Axis Mundi X discussion

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

Sep 13, 2008 By Tim Wise
Tim Wise's ZSpace Page / ZSpace

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem

Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me (Soft Skull, 2005, revised 2008), and of Speaking Treason Fluently, publishing this month, also by Soft Skull. For review copies or interview requests, please reply to publicity@softskull.com

Does White Privilege include being able to tell asshats like Mr Wise that he can crawl over the broken glass of my discarded Coors Lite bottles to kiss my ass?

So I guess playing the race card isn't enough...some people feel the need to play the whole deck. Nice.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/...


Q: Best way to get racist hatemail?
A: Threaten a race / class war.

Weird choices...well it's a weird election. I mean, if Obama is the candidate of Change, the how does his selection of a plagiarising, gaffe-prone, 30 yr inside member of the Senate Good ol Boys Club fit in? Especialy when he himself admits that Hillary is better qualified? That would seem a little odd too, no?

This election is one for the record books for sure.

I think Obama just couldn't stand Hillary. But yes, weird election this time.

Heh, spot on article garners the expected reactions over here.

Well, I happen to think that it's a valid view point. It's not the only way to look at the situation, but I don't think he's wrong.

Only if you are for some unknown reason enamored with Sarah Palin and her family. Me? Not so much.

This all have very little to do with White privilege ...

This article, as a view point, is valid only in the fact that it is a viewpoint. It's validity ends there.

For Mr Wise, who still doesn't seem able to grasp the concept of racism, it's to see all that happens around you through the prism of race.

Depends on what debate you're interested in having. I was sent this article and I thought it was pertinent and of interest. I happen to find any inquiry into difficult issues of value. I have a long term interest in issues surrounding race, class, gender, sexuality and other traditionally taboo subjects. I thought this was a particularly pertinent article. Voila.

I have yet to see any serious inquiry in Axis which touches on racism make any kind of headway. This venue has consistently been disappointing in that aspect for me. But I thought I'd give it a shot anyway. How unwilling this crowd seems to be to discuss issues around race in and of itself continues to be of interest to me. I guess in that respect I have yet to be disappointed.

Do we have any Axis Mundi members of color? We have our own perspectives, certainly, but it would be very illuminating to hear from someone actually living the life of a non-white person in America.

Sure ... I'd be happy to debate the issue of race, class, gender, etc. I just don't think this is a particulary compelling opening. It confuses a number of political machinations with the opinion of 'everyone' (I assume he means every white guy ... but even that is a big assumption). The problem ... well, I and most of my fellow 'white' guys do not hold the options attributed to us in this article. Sorta makes it hard to debate don't you think?

Example: Yes, I believe teenage pregnancy IS a problem and is detrimental to our society as a whole. Instead of actually debating this problem, Mr. Wise has chosen to label anybody who has such an opinion as 'racist' ... he does this with an obvious strawman that suggests that even though I hold this view I somehow absolve Bristol of the responsibility for totally screwing up her life. Not true. Mr. Wise then suggests that my refusal to politicise this issue is ALSO racist ... because this is somehow (with NO evidence to support it) an indication that parents who can't control their teenager's sexual behavior have somehow failed and are unfit ... unless of course you are a Democrat and are expected to encourage such behavior.

This piece is simply a political hack job ... and one that unfortunately demostrates why the Democrats are having such a hard time with Palin. Attacking the family simply will not work ... stick to just the candidate and she will hang herself.

Well, I agree it's obviously written by someone who is voting Democrat this cycle. It would have carried more weight had it included the differences in the way people discussed Obama versus the way they discussed Hillary. But then we'd have to talk about sexism as well.

I agree that it can feel like walking through a mine field trying to voice a disagreement with an article about racism or white privilege while trying to avoid being called a racist. God knows most of us don't want to be thought of as racist. It's like being called a housewife, or chauvinist.

I think the writer does see things through the lens of white privilege regularly, and probably is way more sensitized to it than any of us are... certainly more sensitized to it than I would want to be. I remember feeling that way about issues surrounding sexism and feminism and how angry I felt most of the time about. My point of view wasn't wrong... it was just missing some other pieces to the puzzle... and it made walking around in the world really annoying most of the time.

I do disagree with his last line. White privilege is only part of the problem. Unfortunately the problem is much vaster than that. More complex. And tenacious.

I'm excited so many of us are up for discussing racism though! W00t! I think it's going to become a hotter topic as this election wears on. It's definitely reared it's mutant head a few times already.

I think race is going to be an issue, an ugly issue, in this election closer to the actual voting day, on November 4.

I don't think it should be, myself. Nor do I think people from the Palin camp should be playing the 'gender card' and whining about sexism. It didn't work for Hilary Clinton and it will not work for Sarah Palin. The GOP have no wiggle room on this issue, but they'll try to make some.

Privilege has nothing to do with the issues, the answers or the experience of the candidates in question. White we can debate white privilege exists or doesn't exist (and I believe it does), to talk about race could be a distraction.

Am I prepared to be led, to be guided by a black man? You bet your bippy I am. I've had a black boss, a black landlord and they are a part of our society. They deserve a chance to lead. And I suspect that if Colin Powell ran as a Republican or Independent, that conservatives would be saying that Democrats not voting for him was racially-motivated. That also would be patently untrue.

So, the reality lies in the middle. There are some estimates as high as 1/3 of the population could get into the booth and decide they just can't vote for a black man. We don't like to think about it because we want to believe we're more enlightened than that...

Please don't lecture about the race card when the GOP convention was selling Obama waffle batter, with him lampooned a la Aunt Jemima on the front. Or when people are wearing shirts with nooses on them with the words 'Swing State?' emblazoned on them. Both the batter and the shirts sold briskly.

Such people are not one-offs, they are not the fringies or the kooks. They are people who have so integrated their racism that they can't separate it from who they are. In that context, DakChar and others are justified in excoriating people for embracing the white privilege that permits them to get away with such shocking, defamatory and disgusting lowness.

Incorrect ... Not only was the GOP Convention NOT selling such T-shirts, the one outlet that was immediately took them down when notified of them.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/20/w...

THESE people ARE on the fringes and people ARE lining up against them. It serves no purpose setting this up as an example of the majority ... especially when such is not factual.

Bunny Watson, I love you more than ever after that last post. You have so much steel in you that I wanna make you into a 57 Chevy and paint you cherry red.

I have to disagree with you Xysea that privilege has nothing to do with the issues. Many of the issues in this country have to do with race, privilege, class, wealth, access, power and the lack thereof. If you ignore those aspects of this country, you are putting on blinders.

Race doesn't have to be an ugly issue... but it is often made so.

I don't have time right this moment to complete this post. More later.

Kristjan, your posts ring true - thanks for your input.

What I see, in terms of also being in a minority at this site, is a general lack of understanding or familiarity with the opposite side, politically speaking. Somehow, a t-shirt or a sign, is immediately synonymous with accepted party platform. My experience with the GOP is that it is much more fractious, much less homogenous than than the DNC...or at least up until recent elections. Harder to say, as I'm party to neither these days.

I'm also willing anytime to partake in a serious and open discussion on race. My elementary school experience (late 60s early 70s) was quite interesting and encapsulated much of what was happening in the US as a whole at that period, given that Santa Rosa was definitely suburban White America at the time.

Kristjan,

No, it wasn't the convention selling those shirts, it was a GOP supporter who made them up and sold them on his website. :)

But the waffles were for sale at the Values Voter Summit, with such illustrious speakers as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, and there is video of people laughing as they bought them.

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsSto...

I think that's sick.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/thos...

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/17/g...

And about those t-shirts?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/reneemitch...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/...

So, racism is a factor in this election. You can veil it, pretend it doesn't exist, but there are people in places like KY, WV etc who say they just flat out won't vote for Obama because he's black.

Xysea, you need to understand that there are news sources (and I use that term loosely here) other Huffington Post, Daily KOS, and Moveon.org, etc.

Rusty, I understand that there are. But will they report the racist goings on? I have a tendency to think 'no'.

Conservative news sites don't like to discuss the racism issue, because they like to pretend it doesn't exist.

And just because the site is leftist doesn't mean the information isn't true. Should I automatically assume Fox News and Free Republic are not reporting facts because their information is right-leaning?

Besides, it's time people got over this whole 'unless it comes from a source that conforms to my politics I won't read it and take it seriously' thing. That's the essence of living in a self-sustaining information bubble.

Xysea ... you assume quite a lot about my motivations and intent here. Perhaps THIS will help.

I am a registered Republican.

I am voting for Obama this Nov. There are more of us then you think, so be careful about using too wide a brush when you demonize the other side ... it makes your side look just as extreme and fanatic as you accuse us of being.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

I am fully aware racism exists (I grew up SE Washington DC) and I would NEVER attempt to veil it or pretent it does not exist. I have witnessed it first hand on both sides of the equation. Of the folks I hang with, the only question is how do we fix it (affirmative action vs. color blind society).

As for GOP supporters ... you continue to define them by the fringe elements that you love to hate. Sure, it motivates your base, but it just ticks off moderates whom YOU need to win the national elections. Your attempt to prove such extreme elements as legitimate through association and innuendo simply paints BOTH sides in a negative light and only de-motivates the center when they realize that rational debate is impossible in such a divisive atmosphere. Show me just 1 POTUS who won the election without support from the Center? I think it is time for a new game plan here :)

Kristjan,

You took an awful lot of what I said personally. If it doesn't apply to you, then why take it personally?

was merely demonstrating that there are plenty of people in the GOP for whom race is a motivating factor, and they act on their racism. It was inferred I was making it up. I was not.

am merely giving my experience, and my opinonion on this matter. You are free to disagree. But I am not required to tailor my beliefs to what might be palatable for you.

too, know racism, I grew up in rural FL and I still live here. Blacks are self-segregated for the most part, and no one minds. There are plenty of people who have flat out told me, they won't allow a "n******" to be elected President.

I will define GOP supporters by their actions. If a significant number of GOP supporters decried the racism publicly and refused to buy into it, then what you're saying would have merit. But they haven't, and they likely won't. So, by default they are permitting it to continue unchallenged. Do you believe that will further the cause of the man you support?

It would help if someone prominently conservative would denounce such things publicly. It would allay the concerns of people such as myself, who remember when Democrats fled our party to the Republicans after the Civil Rights Act passed. There's a lot of history there, and not a lot of it is good.


I am curious about what you mean by a new game plan? I'm all for it when someone has more to offer than criticism, ie a working idea.

Or the most interest?

Because many people are discussing the issues, such as healthcare. But they're just not being heard.

As an economist said earlier, If people were truly interested in the issues, the choice is clear...There's a great article in the WSJ about the health plan issue, if anyone is interested to read it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12215...

Though, as the numbers bear out support is fairly solid (74% for McCain, 89% for Obama) on each side. I do wonder just how many people haven't made their minds up and how many people will be persuaded by these articles?

Interesting article... in that it comes from someone who is an advisor to Obama's campaign. Not surprising he's gung-ho for Obama's plan.
Xysea...what was that you said in post #26?
it's time people got over this whole 'unless it comes from a source that conforms to my politics I won't read it and take it seriously' thing.

mmmmm hmmmmmmm

BunnWat I really like your post #29, and I hope that fact does not garner you any grief : ]

For me, the debates can't come too soon, as I'm hoping it will put the focus back on the issues. It's been such a long campaign, maybe we just got to a point where there was nothing left to talk about but the things which only distract.

Seconded.

Sure. Bunny's the voice of reason. Here here.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-...

NotBill, because he advises Obama's campaign he doesn't deserve a fair hearing? The source was neutral. That would be like saying I shouldn't listen to McCain's advisers because they have bias. You aren't really suggesting I shouldn't listen to McCain's advisers, are you?

If that was the case, there would be no point in discussing or talking about anyone, because each side would just automatically discredit the other and that would be that.

I keep hearing talk of people crossing aisles, yet very little action. I put information out there, it's dismissed but no one counters it with information of their own.

That really isn't a discussion.

I've decided to bow out from future political discussions, which should be to the immense relief of people here.

It gets to be that you're talking to walls, no matter how reasoned the discussion. I can explain Barack Obama's positions to NotBill or Rusty until I'm blue in the face but it's not going to change one whit of how they feel, and it's certainly not going to change how they vote.

Nor, will they change mine.

I must say this goal of neutrality is a perplexing one to me. The idea of 'reasoned' debate is not a new one, but we seem to take it to extremes, giving airtime to lies and discredited information while simultaneously slandering each source as biased or partisan off the bat so the argument becomes about proving the validity of the source instead of engaging in debate. It's an old, tired tactic but it seems to work.

I've yet to see anyone put anything up substantively about the issues.

No need to worry about me, or my mental health or stability. Or, if you prefer, please feel free to openly discuss it once I'm out of here. It's funny, people can say all kinds of threatening nasty sh*t, but if they're on the 'right' side, no one calls them on it - they just say it's part of 'reasoned debate.' In that regard, the deck seems stacked.

one last parting thought; I've never seen anyone have a reasoned debate between firemen over a burning house. Usually, they agree the house is burning and that the fire needs putting out. We have one half the electorate who doesn't think the house is burning and another half squabbling about how to put it out. Meanwhile, we're all fixin' to be homeless.

Take care.

It's true that our options seem limited at times in the face of bigotry and prejudice. The Civil Rights movement of the 60s made a lot of headway and as a result the South was desegregated. We made progress on the front of human rights in this country. But it didn't tear racism out of people's hearts. Nothing can do that.

I do feel that recognizing racism where it appears is important. I do feel that talking about the subtle, or not so subtle, ways that it impacts our national processes is important.

I have seen many instances where people's own racism was overcome by interactions with others. My father has many stories about that happening in his lifetime.

It's a long slow process. In a way I see it as a practice. None of us is at the place where we don't have to think about it, try to be conscious of it. I look forward to a time when it is not so much a factor as an interesting fact. But that won't be in my lifetime, and probably not in my daughter's lifetime either.

Meanwhile, I try to keep it in the scope of my vision on a regular basis. I try to say to myself, wow, I just had a really racist thought. How ugly. Where the hell did that come from? And then I try to practice changing those thoughts. I delight in the fact that the area where I grew up has gone from being almost entirely white to including a variety of people... Asian, black, Latino, Middle Eastern, Indian. I delight in the fact that that mix grows more each passing year.

Where I live people don't use the "n" word openly. But racism still exists. I was dating a guy who hated Mexicans. He hated that there are so many brown faces here now. He felt like he needed to move somewhere with fewer brown faces so he could feel at home again. Needless to say that relationship didn't last long.

I am beginning to see just how much racism is going to come into play as the election day draws closer. I am also really looking forward to the debates. I want to hear the issues debated, I want the focus to be on that as well. But at the end of the day a small voice inside me says... somewhere is a white guy who is cleaning his gun and saying to himself... no n****r is going to be president. And my blood runs cold.

True...the venue of the article was WSJ and the article demonstrates their neutrality but not that of the author. A fine point to be sure. At this point, it's really just like going to either campaign's website.

I'm looking for some analysis on both camps that does not have a vested interest in a particular outcome, and I gotta tell ya so far it is hard to come by.

@Xysea ... Actually it is not a relief. I would prefer that you stay in the discussion; you have provided a viewpoint that I would not otherwise see and I think that it is important (I would not have known about the waffle mix or the T's without this discussion and I DO think we need to call out this behavior).

Not to throw fuel on the fire ... but has this thread injected any kind of threatening, nasty material?

I appreciated the wsj link on health care (I don't entirely agree with the argument, but that is more from a practical perspective of seeing how poorly theory translates into action). The problem is that I don't really trust any of the media sources to get it completely true with minimal spin ... so I am very slow to accept what is presented as factual until I can examine multiple sources and several sides first.

edit: and of course it is fun to play the devil's advocate :)

Xysea... I'm sorry you feel like you need to bow out of political discussion. I hope you will come back to it someday. It can be exhausting to try and find common ground when you are so clearly passionate about your view points. But it's a noble pursuit and I hope you won't give up entirely on it. Your voice is important.

xoxo

Agreed - the greater the number of voices, the better the discussion.

I can understand frustration if someone can't seem to change my mind. I've got news, noone can do that (just as I'm not here to change anyone else's) - I make my own decisions, but I do appreciate good information. That's where the discussion comes in, and everyone has something to bring to the table.

Xysea - would love to see you come back in when it works for you.

An observation: it's been mentioned several times that race and racism are going to play a role in this election. Ok...but to what degree? Is it significant? Is it a deciding factor?

I've noticed that on the national level - the only people who are injecting race as an issue are those who could nominally be described as backing Obama as in the piece that was the original post for this thread.

Today Jack Cafferty at CNN came up with this twisted bit of logic:

"The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race."

My position is that it's absolutely rediculous, and carries the ugly insinuation that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is either a) stupid or b) racist.

Ultimately, I think this is a loser of an argument.

It was interesting to see the difference between votes for Obama in caucuses where everyone can see who you are voting for, vs. votes for Obama in primaries, which are private.
Obama did much better in caucus states than primary states. It can be inferred that people voting in private were influenced by prejudices they would not admit to in a caucus.

Are there some people who will REFUSE to vote for Obama simply because he’s black? Yes.

Are there some people who will vote FOR Obama principally because he's black? Yes.

In either case, it’s an incredibly ignorant way to make such an important decision.

I agree Rusty, and it certainly frees up said ignramous from actually having to think about the issues.

Jackie - yes it can be inferred. It can also be inferred that people in the caucuses voted for Obama out of fear of being labeled a racist, where as in the primaries, they were free to vote their mind, whatever that was.

The same phenomena skews many polls. People say things out of fear of being labeled, then vote another way. It doesn't necessarily mean they're racist or sexist or any "ist".

No it doesn't, but it's certainly one of the many factors influencing this election, Not Bill.

If by discussing it, we are able to see things more clearly for ourselves, it's worthwhile to talk about. I don't see any point in using it as a club to beat each other up with, though.

As BunWat has said, it's going to have to get in line with everything else.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if I can discuss this long term, as Xy stated it just eventually feels like a brick wall.

I personally can't see how anyone can even consider voting for McCain, as I believe he is far too detached from the world. I mean here we are discussing the issues on the internet and I don't believe he would even be able to use GR even. The right likes to portray Obama as an 'elitist', but as Jon Stewart says 'wouldn't we want our president to be an elitist?'.

I am not going to vote for either, because I hate the two party system, and more importantly the electoral college. I live in WA, and it will be blue, it is not a battleground/swing state. When I meet people who say they are voting McCain here I say, oh so your throwing your vote away then?

Actually, Allan, while Washington is still blue, it is not as strongly so as it was before the Republican Convention.
If you truly feel that Obama is the better candidate, I don't understand you choosing not to vote, and support him.
Don't punish Obama for your dislike of the two party system and the Electoral College.

As an Independant, I sometimes wonder about the two party system myself - so I can understand that.

I'd like to observe though, that the only vote that is ever truly thrown away, is the one that doesn't get cast.

Amen, Not Bill.

I didn't say I wasn't going to vote. I said I wasn't going to vote for either of them. I will vote for any other candidate that manages to make it on the ballot, if any do. If not I will write in. I believe in supporting a 3rd party far more personally. I will be leaving the country regardless who wins in February. If McCain wins I just may never come back.

Congratulations BunnWat - the Axis is in good hands.

Allen - you haven't made it clear why you're leaving the country so I can only offer gentle reminder that even if McCain wins, it's for a finite period of time so need to make it a permanent exile. However, the Axis is global community, so hopefully we'll still see ya around.

Its a self imposed exile. Hopefully it will be ~5 years working around the world. There could be many reasons that come up that prevent my return, I just have fears about the future with a ticket that panders so much to the GOP base.

The GOP is attempting to pander (appeal?) to the GOP base?

Those sonsofbitches!!!

I'm living in a swing state in for the first time in an election cycle, and while I still voted in my home state (CT), this vote is going to feel more useful, I have to say. Though I wonder if VA is still swingable now, given the Palin effect on the rural parts of the state. We'll see.

Rusty: I think Allen's point is that "pandering to the base," tends to be more about screaming far-right talking points for the sake of it than actually putting together a coherent solution, which might involve saying something less appealing to said base. Witness Palin's backtracking on the economy in a speech a few days ago. "We need to fix regulation in Washington..." *minutes later, in the same speech, like she realized that she said the economy might need some regulation, OH NO* "... we need to get the government out of the way of buisness!"

That's the sort of thing that scares me about pandering to the base mode. Even if you have a sensible thought, you feel like you have to cover it up if it doesn't exactly fit to your talking points.

I live in a swing state. I'm fairly sure the candidates are going to knock on my door pretty soon. And the commercials are endless. So quit your bitching if you don't live in a swing state:)

By the way, gallup has Obama slightly ahead today, but not statistically significantly ahead. It's going to be an interesting stretch run.

Yeah, Bunny, that’s the point I was trying to make about pander and appeal. I just did it snidely, and not so concisely. As I understand the term, the GOP BASE is comprised of MAINSTREAM Republicans, not the far-righties.
Can one really pander to oneself?

It just sounds counterintuitive to me.

I don't think of the GOP base as 'mainstream' republicans. When I say base, I think of the far right because that is where the party's core values are based. Fundamentalists are the epitome of the modern party. Now that is not to say that the party is meant to be, or that it in anyway can describe all members. Even when you look at the right-wing talking heads, they instantly fliped on things after the Palin announcement. Which to me, seemed so they could sweep things under the rug that might upset the fundies.

I just don't get why the party is so intent on keeping Bush away from McCain, when they really are the same person now esentially. I use to respect McCain, and would have gladly voted for him over Gore if I had been able to vote then. The Dems now have learned from the Kerry fiasco, Obama is a far better candidate, still no Dean but I guess you can only ask for so much.

OK Allen - I gotta ask. Why would you have voted for McCain over Gore?