President Jimmy Carter: That Racism Inclination Still Exists


In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter attributed much of the conservative opposition that President Obama is receiving to the issue of race.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that share the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans."

Carter continued, "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."




Via CountDown
Political Analyst Lawrence O'Donnell discusses comments from President Jimmy Carter in a recent breaking interview segment with NBC's Brian Willians that racism is a significant aspect in criticism of President Barack Obama.




Via CountDown
Markos Moulitsas discusses the role of racism that has been evident in the character of the opposition to President Barack Obama.

18 comments:

J said... / Sep 17, 2009, 12:31:00 AM  

Last time a white guy tried to overhaul the healthcare system, he too, was defeated. This is obvious anger and desperation on the part of the left. I sometimes feel sorry for you guys because you've somehow tricked yourselves into thinking that because a liberal president won an election (while running as a centrist), liberalism and single payer healthcare is what Americans truly want. November 2008 was about a bad economy and dissatisfaction with the Bush admin. It was not a mandate to rearrange the healthcare system, period. So knock yourself out, call the mostly white protesters racist and watch where the independents gravitate towards in 2010.

J said... / Sep 17, 2009, 6:31:00 PM  

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/when_jimmy_carter_ginned_up_ra.html

"Readers should refer to Stephen Hayward's The Real Jimmy Carter if they want a taste of the out-and-out racism that Carter employed in order to defeat moderate former Gov. Carl Sanders for the Democratic nomination that year. As Hayward's book points out:

Carter's top campaign staffers were spotted distributing grainy photographs of Sanders arm-in-arm celebrating with two black men. Sanders was a part-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, and in the photograph he was celebrating a victory with two players who were pouring champagne over his head. Carter's leaflet was intended to depress Sanders's white vote.

"The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr."

Carter criticized Sanders, a former governor, for preventing Alabama Gov. and notorious segregationist George Wallace from speaking on Georgia state property. "I don't think it was right for Governor Sanders to try to please a group of ultra-liberals, particularly those in Washington, when it means stifling communication with another state," said Carter.

"'I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time,' Carter told a reporter. Carter also said to another reporter, 'I can win this election without a single black vote.'"

Upon receiving the endorsement of former Democratic Gov. Lester Maddox, Carter responded by praising the life-long segregationist: "He has brought a standard of forthright expression and personal honesty to the governor's office, and I hope to live up to his standard." Maddox had not only refused to serve blacks in the restaurant he once owned, but he had also greeted civil rights protestors with a gun, and made sticks available to his white customers with which to intimidate them."

Pangolin said... / Sep 18, 2009, 1:11:00 AM  

That was a No-Sheets Klan rally.

Are you going to tell me that an all-white crowd, half of whom were probably on Medicare, were there to protest big government? One moron Republican, Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, even went so far as to protest the level of D.C. Metro service on the day of the rally. http://tinyurl.com/r5z79d

Public transit=socialism! Duh!! Stand up for free markets; walk!

Could somebody please tell me what is more 'big government' than an eight year war?

I'm as lilly white and pot-bellied as the any other guy but thank Dog I'm not so stupid as to pretend my prejudices are anything but what they are. If you're going to talk politics you better get the details right.

Codester said... / Sep 18, 2009, 6:46:00 PM  

J said... "...I sometimes feel sorry for you guys because you've somehow tricked yourselves into thinking that because a liberal president won an election (while running as a centrist), liberalism and single payer healthcare is what Americans truly want..."

Even after the entire August month of conservative townhall lies... support for healthcare reform is still evenly divided.
http://is.gd/3qrVG
I never claimed single-payer is what people want. Support for that is typically only around 10%

Support for a public option is much more broad. Hell even Bill O'Reilly "loves it so much" now.

http://is.gd/3qA6j

But since that's a HuffPo article of a DailyKos video... it probably never happened.

J said... / Sep 18, 2009, 7:30:00 PM  

Who the hell cares what Bill O'Reilly wants? Earth to lefties, he's not really a conservative or libertarian or anything of the sort. He's a populist, a less crazy version of Lou Dobbs. He's not popular for his personal views, he's popular for the people he has on as guests. Yea, he goes after far lefties but that doesn't make him a credible source on anything.

As for polls, the real deal on HC reform is on Gallup and Rasmussen. This nate silver guy was a former Daily Kos guy, with not too many election predictions under his belt.

If support for the public option is broad, it would be able to pass the House and Senate with ease. Part of the reason why President O is failing so much on the debate is that he hasn't endorsed a single bill! Where does the rhetoric (his speech) match with reality (a bill)?

Codester said... / Sep 18, 2009, 8:39:00 PM  

Sixty-Five Views of HC Reform, One Big Trend

http://is.gd/3qLu3

J said... / Sep 20, 2009, 12:22:00 AM  

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024555.php

"The facts, drawn from A Voting Rights Odyssey by Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU's Voting Project, are astonishing:

When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter's hometown. ...
Carter's board tried to stop the construction of a new "Elementary Negro School" in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be "too close" to a white school. As a result, "the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools." The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found. The state board turned down Carter's request because of "the staggering cost." Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board "would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school."

Codester said... / Sep 20, 2009, 3:55:00 PM  

"...Local white citizens had complained..."

"...The prospect [..] was apparently so horrible to Carter..."

There's more to that story, I'm sure. Looks like a lil selective editing on the part of National Review.

Still, what you continue to demonstrate is why anyone who came from that era and region, in hindsight, can speak so authoritatively about it now.

http://is.gd/3uPue

J said... / Sep 20, 2009, 6:21:00 PM  

Codester said...

"There's more to that story, I'm sure. Looks like a lil selective editing on the part of National Review."

If you are sure of it, then you can prove it easily with your high intellectual capacity. Otherwise, your charge is based on nothing. And I love Jello and the Cosby Show, but he has nothing to do with the fact that a former governor who race-baited his way to the top is now race baiting again to seek attention.

Codester said... / Sep 20, 2009, 7:31:00 PM  

Yeah, what would he possibly know about recognizing racial animosity. Puh!!

J said... / Sep 20, 2009, 8:15:00 PM  

Codester said...

"Yeah, what would he possibly know about recognizing racial animosity. Puh!!"

He's a racial agitator, not some wise man we should all look to in order to "recognize" racial animosity. He is, in fact, the purveyor of such animosity yesterday and today. He agitated on behalf of the white segregationists and racists in Georgia to win a Democratic primary in Georgia; he's agitating now on behalf of black and white liberals who assume that every criticism of the president is rooted in hatred of black people.

Codester said... / Sep 21, 2009, 2:25:00 AM  

I meant Cosby, who in fact is, a wise black man "we should all look to in order to recognize racial animosity.

I've largely ignored you on this cause it's not even worth it. It's clear you seem to take the same view as the authors you Googled, as they minimize this amazing feat of electoral dexterity...

"...Carter only became a great race healer when he decided to run for the presidency. He carefully cultivated a few black leaders in Georgia and earned a reputation as a racially tolerant governor who appointed a few black judges and other state officials [..] Carter had his eyes on a bigger prize and knew he had to energize the black vote in the south if he were to not only win the Democratic nomination, but the general election against Gerald Ford as well..."

Oh, really. "...only became..." Easy!!

Blacks were just duped by this evil white devil until he snapped his fingers, appointed some judges, and brought them all together to back him for the win. Just like that, in the course one election. Simple. Insto-Presto, he's now a "race healer" and not the obvious and clear race-baiter he was just a short time ago.

Your American Thinker article drips with animosity over liberals being seen as racially tolerant and civil rights reformist icons (that they are). I'm surprised you even used it as a reference. It was probably among one or two in a long list you got from Googling the terms "Carter" & "racism".

At the bottom it goes on to state this assertion...

"...liberals insist they can peer into the souls of men and decipher their innermost thoughts, decreeing that this person is a 'racist' and this one isn't..."

After just having stated out right, in the beginning...

"...Pot meet kettle. Or, in this case, blackhearted, race baiting, thug-loving, moralizing hypocrite, meet the truth..."

Yeah... nice job, "J" lol Clearly only conservatives have been granted the power to "peer into the souls of men".

No bias there at all. Did you get at least an AA or BA for that brilliant Google ability of yours? Honorary degree maybe? You deserve one.

Your NRO article was at least a little more balanced in its view since it even eludes to the incident being Carter's response to constituents (EXISTING!!) community racial intolerance, hatred and outrage.

***

And nobody is saying "every criticism of the president is rooted in hatred of black people." Nice try there.

There are conservatives who make very rational and reasoned arguments against some of his policies based on their ideological viewpoint and differences. Honest debate. Good. Great.

But when you see videos of these teabaggers who cannot even describe the policies or object of their opposition, or display bewildering ignorance when asked very basic questions about it... and instead screaming "tyranny" and threatening insurrection and being driven to treasonous secession. THAT is something else entirely.

Now you can keep ranting on this week old thread all you want, but plenty of people (even on your side of the fence) have acknowledged there is more than simple opposition to policy alone. There's a segment that believes he isn't even qualified to be sitting in the office simply out of their own hate. That's undeniable J, as well as indefensible.

J said... / Sep 21, 2009, 1:19:00 PM  

I meant Cosby, who in fact is, a wise black man "we should all look to in order to recognize racial animosity.

He’s not picture perfect either. What makes him the arbiter of all things racial? He called Clarence Thomas “the brother-lite”, suggesting that Clarence Thomas somehow isn’t sufficiently black.

I've largely ignored you on this cause it's not even worth it. It's clear you seem to take the same view as the authors you Googled, as they minimize this amazing feat of electoral dexterity...

Whether I use google or not is not the subject. But FYI, I just have a trusty RSS reader and American Thinker and National Review are on my feeds. You’ve ignored me because I’ve posted points that you didn’t know about regarding the race healer and peanut farmer, President Carter.



Blacks were just duped by this evil white devil until he snapped his fingers, appointed some judges, and brought them all together to back him for the win. Just like that, in the course one election. Simple. Insto-Presto, he's now a "race healer" and not the obvious and clear race-baiter he was just a short time ago.

Stranger things have happened. Were you paying attention to the Democratic primary in 2008? Bill Clinton, once called the “first black President” by Toni Morrison, became a racist overnight. He was lauded by blacks in the 90s, but early in his career was mentored by William Fulbright, a segregationist. George Wallace was a segregationist then a “racial healer” later on. Former Klan member Robert Byrd is now called "The Conscience of the Senate" by Chris Dodd.

J said... / Sep 21, 2009, 2:18:00 PM  

Your American Thinker article drips with animosity over liberals being seen as racially tolerant and civil rights reformist icons (that they are). I'm surprised you even used it as a reference. It was probably among one or two in a long list you got from Googling the terms "Carter" & "racism".

The fact that they use the word “tolerant” to describe their racial attitudes reveals more about the left than it says about people who aren’t leftists. You “tolerate” bad weather or annoying people you don’t want to be around. That may seem like a minute point to someone of your intellectual dexterity and my obvious trailer park sentiments, but you’ve probably never questioned the rhetoric the left uses regarding their racial attitudes. Futhermore, if you want to have this image that liberals are civil rights icons, go ahead. The fact of the matter is that LBJ’s War on Poverty broke apart the black family by incentivizing single motherhood. In harlem in 1960, 80% of black children were born to two parent homes. In 1990s Harlem, 80% of black children were born to single parents. It’s too much to go over here, but here ya go

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

White liberals Looove black people, unless they disagree with liberals enough to start calling themselves conservative and vote Republican.




"...Pot meet kettle. Or, in this case, blackhearted, race baiting, thug-loving, moralizing hypocrite, meet the truth..."

Jimmy Carter did race bait as I’ve already proved, he loves dictators and thugs worldwide, and he’s an anti-semite whose book was just praised by Bin Laden.

J said... / Sep 21, 2009, 2:27:00 PM  

No bias there at all. Did you get at least an AA or BA for that brilliant Google ability of yours? Honorary degree maybe? You deserve one.

Actually I’ve got a BS in computer science. And like I said, RSS is my god. Hilarious obvious "pick on the messenger of inconvenient truths"



And nobody is saying "every criticism of the president is rooted in hatred of black people."Nice try there.

We’re going to have this conversation in every policy debate for the next four to eight years. Liberals will ignore honest debate and focus on the crazies, and claim that those crazies are racist. The conversation will go like this:

“Right wingers had a protest over policy X, there were thousands of people there, but one sign there was sort of offensive”.


There are conservatives who make very rational and reasoned arguments against some of his policies based on their ideological viewpoint and differences. Honest debate. Good. Great.

Are you an example of someone who has rational and reasoned arguments?

“WHO GIVES A RAT'S ASS? What the fuck does that have to do with the goddamn integrity of the poll?
This is what I'm talking about with conservative "trivialities"... you dumbasses obsess over the most needless irrelevant shit I've ever seen.”

Rachel Maddow doesn’t sound like that. Neither does this blonde piece of hot poo tang I’ve seen on Hannity, Caroline Heldman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIIhCC2GeJ0

And we’re not going to have simple policy differences as long as liberals keep denigrating and insulting our base. For example:

But when you see videos of these teabaggers who cannot even describe the policies or object of their opposition, or display bewildering ignorance when asked very basic questions about it... and instead screaming "tyranny" and threatening insurrection and being driven to treasonous secession. THAT is something else entirely.

Screaming tyranny is racist now? Which president have we ever had that didn’t have opposition? I never even gave leftie protests much attention when Bush was in power, but Condi Rice and Powell were called things far worse than what Obama has been called.

Now you can keep ranting on this week old thread all you want, but plenty of people (even on your side of the fence) have acknowledged there is more than simple opposition to policy alone. There's a segment that believes he isn't even qualified to be sitting in the office simply out of their own hate. That's undeniable J, as well as indefensible.

Hilarious. Now I’m ranting on an old thread. This is just your attempt to drop it because you’ve figured out that Jimmy Carter doesn’t come to this with clean hands. You’ve pulled out the original American Thinker articles to make other points that have nothing to do with the conversation. There’s a segment of the population that didn’t think Bush was qualified to be president, ditto for Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, and everybody else. 12% of this country thinks Elvis is still alive. People believe in all sorts of kooky stuff like the Birther conspiracy, North American Uniion conspiracy, and the Bilderbergers. That doesn’t make them racist. This is the most far-left president in the history of the country, we'd be protesting like hell if Dennis Kucinich got elected and we protested like hell when Bill Clinton tried to nationalize healthcare.

Codester said... / Sep 22, 2009, 3:24:00 AM  

J said... Liberals will ignore honest debate and focus on the crazies

Here's "honest" Republican debate in the form of time wasting amendments... http://is.gd/3y5t0

After saying Democrats were distracting and dodging the real business of health care reform by addressing the Joe Wilson decorum embarrassment... now they wanna fuck around with ACORN and CZARS.

We focus on the crazies? The crazy kinda gets right up in our faces, J. Lil hard to ignore.

J said... / Sep 22, 2009, 10:14:00 AM  

"We focus on the crazies? The crazy kinda gets right up in our faces, J. Lil hard to ignore."

The Dems are imploding from within, Republicans don't have any power. Blame Rahm Emmanual for recruiting conservative Democrats in 2006; don't blame John Kyl.

J said... / Sep 23, 2009, 2:53:00 AM  

And for the knockout blow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w4xjcRzqts

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/22/carter-called-obama-this-back

"Well, Maureen Dowd will be furious when she hears this one. It is Ms. Dowd, as noted in my column nearby, who said she heard Congressman Joe Wilson really yell "You Lie...Boy!" in a racially derogatory fashion even though she admits he only said the first two words. Her point, of course, is that to refer to the President as a "boy" is a racial insult.
In case Ms. Dowd -- or White Mo as we fondly refer to her in these quarters based on her proclivity for judging people by skin color -- saw the video linked here she might, well, never write about it! After all, you don't want to see Jimmy Carter actually call Mr. Obama "this black boy" and get written up as an actual news event in the New York Times, do you. As the rest of us learned long ago, all the news really isn't fit to print."

Post a Comment