” And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” — Senator Barak H. Obama
April 13th, 2008” … But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations … ” — Senator Barak H. Obama
Venue: Fundraiser in San Francisco, Sunday, April 13 2008
Context / reference source: thepage.time.com
April 20th, 2008 at 1:02 am
And of course when a politicians dares speak the truth he is immediately shouted down. Let’s get back to what really matters, like flag pins.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I’m all for politicians of every stripe to start speaking the truth more often. It seems you and I might have a difference of opinion on what constitutes “truth”.
From your comment, it seems you believe that what his statement clearly demonstrates - using generalized comments stereotyping a large and diverse group of people, with the intent of appeasing another large diverse group that has also been stereotyped - is “truth”.
Barak H. Obama is hardly the first politician to use this tactic, although he could stand to pick up a few pointers on discretion, subtlety and judgement. Luckily for him he has people like you who will ignore his mistakes, and even laud them as “truth”.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:48 am
I live in the south and see the low income factory workers lose their jobs over the course of decades and the upswing of racist, nativist, gun-fetishist, fundamentalist, theocratic, anti-intellectual “culture”. This is part of whats wrong with our country, subcultures who get locked into vapid instant gratification politics. Big city corporatists, small town christian-separatists, suburban hippies, et al. Too many people like you that only vote on party lines and demand to have their way regardless of others needs, future considerations, or even legality. So I agree with Anon, let’s get back to flag pins, immigrants with “funny” accents, and crying eagles over images of 9/11.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Kaneda,
Thank you so much for deciding that I should only vote on party lines! That was really beginning to worry me. I’m so glad someone who can instantly label anyone he or she does not agree with - without knowing anything else about them - came along to my aid. That is such a gift.
By the way. could you please try to use a few more trigger terms the next time you compile your hate lists, as in your post above?
I really, really, really do want to respond to some coherent thought in your post, rather than just pick fun at your talking points and rush to label people. About the only real point I can find in that mess is low income factory jobs disappearing, and I’d agree with you on that. And it’s hardly limited to the South.
You started out with a valid concern and devolved into attacking everyone who’s not into your groupthink - and that’s kinda hard to avoid having a chuckle at.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
What causes me to chuckle is the typical pseudo-intellectual responses that are nothing more than neo-con posturing. The thing that conservatives want to ignore about Obama’s comments is that he was echoing what sociologists have been saying for a very long time. He didn’t say that there was anything wrong with it. He didn’t say that he wanted to enact legislation to address “problems”, he was saying that these were attitudes that were a challenge to overcome in order to engage in meaningful dialogue.
It never fails to boggle my mind that neo-cons are so anxious to embrace the Christian label, but are so opposed to adopting true Christian principles. I guess it’s easier to continue to ignore the fact that the majority of limited resources are controlled and exploited at the expense of a large segment of the population. I would suggest that it is impossible to be truly Christian and embrace the politics of the Republican party.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Oh well since we’re all being friendly and trading chuckles and all I got one to share with you too, Barney. Your comment shows that you believe Mr. Obamas statement to be true about a large, generalized segment of the population. Maybe they use a different word for that in the hallowed halls of sociology that you so adore, but where I come from, we call that being a bigot.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Again, you fail to disappoint. When neo-cons can’t argue effectively they resort to the Rush Limbaugh tactic of name calling and ridicule. How is pointing out behavioral tendency, without judging those tendencies being a bigot? If I were to say that a large percentage of middle-class Americans attend church regularly and believe in a single, all-powerful God, is that being bigoted too? Maybe you should invest in a dictionary to help you choose proper terminology.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
You seem to be trying to equate making derogatory remarks about a generalized group of people with making a general observational statement such as your weak attempt at an “example” above.
I am fairly certain I have not been observed, polled, or recorded in any recent census as “clinging to my gun or religion”. I would had assumed you could discern the difference between the two types of statements, my apologies if I over-estimated your capabilities.
The funniest thing though, is your reply is nothing but indulgence in exactly the “tactic” that you accuse me of.
Let’s go back to your first posting here … “What causes me to chuckle is the typical pseudo-intellectual responses that are nothing more than neo-con posturing” … and then in your latest response … “When neo-cons can’t argue effectively they resort to the Rush Limbaugh tactic of name calling and ridicule” …
Do you really not realize that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of, or is it just an extreme case of denial?
I assume your political stance leans to the left, judging by your use of meaningless boogy-man terms like “neo-con”. Both sides of the fence have their favorite empty terms such as that one. But I could be wrong, since I don’t know anything about you beyond your two postings here. You have your right to your political convictions, and I would never disparage you for a lively opinion.
When you make bigoted statements or attempt to defend the bigoted statements of another, that is something I will remark on.