Obama the racist ?
 

"We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

:eek:



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...publicans-sit/

Apparently it's only "racist" on Faux News and Stormfront.org, and only recently.

Everywhere else, it's been his standard stump speech for a while now:

Let's review the metaphor: GOP drives economy car into ditch. Dems pull it out. Dems driving. No special interests in shotgun. Middle class up front. GOP in back.

OMG, that's so "racist" ! :D

Well, here is the test:

When the Democrats lose as badly as predicted next Tuesday, we'll have a commentator respond to the president's statement by paraphrasing it thus:

"Well, it would appear that the president and his party will be legislatively sitting in the back."

If there is a reaction of that statement being racist, then the original statement by the president must be equally so. If there is no reaction, then maybe the press has grown up a little bit.

I don't think Obama is a racist. He is just an awful President is all. Which is a lot more important than whether he dislikes any group of people.

well it was a pretty bad metaphor... the GOP & DEMS drove the economy into a ditch... and the GOP & DEMS are just leaving the economy in the ditch to rot. Special interests get first responding emergency treatment. Middle Class left to die. America is stuck in the back.

There... that was more realistic.

High speed rail service between Chicago and Iowa?





It's them...right?

I know you have been speaking of "The Republican Tsunami" since Obama got in office, but have you actually been reading any of the more accurate poll predictions? (like fivethirtyeight.com)

The narrative during last August was the GOP was supposed to sweep into the Senate and House, taking over both easily.

Yet the GOP has managed to definitively lose control of the Senate due to the more extreme Tea Party candidates (defeating the moderate GOP candidate) turning voters back to the Dems (less than 10% chance of winning the Senate now).

And in the House, instead of winning 40-50 excess seats easily in a "tsunami", the GOP will probably only barely get the minimal 20 -30 seats (they will be in control). That's nothing. That's what the opposite party normally gets in every first midterm election post-presidential election.

The other thing is that the House has never turned without the Senate. Appears it could happen this year.

We'll see, but I think you'd better look at some polling numbers, Joey, rather than reading right wing web blogs filled with hope.

Tonight’s House Forecast: 52-Seat Gain For G.O.P.

(headline from fivethirtyeight.com)

Be fair..they were empty anyways.

Wow. That's only 16-20 excess. 214 needed for control, predicted the GOP will now only get 230?

Yikes.

It should have been far larger, according to the freaks at the town halls a year ago August.

Well look at it this way Riot...it was a good run while it lasted.

I am sure Sarah Louise and the Tea Party can find room for you !!

:zz: The GOP can't even take over the Senate? (that has never happened before, that a party retakes the House but can't retake the Senate, too) Can only get 50-ish seats in the House? Don't forget that an abnormally large number of House seats when to the Dems last time, those seats should easily convert back to their normal GOP - but they are not.

Last year it was expected the GOP should retake the Senate, and dominate in the House. That doesn't appear ready to happen.

The "normal" is to readily kick ass the first midterm after a polarizing presidential election. The House/Senate usually go the way opposite the winning Presidential party.

If this plays out with no Senate win and a bare squeek win in the House, the GOP better realize they have long-term party problems, and they'd better decide what they represent, or they will be in the political wilderness for some years.

The GOP might have trouble with the Senate since Harry Reid is doing his best to steal the election, with the machines being set to Mr. Reids name when new voters come in. And thank goodness the SEIU thugs are running the polling operations, with Mr. Reid's son Rory (who won't use his last name Reid) running for Governor.

Democrat politics as usual -- using every dirty trick in the book, and a few more from the sewer they are so accustomed to swimming in.

i like the "it's not the fact we nominated a bunch of idiots in critical states, it's because we're getting cheated" mindset. it guarantees more easy to beat idiots in the future.

harry reid would be down double digits to almost any other republican candidate.

thanks for the gift seats.

Are you expecting more from the Democrats? Reid is desperately trying anything to win now. I guess he thinks people forgot about Obamacare and him being one of the key figures behind this bill that the American public didn't want. He must realize now that everyone thinks he is nothing more than a worthless piece of manure. Hopefully he is the first of the Big Three to get a one way ticket out of DC.

That one was proven not true by this morning.

And I hate to break it to you, there was never any "Acorn bought the 2008 election", either.

Are you really trying to spin losing the house into some sort of victory for the Dems? Are you?

The GOP should swamp the House and Senate. The usual result is a 40 seat switch in the House after elections at first midterm after a presidential.

But it appears the GOP has lost the Senate. It looks like they will barely get the House at this point.

Now obviously that's just what the "pundits and polls" are saying today - it could obviously go the other way (GOP gets the Senate, too, and alot more seats in the House).

But if the GOP can't retake the Senate? And barely can take the House? Historically the opposite party has never won the House and failed to win the Senate.

That's not a victory for the Dems as much as it is a tidal wave of loss for the GOP.

This should be a huge "gimme" of seats to the GOP - if the GOP can't even carry that off?

Why is it a gimmie? You and others like the way this country is headed and will probably vote to keep things headed the way they are. I never heard anyone say the Repubs would take the Senate, but I don't spend much time with the Huffy Poo Poo. They say it so you will see the elections as a victory no matter what happens. Lot's of Union $$ behind the Dems. A lot of Public Sector Union $$. Tax $$ in other words. The Dems will keep the Tax dollars flowing to the Unions so the Unions can keep the money headed back to Washington. Some in Law Enforcement would call that Money Laundering. If not out and out Larceny.

Because historically it virtually always switches after an election like we had (overwhelmingly Democratic up and down the ballot). Geesh, even regular GOP positions went Dem in 2008. So those ought to automatically revert back to GOP. And then there is the typical "get the other party in" that normally happens every midterm.

Add that to the outcry and "throw the bums out" starting last year, the major recession, the Tea Party, etc. You know, the Republican Tsunami Joey has been talking about for two years?

Seriously - look at Delaware and Christine O'Donnell. That seat was a guaranteed Senate seat win for the GOP. Until she won the primary and kicked out the moderate Republican.

It doesn't have much to do with the Huffy Poo Poo. The political wonks have been saying it since Obama was elected, based upon the last major House/Senate switches.

It has little to do with party affiliation, or what somebody "wants" - it's just political punditry predictions based upon history.

You do realize that the average number of Senate seat pick-ups in an off year is about 2-3 so if the GOP can pick up 8-10 that's a huge win !!

When the Democrats lose the House and possibly the Senate, and conservatives say now "Obama and the Democrats can sit in the back.", that will be OK, and will not be considered racist, right? Everyone agreed?

After all, all we did was change the subject of the sentence to "Obama and the Democrats" from "The Republicans", merely selecting the politically opposite group.

And we all know intellectually that whether the statement is discriminitory cannot depend on who said it.

It also cannot be racist when the author of the statement, Mr. Obama, was saying it in reference to an erroneous conclusion: that his party would retain power. When his party is actually out of power, intellectually he must accept that.

I'm sure we won't see any hysterics if someone should dare to utter the paraphrase of his original quote.

Absolutely. They'd control the Senate. That would be huge for the GOP. That's what was predicted last year during August.

But they've already lost that.

Looking at the 12 seats up for grabs this year (that should be "gimme" seats for the GOP this year) - they needed to win 10 of them. They can't do it.

CA has gone to Boxer for sure in the last couple days. And as of today, Joe Miller (Alaska) is suddenly losing by big definitive margins (the "I lied" thing and the handcuffing of the reporter). Murkowski (R) is a write in - but as Miller is falling, the Dem is picking up. That seat is now considered "officially lost" to Joe Miller - the question is Murkowski or Dem on election day.

Those two are the nails in the coffin (which already had several). It doesn't matter any more that Colorado (R-Buck now only up 0.4) and Illinois (R-Kirk up 4) and Nevada (crazy whackjob Angle up 3) are still up for grabs.

FiveThirtyEight predicts the Dems have 52 to 53 Senate seats now.

The GOP lost the Senate at the primaries, when the Tea Party candidates were chosen over more electable moderate GOP - now it's just a matter of how much they lose.

But the GOP will take over the House - but it seems barely. They will have a major immediate challenge after January - they will have to make a decision within three months on voting to enlarge the federal deficit so we can pay our current bills, or having us go broke and default. It will be fun to watch them backtrack.

Keep hope alive!

It's really sad that people today constantly demonstrate they don't know anything about civil rights history.

^^

Captain Hindsight

How is that a rebuttal of the argument?

The whole point is if someone finds the "sit in the back" phrase objectionable, then don't use it! Then people won't be motivated to return the insult. But the hypocrisy of "I can say the phrase to you but you can't say it to me" is absurd.

As for civil rights history, many Americans are well-versed in it. Here's a part that isn't publicized as much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African..._States_Senate

Which party seated black congressmen and senators first? Not the Democrats. What party was Lincoln from?

Which party has Black, Latino, and Female candidates? Which party calls the other party's female candidates whores and bitches? Unfortunately the Senate races this time around are in Democratic stronghold States. 8 seats in the Senate would be a huge pick-up. In 2 years the Repubs could pick up a lot more seats. The Repub candidates Riot considers moderate are liberals who would vote with the Dems anyway. That is the whole point of knocking them off in the primaries. That message goes out to the Repubs. The Dems will get their message next Tuesday (hopefully). And yes Obama is a racist. Calling on Latinos to "punish their enemies" is only the latest clue. Not prosecuting the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation was another.

you're a conservative.