CE Week #5: “GOP fears charges of racism, sexism”
|
By: David Paul Kuhn |
|
| 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. Republicans will be told to “be sensitive to tone and stick to the substance of the discussion” and that “the key is that you have to be sensitive to the fact that you are running against historic firsts,” the strategist explained.
In other words, Republicans should expect a severe backlash if they say or do anything that smacks of politicizing race or gender. They didn’t need an expensive poll to learn that lesson, however. They could simply have asked Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Clinton or any number of Democratic politicians who stung over their choice of words in this campaign already. GOP officials are certain their words will be scrutinized ever more aggressively. They anticipate a regular media barrage of accusations of intolerance – or much worse. They seem most concerned about Obama right now. “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. “Being an African American at the top of the ticket, if he makes it, is such a great statement about the country,” he added, “Obviously you have to be sensitive to issues that affect urban America. …You have to be careful.” GOP operatives have already coined a term for clumsy rhetoric: “undisciplined messaging.” It appears as a bullet point in a Power Point presentation making the rounds among major donors, party leaders and surrogates. The presentation outlines five main strategic attacks against an Obama candidacy, with one of them stating how “undisciplined messaging carries great risk.” “Republicans will need to exercise less deafness and more deftness in dealing with a different looking candidate, whether it is a woman or a black man,” Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway said. “But at the same time, really charge back at any insinuation or accusation of sexism or racism. “You can’t allow the party to be Macaca-ed,” she continued, referring to a much-publicized remark made by former GOP Sen. George Allen that played a significant role in his 2006 defeat. “I think the standards are higher and the bar is lower for the Republican Party.” Republicans interviewed for this story uniformly believe they will have to be especially careful. Many expect to be held to a higher rhetorical standard than is customary in campaigns, in part because of perceptions of intolerance that still dog the party. “Fair or unfair, but that’s going to be a reality,” said GOP strategist John Weaver, a longtime confidant of John McCain. “The P.C. [politically correct] police will be out and the standards will be very narrow.” The McCain camp is only beginning to explore this dilemma, aides said. McCain’s strategic team still lacks survey research on either of their likely opponents in the general election, inhibiting their capacity “to discuss it intelligently,” a top adviser said. The campaign is currently occupied with “getting our act together structurally.” “But my basic thought on it is that McCain is not much of a negative campaigner anyhow,” the advisor said. “When he does get into debates with people it’s on issues, substance. So I don’t think we are going to have to train our candidate not to insult people.” The potential for mischief reaches well beyond any “undisciplined messaging” that the Republican nominee might engage in. In the case of the Clinton campaign, it has been the surrogates – like former President Clinton – who have been the source of much of the blowback for imprudent language. “What I would not do is do what Bill Clinton has done,” said Ed Rollins, Mike Huckabee’s campaign chairman. “I would not in any way, shape, or form trivialize the strength of an Obama or compare him to another candidate.” But some on the right are equally wary of unnecessary timidity. According to their thinking, the Democratic candidate begins as the frontrunner in the general election – and that will compel the Republican Party and its nominee to run a fiercely aggressive campaign. “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.” |
|
| TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company | |
It’s going to be an uphill battle for the GOP no matter what. Not only after President George W. Bush became the most unpopular president seen in recent times, but because they are up against either a girl or an African American, who they cannot attack like would they have a regular old white man. Without doubt charges of racism or sexism would come up if they did attack either candidate, although attacks are being made on Obama right now, pictures of him in turbans, saying he doesn’t say the pledge, saying he’s not a Christian but is Muslim. That is already a form of racism against those who are of Arab descent.
Now, on Hillary she is accused of being too “hard”, not emotional enough, but if she were a man then they would never say those things, if someone almost cried their campaign and presidential dreams should be over. Hillary is unfairly forced into the stereotypical woman’s spot, when she is simply not able to fit that mold.
One thing this article connects to is spin, which is a way of saying some news in a way that will sway the public.
“Hillary: I don’t ‘look very wistful’
Nader unloads on Obama, Clinton
Ad shows Hillary’s vulnerability dilemma”
All these include spin, the first one by saying a quote it looks like Hillary is admitting to her weakness, while in reality she might be talking about anything, a picture of herself, or something she said in passing that the media ran with negatively. The second one makes the Democratic Party seem weak because they are being invaded, or attacked by the Green Party. The third statement attacks Hillary by saying she has vulnerability and that they are going to point it out. All of those could be spun another way.
This was an interesting article. I’ve always been aware of the fact that the Republican Party is viewed as sort of racist and sexist–mostly because all the frontrunners for this party are pasty-faced white people. It’s sort of an uphill battle, isn’t it? Everyone who wants to run for the Republican ticket is white, and all of the minorities flock to the Democratic Party because they think the Republican Party is racist.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, now we have a woman and an African American contending against each other for the Democratic nomination. Even though the majority of the Republican Party isn’t racist–yes, I admit some are, but they’re not all that common–it’s viewed that way because we NEVER run a minority candidate. This isn’t because the Republicans are racist; it’s because most minority politicians are liberal.
This should be interesting, seeing how McCain debates whoever the Democratic nominee is. Considering that he won’t be able to call them “incompetent,” “uninformed” or even plain old “stupid” (in other words, all of the usual names candidates use when mudslinging) without their fans calling him a racist slob, the debates and commercials should be very interesting indeed.
The fact that the Democratic party will either have a woman or a black man on the ticket “shouldn’t” affect debating strategies, however, it does. This article seems to show that there is some “uphill” battle for the Republicans because of the diversity of the Democratic side; however, I like how the “white man” seems to put himself as the underdog in this situation. When America has risen to such great levels of being able to make history with a possible woman or black president. Sure the sex and race cards might be played in favor of the Democratic party but it also can be played against them. As Americans we would like to think that we aren’t sexist or racist but there are people who will not vote for either of them for that very reason. On the other hand we have the people who think we need to “repay” them for their struggles so voting for them will cancel it out. I hope no one votes either way like this. Stated above about McCain, “When he does get into debates with people it’s on issues, substance. So I don’t think we are going to have to train our candidate not to insult people.” So really is this even going to be an issue in the general election? It seems like people are just trying to spark this idea into people’s heads so they look closer at what McCain might say as sexist or racist. Either way I don’t see that there is an “uphill” battle for the Republican side compared to the Democratic side, I think they are both pretty steep.
-Caitlin Barschig
I think that what John McCain’s advisors said is right, “I don’t think that we are going to have to train our candidate not to insult people.” As long as the GOP nominee concentrates on issues they will be fine. Although it’s rare, politicians can be decent people. I think John McCain has experience to know not to name call. Another good point brought up in the article is “not to leave any comment unanswered” (as I have learned by reading Hardball). If by some chance one of the candidates slips up and says something that might be taken as a racist or sexist comment, they just need to own up to it. Send a spin doctor in and clean up the damage. It only becomes a problem if you let it be. If the media is given an opportunity to put their own spin on it, that is when everything escalades or is blown out of proportion. We have seen from the Howard Dean scream and the Macaca moment how out of control the media can make things. As long as the media doesn’t get a hold of it, they will be fine. The GOP doesn’t seem too worried, but it is something to look into. It was smart of them to start thinking about those kinds of things this early so they have a game plan. Like I said before just as long as the GOP focuses on the issues, they won’t have to worry about saying something offensive.
Interesting article, but I believe it was a little unnecessary. I understand that there is a potential problem of seeming sexist or racist, but McCain’s fairly good at seeming reasonable. This article really speaks to me that McCain is not as good as he may portray himself, and makes me question his integrity. I’m just saying that if this is one of the GOP big fears, I can’t help but wonder. Plus, why should it really matter. People always say, “Oh American’s aren’t racist or sexist.” I know it’s not completely true, but by playing the racist or sexist card is just keeping us racist. If we always have the “card” to be played, when will we get over this disgusting “game?” I’m just sick of it. It reminds me of ‘the boy who cried wolf.’ Soon, if we keep using this as an excuse (In many cases. There are still horrible things that happen because of racism and sexism but I’m talking about the many cases that it is just thrown out there for benefits!) than this excuse will become so normal that when it does happen, no one will believe it! Hmph!
Anyway, I have to disagree with your quote, Danielle. “Considering that he won’t be able to call them “incompetent,” “uninformed” or even plain old “stupid” (in other words, all of the usual names candidates use when mudslinging) without their fans calling him a racist slob.” First off, I don’t think I’ve ever heard one of the candidates actually say incompetent or stupid. I’ve heard them imply these words, but not go out and hit the opponents with them. But, even if McCain did happen to use them, the comment would be based upon his hearings in the debate, since the GOP wants to focus on the discussion: “be sensitive to tone and stick to the substance of the discussion.” Your second word was uninformed. This word is a very accurate description in many cases and doesn’t imply “racial” or “gender” discrimination. It is just an opinion that the candidate/opponent is unprepared to discuss that particular subject. Therefore, I disagree with your quote. McCain WILL be able to use or imply words with the meanings of stupidity, incompetence, and uninformed.
American people tend to believe that the Republicans are the racist party and that all minorities need to flock to the Democratic Party because it’s a safe haven from the white America. It’s almost as if it has a permanent seat in the *party platform. The truth is the Clinton campaign has been the focus of the racist comments of the primary, but has the media really called her out on her comments of being racist, of course not. The Clinton campaign were the ones who released the photo of Obama in his turban, and Bill Clinton was the one who said that Obama would win South Carolina because he was black just like Jesse Jackson did. How aren’t these comments racist? I was watching Hannity and Colmes and I can’t remember the name of the person who wrote the book but it was about how African Americans flood to the Democratic Party thinking that the Republican Party is racist, when the democrats just exploit that false statement in order for them to receive their votes. The name of the book is “Stupid Black People” and it’s not a racist book, even though the title might suggest so. The author happens to be African American. I think it’s stupid that the Republicans have to watch so carefully what they say because the media would just jump all over them if they did.
*A political party’s statement of its goals and policies for the next four years.
I have to disagree with Vanessa. She stated, “if someone almost cried their campaign and presidential dreams should be over,” and this is not the case. As we saw in New Hampshire, and I’m sure it had its effect over other parts of the nation, Hillary Clinton became extremely emotional and that turned out people that now support her because they feel sympathetic for the poor little woman who is just trying to run a campaign who is being torn to shreds by these big bad guys. (I hope you sense the sarcasm) So whether she is purposely using it as her sinister little way to gain a few more votes, or this whole thing is just too much for her little heart to handle, it has turned out more votes for her, as some pollsters discovered.
When I think about it, this whole race for the ‘08 election has turned into the perfect storm. People are forced to vote for what one might consider the least worst canadate. Personally if Obama or Hillary ran any other year, against the strong white male canadates from respectable parties, I think they wouldn’t have stood a chance. Yea, people don’t admit it, but there is racism and sexism in this country. So here is this scenario that is playing out perfectly. On one hand, we have the aged McCain from the incredibly unpopular republican party, because of what Bush has done. On the other hand you have Hillary, the woman, and Obama, the black man. As we have seen in the past, McCain didn’t stand a chance against Bush, even though he won the New Hampshire Primary. This race for the ‘08 presidency will force the public to temporarily make a move towards getting rid one of its problems, whether it be moving away from the republicans, being sexist, or being racist. Now we have to just chose which one it will be.
I would have to say that I disagree with Stephanie’s comment that this article was unnecessary and that playing the racist/sexist card just keeps it coming around. Although I don’t think that McCain or even the Republican Party tend to always be racists, I think it’s important to keep our attention towards these things and I think that this article is necessary in order to let people know what to look for. I realize that one may believe that if we keep bringing up “so-and-so said this about so-and-so and it was racists” we aren’t moving any farther from being racist ourselves. I think we need to realize that with these two Democratic candidates, racist and sexist things are bound to be said but they should not be ignored simply because we don’t want to bring up that “card” again. I think it is important to let people, candidates, know that they cannot get away with bashing on Obama or Clinton in a racist or sexist way. They should be above that and play the politics game they way it’s always been played. I know that candidates tend to bash on each other and it shouldn’t matter how they choose to do it, but I think in this case it does. Our country has history of both racism and sexism, so I don’t think any of these issues should be brought up for the sake of how far we have come and how much farther we have to go.
You kind of have to feel sorry for the GOP right now. Its like they have to walk on eggshells. I mean, already they’re given the reputation of typical racists, and now they’re going to have to debate and campaign against not only an African American, but a woman as well. They are going to have to be so careful with their words. I mean, one little slip and the media will grab ahold of it and blow it way out of proportion. I remember a little while back when Michelle Obama made that comment about “for the first time in my life, I’m proud to be an American.” and while I’m sure it was completely innocent and taken out of context, I was seeing articles all over the web the very next day about how she was unpatriotic. The media (most likely the liberal media) is going to be looking for any slip, because, sadly, that’s just the way the world is. And as great as it would be if we could overlook the race and sex issue and just focus on the substance, but we all know that probably won’t happen.
So, I guess I’m disagreeing with Stephanie (and sort of agreeing with Danielle) You said: “McCain WILL be able to use or imply words with the meanings of stupidity, incompetence, and uninformed.” And I’m going to have to disagree with that. I guess to an extent he’ll be able to imply lightly, to this, but if he were ever to obviously attack or even question Obama or Hilary’s character, at least somewhere, it would come up as a race issue. I agree with how to likened it to the little boy who cried wolf. I think sometimes its an accurate description. There are times when horrible hate crimes are committed because someone is racist or sexist, but I think, at least in this election, people need to at least try to put the race issue behind them and focus on who will be best for this country, not which gender or race.
In Response to Danielle
I thought this was an interesting article to read but I don’t think that it was really all that true.
First, I really have to disagree with Danielle and the article that Republicans are generally considered racist. This is silly to claim that just this one party is considered this, as of late it has been Hillary who has been racist to her own party in terms of attacking Obama. Also, Danielle stated that “This isn’t because the Republicans are racist; it’s because most minority politicians are liberal.” However, up until this presidential election the Democrats have only run old white males for president too; I certainly haven’t seen them run any minorities for president before this election. So I don’t think we can classify one party as racist when the other party has been doing the same things. I really think that both parties have there own issues with racism and whether we like it or not there are still a lot of people in America who are racist.
Secondly, I think that the media is just trying to set the election up so that we will have some scandal where one of the parties says or does something racist. This is just ridiculous, just because we will have a white woman or more likely a black man running for president doesn’t mean that they should have special privileges. It is unfair to any other candidate to have to constantly worry about the media spinning what they say so that it turns into a racial or gender insult. I really do think it is great that we will have a female or an African American running for president but I just don’t think that they should have to be treated with such caution, for all we know they could say something racist about white men and it would just be considered “politics”. It just seems like the media is creating double standards for the Democrats. Overall, I think it should just be a fair race for both candidates.
Lindsey Devaney
Never have I heard a candidate call an opponent “stupid” or “uninformed.” I have to disagree with Danielle’s opinion when she says: “he won’t be able to call them “incompetent,” “uninformed” or even plain old “stupid” (in other words, all of the usual names candidates use when mudslinging) without their fans calling him a racist slob, the debates and commercials should be very interesting indeed.” I think that the Republican National Committee will indeed have to be very cautious with what the nominee says, but I think that they should treat the Democratic Nominee just as they would anyone else. Focusing on what they stand for on issues is the safest bet for the Republicans. It would be a bad move for the Republicans to say anything about race or gender, but if you reverse the role it would be just as bad for the black candidate Obama and the woman candidate Hilary to attack McCain for being white. Race and gender is always a touchy topic and I don’t see it being a big focus for the Republicans. Obama has already emphasized in a few of his debates that McCain is in fact “old.” As if we didn’t notice that already, but it is smart on Obama’s part to regularly sneak the word “old” in his speeches when mentioning the Republican side. No matter how you look at it people are going to vote the way they want. They may say something in front of the poll booth, but once they do vote those underground feelings of racism or sexism can spring up.
Response
First of all, I just want to say that I agree with a lot of the posts that say that this really shouldn’t be an issue. Just because someone belongs to a different race, sex or religion than you doesn’t mean that you can’t disagree with them or treat them as you would anyone else. Racism or sexism is merely treating someone differently than you would because of their sex or race, and overcompensating and treating someone nicer than you would is still racism or sexism.
Anyway, Zander I think that you misinterpreted Vanessa’s point. To me it seemed that her point was that had any of your classic male presidential candidates been brought to tears on the campaign trail they would have been seen as to wimpy to be president and that would have been the end of their campaign. Clinton on the other hand is as Vanessa said forced into an at least semi-typical female role, and instead of ridiculing her for showing emotion people flocked to her campaign. That is the problem with worrying too much about discrimination, we end up going too far and accepting things that would otherwise be deal breakers just because we don’t want to be perceived as prejudice against any one group. We need to treat all of the candidates the same regardless of their physical appearance.
Andrew Barnes
I wonder why people are worried about McCain making a racist “slip-up”. McCain isn’t a racist. When he denounced shock-jock Bill Cunningham’s opening remarks, he made it clear he would not even let those associated with him participate in mud-slinging tactics, saying, “I regret any comments that may be made about these two individuals (Obama and Clinton) who are honorable Americans… We just have strong philosophical differences, and so I want to disassociate myself from any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them.” When Mitt Romney was still running for the Republican nomination, he avoided getting into the mud slinging tactics between Romney and Huckabee. Brian Jennings asked him for a comment, “Now, what is it about Romney that you and your supporters find so hateful?” McCain responded, “It’s not that we don’t like him, we just don’t know where he’s coming from. He’s changed his positions.”
In all honesty, I believe Obama should be more wary of the “-isms” in the future. He’s already tried to make McCain’s age an issue, and succeeded. And, complaining that McCain is just another old white guy out of many old white guys might be a form of racism that plays very well for Obama’s campaign.
I don’t think that it will be a big deal for the republicans to not be racist. They are not going to do something that will alienate their voters and send them away. If they did that it would not only push votes away from them, it would draw more people to come out to vote on the democratic side. I don’t think that the Republican Party needs to worry about this because as Mr. Kautzman says all the time, “it is usually the democratic party that has a way of messing up the election”. I don’t think that will happen in this election though. I think that through the Court Cases that we have been talking about in class, (Brown vs. The Board of education ect.) both parties, especially the Republican Party have become more sensitive to the issues that separate our country. Yes, this court case did help to solve segregation, but I think at the same time it showed the Republican Party that they can’t alienate voters. It seems to me though that this case, over the years, has changed not only for the segregation of African Americans but to include people of Middle Eastern decent. As we all know, to win the national election, a candidate will have to become middle of the road and somewhat unify the people who are in the middle. It’s probably more important for the Republicans to win so they will be extra careful.
Reply to Alyssa:
Honestly, I think that the GOP has a lot “worry about”… As they have rebuild an honorable reputation after 8 years of the Bush era, as well as battle against the Barack the nation movement, as well as attempt to tame the media, as well as dealing with our nation’s history of violence toward African Americans, yes, I think the Senator John McCain will certainly have his hands full. I agree with several of the interviews in the article about the heightened sensitivity that is necessary for the GOP to stand a fighting chance. McCain is fighting against so much adversity that if he manages to win a third of the states I will be thoroughly impressed. For many Democrats an African American as president could be viewed as an opportunity for a long overdue affirmative action appointment.
The last paragraph of the article I found very interesting. It addressed the issue of sensitivity toward the racial difference and it would be equivalent to conceding the election to the Democratic Party. If McCain and the GOP really, really wanted this victory then they couldn’t waste time and money worrying about racial sensitivity and campaigning with one hand tied behind their back. If the Republicans really want to win this election, they need to go all out. Because there is a lot of adversity against them, they need to do everything they can, not tiptoe around controversial issues.
It could become very easy for any of the top Republican candidates (John McCain) to appear sexist or racist in the general election. Appearing racist, in particular, would hurt the Republicans because they already seem very insensitive to minorities. They are often accused of caring too much about the rich people and ignoring the minorities.
When the general election comes along, the Republicans will either be dealing with an African-American or female candidate from the Democratic Party. Anything the Republicans say will need to be weighed very carefully for terms that could appear racist or sexist. The statements made by Republicans could easily be manipulated to antagonistic toward African-Americans or females. It could become a sticky situation quite easily. That will fare badly for them. Barack Obama is doing very well with not only the minorities, but also everyone else.
Rather than appearing racist, McCain can just keep saying that Obama doesn’t have enough political or military experience as compared with McCain. That seems to get a few people riled up. Maybe the democrats are getting behind Barack because the Republicans can’t really say much about him that can’t be construed in a racist fashion. It is really a sure shot for the Democrats to sneak right back into the Whitehouse.
Response to Lindsay in response to Danielle
I agree with you Lindsay there seems to be some generalizations made that don’t really add up to anything concrete and are just Danielle’s stereotypical ideas of things. Because the Republican Party is made up of “I’ve always been aware of the fact that the Republican Party is viewed as sort of racist and sexist–mostly because all the frontrunners for this party are pasty-faced white people.” Is that supposed to make the people outside of this party (aka Democrats) think that Republicans are racist? I think not, anyone can be racist despite the party affiliation. However, statements saying “we aren’t racist” when no one is saying you are makes it seem like you are trying to hide something.
The statement you made, “This isn’t because the Republicans are racist; it’s because most minority politicians are liberal.” You make this sound like “liberal” is a dirty word. Republicans aren’t racist compared with minority parties are liberal, like the two are suppose to be linked. Do liberal people accuse people of being racist? I’m rather liberal and you were the one who accused me of being racist in a previous post. Honestly I think that you are making some odd jumps between the two.
“As if that wasn’t bad enough, now we have a woman and an African American contending against each other for the Democratic nomination.” That statement is so wrong in so many ways. Really are you sure you’re not racist and/or sexist?
-Caitlin Barschig
Reply to Stephanie:
It’s called hyperbole. I’m sure you recall that term from English class. It’s where you purposely exaggerate something for the sake of making a point. I know full well that nobody calls other candidates idiots during debates; they have images to uphold, after all. They don’t really call each other names on their campaign commercials, either. But you’d have to be either incredibly naive or a hermit living in a cabin in Kentucky not to know that every candidate implies that their opponents are stupid.
But now things have changed. Instead of running some pasty-faced old guy (like they have for years), the Democratic Party will either be running an African-American or a woman. Although none of those words (”incompetent”, “stupid”, “uninformed”) implies or connotes racism or sexism, since McCain is a pasty-faced old guy and he’ll be implying that Barack and Hillary are stupid, that will most likely be construed as racism.
Response to Vanessa’s response to me:
Vanessa you said, “And I’m going to have to disagree with that. I guess to an extent he’ll be able to imply lightly, to this, but if he were ever to obviously attack or even question Obama or Hilary’s character, at least somewhere, it would come up as a race issue.” Yes, that is true, that somewhere it would come up as an issue, which is why I stated my opinion of all the times the race/gender issue comes up. I was trying (obviously with out success) to say that the things said should be interpreted just as the comments McCain is receiving, with consideration of the debate said and without mean underlying sexism or racism. You stated what I wanted in better terms, “There are times when horrible hate crimes are committed because someone is racist or sexist, but I think, at least in this election, people need to at least try to put the race issue behind them and focus on who will be best for this country, not which gender or race.”
Response to Danielle’s response to me:
Well, Danielle. I’m not stupid, but you have demonstrated a politicians implication of it perfectly. “It’s called hyperbole. I’m sure you recall that term from English class. It’s where you purposely exaggerate something for the sake of making a point.”
Yes, I do “recall” what a hyperbole is. If you’ve read any of my posts, you would understand that I use hyperboles to their full extent. The only thing is that I try to show my true meaning and understanding within the post as well as use my hyperboles. Your quote was confusing and so I responded to it. With this response you have “cleared things up.” : “I know full well that nobody calls other candidates idiots during debates; they have images to uphold, after all. They don’t really call each other names on their campaign commercials, either. But you’d have to be either incredibly naive or a hermit living in a cabin in Kentucky not to know that every candidate implies that their opponents are stupid.” In some things I may be naïve, but only moderately so, not incredibly, and my posts do not show any of my adolescent knowledge. Another thing Danielle, I don’t like to be called a Kentucky cabin-living hermit, it’s not nice to discriminate against those who choose to be alone in the country. It’s actually quite interesting that you discriminate against them in an article concerning racism. (Not that your racist, hermits can be any race.)
~Now, I gave you a little taste of what is known as retaliation, I was not the meanest, nor the nicest and I hope that you understand that it is not nice to imply incompetence in a response post.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Semb