Barbour: U.S. wants to see Obama succeed because he’s black

I saw Gov. Haley Barbour on Meet the Press this past Sunday.  It is interesting that he is so against President Obama and the Health Care Initiative: MS ranks very high as do other Southern States, i.e., Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, whose uninsured numbers are out of this world.  Also Texas has a 25% uninsured rate. Many of their children are without health coverage.

....and these are the areas of the Country that are raising the most resistance.

I think this is probably Politico going a bit too far with the headline (they’ve seemed to get more and more tabloid-ish to remain relevant in the post-election world) but there is a tone-deafness that Barbour has on these race-related comments that may serve him in Mississippi but that I think will probably damage him on the national stage.

Overall I think he’s putting on his RNC thinking cap and trying to build a meme on a faulty premise to see if it’ll stick. He knows Obama is very popular and charismatic. So, he’ll try to frame it as “he’s popular personally, but people don’t like his policies.” If Barbour can get a media meme going on that, it’s a potential way to undermine the Obama administration.

Of course, it’s by-and-large untrue—people continue to support Obama specifically because of his policies and the governor’s race in Virginia particularly seemed to show that—Deeds lost a lot of Obama supporters when he tried to run away from Obama and his policies. Obama couldn’t help Corzine win re-election in Jersey, but Corzine had his own negatives to deal with.

But, that said, there’s no doubt going to be attrition in the ranks because no politician can please all his supporters all the time. (It took Clinton to sign NAFTA and Welfare Reform, after all, both rather unpopular with his base.)

The fact remains that we’re about ten months into the first year of the Obama administration—meaning there really hasn’t been enough for Obama’s support to fully switch from supporting the campaign to judging his performance. And he happens to be a rather extraordinarily charismatic politician who is wearing “president” very well, something that has always helped presidents get through tough times even when they move away from their base.

Where Barbour is in the biggest trouble is his party needs a message and “No,” isn’t quite a platform. They could also use some leadership… which may be Barbour’s greatest opportunity.

You are right on the money, baquan2000.  It also worked in 2004 because the Dems allowed the Swift Boat folks to drown their candidate.

Itodd, I agree that the Republicans need a message; however, grater than the MESSAGE is the need for a MESSENGER; and, It ain’t Barbour.

So far, the only message I get from the Republican Party is to kick out the moderate leaners and form a right-wing fringe movement. They already tried and failed in the NY-23 congressional district and now they’re moving on to Florida to try and oust popular governor Charlie Crist next year.

Hmmm, maybe because I’m not political expert I don’t see between the lines what you guys are seeing. I pretty much agree with what the guv said. I would amend it by saying that I believe MOST Americans want to see our President’s succeed and even more so Obama because he is the first black president. Americans tend to root for the underdog. He is also correct to point out that Obama’s popularity is waning and it’s not because he is African American, it’s because his policies are seen as ineffectual and too costly when we should be saving in these bleak economic times.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

I think it’s silly to call out Barbour as if he is the only one that noticed Obama is African American. Puh leeze.

So I guess the point he’s trying to make is that we shouldn’t want the President, and therefore the country in general, to succeed?

Drummin- Don’t think he said anything about Obama not succeeding.

There are people who want Obama to succeed because he’s black, just like there are people who don’t want him to succeed because he’s black.

The quote at the top doesn’t say “there are some people,” it says “U.S. wants to see Obama to succeed because he’s black.” Is this a misquote? It says “U.S,” meaning everyone, not “some people.” I am included in “U.S.,” and I’m insulted by the statement. I want Obama to succeed. I want him to be the most successful leader in the history of civilization. I want him on dollar bills and quarters. I want him to be revolutionary and as a result everyone is super rich and health insurance is free and cancer is cured and gay people can have sex in the street and everyone gets a flying car. Do Mr. Barbour and BubbaT believe I want this because Obama is black? What am I supposed to wish, that Obama fails miserably so Sarah Palin is voted in?

The Republican Party is in disarray.  Is the Governor, who was once its very successful Party Chairman, to be the go-to guy to try to pull the party back together. 

His moves of late could me interpreted to be the prelude to an attempt to be on the presidential ticket next go around.

And, the party is pretty bereft of possible candidates at the moment.

So, getting this comment to jive with all of that makes me want to regurgitate.

Drummin- So your saying there aren’t people who want him to fail/succeed because of his race?

That statement, at least in my opinion, is the old ambiguous code from which Barbour can say that his words were taken out of context AND at the same time give the ol’ wink & nod to his base, signifying that they should know where he stands. Nothing new, I’m sure that tactic has been around since the Civil Rights era.

Bubba, I do believe there are people who do/don’t want Obama to succeed because of his race. It does go both ways. As a black man myself, I want him to succeed, but not on the basis of his race. I want all political leaders, regardless of party, gender or race, to succeed. I may be wrong and hope to God that I am, but it seems to me as if the Republicans are trying to test the waters on using the president’s race for a new round of divisive politics. Maybe not as official policy, but I can see talk radio pushing this. Of course, once talk radio gets hold of something, the politicians will start to run with it too.

I simply do not see his current policy agenda doing a single thing to improve the countries economy.  I can support my country, but right now neither party has proven they can lead.

Iron, were you satisfied with Bush’s administration?  What’s your take on his leadership abilities?

Pardon, but what the heck kind of question is that? Is there some sort of litmus test here?

I think my opinions on that have already been stated.  Look around a bit.

Well, naaa, if you don’t choose to put them here, I don’t think it’s that serious for me to go “look around a bit”.  I was just wondering since you put your comment up there.  It’s cool with me if you don’t want to state them again.  Doesn’t make or break me.  It was simply a question as I always find that the best way to understand something is to ask the source.  I don’t know you from anyone else on here.  However, I found your comments to be interesting, and thus, I asked a question.  Chill out, everything doesn’t warrant a defense…although, I can understand you feeling like you’d need to defend yourself with that statement on this thread.

...and with getting attacked all the time for being un-liberal. :)

Can I also just say that as a “used to be regular” to this site, it is very hard to come on this site on a regular basis and maintain a moderate blood pressure level.  The discussers here do not welcome new comers nor is it easy to express a “not so popular” opinion without getting attacked (personally). I am all for a good discussion and even a disagreement, but I’m not so sure many of these discussion at least the ones I’ve read lately fall in that category. The comments easily become mean and rude from most.  And getting to a reasonable outcome usually doesn’t happen.  Most of the folk here seem to come here to say things they would never say if they had to post under their real names.  I find that to be cowardly.  Not that my opinion on the matter means anything to anyone here as I am so sure it doesn’t.  (As a matter of fact that has been proven)  But I will say that I am a person who works to bring about unity in this city and find comments from the citizens of the city to be useful.  But the yucky banter makes it difficult to even get thru a thread.

Just fyi….carry on.

I actually understand that ironghost.  But I am still interested in your opinion.  So, if you care to have a conversation about it…email me.

Iron, Queen’s got a point. Her question was totally legitimate. Why all the posturing?

And I agree: People who post under their real names do tend to behave better. Or, at least apologize quicker when they don’t.

I know I don’t take any comments about anonymous commenters as seriously as those under people who use their real names.

Donna, Good Posture is essential to a healthy back.  Wait, that’s wrong…

The fact is I have a hard time figuring out what was a Bush Idea, or one his advisors pushed on him.  We have Cheney claiming Bush stopped listening to some of his advisors with two years left.  Where do you blame Bush or blame bad advice?

Then when you have the entirety of the lamestream media condemming his every minute move (Frosted Flakes! Is that a sign of creeping liberalism! Tonight on 20/20!), you get to wondering what to think or do.

My solution is simple.  He’s a decent guy, seemingly surounded by advisers of questionable intent who followed Republican ideology which wasn’t Conservative.  You’d have to be strong minded lead the bunch he had, and I’m not sure we got someone who could lay down the law.

If, and that’s a big if these days, historians are honest they’d probably rank him as a decent President.  Hardly the monster some would like to paint him as.

As for Obama?  Too early to tell.  Call me back in three years when the dust has settled then we can begin our debate.

I wonder if “history” will allow Obama to hide behind his advisors if he gets eight years and screws up the economy and our standing in the world as badly as poor, misunderstood, decent-hearted George did.

It seems like someone famous once said “the buck stops here.” I wonder what he did for a living.

I think this idea that it was “bad advice” that did in W is a sad commentary on a president, but perhaps one fitting for W.

But Iron, I would point this out from something you said above: I simply do not see his current policy agenda doing a single thing to improve the countries economy.

So here’s a concrete question for reasonable discussion—what would you suggest Obama do?

I must say, Iron, this is new for me.  I hadn’t heard it put like that before.  Bush had bad advisers.  The advisers were idiots.  That’s interesting.  You’re an interesting guy or girl.  I assume you’re a dude, but I don’t know why I assume that.

I’d love to hear or see your answer to itodd’s question too, Iron ...for the purposes of reasonable discussion, of course.

Also, I’d like to know, just out of curiosity, is there anything about Obama that you like.  I know it’s too early to tell if he’s fitting for the presidential office.  But you seem like a very observative, intuitive person, is there anything about the current president that gives you the idea that he might potentially be okay at some point down the line; that he might make a “decent president” one day?

Republicans/Conservatives really believe that their view of race is the proper one when it could not be farther from the truth. Lacking prejudice does not require us to all look at each other the same, but look at each other with respect. I have noticed for years how Limbaugh and others can claim Democrats are fixated on race when they are the ones that always inject it in every subject to get people’s attention. I do not think all Conservatives/Republicans are racist, I just think that they are ignorant to racial issues and have one standard for themselves and another for others. Some conservatives can say that people want Obama to succeed just because he is Black because some of them want him to fail just because he is Black. Whereas people that support him, even because he is Black, do not do so as a major factor. Of course folks find pride in the first person of his kind doing something. But anyone with common sense would want him to be successful because that would make the country successful regardless of his color. Conservatives want to have an unattainable and what should be an undesired result to focus on to say when something is not racist. They think not being racist is pretending that you do not see what color a person is. People that are truly not racist see others for their differences and still respect them. Compare the things that people accept for themselves and those like them to what they expect for others. Look no farther than Mississippi and you can see blaring examples of different standards. I guarantee you the likes of Barbour would be more likely to call President Obama a racist before someone like Rush Limbaugh. It is similar to how they look at other issues as well. Find a Republican that is rabid against same-sex issues and its a good chance they are in the closet. Find one that is pro-war at the drop of a dime and they got as many deferments as they possibly could when they had an opportunity to fight. Same holds true for how they look at race. A lot of Republicans do not accept Blacks in general, but require certain criteria for us to be ‘ok’. If you doubt me, take some time to compare the Blacks that Republicans find “acceptable” and notice how similar they are.

Iron! Do you really not know that a leader is always responsible for their team? When my staff or freelancers do not do their job well, or represent us poorly, it is *always* my fault and my responsibility to repair, and it’s my job to do that regardless of what my team thinks about the criticism. Any leader knows that.

God help us if someone gets to the White House without that understanding.

I don’t really see the issue here.  I DO want Obama to succeed because he’s black.  What’s wrong with that?  He’s the first man who represents me to sit in the oval office…you damn right I want him to hold us down so that it’s not an entire generation before another one of us is considered good enough to be president.  Look how long it took for us to get a half black half white man there?  You think if he fails it won’t take that length of time plus some to get another one in office.  Some of the things that the public tag to this man is ridiculous.  Why wouldn’t black folk want Obama to succeed because he’s black.  I really think even the need to mention that is stupid.

NOW, that is not to say that that’s the ONLY reason, I as a black woman, wants to see him succeed.  I wanted to see Bush succeed although I personally realized before he was even elected the first time that he would murder us as a nation.  But even still I wanted him to succeed.  I wanted him to not be an idiot.  I wanted him to be able to speak in public.  I wanted him to pronounce America correctly and not with the Texas drawl that he couldn’t shake.  I wanted him to represent this nation positively and completely.  I want everyone who is elected as President to do that.  Whether they are white or black.  BUT, I want it because I am American.  For President OBAMA I want it for way more reasons than just being American.  Too bad, so sad if republicans, democrats, media, Haley Barbour…and even Grandma Rose and Bubba down the block don’t like it.  I don’t give a sh**

Queen: I think you’re right and there really isn’t too big of a deal here. I doubt Haley meant anything too sinister by it, other than to damn Obama with faint praise.

But the problem is we know Mr. Barbour likes to dust off the old Strom Thurmond Memorial Dixiecrat Code Book and say something out of the side of his mouth every so often.

I think this is a weak example, but it does, perhaps, add to his body of work.

NOW, that is not to say that that’s the ONLY reason, I as a black woman, wants to see him succeed.

Exactly.

I’m thrilled for our country that we elected our first African American president, but I want him to succeed not because of his ethnicity, but because he’s a thoughtful, intelligent leader with statesman qualities (witness his speech yesterday at Ft. Hood) and a gift for diplomacy.

Hell, I want Hillary to succeed, and she’s a Clinton.

I want Bob Gates to succeed, and he’s a Republican. ;-)

I’d like to see this team somehow bring the country back from the brink that Bush & Cheney (and Phil Gramm… and NAFTA… and Wall Street… ) took it to.

What’s weaker about Barbour’s argument is that it’s somehow Obama’s “policies” that were voted down in Virginia or New Jersey. He’s (a.) conveniently forgetting, of course, the two D wins in the House that same night and (b.) not looking the policies and attributes of the D candidates in those Governors races squarely in the eye.

Anybody want to build a monument to Obama here in Jackson? I bet that would really get under Barbour’s skin. We’ll call it the Obama memorial. I’ll start a fundraising drive for it. A big bronze statue of Obama. People will drive from miles around to see it. Heck, we can make a whole Obamaland. We’ll put it on Farish street. Who’s down?

Having been unemployed for a stretch, I will say the best thing for a person’s finances and self-esteem is to have a job. 

I’ve never gotten hired by a poor person.

I would rather people with the ability to take money and create jobs keep their money than give it away to people like me who would either just spend it or stick it in the bank.  This, in a nutshell, is part of the reason why Republicans support business(Also, check out the richest members in congress if you buy into the Republicans-business and Democrats-workingman dichotomy)

Just get the Obama head from that house on State Street in Fondren and put it on the back of a flatbed truck and drive it around town. With permission from the owners, of course!

well put, itodd!

U2fan, you seem to be assuming that there are only two options: either rich people keep all their money or poor people get it all. Yikes! There are as many options as there are dollars. Life rarely presents two such extreme opposites as the “only” choices.

I don’t see the word “all” anywhere in my comment, so maybe you read something that wasn’t there.  I just know how nice it is to have a job, and I would like those who have a talent for creating jobs to keep enough resources to continue doing that. 

I’m mainly responding to the tired old charge that Republicans are for the rich fat cats in business and that Democrats are for the helpless little guy.  I hope that both parties want to help Americans; they just have different philosophies on how to do that.  One philosophy just happens to be flawed is all.

I’m poor and I hire people. ;-)

Your words, U2fan: “I would rather people with the ability to take money and create jobs keep their money than give it away to people like me who would either just spend it or stick it in the bank.”

Sounds like an either/or proposition to me, which it most assuredly is not. I’m not against companies making money, nor am I against people having jobs. That would be kind of silly since like you, I’ve kind of gotten used to indoor living and “just” spending money on frivolities like, um ... food.

What galls me is that many businesses (especially public corporations) have no other mandate other than to make a profit. When your raison d’etre is making money, lots of things tend to get lost in the shuffle, including morality, human beings, ethics, etc. That’s when you see corporate CEO’s getting seven-to-10 digit compensation packages even when their companies lay off hundreds, sometimes thousands of employees, and even post losses. And although it may not be a purely partisan attitude, the policies go back to Reagan (Republican) “trickle-down” economic theories and have resulted in massive industry and banking deregulation.

Somewhere between the two extremes you spelled out is a place of balance where people and the planet benefit along with businesses. That’s not a partisan attitude, either, but Democrats have been historically more concerned with social justice issues than their pro-business Republican counterparts.

Like you, I also hope that politicians have the best interest of Americans at heart; at least I think most of them start there. Big money and big power tends to corrupt some of the best, however. As to your last point, there is no one perfect political “philosophy.” Every ideology has its flaws.

And don’t forget that plenty of corporations with money are firing people right now—to please the stockholders.

There is no guarantee that giving handouts to corporations are going to create, or certainly keep, jobs in the community.

Right, Ladd. Ever notice that a company’s stock price inevitably goes up when it announces layoffs? More money for stockholders!

You don’t have to travel far to find corporations that have screwed communities and local employees after local, state and the federal government gave them great big buckets of financial incentives. Can you say WorldCom? AIG? Enron? HealthSouth? Martha Stewart? GM?

Google corporate fraud or financial scandal and you’ll get a boatload of hits.

And now, after taxpayer money bailed out failing WallStreet behemoths Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase (one of W’s little parting gifts along with the auto industry bailouts), the companies are set to dole out $29.7 billion in bonus money. Once again, Americans are getting screwed while corporate America makes more money. It’s obscene.

But, you know ... we want to see Obama succeed because he’s black. Yeah, that’s it.

Unfortunately, those who have the most capacity for good (a.k.a. a company that will pay you to work) also have the most capacity for harm.  Any time you sign on to work for somebody, you’re putting your faith in the boss of that company to act legally.  If you aren’t willing to do that, you shouldn’t work for him or her.  It stinks when they’re dishonest, but this shouldn’t give the gov’t the power to determine how much company heads deserve to keep.  You’d have to be God to know that.  Also, some employees do deserve more than they get, but others deserve less.  Once again, you’d have to be God to know who **deserves** what beyond what was agreed to in a contract.  Thankfully, our laws seem to be good at shutting down at least some of these lawbreakers (WorldCom, etc.) 

Also, although this isn’t germaine to the original topic, go check out opensecrets.org and compare the top contributers to both 2008 presidential campaigns.  Obama’s list is a who’s who of big business, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan.  They also gave to McCain, but much less.  Not saying its bad they gave, but once again, the Dems like big business, too.

Also, to weigh in on the race thing, Barbour can’t know what’s in people’s hearts, and the fact that people weren’t real interested in Alan Keyes shows they’re more interested in ideology than race.

It stinks when they’re dishonest, but this shouldn’t give the gov’t the power to determine how much company heads deserve to keep.

If taxpayer dollars are being used to keep these guys afloat, then we sure as hell have something to say about how much they make.

the Dems like big business, too.

It does work both ways. 

Also, to weigh in on the race thing, Barbour can’t know what’s in people’s hearts, and the fact that people weren’t real interested in Alan Keyes shows they’re more interested in ideology than race.

Which is why Barbour’s message doesn’t wash with me. Knowing what I know about Alan Keyes, I’d vote for Sarah Palin before I vote for him. You betcha!

oh yeah, I don’t think companies should get taxpayer money in the first place.  If they do, they’re definitely answerable for how they spend the money.