Archive for the ‘African Americans’ Category

Lucie Kim Frivolously Sues Miley Cyrus Over “Racist” Picture

February 16, 2009

Alright, so I heard about this story yesterday, and it really got my blood boiling.  Not because I’m terribly offended by Miley Cyrus, but because lawsuits in America have reached such an asinine stage.

Here’s what happened: Miley Cyrus offended some Asian Pacific Islanders by making “squinty eyes,” imitating someone who is Asian:

0202_miley_cyrus

The tabloids got that picture and kaboom! it’s all over the place.

Well, some idiot figured that they could make some money off of this.  And that idiot is Lucie J. Kim.  She filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles superior court stating that every Asian Pacific Islander in L.A. County deserves $4,000 for civil rights violations because of that photo.  That totals $4 million.  Kim says in the suit that Cyrus “knew or should have known that her image would be publicly disseminated via the media, which Cyrus knew would focus on her private life, specifically TMZ [they're the ones who leaked it first].”  She also claims that Cyrus knew the face was “racist.”

Cyrus originally said she was “simply making a goofy face,” but later apologized.

Comedian Margaret Cho wrote a blog post about it (that’s available here: http://www.margaretcho.com/blog/2009/02/11/oh-miley.html), and the Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA) released the following statement:

The photograph of Miley Cyrus and other individuals slanting their eyes currently circulating the Internet is offensive to the Asian Pacific American community and sets a terrible example for her many young fans. This image falls within a long and unfortunate history of people mocking and denigrating individuals of Asian descent.

“Not only has Miley Cyrus and the other individuals in the photograph encouraged and legitimized the taunting and mocking of people of Asian descent, she has also insulted her many Asian Pacific American fans,” said George Wu, executive director of OCA. “The inclusion of an Asian Pacific American individual in the photo does not make it acceptable.”

“OCA hopes that Miley Cyrus will apologize to her fans and the APA community for this lapse in judgment and takes the opportunity to better understand why the gesture is offensive.”

OCA is a national organization dedicated to advancing the social, political and economic well-being of Asian Pacific Americans in the United States.

OK, so first off, anybody who needs $4,000 to make themselves feel better because of this picture really needs to spend that $4,000 on counselling to get some therapy and self esteem.  So, my message to Lucie Kim: GET SOME MENTAL HELP!  YOU NEED IT!  Uh oh, I’m gonna get sued now for being offensive to people with low self esteem.

Second, why is nobody yelling at the Asian kid in the picture?  He was going along with it.  He wasn’t mad that the people around him were “mocking” his heritage.  So, is he racist against Asian Pacific Islanders too, or is this another double standard similar to how African Americans can use the N-word?

I can deal with what the OCA said.  Sure, it was offensive, but honestly, I doubt that that many Asians really care.

What I can’t deal with is the greed and utter stupidity of Lucie Kim.  Kim is an idiot who’s trying to make a quick buck.  Go out and find a real way to make money, instead of trying to sue the crap out of a teenage girl for offending you.  And you know what, if you’re so desperate for money, I invite you to come here and talk to me.  If you can actually convince me that you deserve $4,000, I will personally give you $250.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Results for the Republican National Committee Election: Michael Steele Wins

January 30, 2009

Michael Steele has just won the race for Republican National Committee Chairman.

The votes were as follows:

Mike Duncan: 52 votes
Michael Steele: 46 votes
Katon Dawson: 28 votes
Saul Anuzis: 22 votes
Ken Blackwell: 20 votes

2nd round (numbers in parenthesis indicate: votes gained or lost from last round / votes gained or lost since first round):

Mike Duncan: 48 votes (-3/-3)
Michael Steele: 48 votes (+2/+2)
Katon Dawson: 29 votes (+1/+1)
Saul Anuzis: 24 votes (+2/+2)
Ken Blackwell: 19 votes (-1/-1)

3rd round:

Mike Duncan: 44 votes (-4/-8)
Michael Steele: 51 votes (+3/+5)
Katon Dawson: 34 votes (+5/+6)
Saul Anuzis: 24 votes (0/+2)
Ken Blackwell: 15 votes (-4/-5)

Mike Duncan dropped out.

4th round of voting:

Mike Duncan: (-44/-52)
Michael Steele: 60 votes (+9/+14)
Katon Dawson: 62 votes (+28/+34)
Saul Anuzis:  31 votes (+7/+9)
Ken Blackwell: 15 votes (0/-5)

Blackwell dropped out and endorsed Steele.

5th round of voting:

Mike Duncan: (-/-52)
Michael Steele: 79 votes (+19/+33)
Katon Dawson:  69 votes (+7/+41)
Saul Anuzis:  20 votes (-11/-2)
Ken Blackwell: (-15/-20)

Anuzis dropped out:

Mike Duncan: (-/-52)
Michael Steele: 91 votes (+12/+45)
Katon Dawson:  77 votes (+8/+49)
Saul Anuzis:  (-20/-22)
Ken Blackwell: (-/-20)

Congratulations to Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee!

Here’s a copy of the speech he gave right after he won:

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Live Results of the Republican National Committee Chairman Election

January 30, 2009

I am currently watching the election for Republican National Committee Chairman.  Currently, the RNC members are voting.

UPDATE (11:40 A.M. EST): They are now going up and depositing their ballots (just like “kindergarten graduation” according to the Co-Chair, Jo Ann Davidson, from Ohio).

UPDATE (11:44 A.M. EST): We’re a little over half-way through the ballots being cast.

UPDATE (11:49 A.M. EST): We’re now done with the voting.  The ballots are now being counted.

UPDATE (12:05 P.M. EST): They’re annnouncing the results.

UPDATE (12:09 P.M. EST): Here are the results of the first round of voting:

Mike Duncan: 52 votes
Michael Steele: 46 votes
Katon Dawson: 28 votes
Saul Anuzis: 22 votes
Ken Blackwell: 20 votes

With no candidates having reached 85 votes (a simple majority), another round of voting will occur.  The committee is in a 15 minute recess.

UPDATE (12:33 P.M. EST): Calling the roll again.

UPDATE (12:42 P.M. EST): I lied – they’re voting now.  Almost done casting the ballots.

UPDATE (12:45 P.M. EST): The ballots are now being counted.

UPDATE (12:59 P.M. EST): The following are the results for the second roud of balloting (numbers in parenthesis indicate: votes gained or lost from last round / votes gained or lost since first round):

Mike Duncan: 48 votes (-3/-3)
Michael Steele: 48 votes (+2/+2)
Katon Dawson: 29 votes (+1/+1)
Saul Anuzis: 24 votes (+2/+2)
Ken Blackwell: 19 votes (-1/-1)

UPDATE (1:12 P.M. EST): OK, I guess it’s some time for some analysis.  It’s pretty safe to say (in my opinion) that Duncan is done.  He had to rely on the first couple of rounds to get really close, and he didn’t.  He’ll have a huge drop-off over the next 2 rounds of balloting.  I really don’t know where his people will go, but I’m guessing that  it’ll probably go to Saul Anuzis and Katon Dawson.  Maybe a few will go to Blackwell, but I think people may not “waste” their votes on him since he’s at the bottom right now, but who knows.

UPDATE (1:31 P.M. EST): They just finished the third round of voting and are now counting up the ballots.

UPDATE (1:42 P.M. EST): third round of voting:

Mike Duncan: 44 votes (-4/-8)
Michael Steele: 51 votes (+3/+5)
Katon Dawson: 34 votes (+5/+6)
Saul Anuzis: 24 votes (0/+2)
Ken Blackwell: 15 votes (-1/-5)

Blackwell and Duncan are done.  I’m surprised that more people went for Steele here.  It looks like Anuzis is done, but Dawson could be in this depending on who drops out and when.

UPDATE (1:51 P.M. EST): OK, time for more discussion – I think Blackwell will drop by round 6 of balloting, and that should give Steele enough votes to push him over the edge.  I think Steele’s biggest competition now is Dawson, but I think Steele’s got it.

UPDATE (2:13 P.M. EST): A friend just passed on to me rumors that a deal may be in the works right now.

UPDATE (2:13 P.M. EST): Mike Duncan is speaking – about to drop?

UPDATE (2: 17 P.M. EST): Duncan just dropped out and is now thanking his campaign staff.

UPDATE (2:19 P.M. EST): There was a motion for a recess, but i was voted down by a voice vote.  Voting has now started.

UPDATE (2:22 P.M. EST): Apparently the co-chair had trouble actually getting a ballot from the teller or whoever was passing them out, so there was a little bit of a funny moment just now as she tried to get that.

UPDATE (2:24 P.M. EST): They’re now calling the roll and depositing the ballots in the box.

UPDATE (2:49 P.M. EST): 4th round of voting:

Mike Duncan: (-44/-52)
Michael Steele: 60 votes (+9/+14)
Katon Dawson: 62 votes (+28/+34)
Saul Anuzis: 31 votes (+7/+9)
Ken Blackwell: 15 votes (0/-5)

Wow – I really didn’t expect Dawson to get that many votes.  Steele may NOT have this in the bag yet.  I do expect Blackwell to drop soon, and that may push Steele over the top, but if Blackwell stays in, Dawson may get there first.

UPDATE (2:59 P.M. EST): Blackwell isn’t expected to stay in past the 5th round of balloting, so if he drops 1 round early, and all of his 15 go to Steele, Steele would have it.  If stays in for a while, I think Dawson may get it.

UPDATE (3:01 P.M. EST): Blackwell is about to speak.

UPDATE (3:03 P.M. EST): They found Ken Blackwell (he had been missing), and he IS in fact about to address the committee.

UPDATE (3:09 P.M. EST): “I cannot change … this electorate, nor would I want to.”  He’s talking about us being the party of Lincoln.  He’s talking about choosing the “path of conviction over the path of convenience.”  “I withdraw my name … and put my support fully behind … I believe that the next chairman must inspire hope … create opportunity and must have the leadership opportunity … to first pull us together and then pull Americans together. … Great nations don’t come from governments … but from people. … I put my full support behind Michael Steele.”

OH YEAH BABY!  CALLED IT!

Alright, the voting has now begun.

UPDATE (3:10 P.M. EST): The roll is now being called.

UPDATE (3:26 P.M. EST): Steele is on the phone.

UPDATE (3:35 P.M. EST): 5th round:

Mike Duncan: (-/-52)
Michael Steele: 79 votes (+19/+33)
Katon Dawson:  69 votes (+7/+41)
Saul Anuzis:  20 votes (-11/-2)
Ken Blackwell: (-15/-20

Saul is withdrawing, but no endorsement!  This is gonna get interesting.

UPDATE (3:40 P.M. EST): Alright, time for some analysis.  I honestly think this race is over.  Steele only needs 6 more votes, and Saul had 20 available, so as long as Steele gets 30% of Saul’s supporters, he wins.  I don’t see Dawson winning this one, although he has come a LOT farther than anybody thought, and he has been doing really good in gathering support from dropped candidates.  He’s received no endorsements so far, but he’s gained the most from the first ballot to the current ballot (the second number in the parentheses).  They should be coming back in 3 minutes, so hopefully we’ll have a chair by around 4:00.

UPDATE (3:45 P.M. EST): The Proxy Committee report has been approved and the seargent at arms is distributing the ballots.  This should be the last ballot.

UPDATE (3:47 P.M. EST): You have to figure that Keith Butler (MI) will go for Steele, so that means that Steele would only need 5 additional delegates after Butler.

UPDATE (3:49 P.M. EST): The roll is now being called.  We’re almost half-way through the roll call.

UPDATE (3:58 P.M. EST): The ballots are now being counted.

UPDATE (4:05 P.M. EST): Here are the results of the 6th and final balloting round:

Mike Duncan: (-/-52)
Michael Steele: 91 votes (+12/+45)
Katon Dawson:  77 votes (+8/+49)
Saul Anuzis:  (-20/-22)
Ken Blackwell: (-/-20)

Congratulations to Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee!

UPDATE (4:11 P.M. EST): Steele is now speaking.  He’s saying “it’s time for something different, and we’re going to bring it to them. … We’re going to bring this party … to every community. … To those of you who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over. … I want to thank all of you especially. … I never thought this day would come. … I would like to especially thank my friends in the territories … who will help grow this party in a way that we have never seen before. … To my friends in the Northeast: get ready baby, it’s time to turn it on. … We’re gonna win again in the Northeast.  We’re gonna continue to win in the South.  We’re gonna win in a new storm in the Midwest.  We’re gonna get to the West and lock it down there too. … I cannot do this by myself. … This is about empowering you. … We stand proud, as the conservative party of he United States, and we will work hard to make sure those values … that made us the party of Lincoln … are part of thoe issues. … So, my first official act, as your new chairman, is to end this speech right now, because we have a few more races to do. … God bless you.  God bless our party.  Thank you.”

UPDATE (12:46 A.M. EST 2-1/09): Here’s a video of Michael Steele’s acceptance speech.  It’s a great speech, so take the time to watch it:

And with that, I’m done with my coverage – I have to go drop off a lab report for my physics class!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Reflecting on Martin Luther King Jr.

January 19, 2009

As many of you know, today is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.  As I’ve said before, I oppose MLK Day being a federal holiday for 2 reasons:

  1. It leaves out other players in the civil rights movement (and focuses the movement to one race): César Chávez, Rosa Parks, etc….
  2. I think that Reverend King would have opposed a holiday dedicated to him.  Dr. King realized that in order to ever achieve equality for blacks, that he would have to have the help of thousands, if not millions of people.  I don’t think that King would have found pleasure in the fact that he has become the name behind the civil rights movement – I think that King would’ve wanted that movement to have been represented by Americans as a whole, not  one person.

Alright, now that I got that side note out of the way, I wanted to talk a little bit about Dr. King and all he did.  We often hear his “I have a dream” speech, and I think that many Americans have pushed King into this category of “a great American orator.”  King was arrested.  His house was bombed.  He was shot and killed.  Folks, that’s more than just a great American orator.  That’s somebody who, and pardon my bluntness here, pissed a heck of a lot of people off.  He helped end racial segregation on public buses.  To reduce Rev. King just to the level of “a great orator” is an absolute shame.  In fact, it’s more than that – it’s pure ignorance of American history.

And to those of you who object to MLK Day because of race: grow up.  I love the South – it’s filled with conservatives and Republicans, but one of the things that bugs me the most is racism.  If you don’t like African Americans, that’s fine – that’s your right.  But that doesn’t mean you have to go out and spread your hatred around to other people.  Quite frankly, I never understood how people could view another race as less than human just because their skin is darker than other people’s.  If somebody out there has this view and wants to explain it to me, go ahead – I’m pretty sure I’m always going  to disagree with you, but hey, I’m always up for a good debate (I’ve just opened myself up for an invasion by Stormfront).  Sorry – that got off topic, but racism really gets me going.

I think Dr. King would be proud of this country for how far it’s gone since the 1960s, but we’re not there yet.  Too often, Americans are judging people by “the color of their skin,” not the “content of their character.”  Dr. King was a great man, and he accomplished a lot – a lot more than a lot of people will accomplish in their lives.  But this doesn’t mean that each and every one of us can’t stand up for what Dr. King believed in.  Stand up for your fellow man – no matter what his race, gender, age, appearance.  Fight for the rights of everybody.  When you see racism, confront it.  Standing by and doing nothing is an endorsement of racism.  It doesn’t take a march in Washington, D.C. to change this country.  All it takes is a change of attitude.  Stand up for each other.  Defend each other.  Help each other.  These are the things that Dr. King would’ve liked to see.  Dr. King didn’t WANT to march in Washington, D.C. or from Selma to Montgomery, AL, but he realized that he first had to get the attention of the people before attitudes could be changed.  Dr. King probably didn’t want to do a lot of the things that he did, but he realized that his actions, along with the actions of those with him, were necessary in order to bring about change.  But now we’re in a different era.  I don’t think it takes drastic actions to change America’s racist views.  I think we’ve come far enough that if people examine the issue of racism close enough, a lot of people will see that it’s wrong.  We just have to convince people to do that.  And the best way to do this is to lead by example.

While I disagree with the official status of the holiday, I most definitely will celebrate the legacy and accomplishments of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and I hope that you will too.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Effigy of Sarah Palin Hanging by a Noose is Despicable, but Legal

October 28, 2008

I’ve seen some pretty weird Halloween decorations before, but this one probably tops them all.  In West Hollywood, California, Chad Michael Morisette has put up an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose with John McCain up on the chimeny with flames coming out of it (as well as skeletons and spider webs on other areas of the house).

Well, this made some people very unhappy and even sparked an investigation the FBI as well as the Los Angles Police Department.

The LAPD has determined that this doesn’t rise to the level of hate crime (I don’t remember if the FBI has finished its investigation).

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore told reporters, “I’m not defending this; I’m not criticizing it.  It doesn’t rise to the level of hate crime.  Now, if there was a crime against bad taste–.”  When asked about an effigy of Barack Obama, he replied, “That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country [but I am not sure that it would be a hate crime].  It would be ill-advised of anybody to speculate on that.”

Morisette claims that it’s  all in fun, saying, “It should be seen as art, and as within the month of October.  It’s Halloween, it’s time to be scary, it’s time to be spooky.”

The Mayor of West Hollywood, Jeffrey Prang, told reporters, “While these residents have the legal right to display Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin in effigy, I strongly oppose political speech that references violence–real or perceived.  I urge these residents to take down their display and find more constructive ways to express their opinion.”

I agree with the Mayor here.  The point of a hate crime is that it has to threaten violence, or be violence toward a person because of discrimination (and hate crime isn’t a real legal term, but it’s easier to just say “hate crime”.  For the law that defines hate crimes, see U.S. Federal Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 245).  There is no threat of violence here.  Now, if this were done of Obama, I would say the same thing.  If it’s in a Halloween decoration, it’s generally not intended as a violent threat (as the sheriff’s department found in its investigation).  As long as it’s not being done to encourage violence for racist reasons, it’s not a hate crime.

So, I think this was over the line, but it’s still protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Evidence that Some Blacks Are Not Voting for Obama Based on Issues

October 19, 2008

So, a friend sent me a link to a clip from the Howard Stern show from last Sunday, and I put it into a video (as well as typed up a transcript which is below the video).  It’s one of Stern’s radio people, Sal, who goes into Harlem and interviews 3 black people and attributes McCain’s stances to Obama.  They say that they agree with those stances (thinking that they are Obama’s).

It’s pretty funny, but also pretty scary to think that these people are voting:

And here’s the transcript I typed up:

Please be advised that the following clip is not the property of BPM DJs.  It’s a bit from the Howard Stern show that I sent to a few friends in my office, and since, it’s gotten attention from around the world.  Now that you know a little bit of what you’ve been missing, I suggest getting a Sirius Satellite radio, and you’ll laugh every day.  Without any further delay, here’s Sal in Harlem.

Howard Stern: Uh, what else.  I don’t know.  So much more-I did promise to play you, this-I played it earlier in the morning; I’ll give it one more shot.  Sal did a rather brilliant thing.  He went up to Harlem to ask people who they were gonna vote for, and uh-most people said, “Barack Obama.”  So what he said is, “Do you still-do you support Obama’s views?” but he attributed all of McCain’s views to Obama.

Robin Quivers: Yes, yes.

Stern: And it didn’t-

Quivers: And it didn’t cause even-

Stern: It didn’t sway anyone.

Quivers: But it didn’t cause people to even flinch.  They moved right along.

Stern: This is crazy.  So listen to this:

Sal Governale: Some people speculate that blacks are voting for Obama strictly because he’s black and not because of his policies, so we took McCain’s policies and pretended they were Obama’s.  This is what they had to say:

Sal: For the election, Obama or McCain?

Man #1: I like Obama.

Sal: Now, what don’t you like about McCain?

Man #1: McCain seems to not really know what he’s doing right now.

Sal: Are you more for Obama’s policy because he’s pro-life or because he thinks our troops should stay in Iraq and finish this war?

Man #1: I think because our troops should stay in Iraq and finish this war.  I’m really firm with that-definitely.

Sal: Now how about as far as-um-him being pro-life?  Do you support Obama in that case?

Man #1: Yeah, I do.  I do.  I support him in that case.

Sal: And if he wins, would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being Vice President?

Man #1: No I wouldn’t.  Not at all.

Sal: So you-y-y-you think he made the right choice in that?

Man #1: I definitely do.

Sal: Thank you very much sir, and have a great day.

Man #1: Have a great day.

Stern: So they guy agreed with everything McCain is for, except he said it was for Obama.  Here’s another example:

Sal: Are you for Obama or McCain?

Man #2: Obama.

Sal: Ok, and why not McCain?

Man #2: Well, I just don’t agree with some of his-you know-policies-you know.

Sal: Now, Obama says that he’s anti-stem cell research.  How do you feel about that?

One quick note here.  McCain is not anti-stem cell research.  He is opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research.  There’s a big difference here, and often times, people just put both into the same pile.

Man #2: I-I believe that’s-I wouldn’t do that either.  I-I’m anti-stem cell stem cell-yeah.

Sal: Anti-stem cell research.  Now if Obama wins, do you mind Sarah Palin being Vice President?

Man #2: No.  No, I don’t.

Stern: Alright, there you go.  Now our third example which-uh-we found this woman:

Sal: This election, Obama or McCain?

Woman: Obama.

Sal: Now, why not McCain?  What don’t you like about him?

Woman: Um.  He sorta doesn’t sound like he has enough-like-he does-he’s not-he’s uneducated.  Because when he had the-um-they had the-both of the Presidents speaking, um-he didn’t sound like he knew what he was talking about too much, whereas Obama had facts and information when he was speaking.

The woman who talks about “when they had both of the Presidents speaking” is calling McCain uneducated?  I found her to be the funniest of the 3.

Sal: Good point.  Let me ask you this: Do you support Obama more because he’s pro-life or because he says our troops should stay in Iraq and finish the war?

Woman: Um-I guess both.

Sal: Now, if Obama wins, do you have any problem with Sarah Palin being his Vice President?

Woman: Um-nope.  Not at all.

Sal: Do you think she’ll do a good job?

Woman: I think she’ll do a good job.

Sal: Are you glad he elected her to be the VP if he wins?

Woman: Yep.

Sal: Thank you very much.

Woman: You’re welcome.

Stern: Alright, there it is.  Sal in Harlem-and-uh-doing his work [unintelligible] brilliantly.  There you go.  Dice clay, Andrew Dice Clay, as you know is uh- 

That should scare you.  That’s evidence right there that some people aren’t voting for Obama based on the issues.  And a lot of people attribute this to black people voting for Obama simply because he’s black.  Now, I’m not saying that this IS the reason, but there have been African Americans who have said that that is why they support Obama.

So, I just thought I’d share this with you – on the surface, it’s funny, but when you think about the fact that some of these people are picking our next President based on who knows what, it’s really scary.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell Endorses Obama

October 19, 2008

Well, this is a blog post I did NOT expect to be writing.  General Powell had made it clear before that he would not be endorsing anybody in this election, so I’m surprised that he has come out and actually made an endorsement.  He is endorsing Senator Obama, but he stressed that this is more for reasons dealing with the economy, and the Supreme Court and the general direction of the Republican party rather than Iraq.  He noted that he still opposes a set date to withdraw from Iraq.

Here’s a transcript of MSNBC’s Meet the Press, courtesy of MSNBC:

MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: He served as President George W. Bush’s secretary of state and was once called the man most likely to become the nation’s first African-American president. He has been courted by both the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns and said this last month:

(Videotape)

GEN. COLIN POWELL (RET.): I have been watching both of these individuals. I know them both extremely well, and I have not decided who I’m going to vote for yet.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Is he now ready to make an endorsement in this presidential race? What are his thoughts on the major issues facing the country and the world? Our exclusive guest this Sunday, former Secretary of State General Colin Powell.

Then, with 16 days to go, Decision 2008 heads into the home stretch. What states still are in play? We will hear the latest on some new state polls with NBC’s political director, Chuck Todd. Also, insights and analysis on the race to the White House with David Brooks of The New York Times, Jon Meacham of Newsweek magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

But first, General Colin Powell, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

GEN. POWELL: Thank, thank you, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: We indicated in that opening, there is a lot of anticipation and speculation about your take on this presidential campaign. We’ll get to that in a moment. But in your old business we might call this a tour of the horizon. Whoever’s elected president of the United States, that first day in the Oval Office on January 21st will face this: an American economy that’s in a near paralytic state at this time; we’re at war in two different countries, Afghanistan and Iraq; we have an energy crisis; we have big decisions to make about health care and about global climate change. The president of the United States and the Congress of the United States now have the highest disapproval ratings that we have seen in many years. In all your years of public service, have you ever seen an incoming president face such daunting challenges?

GEN. POWELL: No. I have seen more difficult times in our history. I think about the early ’70s when we were going through Watergate, Spiro Agnew, Nixon period, that was not a good time. But right now we’re also facing a very daunting period. And I think the number one issue the president’s going to have to deal with is the economy. That’s what the American people are worried about. And, frankly, it’s not just an American problem, it’s an international problem. We can see how all of these economies are now linked in this globalized system. And I think that’ll be number one. The president will also have to make decisions quickly as to how to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. And also I think the president has to reach out to the world and show that there is a new president, a new administration that is looking forward to working with our friends and allies. And in my judgment, also willing to talk to people who we have not been willing to talk to before. Because this is a time for outreach.

MR. BROKAW: Given the state of the American economy, can we continue our military commitments around the world at the level that they now exist?

GEN. POWELL: We can. I think we have to look as to whether they have to be at that level. But we have the wealth, we have the wherewithal to do that. (Clears throat) Excuse me, Tom. We have the ability to do that. And so, first and foremost, we have to review those commitments, see what they are, see what else is needed, and make sure we give our troops what they need to get the job done as we have defined the job. We have that ability.

MR. BROKAW: If you were called into the Oval Office on January 21st by the new president, whoever it happens to be, and he said to you, “General Powell, I need from you your recommendation on where I begin. What should be my priorities?” Where would you start?

GEN. POWELL: I would start with talking to the American people and talking to the world, and conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America’s role in the world.

The problems will always be there, and there’s going to be a crisis come along in the 21st or 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now. And so I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward, and we’re going to fix our economic problems, we’re going to meet our overseas obligations. But restoring a sense of purpose, a sense of confidence in the American people and, in the international community, in America.

MR. BROKAW: What’s not on the screen right now that concerns you that should be more prominent in the minds of the American people and the people running for president?

GEN. POWELL: I think the American people and the gentlemen running for president will have to, early on, focus on education more than we have seen in the campaign so far. America has a terrible educational problem in the sense that we have too many youngsters not finishing school. A third of our kids don’t finish high school, 50 percent of minorities don’t finish high school. We’ve got to work on this, and my, my wife and I are leading a campaign with this purpose.

Also, I think, the new president has to realize that the world looks to America for leadership, and so we have to show leadership on some issues that the world is expecting us to, whether it’s energy, global warming and the environment. And I think we have to do a lot more with respect to poverty alleviation and helping the needy people of the world. We need to increase the amount of resources we put into our development programs to help the rest of the world. Because when you help the poorest in the world, you start to move them up an economic and social ladder, and they’re not going to be moving toward violence or terrorism of the kind that we worry about.

MR. BROKAW: Well, let’s move to the American presidential campaign now, if we can. We saw at the beginning of this broadcast a short tease of what you had to say just a month ago. Let’s share with our viewers now a little more of Colin Powell on these two candidates and your position.

(Videotape, September 20, 2008)

GEN. POWELL: I’m an American, first and foremost, and I’m very proud–I said, I’ve said, I’ve said to my beloved friend and colleague John McCain, a friend of 25 years, “John, I love you, but I’m not just going to vote for you on the basis of our affection or friendship.” And I’ve said to Barack Obama, “I admire you. I’ll give you all the advice I can. But I’m not going to vote for you just because you’re black.” We, we have to move beyond this.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you’re prepared to support?

GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I’ve known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes. And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, “You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.”

And I’ve watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines–ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I’ve also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he’s a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that’s inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration. I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

MR. BROKAW: Will you be campaigning for him as well?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t plan to. Two weeks left, let them go at each other in the finest tradition. But I will be voting for him.

MR. BROKAW: I can already anticipate some of the reaction to this. Let’s begin with the charge that John McCain has continued to make against Barack Obama. You sit there, as a man who served in Vietnam, you commanded a battalion of 101st, you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you were a national security adviser and secretary of state. There is nothing in Barack Obama’s history that nearly paralyze any–parallels any of the experiences that you’ve had. And while he has performed impressively in the context of the campaign, there’s a vast difference between sitting in the Oval Office and making tough decisions and doing well in a campaign.

GEN. POWELL: And he knows that. And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.

MR. BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some–how many, no one can say for sure–but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.

GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.

MR. BROKAW: You have some differences with Barack Obama. He has said that once he takes office, he wants to begin removing American troops from Iraq. Here’s what you had to say about that: “I have found in my many years of service, to set arbitrary dates that don’t coincide with the situation on the ground or what actually is happening tends not to be a useful strategy. … Arbitrary deadlines that are snatched out of the air and are based on some lunar calculation is not the way to run a military or a strategic operation of this type.” That was on February 10th of this year on CNN. Now that you have Barack Obama’s ear in a new fashion, will you say to him, “Drop your idea of setting a deadline of some kind to pull the troops out of Iraq”?

GEN. POWELL: First of all, I think that’s a great line, and thanks for pulling it up. And I believe that. But as I watch what’s happening right now, the United States is negotiating the–an agreement with the Iraqi government that will call for most major combat operations to cease by next June and for American forces to start withdrawing to their bases. And that agreement will also provide for all American troops to be gone by 2011, but conditioned on the situation as it exists at that time. So there already is a timeline that’s being developed between the Iraqis and the United States government. So I think whoever becomes the president, whether it’s John McCain or whether it’s Barack Obama, we’re going to see a continued drawdown. And when, you know, which day so many troops come out or what units come out, that’ll be determined by the commanders and the new president. But I think we are on a glide path to reducing our presence in Iraq over the next couple of years. Increasingly, this problem’s going to be solved by the Iraqis. They’re going to make the political decisions, their security forces are going to take over, and they’re going to have to create an environment of reconciliation where all the people can come together and make Iraq a much, much better place.

MR. BROKAW: Let me go back to something that you raised just a moment ago, and that’s William Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen who’s now active in school issues in Illinois. He had some past association with Barack Obama. Wouldn’t it have been more helpful for William Ayers to, on his own, to have renounced his own past? Here was a man who was a part of the most radical group that existed in America at a time when you were serving in Vietnam, targeting the Pentagon, the Capitol. He wrote a book about it that came out on 2001, on September 11th that said, “We didn’t bomb enough.”

GEN. POWELL: It’s despicable, and I have no truck for William Ayers. I think what he did was despicable, and to continue to talk about it in 2001 is also despicable. But to suggest that because Mr. Barack Obama had some contacts of a very casual nature–they sat on a educational board–over time is somehow connected to his thinking or his actions, I think, is a, a terrible stretch. It’s demagoguery.

MR. BROKAW: I want to ask you about your own role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Barack Obama has been critical of your appearance before the United Nations at that time. Bob Woodward has a new book out called “The War Within,” and here’s what he had to say about Colin Powell and his place in the administration: “Powell … didn’t think [Iraq] was a necessary war, and yet he had gone along in a hundred ways, large and small. He had resisted at times but had succumbed to the momentum and his own sense of deference–even obedience–to the president. … Perhaps more than anyone else in the administration, Powell had been the `closer’ for the president’s case on war.”

And then you were invited to appear before the Iraq Study Group. “`Why did we go into Iraq with so few people?’ [former Secretary of State James] Baker asked. … `Colin just exploded at that point,’ [former Secretary of Defense William] Perry recalled later. `He unloaded,’ Former White House Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta added. `He was angry. He was mad as hell.’ … Powell left [the Study Group meeting]. Baker turned to Panetta and said solemnly, `He’s the one guy who could have perhaps prevented this from happening.'”

What’s the lesson in all of that for a former–for a new secretary of state or for a new national security adviser, based on your own experience?

GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…

GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?

GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.

MR. BROKAW: You do know that there are supporters of Barack Obama who feel very strongly about his candidacy because he was opposed to the war from the beginning, and they’re going to say, “Who needs Colin Powell? He was the guy who helped get us into this mess.”

GEN. POWELL: I’m not here to get their approval or lack of approval. I am here to express my view as to who I’m going to vote for.

MR. BROKAW: There’s a summing up going on now as, as the Bush/Cheney administration winds down. We’d like to share with our audience some of what you had to say about the two men who are at the top of the administration. At the convention in 2000, this is Colin Powell on President Bush and Dick Cheney at that time.

(Videotape, July 31, 2000)

GEN. POWELL: Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president.

The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Was that prophetic or wrong?

GEN. POWELL: It’s what I believed. It reflected the agenda of the new president, compassionate conservatism. And some of it worked out. I think we have advanced our freedom agenda, I think we’ve done a lot to help people around the world with our programs of development. I think we’ve done a lot to solve some conflicts such as in Liberia and elsewhere. But, at the same time, we have managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are. We have not explained ourself well enough. And we, unfortunately, have left an impression with the world that is not a good one. And the new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we’ve left with the rest of the world.

Now, let me make a point here. The United States is still seen as the leader at the world that wants to be free. Even though the numbers are down with respect to favorability ratings, at every embassy and consular office tomorrow morning that we have, people will be lined up, and they’ll all say the same thing, “We want to go to America.” So we’re still the leader of the world that wants to be free. We are still the inspiration of the rest of the world. And we can come back. In 2000, it was moment where I believed that the new administration coming in would be able to achieve the agenda that President-elect Bush had set out of compassionate conservatism.

MR. BROKAW: But it failed?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t think it was as successful–excuse me (clears throat)–I don’t think it was as successful as it might have been. And, as you see from the presidential approval ratings, the American people have found the administration wanting.

MR. BROKAW: Let me as, you a couple of questions–quick questions as we wrap all of this up. I know you’re very close to President Bush 41. Are you still in touch with him on a regular basis? And what do you think he’ll think about you this morning endorsing Barack Obama?

GEN. POWELL: I will let President Bush 41, speak for himself and let others speak for themselves, just as I have spoken for myself. Let me make one point, Tom, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama will be good presidents. It isn’t easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America’s history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years. I think we need a transformational figure. I need–think we need a president who is a generational change. And that’s why I’m supporting Barack Obama. Not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Senator John McCain.

MR. BROKAW: And finally, how much of a factor do you think race will be when voters go into that booth on November 4th?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t know the answer to that question. One may say that it’s going to be a big factor, and a lot of people say they will vote for Senator Obama but they won’t pull a lever. Others might say that has already happened. People are already finding other reasons to say they’re not voting for him. “Well, he’s a Muslim,” “He’s this.” So we have already seen the so-called “Bradley factor” in the current–in the current spread between the candidates. And so that remains to be seen. I hope it is not the case. I think we have advanced considerably in this country since the days of Tom Bradley. And I hope that is not the case. It would be very unfortunate if it were the case.

MR. BROKAW: Finally, if Senator Obama is elected president, will there be a place for Colin Powell in that administration? Maybe as the ambassador at large in Africa or to take on the daunting task of resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issue?

GEN. POWELL: I served 40 years in government, and I–I’m not looking forward to a position or an assignment. Of course, I have always said if a president asks you to do something, you have to consider it. But I am in no way interested in returning to government. But I, of course, would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me.

MR. BROKAW: You’re not ruling it out?

GEN. POWELL: I would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me, but I’m not anxious to rule it in.

MR. BROKAW: General Colin Powell, thank you very much for being with us this morning. Appreciate it.

GEN. POWELL: Thank you, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: Coming up next, Decision 2008, the home stretch. We’ll look at the states and strategies in play with David Brooks, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough. And Chuck Todd, our political director, will take us through the electoral map.

Overall, I think that this won’t really have a huge effect on the campaign for either side.  I don’t think Obama is going to win many more people over with this.  I think that the people that this could have swayed have already been won over to one side or the other, but I can definitely tell you that this won’t help McCain.  It was a blow to the McCain camp.  A small blow in my opinion, but it’s a blow that McCain really can’t afford to take right now.

And the fact that General Powell won’t be campaigning for Obama will make his influence a lot smaller than Obama would like.

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::
[dig=http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Former_Secretary_of_State_Colin_Powell_Endorses_Obama]

Federal Judge Orders Ohio Secretary of State to Purge Voter Rolls

October 10, 2008

Today, U.S. District Judge George C. Smith ruled in a suit filed by the Ohio Republican Party filed in September.  He ruled that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (Dem) must adhere to the Help America Vote Act by matching newly registered voters’ information against the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles and/or Social Security Administration databases.  She must alo tell the Board of Elections which voters’s registration info doesn’t match the databases.  Brunner was also ordered to establish a process by which county election boards could do the sameSmith wrote in his ruling (unfortunately I can’t get the whole thing), “Plaintiffs assert, and the court agrees, that it is hard to imagine a public interest more compelling than safeguarding the legitimacy of the election of the president of the United States.”

Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine told reporters, “For some reason, Jennifer Brunner does not want these new registrations checked.  Her refusal to comply with federal law raises serious concerns about her ability to objectively oversee this election.”

Meanwhile, Brunner is appealing the ruling (the appeal was filed by Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers (Dem) on Brunner’s behalf), saying that this ruling will inhibit voters from casting absentee ballots at the Board of Elections, since parties could get lists of voters who don’t match up with the databases and challenge the validity of those votes.  Brunner told reporters, “My office will do everything within its power to ensure that the state’s 88 county boards of elections can continue to allow early voting to proceed and to assist them with their preparation to ensure a smooth election for the voters of Ohio.”

With all of the stuff that’s going on with ACORN, I say that this is a great ruling.  I want everybody to be able to vote, but people should only be voting once (that’s not what the NAACP will say about voters in Detroit – they want all African Americans to be able to vote, even the dead ones!).  There’s no reason that this should keep any LEGAL voters from voting.  It’s a good ruling, and I hope it’s upheld by the next court.  Unfortunately, the deadline to challenge absentee ballots is coming up soon, so there fraudulent votes may make it through, and that’s a shame.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Obama Is a Hypocrite When It Comes to Race

August 4, 2008

So, there have been stories in the news recently talking about how much race will be an issue in the 2008 election.

We had Barack Obama’s comments in response to McCain’s “Celeb” ad, comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton: “Since they don’t have any new ideas the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me.  They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and,’ and they’re going to send out nasty emails.  And, you know, the latest one they’ve got me in an ad with Paris Hilton.  You know, never met the woman.  But, but, you know, what they’re gonna try to argue is that somehow I’m too risky.”

And back in June, Obama also said, “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me: ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. … Oh, and did I mention he’s black?'”

But, if we go back and look at his speech in Berlin, what do we find?  We find this: “I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.”

So, Mr. Obama, who is it that’s consistently playing the race card?  We’ve heard from you now accusations that Republicans and the McCain campaign are racist and will play the race card, but by saying that over and over again (without any examples to back up those claims), you are the one who plays the race card and is a racist.

You can’t try to wave your race as a banner to get you elected, and turn around and call the other side racist for running a TV ad that has nothing to do with race.

Mr. Obama, you are the racist.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Thoughts on the N-Word, The View, and Jesse Jackson

July 31, 2008
Alright, first I’ll let you watch a YouTube video of The View from July 17th (sorry this is a bit late – this was one of those vacation news stories that I REALLY wanted to do when I got back):

Alright, so first thing’s first: my opinion of the n-word: It should never be used by anybody who’s name is not Noah Webster or George or Charles Merriam (Merriam-Webster dictionary for those of you who didn’t catch the really lame joke).  But seriously, it’s a word that I don’t think should be used in public or private, by a white person or a black person, nor by a comic or a rapper.

Now, on to Jesse Jackson.  Well, I did a post about (most of) what he said (at the time, it hadn’t been revealed that he used the n-word).  My opinion, he had the RIGHT to use it (as does anybody), but shouldn’t have used it, and in my opinion, was pretty stupid to use it in a television studio.  Never assume the microphones are off – it’ll only get you in trouble.

Now, on to The View, Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd argued that black people CAN use the n-word, while Elisabeth Hasselbeck (I LOVE HER!!!  Anybody who stood up against Rosie O’Donnelland her comments against the troops is awesome) argued that nobody should use it.  Barbara Walters desperately tried to keep order, but pretty much failed until the end, and Joy Behar was virtually silent.  One quick point, Hasselbeck didn’t exactly break down as much as I expected her to – the way the news stories portrayed it, it sounded like she was in tears (she got a little shaky in her voice, and teared up, but didn’t really cry).

And for those of you who aren’t sure exactly who’s who:

Whoopi Goldberg

Whoopi Goldberg

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Joy Behar

Joy Behar

Barbara Walters

Barbara Walters

Sherri Shepherd

Sherri Shepherd

Here’s my reaction: It’s not ok for blacks to use, at least not for the reason Whoopi and Shepherd gave.  They argued that white people used it as a derogatory term, which is correct, so then blacks turned it into a term that lost its derogatory meaning to them.  The problem in excluding all whites and including all blacks in using the word is that NOT all whites used the word.  There are many whites who never used the word and never had an ounce of racist thinking in their head.  If these white people are close friends to a black person, should they be able to use it as a term of endearment, like blacks can use it?  In my opinion, by Whoopi and Shepherd’s arguments, yes.

And what about blacks who treated blacks unfairly?  The way that most blacks got put into slavery was by other BLACK tribes in Africa.  So, should somebody descended from an enslaving African tribe not be allowed to use the word.  They were part of the black oppression, so by Whoopi and Shepherd’s argument, I would say no.

Whoopi stated that her mother wasn’t allowed to vote.  Well, that was YEARS ago.  How are we supposed to get past this sense of a divide if we continue to stress the divide.

And what about the word “cracker”?  You don’t hear it called the c-word.  And black people use that against whites like its no problem (although many whites use the n-word like its no problem too).

In my opinion, both of these words need to stop being used.  The blame needs to stop being placed on white people as a whole.  Not all white people are racist, and many black people are descended from people who are responsible for other blacks being put into slavery.

The double standards and racism needs to be stopped on BOTH sides.  We’re not there yet, but one day we will live in a place that’s close to harmony.  We’ll never fully achieve it, but we can try.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 290 other followers

%d bloggers like this: