Apparently that's what two writers at The Politico think, as they report on the 'quandry' Republicans are apparently in over making Wright an issue in the 2012 campaign.
C'mon.
Talk about injecting race into the campaign...if blacks like the anonymous Obama adviser quoted on page 2 of the story ( the person's race is fairly obvious from the 'us' part of the quote) or for that matter anyone else of any racial background votes for President Obama based primarily on his race, isn't that injecting race into the campaign? Not to mention racism according to Webster's?
How would the Politico describe people openly voting for Mitt Romney as 'the white candidate'?
This story, the way it's constructed, seems to concentrate on the GOP's 'problem' in avoiding being perceived as racist for fear of alienating the black vote. In reality, President Obama is going to get the majority of the black vote precisely because of his race, even though his policies have arguably affected blacks disproportionally. Not only that, but Wright, an intimate of the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan is an anti-Semite, as is Al Sharpton, another prominent intimate and supporter of this president.
Why are these topics taboo? Obviously if Republicans can be ( by extension) admonished for making Wright an issue in this campaign due to perceived racism, than why not the Obama campaign for seeking to defend Wright and minimize the issue of the obvious bigotry Wright and other intimates of the president are associated with?
Obviously the Politico and much of the dinosaur media feels this angle doesn't merit coverage. But I assure you, there are a great many people who are asking these same questions now that the sheen of electing 'the historical first black president' has worn off.
Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment