NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Iowa: ‘Too White, Too Evangelical’

Texas_tea

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
5,003
Location
Great State of TEXAS
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell offered a somewhat unsurprising (considering the source) analysis of Iowa as she covered the state’s upcoming caucus race for “Nightly News.”

“The rap on Iowa,” she said, “It doesn’t represent the rest of the country… too white, too evangelical, too rural. Still here, politics are personal.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...a_is_too_white_too_evangelical_too_rural.html

The truth is evident in the progressive left's own comments. The rest of the normal thinking Americans are clear on where the racism and anti-American hate is coming from, despite what the MSM is reporting. America's founding was almost exclusively rurally based, God fearing, Western Europeans (White Men), which upon reflection makes Ms. Mitchell's comment a clear and consistent reflection of the deep rooted hatred for America, our Founding Fathers, and the very fabric of our Constitution. In fact, the very nature of America's melting pot philosophy refutes her point. We, as a country, are more than the sum of our parts. We, the middle class, crave more integrity, intelligence, and ingenuity on the part of our elected officials, not the invasive, overbearing, and socialistic ideologies and lies of the progressive left and the Democratic party.



 
Werbung:
Now Why isnt Jeffry Immelt gonna fire her for that racist comment? Now IMUS called the womens Rutgers Basketball team a bunch of nippy nappy hoes and he was fired off MSNBC by Jeffry Immelt. You see whatever the left uses racial comments nothing would be done to em. Just like ESPN pulled Hank Williams MNF song for calling Obama Hitler. And then Susan Sarandon called the Pope a Nazi and MGM studio excutives wouldnt revoke her contract Double Standard?? I think Andrea Mitchell should get fired for what she said.
 
Umm so she stated a fact, that that is in fact one of the things people say about the Iowa Caucus...that it does make a very good representation of the nation as a whole.....and your point is? You really think what a bunch of Farmers who hardly even have a real city in there state are a good Representative of the nation as a whole? Statistical its far to white and far to Evangelical...

Facts are darned things, sorry can't help with your poor persecuted white male Christian Complex.
 
That is how the left sees America. They classify everyone by race, religion, and if you live in a rural area...well you are just a dumb red-neck heck.

What was it BO called them? Oh yeah...here it is...

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." - BO
 
That is how the left sees America. They classify everyone by race, religion, and if you live in a rural area...well you are just a dumb red-neck heck.

What was it BO called them? Oh yeah...here it is...


"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." - BO

divide and conquer, not a new idea but effective against those not paying attention or absorbed by self interest.
 
Texas_tea, et al,

OK, let be just a little fair here. You may not agree with her analysis - then - let it said in that context.
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell offered a somewhat unsurprising (considering the source) analysis of Iowa as she covered the state’s upcoming caucus race for “Nightly News.”
which upon reflection makes Ms. Mitchell's comment a clear and consistent reflection of the deep rooted hatred for America, our Founding Fathers, and the very fabric of our Constitution. In fact, the very nature of America's melting pot philosophy refutes her point.​
(COMMENT)

It was an analysis of playing field as she saw it. She was honestly stating her point of view. Whether I agree, or disagree, it was a worthy, objective and thoughtful perspective. It doesn't reflect a "deep root hatred of America." It stated the demographic as she saw it.

If you disagree, with its racial complexion (91% White to the national average of 72%) and you don't think that has an impact, then state your "why."

It is my opinion that America does not have a "Melting Pot Philosophy." And I think all this trouble talk about immigration and border control puts the headlights on that subject. America was a "Melting Pot" at a time when we had less controlled immigration; but now, there are big fights brewing over the issue.

So, if you don't agree, then state why and avoid the ad Hominem methodology. It is not as useful.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
There is no question that the immigrants streaming out of Europe etc a hundred years ago or so were far more willing to enter the melting pot than today. They sacrificed every thing (in many cases) to get here and bought into the hard work = reward opportunity that the US offered. This sense is lost on illegals as they sacrificed little to nothing leaving them in the welcome arms of an entitlement society. They are here as parasites as opposed to a desire for a better home. They don't want to melt, just to sponge.
 
So, if you don't agree, then state why and avoid the ad Hominem methodology. It is not as useful.
RoccoR ...

There is no attack or verbal abuse in my comment. Indeed accusing someone falsely of an ad hominem approach to debate is itself an ad hominem argument. An Ad hominem can also be used as a fallacy to impugn the honesty of a critic to avoid his/her arguments, which clearly is the context you have chosen in avoiding my point about Ms. Mitchell's comment being racist.

All one has to do is imagine the violent reaction that would occur if this same reporter was to say that “The rap on the Bronx, is that it doesn’t represent the rest of the country… too black, too evangelical, too urban". There is no question that the same comment in a reversed context would be viewed as racist.

Ms. Mitchell's comment clearly reflects the liberals' disdain for "white" America, which in this context is obviously an attack on the values and political ideologies of our "white European" Founding Fathers. You also see these attitudes in comments made in the MSM when the TEA Party is falsely accused of being all white or a party of old angry white men. Same attitudes, same liberals.

America is a melting pot, a Country full of different races, ethnicities, religions and cultures all of which under the US Constitution are guaranteed representation. Conservative America is very clear on how the liberals support racism, class warfare and a generally dividing Americans down any and everyone of these lines for the sole purpose of isolating anyone who doesn't support their vision of a socialist America.

No one state, one city, one neighborhood or one street in this Country represents America as a whole, despite how the liberals and the MSM would like for you to believe otherwise. Again, America is a melting pot with different areas representing different facets of this Country. Yes, Iowa is majority white but, does that suggest that Iowa should not be represented because the majority of "evangelical whites" support a conservative ideology and not a socialist? I think the MSM and liberals would like you to believe this. Divide and isolate anyone and everyone that do not support their vision of a socialist America.

Sure the racial make up of Iowa will have an impact but, so will the make up of Detroit. All will and should be represented and should not be demonized by the liberals and MSM because this particular "make-up" doesn't support their political agenda.
 
Texas_tea, et al,
Perception is everything.

There is no attack or verbal abuse in my comment. Indeed accusing someone falsely of an ad hominem approach to debate is itself an ad hominem argument. An Ad hominem can also be used as a fallacy to impugn the honesty of a critic to avoid his/her arguments, which clearly is the context you have chosen in avoiding my point about Ms. Mitchell's comment being racist.
(COMMENT)

I perceive this as an attack on her, not only in the previous comment, but even in this response. I see it as loosely using the comment to impugn her character, and not her right to express her thought.

Ms. Mitchell's comment clearly reflects the liberals' disdain for "white" America, which in this context is obviously an attack on the values and political ideologies of our "white European" Founding Fathers. You also see these attitudes in comments made in the MSM when the TEA Party is falsely accused of being all white or a party of old angry white men. Same attitudes, same liberals.
(COMMENT)

And, while I don't even care for Andrea Mitchell's reporting style, I do not even consider her remotely as racist; particularly against members of her own race. You may disagree with er analysis, but to suggest that her report and comments were driven by a "disdain for white America" is going a bit over the top. I've watched NBC News (not exclusively) for several decades, and have never heard her make a racist comment. I remember when she was of the Foreign Affair Bureau, Chief Congressional and the Chief of NBCs White House Correspondents. While I really think she reach a different audience besides the demographic I am in, she has proven to be a very professional and forthright journalist and commentator.

Sure the racial make up of Iowa will have an impact but, so will the make up of Detroit. All will and should be represented and should not be demonized by the liberals and MSM because this particular "make-up" doesn't support their political agenda.
(COMMENT)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think she "demonized" anyone in her reporting. And to suggest that she did, is an attack on her character and integrity; and not a rebuttal of the content she provided.

One Man's Opinion,
Most Respectfully,
R
 
Sorry Rocco ...
Although I appreciate your respectful rebuttal, we will simply have to agree to disagree. I made the point in my previous comment that had this comment been made about the Bronx being too black, there would have never even been a question of it being racist. However, if it is said about white people and someone such as myself points out the blatant racism in the comment, then somehow it is a personal attack on Ms. Mitchell's character. Double standard? You bet cha!
 
the point of the comment is simple, as Obama is unopposed in the Dem Cauci there is no need to coddle Iowa so she felt free to use the opportunity to try and marginalize all those GOP caucus goers who are in the news. The only question is have the dems written off Iowa allowing them to make points off Iowa's lack of melanin ?
 
as with most media bias (reference

Or the fact being that Iowa is very white, and is not Representative of the US as a whole...Your all pretending she said something horrible...because she said what everyone knows. There is a reason that winning Iowa has little effect on winning the nation. You know being 93% white...while in the US its less then 80%
 
Werbung:
Or the fact being that Iowa is very white, and is not Representative of the US as a whole...Your all pretending she said something horrible...because she said what everyone knows. There is a reason that winning Iowa has little effect on winning the nation. You know being 93% white...while in the US its less then 80%

Iowa was white 100 years ago too not to mentkion 4 years ago when it was important to the Dems so why is it newsworthy NOW ? Because it served as an opportunity to marginalize the GOP.
 
Back
Top