holds liberal beliefs, comes from a multicultural background. They set it all up, and now that they’re seeing the failure, it’s driving them nuts, and they’re striking out at anyone who dares to highlight it. It’d be pretty sad, if it weren’t also so dangerous to the Republic.
George (a20c63) — 10/23/2010 @ 6:30 pmObama isn’t Jackie Robinson, he’s Al Sharpton–a liar; a phony; a “community organizer” who’s never contributed a damn thing to the society he regularly castigates. But if you’re determined to make this a baseball analogy, then let’s say Obama is Steve Blass, the Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher and 1971 World Series hero who suddenly couldn’t find home plate, derailing his pro career. As Wikipedia puts it, “Blass is best known for his sudden and inexplicable loss of control.” Just like Obama will be, after Nov. 2.
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 10/23/2010 @ 6:49 pmIt is really sad that Obama is such a terrible president. This will hurt the next black candidate, although, if he or she does well, the problem is over. There are a lot of Republicans who want the next black candidate to succeed. Democrats, I don’t know.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 10/23/2010 @ 7:01 pmActually, Obama was groomed for this by Democrats, first in Chicago and then nationally after 2004 because he wasn’t Al Sharpton — i.e., he didn’t come across as being naturally loud, angry or aggressive during the 2008 campaign (true, his thin skin would show at times, but the angry one in the family was Michelle, not Barack). The Democrats knew that having a candidate with Obama’s political beliefs married to an aggressive personalty would have produced a candidate that would never even have gotten past Hillary in the primaries, let alone McCain in the general election.
The problem for the liberal Democrats who were his core supporters is that once the election was over and Obama was sworn in they expected him to be Al Sharpton. They want him to morph into the mega-aggressive alpha male who would go face-to-face with any Republican or even Blue Dog Democrat who dared challenge him, instead of the laid-back super-cautious candidate who voted ‘present’ all the time and was content to let everyone else do the heavy lifting, while then allowing him to step in and take the credit. But Obama’s beta male personality is Obama; any effort to change it comes across as embarrassingly phony.
So Obama in 2008 was like Robinson during the 1947 season in that his mild personality was needed to get the job done. But that wasn’t the way Robinson was before that, and he wouldn’t be that way after — plus Jackie had to earn his way into the majors the hard way; Obama had thousands to enablers greasing his path into the White House. But whatever self-awareness Obama has that others have done the grunt work to get him elected president seems to be outweighed by the fact that he sees nothing wrong with that, and despite the disasters of the past 20 months has no plans to either modify his positions to the center (other than cosmetically) or work harder to win the moderates back to his political ideology. In 2011, that’s apparerntly going to be the jobs of Steny Hoyer, Chuckie Schumer and the nation’s union leaders to accomplish.
John (e3fdad) — 10/23/2010 @ 7:09 pmLiberals don’t want Obama to fail because it would reflect poorly on blacks, you are giving them far too much credit. They want him to succeed because they believe in his ideology and they want to remain in power. Blacks as a group are more useful to them as low income dependents. The worst thing that could happen to the liberal enterprise is blacks TRULY succeeding. They would have economic power of their own and would not be subject to being bribed with government benefits as they are now.
Obama was chosen because he was the more left wing of the candidates in 2008. His race was a coincidental side benefit that liberals used for their own gain.
Ken Royall (67885e) — 10/23/2010 @ 7:52 pmYou don’t need to be a weatherman to see that Anthropogenic Climate Change is coming to DC on Election night.
Neo (7830e6) — 10/23/2010 @ 8:28 pmHe replied that this would only happen when baseball mustered the courage to fire the first black manager.
Comment by beer ‘n pretzels
Thank you for that, I always thought Frank Robinson was a class guy.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/23/2010 @ 9:44 pmi always defuse this sort of debate by asking one simple question:
“Why didn’t you join me in voting for Alan Keyes in 2000?”
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 10/24/2010 @ 12:06 amThe reason why Jackie Robinson’s demeanor and disposition were so important is because Brooklyn Dodgers’ owner Branch Rickey’s bold attempt to re-integrate the Major Leagues hung on whether or not Robinson could be the anti-Jack Johnson.
If you’ve ever heard the expression “The Great White Hope,” it sprung from the hope that in 1910, retired world heavyweight boxing champion James Jeffries could defeat Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion of the world. Jeffries had refused to fight Johnson, and retired in 1905 having never stepped in a ring with him. Johnson set about whipping white contenders and dared reigning Australian Tommy Burns to fight him (Clubber Lang-style). He won, and was the undisputed champ.
Johnson rubbed his status as the biggest, baddest professional fighter on the planet in the faces of the white supremacists, who couldn’t handle it. Having been begged to strike a blow for the white race by figures such as famed writer Jack London, Jeffries faced Johnson on July 4, 1910. Johnson soundly defeated Jeffries, who threw in the towel before he suffered the indignity of getting knocked out. Wikipedia says — FWIW — that Jeffries’ defeat set off race riots throughout the nation.
Jack Johnson earned the right to crow like a rooster, but in doing so he was doing no favor to black Americans at large. Reconstruction was still in the public’s consciousness, and here was a rich black man flaunting his wealth, cavorting with white prostitutes out in the open, taunting white men, and marrying white women. Johnson was a hothead, reportedly beating his first wife on a regular basis until she became fatally suicidal. On the other hand, Jackie Robinson was cool under pressure, and endured insults and second-class status until he had won over (for the most part) White America.
Am I saying Obama is Jack Johnson? No, not exactly. But for many of the reasons that Torquemada listed in an honest (but crude) comment above, Obama has missed his chance to be Jackie Robinson. Instead of being the worthy competitor who was willing to suffer prejudice and mistreatment until he proved fears about him unfounded, Obama’s status as the Leader of the Free World has led him to — similar to Johnson — flout common standards of good behavior, i.e. using underhanded, dishonest, and hypocritical methods of accomplishing his legislative goals in the face of a disapproving public.
Let me interject at this point that I am a black man.
L.N. Smithee (233341) — 10/24/2010 @ 1:19 amI found this most worthy commentary…
Washington Post Confirms More Than a Year of Conservative Reporting”
“Yes, that’s right. On Saturday’s front page, in a well-documented piece, the Washington Post did a very credible job in reporting the details of the New Black Party Panther case and, in large part, vindicating the witnesses and conservative outlets which have reported that: 1) the administration concealed that political appointees influenced the decision to dismiss a blatant case of voter intimidation; 2) the Obama administration does not believe in equal enforcement of civil rights laws; and 3) this single incident is indicative of a much larger problem than one case of voter intimidation.
As to the administration’s mindset:
Civil rights officials from the Bush administration have said that enforcement should be race-neutral. But some officials from the Obama administration, which took office vowing to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement, thought the agency should focus primarily on cases filed on behalf of minorities.
“The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around,” said one Justice Department official not authorized to speak publicly, referring to the white Alabama police commissioner who cracked down on civil rights protesters such as Lewis, now a Democratic congressman from Georgia.
Translation: J. Christian Adams and Chris Coates, two former trial attorneys, testified truthfully under oath on this point; civil rights chief Thomas Perez did not.
Likewise, Adams and Coates are vindicated in their version of a case filed against an African American official:
Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the [Ike]Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs “absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case,” said one lawyer.
“There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section’s job to protect white voters,” the lawyer said. “The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized.”
Translation: Wow.
As for the involvement of higher-ups:
Asked at a civil rights commission hearing in May whether any of the department’s political leadership was “involved in” the decision to dismiss the Panthers case, assistant attorney general for civil rights Thomas E. Perez said no.
“This is a case about career people disagreeing with career people,” said Perez, who was not in the department at the time. He also said that political appointees are regularly briefed on civil rights cases and, whenever there is a potentially controversial decision, “we obviously communicate that up the chain.”
Justice Department records turned over in a lawsuit to the conservative group Judicial Watch show a flurry of e-mails between the Civil Rights Division and the office of Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli, a political appointee who supervises the division.
Translation: Perez did not exactly say the truth under oath…”
Read it all: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/376996
ColonelHaiku (beb613) — 10/24/2010 @ 7:33 am“What about orders not to enforce the law in a race-neutral fashion?
In the months after the case ended, tensions persisted. A new supervisor, Julie Fernandes, arrived to oversee the voting section, and Coates testified that she told attorneys at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases – under a key voting rights section – only on behalf of minorities.
“Everyone in the room understood exactly what she meant,” Coates said. “No more cases like the Ike Brown or New Black Panther Party cases.”
Fernandes declined to comment through a department spokeswoman.
Translation: Perez and Fernandes will have to go.
The administration must be awfully panicky. Lots of DOJ attorneys assisted in preparing false responses to discovery requests from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The administration repeatedly misrepresented the facts in public. The Justice Department tried to prevent percipient witnesses from testifying pursuant to subpoenas. Perez testified under oath untruthfully. The Obama administration stonewalled both the commission and congressmen trying to uncover the facts which conservative outlets and now the Post have revealed. The DOJ tried to bully attorneys who were prepared to tell the truth. There is a term for that: obstruction of justice.
And what’s more, GOP committee chairmen with subpoena power will take over in January when the new Congress convenes. Expect hearings, some resignations, and maybe a prosecution or two. The “small potatoes” story the mainstream media pooh-poohed will be the first serious scandal of the last two years of Obama’s term. Do I hear that Eric Holder wants to spend “more time with his family”?
Two final notes. Conservatives who caught wind of this story being underway expressed concern that the Post reporters might end up pulling their punches, given this Post editorial from several weeks ago. That fear turned out to be unfounded. This is one instance in which the wall between the editorial and news sections held firm. (It often works the other way, of course. The Post’s opinion editors, for example, were on top of the Chas Freeman story, which its news reporters ignored.) And secondly, sources who spoke to the reporters tells me that the Post was under severe pressure from the DOJ not to run this sort of story. It seems as though the Post’s reporters find the current crew at the DOJ quite “unprofessional”. One must give credit to those two reporters for withstanding the pressure – and see it as a sign that the administration’s bark isn’t scaring anyone these days.”
ColonelHaiku (beb613) — 10/24/2010 @ 7:35 amFor my money the only similarities between BHO and Robinson are the anger they both have/had, and darker than white skin.
In Robinson’s case the anger was completely justified and probably increased by the fact that he had to swallow it for the first 3 years he played in the majors. His wife claimed that this stress killed him prematurely. He died in his early 50’s.
In BHO’s case the anger has been hidden to most of the public except for some of his writings and missteps in speeches. Thank you ABCCBSNBCNPRCNNMSNBC etc. As for justification, there is only the typical Marxists’ rant against the productive elements in society. He’s lived a very cushy life here in the U.S.A.
Frank M (dc2516) — 10/24/2010 @ 8:10 am___________________________________________
the Obama administration, which took office vowing to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement, thought the agency should focus primarily on cases filed on behalf of minorities.
I bet the current White House would have happily gone after the Black Panther Party if — in some alternative universe — it were a staunchly conservative, pro-Republican organization. Moreover, if voter surveys indicated a high percentage of minorities (or “minorities,” since who is or isn’t a minority in places like California has become a matter of semantics) were centrists to rightists, Obama & Co. would lose a lot of its ardor for defending minority rights.
BTW, I’ve seen polling data that indicated a huge percentage of black Americans favored Al Gore in 1999 and John Kerry in 2003.
It’s not much of a stretch to guess that if such voters faced the option of a government that was either 100% staffed and run by white liberals versus a government 100% made up of people like Clarence Thomas, many of them would snort “black people shouldn’t be in positions of leadership or in the public sector in general!!!”
Mark (411533) — 10/24/2010 @ 8:43 amOr maybe Obama is closer to Ryan Howard of the Phiillies. Did you see him last night? Ending his team’s season by striking out. Looking. With the tying and winning runs on base. Then whining about the call. Entitled, overpaid, useless (zero RBI in the entire post-season), and a complainer. Yup, Ryan Howard….that’s Barack Obama.
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 10/24/2010 @ 11:32 amHave you SEEN the President(Peace be upon Him) throw a baseball??? More like Jackie Collins…
Frank Drackman (550e6d) — 10/24/2010 @ 11:37 amand Jackie Robinson was a Republican, Military Veteran…
When the color line was broken in baseball, there were dozens if not hundreds of black baseball players who were good enough to play in the major leagues–Branch Rickey selected Robinson from among them because he was particularly qualified by personality and character to be able to survive the burden of being the first (he proved later that he had indeed been holding back during those first two years). Barack Obama was not in the historical sense particularly qualified to be President–he got the nomination because HRC had major problems and there was a desire to vote for a black man for purposes of symbolism among enough of the electorate: he won the election because the Republicans were down and McCain wasn’t a great candidate. Barack Obama may be many things, but the modern version of Jackie Robinson isn’t one of them.
M. Scott Eiland (27aed4) — 10/24/2010 @ 12:27 pmAll this is in contrast to the renewed assault on Clarence Thomas who will be trashed again by Anita Hill in her “memoirs.” Also, an ex-girl friend of Thomas from when he was single, has been shopping a book that also trashes him. Of course, she has been fired from several jobs and she knew what publishers wanted to hear. It’s no wonder his wife Ginny tried to intervene with Hill. Nothing doing. These women have to make a living and, since Hill has never made it as a law professor, they have only Clarence as an annuity.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 10/24/2010 @ 12:41 pmComparing Teh One to Jackie Robinson is an insult and a slap in the face of Jackie Robinson.
JD (eb1dfe) — 10/24/2010 @ 2:32 pmJackie Robinson was JACKIE ROBINSON.
Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 10/24/2010 @ 5:18 pmObama is a utility infielder with a 132 batting average, as many RBIs as an NHL defenseman scores goals, and a drinking problem.
#3 Nails it. He’s Frank Robinson. Baseball’s first black manager, but a failure. But he was important for racial progress because it wasn’t considered racist to fire him for doing a bad job.
jeff (f69510) — 10/25/2010 @ 7:32 amIt is racist to even discuss this. Denounced and condemned.
JD (250613) — 10/25/2010 @ 7:33 amJeff
I agree, that is a great comment.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/25/2010 @ 7:57 amDemocrats should be afraid, because the electorate is likely to hold Obama against the Democrats. So they are unlikely to get the White House again until 2028. It will take that long for enough new voters to come around, who don’t remember the last time the Democrats held the White House.
LarryD (f22286) — 10/25/2010 @ 9:30 am