The Party of Lincoln, Folks.

[brightcove vid=1790977147&exp=1463341016&w=486&h=412]

Stay classy, GOP.

G.D.

G.D.

Gene "G.D." Demby is the founder and editor of PostBourgie. In his day job, he blogs and reports on race and ethnicity for NPR's Code Switch team.
G.D.

Latest posts by G.D. (see all)

  • quadmoniker

    Wow. All of this reinforces my new theory that I need to call some of my Arkansas friends on to research: some people think “Muslim” is an ethnicity, not a religion.

    I don’t understand how they don’t know that this is racist. Maybe that’s because these aren’t the kinds of conversations white people in the south have? Either way, there’s another fundamental question I wanted the interviewer to address as well. I know why he skipped it, there was just too much else going on; but what, exactly, has Obama “waffled” on?

  • scott

    Despite originally pledging to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately, Obama now says he would “refine” his policy after listening to the commanders on the ground. There are others but you only asked for one.

  • scott: you’re saying that acknowledging the improved security situation in Iraq between the beginning of his campaign and now is a ‘waffle’?

    This is a pretty amazing assertion. I take it the resolute wrongheadedness of the Bush administration — they were against the surge, initially, as well — is preferable to adjusting to the changing circumstances?

    McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts and current support of it is a waffle: it’s completely about politics and not at all about the sudden economic wisdom of going that route.

  • scott

    Yes, when you go from unequivocally saying you will pull American troops to saying you will ask the commanders on the ground that to me is a waffle.

    This is not about “acknowledging the improved security situation in Iraq.” (something which Obama has only done in the most begrudging manner) This is about stating a fundamental position on an issue and then totally changing it or “refining it” if you are Obama. If this is not a waffle to you , then what exactly differentiates a waffle from the refinement of one’s policy?

    Let’s not forget that Obama’s pledge to pull Americans out of Iraq without a time table, was I think, what won him the left’s support in the primaries, that and Hilary’s refusal to admit she was wrong to vote for Iraq.

  • Scott: so, it would be better to have a leader who sticks to his initial, less-informed plans, no matter how wrongheaded they are?

    Didn’t we already have eight years of that?

  • scott: so you’re suggesting that given the changes on the ground — Iraq is only a major clusterfuck instead of the Hobbesian nightmare it was last summer — he should have hewn more tightly to his earlier position, even though things had gotten more complicated in the interim. Um, wtf? Do you disagree that his current, more nuanced position on Iraq is a (more) correct one? Or, again, would you rather he had remained resolute in a position that isn’t as workable now? Better to be wrong and strong, I guess.

    (A better example of an Obama flip-flop would be on FISA; I won’t defend that or argue that point.)

    I would argue, though, that Obama’s Iraq ‘waffle’ actually means he moves to the less politically popular position. It is a sounder policy stance.

    But McCain has changed his position on offshore drilling, on Bush’s tax cuts, on affirmative action, on his own immigration bill, without the impetus from some new facts about their merits or some principled re-evaluation of them — those were all about shoring up the conservative base.

    It’s not even close.

  • scott

    shani-o:

    No, I am more than happy to have folks learn new facts and then integrate those facts into their world view. Even with that said you can still be a waffler.

    To me being a waffler has more to do with stating such an unequivocal position, changing it and then acting like you really didn’t change it because you refined it. Just fess up and say I originally had this position on an issue and now I’ve learned certain facts and as a result I’ve changed my position. All of this is assuming you really believed your original position on the issue in the first place and the position wasn’t taken just to win votes. Don’t get me wrong, I believe many if not most politicians are wafflers but let’s at least be honest about it.

  • “Don’t get me wrong, I believe many if not most politicians are wafflers but let’s at least be honest about it.”

    but the racist box up top and your assertion both suggest that Obama is MORE of a waffler than ‘most politicians.’

    Not buying it. Sorry.

  • scott

    G.D.:

    I would prefer that Obama or any politician, for that matter, stick with the opinion they really believe in and not the one convenient for that period of the campaign.

    Obama’s Iraq position served him well in the primaries when he needed the liberal base of the Democratic party and could use his position as the anti-war candidate to differentiate himself against Clinton. Obama refined his Iraq position back in July when he had the nomination all warped up and needed to look forward to the general election and mainstream America. The only place Obama’s refinement was not popular was among his liberal base.

  • “I would prefer that Obama or any politician, for that matter, stick with the opinion they really believe in and not the one convenient for that period of the campaign.”

    So by your logic, McCain is in fact a waffler, right?

    Okay. Glad we agree.

  • Scott, I guess the fundamental difference here is that you think Obama has been making politically expedient decisions, while I think he has been refining his positions as new information becomes available.

    Fair enough, I guess.

  • scott

    G.D.

    Yes McCain has waffled as well. And contrary to your statement, I have never suggested that Obama is more of a waffler. Let’s remember that quadmoniker asked in the first post “what, exactly, has Obama “waffled” on?” as if he’d never waffled. I expect the Dems to go after McCain on his waffles as hard as the Repubs go after Obama. After watching the clip on the waffles, I think the box of waffle batter is a clever gimmick and I don’t see it as racist.

  • ‘After watching the clip on the waffles, I think the box of waffle batter is a clever gimmick and I don’t see it as racist.’

    ah, it doesn’t meet the noose-‘nigger’ threshold, which requires that a black person be lynched and spit on by members of the Klan — on camera — to be considered racist.

    you can think this isn’t racist, if you want. but that makes you oblivious or a liar.

    but do you, homie.

  • quadmoniker

    Actually, Obama’s stance on Iraq has never really changed, it was always more nuanced than other democrats: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/us/politics/26obama.html?pagewanted=1&sq=Obama%20Iraq%20timetable&st=nyt&scp=82

    In the beginning he said they should keep a small amount of forces there after a major withdrawal, and has always said we should withdraw ‘responsibly.’ He changed the emphasis of his speech over the summer, but not really his content.

    He still says, though, there should be a timetable for withdrawal. That has never changed. Btw, there is pretty much a timetable in place now. He has always been, in the words of Bill O’Reilly, perspicacious on Iraq issues.

  • quadmoniker

    Scott: Also, that box of waffles, from the picture to the jingles, is the most racist thing I’ve seen in this campaign to date.

  • scott

    G.D.

    That’s a rather nekulturney response. I suggest that there is a third choice beyond oblivious or racist, and that there is no racism in the waffle gimmick. I think there are many things one could see racism in if one so chooses, some of which are and some aren’t. However, if you are looking to find racism then you will surely find it.

  • scott

    qualmoniker:

    I must beg to differ. Obama original stance was a 16 month pull out no questions asked, then he refined it.

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-iraq-withdrawal-timeline/

  • “We didn’t even think about that.”

    My aunt’s fanny you didn’t. God I hate these fuckers.

  • and if you’re predisposed to deny its existence then you’ll never see it.

  • “However, if you are looking to find racism then you will surely find it.”

    That’s the stupidest argument ever. Sorry. It is.

    It’s fine if you don’t get it, but don’t tell others that they’re seeing things.

    The box is racist, dude. On a scale from Rainbow Coalition to Deep South Lynching, it’s not that high, but racism comes in shades and degrees. That’s the point G.D. was getting at.

  • scott

    shani-o:

    I disagree. I live in Deep South and work in state government. My division handles legal claims by employees for our department. I’ve seen some meritorious claims and others were BS. I’ve also seen supervisors cowered into not disciplining employees b/c they knew the employee would say it was based on racism. Yes, racism is out there but it is not everywhere.

  • quadmoniker

    Scott,
    What is racism? How do you define it? And where is it? If it’s not saying that someone is “accused” of being a Muslim, or drawing on the imagery of a character everyone now agrees is racist, or using a “rap” as a jingle on the box, where is it?

  • No one said it was everywhere. But it’s on that box.

    And I, for one, could not care less about people who are afraid to do their jobs because they don’t want to get called racist. If you are, you are. Own it. If you aren’t, do your job, back your decisions up with documentation (which is the same thing I’d say to the black person who senses racism in their workplace), and keep it moving.

  • scott

    shani-o:

    What do you see as racist on that box? In my opinion, some of the stuff on the box maybe in bad taste but may not be racist and some some of it maybe racist. On the whole, I thought the box was satire.

    It would be nice if good documentation were enough to defend against charges of racism or to deter them. It would also be nice if an employee making a false accusation of racism against their boss didn’t result in any lasting stigma against their boss but it can and sometimes does. False claims of racism debase and devalue legitimate ones.

  • quadmoniker

    Scott:
    What about the box is satire? Satire is “Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.”

    There’s nothing on the box that attacks Obama’s “stupidity.” It’s distorting the truth about him and attacking specific attributes of some groups of people (Muslims pray toward Mecca, for example). This is not a clever ploy to expose at human folly. This is putting what some people believe about other groups of people on a box.

    I’m also confused about the idea that Obama is going to erase the border with Mexico? He has said he’s going to renegotiate NAFTA, and John McCain was so in favor of an immigration reform plan at odds with his party’s platform that that’s what nearly ended his campaign last summer.

  • quadmoniker

    Also, Scott,
    Again, what is racism? If it’s in bad taste, why is it in bad taste and why can’t you say that’s racist. Racism isn’t JUST burning crosses on someone’s lawn.

  • Scott- the caricature of Obama was in the vein of Aunt Jemima, a racist interpretation of a classic slave figure, the mammy. If you study racist imagery, the big round eyes and full lips are relics of that era (and not to mention, physical characteristics Obama doesn’t have).

    The bit on top with Obama in a headwrap which is supposed to be ‘muslim,’ I guess, engenders fears about his supposed ties to the Islamic community, and is doubly racist, because it assumes that there’s something bad or scary about being Muslim.

    The ‘rap lyrics’ don’t bother me as much. They’re simply silly and dumb.

    All in all, this isn’t something that’s going to keep me up at night, but that doesn’t mean I don’t see it for what it is.

  • geo

    i am ashamed that the creators are from my home state of Tennessee. the concept and execution is chock full of bigotry. i am puzzled as to how it can be construed as something other than racists and anti-muslim.

    pundits and journalists seem to be ignoring or reducing the influence race has on this election.