Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Connect your Digital Journal account with Facebook or Twitter to use this feature.

article imageOp-Ed: Guess which campaign said the utterly offensive thing today

article:330814:6::0
By Bill Schmalfeldt     Aug 14, 2012 in Politics
Let's play a little game, whaddya say?
Let's look at some statements made by prominent politicians in the last, oh, few months or so, and decide which ones are the most offensive.
Trust us. This will be fun.
A. He’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put y’all back in chains. He’s said he’s going to do nothing about stopping the practice of outsourcing.
B. If we remove the shackles of government, if we unburden ourselves from the mountain of debt that we have been saddled with, we can become the Opportunity Society that we once were.
So, which statement was most offensive? Statement A, spoken in front of a mixed race audience? Or Statement B, written in an Op-Ed in USA Today.
Statement A suggests a metaphorical "chaining" of citizens. Statement B suggests citizens are already in metaphorical "shackles."
The offensive statement, of course, is statement...
We'll get back to that in a moment. First, let's look at some other statements made by the offended campaign that was horribly, horribly offended by the offensive statement we will identify shortly.
The campaign in question has stated that its opponent:
1. Could not fully understand the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" between the U.S. and Britain.
2. Would give his friends in the NAACP, "free stuff," which the speaking candidate would not do.
3. Had removed the "work requirement" from welfare, which he had not actually done and which the offended candidate had actually asked for while serving in another government capacity.
4. Can be removed by you and you can do it without feeling guilty or racist, because, it's OK. "He tried." So it's OK to vote for the White Guy, since no doubt, most of you voted for the other guy because of his color.
5. Said you wouldn’t have to work or wouldn’t have to train for a job, he would just send you your welfare check.
OK. You've been held in suspense long enough.
The truly offensive, racist dog-whistle statement is statement A, made by Joe Biden to a half-white, half-black audience in Virginia today.
The Romney campaign responded by ripping out large chunks of hair, rending its tunic, gnashing its teeth to the gumline and demanding -- DEMANDING -- that President Obama disavow his vice president for using such RACIST language, inappropriate in the 21st century.
Because it's OK to tell white Republicans that the nasty black man is going to give your money to his black friends and not even make them train for a job or work. it's OK not to vote for that nasty black man who just wants to give free stuff to his black friends in the NAACP. You can vote for the white guy and not feel racist, because you know the black guy at least gave it a shot, but let's face it -- "those people" have, shall we say, "limitations"?
And never mind the fact that Romney made the "shackles" statement in the USA Today Op-Ed and has used the "shackles and chains" analogy elsewhere and at other times. He wants to "free business from the shackles of federal regulation..." And businesses, corporations, are people too, Romney said.
Unless you want that business to show you its tax returns.
Then, it's "no dice."
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
article:330814:6::0
More about Racist, Dog whistle, disavow
More news from

Corporate

Help & Support

News Links

copyright © 2014 digitaljournal.com   |   powered by dell servers