How desperate are Democrats – including the New York Times Editorial Board?
Desperate enough to pump out an editorial that, in no small part, is a thinly disguised racial appeal, begging Black voters, who vote almost monolithically Democrat, to come out and push their candidates over the top.
Think I\’m kidding? Here, let me show you.
Try this paragraph on for size:
Thepanicky Democratic flight away from President Obama – and from someof the party\’s most important positions – is not a surprise. Mr.Obama remains highly unpopular among white voters, particularly inSouthern states where candidates like Ms. Nunn, Ms. Grimes andseveral others are struggling to establish leads. But one of thereasons for his unpopularity is that nervous members of his own partyhave done a poor job of defending his policies over the nearly sixyears of his presidency, allowing a Republican narrative of failureto take hold.
Whywas it necessary to separate voters by race that way?
The Times could aseasily editorialized that “The only reason Mr. Obama is anywhere neareven his currently low poll numbers is because Black voters, who havebeen hurt during the Obama years more than White voters, nonethelesscontinue their almost monolithic support of his presidency”. Butthat didn\’t happen, did it?
See, to the Times\’ editorial writers, the fact that almost all Black voters support Obama nomatter what does not contribute to the racial divide. That divide exists because White people, 43% of whom voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and a majority of whom supported him afterwards according to post-election polls, don\’t support him as much now.
What happened? Did President Obama become more Black since then? Because, if he is no more or less Black now than he was when first elected, the reason a lot of White support has fallen off has exactly nothing to do with his race.
Hey here\’s a thought: maybe the falloff just might be related to the quality of his performance in office. I guess that doesn\’t occur to Times editorialists.
Then we have the editorial\’s last paragraph:
Manyof these candidates are running in difficult political environmentsand are being careful about what they say or don\’t say in hopes ofpreserving Democratic control of the Senate. They run the risk,though, of alienating important constituencies who prefer a partywith a spine, especially black voters, who remain very supportive ofMr. Obama. By not standing firmly for their own policies, Democratssend a message to voters that the unending Republican criticism ofthe president is legitimate. There is much that is going right inthis country, and there is still time for Democrats to say so.
There it is, flat-out. If “many of these candidates” dare to distance themselves from Barack Obama, they run the risk of losing constituencies “who prefer a party with a spine, especially black voters…”.
Yep, Black people have lots more spine than White people do. They must, because the editorial board of the New York Times says so.
That racist enough for you?
I wonder if the Times\’ editorial board also thinks Black people mostly eat fried chicken and watermelon. I mean, if they\’re going to stereotype, why go just half-way?
I also wonder if the Times is going to write an editorial condemning the overt racism of ads being put out in states like Georgia (which I blogged about today) and North Carolina.
I hope they do. It\’s fun watching people in glass houses throwing stones.
