| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is Obama the first PC U.S. President? |
| Yes, it's as obvious as his Ross Perot ears |
|
40% |
[ 2 ] |
| Not sure, but it would seem so |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Heck no, he's too slick--er--cool for that |
|
60% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 5 |
|
| Author |
Message |
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 8:23 pm Post subject: IS BARACK OBAMA THE FIRST PC U.S. PRESIDENT? |
 |
|
Set aside for the moment a recent Rasmussen poll which found that one third of all Americans weren't sure if Obama is liberal in his political views, or that for some of us (including this OP) "PC" really means "politically constipated," but seriously, is Obama the first to wear the dubious crown of PC-in-Chief? If so, what has he done to demonstrate it? If not, why not?
(I raise this question only because his every move seems so calculated--dare I say orchestrated.
SCJ Souter announces his retirement and within hours I'm thinking, I'll bet he'll try to appoint a Hispanic female to the high court if he can. Sure as shit, the next day Yahoo and others post articles speculating on just that prospect. Now if she were gay or bisexual, he'd really score brownie points with the PC crowd.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| SCJ Souter announces his retirement and within hours I'm thinking, I'll bet he'll try to appoint a Hispanic female to the high court if he can. Sure as shit, the next day Yahoo and others post articles speculating on just that prospect. Now if she were gay or bisexual, he'd really score brownie points with the PC crowd.) |
I guess by this standard, LBJ was the first p.c. president, since he appointed Thurgood Marshall to the court, and blacks were sort of the gays of their day, in terms of being a group that liberals were alleged to show favoritism toward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As well, hasn't there been for some time now an unoffical "Catholic" seat on the court? This is generally considered to have been a factor in Eisenhower's appointment of William J. Brennan.
| Quote: |
Brennan was named to the U.S. Supreme Court through a recess appointment by Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, shortly before the 1956 presidential election. Presidential advisers thought the appointment of a Catholic Democrat from the Northeast would woo critical voters in the upcoming election for Eisenhower, a Republican.[3]
|
That's from Wikipedia, but it's sourced, and I've heard the claim made in other places as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Four words: Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As I recall, before selecting Justice O'Connor, Reagan made clear to his search team that he would only appoint a woman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| As I recall, before selecting Justice O'Connor, Reagan made clear to his search team that he would only appoint a woman. |
Yeah, when Mondale picked Ferraro as his running-mate, Reagan replied by saying "Well, who sent the first woman to the Supreme Court?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the OP is just showing his nostalgia for the good old days when male WASPs ran the show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd say he is more of a Mac president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
OTOH replied in a rare moment of being obtuse:
| Quote: |
| I guess by this standard, LBJ was the first p.c. president, since he appointed Thurgood Marshall to the court, and blacks were sort of the gays of their day, in terms of being a group that liberals were alleged to show favoritism toward. |
That's not my point at all. C'mon, you can do better than that. My point is that someone, anyone who is PC is so damn predictable in their actions. I really could care less whether he appoints a Hispanic woman or Octomom. The point is that I just knew what slot he would try to fill--and so too did a lot of other Americans. It's almost like we've become programmed to put quotas on appointees to high government positions nowadays.
Hater Depot:
You are correct; both parties are guilty of pandering to the PC sentiment which has emerged in American politics. I'm all for diversity but positions of power should be earned. Now, if Obama can find an eminently qualified Latino or Martian, that's fine with me. But too often gender and race become the deciding factor in selection and I don't think that serves anyone's best interests--Gonzales being a good case in point.
All this said, I do think Obama is inclined to play it safe like most good liberals do, rather than go with his instincts. Now, if he appoints someone who is less than judicial (re: activist) from the bench, then it will be a harbinger of things to come.
But like the teleprompter he takes with him everywhere, Obama is too scripted for me. I maintain, for instance, that he deliberately did not look at much less shake hands with Justice Thomas on his way to the podium for his first State of the Union address (watch the replay if you can find it). And he did so not out of partisanship per se, or snobbery, but because he didn't want to be perceived by the left wing of his party as acknowledging an Uncle Tom.
Most unfortunate and hypocritical for a President who claims to want to rise above the fray in Washington.
Ya-ta Boy:
Being a cheapshot artist doesn't make you amusing, much less witty. Try to stay on point for once. Oh, but wait, then you'd actually have to engage head-on in a debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You are correct; both parties are guilty of pandering to the PC sentiment which has emerged in American politics. I'm all for diversity but positions of power should be earned. Now, if Obama can find an eminently qualified Latino or Martian, that's fine with me. But too often gender and race become the deciding factor in selection and I don't think that serves anyone's best interests--Gonzales being a good case in point. |
But there are, relatively speaking, a lot of people qualified to be on the Supreme Court. By that yardstick it's really splitting hairs to try and separate the Solicitor General from the deans and professors of top law schools from a couple of dozen federal and state judges and miscellaneous other attorneys. Given that any nine of them would make a fine Court, it's desirable to have a court with some diversity to enhance its perceived legitimacy. Just acting as if every group shouldn't care about being represented literally, rather than in terms of abstract rights, is to ignore human history.
Besides, Gonzales was chosen not for being hispanic but for being the President's buddy, much like Harriet Miers and Michael Brown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Harriet Miers and Michael Brown. |
Bwahahahahahahahaha...
Haven't thought about them in a while.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Given that any nine of them would make a fine Court, it's desirable to have a court with some diversity to enhance its perceived legitimacy. |
That's the thing. American candidates have often chosen running-mates, for example, at least partly on the basis of regional identity. Clinton was somewhat of an anamoly in choosing a veep who hailed from the same part of the country(not to mention had the same religion) as he did.
And you can bet that when Obama was choosing a running-mate, any African-American, no matter how good a candidate he may have made, was automatically disqualified from the the list. Which is kind of the opposite of p.c. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I think the OP is just showing his nostalgia for the good old days when male WASPs ran the show. |
You're overdue for a geriatric white man avatar. I've got mine! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
