The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

'Sup, Obama, is You Talkin' Honkey Again?


Ralph Nader symbolizes the intense racism which still percolates below the surface throughout America. But in a shocking little slip during a Rocket Mountain News interview, the curmudgeonly third-party presidential candidate revealed the kind of ignorance, hostility and racial prejudice that could be carried into the voting booth come November. Here's what the crusty former consumer rights' advocate said about the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama:

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards....He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

What an unconscionable racist diatribe. Nader's upset that Obama apparently forgot to take his Ebonics classes at Harvard. With his disgusting comments, Nader is appealing to the lowest common denominator of racial bigotry: the belief that if a black person looks presentable, dresses nicely, is highly educated, extremely articulate and is successful, well then he or she must be trying to "act white." Because, as we all know, black people are supposed to sound like Al Sharpton, have gold teeth and rob liquor stores, right? Sadly, in 2008, this is how many people across America still view blacks. Despite the stellar accomplishments of Obama--Ivy League schools, Harvard Law Review editor, Illinois State Senate, U.S. Senate, Democratic presidential nominee--these racists can only see a jive-talkin' urban threat to white security. A homeboy in Whitey's clothing.

Earlier this week the comedian Robin Williams appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Speaking to this underlying racism, Williams nailed it in a hilarious bit about how whites deep down fear that once Obama becomes president he's gonna bounce out of the Oval office onto the White House lawn, grabbing his nuts, flailing his arms and hands like a rapper and sounding like Flava Flav as he introduces his cabinet, which would consist of folks like Jay-Z, Snoop Dogg and perhaps Flava himself (my examples, not Williams'...I can't remember his but they're similar). And ya know what? He's unfortunately right, as Nader so chillingly reminded us this week. The truly scary thing is, if someone as seemingly intelligent, progressive and well-known as Nader can publicly utter such irresponsible, reprehensible racial stereotypes, just imagine what might face Obama once small-minded America closes the curtain at election time...and is all alone with their racism and that lever.

In the wake of Nader's painful wake-up call about racial intolerance and bigotry still prevalent today, the million-dollar question remains: is Obama inspiring enough young people, blacks and independents to offset the loss in votes from the racist dumbasses across America? To be sure, because of the race factor, this is an election like no other in our nation's history.


HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. I am commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.

75 Comments:

  • At 11:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ostroy,
    What do you expect ?

    OBAMA BAITED THE RACE DEBATE

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Why is it if you are educated, not white, and speak English well, you are accused of speaking white?

    I had hoped this campaign would take a different direction since so many Obama supporters want change. But it appears that nothing has changed and what I read on the internet is pure disgusting.

    The only hope we have is for huge numbers of Obama supporters to vote in mass come November. This is the only way we can defeat the "old bitter white man" vote.

    I am so digusted.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger OpenSource Telecom said…

    I am disgusted that for years Democrats have been labeling conservative blacks "uncle tom's" and "sellouts".

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The truth is Obama is protecting his image. He and Al Sharpton screamed and got vengeance on Don Imus when he made A RACIAL remark about A basketball team of college girls. Yet, Sharpton, who started out to "get Imus" again this time; but then said he had to think it over. Obama's team has totally muzzled Sharpton and Jackson until Obama is elected. When did you hear the endorsement of those two for Obama??

    It's time Nadar called it like it is. He, if you notice, not only criticized Obama he criticized white people too. There is a problem in this country as evidenced by Wright and as reported by Nadar.

    And now the way Obama lies, I, a liberal Democrat am afraid to vote foro him. Not because he's black but because I don't know where he stands on anything. So, if some of us don't vote, it won't be because of racism.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Anonymous Michael said…

    opensourse telecom,

    And I am disgusted that for decades the GOP admittedly utilized a racist campaign tactic known as the "Southern Strategy" to fan racial discord and distrust.

    So now we're appropriately disgusted with each other's past actions - want to talk about how to move past this kind of divisive politics?

    Andy,

    As I see it, the more racist commentary and attempts to divide whites from black or brown or any other ethnicity coming from outside the Obama campaign the more it helps the Democratic cause.

    Yes there are ignorant, bigoted dolts in America. But how many were ever going to vote for Obama OR Clinton? Probably not a huge number and they are largely followers of the Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo wing of the GOP, not the Democratic Party.

    Any number of bigots is too many but it will be overcome by a huge turnout in the black community and by young people as well as Obama doing better among white men, Latinos and independents than John Kerry (not to mention the antipathy of the GOP toward McCain, which is likely to increase Obama's numbers among "values voters"). It's my belief those numbers will rise if the GOP tries to paint Obama, like Buchanan put it, as too "exotic".

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:53,

    Who was your candidate of choice in the Democratic primary?

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I am not a racist but I won't vote for Obama. I am white, I live in the south and I was deeply devoted to Obama as my choice for the next president from the beginning. I even argued with black friends and acquaintances who were at the time for Hillary because trhey didn't think Obama could win. When they saw he could win, that white people all over the country were voting for him; they switched their support to him.

    I switched my support to Hillary when I discovered Obama had ties through his church to the Black Liberation Theology. Yet, I did research and the more I learned the more upset I became with the black racism and hatred. I would not vote for a white racist nor a black racist for the most powerful job in the world. Each day I get more confirmation that I am right. The lastest is Obama's talk on religion in 2006 in which he said the Sermon On the Mount was no longer valid; nor was the Old Testament which approved of slavery. He echoed the BLT theology by Cone who said they were tired of the white religion of "turn the other cheek." That thelogoy preaches hate.

     
  • At 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Of course Nadar is right but what's the big surprise or revelation? OBama doesn't have to bring up black issues because he has 100 percent of the black vote. Even blacks who have never voted before are being recruited; and, blacks like Armstrong Williams, who were Republican or conservative, are voting for Obama. He has to win the white vote since the black population is only ten percent of the total population. The black people know what he's doing and are "in on" his strategy, which is why there are no protests.

    What scares me is on the radio today on PBS I heard a discussion about the knuckle rap Obama and Michelle did at a rally. A black commentator said that there's about to be a new culture in control and things are going to be different so we'd all better be ready to adjust to knuckle raps and the rest of the new regime. I paraphrase but that's the gist.

    BUsh's administration was run by the Religious Right and Obama's apaprently will be run by the "black culture". Hwat happened to "one nation, indivisible"?

     
  • At 3:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    3:11,

    Oh, you are the BLT person who is prone to picking out of context remarks and holding on to them like a chihuahua to a bone. Super. This explains your mistake about Obama saying the Sermon on the Mount is "invalid".

    Here's the relevant text from Obama's 2006 address to Call to Renewal (which is a Christian group): "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?" - Barack Obama

     
  • At 7:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    3;41

    I am A BLT person. Since I just discovered Ostroy a few days ago, I cannot be THE BLT person to which you are referring. I baet there is a large number of us in the US today.

    I started watching FOX during the primaries because it was the only station that was truly, "fair and balanced."

    Day before yesterday, I saw and heard a tape Fox played of Obama's speech in 2006 which has angered Dobson,and I might add the obvious it angered me. I did not quote him exactly, or I would have used quotes; However, "invalid" is an adequate synonym to reflect his thinking the Sermon on the Mount is not to be considered anymore. Why am I so sure. Because I was not enraged and fearful until he attacked Christianity after he finished with the Old Testament.I know what I heard and I reacted as I"m sure did other Christians. And, even if you are correct, which I strongly doubt, his remark was still a put-down of the Sermon on the Mount, obviously, or I would not have become angered. It was a putdown, if what you quote is correct. by virtue of his sarcastic tone when he said "we should just stick" Surely we are all familoar with his skill at sarcasm.

    So stop your useless spin. It's a visible documentation which will be aired again.

     
  • At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I just read the above exchanges about Obama and religion and googled the speech. I couldn't find the entire speech but found articals about it which quote Obama.

    Obama said: " 'Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?'" "'So before we get carried away, let's read out Bible now. Folks haven't been reading their Bible.'" (sarcasm????) "He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount 'a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application.' "

    Of course the Sermon on the Mount is the heart and soul of Jesus' teachings and is sacred to all Christians. If you don't believe in the teachings of Christ then you are not a Christian. It's as simple as that. No one who loves his religion can scorn these words of Jesus, as no one who loves America can form the words in his mouth: God Damn America.

    If Obama doesn't revere either the Old Testament or the New, what are the religious prinicples that guide him? Or what or the principles religious or not that guide him?

    Who is he really and what does he believe?

     
  • At 12:11 AM, Blogger JJ Berg said…

    why do you seem to believe that Obama's religion matters at all with respect to how he would govern. I think anyone who is being honest with themselves would recognize that nearly all policy decisions (or at least all good ones) are informed by pragmatic, earthly consideration, and not related at all to religion, do you disagree?

     
  • At 4:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    7:00 and 7:35,

    Since the two of you are willfully suspending your comprehension skills, let me ask you this: Does it not seem odd to either of you that Obama made this speech to Call to Renewal - a Christian group? Is it not further odd that among all your google searches that you don't find objections to his statements from Call to Renewal/Sojourners itself?

    You can find the entire text of Obama's speech to the group here: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

    Here is the reply to James Dobson, who is at the center of the latest pseudo brouhaha over Obama, from Jim Wallis - the evangelical leader whose group, Sojourners, hosts the Call to Renewal events:

    "James Dobson, of Focus on the Family Action, and his senior vice president of government and public policy, Tom Minnery, used their "CitizenLink" radio show today to criticize Barack Obama’s understanding of Christian faith. In the show, they describe Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

    Now that James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because his basis for the attack on Obama is the speech the Senator from Illinois gave at our Call to Renewal/Sojourners event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton, and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson’s attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech, Dobson was not.

    You can read Obama’s now two-year old speech, which was widely publicized at the time and will see that Dobson either didn’t understand it or is deliberately distorting it. There are two major problems with Dobson’s attack today on Barack Obama.

    First, Dobson and Minnery’s language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political environment. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

    Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the role of religion in politics. Dobson alleges that Obama is saying:

    "I [Dobson] can’t seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don’t see that as a moral issue. And if I can’t get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. … What he’s trying to say here is unless everybody agrees; we have no right to fight for what we believe."

    Contrary to Dobson’s charge, Obama was very strong in defending the right and necessity of people of faith bringing their moral agenda to the public square, and was specifically critical of many on the left and in his own Democratic Party for being uncomfortable with religion in politics.

    Obama said that religion is and has always been a fundamental and absolutely essential source of morality for the nation, but also said that "religion has no monopoly on morality," which is a point that I often make. The United States is not the Christian theocracy that people like James Dobson seem to think it should be. Political appeals, even if rooted in religious convictions, must be argued on moral grounds rather than as sectarian religious demands—so that the people (citizens), whether religious or not, may have the capacity to hear and respond. Religious convictions must be translated into moral arguments, which must win the political debate if they are to be implemented. Religious people don’t get to win just because they are religious. They, like any other citizens, have to convince their fellow citizens that what they propose is best for the common good— for all of us and not just for the religious.

    Instead of saying that Christians must accept the "the lowest common denominator of morality," as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn’t advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite—that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then have to engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best of all with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.

    One more note. I personally disagree with how both the Democrats and Republicans have treated the moral issue of abortion and am hopeful that the movement among toward a serious commitment for dramatic abortion reduction will re-shape both Party’s language and positions. But that is the only "bloody notion" that Dobson mentions. What about the horrible bloody war in Iraq that Dobson apparently supports, or the 30,000 children who die each day globally of poverty and disease that Dobson seldom mentions, or the genocides in Darfur and other places? In making abortion the single life issue in politics and elections, leaders from the Religious Right like Dobson have violated the "consistent ethic of life" that we find, for example, in Catholic social teaching. Dobson has also fought unsuccessfully to keep the issue of the environment and climate change, which many also now regard as a "life issue," off the evangelical agenda. Older Religious Right leaders are now being passed by a new generation of young evangelicals who believe that poverty, "creation care" of the environment, human trafficking, human rights, pandemic diseases like HIV/AIDS, and the fundamental issues of war and peace are also "religious" and "moral" issues and now a part of a much wider and deeper agenda. That new evangelical agenda is a deep threat to James Dobson and the power wielded by the Religious Right for so long. Many evangelical votes are in play this election year, especially among a new generation, and are no longer captive to the Religious Right. Perhaps that is the real reason for James Dobson’s attack today on Barack Obama."

    Amen, Brother Wallis.

     
  • At 6:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Thought you all in this discussion might want to check out this link

    http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/

    Pastors led by Kirbyjon Caldwell, a friend of George Bush and presider over Jenna Bush's recent wedding, are responsible for the website.

     
  • At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Obama's quest for his unqualified "change" has ended. Obama has changed his mind and that is the only "change" we are going to get.

    Obama has fallen right in line with the conventional DNC agenda. Obama has never changed the fact that he is one of the most liberal members of American politics. He will not change, he will not reach across the isle.

    Obama has changed his mind on public financing after pledging to work vigorously with the Republican candidate to use public financing, the Republican candidate wants to use public financing - Obama changed his promise

    Obama is a conventional agent of class warfare. He wants to take money from successful people and give it to the undeserving.

    Obama is nothing new, he represents the tired politics of the past.

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    No one can argue that organized religion has caused more death, destruction, ill-will and problems than any other force on earth. That persists to this day in our conflict with an element of the Muslim faith.

    Therefore the only solution is to choose the religeous influence that is the least harmful and is the most unifying. That would be, in my opinion, Christianity as taught based on the peaceful and loving words of Jesus and not "Christian" religious organizations that ignore or distort his words and teaching. Morals and moral behavior, whether based on religious precepts or secular, determine the behavior of the adherents. The Black Liberation Theology teaches hate and revenge and therefore is dangerous and basically unChristian.

    There are elements in the Religious Right Movement that are not representative of the inclusive, loving message of Christ and are therefore dangerous. There should be no hunger and suffering in the world that can be remedied by the "I am my brother's keeper" concept.

    And, of course, why this matters in this context is that as one believes, one acts. Religion and/or secular philosophy cannot be dimissed as irrelevant to our elected leaders.

    I want to add that the USA is basically a Judeo/Christian country. It was founded on those principles; it is governed by those principles and most of the population believe in those principles. We don't believe, for example, in the sacrifice of animals in our religious practices. Some religions do and those practices cannot be tolerated under our government. Neither can polygamy or a number of other practices. We'd better not forget that when we praise the "one big happy mosaic" concept. We'd better go back to the "melting pot" idea. France is being torn apart by the Muslim practice of sacrificing animals, for example. Separation of church and state and religious freedom doesn't mean a religious group can break the law of the lancd.

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    8:33,

    I find hysterically funny those who oppose Obama and hold him to an impossibly high standard (which he does not himself claim) while simultaneously lampooning those who support him as "idol worshipers" who believe he can do no wrong. It's a classic strawman.

    SEE! He's not taking public financing like he said he'd do if the Republican did (and also agree to work to limit outside groups such as 527s, which McCain has refused to do)! Stupid Obamabots, I told you he wasn't Jesus Incarnate!

    Nevermind most Obama supporters understand he is an imperfect vessel. He is a politician. Alone he cannot change Washington.

    But he IS leading a movement, mostly of the grassroots, that has a chance to do so. John McCain CERTAINLY is not going to be accused of doing anything of the sort.

    That's really the choice you have in November.

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    John McCain has a track record of reaching across the isle and uniting people. Obama has no such record yet he claims he is a uniter.

    After claiming to be a uniter, Obama baits race debate after race debate. John McCain has not injected race into any discussion.

    Obama's grassroots movement is based on making promises of change without defining change. Only an idiot or someone that knows [s]he will get without having to give will accept undefined change.

    Obama claims he is a different kind of candidate but this is a lie. Obama is just like all the other politicians - he has no intention of making good on his promises. Look at his track record.

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How can Obama's campaign be called a grass roots movement, when most of his money is coming from Soros and other fat cats with an axe to grind. I think we should see a contributors's list.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    9:45,

    If he's like all the other politicians then, by your own words, Obama is just like McCain.

    Those who claim Obama has no history of reaching across the aisle either have no knowledge of his record or are willingly lying.

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    9:59,

    If you claim knowledge that "most" of Obama's money is coming from George Soros and other fat cats, why would you need to see a list of contributors. Haven't you already declared your "knowledge" of where the money is coming from?

    Over 1.5 million people have contributed to the Obama campaign. Not one dime comes from a federally registered lobbyist.

    McCain's campaign is literally RUN by federally registerd lobbyists who have lobbied AGAINST the interests of the United States and FOR terrorists/dictators.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    From today's Las Vegas Sun, in an interview with McCain by Jon Ralston:

    (On why McCain didn't choose Gov. Jim Gibbons to chair his Nevada campaign?)

    I appreciate his support. As you know, the lieutenant governor is our chairman.

    (Why snub the governor?)

    I didn’t mean to snub him. I've known the lieutenant governor for 15 years and we've been good friends….I didn't intend to snub him. There are other states where the governor is not the chairman.

    (Maybe it's the governor's approval rating and you are running from him like you are from the president?)

    (Chuckling) And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago….

     
  • At 10:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    10:04 CNN reported months ago that George Soros was contributing heavily to Obama's campaign, with the express purpose of financing ads against McCain. Soros has Paul Begala as his assistant and MSNBC is to be the main outlet for running the ads. It is common knowledge, to most aware people that Soros is Obama's biggest contributor and benefactor.

    A contributors' list would help spread the word to the pitifully naive uninformed such as yourself.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I find McCain's humor refreshing and a relief from the drone-like remarks by O.

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    10:58,

    There's not a single story available from CNN to back your claim and campaign finance laws restrict the amount of money an individual can donate directly to a campaign. Over $150 million has been raised by the Obama campaign via relatively small donations ($200 or less) from over 1.5 million Americans.

    The only naive person involved in this conversation is the person who believes dropping the name George Soros is going to have some sort of bogeyman effect on Democrats at the Ostroy Report.

    In the last 7.5 years, your party has overseen the serious weakening of the US military, devaluation of our reputation in the world, neglect of one of the greatest cities in the world (New Orleans), raping of the Constitution, pathetic record on job growth and an economy that teeters on recession.

    Nice work. Enjoy being in the minority. Watch and learn while adults do the leading.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Great. We have in our midst someone who thinks beating your wife can be funny.

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:25,
    So what! we also have at least 100,000 "environmentalists" in San Francisco that want to ceremoniously flush their toilets at the same time with no regard to their affect on Global Warming. All of the work to conserve at least 200,000 gallons of water will be tossed away by environmentalists looking to make a joke that nobody will see.

     
  • At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So, two wrongs somehow make right?

    Now, naming the sewage plant after Bush sounds like a pretty good idea to me!

    Perhaps you were not around here when hordes of people were up in arms about the sexist and misogynistic media? If your candidate wants to cozy up to the women's vote, flip comments about beating his wife isn't likely the proper way to do so.

     
  • At 1:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ...and if you want to "save the environment" then flip actions like organizing the flushing of 100,000 toilets isn't likely the proper way to do so.

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Dear God, -- no wonder the Democratic Party is in such trouble, from the leadrship down. They are all stupid. Maybe the Repugs are too and that's why the country is in trouble.

    For you ignoramuses. There's an old Joke/trick question people ask another,who, no matter how he answers, condemns himself. This joke is old and well-known by most normal people over the age of twelve.

    The question is: "Do you STILL beat your wife?" If the answer is yes, the guilt is obvious. If the answer is "NO", then the answer (because of the word STILL) means that he once did but no longer beats his wife.

    McCann was brushing off the question asked of him as being a "do you still beat your wife."

    Stay home and play with your silly putty. Don't vote - you're too stupid for that responsibility.

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    2:01,

    Those of us under or over the age of 12 who know of the origin of the comment are still quite able to discern the "joke" is indelicate, at best, and a person who is seeking the support of women who backed Clinton should probably have stayed away from such language.

    Oh, and shove your silly putty up your ass, you arrogant Repuke.

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I see the crude, repulsive Obamainators are back with their vulgarity. And he/she has the nerve to mention a "joke" as "indelicate" and in the next sentence resort to vulgarity.


    11:21 Just because you say it wasn't on CNN, or just because you're too dumb to find it, doesn't mean the story did not appear and is not true.

    Using "lies" to spin is no longer effective.

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    While Anon 2:01 may understand the logic of the loaded question (and it's not a joke it is a logical fallacy); clearly McCain does not understand the meaning of that Pharasitical phrase. He could just answer simply "No, I chose him for blah-blah reasons." This would not validate that he was running from Bush or the governor. So the question Ralston asked was not an unfarily loaded one. In fact, McCain should be held accountable for his stance vis a vis Bush and his policies.

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    McCain is getting away from being for and against Bush when it serves him. Straight talk was never so crooked.

     
  • At 3:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    3:05,

    Was your pacifier firmly in place while you typed out your little whining? I'm not running for the office of President but I'll use one of McCain's favorite phrases, "fuck you, you little jerk."

    I'm with the other person. I don't recall ever seeing any reports where George Soros is named as one of the biggest benefactors of Obama and repeated google searches return nothing to substantiate your claim.

    You made the charge so it's your responsibility to back it up with proof. Until you do, you are blowing hot air.

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Soro is and is going to continue doing ads through MoveOn. In the clip on TV - I'm don't remember which station I saw it on -- said they were going to do 527's and air them on MSNBC. Soros can contribute all he wants to to those ads and MoveOn.

    3:11

    McCann has a sense of humor. He likes to joke and he sometimes likes to keep it light. His response was funny and appropriate and better than doing an elaborate lie to cover the truth.Not only that, sometimes questioners ask that kind of question (logical fallacy types) to be funny and have fun. I guess it has to be called an "inside joke" since apparently so few seem to "get it." Or would you say an "inside logical fallacy."?

    And you think it logical to expect McCann to always give a straight answer when Obama lies consistently and constantly.

    3"11 Anything can be a joke. You should know that.

     
  • At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    3:28,

    Moveon.org has shuttered its 527 operations:

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php

    George Soros gave Moveon.org $1.5 million in matching funds in 2004. I could find no evidence of such large donations from him to the organization since that time.

    Yer all wet.

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    All we know is what we hear or read in the news. I heard a different report than you did. I tried to check it out and ran out of time because there are to many sites about OBama and Soros. I'm not alone in my understanding.

    But know for a fact I would not make up things and have useless exchanges reporting my lies to strangers on a blog.I heard and saw what I say I did about Obama, Soros and Begalia on channel news.

     
  • At 5:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:25 Apparently all those years the republican blacks were "unvle toms" since they all now, including the famous Armstrong Williams, are leaving the Republican Party and voting for Obama. They really didn't like you after all.

     
  • At 11:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    anonymous 5:12 PM,
    There are plenty of conservative blacks that aren't racist enough to sacrifice their principles in order to vote for Obama based on his color.

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What the hell is wrong with you andy? there is nothing racist in what Nader said there. I am a Obama supporter and Im not racist but I fully accept what Nader said there. You are overly PC and you feed into the "screaming liberal" stereotype.

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ostroy must feed into the "screaming liberal" stereotype.

    Take away the words "George Bush" and "Global Warming", stop calling critics of Obama "racist", and all of a sudden liberals have nothing but their boring talking points that nobody gets excited about.

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:08 With 93 percent of the black population voting for Obama, and some who did not vote who will be targeted in the general; what percentage of the black population does "plenty of conservative blacks that aren't racist enough to sacrifice their principle" leave? About one percent. So much for "principle" over "race".

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    anonymous 9:22 AM,
    "plenty of conservative blacks..." is much more accurate than the previous claim (by anonymous 5:12) that "they [conservative blacks] all now, ..., are leaving the Republican party".

    I do agree that the black voting block is proving to be based on race (and therefore racist) but unlike liberals who cry foul every chance they can, I will just work harder at convincing people that the nanny state is not a desired solution.

    On that note, I find it humorous that the liberals who fear Big Brother want to give Big Brother the power to control their health care. Liberals are lemmings.

     
  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    Anon 7:40 writes: "What the hell is wrong with you andy? there is nothing racist in what Nader said there."

    Only another racist would say that saying a successful, educated, articulate black man "sounds white" is not a racist thing to say. People who owned slaves saw nothing wrong in that either. It's 232 years since the birth of our nation and it astounds me how people can still only focus on color and not the person behind it.

    Get used to it, racists, you're gonna have a black president come January. Wake up and smell the damned coffee already. It's 2008.
    Andy

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Democrats are the party of racism:

    1. Democrats fought for slavery
    2. Democrats were against blacks during the 1960's civil rights movement
    3. Democrats categorize people by race (i.e. affirmative action)
    4. Democrats bait the race wars (i.e. Obama, Sharpton, Jackson)

    and lets not forget a couple of quotes:

    "Only another racist would say that saying a successful, educated, articulate black man "sounds white" is not a racist thing to say." -- Andy Ostroy

    "My grandmother's a typical white person" -- Barack Obama

    Andy,
    If only a racist would say an articulate black man 'sounds racist' you must agree that only a racist would refer to someone else as 'a typical white person'. Of course, I know you'll come up with a double standard to protect the two racist Democrats quoted above.

     
  • At 1:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I obviously meant 'sounds white', not 'sounds racist' in the last paragraph of the previous post.

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Nadar was misinterpreted.

    Nadar said Obama wasn't talking about issues that pertain to mistreatment of blacks: "economic exploitation in the ghettos"; "payday loans"; "asbestos and lead in housing"; and "predatory lending." That's why Obama is "talking white"; he's not addressing black issues in his campaign.

    Nadar didn't mention his being articulate, educated; or any other personal characteristics of Obama. It was all about Obama's campaign platform.

    Things are so bad now that just to criticize Obama on issues develops into being a racist remark.

    And to state the obvious - Obama is not talking black issues because he has all the black people in the country voting for him. They know that he'll act on their behalf once elected.

    Nadar will not apologize, nor should he. He made no racist remark.

    Perhaps however Ostroy should apologize to Sharpton for insinuating he is not articulate. Shaprton is not only articulate, he has won every debate with an advisary I've seen on TV.

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1:03,

    1 and 2. Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) fought for slavery. When a Southern Democrat president signed into law Civil Rights legislation, he recognized that he had ceded the South to the GOP for a generation - and that's exactly what we got, the GOP's racist southern strategy.

    3 and 4. Categorization by ethnicity, sex, religious affiliation or otherwise is not the sole dominion of the Democratic Party. Only the blind or zealous partisan would claim such.

    It's no spin to argue that it seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is. In any definition of the term "racism", a perceived "superiority" of one ethnicity over another must be indicated and there is always a negative connotation. It is not the same as "stereotyping", which can be positive, negative or benign and that is what Obama's comment about his grandmother was.

    Ralph Nader's "talking white" comments presuppose that "white talk" is superior to "black talk" or "brown talk" or any other "talk". Also, not only is "talking white" the only way to cozy up to white people and not weaken their power base but because Obama is African-American he must somehow prove himself not a threat to white people. This is inherently racist.

    Obama's comment about his grandmother was not in any way negative toward her nor do they imply any kind of "superiority" of one race over another. The immediately preceeding sentences before the "typical white person" statement were, "(t)he point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't". He simply made a comment regarding stereotypical attitudes about racial differences and how we must overcome them. That's not the same thing as "racism".


    4:29,

    I think you should google:

    "obama payday loans"
    "obama predatory lending"
    "obama lead paint"

    Ralph Nader apparently has not been listening.

    BTW, Obama chose not to take a high-dollar salary with major law firm or clerk for a Supreme Court justice after being president of the Law Review at Harvard and went to work as a community organizer with low-income blacks, whites and Latinos for $13K a year.

    It's a pretty safe notion to assume Obama not only has a thorough understanding and appreciation for issues of the working poor, he's done more direct work with them than has Nader.

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    8"18 You are wrong.

    Nadar's "white talk" meant "talk" about "white issues" as opposed to the issues of the black community. You've heard of "girl talk" -- that's talk of most interest to women; "baby-talk" talk of interest to babies; "street talk" language of quick communication among a certain group of people: and on and on and on.

    It is abundantly clear what Nader meant if one doesn't view his remarks through a racist perspective.

    Obama's said his grandmother crossed the street when a black men approached her on the street, thus showing a white sterotypical view of a black man. Yeah, fear and a negative opinion that his intent was to harm her. That's racism.

    By your definition, then, it is obvious that a huge portion of the black population are racists. According to the BLT, white people are evil, cruel, mean, and are to be hated and defied. That is racism.

    Obama didn't have to worry about his low-paying, politically correct job in the community because he had a wife with a huge salary by any standards. Not that he was not motivated by a good heart; but the fact is it was not a huge financial hardship. He could afford to be magnanimous. Most of us can only contribute through our church.

    If Nadar has not been listening, other have. Obama does not speak to the issues Nadar mentions - or at least he doesn't on TV where most of us get our information.

    As an aside -- It was on the morning news that an Indian father killed his black daughter-in-law because the Indian religion forbids the marriage of anyone but another one of the same faith.

    That has not so much to do with hatred as it does with relgious doctrine. In addtion, to racism, religious veiws are another huge problem in relations with others. Muslims think our American culture decadent and evil. There has got to be assimilation in the USA and no more tolerating any group free do to as it chooses in disobedience to our laws or even culture. When girls go to school with their faces covered as demanded by their religion, it is bound to cause juvenile misunderstandings and harm, for example. And when a school no longer recites the Pledge of Allegiance because it would offend Muslim students, we have got to rethink what is required to preserve the foundation of our country.

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Just as I predicted the liberals on this blog came up with a double standard to gauge Democrat racism.

    Liberals want to ignore the Clinton administration's lack of action against Al Qaeda so they can claim 9/11 happened on Bush's watch so it must be his fault; yet the fact that Democrats fought for slavery and against civil rights in the 1960's supposedly was the GOP's fault.

    The Civil War fight for slavery happened on the Democrats watch. The fight against civil rights in the 1960's happened on the Democrats watch.

    Obama's baiting race debate after race debate because Obama is a racist.

    "My grandmother's a typical white person" -- Barack Obama

    Somehow I know that if I said any black person is "a typical black person", the liberals on this blog would be screaming racism.

     
  • At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Actually to expand on my previous point, I once posted "Obama is a typical black person" on this blog and Ostroy deleted the post.

    Nice double standard.

     
  • At 11:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There is no longer any doubt no matter who argues what.

    We have the documentation of the racism fostered by the Black Liberation Theology. That cannot be disputed.

    Obamba attended that church for twenty years. That cannot be disputed.

    Racism abounds; sexism abounds; religiosity abounds.

     
  • At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    9:36,

    No, I am not wrong and please do not try and put words in my mouth.

    If someone said in a derogatory manner that someone was acting as a typical black person, then, yes, that's a racist statement. Barack Obama was hardly being derogatory toward his grandmother.

    For some perspective, some of you may benefit from reading the following: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/cclack/stories/MYSA062908.1H.CaryClack.299a1c6.html

    11:24,

    There's no double standard in what I wrote.

     
  • At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    12" 17 if not words in your mouth, how about a thought in your head.

    If Obama said his grandmother was a "typical white person" because she thought an approaching black man would mug her, then Obama made a racial slur against his grandmother and accused her of being a racist. Had he said "my grandmother is a typical white person who loves and adores black people" then that would have not been a racial slur.
    Nadar is being called a racist because he said a presidential candidate was not addressing the concerns of one segment of the population. That's far less "racist" than Obama's remarks about his white grandmother.

     
  • At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    4:01,

    Your disingenuousness knows no bounds.

    Here's the full text of the "typical white person" comment:

    "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

    How in the world can you claim in making the statement that his grammy does not hold animosity (hatred or ill will) toward people of other races but does fear those whom she does not know that he's stating his grammy is a racist?

    Fear of the unknown is not by itself racist. Ignorance by itself is not racist. Claiming an inherent superiority or inferiority of a particular race is racism. Are you going to claim that Obama believes his grandmother to think white people are superior to blacks?

    Ralph NadEr not only doesn't know what he's talking about regarding Obama's record in the "ghetto" (nice loaded term, Ralph), it's quite clear Nader's intent is that Obama is not addressing issues of the poor because as a black politician he cannot be successful unless he sheds his "blackness" lest he scare the white power structure.

    Put it another way - Obama cannot succeed as a politician based on who he is as a black man, he has to "whiten" himself in order to succeed. That is the very essence of racist commentary.

     
  • At 6:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    5"25 I think you said:

    Obama did not say his grandmother was a racist, but that she, like typical white people, was fearful of people on the street she didn't know. You say this "typical white" response is based on ignorance and fear. Therefore Obama was saying typical white people are ignorant and fearful of strangers and are, by implication, cowards. Obama made a racist remark about white people: white people are ignorant and fearful. Obviously those who are not ignorant and fearful are superior, Therefore Obama claims black racial superiority.

    You say that claiming an inherent superioty of, or the inferiority of, a particular race is racism. Since, as you strongly state, ignorance is not a source of racism, it must then be that, conversely, racism is the result of logcial and reasonable thinking. Therefore racism by your definition is an intellectual decision based on evidence. Don't scream and holler -- that's what you imply in your idiotic analysis.

    But obviously you don't think things through because you believe, I must conclude from your other reamarks, that you are able to read the minds of others and thus know exactly what they're thinking. It doesn't matter that Nader said "issues" you have to make it "color" because you have mystical powers of clairvoyance. Do you win the Lotto often? Of course not, You are just not a clear thinker, or you are just bravely trying to spin Obama's remarks and platform.

    Exactly what is this "whiteness" he should assume according to your thoughts and those you "read" that Nader means? What would being "white" mean? What would Obama do to "whiten" himself? You tell us. According to the BLT he'd have to become mean, arrogant, opporunitistic and possess other trecherous and evil traits.

     
  • At 5:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    6:53,

    Don't "think I said". Please "read what I wrote" without injecting your own bias and putting words in my mouth.

    If you cannot do so, this conversation goes nowhere and we waste our time.

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    oh so now we have to put Obama's "typical white person" into context but McCain's "100 years" needs no context ?

    This is yet another liberal double standard.

     
  • At 8:39 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    Yes, Obama's "typical white person" comment was a boneheaded, insensitive thing to say, and I condemn it just as I do Nader's racist remark. There's no douible-standard here. But Obama's statement wasn't racist. Let's remember, he's half white. His mother's white. His grandmother's white. He was merely commenting on how he grew up and the attitudes of those in his family.

    What Nader said ,was racist. But I don't expect the hypocritical Right to admit it. Just don't project your double-standard crap on us. We can condemn foolishness on both sides of the aisle. You can't.
    Andy

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    6:17 A person "thinks you said" or "thinks you meant" because you are so unclear and nonsensical.

    Obama identifies himself as totally black except when mentionig white relatives is helpful to his campaign. No doubt about that. And, no matter how he presents himself, his being "half white" doesn't mean he cannot be a racist. Maureen Dowd is one hundred percent female and she is a sexist.

    Ralph Nader was talking about issues that Obama is concerned with; not his campaign persona.

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I am completely offended at Obama's characterization of what a "typical white person" is. I have never in my life crossed the street because a black person was walking towards me.

    Obama is a racist.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    8:57,

    You crack me up.

    The person who has been trying to rationally explain to you what constitutes racism has been very clear and logical. Your responses have been irrational, illogical and downright comical in their attempts to spin.

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    8:30,

    What is the context of the "100 years" comment? That it'll be the same as Korea, Germany or Japan in Iraq?

    Interestingly McCain has been on both sides of this fence as he's also stated that the Iraq occupation should not be equated with Germany or Korea.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    10:23 If you're not too "cracked up" you explain how "the person who has been trying to rationally explain to you" explains racism. If you're "ignorant and fearful" you're not a racist, but if you "Think" you're superior you are? Please!!!!!!

    I din't understand the "person's" explanation, either.

    Explain if you think Obama's "bitter" remarks were racsist. He certainly sounded as though he, a black man, was superior to those poor "dumb", "bitter" whites.

     
  • At 1:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:29,

    My goodness. If you don't have a dictionary, you clearly have internet access so can look up www.m-w.com where you will find:

    racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

    That is precisely what has been communicated to you.

    Oh, and by the way, Obama's bitter comment had nothing to do with race. He did not specify ethnicity. He spoke of small towns in the Midwest, which are made up of white, black, brown, yellow, red - heck, most colors under the rainbow.

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:29 Thank you so very much for clarifying racism. I now know for a fact that if one thinks the black man approaching her on the street is going to mug her; if Imus calls a team of black girls "nappy-headed hos"; if anybody calls the people living in an all black community bitter and imples they're dumb to love their church and guns; and if a white person sees a gang of black men approaching with muslim-like scarves and other "gang indentification" symbols, I can rest assured that no racism has been committed but only ignorance
    about black people.

    I know I'm not superior to black people. I could never be a presidential candidate, nor Sec. of State; nor a great athlete; nor a great performer or musician, or a supreme court judge so I and nobody I know is a racist. Thank you so much for proving that any charge of racism in this country of whites against blacks is probably untrue. What a relief. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Why are you thanking anyone?

    It's not at all clear you have a firm understanding of the matter, and your willingness to claim "any charge of racism" is probably untrue lays bare for all to see a lack of seriousness or want to understand.

    What a waste.

     
  • At 4:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    4:19 You have really hurt my feelings. I thought I learned from you that it was not considerd to be racism unless one felt superior to the other one of another race. I finally "got it" and stoped blaming Obama for being a racist against his grandmother. I even read the dictionary definition where superiority is part of the definition. And now you're practically calling me a "waste." and I guess a liar.

    You are a sadist.

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Anonymous Michael said…

    4:32,

    It's pretty clear you didn't learn anything as it is incredibly heartless and thoughtless to state that the Merriam-Webster definition absolves or renders untrue any legitimate charge of white on black racism, or any form of racism for that matter.

    What's pretty clear to me is that the person conversing with you has made a solid case for the term "racism" (as well as "sexism" really) being misunderstood/misapplied and you've managed to prove it.

     
  • At 6:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Poor Michael. You as always miss the point. Th person's only purpose was to absolve Obama from being considered a racist when he said his grandmother was a "typical white person" who crossed the street in fear of an approaching stranger i.e., blackman.

    He proceeded to say that was not racism but reflected only her (and other whites) ignorance and fear. Whereas feeling superior to a black person because of skin color was bona fide racism. He excluded all forms of racism that were not based on feeling superior. His mistake - not mine. So shut up for once. And I'm done with this idiotic discussion. Who cares. Obama is a racist and his church teaches racism.

     
  • At 10:15 PM, Anonymous Michael said…

    6:47,

    So it's now an idiotic discussion, huh? Not so surprising since the primary participant in the discussion is a blithering idiot who has reading comprehension skills below that of my second grader nephew.

    It's plainly evident the person's agenda was to try and explain to a dullard the true meaning of the word "racism" and you simply don't get it. How typical. Typical also is your whining like a baby, spinning like a pinwheel and holding on to your thoroughly ignorant beliefs about race and Trinity United.

    Oh, and as for telling me to shut up - fuck you and the lame, one-note high horse you rode in on.

     
  • At 10:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey, Michael, I'm just an innocent but constant reader and I'm really proud that your response to the Anon proves what I and other have suspected all along: You and Sidney are the same person. You both have that "off the wall" response, and babble like a maniac when you're criticised. Keep it up -- I really process it -- it's really cool and fun to read. I don't know anybody like you in real life.

    I like the way you've picked up on that other Anon's over-used "reading comprehension." You show him how boring that can get.

    What I like most is the way you put people down. I'm memorizing some of your putdowns and I'm goning to use them in school when people pick on me again. My favorite in today's is "Fuck you you and the lame one-note high horse you rode in on." I'm going to look them in the eye and say that.

     
  • At 12:08 AM, Anonymous Michael said…

    Your suspicions are no more proven than the ability of BLTanon to process information - except in your own minds, of course.

    *Shudder*

    Feel free to use the line. Hope you can back it up. I have no doubts about my ability to do so.

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger Robin Lionheart said…

    No one who loves his religion can scorn these words of Jesus, as no one who loves America can form the words in his mouth: God Damn America.

    I notice you could form those words with your fingers. Why do you hate America so much?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home