LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Dateline: Iraq - Anna Badkhen and Sarah Stillman on Assignment
 
May 16, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Reports

Arts & Culture

Digs
Inside the Data Mine

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Republicans Probe Race, Gender Boundaries

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Feb 25, 2008
white men
nytimes.com

The usual suspects: Republicans countered the Democrats’ historic candidates by running a wide variety of old white men. No wonder they need to research racial and gender sensitivity.

The Politico reports that Republican strategists have been clandestinely polling and focus-grouping to determine how America might react to campaign attacks on an African-American or woman presidential candidate. As one strategist explained, “You can’t allow the party to be Macaca-ed,” a reference to former Sen. George Allen, whose use of a racial slur cost him certain victory in the last election.

Of course one way to avoid being “macaca-ed” is to not use racial slurs. Baby steps.

Politico:

Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.

The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.

The RNC project is viewed as so sensitive that those involved in the work were reluctant to discuss the findings in detail. But one Republican strategist, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, said the research shows the daunting and delicate task ahead.

Read more

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: Obama, Clinton Camps Clash Over Obama Photo Leak

Next item: The Mail War

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By nikto, February 27 at 12:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

GOP=Part of Racism

Any questions?

Didn’t think so.

Reply to this | Report this

By Outraged, February 26 at 5:28 pm #
(869 comments total)

Maani, I don’t see how it is hypocritical.  I explained that if the story is true that it would come out SOON ENOUGH.  As the story stands it really is a story that says Obama isn’t implicated, but knows people who MAY have committed a crime.  Personally I don’t think the future looks to bright for Rezko and his business associates.  Just the same, this same enity and writer IGNORED this type of in depth, connect the dots in the other article.  Especially with that Clinton connection as a factor.  I said it seems off and it certainly seems off to me yet.

Also, Obama is our best option as a country and for the democratic party.  With Nader entering the race things will certainly get interesting when we get down to the general election.  All I’m saying is they are “playing” it one way.  Does it have any connection to B. Clinton?  I don’t know.  But I couldn’t find a follow up in the Times on it.  It’s no secret that I think it would be a bad idea to have H. Clinton as president but if she wins the primary or enough superdelegates, what can I do?  Maybe Nader then for me.......maybe Nader anyway....we’ll have to wait and see.

Reply to this | Report this

By Outraged, February 26 at 7:47 am #
(869 comments total)

I’m not trying to “diminish” anything.  If there’s a connection and it’s valid it’ll be found out soon enough.  But “The Times” IS firing people for speaking out.  As in this portion of the article:

“Ian Spiegelman, a reporter dismissed three years ago over a threatening e-mail, claimed that gossip items were spiked to protect the business interests and friends of Rupert Murdoch, the News Corp chairman.”

And corruption, which at this level IS NOTEWORTHY, is this blatantly KNOWN why such a short little story about it.  Were they CAUGHT between a rock and a hard place and then wrote up this short little “admission”?  Let’s face it these are writers.
If they wanted to spin something they could.

Yet, information which appears to be to be a big deal (think of the repercussions) gets a short little story void of any in depth, investigative-type elaboration.  On the other hand, the “The Times” apparently felt it extremely important to pursue EVERY LAST DETAIL or POSSIBLE CONNECTION with the Obama story.

The story I linked to appears to have possible connections to Bill Clinton but NO details.  This is important.  The issue is the implication of the ability to “buy good press” if you have “the right connections”.  But is also one of corruption and individuals being FIRED for “speaking truth to power” or NOT “playing ball”.

What will the “Times” do if the story ends up all for naught...?  Say sorry...we were just reporting what we “knew”.  Before I’d put any “faith” in the Times, I’d have to see some follow up on this other story.  Clinton’s losing her ass and suddenly, there’s a story smearing Obama.  And it coincides perfectly with the photo of Obama in the Somali clothing.  Coincidence.......I think not.  This smells to high heaven.

Reply to this | Hide 5 replies | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 26 at 9:02 am #
(2932 comments total)

Re:

By the way, Outraged, I don’t mind if BO has Syrian and Iraqi connections. That must give him some “overseas experience” to help him keep up with Hillary.

That’s better than him criticizing her ‘monthly periods’ (actually, she’s a bit old for that, uhh) as “unhelpful” to the needs of the nation.

It should also help him in fending off the hot advances of his handler on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Condoleeza Rice, who has been kindly ‘educating’ him in Russian.....

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 26 at 9:07 am #
(2932 comments total)

Obama: Clinton "periodically... attacks to boost appeal."

Obama: Clinton “periodically… attacks to boost appeal.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qNpeGPdhEw

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 26 at 8:55 am #
(2932 comments total)

Re:

Yes, interesting, isn’t it, and you have a right to be “Outraged”, uhh.

The media have played Obama up and now they are playing him for a sucker. They’re doing it at the last minute to keep everyone on the hook - a real tearjerker if they can manage to manufacture it.......

Reply to this | Report this

By Maani, February 26 at 8:32 am #
(1271 comments total)

Re:

Outraged:

“What will the “Times” do if the story ends up all for naught...?  Say sorry...we were just reporting what we “knew”.  Before I’d put any “faith” in the Times, I’d have to see some follow up on this other story.”

Do you not see your hypocrisy here?  You put PLENTY of faith in ANY story that is critical of Hillary, no matter whether or not there is any “follow up.”

This is why I find it hard to take seriously many in the anti-Hillary camp here, including you, CY, MMC, Leefeller, Cyrena et al - you ALL do this.  You are ALL hypocrites, finding any and every justification or rationale for anything and everything Obama says, does or is accused of saying or doing, while automatically assuming culpability on Hillary’s part no matter what source it comes from.

Peace.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By cyrena, February 27 at 1:01 am #
(4143 comments total)

Re: Re:

More lying from Maani the liar, and the King/Queen of gossip and innuendo. It more than pisses me off, to be included in your ‘anti-Hillary camp Maani, because ONLY you, have determined that people are ‘ANTI-Hillary’ or “Hillary bashers” just because they support her opponent in this time of political campaigning, and the standard run-up to these elections.

I’m pretty sick of your shit, just as we’re pretty sick of the shit from your tag-team partner Douglas Chalmers. You guys just throw shit out there everywhere, (even shit that contradicts what you’ve said previously) and just hope it’ll stick somewhere.

From day one of your posts, you’ve been on a negative campaign to smear Barack Obama, and I’ve pointed it out to you, from shortly after your day one. From the beginning, your entire repertoire has been founded on hate and negativity, INSTEAD of what makes your candidate better than ALL of the others, and not ONLY Barack Obama.

Rather, between you and DC, we can expect nothing but stupid smears, and even references to fairy tales, ABOUT OBAMA, and then you accuse everybody else of ‘hating’ Hillary, when it fact it has nothing to do with HATING Hillary, or being ‘anti-Hillary’ but rather, PREFERRING someone else as a person to lead the country.

So, don’t put me on your list of “Hillary haters” since I don’t hate her, and may have supported her, IF THERE WASN’T A BETTER CANDIDATE. And, there IS. It’s that simple.

Now, that’s not to say (or fail to acknowledge) that there ARE people who MAY have already ‘hated’ her, (for no good reason…I have a cousin who’s hated her forever, and in my opinion, for NO GOOD REASON). I personally, am NOT one who has ever ‘hated’ Hillary, nor do I ‘bad mouth’ or otherwise smear her on this blog, or any other. You’ve also mentioned a few other posters here, who have never said anything to indicate that they “hate” Hillary, but only that they don’t ‘prefer’ her for the job.

But, as usual, in your arrogance and neurosis, you simply refuse to acknowledge this, and continue to claim that anyone who doesn’t support Hillary Clinton, or anyone who expresses any legitimate and OBJECTIVE concerns over what Clinton might do as the POTUS, or anyone who supports her primary opponent, is ‘anti-Hillary”.

Well NO asshole! One doesn’t need to be ‘ANTI’ anything or anyone, in order to have a preference for something or someone else! I happen to ‘prefer’ fish, for a number of reasons. But, I don’t HATE chicken, and occasionally, I even enjoy beef.

I AM however, ANTI-War, (for no reason other than to steal resources and install US hegemony everywhere in the world)

I also don’t like assholes, or smear mongers, or propagandists, or neurotic screaming ninnies who just have to lie about the opponent, because they can’t find anything positive to say about whomever it is that THEY are supporting.

In other words, if you can’t find something that can or will make Hillary ‘look good’, then you have to concentrate all of your energy and those TWO brain cells you have, on making Obama ‘look bad’. So far, it isn’t working.

Report this

By Louise, February 26 at 7:43 am #
(757 comments total)

“If we approach this campaign from the standpoint that we need to take political sensitivity training because one candidate is a woman or one candidate is black, I think we are approaching it from the wrong standpoint because that already handcuffs us,” said Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio. “If McCain is afraid, or shies away from taking on Obama because that’s what they worry about, then they’ve lost the battle to begin with.”

***

That paragraph points out the real issue when it comes to republican campaign methods. The fact that bad habits perfected over decades are threatened because of race and gender.

The fact they view that as being handcuffed.

By their own position they verify what everybody already knows. These folks don’t know how to run a clean campaign!

Rather than focusing on how to lay out the “issues” they’re already focusing on the individuals. They simply have forgotten there is another way to run campaigns! How many years will it take them to climb out of the hole they dug for themselves?

They really are in trouble. Because their base ... that undisciplined narrow minded base ... will provide all the race and gender bias they claim to not want. Nobody knows that better than McCain, having been on the receiving end of blind hatred generated by politicians who appeal to the lowest possible common denominator.

Yep ... they really are in trouble.

But so are the democrat candidates ... the habit of attacking the person rather than the issues is alive and well among alleged democrats, who will sink the dems boat before they’ll back off of their “hate the guy” rhetoric!

“The smart money has it that Hillary Clinton will attack Obama over Tony Rezko in tonight’s California Democratic debate. The smart money must have amnesia.”

http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/31/34 97614.html

Actually by the time a dem candidate is selected the dem side will have already supplied the repubs with more ammunition than they know what to do with. Which brings to mind another very successful repub method.

Divide and conquer!

Meanwhile today, the media is asking the question ... “Which Hillary will show up tonight?”

Who’s responsible for that perception? wink

Reply to this | Report this

By Maani, February 26 at 7:37 am #
(1271 comments total)

...And keep in mind we’re only on Rezko right now (which is likely to get WORSE for Obama as Rezko’s trial gets underway in March...).  Next up, Exelon.  And then...?  Trust me, where there is one Rezko and one Exelon, there are others.  The GOP is going to have a field day with Obama.

Peace.

Reply to this | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 26 at 5:29 am #
(2932 comments total)

TruthDig website was “macaca-ed”

Issues with compatibility with browsers other than IE..... In Opera, can open the page, the header, the ads + the stuff on the side but not any of the blog.

No, I’m NOT ging to bother emailing your webmaster - never get a reply anyway, uhh. Solve it or lose people.......

Reply to this | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 26 at 2:21 am #
(2932 comments total)

You are attempting to diminish the story about Obama by bringing in something completely irrelevant from another story altogether (about Rupert Murdoch, uhh), Outraged.

It may be that “Mr Obama has publicly sought to atone for his closeness to Mr Rezko, paying $150,000 to charity to distance himself from a man accused of political corruption...” but that was something separate from his dealings (and Rezko’s) with Auchi, the Iraqi billionaire.

Thus, the article does not “ramble” but ges further into this over three pages......

The spotlight fell on Mr Rezko’s ties to Mr Auchi last month when the Chicago businessman was thrown in jail for violating his bail terms by failing to declare a different $3.5 million loan from the British billionaire, made in April 2007. Prosecutors feared Mr Rezko, who travels widely in the Middle East, might flee to a country without an extradition treaty such as his birthplace of Syria......

Prosecutors say that, after Mr Auchi was unable to enter the United States in 2005, Mr Rezko approached the US State Department to get him a visa and apparently asked “certain Illinois government officials to do the same.”...

Perhaps you can smooth away the Iraq and Syrian connections to Obama now as well as his potentially corrupt Kenyan links and other issues relating to Indonesia and Islam by distracting us yet again, Outraged?

Reply to this | Report this

By Outraged, February 26 at 12:59 am #
(869 comments total)

Re: Douglas Chalmers, February 25

I checked out your link and one of the writers also wrote this story which I found interesting. Remember the Times is owned by News Corp or Rupert Murdoch.

Quote: “The charges were made in a law suit being threatened by Jared Paul Stern, a former Page Six contributor dismissed last year after allegedly suggesting to Ron Burkle, a friend of Bill Clinton, that he could buy positive coverage in the column. The charges were presented by Mr Stern “with a demand for money”, the newspaper said.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_ame ricas/article1816603.ece

The other thing I noticed is that the article rambles on and on concerning the Obama story but admits that Obama isn’t “accused” of anything.  Something just doesn’t add up quite right here.  I’m not saying Obama is the angel of propriety, but this article seems off.

Reply to this | Report this

By Outraged, February 25 at 11:15 pm #
(869 comments total)

““You can’t run against Barack Obama the way you could run against Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry,” said Jack Kemp, the 1996 GOP vice presidential nominee, who expressed concern that the party could be reduced to an “all white country club party” if it does not tread cautiously.”

LOL.....I think what he means is THEY can’t act the way they usually do, it “might” be construed as “racist” or “misogynistic”.  How revealing is that?  Who are they trying to convince?  Us...?!

LOL, listen Republicans....don’t let it throw you.  We already know about THAT DIRTY LITTLE SECRET.  Now if I could just find it on the list........

Reply to this | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 25 at 10:59 pm #
(2932 comments total)

BO has already “macaca-ed” himself judging by the latest on Rezko and the appearance of a British connection. Its mere baby steps to worry about racial slurs, etc when corruption is first in line as an oportunity for the Rpg’s........

Mansion ‘mistake’ piles the pressure on Barack Obama - A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_ame ricas/us_elections/article3433485.ece?token=null&offset;=0< /a>

Seems the TruthDig website was “macaca-ed” for a while tonight again too and this page wouldn’t open. Other times recently, it has been so slow........ server problems?

Reply to this | Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
Robert Scheer's new book offers first-hand insight into the presidential mind
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.