Brush it under the carpet if you can.....

First post, after reading for a while, and its struck me that the US elections have bought up an issue that is deeply disturbing, because - god forbid - one of the candidates is black, and his middle name is Hussein (which apparently means he might be a muslim!)

Imagine that. In a country where anyone who is a natural citizen can become president, the color of their skin and their middle name (and crass assumptions about it's origions) is an issue.

Which makes me wonder if the upcoming election is going to be decided on politics or on predjudices.

Did the US really swallow so much of its own propaganda that simply having a name similar to Saddam Hussein is enough to stop someone voting for the guy? Or did people just become so fickle that they feel they need to make an issue of it?

So is it politics or predjudice you're gonna vote on? Or are you going to try and thinly disguise one with the other?

And when it boils down to it, will the next president of the USA be decided mainly on the color of their skin? Are we really more enlightened these days, or are we just brushing the issue under the carpet and hoping it goes away?

This is something that's actually really bothered me about much of this election. Not the "this" you mentioned, Moon Knight, but rather this idea that if you don't want to vote for Obama or think there are some major issues with his character, experience or politics, you must, therefore, be a racist.

In reading some blogs by Obama supporters, it's fascinating how they bring race to the forefront so quickly. Even Obama suggested that the only reason he wouldn't be elected is because he's black. Many of his supporters have entered this presidential election with a belief that racism is going to be a huge issue, and they're seeing everything that takes place in the election through that filter. Someone can't stand his politics? It's not the politics at the heart of that opinion, it's his skin color. Someone thinks he's incompetent or inexperienced? It's not the experience at the heart of that opinion, it's his skin color.

This is certainly an historic election, and it's great to see that this nation has gotten to the point where someone black can run for president and be able to make it to the national level. I'd like to remind you, too, that Condi Rice had and still has a large contingent of the Republican party who would like to see her run for president.

Yet, a lot of what I've read has many Obama supporters seeing an opportunity to vote for the first black president and show just how "progressive" they are. I don't know about you, but I would much rather elect a president based on their credentials rather than their skin color. Does that make me a racist? I'd like to think not, but many would suggest I am.

Originally posted by Moon Knight
Did the US really swallow so much of its own propaganda that simply having a name similar to Saddam Hussein is enough to stop someone voting for the guy? Or did people just become so fickle that they feel they need to make an issue of it?

I believe the media within American and the American Government should shoulder a large portion of the blame for the attitudes of certain American's towards such things as judging an individual simply on their middle name.

After the September 11th attacks the world shared in America's pain, American's rallied around their flag ready to both re-build and strike back against the perpetrators of this horrendous crime.

However after the (rightful IMHO) invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Al Queda supporting Taliban Government things did not proceed as they should have. Instead of rebuilding the country and removing all traces of the previous regime the attentions of the American Government and some of her allies turned their attentions towards Iraq and her oil I mean threat.

Preying on the still present fears of her populus the American Government (with the help of the media) has made these shadowy terrorists groups into the new Soviet Union, telling people that these new foes must be pursued where ever they may be to safe guard themselves against further attacks.

Whether the threats are real or not isn't even an issue…

Many people in America have pictured the middle east as their foe, the source of these fanatical terrorists who are bent on destruction of all that is good and free, and should anyone or any country be associated in any minor way such as for example having a middle name that is the same as the surname of the certain executed dictator well then obviously they are to be looked upon with suspicion.

I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a crazed ultra-patriot, far from it. Many will disagree with him for his policies or whether or not they think he will make a good leader which is fair enough, but there is still a good number of people who won't vote for him simply because they associate his middle name with that of a distant region of the global that is so riddled in conflict.

reply to post by Moon Knight
First Moon Knight let me welcome you to ATS. You've presented an outstanding first post.

Your question....Is it politics or prejudice I'm voting on?

Let me preface my answer with the fact that I am a white 62 year old woman in South Georgia.

My vote is definitely generated by politics. In my opinion , Mrs Clinton will only bring more of what we already have in power and she and I do not share the same idea concerning gun control. Mr. Obama and I also clash on gun control. I believe Mr. Obama would also bend to the powers that be.

I don't care if our president is Jewish, Muslin, Catholic, or Christian. His skin could be blue as far as I'm concerned. How he/she will treat issues while in office is my concern.

The people who live in my area are a mix of many races and all ages as this is a coastal, much desired, retirement environment. I have not seen any brushing under the carpet attitudes here. The comments I've heard are very concise and blunt as to their opinions of our candidates.

Again, Moon Knight, nice post.

From the President of NRA.

Printed in their monthly magazine, the American Rifleman, in his column on page 12.

Over the years, Barack Obama has either voiced support for, or voted to enact, laws to:
1. ban all handguns
2. ban the sale of transfer of all semi-automatic firearms
3. ban the Right-to-Carry in every state, nationwide
4. ban firearms in the home, even for self-protection.

Speaking as an outsider (from the UK) I have found the mudslinging which has gone on to be a rather unsettling issue.

I know politics is a dirty business, but in this election it has gone beyond mere mud slinging and has entered very dangerous territory.

We've had clinton raising the question of mysogany, whilst also playing on the fact that she is a woman, then we've had allegations of racism whilst playing the race card from obama.

It SHOULDN'T be about colour, religion or sex - but each side has contributed to the escalation of what should be non-issues.

I don't think anyone is blameless in this, and lets not forget that supporters take their lead from those they follow - so we know where the blame lies.

Well based on the poor, white, working class citizens in the Appalacian and Coal regions voting for McCain and against their economic interests rather than vote for Obama, I'd say that race is playing at least a part in the decision making process - whether people admit it or deny it.

Nice post. I'll sit back and wait for the usual partisan rancor to derail this thread and promote an agenda. Hopefully it won't, as you have addressed your question very earnestly and intelligently.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Well based on the poor, white, working class citizens in the Appalacian and Coal regions voting for McCain and against their economic interests rather than vote for Obama, I'd say that race is playing at least a part in the decision making process - whether people admit it or deny it.

That's precisely what I'm talking about. There is the assumption by a party or ideology (in this case, I'm assuming Democrat / liberal) that their way is best. Seeing that their way is best, as stated in the quote above, those white folk in middle America must either be dumb or racist, because anyone with any intelligence, especially in whatever group's position, would have no choice but to vote for x candidate.

I really don't know how to respond to your point. And by surmising that I must think they are stupid, you are taking serious liberties with my position and you are wrong. You just don't get my point.

Whether you would like to admit it or whether you understand it - or not - there are demographic and economic issues at play that would typically indicate that Obama would be a good candidate for the people in that region.

The problem is that Americans tend to mingle their social, emotional and moral issues with economic and other practical issues and they don't always coalesce in the same candidate. The result is the entirely schizophrenic campaign and voting process that we have now, as well as two entirely flawed political parties.

This is why I feel Obama is the best candidate. He is looking at our problems with a fresh, outside of the beltway, perspective and hopefully we will get better results.

Originally posted by Moon Knight
Which makes me wonder if the upcoming election is going to be decided on politics or on predjudices.

I can't vouch for anyone else, but I can safely say that my vote will be prejudiced...In favor of how well the candidate will obey his Constitutional Oath.

This has nothing to do with politics (or political parties), prejudice, race, creed, color, religious preference, experience, or even sexual preference. In fact, the only valid reason to vote for anybody for any Office in the Government (State & Federal) in the USA should be based upon a candidate's ability to adhere to that Oath.

Originally posted by dizziedame
I don't care if our president is Jewish, Muslin, Catholic, or Christian. His skin could be blue as far as I'm concerned. How he/she will treat issues while in office is my concern.

And to this end, that's why I'd vote for Ron Paul...The only candidate that has such an exceptionally impeccable record of voting Pro-Constitution during all of his time in Congress. In this light, I wouldn't even care if his skin was purple with pink polka dots!

Originally posted by Prometheus James
I believe the media within American and the American Government should shoulder a large portion of the blame for the attitudes of certain American's towards such things as judging an individual simply on their middle name.

This is where I believe the MSM has failed in their obligation to the public...By not sticking with the core-facts concerning the abilities of each candidate & instead trying to play upon public prejudices.

Originally posted by Prometheus James
I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a crazed ultra-patriot, far from it.

I agree...A true patriot will perform his/her civic duty of enforcing the Constitution on the government, for without our enforcement, the government will stray from its legally-binding duty to the Constitution itself. The Constitution is merely a set of Laws, the Supreme Law of the Land...The government will always try to usurp unjust powers away from those Laws, but they can only do so if the People let them do it.

Good post for ATS, Moon Knight. IMO though, I don't think you're going to find many (if any) posters here to give answers that actually originate from "MSM-indoctrination." Most ATS people go pretty strictly with "alternative" media in the course of their net-wanderings.


[edit on 22-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

I don't think anyone cares about his skin color honestly. He's black, good for him, couldn't care less.
The things I like about him is he is a good speaker, he has a great voice and he's a pretty sharp looking dude, on the other hand though, his politics sucks, he wants to do what Hillary and McCain want to do, nothing but take away more of our freedoms, why? Because he's a CFR kid, don't know if he goes to Bohemian Grove or not (I don't think they allow blacks). The only people making his skin color (I think we need to use that term more than race, the word race denotes a special difference) an issue is the media and black people, I don't think many white people (except for mostly old whites) rally care that he's black, it seems they care more about who he associates himself with than anything really.

-Jimmy

Actually...since we´re used to "the establishment" being some white guy with white hair (add the ocassional belly and glasses) a man of colour or a woman would be a welcome change of sight for president...and might even get more people involved in politics than only white men with white hair.

(We at ATS know that it doesnt make a difference who is in government anyway)

reply to post by Skyfloating


Yeah, I'd like to see a color change too, and yes, it doesn't matter who's in office, they're all crooks, except Ron Paul, he's the man and he's the only man keeping McCrook from being the Republican nominee so far, RP will stick it out toill the end.

-Jimmy

Originally posted by junglejake
Yet, a lot of what I've read has many Obama supporters seeing an opportunity to vote for the first black president and show just how "progressive" they are. I don't know about you, but I would much rather elect a president based on their credentials rather than their skin color. Does that make me a racist? I'd like to think not, but many would suggest I am.

Thats a valid point also, and it doesn't mean you are racist at all - in fact it highlights my point from the other side. People aren't seeing the policies and politics, they're seeing an artificial issue inflated into the main stream press.

Thank you for your reply

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
I can't vouch for anyone else, but I can safely say that my vote will be prejudiced...In favor of how well the candidate will obey his Constitutional Oath.

This has nothing to do with politics (or political parties), prejudice, race, creed, color, religious preference, experience, or even sexual preference. In fact, the only valid reason to vote for anybody for any Office in the Government (State & Federal) in the USA should be based upon a candidate's ability to adhere to that Oath.

Thanks for the reply!

Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that he would not obey the Oath?

[edit on 23-5-2008 by Moon Knight]

Originally posted by Prometheus James
Many people in America have pictured the middle east as their foe, the source of these fanatical terrorists who are bent on destruction of all that is good and free, and should anyone or any country be associated in any minor way such as for example having a middle name that is the same as the surname of the certain executed dictator well then obviously they are to be looked upon with suspicion.

Now thats what I'm talking about. How shallow and ignorant is that?

I can't believe in this day and age people would be so stupid.

Kinda overwhelmed with the response - thanks Alot to take in.

I probably should have put all my replies in one post looking at it.

Thanks again tho - would love to hear more opinions

Originally posted by Moon Knight
Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that he would not obey the Oath?

From US Senate: Legislation & Records--H.R. 3199: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes...Obama (D-IL), Yea

From Wikipedia, Political positions of Barack Obama: Lots of examples to increase government instead of limiting it.

From Sportsmen for Obama? & Politico: For putting more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

From Wikipedia--Political positions of Barack Obama: For not wanting to restore an honest, asset-backed currency.

Shall I go on from there?

People rarely vote for the whole political package. They find one issue they want to pursue and find the candidate to fit their view. Either that or they vote strictly Republican or Democrat. Ridiculous. Both those scenarios are the "wasted votes" year in and year out... the wasted votes that keep putting the same corrupt moron politicians in office.

My suggestion? Vote for anyone you can, in every race you can, who is NOT a Republican nor a Democrat. From President, right down to dog-catcher. THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!

The "Kick Them All Out" Project

Putting the same idiots in year after year does one thing... it furthers the corruption from the prior year. And we don't have a snow-ball anymore... it's an avalanche.

[edit on 5/23/2008 by RabbitChaser]

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Shall I go on from there?

Well yeh..if you want. You could also apply the same to Bush and everything thats been done in the name of Homeland Security - so I take it you aren't going to be voting Repub either for the same reasons?