Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Some idiot in West Hollywood is, I'm sure, quite proud of his Halloween display, which includes a mannequin dressed as Sarah Palin hanging from a noose, and a mannequin dressed as John McCain in a flaming chimney. He calls it "art" and "within the spirit of Halloween."
I don't think that this is funny. I don't think that this is decent, moral, creative, thought-provoking, clever, or in any way helpful to our national discourse. I don't think that it is art. And I don't think that you ought to give a rat's ass what I think.
The fact is, while I have seen several commentators denounce this as twisted or nonsensical, I am happy to say that I am yet to see anyone call for any action to be taken other than denouncement. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say what others don't like; and I'll support this moron's right to say what I don't like.Just ask yourself- would it go the same way if the "artist" had been a Republican supporter?
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Obama campaign's response: You will get no more access to us. None.
West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.
"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said.
West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.
"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.
Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."
Now, I'm sure that the campaign members can interview or not with whomever they choose, and it really wouldn't bother me too much if they just canceled the interview with Jill. After all, she's just a spouse, and, by the standards of this campaign, a pretty boring one at that. (Quick, name one thing about Jill Biden other than the fact that her husband's on the VP ticket . . . yeah, that's what I thought.)
But the blanket "No Interview For You" statement should give us a major pause. True, there's no real "free speech" issue here- the First Amendment was certainly not violated, as I said, the campaign members can interview with whomever they want. But I think that we need to think about how the members of this campaign feel about people who ask tough questions. Will the Obama presidency limit their interviews to only those who they know will be friendly? Will those that dare to step out of line and ask tough questions about administration policy get punished by having their access cut off? Will this cause a chilling effect where journalists dare not risk asking any questions that might offend? Is this the kind of America that you want?
OK, so a lot of commentators are calling this a pretty big deal, but I'm not sure that I'm impressed.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
There's nothing here that we didn't know about Obama already if we have been paying the least amount of attention.
Here's the problem- if you haven't been paying enough attention (or have been willfully ignorant of the signs up to now), you're not going to be swayed by anything here. This is a typical "early Obama" answer (by early, I mean before about September of this year- with Obama, there's not a whole lot of late). It meanders about and doesn't really say anything at all specific.
There are two things here that ought to scare the pants off of those of us who fear socialism:
1) Obama strongly implies that he thinks that the Supreme Court's role should, or at least acceptably could, include wealth redistribution (as well as "economic justice," whatever that means). This almost certainly means that the justices that he would appoint, if given full reign by a supportive Congress and still moonstruck press, will make Justices Bryer and Ginsberg look like Pat freakin' Robertson. And those justices will be around for decades. But the problem is, he doesn't ever come right out and say that that is what he supports. There's no sound bite that says this that can be used and echoed.
Look, I don't want us to be in a world where you have to have a sound bite, but we are where we are. Particularly for someone who is still impressionable at this point in the game. You have to have something that can be packaged and grabbed onto, and that's just not here.
2) He imples that the Supreme Court should be, or at least acceptably could be, "set up" in a way that would bring "major redistributive change." He doesn't say for sure what that would be, but the surrounding statements strongly imply that a) that change would involve "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution," and b) that going beyond the constitution would be a good thing (as he stated then that he was "not optimistic" that this would happen- surely he was not envisioning personally appointing justices at the time).
Now, if you already understand that Obama is a socialist, then you didn't have to go through that logical process to get there from here. But, if you already understand Obama is a socialist, you aren't who we need to be talking to right now. The only reason that things like "Joe the Plumber" and "McCain has 7 houses" work is because they are easy to grasp and easy to repeat. This isn't. So it won't help.
Look, the fact of the matter, and I think that this current election shows it, is that most people just don't fear socialism in the form that Obama presents it. We have next to no economic education, and there is little to no understanding that redistribution has to come from somewhere. I have spoken to a number of people that I would have called well educated and informed and am shocked to find out how little they know about the Constitution- even fellow law students want judges that will do what is "right" or "fair" (of course, always in the their estimation), rather than what the Constitution says (and almost as many of them are on my side of the political spectrum as not, I'm sorry to report).
I wish it were different. I'll try to raise my kids to think differently, and I'll try to spread the word through this blog and my general discussions, but the fact of the matter is, most people just won't get it.
Update: Jennifer Rubin and Glenn Reynolds also think that this is no surprise from Obama
Saturday, October 25, 2008
So, from the moment they got behind me, the one started to remind the other that he must not forget to vote for Obama. The first time I thought that he was joking. But apparently not, apparently the fellow really needed reminding. The way I figure it, if you need reminding of who to vote for, you probably aren't prepared enough to vote. (yeah, he was older, and I'm sorry if he had some sort of dementia or something, but that doesn't disprove my point). Anyway, from there they started to discuss "the Catholics" as in, "the Catholics are going to vote for McCain because they're against abortion." That was the first time that I wanted to turn around. I mean really? Did these fellows not realize that first of all "the Catholics" actually more often tend to lean Democrat? Maybe they've not heard of that obscure political family known as the Kennedys? Were they not aware that one of "the Catholics" was on the Democratic ticket? I'm guessing not, because they made "the Catholics" the topic of the next several minutes of conversation.
The topic (logically) continued to abortion. Then I got to hear all about how if I don't want an abortion I shouldn't have one, but why shouldn't there be a choice. That was the second time I wanted to turn around. Really, as an actual women, the concern is not that a woman will have an abortion- it's that an innocent kid will get aborted. Poor kid, not bad woman. These geniuses went on to demonstrate their nuanced understanding of the issues by complaining that the Republicans wanted to put us back into "olden times" and that they complained about "these Islamic countries" when look at us, we are the ones who want to oppress women.
That was the third time that I wanted to turn around. Because really, what's being required to have four witnesses to prove a rape or risk a death sentence for adultery, or 10 year old child brides? Clearly, Republicans are much worse.
Anyway, they went on to wealth envy about how much has been spent on Sarah Palin's wardrobe (clearly a more important issue that the rampent voter registration fraud or Obama's faulty fundraising). I managed to make it through the line and happily cast my vote.
* I should add that I take no issue with the old man gay couple part- it just colors the story up a bit. It's the loud liberalism that I had trouble with. Of course, maybe if they just got married . . .
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.
I actually can't say that I know any of these people. I mean, sure, I wish I did. I'd probably buy them a beer. And I'm sure that I know a few people who are still making their minds up, who will probably end up checking the McCain box. But I can't think of a single person who admits that he or she voted for Kerry last time, but will vote for McCain this go 'round. But hey, I'm a college student- maybe the real world is different.
Another statement that gave me pause:
There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)Really? Him, and Colon Powell, and a number of others who have jumped ship on McCain? I agree that it's somewhat different, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's not the same thing at all.
That it's just going to get more and more interesting I have no doubt. But I am far from convinced that Mr. Warshawsky won't be eating his words come 11/5.
Michael P. Stafford, Esq., at The Delaware Employment Law Blog, has an interesting story about a 5th grader who had the audacity to wear a tee-shirt to school with the slogan “Obama is a terrorist’s best friend.”
The free-speech rights of a student is the topic of the day in Colorado, where a 5th grader has been suspended for wearing a tee-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “Obama is a terrorist’s best friend.” The student’s family claims that his First Amendment right to free speech is being trampled. Conspicuously absent from news coverage of this developing story is any detailed description of the tee-shirt causing “substantial disruption” to the school.
Did the school administration make the correct decision in suspending this youngster?
Under well-established Supreme Court precedent, public school administrators may regulate student speech protected by the First Amendment only in three circumstances: (1) when the speech is substantially disruptive; (2) when the speech bears the imprimatur of the school (such as in a school newspaper or yearbook), or; (3) when the speech is lewd or plainly offensive. In particular, under Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), student speech may be regulated only if the school has a well-founded expectation that the speech will cause substantial disruption of the school’s operations or interference with the rights of others. The expectation of disruption must be a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance. In this regard, speech is not disruptive merely because it causes offense or hurt feelings in listeners.
Moreover, any regulation of student speech must also be “content neutral.” In Tinker, which involved students wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war, the Supreme Court observed that the school had singled out the anti-war black armbands for prohibition but had not forbidden other controversial or political symbols. As many courts have noted in a variety of contexts, restrictions on speech because of its message or content are presumed to be unconstitutional.
I think that Mr. Stafford is just a little bit off on his interpretation here, because he leaves off any discussion of last year’s Moorse v. Frederick (aka, the “bong hits 4 Jesus case”), where the US Supreme Court muddied the waters a little bit on the Tinker test that Stafford cites. (The Court found that the student’s rights were not violated when he was punished for waving a banner on the sidelines of a parade that the students were watching which read “bong hits 4 Jesus”.) However, the Court in Moorse focused overwhelmingly on the school’s “compeling interest” in discouraging illegal drug use, which the majority interpreted this banner as promoting.
Here, I would say that the school might make a similar argument- in fact, it would probably focus on “hate speech” or something similar. However, does the school have a compeling interest in discouraging discussion about the associations of prominant political figures? I think not.
(Also published at Unfair Doctrine)
Friday, October 24, 2008
More advocates of gay marriage should do as the authors of this report have done–and consider the social conservative defense of traditional marriage. Kudos to them for treating gay marriage as more than a gimmick in the campaign for “equality,” but instead as an meaningful institution which benefits those who undertake its obligations.
I agree. The benefits of a traditional, stable, long term marriage are too immense to count. I cannot imagine that they would not be similar for homosexual couples in similar relationships.
First, I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The “erratic” temperament issue, for example. As if McCain’s risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the “erratic” is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the “dirty campaign” pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports “cutting Social Security benefits in half.” And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain’s critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What’s astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
. . .
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic, soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
"there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up."
No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.
Says Justice Clarence Thomas. Ladies and gentlemen, it simply doesn't get any better than that.
Update: Ann Althouse disagrees:
You just conceded that "even most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed," so why do you -- in the same sentence -- call it impartial? With such incoherence showing so plainly on the surface of your remarks, why should we trust your labyrinthine exegesis of the documents from the 18th century?
But, is "impartial" necessarily the complete opposite of "flawed"? I don't think so at all. It seems to me that Justice Thomas is saying that although it has its flaws, it is impartial and that is one of the reasons that it is the best- it screens out partiality.
Update 2: I just started reading the comments, and 3 out of Ann's first 4 agree with me.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Gun legislation was a hot topic of the day. Campfield's personal belief seems to be that any responsible adult should be able to carry a firearm when they aren't drunk. But the legislation he has proposed is more tempered in its approach. The two major gun bills he's introduced involve higher-ed professors carrying firearms on campus and anyone to be able to carry in state parks (assuming they can meet federal regulatory and state carry permit requirements). As opposed to a free-for-all approach to gun carrying, the legislation is designed to actually win over a few votes. Whether or not it actually does so remains to be seen.
Rep. Campfield has already had to choose his battles. He has sought middle ground on gun issues. He knows that law already on the books are hard to change. There are two sides to the bailout. Solutions to immigration problems will not be easy or popular. And sometimes trying to change one piece of a regulatory scheme opens up pandora's box for the myriad other problems in the overall regulation.
The issues facing Tennessee today are plentiful. In only one hour, Rep. Campfield and the Federalist students were able to touch on a number of them, but so many more remain. We talked about illegal immigration. There's one piece of the puzzle. We also talked about being a low-tax state and being attractive to outsiders. Which leads to the question: who do we deal with a large influx of residents, both legal and illegal? And how far can we trust government to go in dealing with growth?
Bring on your comments!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
“I asked a question. When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me.” — Joe Wurzelbacher
Buckle your seat-belts: The world of "Atlas Shrugged" is here.
I've excerpted a brief description of the book's plot for those who haven't read it. Following is a link to an article of a sad reality which, depending on this election, may become all too common.
..."Atlas Shrugged" Plot:
The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of the mind in man's life and, consequently, presentation of a new morality- the morality of rational self-interest.
The main conflicts of the book surround the decision of the "men of the mind" to go on strike, refusing to contribute their inventions, art, business leadership, scientific research, or new ideas of any kind to the rest of the world. Society, they believe, hampers them by interfering with their work and underpays them by confiscating the profits and dignity they have rightfully earned. The peaceful cohesiveness of the world disintegrates, lacking those individuals whose productive work comes from mental effort. The strikers believe that they are crucial to a society that exploits them, denying them freedom or failing to acknowledge their right to self-interest, and the gradual collapse of civilization is triggered by their strike.
Monday, October 13, 2008
--One of her main themes as FCC Commissioner is "regulatory humility." This is her own version of laissez-faire regulation. Rather than try to dictate what's best for an industry, Ms. Tate first brings attention to a problem, then let's the key industry players have first crack at trying to remedy and regulate themselves.
--My favorite quote of the night: "You have to give the markets room to operate." Only this way can businesses compete, which breeds innovation, cost efficiencies, and meaningful self-regulation.
--I was intrigued/worried by the fluidity of authority between the various federal agencies. She seemed to describe an ebb and flow to the jurisdictional boundaries between such agencies as the FCC, the FTC, DOJ, etc. For instance, lately, the FCC has been moving away from certain commercial regulation, while keeping a close eye on antitrust/anti-competitive behavior.
Overall, it was a good event. And the catered dinner was incredible...
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Listen folks, my first year in college (98-99), I lived on $27 per week. Not ate, lived on that money (which I made babysitting for a family near the school). My scholarship covered rent, utilities, tuition, and books, so we'll ignore those expenses, and my parents were generous enough to cover liability insurance on my $400 dollar car, but everything else came out of that babysitting money. We're talking food, clothing (well, that kind of grungy look was still in, so thrift stores got a lot of my business there), gas, household items, makeup (again, relied on the grungy look), entertainment, booze (it was college, after all), and anything else that happened to come up.
I ate a lot of tuna fish, macaroni and cheese, ramen noodles, eggs, and generic everything, but I always had plenty. Yes, I very rarely had good quality meat (the occasional chicken breast when they were on sale), but it's hard to cook good quality meat for one in a college student's kitchen, anyway. (Plain Spaghetti-Os were something like 50 cents a can; the ones with meatballs were a dollar and a few cents, so I used to get both and combine them, that way I could get 4 meals with meat.) And I rarely had treats like sodas or ice cream. But I got by just fine. (And now, am a fabulous cook!) These people can, too.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
9:00- OK, now we get to see why Obama has refused to do townhall-style debates up to now.
9:06- McCain: "Now, I have a plan . . ." Good way to start.
9:10- Did anyone else notice that McCain is left-handed? Have we ever had a left-handed president before? I've always noticed that left handed people are more creative- is that a good explanation for the whole Maverick thing.
9:12- "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet that you've never even heard of them before this crisis." I'm not sure whether Oliver is amused or insulted.
9:18- Fox has a weird split screen going on, with the speaking candidate in the top right hand corner, and the listening candidate in the lower left. Obama is turned full body towards McCain while he speaks.
9:34- Obama says that Washington needs to lead by example on spending so that consumers will follow suit. Yes, I wasn't sure if I should buy that flat-screen TV on my credit card, but then I said "Hey, what would Congress do?"
9:19: Theresa asks: "How can we trust either of you with our money?" Obama's answer: "Oh, yeah, well Bush was worse." McCain: "I've been a reformer!" Correct answer: "You can't, but it's not like you've got a lot of choices here, honey. What are you gonna do about it, vote third party. Hah!"
9:27- Tom Brokaw keeps asking them to keep within the time limit, but doesn't seem willing to do anything about it but nag.
9:22- McCain tells Theresa to check the watchdog groups, they all say Obama is the most liberal big spender. I don't know why that seems like such an interesting tactic to me.
9:24-hehe- TPM says: "We're told this audience was selected to be a cross-section of the local community. But is it not obvious that it's weighted to bald men?"
9:25- McCain seems to be having a difficult time talking about how he's work across the aisle- he keeps stumbling over words. This is odd for him, because its the same talking points we've heard from him a hundred times before.
9:38- Obama wants to respond, but Tom Brokow smacks him down. GO TOM!
9:46- The computer caught on because it was a better way to do things, like, well, compute. Green energy just seems to be about feeling superior to others.
9:48- Hah- we should really start referring to Obama as "that one."
9:50- One of the most commonly asked questions of Obama is whether Healthcare should be a commodity? Really?
9:54- "Senator Obama will fine you." How has this not been a campaign commercial yet?
9:56- Tom asks: "Is healthcare a right, privilege, or responsibility?" Is there any good answer to that? Obama says "right"- so others are obligated to provide it if you choose not to do so for yourself?
10:04- Tom Brokow's defining the "Obama doctrine," right up front. You hear that, future vice presidential candidates? No confusion next time.
10:07: Hehe- Jac says: "9:55 - Tom Brokaw asks: "Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?" Are single-word multiple-choice answers in a presidential debate simplistic, patronizing, or ridiculous?"
10:09: Poor Katie asking about Pakistani sovereignty. She looks really really nervous. And Obama just plants himself right in front of her and stares at her the entire time that he answers the question.
10:11- Obama looks really unnatural when he says that we will kill Bin Laden. Like it's really difficult for him to say.
10:13- Oh, Brokow went down this time. I take back my prior "go tom."
10:16- I hate when politcians say that they know how to do something that the government has been trying to do all along. Well, if you know how so well, tell somebody why dontcha?
10:21- Obama's response on Russia is completely incoherent. Wait, did Obama just say that the Bush policies are making us more safe? I don't understand him at all here.
10:30- "What don't you know, and how will you learn it?" Well, I don't know why anyone thought that that was a clever enough question to make the cut.
10:32- Obama says that there are young people that have the grades and the will and the drive to go to college but don't have the money. I'd like to meet just one person who has all of those things, but financial difficulties prevent him or her from going to college. Any college. While working part-time. I was one of those students; my parents gave me nothing for college. But with a little grades, will, and drive, I managed just fine.
10:34- I think that the last question should have just been "What would you like to talk about, and what would you like to say about it?" Would have been the same result, most likely.
The End. On the whole, a pretty good debate, but nothing exciting at all. McCain threw out a lot of insults, but none of them really led to sparks.
Monday, October 6, 2008
While we're at it, I'm getting tired of this asinine argument that Ayers threw
his bombs when Obama was only eight-years-old and that this somehow excuses
Obama for any friendship the two may have had. Actually ... this makes the
situation worse. It is not as if a friend of Obama's went off the deep end and
started planting bombs. This man's record was there when Obama found him. It was
not a question of what Ayers might become ... it was the fact of what he already
was, an unrepentant terrorist, when Obama embraced him. An 80-year-old could use
this mindlessly stupid "but I was only eight years old" argument to excuse a
friendship with Hitler today.
Right on. For more, see this (by way of instapundit): "Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me."
The answer: we like them tall and not too thin. In all of the races where the shorter candidate won, he was stockier than the tall guy (think GWB and John Kerry).
So, what do we have here- Obama is tall, but very thin (at 6 foot 1 1/2 and 180 lbs), but McCain is very small, (5 foot 7, 165 lbs).
Is anyone else shocked that McCain is that short? My husband is 5'8", and I think of him as a pretty little guy (which I like, quite a lot). But I've always thought of McCain as pretty tall. He seems tall. And, maybe because he's skinny, and young, but I always thought Obama seemed somewhat short.
Does perceived size matter?
“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so
imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would
target their own country,” Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A
deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain’s ticket-mate echoed the line at three
separate events Saturday.
“This is not a man who sees America like you and I
see America,” she said. “We see America as a force of good in this world. We see
an America of exceptionalism.”…
Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with
overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a
black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a
predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?
If you ask me, the McCain camp should try to milk this all they can. The more people see this "If you dare question me, I will label you a racist" sort of politics, the less they will trust Obama.