More On Hobbs

This is the other thing I’ve been thinking about in terms of the whole Obama-Farrakhan thing and what the TNGOP flaks are up to in this press release.

And here is my question:

Do you think that the Beatles are responsible for what Charles Manson’s followers did?

By all accounts, Manson loved the Beatles, Beatles lyrics were left in the homes of Manson’s followers’ victims, and, if I’m remembering Helter Skelter correctly, Manson found meaning and direction in “The White Album” when plotting the murders.

So, since Manson loved the Beatles, I ask you, are the Beatles responsible for those murders?

I assume you believe that they are not.

And, as such, how in the world can Obama be responsible for inspiring Farrakhan?

I knew a hardcore white separatist* who was greatly inspired by the Minnesota Vikings, believed they were a symbol of the strength and power of the white man**. I believe he and his friends were responsible for spray-painting racist graffiti on Lincoln’s tomb decades ago.

Do we hold the Minnesota Vikings responsible for not repudiating the actions of those evil, idiot children?

I assume you can see how that would be ridiculous.

And here’s what strikes me as most curious about this whole affair. If the TNGOP is so concerned about anti-Semites who think the U.S. as it is now sucks and who have close ties to domestic terrorist organizations giving any sort of positive reaction to Obama, why didn’t they include anything about David Duke in that press release?

You’re telling me they couldn’t spin this—

“I don’t think Obama will be any more negative for the United States than Hillary or John McCain,” explains Duke. “In fact,” he added, “we probably have less preference for a European like a John McCain or a Hillary who has betrayed our interests, our heritage, our rights.”

–into an endorsement?

I’m not buying it. Farrakhan and Duke may come at it from different angles, but they end up in very similar theoretical spaces.

So, why, when “informing” the Republicans of Tennessee about Obama’s “ties” to anti-Israel factions, was Hobbs all over the Farrakhan “connection” and not the weird, if tepid, preference Duke shows for Obama?

Could it be because Hobbs is well aware that the folks he ultimately crafted that press release to appeal to have much more of a problem with Farrakhan than they ever will with Duke?

—————————-

*Using that term to mean someone who not only thought white people were better than everyone else, but that he had a right to live in a community, if not a country, free from non-white people.

**I can only assume he’d never seen a football game in his life.

18 thoughts on “More On Hobbs”

Pingback: Music City Bloggers » Blog Archive » Good Question

Pingback: Volunteer Voters » Racial Realities Inherent In The System

For reasons I don’t know, in the past month or so TN Republicans have practically been foaming at the mouth in their eagerness to pursuade Jews that this is the election in which we need to become Republicans. I don’t get it. Partly in the sense that I don’t know why it’s this election that they think is going to be the catalyst. And partly in the sense that since McCain is running on a continue-the-war-in-Iraq-forever platform, and anyone who has looked at any public opinion poll in the past 5 or 6 years ought to be aware that Jews, of all ethnic groups in the U.S., are and have been most opposed to the war, so imagining that McCain ought to have unusual appeal is kinda dumb.

Unless … maybe they are finding that even the small group of Jewish Republicans/war supporters are responding to Obama’s message of unity, disgusted by McCain’s pandering to the Christian right, and remembering their civil rights roots? And they’re afraid of losing even that teensy bit of support? So they trot out the nonsensical accusations.

Maybe they want to try to make as much hay as possible from Lieberman’s otherwise useless endorsement of McCain, who they also dislike? Are they that hard up that the 20k or so Jewish voters in TN (the bulk of whom are Democrats) are going to make the difference? Or…and I suspect this to be more the case, is it that they can get national air time saying biggotty things that national GOPers want to have out in the blogosphere while claiming to defend the local interests of “their friends the Jews.” After all, they lose nothing — it’s not like Nashville is Brooklyn or even Brookline.

The Lieberman connection might be a factor. But, honestly, in the past couple of weeks I’ve been seeing local Republican bloggers getting all worked up about “this might be the election when we get the Jews to vote for us!” As if that would be some monumental achievement (well, it would take a monumental achievement, but wouldn’t be one in terms of impact on the election locally, as you point out). And when you mention certain political facts to them, they get all surprised, as if they’ve never looked at polling results. It has been puzzling me no end. Do you figure that it was all buildup to the attacks on Obama? They can’t think this is going to work, nationally. Even Marty Peretz is laughing at them.

I’ve been thinking about this and I wonder if it doesn’t have to do with a profound lack of knowledge of history and an understanding of African-American/Jewish relations that is no more sophisticated than thinking that Farrakhan speaks for all black people.

I really am starting to suspect that they think that Jewish people secretly hate black people and, if only they had the slightest excuse, y’all would give up your “historic” loyalty to the Dems and come over to the Republican side where you’re bound to be more comfortable because they really, really love Israel (at least, until Jesus comes back and destroys all non-Christians and teaches you a thing or two about rejecting him…).

I mean, really, that Hobbs tries to frame someone saying “Well, maybe we can figure out some way for all these folks to realize they’re going to have to figure out how to get along” as being the same as “Death to Israel” is really weird.

Jews represent an attainable, “minority” block vote to the GOP. It’s largely symbolic, though, the Republicans move to get that vote. Also, evengelical conservative Christians see themselves as the protector of the Holy Land and really believe it is America’s job alone.

OTOH many hard right, near Stormfronters and even some not so hard right believe “the Jew” via the neo-cons, took over the party in service of Israel and are resentful. I wonder what they’re thinking now? Let’s all go to stormfront and see!

Attainable? WTF?

It’s not really about attracting Jewish voters — while I think that would be fine with the GOP if that happened, that’s mostly just pretense. GOP flacks have been trying like hell to figure out how to galvanize white solidarity without bringing up skin color. Religion, with Muslim defined in the TNGOP as the polar opposite of “Judeo-Christian” (cringe) and so in their heads making a black and white distinction between candidates, is a convenient stand-in for talking about race.

Are they that hard up that the 20k or so Jewish voters in TN

Less than that I think. There’s roughly 8,000 in Greater Nashville, maybe slightly more in Memphis, and small amounts in Knoxville and Chattanooga.

I could just be paranoid, but…as a TN Jew, I think they’re less after our votes and more after our money. We’re not a big enough voting bloc to swing an election in this state.

And as far as Lieberman is concerned…Jewish Democrats in Connecticut are HUMILIATED by him. The Jewish vote in the CT primary went nearly 60-40 for Obama!

Well, again, anyone who thinks that Jewish Democrats in CT voted for Lieberman last time around hasn’t been paying attention. Look at the polling data, folks. But the number of Christians in TN (and elsewhere, of course) who have these completely insane fantasies about who Jews are, either as a group or as individuals, is, well, huge. Bob Krumm, for instance, really is under the impression that the only thing keeping us Democratic is Bush’s religious tendencies. Truly, truly operating in a mental world devoid of facts.