Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Alaska | Main | Full-Blown PDS »

Race Baiting

Limbaugh has had enough, and calls out Obama on it.

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

I'm sickened by the self righteousness and hypocrisy of the so-called compassionate left.

How long will it take for the rest of the country to see what a fraud this notion of Jerome Wright's most famous long-time parishioner being a "post-racial" candidate is?


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Race Baiting.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Jeff Medcalf wrote:

Jim Harris coming to defend this in 3...2...1...

I've Actually Never Really Listened To Rush Limbaugh wrote:

Oh Piss. Please.

I've listened long enough to Limbaugh to know the racism lingering right under the surface. Whetehr he is personally a racist or not, he is a master at moving the racists among us and has done that for at least a decade.

Crocodile tears. Crocodile effing tears.

I'm Still Trying To Pretend I've Ever Actually Listened To Limbaugh wrote:

Yeah, right, Simberg. Make that 14 years to be exact of listening to Limbaugh's drivel, dumbing down the clinging-bitter lower middle class for the benefit of the fat cats that are now being bailed out by the BIG governement that the fat-one hates.

Heh. Jose can you sing ?

Hey, I'd love to see Rush Limbaugh and Phil Gramm tied nice and tight to the hero. And for good measure add a couple more idiots like Sean Hannity.

So go ahead and write more posts on the topic.

Levans wrote:

The Obama ad is despicable, of course, but also strikes me as an odd way to go: do the lefties think such advertising is going to peel off from McCain some of those whom they have specifically been calling racist (i.e., everyone not hailing Obama as the world's Messiah)? Or do they imagine that this will further solidify that 0.1% of the black and far left electorate supposedly unsettled in their support of Obama? Isn't it far more likely to disenchant some of those Democrats who were going to swallow hard and vote for an Obama whose leftist political history and associations with radicals disturbed them already?

Rush Limbaugh's Draft-Deferring Anal Cyst wrote:

It's a shame the Obama campaign used these two examples, because Rush has plenty of material that's more offensive than that. Take the "Star-Spanglish Banner" bit he did, or saying LA's mayor looked like a shoeshine boy.

Simon Jester wrote:

Not one cent for reparations; millions for repatriation!

Bob wrote:

The only reference to race and racial tensions I see is from Limbaugh. Obama's ad, while deceptively linking Limbaugh to McCain, doesn't address race. The salient aspect of an illegal immigrant is that they are illegally from another country. Race is irrelevant, so why does Limbaugh bring it up?

Rand Simberg wrote:

Bob, sometimes I wonder if you are deliberately obtuse.

One of the first charges flung at anyone who questions unlimited immigration and blanket amnesty is that they are "nativist," and "xenophobic" and (yes) "racist."

Are Mexicans not a "race"?

Bill Maron wrote:

Last I looked sons of congressmen weren't ferrying Lithuanians across the Rio Grande. Well, okay, ONE son. Nevertheless Bob, the ad quoted the stupid Mexican line. What other kind of racism were you looking for?

Bob wrote:

Of course "Mexicans" does not designate a race! Technically, "Mexican" is a political designation -- you are a Mexican if you have Mexican citizenship. But even just speaking colloquially, to avoid any appearance of obtuseness, I must you ask: Have you ever traveled around Mexico? Just go and look around. You'll see quite a lot of genetic diversity right there on display, only skin deep. And, as you know the reason why is no mystery: the indigenous peoples of Mexico weren't wiped out -- they interbred with Europeans.

How about Brazil? How about Argentina? You don't think each country has its own race do you? And yet, I bet you don't think Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina are uniracial either. My take is that "race" is ill-defined and utterly bogus and isn't worth talking about. But colloquially speaking, I think it is clear that Limbaugh is talking about race, while Obama is talking about immigration policy.

Bill Maron wrote:

Damn Bob, you were doing so good there for a minute. How many times has the Uno said he doesn't look like the other politicians? How many times has the wife of Uno and the Uno said Republicans want to scare the good white folk with the "other"? This ad tries to tie a perceived racist to McCain. That's not immigration, that is race-baiting. I'm not sure obtuse is the word but deliberate seems to apply.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Bob, of course I have been in Mexico. Of coure I know that Mexicans aren't a "race" (I don't even really believe in the concept of race).

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what most people, including the pro-immigration people, believe (or at least claim to believe) when they call their opponents racists over the issue.

Go take it up with them.

Bob wrote:

Rand, I'm criticizing Limbaugh. He brought up race first. You asked if I thought Mexicans were a race even though you don't think so yourself because you thought I would think they are? Ha!

In the meantime, I googled "mexican" and "race". Sure enough, there is lots of discussion about mexican history, and about the concept of race in latin america, for those who are interested. The role of the Moors in Spanish history is connected.

As for me, I remember the delight I had the first time I visited the UK, and enjoyed the way pronunciation changed as I went North, which was similar to how I felt when I took a bus ride across Mexico and watched the faces change.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Rand, I'm criticizing Limbaugh.

Yes, of course you are.

He brought up race first.

No, he just called them out on their race baiting.

Carl Pham wrote:

He brought up race first.

You think so? Why don't you google La Raza and see who "brought up race first."

The psychologists have a word for this: projection.

Bob wrote:

Carl, that was interesting and depressing, but fortunately I don't see the connection to Obama, to the Democratic Party, or to McCain, to the Republican party, or to Limbaugh.

Carl Pham wrote:

fortunately I don't see the connection to Obama, to the Democratic Party, or to McCain, to the Republican party, or to Limbaugh

You don't huh? Okay, try this. If you don't want to follow the link, I'll just quote the headline, from a Los Angeles Times story:

L.A.'s mayor praises Obama at La Raza conference

Maybe you don't live in a place, like Los Angeles, where the Hispanic voting block is huge, and where politicians (e.g. in this case Villaraigosa, the mayor of LA) specifically and routinely pander to sleazebag racists like La Raza, or MeCHA, poisoning the political debate miserably. ("If you don't vote for me, you're a RACIST bastard!")

But surely you've heard Obama himself, as well as his minions, inject the same poison into the national race. Look out! Those Republicans are going to tell you not to vote for me because I'm black! Bradley Effect! Aieee! The Limbaugh scaremongering in the Spanish language ad is pretty much just more of the same. And it's despicable. Have you heard the McCain campaign warn that sexism is working against them, that no one is going to elect them because Governor Palin is female? Or that if Obama is elected it'll be open season on (say) Korean small-business owners in poor 90% black LA neighborhoods, because a black President will obviously set a crime-fighting policy that discrimates against whites and Asians and in favor of blacks? You have not.

But the Democrats will tell you that's because everybody just knows that an old white man will act prejudicially against brown and black and yellow people. You'll notice Villaraigosa doesn't even bother to present evidence that McCain is more prejudiced against Mexican immigrants than Obama, even though it's McCain whose fingerprints are all over the latest "amnesty" bill, and who has been elected and re-elected in a state (Arizona) which is 30% Hispanic, much of it recent immigrant. You know, it's just intuitively obvious that the black guy is less racist than the white. What's it called when you cynically appeal to what people "just know" about other races? I think there's a word for it...

ken anthony wrote:

I don't see the connection to Obama

This is a really simple one Bob. The topic of discussion is Obama's spanish language advertisement. The content of the ad. (regardless of whom they quote, in context or not) is race bating.

What is unclear? It doesn't matter who in history did or did not bring up racism (first, last or whatever)

The topic is the ad.

ken anthony wrote:

In other words Bob, it's about the content of Obama's character (to borrow from MLK.)

Bob wrote:

Ken, what connection does La Raza have to Obama?

Leland wrote:

Ken, what connection does La Raza have to Obama?

What connection does Ken's comment have to La Raza, Bob? How about acknowledging what Ken wrote? His point is this topic is about Obama's spanish advertisement, and you haven't convinced too many people it's anything other than race baiting.

You have tried to redefine race, and Rand provided the definition he used for his post.

You have tried to blame Limbaugh first, but since you ask Ken, perhaps you can explain the connection to Limbaugh, McCain, and immigration policy? Since Limbaugh and McCain are far apart on immigration policy, perhaps you want to get back to the topic.

Bob wrote:

Leland and Ken, Carl brought up La Raza. I was appalled, but I didn't see the connection to Obama, Limbaugh, or anyone else, and I said so.

Both of you are saying I should stay on topic. Since Rand suggested that we read a piece by Limbaugh, I thought discussing Limbaugh's piece is on-topic, and so I pointed out that Limbaugh's piece was flawed in that he was calling out Obama for racial divisiveness, and yet Limbaugh was the only one talking about race. And Leland, I said up front that I thought Obama's ad was wrong to link McCain to Limbaugh.

Limbaugh's article is on-topic (as I see it). The ad itself is also on-topic. You guys and Rand see the ad as race-baiting. I don't see it as that, for the reasons described above.

Bob wrote:

Rand, I don't know whether you see comments which respond to old posts, but if you do, maybe you'll find this informative.

Limbaugh said the following this week:

"These polls on how one-third of blue-collar white Democrats won't vote for Obama because he's black, and -- but he's not black. Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood? He doesn't have any African -- that's why when they asked whether he was authentic, whether he's down for the struggle. He's Arab. You know, he's from Africa. He's from Arab parts of Africa. He's not -- his father was -- he's not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American. I guess that's splitting hairs, I don't -- it's just all these little things, everything seems upside-down today in this country. "

I suppose you don't like this source, but you can hear Limbaugh say the above words here:

It is quotes like that which make people despise Limbaugh, and which make it hard to take his comments on race-baiting and racial divisiveness very seriously.

Rand Simberg wrote:

It is quotes like that which make people despise Limbaugh, and which make it hard to take his comments on race-baiting and racial divisiveness very seriously.

I don't need to listen to Limbaugh's comments to know that the ad was race baiting and divisive. It is obvious to me and many others, even if you choose to be obtuse about it.

Leland wrote:

Leland and Ken, Carl brought up La Raza.

Exactly, so why were you asking Ken to explain the connection?

And Leland, I said up front that I thought Obama's ad was wrong to link McCain to Limbaugh.

No wonder Rand thinks you are obtuse. Let's see the logic.

McCain immigration policy != Limbaugh's immigration viewpoint

McCain immigration policy ~ Obama's immigration policy

Limbaugh = racist (in your opinion)

Obama makes ad targeting spanish speakers, mostly affected by immigration policy, and links McCain, who has similar policies to Obama, with Limbaugh, who is racist and disagrees with McCain. Rand says it is race baiting. You say it is not. Please, explain your logic?

Bob wrote:

Oh, now I see! I was looking for evidence of race-baiting in the Obama ad. If you are saying that merely quoting Limbaugh is race baiting, even if what Limbaugh is quoted as saying doesn't involve race, then yes, I must conceed defeat. My distate for Limbaugh doesn't extend so far that I thought merely mentioning his name or linking his name to McCain's would constitute sowing the seeds of racial division. I was not thinking about Limbaugh's repuation and history, just his words -- his words in the campaign ad, and his words in the WSJ article. But, now I can see your point. For example, if the ad replaced "Limbaugh" with "KKK Grand Dragon", it really would be race-baiting, wouldn't it. I don't think highly of Limbaugh, but when I hear his name, I first think of categories like "smart guy playing the buffoon", rather than "known racist". But I must admit that either he actually is a racist, or he pretends to be one, and probably many people think of him that way, so I suppose you're right. I genuinely hadn't thought of this angle, and perhaps the Obama campaign hadn't either, but nevertheless, I want to formally conceed:
Leland, you were right and I was wrong. Congratulations!

Andy Freeman wrote:

> It is quotes like that which make people despise Limbaugh, and which make it hard to take his comments on race-baiting and racial divisiveness very seriously.

Are you saying that it's incorrect to say that Obama is not "African-American" because he's actually Arab-American? Or, that it's wrong for Limbaugh to say that?

Bob wrote:

No, I'm not saying that. Your comment makes me think that you didn't read the links, or even the comments above.

Bob wrote:

Andy, I apologize, I misread your question.
Yes, I'm saying that Limbaugh is incorrect. He has the ethnic history of Kenya wrong, as well as the geography (to the point of self-contradiction). And yes, I'm saying it is wrong for Limbaugh to even go on about it the way he does - why focus on ethnicity and race and geographic origin unless it is illuminating. So, if I had more time and energy for this, I could talk about the history of ethnicity and religion in Kenya - talking about why Obama's father was not an Arab might be interesting for both of us, and it shouldn't be a taboo subect. But Limbuagh is talking US politics, where the reasons why Obama is not an Arab are completely irrelevent, and I found the way he approached the subject despicable.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 19, 2008 5:15 AM.

Alaska was the previous entry in this blog.

Full-Blown PDS is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1