Daily Caller Race Vid? Huh? What Part of 8 Percent Unemployment Don't Republicans Understand?

The Daily Caller's front page is thick today with "Obama's Other Race Speech," an article that includes video and analysis of an address then-Sen. Barack Obama gave at Virginia's Hampton University in 2007. Here's how the Caller's Tucker Carlson and Vince Conglianese frame the super-fantastic import of the never-before-seen-and-exclusive-to-the-Daily-Caller vid:

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

What's more, the most Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not only in the audience but gets a special "shout-out" from the future president as "my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”

The point of the expose? Write the Caller scribes:

Obama makes repeated and all-but-explicit appeals to racial solidarity, referring to “our” people and “our neighborhoods,” as distinct from the white majority. At one point, he suggests that black people were excluded from rebuilding contracts after the storm: “We should have had our young people trained to rebuild the homes down in the Gulf. We don’t need Halliburton doing it. We can have the people who were displaced doing that work. Our God is big enough to do that.”...

The solution, Obama says, is a series of new federal programs, including one to teach punctuality to the poor: “We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.”

Read the whole story and watch the whole video (not easily embedded on this site alas) here.

My reaction to this piece - and especially to the editorial bombast attending its release - is simply: What part of persistent 8 percent unemployment don't you understand?

I mean, seriously. Come on already.

The most interesting takeaway from the story for me was simply the point that Obama, like most politicians, is noticeably loosey-goosey with basic facts about government spending and reality. He spins a too-good-to-be-true tale of a baby born after the L.A. riots with a bullet in his her arm [correction: which turns out in fact to be true]. At another point, he compares the supposedly lavish no-strings-attached money thrown at New York after the 9/11 attacks to the stingy federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Why the differential, he asks? People in New York, Obama says, are "part of the American family." But the poor and mostly black residents of New Orleans? "Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”

As the Carlson and Conglianese rightly point out, this is not simply wrong but spectacularly wrong. "By January of 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech," they write, "the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after Sept. 11." That sort of fisking and the attention paid to the differences between long-available prepared comments for the speech and Obama's extemporizing are interesting. And the variance tells you something about the media, which has long soft-pedaled the rough edges of Obama's candidacy and presidency.

But here's the point, which seems to escape conservatives hell-bent on revealing Obama as the sort of crypto-reverse racist that will bring down the entire country.

Whatever else you can say about Barack Obama before he beat John McCain four years ago, his actual presidency has been far, far worse than could have been predicted. Was his boyhood mentor "Frank" a secret communist? Did Bill Ayers write his books? Did young Barry harbor a soft spot for Franz Fanon and smoke dope like a Cheech & Chong extra? Did he get into Columbia despite being an adult illiterate raised in Kenya by Rosicrucians? Let's play along and say yes to all this and more.

So freaking what? Compare any and all of that to the grim landscape that Obama has presided over like a dime-store Ozymandias. The guy got just about everything he wanted - expanded auto bailout, mega-stimulus, health-care reform, troop surge in Afghanistan, a free pass to deport immigrants and raid legal-under-state-law pot dispensaries. And it hasn't worked. The best that the Obama administration can do to defend its objectively awful record - don't forget the inability to muscle a goddamn budget through the Democratic Senate or deliver a deficit under $1 trillion - is to say that it would have been even worse if McCain had been elected. That sort of counterfactual - and the insistence that it's alway George W. Bush's fault - is the last resort of a scoundrel. That was the essence of Clint Eastwood's bizarre but memorable appearance at the Republican National Convention: Obama hasn't gotten the job done. If anything, he's made things worse.

But the GOP must really be out of gas if a Republican-friendly platform like The Daily Caller is burning up even a few infinite pixels with what is ultimately a curious and irrelevant speech from 2007. Emphasizing what Obama was yapping about and his slangy patois (Obama slips into "an accent he almost never adopts in public") five years ago will not swing a single uncommited voter to the GOP column. But the piece's fixation on "racial solidarity" as some sort of secret key into Obama's mysterious ways may well scare alienate independents. Too many Republicans seem to be so on the hunt for the deep meaning of events that they can't stick to what is right in front of their faces. Even when what's in front of their faces might help them gain office. They remind me of JFK conspiracy buffs who insist that only a communist would have killed Kennedy and then wave away Lee Harvey Oswald from the heart of crime. Why are Republicans always sniffing around for the secret revelation that will - finally! - undo Obama when the terrible official record is hiding in plain sight?

Everyone in the country knows that Obama has been a failure (that's the essential acknowledgement of Samuel L. Jackson's sad-sack "Wake the F*ck Up!" video). All the Republicans needed to do to win in November was tie a bow around a vaguely plausible candidate and push him or her out on to the stage. All they had to do was produce someone who would hammer home the dismal failure of Obama's economic interventions, gesture a bit toward the Middle East and Central Asia where things are as messy as they've ever been, and promise to spend less and do less.

Alas, that task proved too difficult for the party of Lincoln and instead they nominated Mitt Romney, whose great political achievement during the few years he actually held elective office was...implementing the model for Obamacare. Who talks about needing more boats than the Navy had in 1917 and starting trade wars with Chinese "cheaters" and keeping the parts of Obamacare he "likes." And whose unconvincing spending plan is to ultimately limit spending to 20 percent of GDP or 2 percentage points higher than the average annual percentage.

There's a good chance that Mitt Romney may well win in November. But to the extent it's a contest, it's not the media's fault, or the Democrat's fault, or anyone else's fault but the Republicans and the person they picked as their standard-bearer. Sadly for the growing number of us who are neither Democrats nor Republicans, we will end up paying the freight for the major parties' failures.

Related: How Republicans can woo libertarian voters and how Democrats can woo libertarian voters.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

  • ||

    John, you can stop complaining now. Like, seriously, FUCKING STOP.

  • Pro Libertate||

    He even got an Obama-Wright photo. I think John owes Hit and Run an apology and fifty bucks.

  • JW||

    I watched the video and thought, this is it? This is the big fucking deal?

    Sleazy politician is sleazy. News at 11.

  • John||

    That is because you know Obama is a lying race hustling scum bag. His supporters seem to claim other wise. As a matter of fact they claimed he was going to be a post racial President. I seem to recall several Reason staffers voting for Obama mostly for that reason.

    And here we have a video of a really angry nasty Obama talking about how the federal government hates black people and doesn't consider them part of the national family. Last I looked the President is supposed to represent the entire country. I think having a President who seems to have an avowed disdain for a particular race is a bit of a problem or at least something said President should have to explain.

  • JW||

    That is because you know Obama is a lying race hustling scum bag. His supporters seem to claim other wise.

    Yeah? So what? His supporters will spin anything to maintain the integrity of the reality distortion field that would invalidate their drooling sycophancy. It's always the mean'old Republicans fault that he can't enact his glorious agenda, don't you know that?

    How does this really matter today? This is nothing more than a red-meat gotcha moment for the shitheads who value TEAMS over democracy and getting actual productive results from a president, instead of the usual partisan bullshit.

  • John||

    Yea JW. It does matter. We play this great game in this country where a politician lies his ass off and then later when he is called on it, people like Nick and other media creatures stand up and say "well we all knew this was true so it is old news." And frankly I am pretty tired of it. This video proves that everything Obmaa said about race and being a post racial President in the 08 election was a complete lie. And as bad of a President as he has been, that fact might be the worst aspect of this Presidency. Millions of people voted for him hoping his election would bring about at least the beginning of the end of the racial problems in this country. And now we have video proof they all voted for a lie.

    Maybe I am just not cynical enough. But I find that to be really sad and kind of a big deal. In the long term, a lot bigger deal and more damaging to the country than the current unemployment rate.

  • $park¥||

    and then later when he is called on it, people like Nick and other media creatures stand up and say "well we all knew this was true so it is old news." And frankly I am pretty tired of it.

    John, are those... are those tears in your eyes? Frustrated Team Red is frustrated?

  • John||

    I am really sorry sparky you have nothing of substance to say. Even Tony tries. You apparently are not smart enough to do that. I guess it is better to say nothing than say something stupid.

  • $park¥||

    You apparently are not smart enough to do that. I guess it is better to say nothing than say something stupid.

    I'm smart enough to not fall for your frustrated Team Red tirade that's been going on ALL DAY in EVERY FUCKING POST. I'm smart enough to know you're a giant, evil crybaby. I'm smart enough to know that people like you and Cytotoxic are just as much to blame for the shitty state of this country as the man in the White House. You might want to take your own advice about not saying stupid things.

  • John||

    It looks like you are really upset about something Sparky. Do you need a hug?

  • $park¥||

    You're bitching up a storm in every post today, then adding your comments to everything in this post, but I'm the one who's upset? That's actually pretty funny considering the fact that you're berating everyone here for not caring hard enough about your hobby horse.

  • Cytotoxic||

    John is right and you can't fisk him, so you bullshit. You really are new MNG.

  • JW||

    John is right and you can't fisk him, so you bullshit. You really are new MNG.

    What in the fuck are you babbling about? Don't you have a Muslim baby to eat or something?

  • JW||

    This video proves that everything Obmaa said about race

    It proved that he knew the audience he was speaking to and he knew they would eat it up. In that instance, he's no different than any other pol.

    Millions of people voted for him hoping his election would bring about at least the beginning of the end of the racial problems in this country.

    And they were fucking idiots, if they thought a mere symbol would stop anyone from being petty or bigoted, if they could benefit from being that.

    Maybe I am just not cynical enough.

    Perhaps. This is why I can't get worked up over all of this stuff. It's what I said it was and nothing more: red meat for the partisan shills and zombie voting-base.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It proved that he knew the audience he was speaking to and he knew they would eat it up. In that instance, he's no different than any other pol.

    I think this is more or less John's point right here!

  • $park¥||

    I think this is more or less John's point right here!

    Wrong. John's point is that reason is in the tank for Obama because it took them this long to post something about this ridiculous video. The two of you retards skipping down the beach holding hands would make a great ad for some special needs school.

  • John||

    Sparky. I have never said they were in the tank for Obama. I have however said there is clearly a double standard here and this post is bullshit.

    You have yet to make a single substantive response to this. That is because you apparently have none.

  • $park¥||

    You have yet to make a single substantive response to this. That is because you apparently have none.

    You're absolutely right that I don't have one. You know why? It's not my website and I. DON'T. GIVE. A. FUCK. The release of this video was not in the least bit necessary to make me think the President is a complete failure at his job, or that he is anything more than a total piece of shit politician.

  • John||

    If it is not your website and you don't care, then stop posting and crying all of the time about this Sparky.

  • bendover||

    It really is a lesson in the legacy media's double standard in reporting. This video, in it's entirety, should have been available in 2007 - before the 2008 presidential campaign.

    In 2009 the PEW Foundation published their "excellence in journalism" report on the 2008 presidential election. In it they disclosed that for every one positive story on McCain campaign, there were four negative stories. The reporting on the the Obama campaign was the mirror image; that is, for every one negative story on Obama, there were four positive stories generated.

    I can't wait to see the PEW report in 2013.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    So saying different things to different groups of voters, and telling some of them that the other voters want to see them dead, is ok?

  • Rasilio||

    Um actually no it doesn't prove that, what it proves is that there is a discrepancy between his rhetoric at this particular campaign speech and his later claims to be a post racial moderate. The fact that there is a disconnect between the two does not in and of itself prove which if either happens to be true.

  • T o n y||

    John you are clearly the intended audience for Tucker Carlson and Matt Drudge.

    They're so sad that they can't make more than half the country angry-on-cue as they can you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So this is the John vs angry crybabies thread apparently.

  • $park¥||

    I call John a crybaby and both John and Cyto respond by calling everyone who doesn't agree with them crybabies. I tell John to get his news elsewhere and he responds by telling me to go somewhere else. I tell John to stop whining and he tells me to stop posting.

    Is there anything else I need to think of for you two? I'm surprised you can manage to post with each others dick in your mouth.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Are you sure you're not really MNG?

  • $park¥||

    Pretty sure. MNG was the evil counterbalance to John's evil. The two of them were like a giant evil see-saw. I prefer to not use evil to balance John's (or your) evil.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So you're MNG without the evil substance and all the whiny style. Got it.

  • $park¥||

    If you like, you can think that way. I'll think of you as John's concentrated evilness. Sound fair?

  • ||

    a lot bigger deal and more damaging to the country than the current unemployment rate.

    This might be the fundamental difference why I disagree with you.

    I heard on Rush that from 1940 to 2007 the total months of 8% or above employment was like 36 months.

    Obama has had over 40 months of above 8% unemployment.

    You are talking about character while the fabric of the universe is falling apart.

    In some ways you are right. The economy can repair itself very quickly and when left alone it has the natural tendency...but now is the first time since FDR that government has had not only the power but the will to keep the economy down this long. And it has been a bipartisan effort.

    In some ways you have fallen for Obama's narrative that oh we just had a very big fall and it takes awhile for it to come back. I am sorry but that is not how the economy works....you have to fucking try to make it this bad for this long.

    Anyway Romney is promising nothing different. We are still fucked doomed even if he has a slightly better world view bout race.

  • Enough About Palin||

    What offends me is his fake dialect. He's just a fucking carny.

  • ||

    race hustling scum bag.

    This is why your party is going to lose John. You dig in garbage when the golden key to Obama's defeat dangles within easy reach.

    Who the fuck cares about Obama's secret past when his know record as president is an abyss of failure and lies?

    You do not need to prove motive when the the murderer is standing over the body holding a bloody knife.

    Worst opposition party fucking ever!!!

  • Cytotoxic||

    I just don't see why both can't be done.

  • ||

    I just don't see why both can't be done.

    Crowds out the argument that actually resonates with voters. Also it generally is filled with BS like birth certificates.

    So you make an economic argument and then add in some conspiracy and the dems then have an out by poking holes in the conspiracy. And say only crazy people think the economy is doing badly or is Obama's fault.

    But most importantly Voters, especially swing and independent voters do not give a shit about ideology....painting an ideology around Obama just makes their eyes glaze over.

    Anyway according to polls doing both badly is losing...The irony of you not seeing why is that it is the same reason why poeple do not see through Obama's claims that he helped the economy.

    Ignoring the facts in front of your face.

  • Not an Economist||

    Romney wasn't getting much traction doing just the economy. He was pretty much where he is now no matter what he said. So why not try something else.

    And besides I didn't know Daily Caller was a Romney controlled website?

  • ||

    And besides I didn't know Daily Caller was a Romney controlled website?

    That is true.

    But one cannot deny that the left wing media actually backs up their candidate and their ideology.

    I guess it is nice that the Daily Caller is not a bitch to the Romney campaign...yet i have read the daily caller and their coverage of the economy and how badly Obama has been is fucking horrible.

    In general conservatives have been making a horrible case for their ideology. Romney has no traction with the economy because no one is making a conservative case for the economy....instead they are wondering the wilderness trying find the magic gaff to expose Obama's socialism.

    Romney wasn't getting much traction doing just the economy.

    Actually he has been laser beam focused on it from what I can tell. Kodos for him. To bad every conservative outlet is ignoring it.

  • John||

    Okay Episiarch. They talked about it. Fair enough. Someone had to explain how Obama telling a black audience how the federal government hates black people and wanted them to die in New Orleans is totally irrellevent. What is relevent is that the fact that it is even being mentioned shows how stupid Republicans are. Really? Tell me do you agree with Nick here? Did you watch the video and think "well this just shows how stupid Republicans are"? That is a curious reaction that Nick has.

    And of course, since when is Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller the same thing as the Romney campaign or Republicans in general?

    Nick is not covering himself in glory here. But he really hasn't for a while now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I read his piece as saying that these Gotcha! moments from the past don't matter, because we should be kicking the guy out of office because of his godawful presidency.

    I actually worry about people focusing on any issue that distracts voters from the incredibly bad economy and future outlook, the out-of-control spending, and the grow of government at the expense of our civil liberties. Obama is a horrible president. Vote based on that.

  • John||

    So you are telling me that if there was a video of Romney telling an audience in 2008 that he thinks Romneycare ought to go nationwide, Nick wouldn't think it was relevant? Would he be on here saying we don't need gotcha moments from the past?

    Bullshit. If there ever was a "gotcha moment" from the past, it was the 47% comment. And Nick had a screaming stomping fit over that. And now we have a video showing that Obama was lying when he claimed to be post racial President and we don't talk about gotcha moments from the past?

  • WTF||

    Some "gotcha moments" are more equal than others?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The 47% gaffe-alanche Hit+Run had to endure can never be erased. It eclipsed even the Ground Zero Mosque-room cloud that hung over reason for what seemed like a solid week way back when.

  • Killazontherun||

    It's not over until they pay Cathy Young for a column on it that appears two months after the election. The gas mask stays on.

    On the other hand (going against every rhetorical tick I've ever scolded Nick on), National Review was pretty thick on Romney's case that week too.

  • Rasilio||

    Actually the 47% comment was not from the past, it was a current event that was surreptuiously recorded.

    The gotcha moments from Romney's past come in the form of things like putting his dog on the roof of his car because it had diaharrea and I can tell you that made quite a stink in liberal circles because I saw it on my facebook feed daily for weeks.

    As far as video of Romney saying in 2008 that he thinks Romneycare should go nationwide, I'm pretty sure that such video exists (although it could be a little earlier than 08) because it is pretty clear to anyone paying attention that Romney's only opposition to Obamacare is his recognition that he can't get elected unless he promises to get rid of it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not saying these things are irrelevant shouldn't receive any press coverage. I'm just saying that the lion's share of the reason to oppose Obama comes from his piss-poor performance as president.

  • JW||

    Nick is absolutely right here, John. Why the fuck should we care about a pandering speech from 5 years ago?

    Politics as sports? Is that all you got?

  • John||

    Why the hell did he care so much about a speech Romney made in May making a point Reason has made about a hundred times?

  • JW||

    He, who? Nick? Beats me.

    I didn't give a shit about that pandering speech from a sleazebag politico either.

  • John||

    Yeah Nick. And I am not calling you out. I am calling Nick out for rank hypocrisy. What is Nick wanting to be a member of the journolist? Is he a member?

  • JW||

    I will admit to not paying too close attention to the posts on that subject, but IIRC, it was about the veracity of that statement and what it means in the big picture, re limited gubmint, not so much that Romniac's pants were on fire.

  • John||

    JW,

    The fact that so many people get government goodies and don't pay taxes has been a constant theme on Reason for years. And then when Romney says the same thing, they call him liar?

  • Cytotoxic||

    They didn't have the gorm to call him a liar. They just concern trolled galore.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And then when Romney says the same thing, they call him liar?

    As I recall several of the 'editors' wrote that it was libertarian to have government paid for by the wealthy few.

  • sloopyinca||

    Because maybe Romney made it while on the campaign trail while running for President this fucking year. You know, a comment right now about right now.

  • John||

    Obama was running for President in 07. And you are telling me if there was some statement by Romney from 07, Nick would ignore it? Come on that doesn't even pass the laugh test.

  • sloopyinca||

    And you are telling me if there was some statement by Romney from 07, Nick would ignore it?

    Find me a statement made by Romney in 2007 Nick has covered.

    And as far as the above video goes, did Nick ignore it or was Nick unaware of it until now?

    Jesus Christ, you act as if omission by ignorance = some grand conspiracy to deny Romney his birthright or something. You're as fucking deluded on this Romney coverage thing as you are on the murderdroning being super-cool.

  • John||

    Find me a statement made by Romney in 2007 Nick has covered.

    That is because there is not one that is embarrassing to warrant coverage. And as RC said below, why is the date relevant? Do you think Obama has changed since then? If so, what causes you to believe that?

  • sloopyinca||

    First you say if Romney had done something then Nick would have covered it. I asked you to prove it and you couldn't so you say there was nothing stupid said by Romney on the trail in 2007 that warranted coverage.

    Question: is your Goalpost-mover based on the Volt platform? I only ask so we'll know it's about to stop running soon and you'll possibly give a straight answer when it does so.

  • sloopyinca||

    And as RC said below, why is the date relevant?

    It's not nearly as relevant to me when compared to how Obama has governed over the last 3-1/2 years, which is very poorly. That's why I will not be voting for him.

    Do you think Obama has changed since then?

    His motivations are less important to me than his actions. His actions have been awful, therefore I will not be voting for him.

    If so, what causes you to believe that?

    His motivations are less important than his actions since he was elected President. And based on those actions, I will not be voting for him.

  • Calidissident||

    Romney essentially tried to say that people who don't pay income tax are the 47% Obama has locked down. That's BS. There are plenty of those people who vote Republican. And as much as the Republicans talk about dependency and parasitism, the three largest areas of government spending (SS, Medicare, the military) all benefit groups that primarily vote Republican

  • R C Dean||

    Why the fuck should we care about a pandering speech from 5 years ago?

    A few thoughts:

    (1) Why wasn't the full tape released 5 years ago, when it was (more) relevant, especially in light of Obama's subsequent underbussing of Rev. Wright?

    (2) What does the date matter? What makes you think Obama v. 2012 is any different?

    (3) Why isn't this simulataneously condescending, pandering, and inflammatory exercise in machine politics by our now-President relevant now.

  • JW||

    1) See, machine, political. Also, smartphones weren't as ubiquitous (I hope more pols get caught this way)
    2) The date doesn't matter, hence, why should anyone give a flying one?
    3) Because nothing has changed? Ever? It sounds like any of the speeches he's given over the past 4 years. Here's the formula:

    -State the obvious problem
    -Pander to the political base
    -Blame the opposition
    -Propose solution that does nothing in reality, but sounds great on the news.

    Did I leave anything out?

  • Drake||

    And - I suppose it has been part of campaigns since we started recording things - but it was the Democrats who thought it was a brilliant campaign tactic to make a big deal out of an old Romney speech a few weeks ago.

    Romney didn't even put on a fake white trash accent while talking about the 47%.

  • ||

    You don't get invited to beltway cocktail parties for calling out the president as the racist asshole he is.

  • Drake||

    Why would I want to drink with a bunch of lying, greedy, parasites?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Free booze? good booze, not like the hoi polloi - who have to pay for their own - drink.

  • Drake||

    That booze isn't free.

  • KDN||

    Think of it as an in-kind tax refund.

  • Mike M.||

    You don't get invited to beltway cocktail parties for calling out the president as the racist asshole he is.

    This.

    Additionally, under no circumstances do you ever admit that you were stupid enough to allow yourself to be duped by such a lying, vile piece of shit.

  • Mo||

    Never before seen/reported on video was seen and reported on by Tucker Carlson in 2007.

    "People will say 'this has already been reported.' Well, actually, it hasn’t been reported. And I know because I reported on it the first time." - Tucker Carlson

  • John||

    The media only reported on 9 minutes of it and left out the good parts. That is actually a pretty good story in itself. In many ways this story is more of a media scandal than anything else.

  • Mo||

    Andrew Sullivan posted the whole transcript in 2007. And Newsbusters talked about it in 2008.

    As Nick said, unemployment is at 8% and household income is down and you're talking about stupid ass videos?

  • John||

    That is not the whole transcript the part about 9-11 and New Orleans isn't in there.

    And sure the economy is relevant. But that doesn't preclude this from also being relevant. Why can't they both be important? And when you consider the way Obma sells himself as a national uniter on race, this is important.

  • ||

    That "transcript" is just the prepared remarks. Obama went way off script in the video.

    But dishonesty is expected from the left.

  • Killazontherun||

    That is not a complete transcript. It was scrubbed of racialist language.

  • Randian||

    I really, really, really fail to see how the President implying the entire federal government is racist is irrelevant.

    Somebody help me out here.

  • Restoras||

    Umm...because they said so? Or...they don't want to talk about it because it's old -n- stuff? That's all I'm coming up with.

  • $park¥||

    Somebody help me out here.

    Can you articulate the effect of everybody in America knowing this fact? What percentage of Dem voters would the President lose if this was made painfully clear to everyone?

  • Romulus Augustus||

    None. He's dreamy, Michelle is dreamy. And they'll provide me with free rubbers.

  • John||

    So we judge whether something is damning or interesting by a majority vote Sparky? So I guess if he had been advocating killing half of America it wouldn't matter provided his supporters didn't care. Got it.

  • $park¥||

    So we judge whether something is damning or interesting by a majority vote Sparky?

    Are you new to America? If so, welcome.

    So I guess if he had been advocating killing half of America the Middle East it wouldn't matter provided his supporters didn't care. Got it.

    I don't think you're there yet John, but I suppose there's a chance you might, at some future point, really get it.

  • Mo||

    I really, really, really fail to see how the President implying the entire federal government is racist is irrelevant.

    How is it any different from Ron Paul or Gary Johnson doing the same thing in context of the War on Drugs. I'm not saying Obama is right, but he's hardly the first person to call a federal policy racist.

  • Mo||

    Also, I don't see how a speech where the line "Look at what happened in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast when Katrina hit. People ask me whether I thought race was the reason the response was so slow. I said, 'No. This Administration was colorblind in its incompetence,'" implies that the federal government is racist. Seems pretty explicit that he is not making the accusation.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    But no one showed the whole tape. They reported on the press release and excerpts which is what people covering the campaign were given. Both were sanitized. Like Obama's history.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    "well this just shows how stupid Republicans are"? That is a curious reaction that Nick has.

    No it's not curious.

    It's a non critique of Obama and therefor he maintains career viability.

  • ||

    It's a non critique of Obama

    Because saying "focus on his horrible, HORRIBLE record" is TOTALLY a non-critique.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Mitt Romney, whose great political achievement during the few years he actually held elective office was...implementing the model for Obamacare"

    Funny, I thought it was this:

    As governor, Romney presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated an up to $1.5 billion deficit.

    Romney stated that Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus. Official state figures said that fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus. For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures.[45] The state's "rainy day fund", more formally known as the Stabilization Fund, was replenished through government consolidation and reform. At the close of fiscal year 2006, the fund enjoyed a $2.155 billion balance.

    As the state's fiscal outlook improved, Romney repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, urged the legislature to reduce the state income tax from a flat rate of 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Why hasn't Romney pointed any of this out in any of the debates?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Why hasn't Romney pointed any of this out in any of the debates?"

    I'm sure out of the dozens of debates it's probably been mentioned. It's not really a secret:

    "'The lessons I learned over my 15 years at Bain Capital were valuable in helping me turn around the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City,' he wrote in the op-ed, which was published to the website of The Wall Street Journal.

    'They also helped me as governor of Massachusetts to turn a budget deficit into a surplus and reduce our unemployment rate to 4.7%. The lessons from that time would help me as president to fix our economy, create jobs and get things done in Washington.'"

    http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....nt-page-1/

    But, yeah, ROMNEYCARE

  • Calidissident||

    Romney was governor during the best economic times of the 2000's. He was elected right as the economy began to recover from the early 2000's recession and left right before the recession started. Governors and presidents don't create jobs (except wasteful bureaucracies). But by all means, continue shilling for Romney. Eventually we'll come around and realize what a great friend of liberty he is

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Romney was governor during the best economic times of the 2000's. He was elected right as the economy began to recover"

    So your point is, he lucked into the surplus at Bain, as governor of Massachusetts and the CEO of the SLC Olympics because...you said so.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't give a shit what he did in the private sector. I didn't even bring that up. Being a good businessman says nothing about how well you will govern or how friendly towards liberty you will be. Warren Buffet is one of the richest men in the world, and I would never even consider voting for him (or most of the world's successful businesspeople. Or any other profession for that matter). And all I did was give facts. It's a fact that Romney was governor during the most favorable four year stretch of the 2000's. That's going to help his economic record, regardless of his policies

  • Drake||

    That was a response to the stupid "why hasn't Romney talked about unemployment?" question. It was a campaign add.

    Calm down Francis.

  • Calidissident||

    And what was that a response to? CIP's previous post

  • Pro Libertate||

    I agree. Even if it came out that Obama was an avowed Communist with Stalin's face tattooed on his ass, the main reason to vote against him is the crappy economy he's taken every step to preserve in its crappiness.

  • ||

    There is an ocean of reasons, in which the economy is but a drop. The man's a fucking abomination in every possible way. That we've fallen far enough as a nation to elect the fucker depressed the shit out of me.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    That we've fallen far enough as a nation to elect the fucker depressed the shit out of me.

    How will you feel when they re-elect him?

  • ||

    I'll probably drink myself half to death and spend several hours crying like a little girl, once I'm sober again, over the lost cause my principles now represent.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have a long list of problems with Obama and with American government in general, but the economy is sufficient for the common voter. Anyone who votes for the idiot, for that reason alone, is delusional at best.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Thank you!

  • WTF||

    But the economy is Bush's fault, because he drove it onto a ditch. And the republican House has stopped Obama from fixing it.

  • ||

    Bush molests Obama each night when he goes to bed, forcing Hussein I the Munificent to do all those bad things he really doesn't want to.

    THE EMPEROR IS PURE AND JUST. LEAVE HIM ALONE.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Actually that is another story Reason and the Daily Caller haven't ... tasted ...yet. But World Net Daily is now elbow deep, following a website called HillBuzz that first took the plunge - rumors of Obama's gay steam room escapades and of Rev. Wright as a match maker for black gays on the down low. Several of whom who attended his church conveniently died around the time Obama started running for office.

  • pmains||

    Slurpy.

  • ||

    The conservative response to this is to point a finger Reverend Wright.

    Seriously Obama's argument is so full of holes it is hysterical. Yet the opposition, rather then go through the numbers, chooses to focus on birth certificates and Bill Aryes.

    Worst opposition party ever!!!

  • tarran||

    Wow!

    It's ultimately irrelevant, but Romney's 47% speech is not?!?

    You know what? It IS relevant!!!!!

    Because the plunder he advocates to show his "Caring" is being effectuated by policies which retard recovery!

    It's like saying Hitler's racism towards Slavs is irrelevant because what really matters is the question of whether he is going to invade Russia!

    Obama is an asshole that is shitting over everyone! This video captures him in the act of shitting. It's going to take many dicks to plug the asshole and this video should be shouted from the rooftops to attract the dicks needed for the cause!

  • John Thacker||

    The 47% percent comment is also utterly irrelevant. Both are examples of speaking to the audience at the time by the candidates.

    Both candidates are full of shit. President Obama has demonstrated over the last four years that nearly everything he said in 2007 and 2008 was full of shit (except that he contradicted himself in front of different audiences enough that logically some of his statements had to be true), so why should we care about what he said in 2007?

    Who believes that either of these guys really have "real beliefs?" Even if they do, who cares, compared to what they do and will do in office?

  • John||

    The 47% percent comment is also utterly irrelevant.

    The Reason staff would disagree. They posted on it for two straight days.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    The 47% stuff is running as an Obama ad here in CO. So I would say it is relevant.

  • John Thacker||

    It's "relevant" in the sense that it matters to stupid people and probably works politically. That also may be true about this video.

    Both of them are irrelevant to thinking people.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    It's "relevant" in the sense that it matters to stupid people and probably works politically. That also may be true about this video.

    Both of them are irrelevant to thinking people.

    True, but those 'stupid' people vote. CO is a battleground state and Romney may have hurt himself with that video.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Much political advertising does seem to be aimed at stupid people.

  • Cytotoxic||

    TARRAN KILLS IT.

  • $park¥||

    It's going to take many dicks to plug the asshole and this video should be shouted from the rooftops to attract the dicks needed for the cause!

    But it won't be. Which makes it ultimately irrelevant.

  • Drake||

    tarran - I agree. Replace all references to Blacks in Obama's speech with "German" - and you have a Hitler speech from the early 30's.

    We study history and wonder how could Germany elect a race-baiter like Hitler. Meanwhile, we causally ignore the race-baiting of our own President.

  • ||

    That's because it's not just a Barack Obama thing. It's a LEFT thing. Any issue that liberals have talked about in regards to race is the EXACT same thing: minorities are oppressed, lets' use government to help them out (once the "right people" are in office), and hand out special favors, not even to minorities in general, but just politically favored ones like blacks and hispanics.

    THAT'S the reason it's not a big deal. WE HEAR THIS ALL THE TIME FROM THE LEFT. Anyone making a fuss about it will just have that thrown back in their faces. Take the "federal policies on Katrina were racist", for example: it's. Been. Done. Before. That's been the narrative on the left ever since the flooding. Or how about affirmative action? Same thing: dole out government favors to help minorities that have been discriminated against, even if it means discriminating against OTHER groups.

    This sort of rhetoric is so pervasive on the left, that using it as a talking point against Obama will just get the same rebuttal as always: that conservatives are mean, mean, meanies who hate minorities and want them to die.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "My reaction to this piece - and especially to the editorial bombast attending its release - is simply: What part of persistent 8 percent unemployment don't you understand?"

    What part of Obama's solution to unemployment don't you understand?

    Obama thinks jobs are something the government gives people. Read it again--this is how Obama thinks jobs are created--by the president, by the government...

    Yes, if you want to know what Obama thinks is the solution to persistent 8 percent unemployment, then read this speech again. Just because you think his solutions are so absurd as to be irrelevant, doesn't mean that's not what Obama really thinks the solution to unemployment is...

    He'd give every single unemployed person a high paying job working for the government if he could.

    No really That's his solution. What part of his solution don't you understand?

  • Hyperion||

    He'd give every single unemployed person a high paying job working for the government if he could

    What is really important about that statement, besides it being what he would really like to do, is why he would do it. So that those people will vote to re-elect him and that is the ONLY reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with him caring about the poor. How many poor friends does Obama have that he hangs out with on a regular basis? Obama like most politicians considers himself an elite and the only use he has for the poor is as a voting bloc.

  • Cytotoxic||

    TARRAN KILLS IT.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oops.

  • Drake||

    8% REPORTED Unemployment. The real number is much higher and labor force participation is way down.

    The problem is that most voters will zone out with such talk. They are more interested in Obama's affected accent while doing an Al Sharpton impression.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    He doesn't have Sharpton's pretty hair. And Obama can correctly pronounce names like Koch or Coulter and other words if they are spelled out phonetically on the TelePrompTer. He's much cleaner and much more educated than Sharpton and rarely speaks with any accent at all.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    The baby with a bullet in the arm is definitely true and was even in the lede of my L.A. riots 20th anniversary extravaganza. But the person was (and to my knowledge still is) a she, not a he.

  • John||

    But was the bullet Jim Crow Tim? Sure the story is true. But the meaning Obama attached to it, not so much.

  • JW||

    dime-store Ozymandias.

    This deserves special applause.

  • ||

    More and more I'm buying the notion that the GOP has given up on this election - for the simple reason that their candidate is just a dud and they do not like him - and is setting the table for how they intend to counter the dems for the next 4 years. If they are smart (doubtful), this is because they have already determined that the next Pres is going to drive us off the cliff, and they are getting their 2016 talking points straight.

    Because otherwise I just do not understand how the hell they are managing this campaign.

  • WTF||

    the next Pres is going to drive us off the cliff, and they are getting their 2016 talking points straight.

    Doesn't matter. If Obama is re-elected, the narrative will be all bad things happened because the republicans blocked his efforts to fix everything.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Don't you think no matter who is elected we will have a depression soon anyway?

  • Drake||

    Nope - they really are this bad. Please recall all campaigns by Bushes, Dole, and McCain. It has been a string of duds since Reagan. Before Reagan, it was a string of all duds except Eisenhower stretching back to Hoover.

  • Rasilio||

    One problem with this theory.

    Look at the rest of the Republican field this year. Outside of Ron Paul Romney was by far the best of the bunch in the general election.

    Do you really think for one minute that Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Pawlenty, or Cain would be pulling significantly more support or running a better campaign right now?

    So looking at 2016 who the hell do they think has a shot at being their new Reaganesque savior? Paul Ryan? Sorry but by then the social conservative wing of the party will have even LESS influence and scare off even more general election voters and while he is ok on fiscal issues (not good, just ok) he is still way too much of a so con to have much of a chance in the general election.

    Realistically the Republicans have a problem, a really fucking big one because their coalition is fracturing and it's largest component is a dying social movement. Without the So Cons they havn't got enough of a party to beat the much more groupthink oriented Democrats but with them they cannot attract enough independent votes because the middle see's those Socons as just a Christian Taliban

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do you really think for one minute that Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Pawlenty, or Cain would be pulling significantly more support or running a better campaign right now?

    Yes, yes I do.

    Romney's only selling point in the primaries was that he was the most 'electable'. Which he is proving was always a bs talking point.

  • ||

    Romney's only selling point in the primaries was that he was the most 'electable'.

    The only reason he was considered so "electable" is because the others were largely considered to be UNELECTABLE. All of the other candidates tended to self-destruct.

  • widget||

    The train has left the station.

    http://www.city-journal.org/20.....pline.html

  • Fluffy||

    I'm slowly coming to grips with a theory that says that people who are sold oppression narratives are ultimately destroyed by them, because it sells them wholesale into shame-based reaction sets.

    If one question that article asks is, "Why are poor blacks ever harder to discipline than poor whites?" I think one answer is that for 40 years blacks have been told that if they back down to discipline they're Uncle Tom's. They can't function in literally any environment because any social requirement placed on them whatsoever constitutes "disrespect", particularly if it comes from a white person or authority figure.

    I tend to think the anticolonialist narrative, while accurate in some (but not all) respects, has worsened the shame-based culture reactions of Muslims, too. I don't believe that the Muslim street would be as agitated about foreign "blasphemy" as they currently are, if they didn't perceive the fact that westerners are free to blaspheme as part of a colonialist power system that shames them personally. They're agitated by their own narrative of aggrieved powerlessness, in addition to their purely religious motivations.

    I honestly don't know how to fix these things.

  • John||

    Wow. that is a great post fluffy. I had never really thought of it that way, but you are exactly right.

    The problem with the anti-colonialist narrative is that no matter how right or wrong it is, so what? We can't fix the past. And basing your life around perceived or even real injustices in the past is a road to doom.

  • tarran||

    I honestly don't know how to fix these things.

    I don't think they are fixable.

    It gets down to what can you control and what you care about (Covey's old saw about Circles of Influence Circles of Concern).

    The only way this problem goes away is when people take responsibility for themselves. And that is a choice they themselves have to make. The lightbulb has to want to change.

    However, as you said, encouraging them to feel as victims that bear no responsibility for their lives does them no favors.

  • Drake||

    I first step would be for "community leaders" to tell them to stop acting like victims and children. Instead they keep encouraging it - all the way up to the President.

    At this point, I am probably incurably racist - because I find this only mildly annoying. The speech and audience reaction is the whining of spoiled illogical children, not the speech of a mature adults.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The only way this problem goes away is when people take responsibility for themselves. And that is a choice they themselves have to make.

    Actually, it's not.

    It's a choice that the people taking care of them will make at some point.

  • R C Dean||

    dang, Fluff. Smartest thing I've read at HyR (top-line posts included) in a very long time.

  • WTF||

    Concur. That was a great analysis.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    It was good.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    It was good.

  • widget||

    I tend to think the anticolonialist narrative, while accurate in some (but not all) respects, has worsened the shame-based culture reactions of Muslims, too.

    Asians fuck up every narrative the left offers. I worked for woman who made a small fortune in the clothing business during the late 70s, early 80s. She got her foot in the door by recognizing that the Chinese in Hong Kong were cash-register/hand-shake honest, the mainlanders not so much. Hong Kong, of course, was colonized by the British. The Brits taught some Chinese something they didn't know. The Chinese understood the value this in this new knowledge. And Bam!

  • Cytotoxic||

    10/10 would read again.

  • ||

    http://www.comedycentral.com/v.....n-franklin

    Dave Chepele explained this much better.

  • ||

    I honestly don't know how to fix these things.

    Free markets lead to full employment and the problem simply goes away.

    You have to remember almost everyone of us are descended from serfs....and our ancestors were really fucking pissed about it. (30 years war, American revolution, french revolution, bolshevik revolution, the list goes on)

    Somehow we all got over it during the past 400 or so years, and it is entirely because we are in comparison astronomically rich.

    A good economy, School choice, and ending the drug war and in 20 years everyone will forget what the fuck the problem was.

  • Loki||

    Black elementary and high school students are disciplined at a higher rate than whites are.

    Well the solution is obvious: anytime a black student fucks up, select a random white student and discipline him/ her instead. What could possibly go wrong? /sarc

  • Fluffy||

    This seems like concern trolling to me on the Jacket's part.

    When we bitch that you're not covering a story, it's not "covering" the story to post "This story you're interested in is stupid compared to this other story over here."

  • John||

    Maybe I am misremembering. But I seem to recall Obama being a black politician who didn't believe this kind of nonsense was one his biggest if not biggest selling points in 2008. Maybe Nick just doesn't want to admit what a fool Obama made of so many people who believed him.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Jacket is just lamer and lamer. Maybe he was always over-rated.

  • Restoras||

    it's not "covering" the story to post "This story you're interested in is stupid compared to this other story over here."

    That. That right there. That is effin' beautiful.

  • ||

    Except you're assuming he posted this because people were bitching about it.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I was a bad Sunday school kid; I just didn't have the patience to listen parables from a Bronze Age hippie. But the kind of Southern, conservative beliefs I was exposed to are 1000x more tolerable than the social-justice religious sermonizing of Jeremiah Wright.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    ...That being said, the dashiki attire would liven things up if more ministers would adopt it.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Yes. In my small fundamentalist church in a Tennessee county with less than 40,000 people, the little church was one of the places one was most likely to hear about the brotherhood of all mankind and the equality of the races. That was in the 60s and 70s. By the late 70s and early 80s people in these all white churches had started adopting black orphans. By the 90s and 2000s they had a sprinkling of black members who had become deacons and song leaders and elders.

  • Bee Tagger||

    This video may not accomplish much as far as unseating Obama, but I can hope it, at least, increases skepticism toward the media that avoided and/or whitewashed (ahem) it in the first place.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^ That is the bigger story here. I think pretty much everyone knows Obama is a race hustler. But the fact that the media went out of its way to keep the country from knowing that in 2008 is pretty damning. I suspect professional respect is the biggest Reason Nick tries to dismiss this story. If you take it seriously, it says very bad things about the media.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think he's just being a cosmotarian 'intellect', by which I mean 'douche'.

  • sarcasmic||

    Since when is it news that there is a liberal bias in the media?

    This just in: Water is wet!

    More at eleven.

  • John||

    I know. But their behavior towards Obama has been a lot worse than even the past. I can remember the Clinton era. And they loved Clinton. But they never were like this. This is just amazing.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. It's almost as if they'd forgive Obama if he was accused of rape, or if he banged an intern young enough to be his daughter.

  • Hyperion||

    Yeah. It's almost as if they'd forgive Obama if he was accused of rape, or if he banged an intern young enough to be his daughter

    He has been given a free pass, sarc. To remove the free pass would be racism. A poor black kid who aspired to the highest office in the land. To mess with that narrative in any way is racism. If he does bad things it's because he was oppressed by whitey.

  • Hyperion||

    Clinton isn't black. Because Obama is black, he is above criticism. To criticize him is racist. The liberal media have all but come out and said exactly that.

    Not only has Obama been the opposite of unifying, he has totally lived up to the title 'divider in chief'.

    I have never seen the magnitude of racial and class divide and tension as what we have now, ever at any time in my life.

  • John||

    Yup. And when you watch the video, it is pretty clear that is exactly what he intended to do.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But 8% unemployment.

  • Mike M.||

    Clinton isn't black. Because Obama is black, he is above criticism. To criticize him is racist. The liberal media have all but come out and said exactly that.

    Yes, but real libertarians don't give a flying fuck about the bullshit narratives that the liberal media spin.

    Beltway cosmotarians on the other hand are culture-worshipping pussies who mostly want to stay friends with all the right people, get invited to all the right parties, and keep their future employment prospects open.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    They covered Clinton's oral sexcapades more than they're covering Obama's gunwalking to murderous drug cartels, so, yes, I agree.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    The media constantly denies that.

  • Hyperion||

    What you are over looking for whatever reason is that it is a well established fact, not an idea or theory, but a hard fact among liberals that it is only racism when whites do it. Otherwise it is justified because those doing it were oppressed at some time in history, by whites of course.

    This is what they really believe. And it wouldn't matter one bit if Obama got up on stage at the debates and ordered his followers to 'kill whitey'. They would just look the other way and pull the lever for this guy when it comes time to vote.

  • ||

    I think pretty much everyone knows liberals are race hustlers.

    Fixed. Seriously though, this is why it's not a big deal. Liberal politics in general has a lot of race-baiting, and trying to pin Obama on something like this will just get that rhetoric thrown back in our faces. If these criticisms didn't work before, why do you think they'll work now?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    The sad thing is, it will only unseat him to put Romney in charge. I fear the victory may be pyrrhic...

  • WTF||

    Well, you're quite the buzzkill....

  • WTF||

    Bee Tagger nails it. The real story is how blatantly this demonstrates that the majority of the media is basically a part of the Obama campaign.

  • Restoras||

    Speaking of whitewashed, who's that cracker in the picture with Obama?

  • carol||

    On what planet is this irrelevant? Obama is a race-baiting SOB. People need to see him for what he really is but every time anything comes out that speaks to Obama's actual character his sucklings go ape shit. Whatever happened to that vetting thingy?

  • Hyperion||

    At the great risk of being overly redundant, I have explained this all above. To vet Obama would be racist, he gets a free pass because of that. There is nothing he can do to void that pass, nothing.

  • carol||

    Well, I am white-ish, so it goes without saying that I'm racist.

  • ||

    I cannot wait for this election to be over. And then after that, I really can't wait for the next God-Emperor to permanently suspend elections.

  • WTF||

    And then after that, I really can't wait for the next God-Emperor to permanently suspend elections.

    Can you be sure it won't happen this time? Suppose Romney wins after all the polling showing substantial Obama leads, and "we wuz robbed" rioting breaks out. What else is Obama to do except enforce martial law, and suspend the election results?

  • ||

    I mainly can't wait for the election to be over so the "MOST IMPOTENT ELEKSHUN EVA!!!!!" people will shut up.

    Obama talks "black" to a black audience, plays off the audience's anger and fear over racism, and promises free-shit...big news...

    I guess...in bizarro land where Obama doesn't pander to his audience, play off their emotions, and promise them free shit with almost every speech he makes.

  • Rasilio||

    Um, the Republicans cannot hammer Obama on his record because as a practical matter the policies he has pursued have been clones of the policies they followed 8 years ago and plan to follow for the next 4 years at least should they beat Obama.

    That pretty much only leaves them with the conspiracy theory crypto socialist/nazi/communist secret race warrior who wants to force women to get abortions and hands on demonstrations of gay sex on school kids as the only avenues to attack him.

  • Not an Economist||

    Nah they will be a little different economically. On foreign policy not as much.

  • Old Bull Lee||

    I'm surprised no one is making a bigger deal out of the accent.

    I know it's not as relevant as the content, but there is something deeply disturbing about a man who will fake an accent for racial pandering.

  • sarcasmic||

    Kristen Stewart shows off her titties!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....scene.html

  • Killazontherun||

    The dry humping in a park pics are hotter.

  • John||

    She always looks like she is stoned. I love the body. But the eyes. Her eyes are dead and creepy.

  • R C Dean||

    Her eyes are dead and creepy.

    I know. So hot.

  • T o n y||

    Oh so Nick Gillespie is making the exact same point I made earlier. He and a lot of Republicans. This is desperation, not campaign strategy.

  • ||

    This is desperation, not campaign strategy.

    They have been doing it for 5 years. Before and after the 2010 election.

    It is not desperation...it is just consistent stupidity.

    The voters that matter do not give a shit about ideology. All you need to do is point out Obama's complete failure and you win.

    Hell that was exactly what Obama's strategy was in 2008. Why republicans have to run screaming from a solid proven political strategy can only be explained by their stupidity.

  • Nick Gillespie||

    Dear Commenters,

    Not sure I want to burst anyone's bubble about what I have and haven't written about Mitt Romney's 47 Percent tape, but my main reaction to that is online at http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/secret-romney-tape-means-we-can-finally

    The title gives away my main point (which is that such a revelation will likely distract attention from Obama's awful time in office): "Secret Romney Tape Means We Can Finally Stop Talking About Obama's Failed Foreign Domestic Policy!"

    Elsewhere and in a similar vein, I asked "Forget Romney: Should we be concerned that 49 percent of households get government money?" (The short answer is yes). http://reason.com/blog/2012/09.....ned-that-4

    I don't think it should be particularly controversial to suggest that Republican politicians and their friendly media platforms (which the Daily Caller surely is) would do better to focus on, you know, Obama's actual dismal record as president rather than speeches that limited relevance to 2012. And proposing believable scenarios for actually cutting the size, scope, and spending by government.

  • $park¥||

    Too late Nick, you've already jumped the shark and outed yourself as an outright supporter of Obama and a hypocrite. Or something... I think...

    John, does that sound about right?

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Will reason do the full disclosure this year of how many of it's editors and writers are voting NoTA, Jill Stein, Obama, Enver Hoxha, etc? I see that Matt did not mention Johnson in the editorial up front in the current voting issue, so I take it he is out?

  • sarcasmic||

    Did SugarFree post those links for you?

  • $park¥||

    Holy CRAP! SugarFree is Nick Gillespie?!?!

  • SugarFree||

    I might be. I black out often in a typical day.

  • $park¥||

    Is there any chance your "soul" is contained in a black leather jacket?

  • SugarFree||

    I don't think so. I sold my soul years ago. Pure profit.

  • sarcasmic||

    How do you know it hasn't changed hands since then, and eventually made its way into The Jacket?

  • $park¥||

    Well I guess there is the outside chance then that it did end up in The Jacket.

  • $park¥||

    Bah. Refresh is not my friend.

  • Trespassers W||

    I think the jacket is one of them... horcruxes. *narrows eyes suspiciously*

  • Restoras||

    Not enough boobies.

  • Killazontherun||

    There is at least one issue more important in my estimation than the failed economic policies. The president and the left-centrist culture he represents is so post-enlightenment in their thinking they have come all the way back around to endorsing 8th century concepts like blasphemy and the profane in regard to critiquing religion with their censorious speech codes.

    That will has longer term implications than current economic policy.

  • Killazontherun||

    That will has longer term implications

    Goddamn . . sure I'm on the Drambuie/DayQuil mixer but what about all the other days?!?!?

  • John||

    So Nick,

    The fact that Obama lied in his Philadelphia speech and all of the claims about race have also been lies doesn't matter?

    And you think that having a President who thinks that the federal government wants to do more to save white people than black people from a disaster is totally not worthy of consideration? Is there any view on race that Obama could hold that you would consider relevant?

  • Rasilio||

    Ultimately no, unless there was some evidence that he planned to use that view as the basis of policy to reinforce or eliminate the issue.

    Honestly the pandering in this video aside I have not really seen any race based rhetoric or policy coming out of Obama since he first came on the national scene and I don't think this proves he is some sort of secret race warrior.

  • John||

    Ultimately no, unless there was some evidence that he planned to use that view as the basis of policy to reinforce or eliminate the issue.

    I would offer the performance of Eric Holder's justice department as exhibit A that he intended just that.

  • Rasilio||

    Honestly Eric Holders continued employment is one of the BEST reasons to vote Obama out of office, but I don't see a racial component there unless you somehow think that Obama is protecting him because he's black too.

  • John||

    Holder told Congress "he was worried about the concerns of his people". He also dropped the black panther voter case. And his civil rights department has completely run amok. Holder has been the most racially divisive AG in history. And Obama put him there knowing he would be just that.

  • T o n y||

    You're in the running to be the most racially obsessed person on the blog.

  • ||

    You're in the running to be the most racially obsessed person on the blog.

    Whoa now T o n y, as a liberal you should be well aware that accusing someone of being racially obsessed is automatically racist itself.

  • Watoosh88||

    You're operating under the delusion that A) what politicians say to their audiences is what they actually believe, and B) politicians' beliefs have major consequences on their policies. At this point anybody who gets into office will do the exact bidding of the labor unions, corporations and other special interest groups that made it possible for them to become the President.

    Obama was helped by big banks, GE and other corporate behemoths, so he'll do what they want him to do, no matter what his Black Panther Maoist heart tells him. He'll say some inspirational words about how them Main St. folks is hurtin' and them Wall St. fat cats need to pay their fair share and other nonsense, but you should already know it means nothing. (The fact that he was a heavy stoner in high school yet supports the War on Drugs, the most racist program in America, should tell you everything you need to know about Obama's love for the black community) Likewise Romney talks glowingly about liberty, but you're an idiot if you think he wouldn't implement regulations that his favored corporations pushed for.

    Ever heard of public choice theory?

  • John||

    I don't think it should be particularly controversial to suggest that Republican politicians and their friendly media platforms (which the Daily Caller surely is) would do better to focus on,

    So you think that the Daily Caller should be, rather than running stories they find interesting and fell will get hits and move copy, be coordinating those stories with the Romney campaign?

    Interesting view of journalism you have there Nick.

  • ||

    Do you have a hard time with reading comprehension, John? If we're assuming the Daily Caller is interested in election-relevant news, posting about this is no more useful news than posting about Romney's 47% comment.

  • BoscoH||

    Do you feel that the timing of this suggests anything? To me, it seems that someone wants to either bait Jim Lehrer into raising the issue or bait him into ignoring it. More of a red meat for the home team thing than anything that sways an undecided or Obama-leaning voter.

    Lehrer will have a hard time steering the debate away from where you'd like it to be. Obama has to discuss his domestic record, Romney his proposals. This scary black guy thing is noise. Romney's 47% comment could be a launching pad for discussing a real problem. But then again, there's a huge chance that the "debate" will disappoint.

  • widget||

    Nick OTOH Gillespie.

  • Not an Economist||

    Except he has been doing what you say he should be doing and he aint going anywhere. Now what.

  • R C Dean||

    The Romney campaign just mystifies me. If I was them, I wouldn't touch this video, other perhaps with a passing remark that we don't see how anybody could be surprised by it, and that voters need to be careful about what they are presented with by media outlets that are willing to supress videos like this.

    But, really, that would be it (at most). What I can't figure out is:

    (1) Why they have surrendered control of the narrative to the DemOp media. This is 2012, fer christfag's sake. Do they have a YouTube channel? Are they flogging Twitter with anything witty, timely, cutting, snarky? The YouTube channel alone could be a pipeline for web ads, five minute micro-seminars on issues and positions, etc. But . . . nothing.

    (2) Why are they repeating the proven-failure strategy of McCain, by refusing to lay a glove on Obama? Its such a target-rich environment you could thump him all day and never get within a mile of incivility or impropriety.

    Example; gas prices. They are at historically high levels, and not a fucking peep. Obama and his Energy Secretary are on record as saying they think gas prices should be this high, and higher. Hit him with it, already, you pussies.

  • NoVAHockey||

    FWIW, here's one take on why they're waiting.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....s-and-gotv

  • Killazontherun||

    What motivation do reporters have to go to the local gas station and interview people about how the high prices effect their lives? That is hard work. They need a good reason to go out there.

  • Rasilio||

    I think the point was that the Romney campaign should not be waiting for reporters to do it, they should be sending their own people out to do it and then posting the video's on youtube and blasting them out to every social media outlet possible

  • Enough About Palin||

    That you, Lonewacko?

  • R C Dean||

    People are voting today in some states. Not sure what percentage of people cast their vote before election day, but its not insignificant, and growing by leaps and bounds. Thinking that you can lay back until late October with the good stuff may have been smart ten years ago, but this is 2012, fer christfag's sake.

  • NoVAHockey||

    well, i can report from NoVA that the ground game is going. the precinct captain was by my house the other day -- knew that I voted in the the primary, guessed (or likely knew as we're friendly) that it was for Paul, and had his talking points down (which were basically all obama's an asshole).

    i've never seen that before from republicans in my area. dems, yes.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    If they have any brains at all they would have started sucking up to Ron Paul fans long ago.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    (2) Why are they repeating the proven-failure strategy of McCain, by refusing to lay a glove on Obama? Its such a target-rich environment you could thump him all day and never get within a mile of incivility or impropriety.

    Romney's technocratic management style is to hire the best professionals and follow their advice.

    Which fails when the 'best professionals' are a bunch of second rate losing weenies like the republican establishment.

  • Srynerson||

    Romney's not saying anything about gas prices because they'll be even higher in 2016, regardless of who's elected president this year. Why hand your future opponent such an easy attack ad?

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    And of course, since when is Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller the same thing as the Romney campaign or Republicans in general?

    This is a legitimate point, particularly since Tucker has generally gone more libertarian than Republican in recent years.

    But the distinction between a 2007 and 2012 videos is clear: One is from 2007, and Barack Obama has been president for four years. The other is from 2012, and Mitt Romney is still running for president. Once a person is elected, only the White House record matters.

    Bill Gertz, Emmett Tyrrell and many others spent the first Clinton term in Arkansas and came up with some good dirt, including our current secretary of state's improbably successful trades in cattle futures. Clinton won in 1996. Dan Rather self-destructed looking for dirt on George W. Bush's Air National Guard career. Bush won in 2004. There was scuttlebutt that Thomas Jefferson got busy with Sally Hemings, that Grover Cleveland had an illegitimate kid, that Warren G. Harding was black, and so on. There is no evidence that any votes changed or would have changed in their re-election campaigns.

    Once a president has been elected, pre-presidential information is old news. Half the people in my L.A. social group do not believe this and are still haunting the corridors of Occidental and peering at grainy video of old Rev. Wright sermons. I wish them well: You can boost a journalism career with good finds. You just can't make a difference in an election.

  • Killazontherun||

    Not everything is about the election, especially given an Obama victory may be the boost in four years that the Libertarian Party needs to be a valid alternative for those set adrift by the sixteen straight years of mostly failed policies from the two parties.

    I look at in terms of The More You Know about your president the less legitimate is his power over you.

  • WTF||

    I think the real issue is how blatantly this exposes the media coverup of anything detrimental to their guy in the runup to the 2008 election, and that attempts to now continue to brush it aside as 'old news' smacks of continued media malfeasance.

  • R C Dean||

    Once a person is elected, only the White House record matters.

    Or not, apparently.

  • Killazontherun||

    If only Agnew had that benefit of the doubt.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    You got me there!

  • John||

    But Tim this isn't some cattle trade. Are Obama's supporters prepared to admit that he is a race hustler and all of the claims about a post racial presidency a lie? I doubt they are. And if not this is very much relevant. A whole lot of people seem to think that voting for Obama is a good idea because he is an acceptable black politician. This video shows he is not.

    Question, is there anything pre 2008 you would consider relevant Tim? And shouldn't Obama at least be asked about this? Does he still think that New Orleans was left to drown because it was a black city? Don't you think it might be something voters would like to know if he still thinks that way?

  • sarcasmic||

    Question, is there anything pre 2008 you would consider relevant Tim?

    I think you're missing the point.

    Obama has been such a fuckup as president that there really is no need to go fishing for stuff he did or said before 2008.

    Sticking to his record as president should be enough.

  • John||

    Sure he is been a fuck up. But a lot of people still labor under the delusion that he is some kind of post racial President. That makes this video relevant. He is not. One being important doesn't preclude the other being important.

  • sarcasmic||

    But a lot of people still labor under the delusion that he is some kind of post racial President.

    And there is absolutely nothing that will convince them otherwise.

  • NoVAHockey||

    yep

  • ||

    Sticking to his record as president should be enough.

    Nah, that just means you are in the tank for Obama and want Romney to lose.

  • Killazontherun||

    Yes, but the rational voter is just a myth, so I've been told.

  • Voros McCracken||

    "Obama has been such a fuckup as president that there really is no need to go fishing for stuff he did or said before 2008."

    He's up seven points or so in the polls right now, so apparently there is such a need.

  • FD||

    I gotta say, I just love the dirt during campaign season. Reminds me of my favorite NFL-viewing time -- a cold, wet, miserable day on a muddy field of play, while I sip coffee and web-surf in my living room, notching up the heat a degree or two, plopping my backside on the Lazy-Boy, and watching the players smashing each other through frosting, flying divots and filth.
    And as for the prim and proper, poli-utopian ingenues, as well as the phony, hypocrital talking heads, who pine for that front porch, southern gentlemen civility, check out Reason's gem video on the election of 1800.
    Free speech is a beautiful thing. It truly is.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We should have had our young people trained to rebuild the homes down in the Gulf.

    With no context, I can't say for sure, but isn't this some of that "low expectations" bigotry? With an extra helping of schizophrenic concern trolling about how those teachers he loves so much apparently don't actually teach jack shit?

    What are the odds he would also cry racist if somebody came along and said, "Hey, maybe we should teach some of those young black kids how to use a carpenter's square, instead of pretending they're all going to become philosophy professors."?

  • SugarFree||

    You mistake the target of his suggestion. It was supposed to be white kids swinging a hammer in the swamp.

  • John||

    He said a lot of that. He basically said poor people were too stupid to know how to show up for a job. One could only imagine the kittens the media would be having if Romney had written such a thing in a high school term paper much less said so a governor of Massachusetts.

  • tarran||

    ^^^^^ THIS!

  • T o n y||

    You seem to be saying you'd prefer Obama to be more of a liberal stereotype about race. He's always approached black poverty issues by advocating a combination of social and personal responsibility.

  • John||

    He said poor people need to be taught how to show up on time and act properly in an office. That is profoundly wrong and insulting.

    I understand fully how much liberals actually loath poor people. But publicly they do usually try to keep up appearances that they don't.

  • T o n y||

    He's always said things like that when referring to poor blacks, which are essentially conservative messages about personal responsibility. I will grant you if he were white it might come across differently, but frankly he's black talking to a black audience, so he can say things like that (it's kind of the Bill Cosby approach).

    I'm more of a liberal than Obama on the reasons behind racial disparities, but I don't see why you're bitching except to be playing concern troll for liberals.

  • John||

    Saying poor people are too stupid to hold a job is just preaching personal responsibility. Got it. God you are a fascist little moron.

  • Hyperion||

    but frankly he's black talking to a black audience, so he can say things like that

    Thank you once again for proving one my points, Tony. It's ok for the black guy to be a racist scumbag.

    Always funny how you leftists so vehemently deny things and then come righ out and state the exact thing that you just denied.

  • tarran||

    Because no matter how much they try to hide the Klan robes, the progressives have never given up on their racist beliefs about their black inferiors needing the guidance of wiser white rulers.

  • John||

    Tony is the most racist poster I have ever seen. He really looks at black people as being genetically inferior. It is his most offensive quality.

  • tarran||

    Tony is the most racist poster I have ever seen. He really looks at black people as being genetically inferior. It is his most offensive quality.

    Nah: Slap the Enlightened!(sic) has that trophy hands down thanks to his singleminded shilling for the A3P.

    But Tony is up there in the top ten with his racist and ethnic stereotyping.

  • T o n y||

    It's not okay for anyone to be a racist. But Obama's not being a racist in that video. You are being a racist.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    "I know you are but what am I"

  • Cytotoxic||

    And John wins the thread.

  • $park¥||

    Wha...

  • SugarFree||

    The epic inability of Republicans to evaluate the worth of a narrative to any given audience is what got Obama elected in the first place.

    Scream and squirm and bitch and moan all you like; crowing about this video changes no one's mind and just makes anti-Obama arguments all that more easy to dismiss as founded in racism.

  • R C Dean||

    Sure, people looking for pretexts (dismissing all anti-Obama arguments as racist being a fave these days) will always find one.

    Your point about the utter inability of Republicans to figure out the connection between narratives and audiences is well-taken, though.

  • John||

    So putting out a video where the President says white people are out to get black people is racist?

    If you follow your advice Sugar Free, you cede the entire argument that Obama is this great guy who wants to heal racial division. That is about the last little sliver that a decent number of his supporters are holding onto. Sure he is a total failure, but at least he is black and helps race relations. I think debasing people of that notion is reasonably important.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Consider this, too, John: Reason's audience almost universally hates Obama already. The leftwing trolls are just that, trolls. So beating him up for his past socialism, racism, whateverism is less satisfying here, because we're all aware of what kind of man he is.

    Again, not saying that you ignore this or that picture of Obama wearing an I Love Stalin t-shirt--it's just a matter of emphasis.

    In Romney's case, there is no presidential record to look at, so this stuff will get more play. Though the real issue should be what he says his policies are going to be and his record as governor, not necessarily in that order.

  • John||

    I don't think this is the end all be all election decider and nor should it be. But the fact is we have a President who got up and said that he thinks the federal government is institutionally biased against black people and that the government needs to concentrate on helping black people at the expense of everyone else. That is pretty nasty stuff.

    Shouldn't someone at least ask him about it? Ask him what he meant and if he still believes all of that?

  • Randian||

    Seriously, for the love of pete, if Mitt Romney implied the federal government was institutionally biased against white people, we'd be in full apoplexy at the moment.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "In Romney's case, there is no presidential record to look at, so this stuff will get more play. Though the real issue should be what he says his policies are going to be and his record as governor"

    And don't forget, no matter how irrelevant to the subject, in every post you have to say: ROMNEYCARE the mode for Obamacare

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "ROMNEYCARE the mode for Obamacare"

    That's model...get it right...the model, godfather, architect, Supreme designer.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'd totally forgive Romney for MassCare if he'd flat out repudiate the idea of heavy government intervention in healthcare. Everyone makes mistakes.

  • SugarFree||

    So putting out a video where the President says white people are out to get black people is racist?

    I know you've worked yourself into a quite nice froth on this subject, but at least attempt to read what I wrote.

    Going after Obama as a racist will just be judoed back as being racist. Yes, discuss the video, but don't think it's some magic bullet that those cowards in the media just. won't. fire. The Wright story went nowhere and this one won't either.

    This is why so many of us bitch about TEAMs so much. You could find a video of Obama screaming "Kill Whitey!" in a Nation of Islam bowtie and TEAM BLUE won't go anywhere. This is the toxicity of TEAM think, John.

    Instead of demanding that the voters care about something they don't, find something they will.

  • John||

    But they do care about this issue. All of these people run around thinking to themselves how Obama is different from Al Sharpton and such and how great that is. They were all sold a lie. This video shows that. As I said above, it is not some election decider. But it is worth releasing and having Obama explain it. It should have come out 2008 when it was really relevant. But it didn't. And that is another thing that ought to be explained.

  • SugarFree||

    So? Screaming about it on Reason all day--a publication that no one who thinks Obama is some healer of racial divides reads--doesn't do any good.

    And "Obama as healer of racial divides" is what you want their narrative to be. In reality is it much closer to "Racists chickens are coming home to roost now that a black man is president." This video makes them feel good about their support of Obama.

  • John||

    But Reason pretending that the President peddling racist conspiracy theories is no big deal and stupid to even mention doesn't exactly help either.

  • ||

    But Reason pretending that the President peddling racist conspiracy theories is no big deal and stupid to even mention doesn't exactly help either.

    That's not their point. Gillespie's point is that compared to his record, it doesn't matter. And that as far as election-year material goes, things that happened before he became President just won't cut it. It won't change anyone's minds, and as SugarFree says it'll just be judoed to show how Republicans don't care about minorities.

  • ||

    You could find a video of Obama screaming "Kill Whitey!" in a Nation of Islam bowtie

    Even with the condition that I couldn't use it as election-year material, I'd pay money for a video like that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There is no reason the GOP can't develop a narrative and the media can't do its fucking job.

  • SugarFree||

    Do you believe you can control the left-media? Say quick that you believe! If you believe, clap your hands!

  • T o n y||

    The media's job is to jump on every race-baiting partisan "scoop" from 5 years ago Matt Drudge decides to link to?

  • SugarFree||

    Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • T o n y||

    Ooh maybe that'll work this time.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Everyone here knows you are an idiot and a troll so your posts have no consequence save for the masturbatory gratification they bring you. And making it clear to everyone else you are a troll and an idiot.

  • Not an Economist||

    Well, considering how much press Romney supposed bullying of a kid thirty+ years ago got, five years is practically yesterday. And there was a fair amount of on this very website.

  • Incredulous||

    No, the epic stupidity of most American voters got Obama elected in the first place and might get him elected again.

    Voters in this country are so f'ing stupid they would vote for a sock puppet - which is basically what they're doing by voting for Obama.

    Actually, a sock puppet would be far better.

  • SugarFree||

    A ham sandwich could have beat a crazy old coot singing about bombing Iran and an Alaskan drip who sounded like a down-home retard.

    Until the GOP stops blaming the media conspiracy for their failure to field a candidate that 50.1% of the 42% of the public that votes can stomach, they aren't going to get anywhere.

    Obama is going to be re-elected. Get your rationalizations ready.

  • WTF||

    Obama is going to be re-elected. Get your rationalizations ready.

    The majority of Americans have lost any sense of a self-preservation instinct?

  • SugarFree||

    Haven't they?

    I don't want him to be re-elected, I'm just convinced that he will.

    Romney sucks and I won't dance in the streets if he beats Obama, but I won't put my eyes out with a broach either.

  • FD||

    "A ham sandwich could have beat...."

    A good one.

    While the "media conspiracy" argument is indeed over the top (as conspiracy rationalizations always are), I'd still guess that the leftist slant of most (I say most) establishment news outlets gives the Dems a slight advantage. Enough to make the difference? Hard to say, but it's possible, given the tightness of some electorally-powered swing states.

    The broader point, however, is right on.

  • Killazontherun||

    Is the rational voter who evaluates whom to support based on economic matters really enough to carry an election? From what I have been told in a recent article here, it is not.

    Race is what got Obama the primary victory over Hillary. The average white democrat looked at him, saw the clean, articulate stereotype that melts their hearts. How will they respond to hearing the same guy sounding more like Al Sharpton than that facade they fell in love with? You are likely right. It reflects poorly on their own vanities so they'll blame republicans for bringing it up.

  • ||

    Race is what got Obama the primary victory over Hillary.

    Gender is what carried Obama over Hillary.

  • Killazontherun||

    Hillary overcame all of her negatives from the 90's, and became a popular figure. I was amazed at her political acumen, Hell, I wanted to have a boilermaker with her, but it was still not enough.

  • Killazontherun||

    Would still like to. I bet she is as frank and filthy mouthed as a biker bitch with the camera off.

  • FD||

    "Hillary overcame all of her negatives from the 90's, and became a popular figure..."

    Unsure of that.
    But if it were so, does it say something about psychopathic-lying Hillary, or does it actually say something about her newly found fans?

  • Killazontherun||

    To be honest, my once in a blue moon defense of Hil is just me being a dick.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Do you think she sat back and let Libya et al happen just to make Lord Zero look even more a fool?

  • Not an Economist||

    Obama won because he recognized a weakness in the way the Democrats ran their primaries. Win big early and coast to victory. He used an impressive and bullying ground team to win big in the caucuses and there was nothing Hillary could do to make it up.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If 2007 is too long ago, how about something more recent: Ladyparts-gate -

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....53393.html

  • John||

    And lest we forget, the same media that is saying this tape doesn't matter, floated a story about how Romney supposedly bullied a gay guy in high school.

  • Loki||

    "Our God is big enough to do that."

    I'm confused by this line. Is he implying that black people have a different God than white people? Or is the "God" he's referring to the government, since this line in the midst of a call for more government "help" for Katrina "victims"? Actually the latter seems pretty plausible to me considering his tendency to believe the government can fix anything with just one more program and a few more hundreds of billions of dollars.

  • Killazontherun||

    It was at a conference of clergymen. That sort of irrational ambiguity they thrive on. It would get an affirmative nod from everyone in the room in spite of the fact no one knows what it means, especially because no one knows what it means.

  • Killazontherun||

    It annoyed me as well when I heard it because I recognized it as the obligatory incoherent bullshit shout out. It doesn't break down with analysis beyond consideration of its social function.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    The evil white debil god sent Katrina to hurt the NoLas. The good God who damns America didn't damn that part of it, because it is really a French territory.

  • ||

    I think he just means the Christian god, since he's speaking to a Christian congregation. I wouldn't read too much into it, it's just pandering to a religious crowd.

  • Sidd Finch||

    My reaction to this piece - and especially to the editorial bombast attending its release - is simply: What part of persistent 8 percent unemployment don't you understand?

    Your issue is that a news site isn't following your preferred campaign strategy?

  • R C Dean||

    Its not as if Romney hasn't been futilely flogging the unemployment numbers non-stop for the entire campaign either. So that particular remark kinda threw me.

  • FD||

    I dunno, R C. Maybe I've got sports on too much, but I've been wondering if Romney were still running and instead took the war chest and parachuted it into his off-shore accounts.
    Obama's ads seem to run sometimes back to back. Well, at least he attacks Romney so I'm reminded Mitt is still around.

  • ||

    conservatives hell-bent on revealing Obama as the sort of crypto-reverse racist that will bring down the entire country.

    Worst opposition party ever.

  • T o n y||

    SugarFree touches on a point I've been thinking about for a while. I actually treat the question of whether the media give Obama too much of a pass seriously. They don't ask a lot of important questions (and a lot of important questions regarding his actions as president will go unasked in the debates). They did the same, of course (and to a much more ignominious degree imo) during Bush.

    But here's the thing. The Republican freak-out machine has freaked out on so many things so regularly with a maximum amount of fake outrage that they have rendered their complaints impotent. Even if Matt Drudge has a real scoop or Sean Hannity has a legitimate criticism, they have no credibility because they are so obviously partisan and their idea of politics nowadays is to express maximum hatred for the president and hope enough people feel their anger. The Right has made it more difficult for criticism of the president to generate interest. It's as simple as the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

    The fact that they just can't help themselves by making everything racial when the country at large has moved on from 80s-era dog whistles only adds to the aura of pathetic desperation. Their incessant cynical fake outrage over everything has made Obama's defenders more defensive and neutral observers more skeptical of their claims. They want an explanation for the media being in the tank for Obama? They should look in the mirror.

  • Calidissident||

    I agree with SOME things you said there, but you lost all credibility in the last paragraph. The right makes everything racial and the left doesn't?

  • ||

    For you, T o n y, I'll repeat myself:

    Whoa now T o n y, as a liberal you should be well aware that accusing someone of being racially obsessed is automatically racist itself.
  • sloopyinca||

    Obama has a consistent record of failure for the Romney campaign to use in this campaign, yet they persist in running the worst campaign in the history of Presidential politics. It's laughable that people like John would scold us for not jumping on board to support a campaign of ineptitude and stale ideas Romney has trotted out for five years now when there is a candidate running that is infinitely more closely aligned with our political philosophy on the ballot in nearly every state with a proven track record as a two-term Governor.

    Obama has been a terrible president and the thought of him winning four more years isn't a pleasant one. On the other hand, Romney hasn't given me a compelling reason to vote for anything he proposes. He's an empty suit, and if you think we'll vote for an empty suit just because this election is "important" or "pivotal," you've got another thing coming.

  • ||

    I am glad there is a candidate for President this year that I can vote for and not just vote against one or the other major party candidates.

    (Actually at this point I guess I am not going to get to vote for Johnson since the parties in Oklahoma make it almost impossible for a third party candidate, but the principle remains the same.)

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Write him in.

  • ||

    Not all states allow write-ins. I assume his is one of them.

  • ||

  • Romulus Augustus||

    What a wasted opportunity. Ron Paul should have put his prestige and supporters behind Gary Johnson at the start of the primaries and made it a contest between an obviously qualified
    libertarian Republican and all the a-holes. Johnson is more qualified to be president than RP and is a much better speaker too.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I am sure RP has a clue about what function embassies serve, Johnson does not, which means Johnson rather unqualified to be in charge of US diplomacy.

  • ||

    Johnson does not,

    Evidence?

  • Randian||

    I am just going to repeat myself once more and then I'm out, because this has all gotten way too stupid:

    The President of the United States...is on tape...implying that the federal government is a racist entity.

    And lied about it to "prove" it.

    Anyone who thinks this is a small thing is a screaming moron, and yes, even though I am reason defender, today that moniker goes to The Jacket as well.

    The end.

  • T o n y||

    The federal government during Katrina did act as a racist entity. Lots of people expressed that sentiment, and the outcome of Katrina was not Bush's vindication if you'll recall.

  • John||

    Lets have Obama say that publicly. Good luck with that. And of course that is a disgusting and stupid lie you little pig brown shirt. The worst enemy of the people in New Orleans was their state and local government.

  • T o n y||

    No I'm pretty sure it was the busted levee. I realize you have a neatly packaged defense of Republicans for every single one of their fuckups, but at least you can acknowledge what most people think about Katrina--that its aftermath was horribly handled, in part by the federal government (and it was clearly a federal-level disaster), and that it seems frighteningly clear that if it were a city of white people that more stops would have been pulled out.

  • John||

    No I'm pretty sure it was the busted levee.

    And why did it bust Tony? Because the state and local politicians stole all of the money that was given to them to fix them. Nagin and the governor of LA, both of whom were Democrats, destroyed that city.

  • T o n y||

    And Barney Frank caused the recession, yadda yadda.

  • John||

    Yes Tony. You don't believe in facts you don't like. We get that. But facts are stubborn things.

  • T o n y||

    You don't know what the facts are because you get your news from partisan hacks. It's sad because otherwise you seem a pretty knowledgeable person.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Does Tony know the level was supplied by the government?

  • WTF||

    Wow. The stupidity and dishonesty is incandescent.

  • R C Dean||

    The federal government during Katrina did act as a racist entity.

    I'm pretty sure it really didn't. Incompetent? Maybe, maybe not. The real problem was the blithering idiocy of the locals, not FEMA.

  • T o n y||

    Are you even aware of when you're regurgitating Republican spin, or are you just not aware of reliable sources?

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    It's hilarious you use words like aware that refer to things you have no experience of.

  • Restoras||

    The federal government during Katrina did act as a racist entity

    Citation optional?

    Lots of people expressed that sentiment

    Is this your proof of fact? Pathetic.

  • Restoras||

    Can we talk about Romney's tax returns? He's clearly hidding something...amiright? C'mon Nick, hit us up wit sumpin' in da class-baiting genre.

  • John||

    Could someone please explain how it is that twenty year old newsletters that Ron Paul didn't even write but contained a couple of racist articles were of dreadful importance to the Republican primary election according to Reason yet an actual video of President Obama saying all of this is somehow not?

  • WTF||

    Could someone please explain how it is that twenty year old newsletters that Ron Paul didn't even write but contained a couple of racist articles were of dreadful importance to the Republican primary election according to Reason yet an actual video of President Obama saying all of this is somehow not?

    LOOK! A SQUIRREL!!

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Actually someone named Powell wrote the only one that was racist, we now know. The Shattered Glass magazine hid the name on the PDF link they supplied to their readers by cutting off half a page. Reason didn't seem to fact check them enough to catch that back then. Last December Ben Swann, a tv reporter, finally caught them.

  • ||

    As Nick keeps mentioning, things that happened before a candidate becomes President tend to be written off pretty easily. In contrast, Ron Paul wasn't President when those came to light, and so he wasn't largely immune to them. And I'd say the idea that Ron Paul is racist is a much bigger shock than the idea that yet another hard left politician is race-baiting.

  • Watoosh88||

    Because of the demographics involved. Ron Paul's supporters include a lot of young, socially liberal and racially diverse people, which is why his newsletters could very well do some damage.

    On the other hand, anyone who's concerned about Obama's racial angles is already on Romney's camp. Do you honestly believe this video will sway any Obama-leaning voters at this point? He was elected as a former community organizer who is black and progressive, and you have him on tape saying leftist, somewhat racially loaded rhetoric to black people? Oh my. How could that possibly be.

    You know what could move votes away? Pointing out the 8% unemployment rate, high gas prices and wildly increased poverty and income inequality under a supposedly progressive president. If some of those voters could be fooled into thinking Romney would be an improvement, you have at least some semblance of an effective strategy.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What part of persistent 8 percent unemployment don't you understand?

    A smart businessman (the kind who actually understands what "profit" is, and how you provide goods and services to willing buyers) might take a look at the evidence and attempt to draw some sort of connection between regulations put in place over the last few years and the marginal return on an additional employee.

    Want to "create jobs"? Concentrate on creating a private sector economic environment which will allow each additional employee to provide more than his cost to the bottom line.

  • T o n y||

    Rev. Wright didn't lose Obama the nomination or election in 2008, and this video only serves to confuse the half of Republicans who think he's a Muslim.

  • John||

    Of course it didn't. OBama lied and pretended he didn't know what Wright had to say. This video shows that, like everything else he said during the 2008 election was a lie.

    Who knows how much this affects things. That is not for us to decide that is up to the public. But one thing it does do is it now and forever prevents creatures like you form claiming that Obama is anything but a typical race hustling politician. Hope and change, if it wasn't already dead, is dead now.

    Hope that makes you happy Tony.

  • T o n y||

    I really, really have no idea what you are bitching about. I watched the video. I agree with most Republicans and most of the population of this site that it's pretty weak tea. You seem to be upset that Obama is talking to a black audience about black issues. Maybe it's just as bad as Romney talking to an audience of rich people about how special they are, but it's certainly not worse. Get a grip man.

  • John||

    In a black audience Obama told them how white people hate them and the entire system is stacked against them. That is contrary to his entire campaign of 08.

    Congratulations Tony. You helped put a race hustler in the White House and in the process set race relations back 20 years. I hope you are proud.

  • T o n y||

    Oh, he said white people hate them and the entire system is stacked against them? I must have taken a coffee break during that bit.

  • R C Dean||

    Rev. Wright didn't lose Obama the nomination or election in 2008,

    And the fact that this video was embargoed by the DemOp media for that election should give you a clue as to why.

    Well, that, and the good Rev. suddenly discovering an urgent need to get lost in Africa for the better part of the campaign.

  • T o n y||

    This video was trotted out then too. And I just watched them talk about it on MSNBC. But I get it, no amount of reality will me permitted to intrude on your grievance narrative.

  • John||

    No it wasn't. Stop lying. The full video with the incendiary stuff was covered up.

  • T o n y||

    Here's what I don't get. You seem genuinely upset. But you're saying Obama said things he didn't say, and that I believe things I obviously don't believe (blacks are genetically inferior). Why are you pulling nonsense from your ass then getting upset over it?

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    I can just see you now. The kind of loser troll at a bar who keeps hitting on girls, or even attacking them, when they yawn at you and reject your advances.

    Your obsession with people who all think you are an idiot is a psychological problem usually only seen in junior high school boys.

  • T o n y||

    who keeps hitting on girls

    Yeah you really pegged me there.

  • zenbutcher||

    Emphasizing what Obama was yapping about... five years ago will not swing a single uncommited voter to the GOP column.

    I don't think Daily Caller is interested in uncommitted voters.

  • John||

    Of course they were not. Why Nick feels the need to make this story about alleged Republican failings is beyond me. This story is about the video.

  • T o n y||

    John I hate to break this to you: the narrative that is settling in around this video is that the rightwing media embarrassed itself by trotting it out (again), and did Romney no favors.

    Maybe it's the conspiracy, but if there's a conspiracy I don't see that whining about it will help.

  • John||

    I hate to break this to you Tony. But your President is a race hustler.

  • T o n y||

    What does that even mean?

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Yawn. As if you have anything you could inform anyone with, you stupid fart.

  • T o n y||

    I'm evidently interesting enough for you to reply to all of my comments, and that's good enough for me.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    at least you can acknowledge what most people think about Katrina--that its aftermath was horribly handled

    Especially the usurpation of property rights.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Does the twit know that reason ran a multi part series by Dan Rothschild on Katrina, the best writing on it anywhere? Is he unable to do a search?

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Does the twit know that reason ran a multi part series by Dan Rothschild on Katrina, the best writing on it anywhere? Is he unable to do a search?

  • widget||

    "We don't want to build more highways out in the suburbs"

    Politically speaking, Romney should drench that one with gasoline. Blacks are set, white men are set, but suburban white women go with whatever protects their children and lifestyle. We'll see, but I don't think Romney's up to it.

  • Sidd Finch||

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....22091.html

    This stuff isn't hard to find.

  • Sidd Finch||

    was supposed to be in response to zenbutcher

  • Sidd Finch||

    Judging by the reaction, the video is certainly newsworthy. Is Nick saying that Reason would have sat on a newsworthy video because it's not one of Reason's talking points?

  • widget||

    Eh, Reason is a digest of other news. Ron Bailey goes out and examines things first-hand sometimes, Radley Balko did too, sometimes.

  • ||

    The biggest set of direct reporting they do is the Reason TV stuff. Most news outlets I see online get their information through secondary sources.

  • Lisa||

    So in conclusion, it's the Republican's fault for not being as great as Obama is horrible. I think that's a bit unfair.

  • Lisa||

    Republicans'

  • The Hammer||

    That straw man bullshit is really what you got out of this? No, it's the Republican's fault for being almost, if not equally, as horrible as Obama.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Libertarians making decisions on what is newsworthy because they think they know what sways voters is...funny. as. hell.

  • ||

    Libertarians making decisions on what is newsworthy because they think they know what sways voters is...funny. as. hell.

    Considering we acknowledge that pandering sways voters, and cronyism helps raise money to sway voters, I'm not sure how our integrity in that regard is so amusing. That you find a lack of corruption to be amusing is beyond me.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    I don't think this is about Obama being a racist or a race baiting pandering pol. It's about his being a liar and hypocrite, and about the media that supports him being liars and whores. I'm listening to Tucker Carlson on the radio while I write this and they are discussing how Andrew Sullivan and everyone else who covered this speech 5 years ago reproduced the official Obama press release, much less racial strife stirring than the speech, and lied and claimed it was a transcript.

    You get out of DC half the time Nick. If you are here over 90% of the time you become absolutely fatigued by the whorish flaks, lobbyists and apparatchiks who come here to get a 6 figure salary for being low level Carvilles, something no one else would pay them anywhere else, incidentally thereby pricing DC's original mainly African American working class out of the real estate market so that they have to move and commute from southern Maryland or Virginia counties outside the Beltway.

  • jorgeborges||

    Further adventures in missing the point:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXcDj5J39kM

  • ||

    I went to post on the Daily Caller about this story. I pointed out that the story was 2007, and that if they wished to attack the President's religion, that there was plenty to look at as far as Romney is concerned. My comment was flagged and deleted. Do not expect any impartial discourse on that site.

  • ||

    It's.... not really an attack on his religion. Is that really what you got out of it?

  • ||

    One thing I have noticed is the double standard the Reason has in regards to the lone retards of the Left and Right.

    In general if one Republican makes a crazy claim then all republicans think the same thing. Back in 2008 Reason's Weagle posted article after article about birthers and claimed this was the heart and soul of the Republican party.

    Now when a Democrat makes a crazy claim Reason jumps through hoops to make sure that the claim is not tied to the entire party.

    One thing Nick and Matt can do is separate this shit out. John is a pain in the ass and mostly full of crap. but on this issue I think he is right. Reason does have a bias in regards to the lone retards. Where Republican lone retards are held up as standard bearers and lone democrat retards are accepted for what they are.

  • John||

    And then there is also this little issue of the lone retard in question being THE PRESIDENT

  • ||

    True but that lone retard of 2007 governed much differently then he said he would in that video.

    How can that video be used against the guy who voted for TARP then administered it and $800 billion in stimulus to help all his millionaire Wall Street friends?

    Nick posted the video and gave a horse race critique of it.

    This was the right way to handle it. Now if only Weigel had handled the 2008 birther crap the same way we would be miles ahead.

    You seem to want it the other way around. Using Weigel tactics on Obama and the left.

    There are other web sites for that. I don't think I want that here.

  • John||

    And for the record corning, you are second only to Veneman for being the purveyor of douchy, smug conventional wisdom.

  • ||

    douchy, smug conventional wisdom.

    Bullshit.

    I get everything wrong then everything right then call everyone here a mother fucker then love them all.

    You know I have written some of the most inspired comments here as well as some of the most idiotic...and i hope some of the most vile.

    You may hate me and what i write but implying that I am even remotely capable of being consistent enough to be smug or conventional defies logic.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    David Wiegel is on twitter today endorsing Jill Stein.

  • ||

    daveweigel ‏@daveweigel

    Probably voting for Jill Stein
    Expand
    1:11 PM - 3 Oct 12

    Brilliant.

    Maybe he will come back to the comments and again question why we hate him so much.

  • ||

    In general if one Republican makes a crazy claim then all republicans think the same thing.
    Where Republican lone retards are held up as standard bearers and lone democrat retards are accepted for what they are.

    You must live in an alternate reality. One of the points they keep driving home is that the Republican Party is finally getting some ideological diversity (as marginalized as it may be), while the Democratic Party seems to think much more in lockstep.

  • T o n y||

    That is insane. Which Republican supports raising taxes?

  • ||

    Which Republican supports raising taxes?

    Some ideological diversity /=/ different views on every issue.

    I understand it's easy to cherry pick issues to imply I'm wrong, but no one here with any knowledge of the modern party would believe that one issue is the ONLY issue.

  • ||

    That is insane. Which Republican supports raising taxes?

    Boehner agreed to a tax increase in 2011.

    The deal was done then Obama changed the deal and asked for even more taxes.

  • T o n y||

    It's possible the exasperated pleas of conservative and libertarian commentators that Romney remember "it's the economy, stupid" are wrongheaded, and that digging through old videos and flinging them out hoping they stick is the real way to win. There's just no evidence for that efficacy yet.

  • triclops||

    There is plenty of diversity in Democrats.

    Some think the state is the best way to solve all problems, others believe it is the only way to solve problems.

    But seriously, there is ideological diversity in both parties, not in their politicians.

    But since Tony thinks the only measure of diversity is melanin, he cannot fathom that there is diversity in the R party.

    *This doesnt mean i think its all good or sane diversity.

  • ||

    I found it intriguing that he advocated deregulation to a black audience.

  • ||

    Hm? Where did he advocate deregulation?

  • ||

    He talker about cutting out the regulations and the red tape so that the people of New Orleans could rebuild.

  • Mickey Rat||

    When Rather reported on th "fake but accurate" documents showing Bush was AWOL from th Air National Guard, did Gillespie and Cavanaugh get this pissy about whether the story was relevent? Not whether the reporting was wrong or not, but whether the story mattered even it was correct?

  • ||

  • ||

    http://reason.com/blog/2004/09.....point-size

    Above is Nick's take

    Wow articles on hit and run back then were way shorter.

  • Mensan||

    There's no such thing as reverse-racism; it's just plain old racism.

    Also, did Nick mean this Ozymandias, or this Ozymandias?

  • triclops||

    Isn't "reverse racism" pretty much the dumbest PC doublespeak term ever?

    The misuse of "ethnic" to mean "ethnic minority" is almost as bad.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement