Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain isn’t “black enough” for liberals? Should he be smoking crack and slamming and hating whites, should he not be a business success, but a welfare-dependent, whining failure, to be an “authentic black” to racist Democrats?Black conservatives face racism from liberals, particularly black liberals:
Here is an example of liberal "tolerance":
But for black Americans the choice of political party appears predestined. It seems liberals but more specifically black liberals have carved in the ten black commandments that “thou shall never be a Republican.” These same black liberals also refuse to submit to the fact that not all blacks think alike.With black conservatives like Congressman Allen West, Congressman Tim Scott and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain debunking this insulting stereotype, many black liberals have resorted to racist name calling to protect the myth that Democrat policies help blacks. Cain has been target number one on their list.
Apparently, all members of an "oppressed minority" must think identically or else they are "self-hating" or they are not actually part of that minority. Herman Cain has been called an "Uncle Tom" and an "oreo," among other things. He is very successful, despite much adversity. His success should be admired, and I would think he would be a good role model. But no, his success apparently makes him "not black." So, no black people are capable of being successful? Racists.
UPDATE: I should also mention Janeane Garofalo and her belief that Herman Cain's campaign is designed to deflect accusations of racism of conservatives.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air makes this observation on "the supremely irrelevant Janeane Garofalo" (h/t The Blaze):
this clip encapsulates perfectly how intellectually vapid the Republicans-are-racists argument truly is. If African-Americans don’t do well among Republicans, it’s evidence of racism, and now if theydo get support among Republicans, that’s also racism. It’s an unanswerable assertion that not only is completely circular in its logic, it’s also lunacy. Basically, Garofalo is kind of like a cult member who insists that every data point supports her religious belief, regardless of whether it contradicts with other data points that are also used in defense of groupthink.