Image 01 Image 03

WaPo columnist fears voters will think it’s okay to vote against Obama “and not be thought of as a racist”

WaPo columnist fears voters will think it’s okay to vote against Obama “and not be thought of as a racist”

According to Jonathan Capehart of WaPo, there is a very dangerous ad running by the RNC.

I have seen this ad numerous times, and didn’t think it was that great:

Capehart, however, sees danger, It’s not OK to ignore this pro-Romney ad:

… what bothers me is that last line spoken by the narrator as we see a black-and-white still image of a downward looking Obama.

He tried. You tried. It’s OK to make a change.

Millions of Americans were swept up in the drama of the 2008 presidential contest and were proud to cast a ballot that helped elect the first African American president of the United States. Doing so was and will remain one of our nation’s crowning achievements. But there’s no denying that many of those same millions have soured on Obama because of what they believe he hasn’t been able to achieve. Yet, they are conflicted…

So what’s the problem here?

The danger, according to Capehart, is that this narrative may remove the race card as a factor (emphasis mine):

By telling potential voters “It’s OK to make a change,” the RNC is acknowledging all that I mention above. It’s OK to like the guy personally but not vote for him again. This is not a popularity contest. It’s OK to vote against the black guy. You gave him a shot. He gave it his best shot. He failed. And the most effective message is: “It’s OK to make a change” — and not be thought of as a racist.

Throughout Obama’s presidency, I’ve received more than a few e-mails and tweets from folks complaining that they are branded racist if they disagree with anything the president says or does. And it doesn’t help matters that I have seen more than a few e-mails and tweets from ardent Obama supporters doing exactly that. I have also seen instances of this on television and in print.

That’s why the “It’s OK to make a change” ad is the most dangerous for Obama’s reelection efforts. It give those few, yet crucial, undecided voters the pass they might be looking for to vote against Obama.

Think about what Capehart is saying.

What keeps some voters in line for Obama — fear of falsely being accused of racism — may not work this time, and the removal of that fear is the most dangerous threat to Obama’s reelection.

That is why we are seeing an all-out attempt to portray Romney as racist, as evidenced by yesterday’s “Anglo-Saxon” feeding frenzy.

Just like in 2008, race is being used as a political weapon for Obama.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I am SOOOOOOOOoooooooo ready for that meritocracy.

I guess we’ll have to wait for racists like Capehart to die off.


I must confess. I’m bigoted against arrogant, narcissistic, socialist, authoritarian incompetents. I’ve tried to get help, but I remain a bigot. I’m afraid that I’ll always be one.

NC Mountain Girl | July 26, 2012 at 12:31 pm

So who really are the racists in America these days? Those who won’t vote for Obama because he has proven himself incompetent or those who won’t vote for anyone but Obama because he self identifies as a persecuted Black American even though his father was a foreigner, his mother was white and his upbringing was middle class?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | July 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Following the logical extension of the reasoning that a vote against obastard is racist, it would be racist for any white person to ever vote against a black no matter what.

    Whites are supposed to kow-tow and honor all blacks, period, and place them on a pedestal simply because they are black. That is the way the libtards and the media see it. Whites are supposed to live and breathe mea culpa forevermore…….and pay up, now and forevermore.

    Not gonna happen, and the sooner that position becomes fully apparent to black America, the better. Blacks have found it financially advantageous to segregate themselves because they lack the capacity to assimilate, creating their horrific culture of violence, depravity and deliberate uselessness that renders then unworthy of any regard for any reason. Enough from them already. It’s time to cut losses and move on from a failed experiment.

    I find it amusing that anyone can claim to be a victim of persecution when they’ve been elected to the highest office in the most powerful nation on earth.

    Obama was so oppressed that all he could do is become the most powerful man on earth. Poor Obama.

Apparently the scariest quote for this writer and his party:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character.”
– Martin Luther King, I Have a Dream Quote

It’s way past time to tear up the race card once and for all and start judging people by what they do.

    pdxlady in reply to tazz. | July 26, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    AMEN! to that.

    Most of us DO judge others by what they do.

    It is only the left that pretends arbitrary and superficial criteria like skin color are important. Those of us who reject such nonsense are, of course, labeled as “racists” by those who believe these criteria are of the utmost importance.

    Worrying about the accusations and pronouncements of sick evil fucks is a waste of time. Far better to give them the finger and go on doing the right thing anyway.

What’s astonishing is that Capehart frankly admits that Obama is depending on a race hustle to be reelected. It appears that Capehart is morally depraved.

I agree with Capehart:

I really like that new ad. It’s a simple but powerful theme because it gives people permission to not vote for Obama. Ads like that should be an effective counter to the “white guilt” strategy of the Obama campaign. The message is “You’re not a racist, you gave Obama a chance but it just didn’t work out.

One could imagine that being married to the race card issue is like being married to Dear Leader’s Son: Look what you gain.

Dr. Martin Luther King must be looking down from Heaven, and laughing his a$$ off. We are going to win this election, “we” being the rainbow of hardworking families who are all in this together, because we insist on judging a person by the content of his character.

In this case, “content of his character” equates to “performance of his policies in office” rather than something more morally toned, like ethics, or integrity. That’s fine. We don’t have to reach those issues. We are going to judge the person supported by the radicals that murdered Dr. King on his performance, not his skin color.

And it’s particularly choice that the prejudiced people being exposed are Democrats, and Dr. King was a Republican.

theBuckWheat | July 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Recall that he who controls the meaning of words controls the outcome of the discussion.

In the context of Critical Race Theory, just what, exactly, is meant by “race” and thus “racism”? We have a prominent case of “race” in that BHO told us in his own autobiography that in his youth he struggled with his racial identity and finally chose to be ‘black”. However, he also tells us that his mother was Caucasian and his father was from Kenya. So, according to the dictionary, he is mulatto. In 1988, none other than Bill Clinton was called our “first black president” by Nobel poet Tony Morrison.

If a Caucasian man can be “black”, and a person with a Caucasian mother can decide to be black despite the fact is biological father is 87.5% Arab or something else, then what, exactly is meant by “black”?

When Bill Maher, during a panel discussion on HBO complains that Obama’s policies are “half-assed” “because he’s only half black.” and that “if he was fully black, I’m telling you, he would be a better president.”, and that “there’s a white man in him holding him back”, than what is “black”?

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien writes of a private meeting in 2007 with Jesse Jackson in her book, “The Next Big Story.” During the meeting, Jackson complained to O’Brien, whose mother is a black woman from Cuba, that there weren’t any black anchors on CNN. She wrote, “He looks me in the eye and reaches his fingers over to tap a spot of skin on my right hand. He shakes his head. “You don’t count,” he says.” She closed the section with “[t]he arbiter of blackness had weighed in. I had been measured and found wanting.”

Finally, Dr. Cornel West, whose official web site describes him as “a prominent and provocative democratic intellectual”, was the subject of an article in the May 18, 2011 Washington Post. Reporter Krissah Thompson opened with, “Scholar Cornel West’s scathing critique of President Obama’s liberal bona fides in a series of recent interviews has ignited a furious debate among African American bloggers and commentators.”

References to race, and especially to “black”, in all these contexts, is clearly not about “race”. It is about ideology, socialist ideology. The problem is not how black all these people may be, but how RED.

    “Recall that he who controls the meaning of words controls the outcome of the discussion.”

    It is called arguing by definition, and it is a perfect example of a logical fallacy, but then when did the left ever depend on logic or reason?

“I didn’t fail. I just found ten thousand ways that didn’t work.” (T. Edison)

So, joining collectivists found throughout the ages, from pharohs to caesars, from communists to nazis, Obama, another run-of-the-mill collectivist, will find like-minded scourges when he is placed by the voters in History’s Pile of 10,000 Rejects.

What so annoys Capehart and his fellow leftists is that we are following the wise advice of someone whom the Left wishes to claim as their own. You see, when it comes to Obama, we are judging him by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.

Henry Hawkins | July 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm

I think it deliciously ironic that the one feature that got Obama elected will also get him unelected: race, i.e., his race got him elected and his racism ever since will cause his defeat.

I’m constantly amazed at how stupid people can be to vote for color of skin, to take pride in breaking a color barrier and so easily dismiss the fact that the content of character of that person has broken every barrier of common sense and rationality… especially in the area of massive spending inflicted upon this nation.

I was talking to a business owner a couple days ago, and told him how HUD homes in my neighborhood have sold for $15 and $25k… that the housing bubble was the fault of government injecting itself into the free market.
He said he was happy that housing prices were so low, that it gave him hope that his young kids would someday be able to afford a home.
I said, yeah but the taxes that are required to fund this massive spending spree, “a government spending bubble” will restrict economic growth and their ability to find a job and even shut down the economy.
He say’s yeah, but government will just print more money…

Haa ha and your kids will need a truckload of money to purchase that home as a result, from inflation and dollar devaluation.
Very stupid people don’t give a chit.

Ive thought for some time the smart people of the left have groomed and then advanced Obama as a catspaw for their agenda. A part of their problem has come to be it happened too fast. They looked to 2008 as a set up election with 2012 or 2016 as the payoff. By happening so soon they didnt have the soil as yet properly prepared. Or so they will think.

[…] Legal Insurrection) Rate this:Share this:FacebookTwitterDiggRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

theduchessofkitty | July 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm

It all comes down to this:

2008 – Vote for Obama, or you’re a RACIST!

2012 – Vote Obama out, or you’re an IDIOT!

Thinking that voting against Obama just because he’s a failure is not racist, is racist. But voting for Obama because of the color of his skin is not racist, it’s a crowning achievement. So shut up and achieve already!

Comrade Terry | July 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm

The ‘race card’ no longer has an effect on me.

It’s no longer a trump card, it’s only a joker.

    Conservative Beaner in reply to Comrade Terry. | July 26, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    As my name implies, I am of Mexican descent but also of Scot and Irish as well. I am also a conservative and choose not to be scared into voting for someone I completely loathe.

    For those who try to use the race card, let me suggest you place the card back in the deck, put the deck between your cheeks and stick them where the sun don’t shine.

      Demanding that someone’s politics be tribal in nature is exactly what you’d expect a political party to do when their ideas don’t work. The truth doesn’t have a racial affiliation. Good ideas are good ideas for everyone, not just for certain groups. The left is just plain rancid.

I thought that this was a good ad the times that I’ve seen it, but with Capehart’s interpretation…I love it.

“…it gives people permission to not vote for Obama.”

Hallelujah! For those who need that permission…you now have it. Got Relief?

Nothing is more illiberal than Leftism. Leftists fear and loathe independence of thought and action, the very things a true liberal should respect and protect. They’d rather people vote from fear and groupthink than from an autonomous, liberated mind. What makes this grotesque turn of events (i.e., the mutation of liberalism into leftism ) so pathetic and ironic is that these anti-mind Leftists, like Capehart and scores of others now widely and deeply embedded in positions of cultural authority, are all products of American “liberal” higher education.

    Liberalism didn’t morph into Leftism, leftists literally STOLE the term Liberal decades ago.

    The liberals of yesterday now go by a new moniker: libertarian. Same ideas, new name, all because the name that used to describe us most directly was stolen, tarnished, and converted into an antonym for what we believe.

    This is what the left does. They can’t sell their malignant nonsense honestly, so they look for a term that means something good, and that has good brand equity and begin using it as a label for their own evil crap. This works for a time, but eventually people catch on and the leftists begin looking for a new term to steal. They’ve actually begin trying to do this with the term libertarian. They have taken to using a new phrase: libertarian socialism, which is as perfect an example of an oxymoron as I’ve ever seen. Makes about as much sense as saying someone is a Nazi Rabbi.

    This is also why descriptive terms for what the left is and what they believe are so hard to pin down. In truth they are Marxist Fascists, but if you call them they they equivocate and say that they are something else. Entire dictionaries of words have been invented by them to hide behind: Socialist, progressive, liberal, etc, etc, etc.

    I have one word for them: EVIL.

“It give those few, yet crucial, undecided voters the pass they might be looking for to vote against Obama.”

Shouldn’t that be “voters might decide to not give a pass to Obama based on the color of his skin?”

Imagine that, holding a black democrat to the same standard you hold a white Republican to.

Back in 2008 I made my preferences known in the form that even a decrepit old US Senator had more managerial experience than did a community organizer.

I lost my bet that time but this time a proven experienced manager is running against the community organizer.

The choice is simple…

I like the ad.

The real danger that worries the left is trying to stop a “preference cascade” where the mushy well-off independents and the black community don’t bolt from the Obama coalition. If it’s socially acceptable to say Obama is a SCOMF in public, and if Obama becomes the butt of jokes instead of the epitome of “cool”, then it’s game over for Obama’s re-election chances.

Glenn Reynolds identified this effect back in 2004 relative to the rapid collapse of totalitarian states, but John Hayward and “Da Tech Guy” ( have really picked up on this effect recently as Obama’s independent and black polling numbers are falling off dramatically.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to RDA. | July 26, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    “If it’s socially acceptable to say Obama is a SCOMF in public, and if Obama becomes the butt of jokes instead of the epitome of “cool”, then it’s game over for Obama’s re-election chances.”

    Well, the Russian lady who cut my husband’s hair not long ago stated in her strong accent, “Obama is NOT GOOD for this country!”, and I don’t think she ever received any repercussions for it. This is Texas, after all: if there is a state in the Union that wants to throw The One out to sea with the sharks, this is it.

    As for being the “butt of jokes”, this is one that has to be treated very carefully. A few people have tried in a few places, and guess what happened. Some guy was selling The One’s punching bags at a fair or something, and there were screams of bloody murder as a result.

    There needs to be someone out there who can deliver the comedy atom bomb, race-free.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to theduchessofkitty. | July 26, 2012 at 4:11 pm

      My friend Sam, a rice farmer out northeast of Houston, is one of the growing number of black conservatives who are coming out against the president. To blacks who deride him for not voting for “one of us,” he says that voting for someone because of their race is as bad as voting against someone for the same reason.

        More than 90% of black votes went to the One because he was black. But that’s not deemed racist because, well, black people are the actors, and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party then any anti-social act done by the favored constituencies cannot ipso facto be racist, sexist, homophobic, blah, blah, blah.

        OTOH if a non-black voter casts a vote for someone else because he/she won’t vote for a black candidate, then that’s clear racism.

        Someday all of this is gonna come to a head. It won’t be pretty.

      If leftists are screaming bloody murder then that is a good thing.

      Seriously though, when the enemy is wailing in agony, that’s usually a pretty good indication that you’re hurting them.

      If you’re not catching flack, you’re not over the target. If you are catching flack….bombs away!

I tell friends that it isn’t about race as there are at least a half-dozen people I know who are darker than Obama who I woudl vote as President in a heartbeat. Plus a few I know personally.

What it is about is Party. It’ll be a loooong time before I take another Democrat seriously. THAT will be the legacy left by Obama and his sycophant supporters.

    Jenny in reply to K. | July 26, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    I have voted in every election since the early 70’s and have voted for both democrats and republicans. I have vowed to NEVER vote for another Democrat for as long as I live, and I expect to be around for quite a few more elections.

    Imagine if Thomas Sowell were president….. He may not know much about foreign policy (or maybe he does), but in terms of economic policy I can’t think of anyone better.

Doing so was and will remain one of our nation’s crowning achievements.

I’ve never really tallied our nation’s crowning achievements, but running through a quick mental list I guess it would start something like this: Declaration of Independence, Constitution, significant role in stopping Nazi-ism, bringing the USSR to her knees, putting men on the moon, significant roles in the eradication of a number of deadly diseases around the world… That’s just a start off the top of my head. I’m not sure how long I’d have to make the list before I reached “elect a president based almost entirely on the color of his skin.”

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to AndyN. | July 26, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    The Great Society
    New Coke
    designated hitter
    professional soccer

    Sorry, I got carried away! 🙄

    Add this to the list:

    In collaboration with Britain, we helped to eradicate slavery throughout the world.

    But yeah, sending someone to the White House just because he’s black isn’t an accomplishment, its an embarrassment. If nothing else, the Obama presidency will stand as a firm argument against the validity of Affirmative Action. When standards are lowered, sub-standard people get hired into positions they aren’t qualified for.

A little while ago I told my daughter basically the same thing as this ad i.e. you gave Barack Obama a chance and it hasn’t worked out so don’t vote for him this time.

LMAO. There’s an ad at the top of the page sponsored by Democrat Christy Vilsack (I think) promoting Republican Rep. Steve King’s opponent in the Iowa 4th District race.

I considered letting Christy know that she was drilling a dry hole advertising here, of all places, but thought better of it. The prof needs the revenue, I’m sure.

You know, I don’t see “fear” in what Capehart wrote at all. It’s almost as though he’s advocating what you perceive him as “fearing”. Far from being a warning, I actually found his argument very compelling.

casualobserver | July 26, 2012 at 2:54 pm

From the excerpts it seems this “journalist” lacks a decent sense of reasoning, like so many who are political rather than analytical. If you decide/accept there is a racist motive to NOT vote for him again, you must accept it can be equally racist to VOTE for him due to skin color – in other words to negative of his conclusion – to NOT NOT vote for Obama is equally bad. Of course, only progressives find a way to apply race to every circumstance in politics. It is not feasible to many that people can make a decision, pro or con, independent of race.

To true progressives, we are all categorized by gender, race, wealth, sexuality, etc.

I think people are sick and tired of false “racist” accusations. Most won’t be swayed to vote for or against anyone or anything based on it, at least not now.

Same with the “homophobe” label. I am off to a Chick-fil-a, which is out of the way from my home, to make a point about such fascist tactics.

    Catherine in reply to Mutnodjmet. | July 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    August 1, 2012 is support Chick-Fil-A day. To participate go to Chick-Fil-A that day or support them online via social media etc.

Henry Hawkins | July 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm

So, Obama is losing the shield of his race, which has now become…. Hypokryptonite.

God forbid we measure a presidential candidate on his record, policies, and character.

[…]  disgusting column in the Washington Post yesterday because Prof. Jacobson has done such a thoroughly effective demolition of it on his terrific blog, Legal Insurrection. But since Capehart, like his idol Obama, has a nice […]

Funny, I was just complaining about the whimpiness of this ad to my wife, last night. Then I said, “It must be aimed at a group of swing voters I don’t understand, who feel guilty about voting against him.” Mystery solved! I’m glad the Republicans have people smarter than I, to figure these things out!

TrooperJohnSmith | July 26, 2012 at 3:52 pm

And the most effective message is: “It’s OK to make a change” — and not be thought of as a racist.

Oh no! We might… actually… Start judging a person, “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”? What a fantastic concept.

I stopped caring – a long, long time ago – about whether or not the Left thinks I’m racist.

The above comments are some of the best, most thoughtful I’ve read concerning a LI blog post.

So if somebody voted for Obama back in 2008 and votes against him in 2012 people will think he suddenly because racist?

Thank heaven for the secret ballot.

I think Capehart is an idiot. Oh-oh — is he black? Let me check … yup. Holy crap, I guess I’m a bigot.

Unless Obama is looking over your shoulder in the voting booth what’s the problem. We’ve already had 3 plus years of being called racist for everything under the sun. You don’t like his shoes…racist!!!! Does anyone still give a rats a$$ what the liberal press or liberal Democrats say about anything. If (when) Obama loses and we’re called racist we can breathe a sigh of relief knowing we did the right thing.

Capehart doesn’t even realize he is a racist. He thinks it is some sort of accomplishment that people were suckered into voting for someone based on their race and that such a thing should still be looked upon as a great achievement.

It is this sort of casualness about taking extremely loathsome and vile positions that makes people hold the press in such contempt. No decent person would even be caught hanging around these guys.

Henry Hawkins | July 26, 2012 at 7:16 pm

I’m still hoping the liberal media, once they see the handwriting on the wall for Obama’s increasingly possible November failure, will begin the attempt to reestablish their credibility by finally vetting Obama (at the moment it no longer matters, of course).

If Obama goes down, liberalism is effectively dead for 10-15 years, until they make up new euphemisms and new camoflaged rhetoric.

    The latest new euphemism is “libertarian socialism”

    I shit you not.

    The Marxists have actually begun trying to steal the term Libertarian just as they stole the term Liberal 50-odd years ago.

    This is the standard procedure for them. They can’t sell their noxious crap honestly, so they try to misappropriate a term that describes something good and sell their nonsense under its banner. This works at first, but eventually people catch on and they go off to find a new term to steal. They never actually figure out that their own ideas are bad.

Most of the accusations of racism directed at Republicans or Independents who criticize Obama is really not meant for them at all. It is really aimed at keeping Black people and other people of color on the Democrat plantation. It is vitally important that the Democrats keep stoking the flames of racism in order to keep the mentality of victimhood alive. They need that 90% plus black vote in order to survive as a viable party.
Black people live predominantly in the big cities and winning the big cities carries the big states and that gives Democrats a chance of victory even with a weak candidate.
Madison Avenue people are mainly allied with the Left and they are the experts at shaping opinions. It is they who have advised the Democrats how to keep their Black base strong.
If you doubt their power to shape opinions ask yourself why the Republicans are thought to be the Party of the Rich when more really wealthy people vote for and support the Democrat Party than the Republicans.
Could it possibly be that some of what you thought was true is actually not? I’ll ask you again, which is the Party of the rich?
What else have you been fed?

    Exactly! It’s all about stopping the “preference cascade”. I’m seeing it in the workplace a lot more now. It’s okay to objectively assess Obama’s performance these days, and his performance reviews have been *BRUTAL*.

    Actually black folks live predominantly in the rural south:

    Everyone believes that black folks live in slums in the inner cities because that is the lie that is not challenged. All the black folks on TV live in the ghetto, but that is not where most black folks live in the real world.

    As for how they’ll vote, they’ll go for Obama by 90% or more this November. He won’t get as many votes as he did in 2008 since he well and truly sucks, but blind tribalism will still get the support of the majority of blacks, though it will be interesting to see how many simply stay home.

Capehart is correct that this is the most dangerous thing for Obama to have any chance at reelection. The undecided voter will probably go against the incumbent. He’s just looking for an excuse to vote against him. Obama knows that. All of his ads are designed to give people a permission not to vote for Romney. Obama loses big in November.

[…] WaPo columnist fears voters will think it’s okay to vote against Obama “and not be thoug… ( Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

“Sticks and stones…”, “Racist” is just a word, now. It is no longer a magical spell. The spell has been broken.

I think that it is interesting (to say the least) to be w white guy in Texas whose ancestors all arrived in the US AFTER the Civil War.

“How many slaves did your ancestors own?”
“None. They weren’t over here then, and where they were outlawed slavery in the 1200s.”

    No one alive today was a victim of legalized slavery in the United States. No one alive today was a perpetrator of legalized slavery in the United States.

    If it were not for history books and other sources of historical record, no one alive today would even know that slavery had ever existed. Thing about that for a moment. No one alive has any experience whatsoever with slavery. Their knowledge of it comes from the same source as my knowledge of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.

    Yet some people go around and try to claim that they are somehow victims of this dead institution, or that others in the here and now are somehow culpable for it having existed in the distant past. They attempt to call back into the past and bring to the present an injustice that has not existed in this nation for almost 150 years.

    How full of this is that?

    They do this because they have nothing legitimate to say. They have created a culture of victimhood, a nation of professional martyrs in search of someone they can pretend is oppressing them.

    The question of how many of your ancestors owned slaves is itself invalid. Even if they were the biggest slave owners in the ante-bellum south, they are long dead and you are not responsible for their choices. There is no such thing as blood-guilt.

The great thing about the secret ballot is that it doesn’t matter whether a bunch of Marxist asshats would call me names based upon my vote. I don’t have to endure their abuse and gratuitous accusations of “racism” because they don’t get to see how I vote.

[…] a comment This is a bit scary. Not new, but scary that they’re actually prepared to put it in print. The danger, according […]

[…] other words, as William Jacobson puts it, What keeps some voters in line for Obama — fear of falsely being accused of racism — […]