• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama takes shovel from Perry

Let me illustrate how one media outlet can take a story and publish it one way and how another media outlet can take the same story and publish it a completely different way.

Here's the intro from the AP article linked to in the OP:

In a shift in White House tactics on the cusp of an election year, President Barack Obama isn't shying away these days from saying that many of his policies were designed with African-Americans in mind.

Until now, the nation's first black president has carefully avoided putting any emphasis on race, ascribing to a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats approach to governing. That has drawn heavy criticism within the black community, so much so that, while dedicating the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial on the National Mall, Obama noted that even King faced rebuke "from his own people."

But on Wednesday, the White House convened a gathering of black business, political and community leaders to share a report on the multiple ways the president's agenda has benefited African-Americans. The president made a direct appeal for help on proposals "where we don't have to wait for Congress" to act. And he asked for initiatives he can pursue administratively "that would make a difference in the communities that all of you represent."

Obama acknowledged that black Americans have faced "enormous challenges," especially with unemployment, on his watch. He told the African-American Policy Agenda Conference that his three years of accomplishments have "lessened the severity" of the economic crisis for millions of people, made sure millions have health care and unemployment benefits and kept millions out of poverty.
Click to expand...

Now, let's look at how this same story starts off in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution:

President Barack Obama acknowledged on Wednesday that black Americans have faced "enormous challenges" with unemployment under his watch, and appealed for their support in pursuing solutions that he can implement without help from Congress.

Appearing at a daylong White House summit of black business, community and political leaders, Obama said the current 15.1 percent unemployment rate among blacks is "way too high," and that various other problems that plagued black communities before he took office, such as housing and education, have worsened.

"We know tough times," the president said. "And what we also know, though, is that if we are persistent, if we are unified, and we remain hopeful, then we'll get through these tough times and better days lie ahead."

Noting that his proposed American Jobs Act is still pending in Congress, Obama made a plea for ideas "where we don't have to wait for Congress," and initiatives "that we can take right now administratively that would make a difference in the communities that all of you represent."

Obama has endured some tough criticism within the black community because joblessness among African Americans runs chronically higher than the overall unemployment rate, which is 9 percent. Some of his toughest critics have been within the Congressional Black Caucus. Some caucus members have said he was not targeting the problems faced by blacks.

The Obama administration disputes that argument. However, Wednesday's session was a noticeable departure from its past mode of studiously de-emphasizing race when it comes to its policies.

"Since day one, the president has fought for the policies that matter to the African-American community," White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told reporters on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

One could argue that the AJC article was written with a purposeful slant towards African-American readers, but if that's the case what does that say about the same AP article written by the same journalist, Suzanne Gamboa, as it not only appears in both media outlets but the American Renaissance as well, a media outlet that makes no bones about having a racial slant to its content?

Welcome to AmRen.com — the best source on the Internet for race-realist information and perspectives. We invite you to use the following:

1. Breaking News. Every business day we post news stories from around the world about race and immigration.
Click to expand...

So, what's my point? Simply this: While we all know the media will often times publish a story to fit it's target audience, clearly some articles will be written with a racial or partisan slant to them. If you're looking to race-bait, you have both the AP and the AR articles to use as ammunition to do just that because both media sources , IMO, arranged their version of the story in such a way as to make it appear that the majority of the President's policies/agenda if not all were purposely catered to aid the Black community. And, of course, those who believe this recall the "food stamps president" line and BINGO!...you're once again convinced that President Obama is a racist president. But you ignore a few facts.

1. All three articles report that the unemployment among African-Americans is at 15%, the highst among any demographic group in the country and nearly TWICE as high as our White counterparts. In fact, If any demographic group needs help in today's economic climate, it's certainly African-Americans.

2. I've read dozens of negative comments about African-Americans ranging from being poor to being lazy to being uneducated to being the primary users of addictive drugs. And yet, it will be these same people who will now claim that all African-Americans want are "hand-outs". Isn't it possible that all we really want is an opportunity to do for ourselves?

3. I admit the President uses alot of possessive nouns like "we" and "our" throughout his commentary as stated in all three articles and perhaps he should have stayed with more neutral comments like "America" or "our country" or simply "...for African-Americans" similar to how he addressed economic issues affecting African-Americans soon after he was elected President as illustrated in this article posted on Brietbart.com:

Acknowledging that "tough times for America often mean tougher times for African-Americans," US President Barack Obama on Saturday called for more local and national engagement by fellow blacks.

"You know that tough times for America often mean tougher times for African Americans. This recession has been no exception," Obama told the 10th annual "State of the Black Union" gathering, noting that the unemployment rate among African-Americans is five points higher than the national average.
Click to expand...

But the President has used such possessive nouns before when addressing predominately White audiences as well. From his speech given in Las Vegas, October 24, 2011:

But we can’t wait for that action. I’m not going to wait for it. So I’m going to keep on taking this message across the country. Where we don’t have to wait for Congress, we’re just going to go ahead and act on our own. And we’re going to keep on putting pressure on Congress to do the right thing for families all across the country.
Click to expand...

Was the President addressing a predominately Black audience here, too?

I get what some people are saying here, that a Black president pandered to his African-American base, that because he's Black he tailored his words to "his people". Like sticks with like and all that. I won't begrudge anyone for coming to that point of view, except couldn't these same words pertain to a much broader demographic if not the entire nation?

"We know tough times," the president said. "And what we also know, though, is that if we are persistent, if we are unified, and we remain hopeful, then we'll get through these tough times and better days lie ahead."
Click to expand...

The truly interesting thing here is this isn't the first time the President has used such verbage as outlined in all three articles as well as in his Las Vegas speech. He used similar phrases in a speech he gave before the African-American Policy in Action Leadership Conference at the White House in early October, 2011:

“If you maintain that spirit, then I’m confident that not only will the American, the African-American community emerge from these difficult economic times stronger than we were before, but this entire nation is going to come out more unified, better equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century than we were before.”
Click to expand...

Again, granted the President was speaking directly to his target audience as illustrated in both the AP and AR articles, but we shouldn't pretend that he hasn't said similar things to White audiences or even Hispanic audiences as well.
 
poweRob said:
So you think he has to go out of his way to secure the black vote?
Click to expand...

He does now, because he's alienated some of the black voter base. Not addressing the 15% UE rate, for example. Of course, much of that base will see through his smoke screen of squaking about it while campaigning.


Big Al
 
Krhazy said:
I don't get it. This is basic campaigning. Every politician does it. It's no different than when a politician goes to a particular town in Iowa and touts what he has done to make life better specifically for the people living there. Where does it say Obama is only concerned with the problems of black people?
Click to expand...

Pandering to a town is different to pandering to a race, no?

"It", and I, don't say, anywhere, that BO is only concernid with the problems of black people. I stated that his actions are divisive, and his intent is nothing more than electioneering. He doesn't care about anyone's employment but his own.


Big Al
 
Keridan said:
I do have HUGE issues with his recent use of executive orders to bypass congress. He hasn't crossed a visible line yet, but the precedent is scary to me. There is a reason we have the current process in place to create laws.
Click to expand...

Notice how his supporters have not addressed that component of my OP. Imagine that.


Big Al
 
Objective Voice said:
Let me illustrate how one media outlet can take a story and publish it one way and how another media outlet can take the same story and publish it a completely different way.

Here's the intro from the AP article linked to in the OP:



Now, let's look at how this same story starts off in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution:



One could argue that the AJC article was written with a purposeful slant towards African-American readers, but if that's the case what does that say about the same AP article written by the same journalist, Suzanne Gamboa, as it not only appears in both media outlets but the American Renaissance as well, a media outlet that makes no bones about having a racial slant to its content?



So, what's my point? Simply this: While we all know the media will often times publish a story to fit it's target audience, clearly some articles will be written with a racial or partisan slant to them. If you're looking to race-bait, you have both the AP and the AR articles to use as ammunition to do just that because both media sources , IMO, arranged their version of the story in such a way as to make it appear that the majority of the President's policies/agenda if not all were purposely catered to aid the Black community. And, of course, those who believe this recall the "food stamps president" line and BINGO!...you're once again convinced that President Obama is a racist president. But you ignore a few facts.

1. All three articles report that the unemployment among African-Americans is at 15%, the highst among any demographic group in the country and nearly TWICE as high as our White counterparts. In fact, If any demographic group needs help in today's economic climate, it's certainly African-Americans.

2. I've read dozens of negative comments about African-Americans ranging from being poor to being lazy to being uneducated to being the primary users of addictive drugs. And yet, it will be these same people who will now claim that all African-Americans want are "hand-outs". Isn't it possible that all we really want is an opportunity to do for ourselves?

3. I admit the President uses alot of possessive nouns like "we" and "our" throughout his commentary as stated in all three articles and perhaps he should have stayed with more neutral comments like "America" or "our country" or simply "...for African-Americans" similar to how he addressed economic issues affecting African-Americans soon after he was elected President as illustrated in this article posted on Brietbart.com:



But the President has used such possessive nouns before when addressing predominately White audiences as well. From his speech given in Las Vegas, October 24, 2011:



Was the President addressing a predominately Black audience here, too?

I get what some people are saying here, that a Black president pandered to his African-American base, that because he's Black he tailored his words to "his people". Like sticks with like and all that. I won't begrudge anyone for coming to that point of view, except couldn't these same words pertain to a much broader demographic if not the entire nation?



The truly interesting thing here is this isn't the first time the President has used such verbage as outlined in all three articles as well as in his Las Vegas speech. He used similar phrases in a speech he gave before the African-American Policy in Action Leadership Conference at the White House in early October, 2011:



Again, granted the President was speaking directly to his target audience as illustrated in both the AP and AR articles, but we shouldn't pretend that he hasn't said similar things to White audiences or even Hispanic audiences as well.
Click to expand...

Nice breakdown.

The point I was trying to make is that he is clearly pandering and electioneering, and that he has zero interest in truly finding a remedy. He hasn't done anything effective about unemployment.

What should really be of concern to people who care about liberty, are his statements about going around Congress.


Big Al
 
Snapper Head said:
Notice how his supporters have not addressed that component of my OP. Imagine that.


Big Al
Click to expand...

Looks like the locals took your measure pretty quick. :lol:

Obama obviously has to do whatever he can -- within the law -- to improve the economy, given the fact that Republicans oppose anything that might improve the economy and thus contribute to Obama's chances in the election.
 
AdamT said:
Looks like the locals took your measure pretty quick. :lol:

Obama obviously has to do whatever he can -- within the law -- to improve the economy, given the fact that Republicans oppose anything that might improve the economy and thus contribute to Obama's chances in the election.
Click to expand...

As with you, they came up short.

Pandering to his base is certainly not illegal.

The Repubs oppose wrecking the economy, which I can get on board with. Careful with your worship notion that the election is in the bag, it bit you in 2010.


Big Al
 
Snapper Head said:
As with you, they came up short.

Pandering to his base is certainly not illegal.

The Repubs oppose wrecking the economy, which I can get on board with. Careful with your worship notion that the election is in the bag, it bit you in 2010.


Big Al
Click to expand...

The Republicans are helt-bent on wrecking the economy -- or at least watching it crumble around them. Better to see the country fall off a cliff than lose another election, right?
 
AdamT said:
The Republicans are helt-bent on wrecking the economy -- or at least watching it crumble around them. Better to see the country fall off a cliff than lose another election, right?
Click to expand...

How are they wrecking the economy? Because they want the President to close the checkbook? Insanity.


Big Al
 
Snapper Head said:
Nice breakdown.

The point I was trying to make is that he is clearly pandering and electioneering...
Click to expand...

This I won't disagree with. However, I think that the perception given in both the AP and AR articles that the President's policies are purposely geared to benefit African-Americans is completely off-base. Consider once again the unemployment rate among African-Americans. Has it gone down considerably or has it remained relatively constant at or around 15% same as it has remained around 9% for the entire nation? I could accept this accusation IF the unemployment rate among African-Americans had dropped considerably while it remained high among other demographics, but that isn't the case and Census data supports my position.

...and that he has zero interest in truly finding a remedy. He hasn't done anything effective about unemployment.
Click to expand...

Here again I disagree. If you go back and review employment statistics leading up to the debt limit negotiations, you will find that private sector job growth was improving slightly. It wasn't until those negotiations failed did we see employment numbers stall between late-August through September. I wasn't until October's numbers came out did we start to see private sector job growth return to positive numbers. You also have to consider the President's jobs bill proposal. Granted, it didn't pass Congress in it's original form, but you can't say he hasn't tried to do anything about unemployment in this country. If we can be honest about anything, can we atleast acknowledge that his efforts have been thrwarted largely along party lines?

What should really be of concern to people who care about liberty, are his statements about going around Congress.
Click to expand...

If you look at what the President has done using Executive Orders and compare his efforts with the actually laws, what I believe you'll find is he hasn't changed the law at all. He's merely used the exact same provisions in the law to do what Congress refuses to do, i.e., shift start-dates for paying back college loans, initiating prescription drug initiatives sooner, etc., etc. Here again just as with the allegations that he exceeded his powers as Commander in Chief in dealing with Libya, if Congress really believed he was overstepping his Constitutional bounds, why haven't they brought impeachment charges against him? Put another way, if one president can issue Signing Statements to avoid upholding certain portions of the law, why can't another president issue executive orders to accellerate certain provisions within established law to benefit certain segments of our society for which said provision was originally intended to aid anyway?

Think about it...
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Here again I disagree. If you go back and review employment statistics leading up to the debt limit negotiations, you will find that private sector job growth was improving slightly. It wasn't until those negotiations failed did we see employment numbers stall between late-August through September. I wasn't until October's numbers came out did we start to see private sector job growth return to positive numbers. You also have to consider the President's jobs bill proposal. Granted, it didn't pass Congress in it's original form, but you can't say he hasn't tried to do anything about unemployment in this country. If we can be honest about anything, can we atleast acknowledge that his efforts have been thrwarted largely along party lines?
Click to expand...

I didn't say he has not tried. I did say he has not done anything, meaning succeeded. I don't accept the argument that the reason he has not succeeded is because Congress has blocked him. He is just as culpable. Negotiation is a two way street, and he has demonstrated little willingness to truly dig down and negotiate. He will dig in.....

Yes, there is clearly party line division at play. A good leader will be able to negotiate to reduce the partisan crap and find a solution that both parties can support and that the majority of Americans can either support, or at least live with. I see no such ability with this President.



Objective Voice said:
If you look at what the President has done using Executive Orders and compare his efforts with the actually laws, what I believe you'll find is he hasn't changed the law at all. He's merely used the exact same provisions in the law to do what Congress refuses to do, i.e., shift start-dates for paying back college loans, initiating prescription drug initiatives sooner, etc., etc. Here again just as with the allegations that he exceeded his powers as Commander in Chief in dealing with Libya, if Congress really believed he was overstepping his Constitutional bounds, why haven't they brought impeachment charges against him? Put another way, if one president can issue Signing Statements to avoid upholding certain portions of the law, why can't another president issue executive orders to accellerate certain provisions within established law to benefit certain segments of our society for which said provision was originally intended to aid anyway?
Click to expand...

You support my point - his XO's action policies that will not and cannot work with respect to reducing unemployment and stimulating the economy. Impeachment proceedings? Seriously? Not a single Dem would sign on, and the Repubs know this. You do to. Accelerate existing provisions? If they exist, what's with the acceleration? If they need acceleration, perhaps they are failed, so no acceleration would be of benefit.




Big Al
 
After the "debate" the other night, it'd be more accurate to say that Perry took the shovel and whacked himself in the head with it.
 
Snapper Head said:
How are they wrecking the economy? Because they want the President to close the checkbook? Insanity.


Big Al
Click to expand...

Correct! When the economy is clearly desperate for additional stimulus, cutting off stimulus is insanity.
 
Snapper Head said:
I didn't say he has not tried. I did say he has not done anything, meaning succeeded.
Click to expand...

Actually, what you said was...

Snapper Head said:
He hasn't done anything effective about unemployment.
Click to expand...

By effective, I assume you mean "lower the unemployment rate" towhich I again say he has tried but has been thrwarted by Congress mostly Conservatives on both sides of the political divide every step of the way.

I don't accept the argument that the reason he has not succeeded is because Congress has blocked him. He is just as culpable. Negotiation is a two way street, and he has demonstrated little willingness to truly dig down and negotiate. He will dig in.....
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree. Consider the fact that it was Speaker Boehner who all but demanded that the President get involved in debt limit talks after Rep. Cantor walked out of talks. Even Boehner walked when a deal was well within reach but he would not relent on tax revenue even when he got $2 trillion dollars more in spending cuts over the $1 trillion his new Pledge to America sought. Only those who remain partisan and refuse to see the totality of events to date will makes such statements as "he has demonstrated little willingness to truly dig down and negotiate." He has far more than the Right will give him credit.

I mean, there are same members of Congress who continue to decry that the President isn't showing leadership, but these are the same congressional leaders who agreed to the Super Debt Committee and are now complaining about the President going on vacation in the midst of deficit negotiation by the said committee. Towhich I say, "Congressional leadership settled on this method of budget compromise; now they need to live with it and work withing the guidelines THEY agreed to." In short, they drew the line in the sand and now that they can't do their freaking jobs they want to try and pull the President back into the frey all the while trying once again to lay the "failed leader" label on him. Pitiful if you ask me.

Yes, there is clearly party line division at play. A good leader will be able to negotiate to reduce the partisan crap and find a solution that both parties can support and that the majority of Americans can either support, or at least live with. I see no such ability with this President.
Click to expand...

I rest my case. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom