Gay Patriot Header Image

The manufactured (for political reasons) charge of racism

The release this morning of various e-mails from left-of-center journalists and bloggers on the attempt of some members of the Journolist listserv to squelch media coverage in 2008 of then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s relationship with a racist pastor shows just what’s behind attempts to smear the Tea Parties as racist.

It has nothing to do with the alleged prejudices of Tea Party protesters, but with politics. As Ed Morrissey put it, “the racist attack — was deliberately political:

Let’s put this in its proper perspective.  Ackerman wasn’t talking about a strategy to exposereal racists, in the media or anywhere else.  The Washington Independent reporter wanted to conduct a campaign against any figure on the Right, including journalists like Fred Barnes, to smear him as a racist for the political purposes of electing a Democrat to the White House.  Notice that Ackerman doesn’t even bother to ask people to look for actual evidence of racism, but just suggests to pick a conservative name out of a hat.  Tellingly, the pushback from members of Journolist had less to do with the outrageous idea of smearing an innocent person of racism to frighten people away from the story than with whether it would work.

Bold added.

Ed adds, “It certainly puts efforts by the Left to paint the Tea Party as racist in an entirely new light.”  Indeed it does.

Guess evidence doesn’t really matter when you’re trying to peddle a narrative about conservative racism.  Do hope Barney Frank and other Democrats will “differentiate themselves” from the attempt to smear conservatives a racist.

Meanwhile, we have one more piece of evidence to show that some of the left attack conservatives as racist not based on a evidence, but as a means to discredit their political adversaries.

UPDATE:   (more…)

A liberal obsession with what “lurks behind” conservative opinion

At least since I was in college and first hinted at my attraction to men, friends and acquaintances to the left of the political center have suggested I adopted the conservative political views I held to hide my homosexual feelings.  If I would just come out, I would experience this sudden illumination and easily see the error of my ways.

Even today, while long since open about such feelings, some on the left inveigh against my “ideological affiliation”, arguing that I won’t have completely come to terms with my sexuality until I swear fealty to the Democratic ideology dominant in the gay community.  Basically, these broad-minded leftists assume we hold our political views for reasons unrelated to the merits of our ideas.  There has to be a psychological reason — or some other personal motive.

Not how one critic responded to my regular reminder than monogamy was an essential aspect of marriage (in a comment to a post that didn’t address monogamy):  “You also zero in on the idea of monogamy, and it always leads me to wonder: have you been particularly cheated on?

Wonder why it didn’t occur to the reader that it has been my study of the institution — and not just in Western culture — that led to my repeated references to monogamy.

This notion that all too many on the left are constantly seeking a personal motive to conservatives’ expressing views at odds with the liberal worldview came to mind earlier today when I read Jonathan Strong’s Daily Caller piece on the “radical steps” a group of liberal journalists took to protect “their favored candidate” by attempting to squelch stories of Barack Obama’s relationship with a racist pastor. (more…)

Does Obama Have a Pathological Need to Attack Republicans?

With the appointment of Carte Goodwin to the seat of the late Robert Byrd, Senate Democrats are set to break the Republican filibuster against Democratic attempts to extend unemployment benefits without adhering to President Obama’s campaign pledge to “pay for his new spending plans with even bigger spending cuts.

That imminent appointment didn’t stop the president yesterday from attacking Republicans:

Obama launched a fresh salvo Monday, demanding the Senate act on the legislation — after a vote already had been scheduled — and criticizing Republicans for the holdup.

“The same people who didn’t have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn’t offer relief to middle-class Americans,” Obama said.

Republicans say they do favor the benefits but insist they be paid for with spending cuts elsewhere in the government’s $3.7 trillion budget. After initially feeling heat this winter when a lone GOP senator, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, briefly blocked a benefits extension in February, the GOP has grown increasingly comfortable opposing the legislation.

So ready is this post-partisan politician to attack Republicans that he misrepresents their record.  They’re not saying the government shouldn’t provide relief, only that that relief should be paid for with spending cuts — almost exactly what he said in his campaign infomercial at the close of the 2008 presidential contest.

In short, the Republican filibuster is an attempt to hold the Democrat to his campaign promises.

Amazing that he has resorted to misrepresenting the Republican position in order to attack.  Wonder why that is.