The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

You don't have to accept my count argument. You can believe whatever you want regardless of how based in reality or not it may be.

What I was primarily responding to "I can't think of anything that makes that a good thing to say." Since it took all of 5 seconds of thought to come up with one (whether you accept its correctness or not), and since you're not stupid my assumption is either that you're being lazy, you lack curiosity about the views of other people, or you're being disingenuous. Being kind, I'll assume it is the first. It is just coincidence that the laziness happens to coincide with the worst possible way to read the comments that most supports a pre-existing condition of disliking Matthews. I dislike Matthews for pretty much the same reasons Jon Stewart ripped into him when his last book was released (essentially his view of the political game as perhaps more important than the political results).

But yes, I imagine that Matthews is pretty much in a constant state of amazement that a black man has become president and it has been mostly a non-issue. I'm in amazement at the same thing. If being amazed that race is a non-issue means I'm only viewing Obama through his race then I can live with that.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by JWBear

And I consider myself a moderate.

And so does pretty much everybody else. Thus political gridlock.

[scaeagles]

Oh, I fully admit to having a predisposition of disliking Matthews. That should certainly be obvious without my ever even mentioning his name.

[Alex]

Yes. My point is not that you hide such a dislike (nobody doubts your political view; the only thing I doubt is the frequency with which you claim to have come up with your "concering issues" all on your own), but that because of your dislike you allow yourself to just latch onto whatever reading of things lets you think worst of him and the assume that it is the only reasonable interpretation that can possibly exist (and two years ago I was constantly arguing against people doing the same thing to Bush & Co.). If you're not being lazy but instead disingenuous I'd prefer you just say "since it is politically advantageous to assume this meaning, that is what I'll be doing."

Dislike is not, so far as I view things, a justification of lazy thinking.

[scaeagles]

Ummm....I think I mentioned that I heard this on the radio. Didn't come up with it all on my own. Didn't claim to.

Even as I think more about it, I still don't see your interpretation, and if disagreeing with you makes me intellectually lazy, then so be it. The fact of the matter is that his statement shows that he thinks of Obama in terms of his race as something primary in his definition of the man. I don't understand the importance of it, personally, beyond the historical aspect that he is black and was elected. Why is he still viewed in that way? Is it like Reid, who views him as a black man with no discernable negro dialect Or like VP Biden, who saw him as a "clean" black man?

[Ghoulish Delight]

The fact that he's black should not be an issue one way or the other.

But it's ignorance to imagine that in 2010 that that's the case. YOU may be color-blind. But to deny that there is still an issue of race in this country is to be far more blind than that. And to deny that the fact that he's black is often part of the subtext of what Obama says and how people react to him is equally blind.

You brought up Ried and Biden's comments. That's exactly the point. Between those, the beer summit, constant questions about his birth, etc., it sometimes seems literally impossible to go an hour without his race being brought up as an issue. So yes, when such an a hour does happen and it suddenly occurs to you, "Holy crap, between his speech, the reaction of the people in the crowd, and the Republican rebuttal afterwards, there was nothing that was wrapped up in the fact that he's black," it's noteworthy. It's not the norm. It's refreshing and surprising.

[scaeagles]

You know, that makes sense, GD.

[Ghoulish Delight]

?? I pretty much restated exactly what Alex has been saying.

[Chernabog]

I can't think of a good political reason he had to piss off 5 of the Supremes in the SOTU.... maybe in hopes that Congress will pass a law getting around that stupid decision? But why do it at the state of the union address with the Supremes in attendance? Just seems like a needless "slap in the face" to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Seems like a pretty neefull slap in the face to me.