Back in early 2008 when Barack Obama, an innocuous Senator from Illinois, began to make rumblings in the Democratic primaries against the Clinton machine, I began to investigate this fellow. Of course, I remembered his 2004 Democratic convention speech and the fact that he was an alleged rising star within the Democratic Party. From 2004 until his election as President, in fact, Obama's Senatorial accomplishments amounted to precious little other than establishing himself as a person with a very liberal voting record. Also along the way of the research, I realized that Barack Obama was a racist and one of the worst kind of racists. He was one of those pompous-ass racists who claimed to rise above racial differences while allowing his cronies and mouthpieces to carry on a very racial campaign against Hillary Clinton and later John McCain. Despite his leg tingle-inducing "requisite listening" speeches on race relations in America in 2008, Barack Obama remains a racist using a subtle form of intimidation. Who needs KKK lynchings and Lester Maddox's axe handle when you have the subtle intimidation of people like Barack Obama, David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, Eric Holder, Van Jones, and others. And when the Administration is not playing the race card, lackeys like Representatives Clyburn and Maxine Waters stand ready to carry on the tradition.
Dating back to his days as a state Senator in Illinois, Obama has not, despite his public protestations and statements to the contrary, been afraid of invoking the issue of race for political gain. During the Presidential campaign primary against Hillary Clinton, such ridiculous concepts as questioning his college day drug use- a fact he himselfmentions in his book- is somehow racially charged is a perfect example. The racist action is Obama and the Obama supporters equating drug use with blacks which is something they insinuated by the racial charge in the first place. Hillary Clinton's statement that King's dream was realized when President Johnson (who happens to be white) signed the Civil Rights Act into law was perceived as being a racially charged statement also. Really? If MLK is mentioned, does that make the resulting statement necessarily "racially charged?" When it became more than apparent that Obama would become the Democratic nominee, Obama himself threw down the subtle racist gauntlet in June, 2008 in his fundraiser speech in Jacksonville when he warned the Republicans would come after him because of his funny name and that he was "different." While his Democratic/liberal lackeys are quick with the accusations of "code words for racism" and alleged subtexts, what could be more of a subtext and racist "code word" than the words of the Messiah himself?
And there are so many examples of knee-jerk charges of racism that will be thrown about as this campaign heats up. Newt Gingrich, who realistically has very little chance of being our next President, has been attacked recentlt for calling Obama the "food stamp President." Naturally, when we hear the words "food stamps," we dumb knuckle walkers on the right automatically think "black person." I will admit that a certain minority (am I allowed to say "minority?") of conservatives will think this, but I contend that the majority of liberals do think this. So, who is more racist? Gingrich also asserted that the 2012 election would be the "most momentous since 1860." Well, that just happens to be the year Lincoln was elected which led to the Civil War which led to the freedom of slaves which, well you get the idea. The year "1860" is now a code word for racism in the bizarre formulation of the minds of liberals. And I really like this quote by Gingrich being twisted into charges of racism: he "knows how to get the whole country to resemble Detroit." Since Detroit is a black majority city, Gingrich's choice of Detroit must be racially charged. Of course, if he used the example of Camden, New Jersey... oops, minority-majority city. Wait a second... Los Angeles (damn it, large Latino population). Ok- I got it: "Obama knows how to get the whole country to resemble Seattle." Actually, that would not be such a bad thing, but then America does not resemble Seattle, but a declining Detroit.
Researching this, I was surprised to find out that, according to Harvard professor Harold Ogletree (who represented Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings), references to Obama as "the professor" was a racist action because it is a small step from "professor" to "uppity." Of course, before he became a Presidential wannabe, Barack Obama was a professor of constitutional law at Chicago Law School.
I could go on and on with examples from the past and the present regarding these silly charges of racism. Lets admit that there is a certain segment of the population (there- I avoided using the word "minority") that will never vote for a black man because he is black, never vote for a woman because of their sexual organs, or never vote for a Latino because of their surname. But, to slur an entire group of people- conservatives or Republicans or what have you- and accuse them of racism is racism of the worst kind. Recently in some articles on liberal websites, it has even been suggested that to oppose Obama's economic policies is a racist act. Let me illustrate the lack of logic here. On the one hand, liberals assert that there are institutional barriers (thus the need for affirmative action programs) to blacks entering the middle class. On the other hand, they assert that Obama's economic policies are designed to help the middle class, which according to their reciprocal assertion lacks a representative percentage of blacks because of these barriers, and that therefore opposition to his policies must be racist because any alternative must necessarily hurt blacks and other minorities.
This is where Republicans can possibly make some inroads with the black community. Despite these spending policies purported to help the vulnerable in society (allegedly, minorities), unemployment among minorities- especially the young- is very, very high. I would be interested to see the youth or black unemployment rates under Republican, white Presidents. In fact, an analysis does show that regardless of the President's party or the color of their skin, the black unemployment rate is roughly double that of the overall unemployment rate in any given month. However, the highest unemployment rates have occurred under the two worst Democratic Presidents from 1970 onward: Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama- and that includes overall and for the black population. Hence, it would therefore follow that Democratic policies, not the color of the President's skin, are the operative factor. Of course, opposition to Obama's policies have transformed into some kind of racism charge.
The bottom line is that to thwart these accusations, perhaps ignorance is bliss is the best policy. Provided Republican candidates avoid a "macaca moment," just laughing at accusations of racism or ignoring them is the best way to really frustrate these efforts. It is not the conservative base that Republicans need to play to necessarily because they would never vote for a Democrat or Obama anyway. They also do not need to appeal to liberals because a liberal would never vote for a Republican anyway. Instead, it is the independents that will decide this election and appealing to the intelligence of this block of voters by noting "these folks are more intelligent than the Democrats give them credit for and can see beyond these baseless sideshows" and letting it go at that. In other words, call out the charges as baseless and downplay their race-baiting efforts, which will be inevitable. By rising above the racial fray, Republicans can win the vast middle. By demonstrating how Republican policies will improve the lot of everyone, we can make inroads into the minority voting populations. By doing both, the Republican winner in 2012 can truly call themselves the "first post-racial President of the United States."