We are all Latino now

Written By: - Date published: 9:48 am, November 9th, 2012 - 92 comments
Categories: democratic participation, racism, us politics - Tags: , , ,

Some Republicans have been disgraceful losers in the American presidential race. From Carl Rove denying the obvious on Fox “News”, to 400 students in a racially motivated riot, to Donald Trump calling for revolution, a march on Washington and other nonsense.

Amongst the noise, one standout was rabid partisan Bill O’Reilly, lamenting the demise of “the white establishment”, and repeating Romney’s lines that Obama voters just want handouts. Here he is live on Fox:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0-No1HGzfo

Quotes:

Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly said tonight that if President Barack Obama wins re-election, it’s because the demographics of the country have changed and “it’s not a traditional America anymore.”

“The white establishment is now the minority,” O’Reilly said. “And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”

Bitterness, prejudice, and a healthy dose of racism, quickly picked up by supremacist groups like Stormfront (not linking to them).

Take away the prejudice and bile, however, and O’Reilly is correct about some of the facts. Obama’s support was down amongst white males. He was elected by the the Black vote, the Latino vote, the young vote, the female vote, and by a high turnout. The Latino vote seems to have been particularly decisive:

Poll: Latino Vote Devastated GOP Even Worse Than Exits Showed

Mitt Romney lost Latinos by unprecedented margins — even worse than the initial exit polls showed — according to a study by Latino Decisions.

An election eve poll of 5,600 voters across all 50 states by the group, which has researched the Latino vote throughout the campaign, concluded Obama won by an eye-popping 75-23 margin. Their research concluded that CNN’s exit poll estimate of 71 percent of Latinos breaking to Obama likely undercounted their support, although they agreed with the assessment that turnout equaled 10 percent of the electorate.

“For the first time in US history, the Latino vote can plausibly claim to be nationally decisive,” Stanford University university professor Gary Segura, who conducted the study, told reporters.

According to Segura, the Latino vote provided Obama with 5.4 percent of his margin over Romney, well more than his overall lead in the popular vote. Had Romney managed even 35 percent of the Latino vote, he said, the results may have flipped nationally. …

“This poll makes clear what we’ve known for a long time: the Latino giant is wide awake, cranky, and its taking names,” Eliseo Medina, Secretary-Treasurer of the SEIU, told reporters Wednesday on a conference call discussing the results.

Is the Latino vote now the deciding factor in American politics? Will an all white ticket win the presidential election ever again? If race becomes a dominant factor in politics the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Here’s Mark Karlin on Truthout’s election blog:

It Was a Race About Race

Let’s face it, while exit polls voters identified the most important issue in the 2012 presidential contest as the economy, the number one unspoken issue was race.

For four years, a significant percentage of the US population has used every code word and threat to defile Obama — the son of a white mother and black father — as a foreigner in his own land. As fellow journalist William Rivers Pitt wrote earlier today on the Truthout Election 2012 blog, “The Republican Party has made it a matter of survival to convince people, who are in every other way probably very good and decent types, that half the country, indeed their own neighbors, are swarming with The Enemy, and that Enemy does not deserve basic American rights like voting.” …

Race wasn’t mentioned in the debates – heck poverty was ignored. Race wasn’t on the ballot. However, race was very much part of the coded appeal to white voters by the Romney campaign and many Republican candidates. Race matters. More than nearly 150 years after the Civil War, we are still a nation struggling with a legacy of emotional feelings of racial superiority and entitlement.

A nation divided by race remains a nation divided. We can settle our economic problems, but our racial friction and discord have continued as the lamentable subtext of our political discourse since the founding of the United States. It must be confronted frontally.

Speaking for myself I would not for one moment mourn the passing of “the White establishment” in America. It is well past time for a broader and better grounded perspective in politics. We live in interesting times.

92 comments on “We are all Latino now ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. TheContrarian 1
    9 November 2012 at 10:08 am

    The Republicans really need to move back towards the centre (and stop yelling about rape) plus recognise their vision of the make-up of US population is never going to be how it was and they can’t win as an old white man club.

    2016 they’ll put Marco Rubio up.

    • millsy 1.1
      9 November 2012 at 10:23 am

      Rubio will be 45 when 2016 rolls around (hes only 9 years older than I am — that is scary).

      As I said before, a lot of Latinos (but not all) are socially conservative and share Republican values. They dont do welfare or anything like that. They only voted Obama because the GOP thinks they are subhuman.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 10:29 am

        They only voted Obama because the GOP thinks they are subhuman.

        The problem is that’s not a ‘policy’ that the GOP can rescind at Conference very easily.

      • TheContrarian 1.1.2
        9 November 2012 at 10:38 am

        I am guessing Ryan/Rubio 2016

        Ryan came off unscathed, his debate performance was solid, he won back his seat and he is respected by his own party.

        Rubio is young, Latino (originally Cuban I believe), and well-liked in his party.

        Seems like the right mix.

        Dunno who in the Democrat party could run in 2016. Obviously Clinton but probably not Biden.

        • millsy 1.1.2.1
          9 November 2012 at 11:00 am

          Im guessing the GOP would want to make a fresh start in ’16, so they would leave Ryan in the House to cause trouble there.

          Biden and Clinton are too old, and too establishment (as well as uninspiring) to be presidential candidates. I dont think Clinton would want the job anyway. A lucative speaking tour or perhaps a diplomatic post would await her?

          The Dem candidate will be someone that we have never heard of.

          • Zorr 1.1.2.1.1
            9 November 2012 at 11:10 am

            Elizabeth Warren 2016 – you heard it here first! ^_^

            I mean, she has American Indian heritage, is a woman and… a SOCIALIST!!! *gasp* How could she lose?

            (nb: <3 Warren, she is the best senator currently in, imo, along with Bernie Sanders)

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 11:59 am

              And in terms of congressmen Alan Grayson, Florida 9th congressional district.

            • karol 1.1.2.1.1.2
              9 November 2012 at 12:00 pm

              That Guardian article I linked to below show several promising women were elected to the Senate and Congress – I believe it now is a record number of women – so I reckon they have a few promising candiates for Democrat presidential nominations next time round.

          • TheContrarian 1.1.2.1.2
            9 November 2012 at 11:12 am

            I dunno dude, I think Ryan is probably quite hot because he is the first ‘pop culture’ figure the GOP have run which I think will connect with young and old.

            Interesting either way

            • millsy 1.1.2.1.2.1
              9 November 2012 at 11:45 am

              Well 2016 is a pretty long way off.

              Anything can happen between now and then. We have a mid term election in 2014 to go through yet, which will change things, with the depature, return and coming up of new talent.

              • TheContrarian …
                9 November 2012 at 11:54 am

                Indeed, but I hope the republican party wises up and dumps the religious zealots and the Randians. The need top move back to the centre, not further to the evangelical right, if they are going to have a chance.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  9 November 2012 at 1:02 pm

                  And here’s me hoping that they’ll move further the the right. The greater the disconnect between them and reality the better.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    9 November 2012 at 3:58 pm

                    Well, that wouldn’t be for the better – all governments need effective opposition and an array of challenging, dissenting, opinions to keep them on their toes.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      9 November 2012 at 8:15 pm

                      Normally I’d agree with you but in this case it looks like the GOP are still going to be the government. They’re just going to have a president from the other party.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      10 November 2012 at 12:03 am

                      Which is why the republican party would be better to shuck off their old ideas and move in a different direction. At least be challenging instead some weirdo Evangelical circus.

                  • QoT …
                    9 November 2012 at 9:07 pm

                    Fox have already been hammering the narrative that Romney was “too liberal” so I’d say you’re getting your wish.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 November 2012 at 9:11 pm

                      According to them, Mussolini was a bleeding heart lefty

                    • rosy …
                      9 November 2012 at 11:24 pm

                      Unbelievable! From what I understand it was the states that were polling for the most conservative views (women’s reproductive rights especially) that the Republicans lost.

                      Surely the Republicans are going to splinter at the time when the great diverse ‘other’ are hanging together to vote Democrat. That is the lesson the left should be taking.

        • Richard Christie 1.1.2.2
          9 November 2012 at 2:32 pm

          TheContrarian 1.1.2
          9 November 2012 at 10:38 am

          I am guessing Ryan/Rubio 2016

          Ryan came off unscathed, his debate performance was solid, he won back his seat and he is respected by his own party.

          Unscathed? Hmmf

          Ryan was merely a more articulate version of Palin.
          Ultimately the Tea Party is going to take the fall for the electoral rejection.
          Those close to the TP, the fundies and science deniers, such as Ryan, are going to found wanting.

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.2.1
            9 November 2012 at 4:02 pm

            Ryan was also the darling of the extreme Right Wing of the Republican party. Unelectable in his own right.

      • Rich 1.1.3
        9 November 2012 at 12:33 pm

        I wonder if that’s the equivalent of the oft repeated saw that most Pasifica people are social conservatives. Sure, their self-appointed leaders (like corrupt priests and feudal chiefs) are, and it’s attractive to mainstream parties to think that the way to get the votes of (insert minority here) is to co-opt some “community leader”. But in practice (and especially with a ‘minority’ that’s been in the US longer than white people) I believe most people vote as individuals.

        • Pascal's bookie 1.1.3.1
          9 November 2012 at 12:57 pm

          +1

          You get in real trouble when the appeal is based on “those guys like this stuff, so let’s do that and signal that it’s about them!”

          Folks aren’t stupid.

    • Stephen Doyle 1.2
      9 November 2012 at 4:30 pm

      Probably with Jeb Bush. As governor of Florida he apparently is on the more moderate side of the party.

  2. weka 2
    9 November 2012 at 10:14 am

    “The white establishment is now the minority,” O’Reilly said. “And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”
     

    I had to laugh at that. They finally get it! Then I just think ‘diddums’.
     
    Anyone from the white male establishment who has any humanity and sense of history needs to do their mourning in private, and then get on with things.
     
    For the white men who might be feeling put upon, it’s really simple: if you desire a society that is diverse and equitable, you will be welcome. If you want to hold onto your privilege and power at the expense of others then side with the white male establishment as it goes down. Just don’t expect much sympathy.

    • vto 2.1
      9 November 2012 at 11:37 am

      What got me about that comment is that he implies that these “things” that the others want are somehow inherently the property of the white establishment. And that these “things” are to given or taken.

      What he misses is that those “things” are the result of the entire mix of American society and so they should be spread around the entire mix of American society. He seems to assume that those “things” are the result of just the white establishment part of American society and implies that they will be taken from the white establishment. If there is an element of taking then that will be of those “things” which were never rightly the property of the white establishment anyway.

      I am sure the white establishment will come to understand this – well, I guess some already probably do understand that, some will come around to it, and some will just refuse to see it.

      2c

        • Jim Nald 2.1.1.1
          9 November 2012 at 12:21 pm

          vto – well put.

          Re “What he misses is that those “things” are the result of the entire mix of American society and so they should be spread around the entire mix of American society.”

          And back on Planet Key – Batshit, Billshit and Joycestick are selling or giving up “things” that are the result of generations of the mix of Kiwis who have built them.

          • vto 2.1.1.1.1
            9 November 2012 at 12:29 pm

            Exactly Jim, and that makes it even worse because the flow in New Zealand of “things” is not from the minority to the entire mix of society but in the other direction – from the entire mix of society to a minority.

            This change in the US is another evidential example of the ebbing tide around ex-colonial type establishments and neoliberalism.

            That’s it pour moi – gotta fly. Away from “things” and into the wilds. Where there be no phones, no roads, no cars no people no buildings no tv no web no politicians no crime, just mountains bush river beach and sea. That’s me. Out

  3. karol 3
    9 November 2012 at 10:20 am

    The rise in the proportion of Latino people in the US population has been predicted for some time.  And no doubt the Latino vote for Obama was significant.  But the fact that the Republicans have latched onto that, as you show, Anthony, just highlights their racism.
     
    But others, such as a Guardian article, are saying it was actually the female vote that has been decisive in the election of Obama:

    Women gave Obama 55% to Romney’s 43%, a proportion that was unchanged from the president’s lead among women in 2008….
     
    Women voted in record numbers, and the gender gap between the two candidates could not have been more profound. Unmarried women backed the president by an incredible 38 percentage-point margin over Romney, a statistic which was one of the most striking of Tuesday night.
     
    But the driving force behind female voters was not so-called “women’s issues” – it was the economy.
     
    Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organisation for Woman, said: “It is economic issues. Sure, at a certain point it’s also about rights, but at a more immediate level it’s about survival.

     
    We may be seeing the same thing in NZ with the worsening economic situation.  So, Labour’s alleged chasing of the “Waitakere Man” vote via the likes of Tamihere, may be misguided.  Undoubtedly, low income men will also be looking for someone to represent their interests, but not just them.  As with the Republicans, we have seen NAct wage a “war against women” in various ways.
     
    There are complicated demographics involved, and the right wingers will seek to exploit racial, and other prejudices and stereotypes: and do their usual distortions and diversions.

    • weka 3.1
      9 November 2012 at 10:23 am

      It’s high time that the left in NZ focussed on the importance of women’s votes.

    • r0b 3.2
      9 November 2012 at 10:36 am

      Long past time for a female president.

      • weka 3.2.1
        9 November 2012 at 11:30 am

        True, but not a Republican one first.

      • burt 3.2.2
        9 November 2012 at 3:52 pm

        Long past time for a female president.

        Funny, I though it was about getting the right person for the job rather than playing some PC game where different races and genders are all given their turn….

        But I’ll play your game – is there a preferred ethnic background for this overdue female president ?

        • muzza 3.2.2.1
          9 November 2012 at 4:31 pm

          Have to agree Burt…

          As if the “woman” would make a difference.

          Seems people still can’t accept or get through their heads, where the “power” to choose the candidates actually comes from.

          Someone mentioned Rice – The disgraced Condoleza, or the current loud mouthed war mongering reactionary and hater, Susan?

          It was Miya Love who the GOP tried to “promote” this time around..

          Straws, clutching, all of them, argh…

        • millsy 3.2.2.2
          9 November 2012 at 4:32 pm

          “Funny, I though it was about getting the right person for the job rather than playing some PC game where different races and genders are all given their turn….”

          We fully endorse that position, its just that you can be more right wing than Ronald Reagan and still not win the GOP nomination for President because youre a woman. Getting better though at lower levels.

          I thought that you would be glad that the right are finally waking up and realising that non white/females do support right wing policies.

        • felix 3.2.2.3
          9 November 2012 at 4:40 pm

          It is certainly “long past time” for a female president, provided that you accept the following three statements:

          1. There is no gender-based reason that a male will always be a better person for the job than a female,

          2. Half of America’s population are female,

          3. All of their presidents have been male.

          With which one do you disagree?

          • Tracey 3.2.2.3.1
            9 November 2012 at 4:46 pm

            I still suspect that Obama got the nomination ahead of Hilary Clinton because even in 2007 it was “better” to have a black man than a woman… progress indeed for black men in America but perhaps not for women.

            • Pascal's bookie 3.2.2.3.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 5:54 pm

              Possibly, but I think it’s pretty easy to come up with reasons for Obama winning that primary without that.

              1) Clinton didn’t expect Obama to be in a fight. If you go back and look at the early coverage, pretty much everyone assumed she had it in the bag, and that it would all be resolved on super-Tuesday. Consequently, she didn’t do the legwork in the early states, particularly the caucuses. Obama picked up some wins which gave him enough head wind to make it a fight post super-Tuesday, and the Clinton machine was scrambling to get organised in places that they didn’t think they would need to fight in after that.

              2) Clinton had Iraq war votes to explain that gave Obama free hits.

              3) Obama was a clean slate in terms of oppo research, which is why the GOP went with all the ‘crazy black church’ stuff and other nonsense. Clinton had all the baggage that came from her husband’s years in the white house. Her ‘negatives’ in the country at large were substantial, and in the primary, Dem voters would have the general in mind. They wanted a candidate that could win first and foremost. Clinton’s negatives in national polling counted against her.

              It was a hell of a fight, and Clinton started out the favorite with backing of the party machine, but she lost to the guy who has demonstrated that he can build a pretty effective machine himself.

              • karol …
                9 November 2012 at 6:03 pm

                It may be all of those factors, Pb, as well as the fact that TPTB didn’t want a woman president – certainly the opponents (amongst democrats and republicans) played on her gender. 
                 
                I know someone who worked on the ground for the Obama campaign who reckons that Obama’s was way better organised than Clinton’s. 
                 
                But it was also clear to me that at some point the MSM swung behind Obama, characterising him as leading an unstoppable ground swell, while also allowing the mysogynist attacks on Clinton.

    • Jim Nald 3.3
      9 November 2012 at 12:14 pm

      Mary Ann Walsh, on Morning Report yesterday, made a few good comments including this one:

      “Don’t underestimate also the role that women played in this election.

      “When you go across the country and look at the issues of reproductive health and comments about abortion and rape, a lot of women looked at Mitt Romney and the Republicans (because remember a lot of Republicans lost as well) … and they [thought] …

      – if you don’t trust me to make decisions about my own health, I don’t trust you to make decisions for me in Washington.

    • Wayne 3.4
      9 November 2012 at 4:20 pm

      “Wage war against women”; you are fooling yourself. The Nats poll well among women. If the Left really think they can compare the Nats to the Tea Party Republicans, you are on track to loose the next election.

      I have noted here before that this view that it is NAct or NACT is part of the Lefts problem. The voters, especially in the middle, simply do not characterise National that way, and no amount of repeating this meme will convince them.

      • Colonial Viper 3.4.1
        9 November 2012 at 4:37 pm

        How long will National stay above 40%…

      • Tracey 3.4.2
        9 November 2012 at 4:48 pm

        Even ACT is not comparable tot he tea party…

        IF a comparrison were required I would say

        Nation/Act = democrat….

        no one here represents tea party.

        The idea that labour or greens are equated tot he democrats is also misguided. The democrats are way more conservative than our so-called left of centre parties… except in 84-90 and 99 to 2008 when Labour was probably closest to democrats.

      • weka 3.4.3
        9 November 2012 at 4:50 pm

        I’d like to see some of the pre-election campaigning next time to focus on women’s issues. At a non-partisan level this would be good for the country. But as left voter I think it would also help the left. Look at what is being done to welfare, with the particular emphasis on women on the DPB/mothers and their choices around parenting. The left could reframe that as an attack on women, or better yet, as women needing to defend their human rights.

    • Tracey 3.5
      9 November 2012 at 4:51 pm

      All those republicans who wanted cheap household maids and gardeners are now upset…. boo freaking hoo… Karma is a bitch baby

  4. ak 4
    9 November 2012 at 10:30 am

    Cracker post r0b, wonderful comments weka and karol. Those figures signal the most potent beacon of hope and progression in decades, its cleansing glory reflecting in myriad ways on the Aotearoa we all love as we speak.

  5. Enough is Enough 5
    9 November 2012 at 10:40 am

    Condoleezza Rice could be the answer for the GOP in 2016.

    I don’t agree with her politics and she played her part in the torture of illegally held prisoners. But as a symbol she would be electoral gold. An intelligent Female African American on the ticket would be a strategically brilliant move.

    • millsy 5.1
      9 November 2012 at 10:49 am

      …with Rubio has her running mate.

    • karol 5.2
      9 November 2012 at 10:58 am

      Ah, but she’s problematic for the GOP in being a single woman. There were stories around the Net that she wasn’t chosen back in 2008, because of lesbian rumours associated with her.  This tends to happen with powerful women.  There are similar online rumours about Hilary Clinton, but somewhat undermined by her high-profile marriage. 
       
      Oh, it seems she was up for running mate for Romney.  It  was considered she was ruled out because she’s pro abortion and pro gay marriage.

      • millsy 5.2.1
        9 November 2012 at 11:04 am

        What is with these rednecks? We on the left complain about people voting against their own interests, but the the right should also just be vocal about their votes being unwanted because they are the wrong colour, gender or sleep with a person of the wrong gender.

      • Enough is Enough 5.2.2
        9 November 2012 at 11:06 am

        You are probably right Karol that she won’t be a starter as hard core Republican’s would rather move to Canada than vote for her in a Primary.

        But as a strategy to win support from American’s that are not the middle class Cowboy hat wearing bible belt red necks, it would be a winner.

  6. Rodel 6
    9 November 2012 at 10:44 am

    For an excellent, incisive and hilarious analysis of the US election see Jon Stewart’s Daily Show..

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-7-2012/post-democalypse-2012—america-takes-a-shower?xrs=eml_tds

  7. Pascal's bookie 7
    9 November 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Sullivan has a round up of folk, incl some not insane Repub’s, on this issue:

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/how-obama-won.html

    Short version, some of them see that symbolism won’t cut it, that it will take policy; but the problem is that those policies are what give them the votes of the people who fear the demographic changes.

    Can’t win with ’em, can’t win without ’em.

    That’s a shit sandwich to have to eat, but they built that.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      9 November 2012 at 4:28 pm

      That’s a shit sandwich to have to eat, but they built that.

      And this is the bull’s eye.

      10 years of Rove/Fox News/right wing talk back have created a fervent loyal political base – which just happens to be completely disconnected with the reality of their own country, and which has annihilated any moderate non-fundy Republican candidates left in the party.

      What they thought was going to be an asset is now their sea anchor, dragging them down.

  8. Pascal's bookie 8
    9 November 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Also, Ta-Nehisi Coates:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/dear-republicans-marco-rubio-will-not-save-you/264976/

    heriff Arpaio does not owe his prominence to a military coup. He owes it to actual Republicans, virtually none of whom have any interest in seeing the party diversify on a policy level. Diversity isn’t simply giving Mia Love a plum speaking spot. It is finding a Mia Love who represents the interests, and will advocate for policies, of other Mia Loves.

    I don’t think this is something you fix by 2016. This is a big problem. It took Democrats more than a half of a century of wandering to get it right.

  9. mickysavage 9
    9 November 2012 at 1:13 pm

    This election reminds me a bit of the New Zealand election in 2005.  Romney and Brash were two rich white males who have a similar world view.  Romney with his 47% speech and Brash with his comments how blacks, women and immigrants were not mainstream kiwis really raised peoples heckles and caused fear and resentment.  The flow of support to Labour and to Obama from the ethnic communities as well as the increased activism won each election.

    National were way smarter in 2008 and got rid of the ethnic dog whistling.  They even included ethnic MPs way up the list in winnable positions to give the sense of diversity that Labour originally had a premium over.

    If the Republicans want to win again I suspect they will have to do the same.  They will also need to cut loose the Tea Party and either shut down Fox News or at least muzzle the more extreme commentators that they have. 

    EDIT: I should add that the Exclusive Bretheren stuff was our own version of the Tea Party. The involvement of an extreme group supporting the conservative party really scared ordinary people into activism and into voting.

  10. prism 10
    9 November 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Bill O’Reilly sounds Irish. The Irish received their share of prejudice in the USA. That was one reason why John Kennedy being elected President was an awesome change there. Now that the Irish have struggled to the top they are doing the usual human thing of holding the ramparts and ‘pouring boiling oil’ on the struggling hordes below. And ‘So it goes’, Kurt Vonnegut, ironically and sadly (died 11 April 2007 aged 84).
    And further from that great man via Wikipedia –

    In These Times quoted him as saying “The only difference between Hitler and Bush is that Hitler was elected.”[42][43] In a 2003 interview Vonnegut said, “I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d’etat imaginable.

    And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka ‘Christians,’ and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or ‘PPs.'”[44] When asked how he was doing at the start of a 2003 interview, he replied: “I’m mad about being old and I’m mad about being American. Apart from that, OK.”

  11. Tracey 11
    9 November 2012 at 4:43 pm

    “The white establishment is now the minority,” O’Reilly said. “And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”

    Roll back three hundred years. You are white and just arrived in America. You are by far the minority, but you have guns. I wonder if native americans spoke of the white newcomers the same way.

    White men in america, and other countries are finally having to share, just a little bit… They have forgotten they are a minority. BUT a minority with most of the wealth and most of the jobs and most of the power. They don’t like sharing, and when they do have to hsare they see it as their “rights” bveing taken off them.

    At one stage last decade or so 26% of the american population were white men but they held about 85% of the jobs… those are guesses based on recall of an Oprah show once (yes, I know).

    So when they were bemoaning the quota system and using phrases like “they’re taking our jobs”… They were the same as Bill O’Reilly today.

    In fact it is Bill O’Reilley that has a sense of entitlement who believes that a quarter of the population should get 86% of the jobs and wealth and power.No one’s <b?taking their jobs because they were not a right, and they weren’t theirs but society’s.

    Just a thought.

    • fatty 11.1
      9 November 2012 at 7:00 pm

      well said…

      “In fact it is Bill O’Reilley that has a sense of entitlement”

      Bill O’Reilley wants to continue the culture of disentitlement that exists in America. And O’Reilly is right in saying that Obama wants to give things to non-whites…he wants to give them some dignity, he wants to give them a sense of inclusiveness, and he wants them to be given their human rights.
      The word ‘entitlement’ has become so powerful, its a neoliberal buzzword that needs to be resisted. I think the Greens last year were talking a lot about our culture of disentitlement in AAC and WINZ…Labour (and all left parties in NZ and around the world) need to be highlighting how entitlement is a minor issue, and instead disentitlement is creating our inequality.
      A painter on the roof story perpetuates the BELIEF that a culture of entitlement exists, when it actually CREATES a culture of disentitlement.

      • karol 11.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 7:04 pm

        I think the Greens last year were talking a lot about our culture of disentitlement in AAC and WINZ…Labour (and all left parties in NZ and around the world) need to be highlighting how entitlement is a minor issue, and instead disentitlement is creating our inequality.
         
        Well said – ditto, Tracey on whites as a minority with a sense of entitlement.

  12. ak 12
    9 November 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Yes the “entitlement” bizzo’s a doozy: by dint of simple repetition on talkback, sewerblogs, fuxmedia etc, they’ve managed to paint hard-won gains for the underdog as Greed.

    As others have noted, obscene irony indeed from the born-to-take Mammonmeisters steeped and bred into a psyche of pure, unadulterated a priori entitlement themselves.

    Reminds one of the ludicrous mysogenistic Helenhate campaign – so successful that even intelligent tory women of my own acquaintance were somehow drawn to remark that there were “too many women in power”!

    “One law for all” doubled the tory poll. Single-handed and almost overnight. Despite the blatant non-existence of any law not for all.

    Common theme here, Standardistas: anyone else hear Romney repeat “brighter future”?

    Identify the carefully-selected and repeated phrase and drown it at birth.

    And above all, never give succour to the baying mob.

    Current case in relation to tory shills working their slimy wares here: “preferred” does not mean “popular”: and “hatred” of any politician has respect as a prerequisite. (“The nasty party” seems to be another smear-du-jour – again, supreme irony from the NACTZIs)

    I prefer bat shit to dog vomit: this does not make the former “popular”.

    Up against it as always, because the entitled own the conduit to the deciders. Batshitman will remain popular. But you can at least avoid being complicit.

    Carry “stuttering Shearer” any further than next week and condemn tens of thousands of your less able brothers and sisters to misery for years to come.

    • Pascal's bookie 12.1
      9 November 2012 at 11:18 pm

      Check out this fcken guy. An econ lecturer at an Australian uni:

      http://t.co/dgwg7wpl

      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 11:51 pm

        A quick skim proved tat he’s a typical old economist – totally fucken delusional. As far as he’s concerned, his beliefs and those of the people who agree with him are right and everybody else, including reality, is wrong.

      • rosy 12.1.2
        9 November 2012 at 11:53 pm

        This needed quoting (just for preparation for clicking on the link)….

        The confluence of the mendicants, the envious, the abortion lobby, what I will call the cohort of damaged women, and the social sciences know-nothings has proven a formidable combination. They are a new constituency amalgamation that will affect the politics of the United States for the foreseeable future.

        He does harp on about the damaged women – even though he starts with bashing the beneficiaries and the working poor. I think he has an Eve (as in Adam and Eve) complex. And as for know-nothing, do-nothing social scientists – they managed to be active enough to help get the vote out 😉

        • Tracey 12.1.2.1
          12 November 2012 at 12:45 pm

          ” know-nothing, do-nothing social scientists” as opposed to foreign currency dealers, now that’s real work which brings them into contact with folk from all walks of life!!

    • KJT 12.2
      10 November 2012 at 8:55 pm

      Welfare recipients “Culture of Entitlement”.

      Unintentional irony from individuals who are sitting on 100 thousand dollar pay rises, while their company tanks in the recession, salt their income away offshore to avoid taxes, expect taxpayer bailouts when their gambling fails, and ask for tax cuts while the deficit increases.

      • RedLogix 12.2.1
        10 November 2012 at 9:06 pm

        Unintentional irony

        Unmitigated gall? Utter self-centred hubris? A deep weary cynicism? …cliches fail me.

        But I also believe that at some level they do know of their own perfidy, they know that are amoral arseholes and this is what drives them to madness.

    • Tracey 12.3
      12 November 2012 at 12:43 pm

      ” ludicrous mysogenistic Helenhate campaign – so successful that even intelligent tory women of my own acquaintance were somehow drawn to remark that there were “too many women in power”!”

      ++++1

  13. AmaKiwi 13
    9 November 2012 at 11:18 pm

    “Just one in every ten Republican voters were non-white. That is the story of the 2012 election.”

    (Chris Cillizza & Jon Cohen in today’s Washington Post)

    What are the numbers for NZ political parties? Can any of you tell us?

    Therein lies the future.

    • Pascal's bookie 13.1
      9 November 2012 at 11:23 pm

      Without exit polling it’s really hard to get the answer, and exit polling aint legal here AFAIK

      • AmaKiwi 13.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 11:44 pm

        I understand. I don’t know a single Green (outside of Parliament) who is not a well-educated upper middle class white person. If that is an accurate reflection of the Greens party, they are destined to remain a very limited group. Maybe I am wrong.

        I read people here saying they have or will vote Manna. Does Manna have much of a racial mix or is it overwhelmingly Maori?

        • fatty 13.1.1.1
          10 November 2012 at 12:13 am

          I’d like to know more too AmaKiwi.
          I’m not too sure…as for me, I’m an educated middle class Pakeha who votes Mana. I know of w few others like me, but also many Greens as you describe them. Although they’d refute the term ‘upper’ and say middle class, but acknowledge they have strong support networks (so in the end they, and me, are about as well protected as the ‘upper class’).
          I have always thought that a lot of former Green supporters have moved to Mana for the same reasons that Sue Bradford feels more comfortable with Mana.I don’t think of it as being any more Maori-centric than the Greens were 10 years ago. I think a lot of people with anti-capitalist ideals have moved from the Greens to Mana, and that would involve a lot of Pakeha – like me. There are a lot of educated people voting Mana, and I think more will start to come over from the Greens.
          I do consider it a misconception that Mana are primarily disenfranchised Maori Party voters, they are also disenfranchised Green voters, and socialists who were looking for a party that represented some of their ideals.
          I’m not so sure Greens have lost Pakeha overall, because they have gained a lot of mainstream people, and lost people who could be considered fringe. When they lost Bradford, Nandor, Fitzsimons, Donald, I think they lost their direction.
          I think I have just confused myself, but it is quite confusing.

          • R 13.1.1.1.1
            10 November 2012 at 8:37 pm

            I’m another Pakeha Mana voter, was Green through and through until Mana formed (I am too young to have voted Alliance). Had genuinely considered voting Maori when the MP formed, but decided it wouldn’t be appropriate because I was supporting the formation of their party, not necessarily any policies they espoused.

            I’d put myself in the ‘looking for a party that represented some of their ideals’ camp. Bradford and Minto aren’t Maori, but even if they were it would have no bearing on my choice. Mana represented policies and beliefs I genuinely engage with and support. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it for me.

        • ak 13.1.1.2
          10 November 2012 at 12:13 am

          Nix mix. And like Mana, also from heaven; overwhelmingly progressive and recently bestowed on the lost tribes of the new world.

  14. peterquixote 14
    10 November 2012 at 1:26 am

    Obama inherited debit after many former Presidents of 10.6 trillion dollars.
    Obama will leave presidency 20 trillion dollars debit in 2017.

    The America left think they can charge this up to taxpayers.
    11 trillion dollars from Obama is divide by 150 million taxpayers to get.
    Thats $80,000 each taxpayer for Obama, don’t you love him.
    Leave for China now wealthy Americans flee anywhere, leave the beloved Country to them

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      10 November 2012 at 1:29 am

      USA would be better off if the weath sucking wealth hoarding billionaires pissed off out of their country.

      Also, time to break up all the banks into little harmless pieces.

      • prism 14.1.1
        10 November 2012 at 9:10 pm

        CV Don’t know about that. Remember in the Terminator how even after being trashed the pieces of the robot flow together and rebuild.

    • millsy 14.2
      10 November 2012 at 12:00 pm

      Yes, having military bases open all around the world (100 in Germany alone!) can be pretty expensive, throw in all those aircraft carriers, and fancy toys that the generals want (that dont work — the flash looking Osprey helicopter-plane hybrid is still having problems 20 years on and the flash new F22 has problems with the oxygen to the point where pilots are refusing the fly them), is it any wonder that the USA is in so much debt.

  15. kea 15
    10 November 2012 at 9:11 am

    If Iceland can have an effective, innovative, and popular lesbian prime minister,
    why can’t we ?

    In the end it depends on confidence in the person, not their sexuality.