Let's talk about "making Obama a One Term President" and the perceived racial overtones of that...

[cherokeeprogressive]

There is not been in the history of this country a General Election where a President ran UNOPPOSED for re-election.

Can we agree on that? Do the Google. Do the Bing. Do the Ask. Search whatever internet search engine you want. FIND an election where a President ran for a second/third/more term UNOPPOSED. There is ALWAYS a challenge by the other party.

Here's my point: If a political group/faction/party SAYS "our goal is to guarantee this President serves only one term", it's not necessarily a racial statement. Every President in the history of our country has faced an opponent in the General Election that followed his inauguration.

There have been plenty of One Term Presidents. Jimmy Carter was one. George H. W. Bush was another. One had a D after his name, the other had an R.

BOTH were beaten because the MAIN GOAL of the other party was to ensure their opponent was a "One Term President".

Race? Come on... find a precedent, and then talk to me about it.

[emilyg]

1. k

[Pab Sungenis]

2. Wrong. Twice.

1792, George Washington ran unopposed for a second term. It looks like he didn't because electors cast two votes each: one for President and the other for Vice-President. Washington got one vote from each elector and the others were scattered.

1820, James Monroe ran unopposed. One elector voted for J.Q. Adams because he believed that only Washington should be elected unanimously.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Whoa, you got me there...

Kinda.

So you're using the reelection of two old white guys who owned slaves, the last of which happened almost 200 years ago, to defend the accusations of today's Obama defenders that not supporting Obama 100% and without question is racially motivated?

Really?

[Pab Sungenis]

6. No, but you were inaccurate

in saying that every President was opposed for re-election.

Watch your terminology.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Try accepting the fact that you've been proven wrong graciously...for once

Everyone needs a dose of humility...occasionally. You certainly derived a footlocker-load of inferred meaning from Pab's statement; sometimes facts are posted just to set the record straight. A cursory glance at his recent history on this board reveals that defense of 'Obama defenders' is pretty fucking far down on his list of priorities.

On edit: almost forgot...where does this 'perceived racial overtones' WRT to 'one-term president' come from? I'm asking in all honesty, as I'd never seen the 'racial' thing used with 'OTP.'

[ashling]

10. You were the one that issued the challange

[mkultra]

11. you just pointed out the weakness of your own point

If the converse of your proposition does make sense as a supporting fact, then neither does yours.

[These Eyes]

22. Can you please provide a link to support this...

"the accusations of today's Obama defenders that not supporting Obama 100% and without question is racially motivated"? I haven't seen those accusations.

[elleng]

3. Its true, nothing inherently racially related in the statement.

Unfortunately, as in so many other things, President Obama has found himself surrounded by unusually difficult situations AND unusually virulent opposition. PART of the opposition, I think, IS in fact racially motivated. Never be able to prove the extent. Bill Clinton also had a very difficult time w the opposition.

Some have said repugs got adrenaline after Nixon + impeachment stuff; might be true that since that time, 'ordinary' and 'professional' repugs upped their game. We've all suffered as a result.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Recs/Unrecs aside, I KNEW this would be a tough issue for DU'ers...

Race? Not race? Performance? Disappointment?

Like him? Love Him? Support Him UNCONDITIONALLY?

It's either RACE, or Performance. Pick one reason his numbers aren't what the Party would hope they'd be...

[MADem]

7. When a faction of the incumbent's own party says that kind of stuff, I do get concerned about bias.

The opposing team always says that kind of crap, but when the criticism is internal to the incumbent's party, there's something going on there. It's not always race, but it can be prejudice. In the case of Carter, his region of origin had much (not all, but much) to do with his difficulties in his reelection bid.

Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy in his incumbent 2nd run for the office(when Kennedy was having family and drug issues that no one knew about, but that--aside from Chappaquiddick--made him a HORRIBLE candidate). Of course, Carter was a bit of a martinet who didn't get along with the "northeastern" branch of the Democratic Party on a good day (and many of them didn't love him, either, having an anti-southern bias against him) and as we all know, that ended very badly. There was a prejudice by many in the Democratic Party AGAINST Carter, and some of it had to do with his state of origin. There was no sense of uniting to keep him in office and we'll sort out our differences later--Kennedy fractured the party and fucked Carter over. Carter discusses this in his autobiography. Of course, Carter had other problems--the Iran hostage crisis, a plummeting approval rating, but he got absolutely NO help from the liberal (i.e. not southern) wing of his own party. Carter's idiot brother didn't help him at all, either, lobbying for Libya, drinking his Billy Beer, and acting like a dumbass cracker fool--but that was pretty much just icing on the cake.

So prejudice doesn't always have to be about race, but in the case of Obama, I do wonder that it's an easy thing for the unhappy to grasp. Obama's problem is not quite as dire as Carter's, but he, too, is facing complaints from the liberal wing of his own party. Of course, he's not southern like Carter, but he's 'different than the others' as a consequence of his race. It's tough to be first.

GHW Bush got both cocky and lazy, and the thing that killed him--killed him roundly--was "Read My Lips--No New Taxes." He wasn't catching shit from WITHIN his own party, though--they thought he'd cruise to victory on the strength of DESERT STORM and Brave Kuwaiti Peoples and Babies Getting Tossed Out of Incubators By Dreadful Iraqis. There wasn't bias against him in his case, his problem was just that he was lying his ass off and getting called out about it. Also, GHWB was in a bubble; he didn't give a shit that jobs were flying overseas faster than migrating ducks, he didn't connect with average people, hell, he didn't even know what a supermarket check out scanner was. Bill Clinton won with "It's the Economy, Stupid" and "Ah Feel Your Pain." Clinton, hard dog to keep on the porch that he was, CONNECTED with people. Clinton gave Americans the impression that he understood the fucking problem, Bush's attitude was "What problem? There's no fucking problem here!"

The only person more surprised than Bush that Clinton won....was Clinton. Of course, Clinton had someone to thank, even if in a small way, for his victory, and that was CARTER. Carter paved the way for a southern rib-eatin' good ole boy to run for the Presidency and win. They'd fallen out of favor in the 20th Century because the nation had an unspoken bias against them. Johnson, a Texan, though not a "heart of Dixie" politician, had that southern stink on him, and had to slide into the Presidency through the VP slot and an assassination. He'd never have made it otherwise, because Americans just weren't accustomed to hearing a drawl coming from the White House.

[mkultra]

12. we saw "democratic" racism in the primary

remember, by electing Obama to run, we "missed" a historic opportunity. Not to mention the shit that was said in Virginia.

[MADem]

15. Yes, we did. There's a difference happening in this election, though.

First of all, Obama isn't one of several scrapping for the spot, he's the incumbent President. He's already been through the Democratic mill--primaries for incumbents are not de rigeur.

Not only did the GOP ostentatiously vow to make Obama a one-term President, a faction within his own party is now going out of their way to be overly-critical of every move he makes, which has the result of carrying water for the Republican Party. Their conduct is suggestive of bias, just like there was bias against Carter (that had nothing to do with race, but was bias nonetheless, based on his state of origin and his southern roots).

People often like to play up differences when they disagree with a person to create an us-vs-them tension--in Obama's case, his big difference is that he isn't a well-larded white guy from a well-to-do background.

And yes, we certainly did miss one historic opportunity....and caught another.

FWIW, I was backing HRC in the primary, but I got over it and backed the D choice.

[mkultra]

25. yeah, it was between two historic opportunities

And i agree that the bias is pretty transparent.

[frazzled]

28. I agree that Carter's religion put him in bad stead with northern liberals

Because I was one of those people who was uncomfortable with his being in the Southern Baptist Convention. It didn't prevent me from voting for his reelection, but it seemed an uncomfortable contradiction to me that he clung to a racist and sexist church.

[CakeGrrl]

8. Unrec for oversimplification of the issue

No one is arguing about the concept of the opposing party wanting to win. File that under "No shit".

However, In the context of the GOP seeking to do at the expense of doing severe damage to the nation economically, their driving motivation is an issue.

[bullwinkle428]

13. Michele Bachmann loves to lead a chant of "one term president" like

a cheer at a pep rally, and I don't think there's any particular racial component to it, annoying as it is. I'm much more concerned with the dog whistles she puts out there along the lines of "the black guy is stealing money directly from your pocket".

[Beacool]

14. Remember the "vast right wing conspiracy".

Everybody laughed at Hillary when she used that term during an interview. Well, she ended up being correct. The RW despised Clinton so much that they were going to try to impeach him for any reason. If that reason turned out to be entrapping a sitting president about a consenting sexual encounter, then so be it. That they broke the law by accepting as evidence illegally obtained phone recordings from a disgruntled woman was hardly brought up. What was done to the Clintons in the 90s was a disgrace. The fact that Bill was stupid enough to give them ammunition by lying about his affair is beside the point. The Repugs and Starr would have found another excuse to nail Bill.

Compared to what the Clintons went through in the 90s, Obama hasn't had it that bad.

:shrug:

[mkultra]

26. Give em time.

Its building

[rtracey]

16. Race.really?

Sorry, but what other President had to fight off the birther aspect of his presidency, what other President, besides (maybe) Kennedy had to fight as hard as Obama about his muslim/non-muslim beliefs. Kennedy had a tough time about being Catholic. Both of the former presidents you mentioned were not beaten because the other party wanted them as 1 term, they were beaten because of their failures in office. No other president again besides maybe Andrew Johnson has run into a congress risking destroying themselves over attempting to to make a president 1 term. This congress will take this country to destruction in order to make Obama a 1 term president.

[FrenchieCat]

18. And evidently, some in our party are also ready to risk destruction

to make Obama a 1 term President. That's frightening....
that anyone would claim to be a liberal and a progressive and yet
not have a problem playing political Russian Roulette with all chambers loaded.

I just don't get the disconnect between the issues they "claim" to be so passionate about,
and the fact that some are literally indirectly "work" for the opposing party of freaks
while in their hearts of hearts not minding freaks being put in charge of the destiny of those same issues they claim to care so much about. One's got to wonder about fucked up priorities, and the nature of the heart of those who engage in the selling of negativity 24/7....and the fact that they have invested so much time into it.

[KoKo]

21. You forget that shortly after Clinton's Inauguration the suicide of Vince Foster

in a DC Park was blamed on Hillary and Bill. A Congressman even set up a watermelon and proved how Hillary shot him and had the body moved to the park. Jerry Falwell had a video made about it. It raged on along with Whitewater which broke around the same time or shortly afterwards where Hillary was accused of making money off an investment. Then there were the other scandals that raged along with the Health Care Debate.

Sally Quinn (the society reporter and wife of Ben Bradley of Watergate fame) wrote articles about the Clintons that they were hicks and didn't fit in well with the Washington establishment. She accused Bill Clinton of defiling the Oval Office by sitting at his desk in his sweaty running shorts and how his staff was too young and didn't dress appropriately for the White House.

It went on and on in Clinton's FIRST TERM... We all know what happened in his second term. Plust he was known as "Slick Willy" and "Bubba" ....again a slur on the fact that he was southern like Carter, even though he graduated from George Washington in DC and then law school at Yale where he met Hillary who had graduated from prestigious Wellsley College and then accepted to Yale Law.

Obama has had it easy compared to that. No one has accused him of murder or making money fraudulently from his investments or attacked Michelle viciously as First Lady.....yet... Notice I say ...yet.

[madamesilverspurs]

17. Take McConnell's 'one term' assertion

and view it in the context of the present. The statement itself is not racist. The actions (and inactions) of those adhering to it invite a better evaluation. McConnell and his cronies may have avoided voicing racist sentiments, but they knew damned well that the statement was tacit invitation to those who do espouse racism; further, they have continuously failed to rebuke those of their party who have pushed that particular envelope. There has been no meaningful effort to distance themselves from the ugliness. At this point there is no reason to assume that the Republicans are going to discard any support for their effort to unseat Obama, not even the most obviously racist among them. The "clean" statement is a flimsy veneer, nothing more.

-

[Cigar11]

19. It’s still a Free Country …

well until the Republicans stack the deck on Voting Rights; but until then you can always put your name on a ticket, rise some cash and Run for President yourself.

Or

You do what most of us do … Vote for the Candidate of OUR CHOICE … you do have a candidate you like … right?

[Mr Deltoid]

20. I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

[dionysus]

23. defend those racist fucking republicans all you want. it says a lot.

[LatteLibertine]

24. "Take our country back..."

For some we should add, "Preferably, to before 1964."

President Obama has consistently been represented as alien, dangerous and "other", or not one of "us".

You haven't seen anything yet, the GOP will be working a new Southern strategy to new remarkable levels this election cycle.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Using Right Wing talking points to support anti-Obama bias? Why is this thread still open?

[laugle]

32. Stop your

whining, this isn't a fan club, it's a discussion forum.

[frazzled]

29. No party has ever completely reneged on their duty to the nation ...

in order to make the destruction of the opposition-party president their ONLY goal. No party has ever rejected their own ideas in order to deny a president legislation. No party has EVER filibustered as many bills or blocked as many nominations.

I've been consciously around for all the presidents since Eisenhower, and I've never seen the opposition party behave exactly like this. So, I say you're way off base here.

[YellowCosmicSun]

30. You won't make Obama a one-termer, no matter how hard you try.

He will win.
You will be left holding a bag of bitter feelings.

[treestar]

31. IMO the focus on that has more to do with that being the

Republican goal, rather than anything to do with the country. It shows the Republicans care about themselves being in power first.