From “Ni**er” to “States Rights”: The Use of Racially Coded Words in Politics

From Peanut Politics:

I’ve been holding back from talking about this issue for sometime, but now is the time to talk about it. I compile a list of code words I’ve heard politicians utilize to speak about race issues without coming off as bigoted:

White

Average Joe
Joe six-pack
Moral voters
Independent voter
Evangelical voter
Hockey Mom
Soccer Mom
The southern vote
blue collar workers

Black

Welfare recipient
Poor people
Inner-city
Affirmative action supporter

These are just a handful of examples of how our media and politicians (not to mention everyday people) use racialized language to refer to groups of Americans without sounding like they are mentioning anything overtly bigoted. They can use these words and say “the southern vote looks high for…….John Doe” without saying that most southern whites will vote for John Doe. They can say “I don’t support just handing out welfare to recipients while hard working Americans bust their asses” without saying “I think blacks are lazy and whites are industrious”.

Going all the way back to the 1920s, racially coded language have been used by politicians to describe certain groups of people in hoping to appeal to a much greater audience in winning a race for Governor, President of the United States, Senator, even Mayor & County Commission. Sadly this kind of tactic has worked & it shows no sign of going away.

I hear so much talk about how much better we are in terms of racism in our country. Yes, we’ve gotten rid of terms such as ‘nigger’, ‘spic’, ‘gook’ from our daily vocabulary, but have we done much in the way of conditioned messages? I don’t think so, and many seem intent on keeping things this way by claiming racism is” over”, “that stuff ended long ago”, “get past it”, etcetera.

It’s funny how ready most liberal whites were to vote for Obama in the name of change and hope, and not to mention the fact that he’s black and how this would “end racism” or something like that. However, three years later, when the country is back to debating issues and race becomes an inevitable facet of the discussion.

Other racial code words include terms like “states’ rights,” “crime in the streets,” and “welfare queens, quotas, reverse racism are uninitiated, racial code words are words politicians (usually Republicans) are accused of using to supposedly help them win votes by raising whites’ fears of minorities.

At his now infamous presidential kick-off campaign rally at Neshoba County (Philadelphia), Mississippi in 1980, held virtually a stone throw from where the three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, Ronald Reagan shouted to a lily white crowd that “I believe in states’ rights.” He laced his campaign speech with stock racial code words and phrases, blasting welfare, big government, federal intrusion in state affairs, and rampant federal spending. He used the term Welfare Queens to justify cutting back social programs. Only being removed from the civil rights era 10 years earlier, that kind of “wink, wink” approach was gobbled up by those who was duped & conned by the Southern Strategy of 1968, which was, above all else, about winning the rural, white Southern vote into the Republican sphere because the Democratic Party falling apart because of its inability to contain the contradictions of being both the formal party of civil rights in the North and the party of Jim Crow in the South.

Other words like “Uppity” which Congressman Lynn Westmoreland called president Obama one time late in the 2008 campaign & GOP congressional candidate Rick Goddard criticized an MSNBC reporter’s sharp questioning of former House speaker Newt Gingrich at the Republican National Convention. Goddard called the African-American reporter, Ron Allen, “uppity“

When the current President is called a criminal, a welfare cheat, they’re using new terms to get the point across: he’s Black, he’s urban, and he’s out of step with the rest of us. Plain & simple.

When Newt Gingrich said at the Ga GOP State Convention over the weekend that Obama was a Food Stamp president, now lets be real hear, anytime the words food stamps are mentioned, black people comes to mind, as well as hispanics. That is racially coded my friend.

Sometimes they don’t have to be racially coded. Here are a few code words the Democrats think Republicans use, along with the “real” meanings Democrats believe.

State’s rights.” That really means legalized racial discrimination.

Family values.” That really stands for legalized gender discrimination.

Junk lawsuits.” That is any lawsuit by an individual that demands a corporation be held accountable for their misdeeds.

Tort reform.” That is taking away a victim’s right to sue criminal corporations and putting rich people above the law.

Socialist: communist, liberal, progressive, community organizer.”

All these words actually are Republican code for “black.”“We share your values.” That means we are bigots like you.

The Republicans have some code words they attach to the Democrats as well.

In their heads, if a republican hear a Democrat utter the following words, you have to understand the real meaning behind them.

Invest.” That means spend.“

Stimulus. That is spending devoted to liberal causes.

Racism.”Well, I can’t win this argument with you, so this is all I’ve got!

Fiscal responsibility: You don’t pay enough taxes.

Comprehensive immigration reform.” Amnesty.

Republicans are the party of fear” They want to take your Medicare, your Social Security and free school lunches for poor kids.“

Freedom of religion. For everybody but traditional Christians

I can on on & on in talking about this subject, but one thing’s for sure, the use of racially coded words to appeal to certain demographics & voting blocs are harmful to the political process. But sadly politicians (most of the time republicans) use this to their advantage & it works.

119 comments

  1. Bucky Plyler says:

    “I can on on & on in talking about this subject, but one thing’s for sure, the use of racially coded words to appeal to certain demographics & voting blocs are harmful to the political process. But sadly politicians (most of the time republicans) use this to their advantage & it works.”

    Keith, I’ve found that most people hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. Actions always speak louder than words.

  2. Three Jack says:

    thanks keith. this column solidifies my concern that too many people try and play thought police.

    the most recent example is one you reference where newt labeled obama the ‘food stamp president’. he went on to explain that 47m people now receive food stamps (he didn’t break it down by race, but i recall whites being the higher percentage), highest in our history. he also said he would be the ‘paycheck president’ which utilizing your thought police skills would mean he is reaching out to caucasians because we all know whites work for paychecks, blacks wait for handouts. you and david gregory think alike.

    some of us just want to see every person in america given an opportunity to pursue excellence no matter skin color. in fact, i believe that i am in the majority in supporting this basic principle. those who try to find racism in every comment are more likely to be guilty of the very same.

  3. Calypso says:

    I see Keith opened up his latest bottle of “Holier than Thou” this morning, but I think he musta spilled a little dumbass in there with it.

    Neither fragrance becomes you, Keith.

  4. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Keith,

    Well, many people on Peach Pundit all of a sudden hate you for exposing their symbolic racist tendencies. I think you did a pretty good job putting this together.

    • terryk88a says:

      Let’s check ip addresses for keith and Goldwater Conservative – may be that they’re posting from the Southern Poverty Law Center. (Yes, I’m really PO’ed.)

      • Goldwater Conservative says:

        Why? Because you are a symbolic racist and do not like having that brought up?

        Why is it that the Southern Poverty Law Center is the first group that comes to your mind when you think about this issue?

        • terryk88a says:

          heh heh. You’re funny – because you’re a symbolic conservative, GC.

          Suggested SPLC, buddy, because trolling a conservative website is something that I think a notorious organization like ACORN would do, but ACORN’s not really around anymore.

          So, SPLC is just like a sister in spirit, if not in dollars, to ACORN.

          • Rick Day says:

            Yeah because there is NO way the OP has a valid point. /eyeroll

            Goofus. *throws shoe* sit down Terryk before you break something.

          • Ambernappe says:

            Prove it ! ACORN received several billon dollars in the TARP (?) I could be wrong.

    • Calypso says:

      GC, while I believe you give most your replies consideration, and I do agree with some of what you write, you are way off base proclaiming I have “symbolic racist tendencies”. And I don’t ‘hate’ Keith, he is just wrong.

      You don’t know the first damn thing about me. Just because I tell Keith he is full of hot air for his article, does not give you a reason to call me a racist. What I, and the others of like mind have said, does not even give you substance to make that claim.

      • Toxic Avenger says:

        I don’t know Calypso’s affiliation, but I’m a liberal democrat and I agree with him/her. This article is full of hot air, misinformed on both sides, and is frankly just offensive.

        • Rick Day says:

          OH MY GODS SOMEONE IS OFFENDED ON THE INTERNETS!

          Why are you offended? And it’s not an article, it a blog entry of one person’s opinion.

        • Skeptical says:

          Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          I am a flaming liberal Democrat who normally takes whatever Keith says with a grain of salt because its usually the same old worn out song of’ everything that is wrong with the party is Atlanta’s fault and the liberal Democrats are all trying to exterminate rural, conservative Dems’ blah blah blah, but I have to say that this article appears to be pretty spot on. Some people just don’t like being forced to take a look at themselves.

  5. terryk88a says:

    Gee, when I hear terms like “welfare recipient” and “food stamps” I think of my distant (white) cousins, who live in trailers down there in peanut country. “Uppity” has only ever applied to people putting on airs; for the most part you should envision Napoleon Bonaparte’s courtiers, or little girls ruling over their little clique and abusing all the little kids twho don’t wear the right clothes. And yeah – I know a lot of black moms who are gonna be pissed that you think their children can’t play soccer or lacrosse.

    You should’ve kept on “holding back” cuz, because you’ve just gone and shown the world how ignorant and prejudiced *you* are.

    Or maybe, just maybe, this is somehow a warm-up act for attacking Herman Cain when he wins the party nomination in 2012. Now run along back to the Daily Kos – that rock you crawled out from under. You troll.

  6. Lea Thrace says:

    Did everyone miss the part where Keith lambasted BOTH sides of the aisle in their decidedly charged rhetoric?

    Cause as much as I hate to admit it, he is absolutely correct. I tend to think that those who are so vehemently opposed to any discussion of race, particularly when the discussion involves calling ANYONE out for their bad behavior, are very afraid of seeing shades of the behavior in themselves.

    I can admit that I have (IN THE PAST) used some of these words/phrases and have intended for them to mean the definitions that Keith posted. My encounters with people from the very ideologies or environments that I was denigrating have changed the way I use words.

    I can admit my flaws. Can some of you?

    • Calypso says:

      Lea, I suggest you go back and re-read his post. He is most assuredly NOT painting both sides with the same brush.

      He says, “The Republicans have some code words they attach to the Democrats as well. In their heads, if a republican hear a Democrat utter the following words, you have to understand the real meaning behind them.”

      Re-read those first three sentences “IN THEIR HEADS” He is telling us what Republicans hear in their own heads when those words are spoken by Democrats and listened to by Republicans.

      Remember, in some folks’ minds, only white, conservative Republicans can be racist. Keith seems to be one of those ‘folks’.

      • Goldwater Conservative says:

        In defense of Keith and Lea, Calypso, the left has a very low tolerance for intolerance.

        There are still people left in the Democratic party that are bigots to some extent…like conservatives the remaining elements of bigotry in the democratic party are stuck in a different century.

        • Calypso says:

          GC you say, “the left has a very low tolerance for intolerance” I find your claim incredulous in one major situation.

          Has the ‘left’ ever encountered a conservative, Republican Black person they have not labeled one of the following: Uncle Tom, Oreo, House Slave? I find that very intolerant.

          • Toxic Avenger says:

            Yeah, I have. I know black conservatives and I respect their opinions, though statistically they are a minority in their minority group. So no, you’re just being as bigoted if you assume Democrats see a black Republican as a “white man wannabe.”

          • Goldwater Conservative says:

            Name them. I have never done such a thing, and I have yet to see a statement from a Democratic politician stating such a thing either. There may be a few journalists…but they do not speak for those of a political leaning that is left of right.

            • drjay says:

              not to be nitpicky, but billy mckinney called gary franks an uncle tom and tried to beat him up on the capital steps also, google clarence thomas and uncle, or alan west and uncle tom and see if you have a hard time tracking those references down or not…

    • terryk88a says:

      Keith’s abuse of the left was just a lick and a promise.

      And I have emphatically NOT used some of these words/phrases. Don’t call out your own character defects onto others, Lea. Now let me ask (assuming you’re white) can you criticize black people? Some people feel too guilty to.

      Evil people are evil, whatever the color of their skin. You know… Judge them by the content of their character.

      Let me explain my anger – my parents did not move away with the rest of the “white flighters” in the 60s. You wouldn’t believe the abuse I earned from a tiny handful of evil people when I was growing up “working class” white in a black neighborhood.

      I learned first hand that no kind of prejudice is moral. I earned the privilege to resist keith’s and your sanctimonious / “uppity” accusations. I reserve the right to step up and defend others. Don’t be brainwashed. Rinse.

      • Lea Thrace says:

        Terry,

        I have not called you out for anything. I have accused YOU of nothing. If you see some of yourself in what I said, then that’s completely your doing.

        Do not assume that I am white. Because I am not.

        Nowhere in my post did I call anyone evil. NOWHERE. Neither did Keith. I think some people are prejudiced, have discriminatory behavior, and some are just darn right racist. The point of my post is that people just start taking an honest look at what the words they use mean and the effect they can have on our society.

        • Goldwater Conservative says:

          Lea,

          You are asking too much of people. “Effective meaning” is something these people do not even understand when it comes to taxation…let alone a more abstract concept like racism.

          • terryk88a says:

            How many beatings have you had because your skin was the wrong color? None, I’d wager. Me? too many to count. I know abstract and baseball bat racism, jerk.

            • Lea Thrace says:

              Guess what Terry. I’ve been spit on because of my skin color. At the mere age of 10 years old. Spit on and called an ugly racial word. Just because of what I look like. And that has not been the only incident. I have experienced first hand racism as recently a few months ago.

              You do not hold the market on outrage. And putting down others does not make your point. Only muddies your views further. You’re the one being a jerk!

              • terryk88a says:

                My heart bleeds for you. Seriously, not sarcastically.

                But I’m still deeply offended by keith’s post, and GC’s responses for their intrinsic racism. It’s not OK to judge any person or group of people that way. No matter what. PERIOD.

                • Goldwater Conservative says:

                  I do not judge people by the ethnicity or religion. Only by their comments and actions.

                  I quit one of the most promising jobs I ever had because my candidate was a flagrant racist: Barry Goldwater.

                  I am an elitist and do talk down to people…like conservatives that call the President a socialist, or liberals that called Bush a Nazi. When you are ignorant and can help it, but don’t…you are fair game for me to talk down to.

                  Terry, I am sorry that you had to deal with beatings from conservatives that wanted to maintain a market and local government instituted social structure in which only whites were politically empowered. You can not deny, however off base Keith’s post is, that elite pundits do use race-baited phrases that are targeted at a level of disdain for those that do not share the exact same culture and/or values and these comments, by and large, come from the conservative punditry. I am not a “natural born” citizen of this country, but being a naturalized citizen I do have some incites that are different from others, namely that my “road to citizenship” was much easier simply because I am white and from England rather than from a country populated by people that are too tan (ie Southern Europe, Africa and South America). That was almost 60 years ago now, maybe things have changed.

                  Just watch the Jon Stewart vs Bill O’Reilly bit from a few days ago when they debated the presence of Common at the White House poetry recital. There still are double standards and, as imprecise as language tends to be, it is very obvious that O’Reilly’s only problem with Common is that he is a black rapper rather than a white rock-star.

                  • terryk88a says:

                    GC, I appreciate your taking time to write a more reasoned comment than some earlier. And, I was quite the sucker for taking your flame-bait.

                    I do want to clarify for you that my beatings were hardly at the hands of conservatives by any stretch. Just people. Bad people. Nothing conservative or liberal about it. Think gangs. Who didn’t like white people. Really, really, really didn’t like white people.

                    I’m not denying that there are politicians who use code words.

                    I am denying that there is a preponderance of Republicans doing it – my youthful experience in the 1960s in Georgia was that it was a Democrat thing. I’m still astounded by what Lester Maddox and Herman Talmadge did. We were a Democrat household, and we despised what they did, but they were the party of Roosevelt! I’m now ashamed that all we did was be ashamed of their “antics”.

                    I am pointing my finger back at keith. He imputes racism in every republican politician who breathes, and by extension, every conservative voter.

                    Let me suggest that you strive to stop being elitist. Stop assuming the right to talk down to people. I believe that you do yourself a disservice. And let me suggest that you ask yourself why Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.

                    • Goldwater Conservative says:

                      terry,

                      I meant conservatives in a more narrow way that I thought probably came through clearly enough above. Perhaps not.

                      I am very aware of what the Democratic party of the South was doing in the 60s. In ’64 I was more disgusted than ever with the Democratic party and its failure to seat the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party at the National Convention.

                      You make a solid point that Keith seems to express, in his opinion above, an idea that all GOPers are like racists, either overtly or symbolically. They definitely are not.

                      The 60s were a tumultuous time and a large block of African-American voters identified with the GOP at that time. That quickly began to change when, thankfully, both parties, with regional exceptions, began acting and legislating for civil rights. Then 1964 happened.

                      In a sense, politics are local…though this has been changing quite a bit since the mid 90s. I am a liberal Democrat in GA, I am a Centrist in VT, I was a GOPer in Maine until a few years ago. It goes on.

                      I appreciate your suggestion on elitism. It probably will not happen though. I am a meritocrat above all else and meritocracy and elitism tend to go hand in hand in the United States. I will say I do not talk down to all people, I discriminate on a case by case basis.

  7. Toxic Avenger says:

    Are there code words Republicans use for “black people?” Yes, of course. I doubt it’s always intentionally racist, but it sure as hell can come off that way. “Uppity” is a very racist word, used against black people, but “independent voter,” “poor people,” “welfare recipient,” and others don’t conjure any particular race for me. I think the real issue isn’t rampant racism towards black voters, but rather general ignorance towards them. The GOP knows that their appeal is not the black vote, so they don’t care. And, yes, occasionally a GOPer says something racist as hell, but it’s usually far less coded.

    As for Keith’s last disjointed part where he “point out Democratic flaws” I take extremely serious issue and offense (just as I would presume conservatives would to the first part). It’s offensive to me that “freedom of religion” to Keith means “except for ‘traditional Christians.'” Frankly that’s a misinformed and stupid remark in and of itself. I’m not even going to delve into the rest of them because I think the point is made. This post is wrong at best and offensive at worst.

    • Goldwater Conservative says:

      You are correct about the “freedom of religion,” bit. It should have probably read: “only for traditional christians” to stay in the same vein as Keith does above. After all, what group of people protested the proposition of an Islamic Center in Manhattan?

      • KD_fiscal conservative says:

        Very true. The Keiths of America want nothing to do with “freedom of religion” they just like getting worked up any time their religion is taken out of the Government context.

    • Rick Day says:

      there is NOTHING wrong with expressing an opinion. Especially an accurate one.

      Cognitive Dissonance: you HAS a BAD case, son!

      But you will never see your blind spots. Few of mild intelligence seldom do.

      Stop being offended and go help a brother out today.

    • Toxic Avenger says:

      Again, not really. I’m a progressive, but I’m an unabashed capitalist. They have nothing to do with one another.

    • Goldwater Conservative says:

      No. You are wrong and you are wrong because you are ignorant.

      You can not define socialism or communism…or even capitalism for that matter. Get educated and maybe then you can have grown up conversations.

      • Toxic Avenger says:

        I think 98% of Republicans have no idea that communism and socialism are economic systems.

          • Toxic Avenger says:

            Let me make this political, because this inane discussion of race tires me:

            I’m a progressive. Wikipedia, what sayeth you?

            Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.

            Thanks Wikipedia. Now can you tell me what capitalism is?

            Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit

            Sweet. So, like, these two things can occur at the same time, then? Great.

            Now get over yourselves.

        • rightofcenter says:

          Methinks you underestimate your average Republican (which is hard to do, by the way). However, while communism and socialism may be economic systems, “communist” and “socialist” are adjectives used to describe political parties and political philosophies. So while it is inaccurate to equate the two with progressive, it is not inaccurate to note that they share certain similarities.

          • Goldwater Conservative says:

            Those that advocate communism are communists, just like those that advocate socialism are socialists. Neither constitutes a political philosophy or an ideology…they, at the most basic level, are advocacy labels. Progressives are inherently liberal and the two aforementioned economic systems and their accompanying advocacy groups are illiberal.

            Do they share similarities? In a way…socialism is Communism’s second step, but that does not mean that socialism is communism-lite. Liberalism’s biggest critique is that it ignores the role of society in the upbringing and development of the individual. This is a legitimate criticism as none of us are born and raised in a vacuum. We are raised by families and family friends, we are educated by teachers in classes with other students, we go to work at companies and have coworkers. Furthermore, liberalism assumes a great deal of harmony in social, political, and economic interaction. Marx only became famous for being the first to effectively point these things out and recognize, in his theories, that conflict is more or less omnipresent in power structures. His first cracks at articulating these ideas into the political economy gave birth to Marxism and eventually socialism. Unbeknownst to most, he was not really a communist and was really only attempting to overthrow a landed and “permanent” aristocracy and establish institutions that resembled democracy, a labor-based democracy, rather than the capitalist-aristocracy (and capitalist republics always end up as aristocracies).

            The average republican, depending on what you mean, does not care about right-wing rhetoric. Right-wing republicans are concerned about the specter of socialism and communism, but know not what they are. They are just afraid and have no reason why they are…it is irrational. Moderate republicans to those than merely lean republicans could care less and know that pundits are just trying to take advantage of impressionable and ignorant far-right wingers when they use that words “socialism” and “communism.”

            • rightofcenter says:

              Ah, but are todays’ progressives liberal in the “classic liberal” sense? When they cross over into advocating “statism”, which they so frequently do, the answer is no.

              • Goldwater Conservative says:

                Nobody is classically liberal anymore. Some rhetoric used by both sides leans that way, but that is merely nostalgic appeals made for campaign purposes.

                Nobody is advocating statism. That is one of those words that it thrown around far too loosely. Furthermore, statism is one of those concepts that is not really all that developed as a concept. This happens a lot when political theory meets the masses. The Prince using his powers to keep the population subordinate and happy enough to not revolt is statism. The term does not really apply to democratic forms of government all that well, because “we the people” are the sovereigns and, logically, state intervention in such forms of government is merely the intervention of “the people.” “The people” acting in such a way as to prevent suffering from, or not being compensated for, market externalities is not statism. This form of regulation is something of a principle component of modern progressivism. A more proper way to think about the progressive-conservative dichotomy, outside of valuing equality and order differently, is how they view the obstacles a population, or the aggregation of individuals, face. Progressives, unlike conservatives, recognize, whether factual or not (I believe it is factual and the evidence is on my side), that other people in their private lives are able to deny liberty, amongst other things, to those around them and when this phenomenon occurs the government should step in if “the people” decide it would like them to. This is a concept that conservatives have yet to grapple with. That and many self described progressives are just @ssholes trying to get on television…and we all know the media has no interest in interviewing reasonable people.

                The only example of democratic statism that comes to mind at 11:15pm on a Tuesday night would be Prohibition. I do not know what your media consumption habits are, but I know nearly everyone that listens to Beck has been duped into equating modern progressivism with idea the “Progressives” that became extinct in the 20s. The Progressives of the Temperance movement in no way resemble modern progressives.

                • rightofcenter says:

                  Don’t (and never have) watched or read Beck (for more than channel surfing). I think your point would be valid if the government really was “we the people”, but I think that is theoretical and not what actually exists today.

          • Goldwater Conservative says:

            Also, and I should have said this from the get go, being a member of the Communist party does not make you a communist. By their very nature, all politicians are capitalists and see membership in a popular party as a means to power.

            Arguably, Wen Jiabao is the epitome of capitalism.

        • “Economic systems” that have a huge impact on politics. Care to name a communist country that allows real, free elections with opposition parties able to fully participate?

          Only individual property rights prevents the enslavement of individuals.

  8. Doug Deal says:

    What a ridiculous post. You should get out and visit the real world a few minutes every year or so, and you would not be preoccupied with this nonsense.

    • Goldwater Conservative says:

      In a sense you are right, this is not the blog to have such a discussion. Politics, however, is part of the real world and whites continue to think programs like affirmative action deal with diversity requirements in private businesses and other types of quota systems like that. Both are complete falsifications and have never applied.

      Bring up the race issue occasionally can be healthy. Post-racialism is something that America has been striving for since the inception of our country. It is a mark that is still far off into the future. By and large, the people complaining the most about this topic are those that are most likely guilty of symbolic racist tendencies (not saying you are).

      • Lea Thrace says:

        I agree with everything you said except your first sentence. (Can’t have it all :-p)

  9. sunkawakan says:

    Newt is an expert at dog-whistle politics. You may have missed it, but he also added a call for return to the Jim Crow-era voter literacy tests. Even far-right Rep. Allen West said that’s too much.

    Of course, Newt’s credit line at Tiffany’s probably says a lot about his “values.”

  10. Look, I’m all for free speech, but actually spelling out the “N-word” in a freaking headline is just b——-t.
    It’s low-class and offensive, even in an academic setting or article about how you’re not supposed to say it.
    “Don’t say that word, Scout. It’s common.” -To Kill a Mockingbird

    Kind of tough to have a worthwhile discussion about loaded language in a post that uses that word. Can we please replace it?

  11. macho says:

    Not sure if the n-word is “racially coded,” I think it get’s the point across like a Mack truck hitting you right between the eyes. I’d be hard-pressed to think of a word that is less “racially coded.”

  12. Charlie says:

    OK, first things first. After a brief internal discussion, we’ve edited the headline.

    Being “PC” on a political blog isn’t usually required, but there are some words that will not appear on our front page, and that is one of them.

    I’m inclined to sit back and watch comments before I weigh in, but I would strongly caution that this is a heated topic and written to provoke strong responses. While some are clearly agitated, I haven’t seen anything in the comments I’ve skimmed thus far that cross any lines.

    With that said, our ongoing rule here is keep it civil, and demonstrate a presumed level of mutal respect. I will show much less hesitation deleting comments here than I did in deciding to edit this headline.

    • you says:

      ok you average joe, independent, state’s rights, southern voter.
      Wow. He was right. You are really white Charlie. 🙂

    • B Balz says:

      So… I made this observation whilst in our Nation’s Capitol going to Chinatown on the Metro. See, that the transit route is called the Yellow Line, which some may recall was a dated slur to our Chinese brethren. Here in the PROGRESSIVE City of Atlanta, that nomenclature, Yellow Line was deemed INappropriate for the Doraville train, after being so-named by MARTA (Prolly using FEDERAL guidelines.)

      To y’all what ain’t frum heah in ‘Lanna, Doraville and the previous stop, Chamblee (Affectionately called Chambodia by durn near everyone, except prolly Asians) are both now bastions of Asian populace. Thus after much kvetching and gnashing of teeth, the Yellow Line was changed to the Gold line. If you happen upon MARTA you will note a little sticker on the map that says: Gold Line, whereas all other lines are printed original on the map graphic.

      I see the lie everyday in PROGRESSIVE Atlanta. Either we whites don’t want to become ‘like Buford Highway’ (Asian/Latino) or we are simply waited on LAST for being white in line. And as to our African American neighbors, well, I would not want to drive at night even today.

      ~Whatever~

      $14.3T. There is clarity in being broke

      End of Report.

  13. KD_fiscal conservative says:

    Very interesting post and thread. I don’t fully agree with Keith or the Conservative reaction, but still thank you, Keith for writing and Charlie for allowing, this controversial topic and stirring up trouble.

  14. sunkawakan says:

    There are those in GA politics that have staked their political futures on the “states rights” platform, so to speak. Imagine, if you will, the obvious courage it took in going up against the federal government over incandescent light bulbs. I’m sure that has led to lucrative speaking engagements at various nullification conferences and John Birch Society meetings.

    • sunkawakan says:

      And of course, the Council of Conservative Citizens – the “white collar Klan” – is aghast that their precious incandescents won’t be available to them. I won’t post the link to their site, but their rhetoric is consistent with those who brought this to the Georgia legislature.

      “States rights” IS coded language.

  15. seenbetrdayz says:

    This looks like a good spot for the story of Joshua Glover, the State of Wisconsin, the Fugitive Slave Act, and the most powerful salvo fired in the “states’ rights” movement that is never taught in schools these days:

    Joshua Glover was a slave in Missouri who managed to escape from his master. In 1854, with the help of the Underground Railroad, he made his way north, all the way to Wisconsin. There he found work at a mill in Racine, a community in which anti-slavery sentiment ran high. Unfortunately for Glover, his former master, B.S. Garland eventually managed to find out where Glover had taken up residence.

    Accompanied by two US Marshals, the three of them took Glover by surprise. In spite of his resistance, Glover was subdued with a club and handcuffed. Thrown into a wagon, he was surreptitiously transported to Milwaukee, where he was thrown in jail. Glover’s abduction was discovered somehow or another, however, and in no time one hundred or so men landed by boat in Milwaukee.

    The men marched towards the courthouse, which was adjacent to the jail, and crowds of people began to join their ranks or follow along as spectators. An abolitionist named Sherman Booth, who published a local daily newspaper there called the “Free Soil Democrat” rallied the supporters of the citizen army shouting:

    “All freemen who are opposed to being made slaves or slave-catchers turn out to a meeting in the courthouse square at 2 o’clock!”

    When the meeting at the courthouse adjourned, those who had assembled eventually resolved that Joshua Glover was entitled to at least two things: A writ of habeas corpus and a trial by jury. A local judge concurred and delivered the writ to the US Marshals at the jail. As might be expected, the federal officers rejected the writ as invalid. After all, federal law trumps state judicial authority, does it not?

    The assembly of citizens from Racine and Milwaukee must have decided that such was not the case in this instance. In fearless defiance, they broke down the doors of the jail and freed Joshua Glover. In an act that probably would have filled Sheriff Mack with joy, had he been there, the Racine County Sheriff arrested Glover’s former slave master and the two US Marshals who had kidnapped him. They were charged with assault and put jail. In the meantime, the Underground Railroad assisted Joshua Glover as he crossed the border into Canada.

    Whole article here:

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/10/the-untold-history-of-nullification/

    • Doug Deal says:

      Now that is courage.

      What the modern day race warlords seem to forget is that it was a minority that supported the institution of slavery. Although ownership was not a pre-requisite for support, even most Southerners were not slave holders (1860 census figures pin that down to 26% of households having at least 1).

      Slavery was/is a horrible thing. All people alive today were slave or serfs of some sort at some point in their history. All cultural groups have also been at odds with another cultural group at some point in their history as well. Conflict and distrust are the default states of human existence, and it takes no effort to continue it. What actually takes work and requires the efforts of good people is ending it.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        What really surprised me in that story was that the county sheriff arrested the U.S. Marshalls for infringing on the rights of Glover. Could you imagine such a thing happening today?

        Today, a lot of local L.E. departments depend on Federal grant money to get all that cool tactical gear. Too many would trade their spines for free money.

        Anyway, I guess that’s getting off topic. The point is that sovereignty and states’ rights could either be used for ‘good’ or ‘evil’. I’d rather not see the Federal government have a monopoly on the power to decide between the two. Meaning, if the federal government does something bad (like, I don’t know, pee all over the 4th Amendment, not-so-hypothetically speaking), I’d like the states to be able to return the B.S. back to sender, rather than just sit back and take it because the legislatures are influenced or intimidated by the folks who keep saying that the 9th and 10th Amendments are racist.

  16. SFCWallace says:

    The entire premise of using “racist code” to talk about Obama is insane. Any racist worth his weight in cotton can tell he’s black just by looking at him. The only reason code words would be needed is if Newt was trying to appeal to the blind racist demographic, but I’m sure most of them have figured out Obama’s black by now too.

    • SFCWallace says:

      You mean the Southern Strategy that is so effective that when an actual black guy ran, he won 3 of the 5 biggest states in the South, even with the secret codes?

      • sunkawakan says:

        When politicians stop using states rights to show what fearless assh**es they are, I’ll listen. These messages excite the worst of the “real” racists and white nationalists, so why use them? Why incite the militias? Jerks did the same thing under Clinton. Talk about states rights and welfare queens enough, bad stuff will happen. Always has.

        • Charlie says:

          Wow, I guess I never realized that the folks legalizing medical marijuana in California and Colorado, or those legalizing gay mariage in Vermont were such racists assh**es.

          Furthermore, I’m having great difficulty determining what an assh**es is. But I’m sure its a code word.

          • sunkawakan says:

            Point taken, Charlie. However, I don’t see Georgia doing anything remotely like CA or VT, do you?

            • sunkawakan says:

              I don’t think states’ rights is necessarily central to those issues, either…

            • I do see Charlie puncturing your argument, though. In fact, the exceptions prove the rule. You can’t take a mental vacation and dump it all under the label of “racism”.

  17. Doug Deal says:

    If you want to guarentee that “race problems” go on forever without end, keep keeping score about every insult, real and (like these) imagined. It is like having an argument with your spouse or love interest and every time you meet up, you try to read something into every insignifcant action, every sideways glance and every word with a little to much inflection. At that point, the relationship is over.

    It has been 46 years since the last “Jim Crow” law was enacted. The voters who voted in those politicans who pushed those laws are all in there late sixties or older and the policians who themselves are all long dead.

    When does it end? How does it end? It doesn’t. It doesn’t because race warlords use it as a means to either stay in power or earn a good living appealing to the hate in those who haven’t figured out that they are beign ripped off.

    Everyone has some gripe with history, some more than others, some more recent than others. But if you biggest complaint is ascribing more to the meaning of the words people use than they intend, you really need to get some perspective.

    How about this for a refreshing change of pace: Instead of picking at scabs of trouble times, how about figuring out how to make things better for the future, including your own kids. Continuing racial conflicts for yet another generation is not how you do that.

    • sunkawakan says:

      I guess it’ll end when I never have to hear politicians pontificate about states rights for no good reason. I’m willing to cede that the Affordable Care Act is fair game, but there are far too many politicians in Georgia who want to cite states rights in far too much of their legislation. Some of them even appear to be making a profit at it, publicly speaking at various conventions and conferences.

      • Are minorities synonymous with the federal government? Who decided THAT?

        True conservatives are much more concerned about the theft of the rights of the individual and the rights of their (get ready for it) states than they are about the color of someone’s skin.

        • sunkawakan says:

          A state which claims a violation of tenth amendment rights validates that the harm is “real” when a federal lawsuit is filed. Without the involvement of judiciary in the process it’s only inflammatory rhetoric.

          • So every justifiable opinion is defined by litigation? What about those without standing in the courts for such a matter?

            To define non-racist references to the 10th Amendment as you have arbitrarily done does not rise to the level of serious debate. Please try again.

            • sunkawakan says:

              Ken,

              A states’ rights issue is certainly not only racial issues, and it was not my intent to make that an absolute association. I stand with my argument that a states’ rights issue is only rhetoric unless it’s backed up by litigation.

              Take for instance some of the bills and resolutions we’ve seen introduced in Georgia that challenge the Affordable Care Act. Those have no force of law, and are indefensible without the litigation that’s ongoing by the states. They are merely “threats” against the federal government. That certainly worked well for South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, didn’t it?

              And most opinions cloaked in the tenth amendment are not states’ rights issues, as much as some would like to think (or make others think).

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Brilliant. Here’s a one minute video clip of a black dude Morgan Freeman—one of my favorite actors, actually—talking about how we defeat racism:

      I hope Keith doesn’t have an anyeurism if he watches this.

  18. SallyForth says:

    I couldn’t hold back any longer, reading all the posts on this one! Everybody is so hung up on Republican code words that nobody commented on Democratic code words. That’s because Democrats don’t use code words – they just say what comes to mind, let it all hang out. Example: “Repukelicans are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. ” Subtlety? What subtlety?!

    Unless both sides tone down the political rhetoric and find some statesmanship, looks like we’ve got some bleak times ahead.

  19. KD_fiscal conservative says:

    Alright, I have to chime as well. The one MAJOR point everyone is missing is the power of perception. That’s what this whole thing is about. There is no way Keith, GC or any of the liberals can get into read the minds of politicians. They say these those code words definitively are used by Republicans specifically to incite racism, I ask: How. Do. You. Know.??? You have no idea what Newt, or any other Repub. is thinking when those “code words” are said, but your perception they are used to race bait.

    But at the same time, I am not defending the rhetoric of my GOP berthen. Personally, when I speak out against Medicaid/food stamps etc., I am by no means targeting a specific race and know that there are more whites on welfare then any other race, but certainly when some people hear words like “entitlement crowd” or “welfare recipients” they perceive it as being predominately “lazy black and illegals(who incidentally don’t even qualify)”, and I will admit, those people TEND to vote Repub. People like the infamous long time PP commenter “Harry” have linked “welfare” to “browns and blacks” on here, and without question SOME other GA voters do same.

    But it seems like Libs are just too quick to automatically assume that position of decreasing entitlements is somehow “racist” as they did with Gingrich labeling Obama as the “food stamp” president. Its an easy to discredit any argument as “racist” without addressing the validly, so if Republicans are “bigots”, one could say Dems are just as closed minded when such statements are made.

    But I will admit, I am sometimes troubled when listening to GA- Republican politicians give speeches, and the crowd is overly enthusiastic when things like illegal immigrations ‘taking gov’t services’ comes up, especially when looking at the numbers, those statements simply don’t add up. Or when things are “anchor babies” in “our schools” are discussed. I also don’t like the moronic statements made the president(Nazi, Socialist, terrorist, Muslim…etc), which may not be overtly racist, but are certainly ignorant.

  20. Keith,

    Let’s be honest. It’s not certain words that many people want to end; it’s certain thoughts and ideas they want to end.

    If you want to end those ideas, then the way to do so is to address them properly and thoroughly. The problem is that when the politically correct (and socially acceptable) terms are all that is allowed, dealing with the thoughts is problematic because of diluted phrases and inaccurate terms. That is the real danger in “code words” and hidden meanings.

    If the idea of witchcraft had not been openly addresses, then they would still be roasting the occasional woman in Massachusetts. And sometimes it still takes time.

    Ideas can be messy and ugly and, often, disgusting. And every one of them should be protected, though preventing their enactment is a different matter altogether. Choosing to ignore them or suppress them doesn’t make them go away; it ensures that they never go away.

    • B Balz says:

      Hit the nail on the head, Ken!

      How about making the idea of 16 year old kids having guns and shooting people unacceptable? How about making the idea of stealing from the government unacceptable?

      When society accepts thoughts and ideas like these, we will evolve. Maybe in 100 years. Until then, the subtle nature of racism is the new norm. We have a socio-economic chasm in America that has brought the Second Civil War home to virtually every community. People are shot for their freakin’ shoes, $3, a shirt color, etc., and we all go ‘tsk-tsk-tsk’.

      The answer, dear readers, is OUTRAGE in the communities where these unacceptable acts occur. When it is unacceptable for a child to possess a gun and use it, there will be a decrease in youth violence.

      • Correct, and as we have discussed several times, it is a matter of culture, not race. The culture that devalues life (value of 1 life < value of 1 pr of tennis shoes) has members of every color. The culture that values life is also populated with people of every race.

        If we polled people and asked if "Tolerance" was a positive or negative trait, then I'm pretty sure that it would get a high positive rating. The problem is that tolerance is a neutral; it depends on what we're tolerating. If we tolerate an Auschwitz, would that be a positive? If we tolerated animal cruelty? If we tolerated child molestation? Yeah, we'd oppose those. They're socially acceptable to oppose.

        What about tolerating 14-year old girls having sex (and babies); is that a positive? What about tolerating gangs, especially teen-agers in gangs; is that a positive? What about true rampant racism where we write-off an entire group of people and tolerate or ignore behavior because it’s not our problem? These topics tend to make people uncomfortable because they are real and current and it’s not acceptable to speak of them openly in public. That would be considered, in many circles, to be using code-words indicating racism, now wouldn’t it?

    • Goldwater Conservative says:

      I think it is more ironic than anything.

      How many welfare recipients donate money to organizations to hire lobbyists to try and get more funding? 0.

      Big business is the largest beneficiary of welfare programs. A family of 4 may get a few hundred dollars to buy groceries, but ConAgra receives billions in revenues from those families purchasing their products.

  21. drjay says:

    again i am reminded of a south park episode…the south park flag was horribly racist, it actually depicted a lynching…chef wanted it changed, the kids had a debate about keeping or dropping the flag, the group taking the change the flag side, made their argument that killing was wrong and that it should not be on the flag without even being aware, as 9 year old kids, of the racial implications of the flag, the town realized that the next generation seemed to be moving on from race in a way they had not even considered and the flag was changed to show people of all races participating in the lynching in a new post racial world…we are really only a generation removed from the ciil rights era, i am not sure our kids see or feel or experience a lot of the issues that defined our parents time…

  22. keith says:

    This is a very sensitive issue that many out there refuse to address. The use of Racially coded language has been apart of politics going back decades. In no way I’m saying that republcans are the only ones who do this, democrats do it as well, just go back to the 2008 campaign when supporters of Hillary Clinton was doing the exact same thing to then candidate Barack Obama.

    You can go back to the days of George Wallace & Lester Maddox who were masters at using such racially coded language & even further back than that to Eugene Talmadge (Ga Gov) & others like Theodore Bilbo & James Eastland (senators from Mississippi), but the only difference in these guys were they didn’t try to hide it.

    I set myself up to be the stuff pinata on this subject & I know it makes people very uncomfortable in talking about such a topic that is considered TABOO by many. There are those on both sides, the left & right that don’t want to admit that such a problem exist.

    Racist code words and images are powerful tools for resisting rational thought processes and clinging to old patterns of racism and bigotry. It is time that these derogatory cultural obscenities be addressed directly and effectively. We can not afford to ignore the enculturation of racism through these devices. The deliberate and overt use of racially-coded language and positions in Presidential, Congressional, Senatorial, Gubernatorial campaigns was begun in 1968 by the Richard Nixon campaign. Even Barry Goldwater, conservative Republican that he was, made an agreement in 1964 with Lyndon Johnson to keep race out of the Presidential contest between them.

    But by 1968, with the dramatic spread of the black freedom movement all over the country and uprisings in the cities, and with the emergence of George Wallace running a racist third party American Independent Party campaign, the Nixon crowd made a very conscious decision to completely abandon the Republican Party’s anti-slavery roots. Wallace exploited these racial fears through the skillful use of what is now called coded language. He railed against federal, state and local officials for their timid response to rabid-throwing urban rioters, but he never referred to them explicitly in racial terms, he talked about brutal and marauding criminals who transformed America’s urban streets into war zones. But he did not directly mention race, he constantly complained of shiftless free-loaders, collecting their welfare checks—paid for by the hard-working American. But he scrupulously avoided using racial language to describe this new parasitic welfare class.

    Even when he dealt with explicit racial issues, he always insisted that his objections to busing or affirmative action had nothing to do with race, but fairness for white as well as black Americans. Wallace welded together populism, libertarianism, and a White backlash against the civil rights movement

    The word “welfare” is now a racist code word for black even though more white people have received welfare than black. When Americans discuss welfare, many have in mind the mythical Black “welfare queen” or teenager with 6,7 children who becomes pregnant at taxpayers’ expense to fatten her welfare check.

    As for the part about words the Democrats think Republicans use & words Republicans think Democrats use, along with the “real” meanings, folks don’t get too bent out of shape on that one! I’m not a mind reader. I was just putting myself in the shoes of a liberal democrat (which I’m not, I’m a rural conservative) & a conservative republican (which I’m not). That’s all!

    Back in ’81 Lee Atwater, famed GOP operative gave a interview on this very topic in which he said:

    “You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968, you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now that you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is that blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” Those are the words of Lee Atwater, not mine!

    I wanted to see what people’s opinions were on this particular topic. I didn’t mean no harm when I decided to post this article on Peach Pundit. Its unfortunate that those in the comments section had to resort to name calling & borderline personal attacks on me, but luckily I’m a thick skinned individual in which these things don’t faze me not one bit. As for the part that I need to get out in the real world, well I used to be a journeyman welder, traveling all over the state of Georgia, as well as other southern states & I’ve had the opportunity to meet people from all different stripes, republican, democrat, libertarian, independent. I’ve encountered bigots, I’ve been discriminated aginst , yes at age 28 years old & I have had to deal with these type of things.

    I wanted to have a civil discusssion on this very topic because for too long this have been talked about behind closed doors & not in the open, so I decided to grab the bull by the horns. I happy to see such a spirited & edgy discussion on such a thorny issue. I really am!

    • Keith,

      I don’t think any type of apology is necessary. It was a courageous thing to do.

      A lot of the heat you may get falls into two categories: 1) people who have been called “racist” simply because they are conservative (and you could write an entire blog on code words for “racist”, too) or expressed an unpopular opinion and flinch every time this comes up. Can you really blame them? And, 2) people who believe that it is liberals who hide behind semantics and then blame conservatives for doing so.

      Any time we use words to veil truth, then we all lose, but it is the left with its over-use of the accusation of racism that is the force behind code words. Once a person is labeled a “racist” then they are unable to express a valid opinion on any topic and have that opinion weighed on its own merits. It’s seen through the lens of “racism” first. Just as race has been used to marginalize people, so has the term “racist” been used. Is there any wonder people react this way, even to an honest attempt to discuss the matter?

      How many times has Pete Randall had racism alleged against him on this very site? And those to Pete’s left think it’s fine to do so and to joke about it. Was that fair or just?

  23. SallyForth says:

    Keith, you were indeed brave to throw this skunk on the table and see what discussion it would evoke. Caucasian-Americans had better discuss this while they still can. With the exploding numbers of all other racial groups and ethnicities moving here from everywhere else, the 2010 Census indicates White Americans are only 63.7% of the national population. They are fast sinking to become the new minority, which will probably occur before the 2020 Census rolls around.

    One wonders if Hispanics, Blacks, Orientals, etc. will fret about what then-minority White Americans perceive as insults or discrimination? Sorta doubt it, don’t you? There will probably be a big resounding “Sucka!” from sea to shining sea……

  24. Doug Grammer says:

    I didn’t comment on this thread when I saw it because, well, I thought it was offensive in it’s nature. It is a skunk on the table. Let’s dissect it.

    I admire your ability to know what people are talking about when they mean something different than the words they are using.

    A Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose, and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I’ll grant you than when some people use a word they mean something else. However, when Newt Gingrich said at the Georgia GOP State Convention over the weekend that President Obama was a Food Stamp President, he meant food stamps, not blacks. More food stamps are being used now in the U. S. than at any other time in history. It doesn’t matter to me if they are used by black people, white people, green people, or rainbow colored people. It’s not about race. It’s about the economy. His approach is that it’s better to have a paycheck than food stamps. He wants to be the paycheck President.

    The average Joe and Joe six pack, are normal everyday people who don’t care much a bout the inner workings of politics and the later drinks just a bit. Moral voters are concerned with ethics and evangelical voters go to church. Independent voters don’t have an allegiance to either party. Hockey Moms and Soccer Moms care about their kids, usually drive a van, and stay busy balancing life and try to keep things going what they consider normally in their lives. Blue collar workers have a job that requires a skilled use of labor, usually a 9 to 5, Monday through Friday job. The Southern Vote can’t live anywhere but in the South, but there are large centers of population that have votes in the south that are not white. An affirmative action support could be a liberal because I know many non-whites (of various skin color) that don’t support affirmative action.

    I don’t know what color all of these people are. The bigger question is, why does it matter?

    • ckingtruth says:

      I hope my replies show up indented under your explanation of some of a few of the code words.

      However, when Newt Gingrich said at the Georgia GOP State Convention over the weekend that President Obama was a Food Stamp President, he meant food stamps, not blacks. –
      Ah I wish it was that simple. Newt, better than anyone else knows that the reason more people using food stamps due to high unemployment. But when people hear food stamps they will still think it’s lazy black people. And that they are being facilitated by a black president.

      The average Joe and Joe six pack, are normal everyday people who don’t care much a bout the inner workings of politics and the later drinks just a bit. –
      Average Joe was never a big deal. But Joe Six Pack has become a Palinism, so it’s hardly means anything besides a white blue collar worker.

      Moral voters are concerned with ethics and evangelical voters go to church.
      And again are usually identified or assumed to be white Christians.

      Hockey Moms and Soccer Moms care about their kids, usually drive a van, and stay busy balancing life and try to keep things going what they consider normally in their lives.
      Hockey moms most definitely used to mean white women, because lets face it, when the term first came on the scene how many children of ethnic background were playing soccer on an organized team?

      An affirmative action support could be a liberal because I know many non-whites (of various skin color) that don’t support affirmative action.
      There is no doubt that this is considered a “liberal” program that was created out of the guilt of white men to right the wrongs of the past. There are those now who claim that the President only got to Harvard due to Affirmative Action.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        I don’t know about you, but when I hear food stamps, I hear food stamps. The last time I checked, our President is also half white, but no one ever talks about that half. The price of gas has doubled since he took office. Can we blame that on race as well? I don’t think of Joe six pack as any particular color. You can do so if you like.

        Perhaps you are more attuned to or looking for more racial differences than I am. The question is how many kids of any color were playing soccer when it first came out in early 90’s? If we spend all of our time looking for division, we will find it. I’d rather talk about what we all have in common.

        Some of the time, when I hear “states rights” I think of Ray McBerry wanting to secede from the Union because of Obamacare, not because of anyone’s color. (I don’t care for some organizations that he belongs to.) Most of the time I think of the 10th amendment, and how things not spelled out as a federal duty should be reserved to the states, such as education.

      • Newt, better than anyone else knows that the reason more people using food stamps due to high unemployment.

        That was Newt’s point. Under the Obama Administration jobs are disappearing and people are resorting more and more to food stamps. It was about unemployment, not race.

  25. ckingtruth says:

    I’ll read the other comments when time permits, but Keith I want to thank you for saying this out loud. That took guts.

  26. Rick Day says:

    This will go down as one of the most epic PP threads since the last time conservatives backpedaled on racism.

    A++ on the APS scale (B+ on the College scale) Would read again.

  27. saltycracker says:

    Didn’t want in on this dead end but after 100:

    Epic ?

    Code-words are used to gain the widest possible buy in with maximum hyperbole when definitions have become just personal interpretations and quantifying or statistical probabilities are disregarded.

    Heros are anyone who does a good deed ?
    Rapists are anyone who dishonors someone ?
    Crackers are native Southerners of modest roots ? (hint – yes)
    The NAACP is a racist organization ?

    With code-words it is intentionally impossible and thus left to the listener to distinguish between being prejudiced to the tribe or cause one is involved in or doesn’t want to become involved in.

    Politicians and ratings driven medias are masters of the ill defined, statistically challenged code-words. That’s a bona fide fact, y’all.

    I too thought the food stamp Prez remark as being a silly shot at redistribution of wealth (the well meaning program is a mess) and never considered it a racist remark. Then it wasn’t important as while Newt is a really smart guy he is a dead candidate walking.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      “dead candidate walking?” McCain got the nomination. Nathan Deal won the Governors mansion. It’s a little early to be pronouncing who is dead and who isn’t. “Deal is done.” How many times did I see that?

  28. End PC and end the need to be PC…. desensitived words loose their effect. Protect 1st Amendment, end government sanctioned racism (and gov santioned reverse racisism) and racists and race baiters will lose their power as well. Again, Liberty/freedom is the cure…. not gov programs/feel good policies or regulations, they only perpetuate the problem.

Comments are closed.