Is Rick Perry a racist? He doesn't seem to be from what those who know him are saying. Was he a little more than insensitive in this situation? Absolutely, especially for a public servant.
WaPo: "In the early years of his political career, Rick Perry began hosting fellow lawmakers, friends and supporters at his family’s secluded West Texas hunting camp, a place known by the name painted in block letters across a large, flat rock standing upright at its gated entrance.
'Niggerhead,' it read."
Here's the insensitivity:
"...the name of this particular parcel did not change for years after it became associated with Rick Perry, first as a private citizen, then as a state official and finally as Texas governor. Some locals still call it that. As recently as this summer, the slablike rock — lying flat, the name still faintly visible beneath a coat of white paint — remained by the gated entrance to the camp."
Perry has a record showing he is not a racist, naming African-American justices and staff members during his tenure as Governor, but in trying to avoid the subject because it's not politically convenient at the current time shows he's more interested in damage control than having the courage to address this issue head on.
This must stop. For far too long, the white race as been at a disadvantage. Just take a look at affirmative action and see the result; qualified white males being passed over for a job that an equally qualified minority can do. Don't believe me? Just ask Pat Buchanan. Here he is on the Laura Ingraham Radio Show.
Buchanan: "Now, these folks [meaning minorities], these appear to be inordinately overrepresented of one group. And I've gone through for my new book and you find out that the federal civil service has affirmative action basically for women, for Hispanics, and for African-Americans, but none for white males who are diminishing dramatically. So what you're going, is you're going back to pre-Chester Arthur as I wrote in my column, going back to the federal service as a huge patronage thing that the party in power rewards its friends, rewards the voters that put it into office, and the problem is that Republicans do zero about it."
Yes! That's the problem! Republicans do nothing about repealing affirmative action. They're too busy defunding Medicaid, restricting Planned Parenthood family planning services, and railroading organizations like ACORN. How much time can they possibly have left for asserting the rights of white males?
Of course, Pat Buchanan is completely full of shit. Here's a handy little chart of the "dramatic diminishment" of white males in civil service employment:
See? White males hold 56.1% of the federal civilian workforce and whites overall (including women) hold 67.7% of the jobs. Shouldn't they have more? That 17.6% for blacks is just too much, don't you think? But if Pat Buchanan is so dependent on the numbers, perhaps he should explain why with a current unemployment rate of 9.1%, unemployment among Whites is 8.1% while it is 15.9% for African-Americans. Maybe he thinks it's laziness? Or maybe as he believes that the federal civil employment ratio is disproportionate in favor of blacks as he infers in his column, he should explain why the US prison population of non-Hispanic blacks is 39.4% when the total population of blacks in America is 12.6%. Are they just born criminals?
Yeah, those white males really have it hard to not be included in affirmative action.
Shorter Steele: "I'm not saying they're pressuring him because he's black, I'm saying it's strange that they're pressuring him because he's a black man."
These past few days have been scary. I'm not talking about a standard, figurative scary. I'm talking about never seeing things like this in my lifetime, thinking that the sins of the past were history and how we couldn't possibly go back to those horrible places again. I'm dumbfounded by the turn of events that have taken place over the last few days and how I could have been so wrong.
I always knew that race and racism have been and still are issues in this country, but it was always lurking underneath; a not so pretty, guarded chamber of man's soul that had laid dormant for at least the last twenty or thirty years. Of course, there are code words racists use to show their colors such as "affirmative action" and "immigration reform." In my own life, being of Hispanic descent I have occasionally been the victim of some racist taunts or comments. In my lifetime, there have been hate crimes based on race, but overall it's been few and far between in comparison to the civil rights movement of the 60s. I never thought it would ever get as bad as it had been "back in the day."
But with the new hate-filled speeches of McCain and especially Palin, depicting Barack Obama as someone you should fear - a one-man terrorist cell, a Manchurian candidate, someone who "sees America as so imperfect that he pals around with terrorists" - the dormant volcano of racism in America has erupted into some veryuglyscenes at the McCain/Palin rallies.
Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. McCain
In the last seven days alone, we've seen Senator Erratic trade in his Maverick's license, which had been suspended for quite some time, for a chance at the golden ring. In his performance at the final presidential debate, McCain came off even angrier than is usual cantankerous self and then joked on a revealing Letterman interview, where he caught himself in mid-lie at least three times, having to revise his answer in the same breath that he uttered the falsehood. McCain also apologized to "Joe the plumber" for drawing attention to his story and putting him in the national spotlight after mentioning him 21 times during the debate, then blamed Obama for "smearing" Joe and exposing his private life.
McCain said that he has repudiated all of the hate filled rhetoric against Obama at his rallies (another lie) - calling shouts of "terrorist," "traitor," and "kill him" fringe elements - while hiring the same company that was used against his campaign in 2000 to robocall and continue the Obama/William Ayers smear just this past week. This is the same tactic that McCain called "hate calls" when used against him eight years ago.
Guilt by association and sowing the seeds of doubt from McCain and Palin are only serving to perpetuate the fear and hate. They have nothing else to run on - they fail on the issues, they fail on their policies - so the only other alternative is character assassination. But character is not the only thing they may be inadvertently urging to assassinate. This is dangerous territory they are treading on and Georgia Rep. John Lewis got it right.
"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.
During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.
As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."
Of course the McCain campaign took umbrage at Lewis' statement, concentrating on the Wallace section and dismissing the very essence of Lewis' meaning. Fear breeds contempt and hatred and we've seen that in spades at the McCain/Palin rallies. They've encouraged it.They've stoked it. Will it take someone to be being beaten or killed before they understand the nature of Lewis' remarks instead of painting it as a smear, feeling "saddened" by his remarks and asking Obama to repudiate a leader of the Civil Rights Movement? Will they listen if and when someone dies in a hate crime incited by their campaign rhetoric? By their guilt by association tactic? And by then, won't it already be too late?
I watch the videos of the crowds' overt racism and it truly scares me. What does it say about Sarah Palin when she thinks she can differentiate between "pro-American" parts of the country and anti-American parts? Does she believe that anyone who doesn't support her is anti-American?
Is this what she thinks is "pro-American"?
Or this?
Or maybe this?
What does it say about Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann when she suggests that Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid are anti-American because of their "liberal" views? The same liberals she rails against, by the way, are the ones who fought for her right to vote and her right to run for office!
What does it say for us as a collective people that imbeciles like Palin and Bachmann get elected into office?
Luckily, I do believe that we are in the final days of daily McCain and Palin sightings. It's just another 18 days until the election. Soon, they'll be out of sight, out of mind. McCain can go back to the Senate and become irrelevant as his maverick status no longer applies and eventually die the bitter, old bastard that he truly is. Palin can go back to Alaska and get voted out of office in her next election bid after the ugliness we've seen exposed - the Troopergate controversy alone showing her native Alaskan voters that she is no different from the people she replaced, and then have the free time to help her husband cheat on his taxes.
In eighteen days we start a new chapter in American history. In eighteen days we take our country back as citizens of the United States and finally beat down the Rovian machine that has been holding us back for far too long. In eighteen days.
Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy in your latest column, "The Two Obamas"?
Let's take each issue that you take offense with one at a time, and explain it so that even you can understand.
In your "column", you rail frantically against Senator Obama voting "present" while a member of the Illinois State Senate 130 times according to your count. I won't waste time looking for the actual number because it is irrelevant. Anyone bothering to look for an explanation can easily find one, such as this Republican State House leader coming to Obama's defense.
...Obama's former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama's opponents don't understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.
"To insinuate the 'present' vote means you're indecisive, that you don't have the courage to hold public office, that's a stretch. But, it's good politics," said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party's floor leader.
In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their "present" votes nearly every campaign season. "It's always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote 'present' once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up."
The "present" vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.
"The 'present' vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.
In your next statement, you claim that BarackObama first stood by Rev. Wright and then later "threw [him] under the truck" only when it was politically convenient. Nowhere in your article does it state that he originally stood by him but denounced his inflammatory remarks. Nowhere in your article does it state that because of the controversy that the media perpetuated, he daringly gave a speech considered a third rail in politics, discussing the issue of race and racism in our country that was widely hailed as one of the most important political speeches in the last 40 years.
Only after Rev. Wright continued to fly off the handle, giving a speech at the National Press Club to promote his upcoming book, did Obama finally cut Wright loose; only after another controversial appearance by guest speaker Father Pflegerat Trinity United Church, did Obama decide to leave the church itself not only for his own sake, but to avoid further distraction that it was causing the congregation.
It was a lose-lose-lose situation for Obama. Either he defends Wright and gets lambasted by the right wing, or he denounces Wright's comments which isn't considered good enough by the wingnut pundits, or he disavows him altogether and is accused of throwing him "under the truck." Either he stays with his church and is ridiculed by the likes of you, or he leaves the church is accused of doing it for political convenience.
Next you throw in some stupid line about Obama not being a "workhorse senator" and throwing his duties "under the truck" (always with the truck). Yet you give no examples of what you may be talking about. As for me, I'll refer you to the example above regarding McCain's non GI Bill vote and I'll throw this little tidbit of information your way: Senator John McCain, as of this past May 17th had missed 43 straight votes in the Senate just this year alone. At that point, that equated to missing approximately 50% of the roll calls. Before you try and defend the fact that he's been on the campaign trail, BarackObama and Hillary Clinton had only missed just 6.4 percent and 1.8 percent of votes this year, respectively. What a "workhorse" that John McCain, huh? Perhaps he was napping.
As for town hall meetings? Maybe Obama would accept if he knew that the audience was impartial and not vetted or invited by the McCain campaign.
Fox News:The McCain campaign said it was taking random questions from the audience of about 200 people. But the questions and mood were decidedly favorable, as his jabs at Obama were frequently interrupted by applause.
One questioner praised his military service; another called him a “hero.”
The campaign later issued a statement saying it distributed tickets to “supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, and other independent groups.”
What a maverick that McCain is!
But then, Mr. Brooks, you save the best for last: Accusing BarackObama of flip-flopping and backing out of public financing. Oh no! The evil Obama deciding not to accept any taxpayer money (a "small government" conservative's dream by the way). Weak, David. Weak. Let's slow this down so you can see how ridiculous this argument is.
First, let's talk about what Senator Obama actually did say he would participate in. In his Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, question 1-B asked: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"
So the operative phrase here is "if... your major opponents agree to forgo public financing..." Here is his full answer after checking the "yes" box:
"I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge.If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
You got that, Dave? "Senator McCain has already agreed to accept this fundraising pledge." The only problem is that Senator McCain has been raising and spending unlimited monies in violation of Federal Election Commission laws after opting in for public campaign funds through the primaries (which end with the convention), used that pledge to secure a bank loan, and then opted out of public financing. Something that the Republican Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission calls ILLEGAL.
...McCain's maneuveringseemed to irritate FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican,who wrote a letter to McCain in Februarysaying McCain could only withdraw from public financing if he received the permission of the FEC and answered questions about the loan.
"The Commission made clear that a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission when he executes the Candidate Agreements and Certification," Mason wrote. "The Commission stated that it would withdraw a candidate's certifications upon written request, thus agreeing to rescind the contract, so long as the candidate: 1) had not received Matching Payment Program funds, and 2) had not pledged the certification of Matching Payment Program funds as 'security for private financing.'"
By the way, McCain was asked the same public financing question that Obama answered from the same organization and didn't bother to respond. Perhaps he was napping.
The fact is that McCain is gaming the system - first planning to opt out of public financing during the primaries. Then when fundraising got rough and he was out of cash, on August 10 McCain asked the Federal Election Commission for the authority to receive matching funds, and the FEC said he was eligible for $5.8 million. Although he never collected the money, he secured a $4 million line of credit with the agreement to reapply for federal matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests. The agreement also held as collateral his list of contributors and a pledge by McCain to seek further cash from those donors to pay of the loan.
So cry all you want about Senator Obama opting out of public financing, or in actuality creating his own system of public financing without using one single dollar of taxpayer money. If the roles were reversed, no one would be batting an eye at the advantage of GOP coffers, but since the shoe is on the other foot, all we hear is whining from "pundits" with agendas.
I suppose that's why your columns are op-eds, Mr. Brooks. You may be entitled you your opinion, but you are certainly not entitled to your own facts. *************************
I know the public financing fiasco is convoluted - here is Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman explaining it a lot better than I probably did.
Lou Dobbs almost stepped in shit when speaking out against black politicians like Condi Rice and Barack Obama having the nerve to state the obvious: that race is still an issue in the United States. Yes, we are the most racially diverse country on earth, but that doesn't mean that racism does not exist.
Yassir, Massa Dobbs! We be good niggas from now on.
Asked whether Obama could win in November, Clinton deflected the question. "I'm saying I have a better chance," she said. "You cannot as a Democrat win the White House without a very big women's vote. What I believe is that women will turn out for me."
"Typical white person." That's what's being twisted around here. "Typical white person."
Senator Barack Obama, speaking off the cuff during a radio interview on a sports show called his grandmother, his own grandmother a "typical white" person.
610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi asked Obama about his Tuesday morning speech on race at the National Constitution Center in which he referenced his own white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know - there's a reaction in her that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. What makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling less like that. And that's pretty powerful stuff."
Unfortunately, the typical white people in media, the blogs and elsewhere are running with this story like OJ in the white Bronco, and distorting it - playing the sound bite and cutting it off after "typical white person" thereby completely twisting its context.
Here is Obama's campaign trying to explain further what Obama was trying to say:
Barack Obama said specifically that he didn't believe his grandmother harbored any racial animosity, but that her fears were understandable and typical of those often shared by her generation..."
The sad part is, if anyone criticizing Obama over this were being as honest as he is about the racism that still exists in this country intead of denying the truth, distorting the words and decrying the man, they'd see that what he has said can't be denied. It's his own experience, his own grandmother he's talking about, and his own reality.
There is no white person on earth that can claim to know what it's like to be a black person in America. You can try to understand it, you can fight the instictiveness of racism, but it is there and no white pundit sitting in a television studio or white blogger on either political side should even dare to touch the race issue as if they know both viewpoints. People like Gretchen Carlson of Fox & Friends would get eaten up for breakfast if someone actually took her up on "honestly discussing the race issue."
...Whether it's the Clinton campaign who likely pushed the Wright videos to the press, or the far-right fuckwits who are pretending to suddenly be racially sensitive -- and who, by the way, mistakenly believe you can be racist against the majority race. You can't be racist against white people. Sorry. I'm also looking at you, Geraldine Ferraro.
...to the far-right bloggers, FOX News and Ferraro... The minority population CAN'T be racist against the majority population any more than the poor can subjugate a king or, for that matter, workers can subjugate a CEO. For a white Hannity or a white Ferraro to somehow play the role of a racial victim is hilarious...ly stupid.
Worst of all, the integrity that Obama has shown by tackling an issue such as race during his campaign for the nomination has been cast aside as nothing more than politicking by the more cynical MSM. Putting everything on the line, Obama chose to speak the truth, and strength of his words in a speech that will be remembered by many as one of the great speeches in our modern US political historical landscape was nothing more than fodder for those who heard the words, but didn't listen.
Looking for phrases, words they could latch onto, wondering if he would "disown" his controversial Pastor whom he considers family - all of that was at the forefront for the talking heads, but the punditocracy lost the meaning of his words while looking for a cheap, tawdry sound bite.
The plain fact of the matter was and is that Obama is speaking the truth. And for those that choose to attack, it the truth that hurts.
It is possible that we will have a President who not only will speak in full, complete sentences, but who will do so in a manner that is eloquent, and who will also be articulate and eloquent in delivering words he is intelligent enough to know, understand, and use in a speech he is capable of writing himself.
...After seven years of the worst crumble-bumblings of the nattering nabob from Crawford, think about that.
Since the rabid dog we call the mainstream media won't release the Rev. Wirght story out of its frothy jaws, Barack Obama has scheduled a speech in Philadelphia today to address Wright's comments and will take the opportunity to discuss the issue of race in this country.
Didn't he already address the Wright fiasco with this statement?
"...I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."
I suppose the MSM was in too much of a feeding frenzy to notice because I keep hearing assholes like Joe Scarborough say things like, "Doesn't he have to distance himself from these comments?" Pay attention, Joe. Obama's statement was released five days ago... or is it not good enough for you?
I think that's the main problem - like I said before, a guy like McCain can accept an endorsement like Hagee's with great honor, so what if he's said a few anti-Catholic remarks as long as the candidate doesn't agree with them. But with Obama, the MSM won't be satisfied until he is handed a gun with with one bullet loaded in it, and shoots that "uppity nigger" in the head. Let's face facts - that's what this is really about, isn't it?
The speech will be televised at 10:15am. I'm hoping to have video of it up sometime today.
Update: Obama started his speech at a little after 11am... and what a speech it was. Of course, some "pundits" (like Pat Buchanan) who praised the speech, just didn't get it because they refuse to get it. Video to follow.
ShareThis