Imagine it’s 2007 and a prominent journalist is interviewing then-Senator Barack Obama. “Senator, people are really interested in you and your identity. I just wanted to ask you as a historical matter, when you filled out your application to Columbia, to Harvard Law School, did you list yourself as an African American?” Imagine he pressed further. Do you have a favorite traditional black food? Who’s your favorite African-American performer? It’s a safe bet that journalist would be lucky to have a job today as a greeter at Wal-Mart.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... h-goldberg

Isn't that true?

So, why does Mark Halperin have a job?

Better question: why is there no media comment on this?

My answer: because Cruz is conservative, therefore it's okay to discriminate against him.

Well, actually, if a reporter asked Ben Carson those questions he would be in trouble, too. I guess the specific comparison is that Cruz is half-white as is President Obama. I think is is fair to explore Cruz's background given that Cruz cites the fact he was the first Latino Texas Solicitor General and first Latino clerk for a US Supreme Court justice. Given that Cruz does not even speak Spanish it's legitimate to ask questions about his connections to his Cuban heritage. Mixed -raced identity is a legitimate question if the candidate defines himself in a certain way. Obama defined himself as primarily being African-America and the reality is he looks African-American. If he were lighter-skinned and he was defining himself as being African-American I am sure there would have been questions. That 'a just the reality of it--that may not be particularly fair. Cruz's mixed-race identity is not so readily clear.

I think Halperin could have demonstrated his point-that Cruz has little connection to the experience of the average Latino--without being that offensive. But he wasn't being racist. Cruz's meteoric rise in the Republican Party almost certainly has something to do with his ability to define himself as being Latino. His biography indicates he was advising Bush on legal matters in 1999 (at age 29! , 4 years after graduating law school ) and that he was involved in the Bush-Gore appeal in 2000. Liberals are going to question those who rise fast by claiming a minority background in the Republican Party. Republicans are so desperate to show that they are not just a party for white people that they are willing to support clearly unqualified people like Ben Carson and also promote quickly guys like Senator Cruz.

Liberals are going to question those who rise fast by claiming a minority background in the Republican Party.

While I generally find the racial whataboutery that Steve and Brad are prone to quite tiresome in these threads, I have to say that this is a very telling remark Freeman, and not in a good way. What you're effectively saying is that liberals will continue to stoke up identity politics in a bid to cling onto a captive electorate. The fact that you're actually defending it as a valid political move is a little depressing tbh.

Sassenach wrote:

Liberals are going to question those who rise fast by claiming a minority background in the Republican Party.

While I generally find the racial whataboutery that Steve and Brad are prone to quite tiresome in these threads, I have to say that this is a very telling remark Freeman, and not in a good way. What you're effectively saying is that liberals will continue to stoke up identity politics in a bid to cling onto a captive electorate. The fact that you're actually defending it as a valid political move is a little depressing tbh.

And, the double-standard inherent in his answer is telling as well. Did liberals question Obama as one who "(rose) fast by claiming a minority background?"

Who was Barack Obama before his electric speech at the 2004 DNC? In 2004, what were his credentials? 4 years later, he was the nominee of the party.

But, back on topic.

If in 2007, Obama had been asked these questions, what would have been the response?

"I just wanted to ask you as a historical matter, when you filled out your application to Columbia, to Harvard Law School, did you list yourself as an African American?”

"Do you have a favorite traditional black food?"

"Who’s your favorite African-American performer?"

Whoever did that interview would have been fired.

We don't have to use identity politics to hold on to the Latino vote, Sass. Republicans with their nativist policies have done that for us. The concern is that ala Clarence Thomas a far-right wing candidate will fly under the radar because he is a minority candidate. There is simply no way Ben Carson is a candidate except that he is black, but at least he is no threat to win. But Ted Cruz is more of a threat but there is no way he could win the presidency because he too far-right in his views if he were a white candidate. No way. But as a Latino...maybe. So, yeah, his status as a legitimate minority candidate is going to be examined. It may not be nice but we're playing for high stakes.

Are you saying, Freeman, that it does not matter if something is right or wrong because the Presidency is at stake? I find that surprising. Do you think that is ethical?

I do not.

bbauska wrote:Are you saying, Freeman, that it does not matter if something is right or wrong because the Presidency is at stake? I find that surprising. Do you think that is ethical?

I do not.

Situational racism. No, I'm not saying freeman3 is a racist. I'm saying he seems to be claiming that racist tactics are "okay" if they accomplish a desired goal.

Think the interview wasn't racist? Thinkprogress disagrees.

The Prize For The Most Racist Interview Of A 2016 Candidate Goes To Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin

I am not saying he is a racist either. I am saying that to accept this activity is OK because of the stakes involved, is suspect. I makes me wonder what else is acceptable to get someone elected.

Any insight to that is appreciated as well.

fate

"I just wanted to ask you as a historical matter, when you filled out your application to Columbia, to Harvard Law School, did you list yourself as an African American?”

I seem to recall his birth place and his religion being directly questioned.And still not believed by many.

There's media scrutiny of anyone who doesn't seem to be "authentic". Elizabeth Warrens silly claim to native Indian status was a big deal.
Marco Rubio's claims that his parents were refugees from Communism were rightly skewered. (They were refugees from Batista.....)

At least Halperin didn't question Cruz about his attachments to his home town of Calgary or what his favorite poutine is...

Really, come on guys. You want to complain that there is a double-standard in the media--fine, go ahead. But using the word racist to describe liberals who are trying to improve the lot of minorities is just absurd. 400 years of slavery in the New World and 100 years of Jim Crow laws probably argues for less leeway with interviewing an African-American candidate as opposed to one with a Cuban heritage, anyway. The idea that Halperin was being racist when he interviewed Cruz is just not even remotely plausible. He tried to embarrass Cruz and it blew up in his face because the way he did it was clumsy and it reminded people of racial stereotyping. But it wasn't racist-offensive, yes. He wasn't trying to demean Cruz because he was Cuban (that would be racist), he was trying to show that Cruz's connection to the Latino community (I think Cruzhad just spoken to an Hispanic business group) was thin and the way he went about it was offensive. The word racist is far too loaded a term to be throwing around like that, given that it basically implies that a person thinks other races are inferior.

The hysterical reaction from the far right to Obama's presidency is far more indicative of underlying racist views (including a record number of death threats for a president) than a liberal interviewer questioning the Latino background of a Cuban senator.

Freeman,
That is a sidestep. You said it is OK considering the stakes involved. Do you think this is ethical to investigate the candidate's heritage et. al. or not? Is it fine to use race and the actual or supposed location of one's heritage in an election? Personally, I do not. I thought you did not when President Obama was running, but now it seems otherwise. Can you clarify?

What other things that may not be ethical is not beyond the pale if it is a presidential election?

rickyp wrote:fate

"I just wanted to ask you as a historical matter, when you filled out your application to Columbia, to Harvard Law School, did you list yourself as an African American?”

I seem to recall his birth place and his religion being directly questioned.And still not believed by many.

There's media scrutiny of anyone who doesn't seem to be "authentic". Elizabeth Warrens silly claim to native Indian status was a big deal.
Marco Rubio's claims that his parents were refugees from Communism were rightly skewered. (They were refugees from Batista.....)

At least Halperin didn't question Cruz about his attachments to his home town of Calgary or what his favorite poutine is...

Please point to a known media interview wherein Obama was asked a series of questions designed to prove his "blackness." Halperin was out to show Cruz is not a "real Hispanic."

Warren lied or, at best, was a victim of family legend.

How about a nicer story? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us ... &referrer=

fate

Halperin was out to show Cruz is not a "real Hispanic."

Not authentically Hispanic.
I agree with you that Halperins' tone was mealy. And his questioning not well constructed.
If Halperins's goal was to demonstrate that Cruz is in authentically Hispanic there had to be better ways to coax something revealing out of Cruz then his line of questioning.
He could have asked Cruz if he spoke Spanish. And then, if he received a yes, asked a question in Spanish...for instance.


As for Obama. he was regularly asked where he was born, where his birth certificate was, what his upbringing in Indonesia was all about, etc. What religious faith he had. And he was faced with walking out on his church when the lead pastor provoked many with his sermons.
The question some had wasn't Is Obama authentically black?
It was "Is Obama authentically American?" And they asked the questions directly that they thought had to be answered. Even long after they had been answered.

rickyp wrote:fate

Halperin was out to show Cruz is not a "real Hispanic."

Not authentically Hispanic.
I agree with you that Halperins' tone was mealy. And his questioning not well constructed.
If Halperins's goal was to demonstrate that Cruz is in authentically Hispanic there had to be better ways to coax something revealing out of Cruz then his line of questioning.
He could have asked Cruz if he spoke Spanish. And then, if he received a yes, asked a question in Spanish...for instance.

Lame. So, speaking Spanish is THE definition of being Hispanic? In that case, Jeb is Hispanic and Cruz, who is as Hispanic as Obama is Black, is not Hispanic.

As for Obama. he was regularly asked where he was born, where his birth certificate was, what his upbringing in Indonesia was all about, etc. What religious faith he had. And he was faced with walking out on his church when the lead pastor provoked many with his sermons.

Only 5% of Americans would listen to the crap his "pastor" preaches every week. Actually, less than that. It's anti-American, anti-white claptrap.

Again, here's the challenge: find a media person who interviewed Obama in 2007-08 who tried to get him to prove he was Black. That's what Halperin was after--Cruz needed to prove, in Halperin's eyes, that he was genuinely Hispanic.

The question some had wasn't Is Obama authentically black?

You are changing the topic.