Eugene Robinson: Harry Reid's comments were crudely put, yet true

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think this inarguably true. At the same time, it was shown that the majority culture was far less inhibited by the issue of race than many believed and THAT is a good thing. A hopeful thing. And an anti-racist thing.

Rooting for is so much better than rooting against.

The part that is much more disturbing to me is how the political support of the none minority class has fallen away so quickly. In a poll release by CBS today, the numbers reflect that only 46% of Americans support the job President Obama has done to this point. Minority numbers are holding so the majority of the people who now believe he is not doing a good job are white Americans who voted for him in the last election. Those folks are falling away at an alarming rate. They may have been less inhibited in the last election but today, they seem to be rethinking their decisions from a year ago.

Every day, this country is becoming more and more divided on political issues racially.

[Burgold]

The part that is much more disturbing to me is how the political support of the none minority class has fallen away so quickly. In a poll release by CBS today, the numbers reflect that only 46% of Americans support the job President Obama has done to this point. Minority numbers are holding so the majority of the people who now believe he is not doing a good job are white Americans who voted for him in the last election. Those folks are falling away at an alarming rate. They may have been less inhibited in the last election but today, they seem to be rethinking their decisions from a year ago.

Every day, this country is becoming more and more divided on political issues racially.

I think that's not really about race though I could be wrong. I think the biggest reason Obama won the election and the Dems got their supermajority was that the sky was falling and people were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

They saw all these jobs tanking. Financial goliaths crumbling. They were exhausted by war in Iraq. Crippling debt and out of control spending and corruption at a miserably high level including a few high level Republicans who actually went to jail.

In that situation, the Republicans almost couldn't win and Obama was charismatic and had a good vision. A year later, things are better at the banks and on Wall Street, but Main Street is the same if not worse. So, that euphoria over ousting the old bums is gone and the anger about being mad as hell hasn't been abated. We still see a Congress up to its old games and that is more concerned with favors and payouts, than progress. We are still facing high unemployment. The pot stirrers are having a blast and making sure everything stays at its hottest boil.

Obama's numbers had to come down. Honeymoon's over and the country's still in rotten shape. No reasonable person expected him to change it in a year. Are there signs of progress? Yes, but they aren't tangible enough to satisfy all the people who are so eager to tear and rip and slash.

I think race is a profound issue in this country still, but it is not the force that it once was. I think some things may have been brought into the open, but that's a good thing. That means we can deal with it. Reid's statement is a sideways, backwards bit of rhetoric that is quicksand. We have too many people laying traps. Don't fall prey to them. We are better than many think.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that's not really about race though I could be wrong. I think the biggest reason Obama won the election and the Dems got their supermajority was that the sky was falling and people were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

They saw all these jobs tanking. Financial goliaths crumbling. They were exhausted by war in Iraq. Crippling debt and out of control spending and corruption at a miserably high level including a few high level Republicans who actually went to jail.

In that situation, the Republicans almost couldn't win and Obama was charismatic and had a good vision. A year later, things are better at the banks and on Wall Street, but Main Street is the same if not worse. So, that euphoria over ousting the old bums is gone and the anger about being mad as hell hasn't been abated. We still see a Congress up to its old games and that is more concerned with favors and payouts, than progress. We are still facing high unemployment. The pot stirrers are having a blast and making sure everything stays at its hottest boil.

Obama's numbers had to come down. Honeymoon's over and the country's still in rotten shape. No reasonable person expected him to change it in a year. Are there signs of progress? Yes, but they aren't tangible enough to satisfy all the people who are so eager to tear and rip and slash.

I think race is a profound issue in this country still, but it is not the force that it once was. I think some things may have been brought into the open, but that's a good thing. That means we can deal with it. Reid's statement is a sideways, backwards bit of rhetoric that is quicksand. We have too many people laying traps. Don't fall prey to them. We are better than many think.

The fact that he got elected at all is astounding to me. If you just focus on practical experience, never mind the racial implications or even the Bush Administration, that alone is astounding to me. He was not, IMO, the best Democratic Candidate for the job. I think his inexperience is showing in the decision making process. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better IMO.

In the world that we live in, as bad as it is, I found in interesting that today in the Washington Post, an article was release that reported the Fed has made a profit of 45 Billion dollars this fiscal year. This is not the way it's supposed to work.

[Burgold]

Yeah, that 45 Bil surprised me too.

In the context of race though, symbolically, Obama's election was a very good and hopeful thing. I don't know if he will be a great or even a good president. I believe he is a very intelligent and well meaning man. Ironically, I think his biggest obstacle is Congress right now and I think that's kind of funny because it's his own Congress. Dems just have never been good at being unified. They're a divisive lot. I guess that's the downside to the big tent.

Anyway, I hoped that Bush would turn out to be a great President, but partly because he wasn't I even more fervantly hope that Obama turns out to be one of the greats. It's been too long since we had a "great" President. Maybe not since FDR.

[DjTj]

I agree it's uncommon to see people agree on controversial issues like that today. And yes, the majority of supporters were Democrats, but they were also the majority at the time. The stats showed a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill. As for people/regions switching sides after this, that wasn't my point. You said that the Republican party didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because of their past on Civil Rights. I merely pointed out that, back in the '60s, the Republican party was a bigger supporter of Civil Rights than the Demcrats. By your argument, this information should allow them the benefit of the doubt.

But the people (even of that time) did not look at percentages. They saw the Civil Rights Act as a Democratic bill passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President. The 1964 Presidential Election (a few months after the Civil Rights Act) was Democrat Lyndon Johnson (who signed the Civil Rights Act) against Republican Barry Goldwater (who voted against it).

If you want to change the parameters of your argument, then fine. But when I present you information based on your first argument and you dismiss it out of hand, that weakens your stance.

My argument still stands. While Republican politicians voted for the 1964 bill, the party did not embrace those men or that platform. Hubert Humphrey, who organized Democratic support for the bill, became Vice President and then the Presidential candidate in 1968. Everett Dirksen, the leader of Republican support for Civil Rights, died tragically in 1969, and civil rights was never a centerpiece of Republican platforms. Men like Thurmond, Helms, and Lott (who all switched from Democrat to Republican) became prominent leaders of the modern Republican Party.

Democrats get the benefit of the doubt because the party embraced Civil Rights in the 1960's. Individual legislators may have voted one way or the other, but there was never any question which party deserved the most credit. It was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress that delivered the Civil Rights Act, and that is what history remembers.

[#98QBKiller]

I agree with this.

In the book, Game Change, it outlines a discussion between Clinton and Kennedy and Clinton is alleged to have said that President Obama should not receive support of the Democratic Party and that "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." according to the book. Now, is he saying that Obama did not have the experience, which IMO is and was certainly true, or is he saying something else? Either way, I think it speaks towards your point.

I'm pretty sure he was saying that because of Obama's lack of experience (that was he/Hillary's whole argument in the primaries). It's a shame that you can't make a comment like that (whether it's true or not) for fear of your words being twisted into racial meaning.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah, that 45 Bil surprised me too.

In the context of race though, symbolically, Obama's election was a very good and hopeful thing. I don't know if he will be a great or even a good president. I believe he is a very intelligent and well meaning man. Ironically, I think his biggest obstacle is Congress right now and I think that's kind of funny because it's his own Congress. Dems just have never been good at being unified. They're a divisive lot. I guess that's the downside to the big tent.

Anyway, I hoped that Bush would turn out to be a great President, but partly because he wasn't I even more fervantly hope that Obama turns out to be one of the greats. It's been too long since we had a "great" President. Maybe not since FDR.

Only Democrats, for the most part, view FDR as a great President IMO. Most Conservatives do not.

Do you not think that the fact that most minorities believe President Obama is doing a fine job, overwhelmingly so in fact, speaks to racisam?

I can understand, much more easily, the election of President Obama if the stark differences in job approval were not so divided along racial lines. The biggest benifit of electing Obama to the Presidency were the things you elude to IMO. However, the fact that minorities refuse to acknowledge the fact that he is not doing a great job at this point in time only underlines the fact that there is, still, a huge racial division in this country. I'm not sure what has been solved.

[DjTj]

Only Democrats, for the most part, view FDR as a great President IMO. Most Conservatives do not.

Do you not think that the fact that most minorities believe President Obama is doing a fine job, overwhelmingly so in fact, speaks to racisam?

Racism by whom?

I can understand, much more easily, the election of President Obama if the stark differences in job approval were not so divided along racial lines. The biggest benifit of electing Obama to the Presidency were the things you elude to IMO. However, the fact that minorities refuse to acknowledge the fact that he is not doing a great job at this point in time only underlines the fact that there is, still, a huge racial division in this country. I'm not sure what has been solved.

Do minorities support President Obama because they favor all minorities over white people? I don't think that's the case, because surveys and statistics will show that most minority groups are not really that unified, and certainly it is much more likely for an Asian or Latino person to marry a white person than to marry a black person.

I think that minorities tend to support President Obama because they perceive the criticism of Obama as racism. Fellow minorities sympathize with Obama because they feel he is being unfairly attacked because of his race.

Is that wrong? Is that a "huge racial division"? Is that a problem that can really be solved?

[Burgold]

Only Democrats, for the most part, view FDR as a great President IMO. Most Conservatives do not.

Do you not think that the fact that most minorities believe President Obama is doing a fine job, overwhelmingly so in fact, speaks to racisam?

FDR got us through both the Great Depression and WWII and we ended up better and stronger than where we started. FDR has to be one of the greats.

No, I don't believe that minorities supporting Obama is racism and I'll try to explain why (although it could just be a difference in how we operationally define racism).

I'm Jewish as most people on this board know and when I see someone who is Jewish doing well there is an association or kinship that causes for me to root for them. My Mother's from Poland and when the Olympics start, there's a part of me that wants to see them do well.

To me, there's a big difference in being for and being against. I can root for Poland and America and there is no conflict. There's no hate there. I can think a Jewish comic is funny and then when the next funnyman hits the stage laugh at them without reservation or resentment regardless of their ethnic makeup.

To me, when we get into the issue of racism is when we are trying to take away from someone, cause damage to someone, or have an irrational hatred/fear of a group. So, that people who are black are predisposed to feel warmly towards Obama and want him to do well is not racist to me in the least. In a slightly abstract way, it's no different than looking at the mirror and feeling good about yourself.

[alexey]

However, the fact that minorities refuse to acknowledge the fact that he is not doing a great job at this point in time

Or maybe they went here and realized he's not doing too bad:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Seriously though, do you not see a possibility of reasonable people for all the right reasons honestly thinking that Obama is doing a good job?

[LaxBuddy21]

FDR got us through both the Great Depression and WWII and we ended up better and stronger than where we started. FDR has to be one of the greats.

No, I don't believe that minorities supporting Obama is racism and I'll try to explain why (although it could just be a difference in how we operationally define racism).

I'm Jewish as most people on this board know and when I see someone who is Jewish doing well there is an association or kinship that causes for me to root for them. My Mother's from Poland and when the Olympics start, there's a part of me that wants to see them do well.

To me, there's a big difference in being for and being against. I can root for Poland and America and there is no conflict. There's no hate there. I can think a Jewish comic is funny and then when the next funnyman hits the stage laugh at them without reservation or resentment regardless of their ethnic makeup.

To me, when we get into the issue of racism is when we are trying to take away from someone, cause damage to someone, or have an irrational hatred/fear of a group. So, that people who are black are predisposed to feel warmly towards Obama and want him to do well is not racist to me in the least. In a slightly abstract way, it's no different than looking at the mirror and feeling good about yourself.

And this is why your definition of racism is wrong. Wanting someone to succeed BECAUSE of their race is racism just as much as wanting someone to fail because of their race is. Why is wanting Obama to win because he is black any different than wanting McCain to lose because he is white? Its the same statement but you are trying to frame one side one way and another completely different when they are the same. It ultimately comes down to wanting a person to win or succeed because of who the person is not because of the color of their skin. When we can see individuals, then this is no longer a racial issue!

[ABQCOWBOY]

Racism by whom?

Do minorities support President Obama because they favor all minorities over white people? I don't think that's the case, because surveys and statistics will show that most minority groups are not really that unified, and certainly it is much more likely for an Asian or Latino person to marry a white person than to marry a black person.

I think that minorities tend to support President Obama because they perceive the criticism of Obama as racism. Fellow minorities sympathize with Obama because they feel he is being unfairly attacked because of his race.

Is that wrong? Is that a "huge racial division"? Is that a problem that can really be solved?

Minorities.

I don't know the answer to the question of will Minorities favor all minorities over white people. I can only speak for myself but I think that it is at least possible that this may be the case, I don't know. It is certainly clear that most minorities appear to be supporting President Obama regardless. Statisitcally speaking, most minorities don't turn out in numbers to support any candidate hostorically but the appeal of President Obama clearly goes across those lines. The point of marriage is irrelivant to the issue IMO.

The fact that most minorities view criticisam of President Obama as racisam says something I would think, assuming of course that this is cocrrect.

I think that it is wrong because as Americans, we should be forcing our Government to do what is in the best interests of the people. Now, we can disagree on what that is but certain things are not in disagreement. 10% unemployment is certainly note helping anybody. Small Business failures are not helping. Huge spending programs in conjunction to a shrinking economic growth rate is not helping. These things are the responsability of this administration and they are not improving. This is a huge concern for our country and yet, we have a very defined segmant that sees no issue with any of it. I think there is a problem there.

[alexey]

And this is why your definition of racism is wrong. Wanting someone to succeed BECAUSE of their race is racism just as much as wanting someone to fail because of their race is. Why is wanting Obama to win because he is black any different than wanting McCain to lose because he is white? Its the same statement but you are trying to frame one side one way and another completely different when they are the same. It ultimately comes down to wanting a person to win or succeed because of who the person is not because of the color of their skin. When we can see individuals, then this is no longer a racial issue!

This can viewed as an identity issue, rather than a racial issue. People tend to support people that they identify with. There are many different reasons for people to identify with one another. There is no reason to single out the race here...

[alexey]

The fact that most minorities view criticisam of President Obama as racisam says something I would think, assuming of course that this is cocrrect.

I have seen this claim made a lot, but I have not seen this actually happen.

Most things you listed are indeed problems. I would also be suspicious if somebody did not acknowledge them as such.

[Burgold]

Why is wanting Obama to win because he is black any different than wanting McCain to lose because he is white?

I don't think it's that black and white. For example, if there's a big holiday display during the Winter in a public place I kind of want to see a menorah included. I don't want to see the Christmas tree or Nativity taken down. In fact, I rather enjoy and think that the lights, songs, and symbolism of Christmas is rather beautiful. It's just that I want to be invited to the party too. So, wanting Obama to win is much different than wanting McCain to lose. The fact that I want my holiday represented in no way represents a hatred of Christmas or a wish for Christmas to be shunned or supressed.

I think the view you are espousing is too simplistic or perhaps too idealistic.

[ABQCOWBOY]

FDR got us through both the Great Depression and WWII and we ended up better and stronger than where we started. FDR has to be one of the greats.

No, I don't believe that minorities supporting Obama is racism and I'll try to explain why (although it could just be a difference in how we operationally define racism).

I'm Jewish as most people on this board know and when I see someone who is Jewish doing well there is an association or kinship that causes for me to root for them. My Mother's from Poland and when the Olympics start, there's a part of me that wants to see them do well.

To me, there's a big difference in being for and being against. I can root for Poland and America and there is no conflict. There's no hate there. I can think a Jewish comic is funny and then when the next funnyman hits the stage laugh at them without reservation or resentment regardless of their ethnic makeup.

To me, when we get into the issue of racism is when we are trying to take away from someone, cause damage to someone, or have an irrational hatred/fear of a group. So, that people who are black are predisposed to feel warmly towards Obama and want him to do well is not racist to me in the least. In a slightly abstract way, it's no different than looking at the mirror and feeling good about yourself.

FDR, only because of the War, got us through the depression. Many might make the arguement that his policies and decisions were the reason we were still in the Great Depression. There are two distinct sides to this. Just as you fail to see President Regan as a great President, many fail to see FDR as such.

I think there is a difference between wanting to see someone do well and turning a blind eye to the fact that a person is failing, so to speak. As an American, we all have responsability to each other.

I understand your point of view but it is a responsiblity issue. You can't say that all is great if in fact, all is not and course correction needs to be made. As an example, how many on this board believed that Zorn was and is a good guy? Would the fact that he's a good guy make it unnecessary for a change to be made if the direction the team was headed is clearly wrong? As a fan, I would think that you have to call it like you see it and support the new HC.

[Burgold]

As an example, how many on this board believed that Zorn was and is a good guy? Would the fact that he's a good guy make it unnecessary for a change to be made if the direction the team was headed is clearly wrong? As a fan, I would think that you have to call it like you see it and support the new HC.

This is a good point. The question though is at what point did you give Zorn a fair chance to succeed. People have different thresholds and allow for growth differently. If you bailed on Zorn after Week I of 2008, I'd say you were judging prematurely. Likewise, if Shanahan takes over for Zorn and they can't right the ship after a year because of all the bad roster moves and junk created by Zorn and Cerrato, I won't be calling Shanahan unfit and rally for his ouster.

[LaxBuddy21]

This can viewed as an identity issue, rather than a racial issue. People tend to support people that they identify with. There are many different reasons for people to identify with one another. There is no reason to single out the race here...

I agree with you which is why friends tend to be similar in looks and character. People identify more with people that look like them but when you are voting for the President of a nation of mixed people, is that the reason to vote?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Or maybe they went here and realized he's not doing too bad:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Seriously though, do you not see a possibility of reasonable people for all the right reasons honestly thinking that Obama is doing a good job?

Unemployement is at 10%

11% of Americans believe the economy is in Excellent to good condition. 46% believe it's flat out poor.

The numbers for this Administration as a whole are unbelievably worse. It's not me, per say. It's the American people who are drawing these conclusions.

[ccsl2]

I agree with you which is why friends tend to be similar in looks and character. People identify more with people that look like them but when you are voting for the President of a nation of mixed people, is that the reason to vote?

LAX Obama had a father from Africa and a mother from Kansas...I dont know how much more mixed you could get, unless Tiger Woods was running for President.

[LaxBuddy21]

I don't think it's that black and white. For example, if there's a big holiday display during the Winter in a public place I kind of want to see a menorah included. I don't want to see the Christmas tree or Nativity taken down. In fact, I rather enjoy and think that the lights, songs, and symbolism of Christmas is rather beautiful. It's just that I want to be invited to the party too. So, wanting Obama to win is much different than wanting McCain to lose. The fact that I want my holiday represented in no way represents a hatred of Christmas or a wish for Christmas to be shunned or supressed.

I think the view you are espousing is too simplistic or perhaps too idealistic.

Your example doesnt work because you have the option to have both in your scenario which is not the case for president. Also, there are not tons of deeper issues to base your choice upon yet you choose based on a simplistic surface issue. Choosing a menorah does not have bigger impacts on society as a whole. Its not like you picked it because you were Jewish and now we all have to deal with these consequences because you ignored everything that picking a menorah meant.

To chose a person based on their race and not what makes them up as a person is racist whether you choose them positively or negatively.

[LaxBuddy21]

LAX Obama had a father from Africa and a mother from Kansas...I dont know how much more mixed you could get, unless Tiger Woods was running for President.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? The point I was making is that race is not the reason to choose a President since we have so many different types of people from so many different backgrounds that you could never truly represent the country racially no matter what you did so how about we choose a President based on his credentials and who he is as a person? If Obama was white, he never would have gotten passed Hilary! Its sad but its true. I cant stand Hilary. I think Obama is doing about as good of a job as he could (I am Republican and I do not think McCain could have done much better with the hand he was dealt). He just would not be our president if he was a white man.

[Burgold]

Your example doesnt work because you have the option to have both in your scenario which is not the case for president. Also, there are not tons of deeper issues to base your choice upon yet you choose based on a simplistic surface issue. Choosing a menorah does not have bigger impacts on society as a whole. Its not like you picked it because you were Jewish and now we all have to deal with these consequences because you ignored everything that picking a menorah meant.

To chose a person based on their race and not what makes them up as a person is racist whether you choose them positively or negatively.

I'd argue, based on the constant drama, that for some that inclusion of a menorah is a GIGANTIC deal. The Christians who don't want their display sullied and the Jews who want not to be ostracized (how's that for an unbaised interpretation)

I still think you are being overly simplistic. If one reason Obama was chosen amongst many was race than it's not a problem. If it was the sole and exclusive reason it is a problem or if it was the sole and exclusive reason plus hatred of whitey than it is obviously a problem. I think the number of people who voted for Obama exclusively because he was black despite any other mitigating factors of policy, platform, or Palin was very, very small.

Also, when I vote, I try to vote for the best possible candidate. That doesn't mean I'm voting against anybody and in fact, I'm usually not. I vote for the guy that I think will do the best job and represents what I believe needs to be done the closest. Voting for one is not hating or even disliking the other.

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is a good point. The question though is at what point did you give Zorn a fair chance to succeed. People have different thresholds and allow for growth differently. If you bailed on Zorn after Week I of 2008, I'd say you were judging prematurely. Likewise, if Shanahan takes over for Zorn and they can't right the ship after a year because of all the bad roster moves and junk created by Zorn and Cerrato, I won't be calling Shanahan unfit and rally for his ouster.

I don't know at what point, for President Obama, this occurs. However, public opinion would seem to have already made that decision. It can change but at this point, I don't see it happening if things continue to travel down the same path as they have been. Heathcare is not popular. Cap and Trade is not popular. Foreign Policy decissions with regard to the War on Terror is not popular. The condition of our economy is not good. Their are just a lot of differnt social polices this President supports that are not popular with the country, as a whole. It's not good.

[deejaydana]

how Robinson holds a job is beyond me. I suppose it's a state of where newspapers are at....