From Slate.
Given the high frequency of accusations of racism against the Tea Party’s membership from this board and elsewhere, how do those people who claimed the Tea Party’s animus was due to the fact that there was a black man in the White House reconcile that belief with the support for Cain cited above?
ETA: can’t edit titles, but “Harman” = Herman.
ETA2: in GD rather than Elections because the subject is the lack of racism in the Tea Party, not Cain’s campaign.
Yeah, some of their best friends are black!
Well, the Tea Party isn’t a homogenous bloc. Much of the Tea Party appears virulently xenophobic - particularly those activists who make much of the “threats” posed by illegal immigration, Islam, and homosexuality. Others are more akin to socially-conservative libertarians - while I might disagree with them, I’d be reluctant to accuse them of racism.
So, my answer would be that some Tea Partiers are racist, and some are not, but that the Tea Party has a sufficiently large number of prominent xenophobes to put it in a different class from the traditional Democratic or Republican parties.
I’d note, further, that racists are not obliged to direct their animus towards all members of the race in question. One can refer to Cain as one of “the good ones” and still espouse any number of odious beliefs about black people in general.
ETA: Or, what CandidGamera said.
I think it has something to do with the fact that Cain
a) agrees with them that they are not racist, and that the true racists are black people and liberals and
b) will never win the presidency, or the nomination, or a single primary. A candidate who can’t win will always be more popular than one who can. That’s why Joe Biden’s negatives were so low in 2008.
Yawn, give me a call when they actually vote for him.
Liberal hypocrisy! Everybody come see the liberal hyporcrisy!
The racism in the tea party is not made up. Just read the damn signs the troglodytes carry around. Nobody says it is the biggest factor in tea party membership, but is certainly is obvious.
Those tea baggers will not get on board with Cain.
They are hoping he comes with free pizza.
The beauty of this type of sarcasm is that the acusation of racism thereby becomes virtually unfalsifiable.
This is an example of error, not hypocrisy.
Although your post does point out your absolute and continuing inability to understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy.
But no – my thesis here is that Cain’s support numbers amongst the Tea Party is strong evidence that the claims of racism leveled at the Tea Party are untrue. No hypocrisy involved - just error.
It could be that more of them have heard his rantings than seen his face.
Your thesis should probably be limited to “At least 32% of the Tea Party is not racist”, since that is all your cite supports. And that’s without even considering whether it is possible to vote for a black man and still be a racist (I would take the position that it is).
I don’t even agree with the notion that racism is a primary motivator of the Tea Party or one of its primary indicators. But the fact that 32% of them say they would vote for Herman Cain doesn’t disprove anything.
So let’s get this straight: you (using the pronoun in its indefinite sense) accuse the Tea Party of racism. I point out that the Tea Party’s favored candidate, by a substantial margin, is black. And this is your rebuttal.
Assuming you mean for this to be a sarcastic reminder of the typical racists’ refrain, I’d say it’s misplaced: although racists often trot out that line, it seems to me that a close and honest examination of their friends would reveal that the claim is a lie.
Here, in contrast, the truth is that Cain is the favored candidate of the Tea Party by a heavy margin. I suppose you might posit some scenario where the Tea Party has agreed to feign interest in Cain, but that seems far-fetched; a presidential primary does not typically leave room for head fakes when the actors are thousands of people who would have to act in concert, and secretly.
So speak plainly: what is your rebuttal?
The whole “tea partiers are racist” is just the same, tired old trick used by the left. When you can’t win an argument on facts, throw out the racist card to silence all debate. Yawn.
Not to mention that alot of the "racist’ sign holders turned out to be plants from acorn and other organizations just tring to make the tea party look bad.
It does work to some extent - just look at gonzomax for an example of gullible people reacting to made up controversy.
Probably think they’re voting for Don Corleone.
I suppose that’s mathematically in the realm of “possible” – but seriously? Are you seriously trying to suggest that of the Tea Party members that support Cain, most are unaware he’s black?
That’s such an extraordinary and counter-intuitive claim that I’d ask for a cite of some kind. It makes no sense to me.
Are you seriously advancing this as a line of defense?
It’s a fact that the Tea Party has a lot of racists in it.
[
](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html)So the racism is there. But even a horribly racist slave master might have had a favored black person that he trusted and raised among the others.
Herman Cain believes like they do, he has the same lack of intellect and basic misinformation that he builds his cracked world-view on. They share the same delusions. So the racists see him as a tool, if the Democrats want to run a black guy, well, we’ll just trump the race card with one of our own.
If you think that’s far-fetched, I suggest you read up about Michael Steele.
The racist Tea Party members think that Cain is their secret weapon. They can erase the advantage they think Obama had because he was black by turning their weapon against them.
From the Freepers:
Cite please.
Those Tea Party members who support Cain are mavericks. Or maverick mavericks. Or the mavericks of the maverick party. Something like that.
Wasn’t the favorite candidate of the Tea Party Gov. “Goodhair” Perry? Oh, wait, that was last week…