Looking for Bobby.

As the campaign for president of these divided sates winds down, and November 6th gets closer with each passing day, we are starting to see some interesting insights into the minds of some folks in the majority population.
I am thinking of some writers from the liberal intellectual coterie (and conservatives as well) who have made some interesting pronouncements of late regarding the 44th president.

One such writer is Richard Cohen (h/t Lauren Victoria Burke) who found it necessary to pen what I am sure he believes was an honest heartfelt critique and assessment of the president before grudgingly giving him his endorsement.

"One of the more melancholy moments of the presidential campaign occurred for me in a screening room. The film was Rory Kennedy’s documentary about her mother, Ethel — the widow of Robert F. Kennedy. Much of it consisted of Kennedy-family home movies, but also film of RFK in Appalachia and in Mississippi among the pitifully emaciated poor. Kennedy brimmed with shock and indignation, with sorrow and sympathy, and was determined — you could see it on his face — to do something about it. I’ve never seen that look on Barack Obama’s face.

Instead, I see a failure to embrace all sorts of people, even members of Congress and the business community. I see diffidence, a reluctance to close. I see a president for whom Afghanistan is not just a war but a metaphor for his approach to politics: He approved a surge but also an exit date. Heads I win, tails you lose....

....I once wondered if Obama could be another RFK. The president has great political skills and a dazzling smile. He and his wife are glamorous figures. He’s a black man, and that matters greatly. He remains a startling figure for a nation that was still segregating its schools when I was growing up — and killing the occasional person who protested.

History was draped over Obama like a cape. His bona fides in that sense were as unimpeachable as Bobby Kennedy’s. The crowd adored Obama, although not as much as I think he adored himself. Liberals were intolerant of anyone who had doubts. Obama was not a man, but a totem. A single critical column from me during the campaign triggered a fusillade of invective. The famous and esteemed told me off. I was the tool of right-wing haters, a dope of a dupe...

..Obama never espoused a cause bigger than his own political survival. This is the gravamen of the indictment from the left, particularly certain African Americans. They are right. Young black men fill the jails and the morgues, yet Obama says nothing. Bobby Kennedy showed his anger, his impatience, his stunned incredulity at the state of black America. Obama shows nothing.

On the movie screen, Robert F. Kennedy’s appeal is obvious: authenticity. He cared. He showed it. People saw that and cared about him in return. With Obama, the process is reversed. It’s hard to care about someone who seems not to care in return. I will vote for him for his good things, and I will vote for him to keep Republican vandals from sacking the government. But after watching Bobby Kennedy, I will vote for Obama with regret. I wish he was the man I once mistook him for."

Yes Mr. Cohen, Barack Obama is in love with himself. Which politician isn't? Here is a newsflash for you: The Kennedy boys-including the one you worshiped- all loved themselves as well.

It's sad that Cohen saw Obama's smile before all else. Most of us who happen to be African American cringe when we see these types of pronouncements. As if all the Magic Negro had to do was smile and all of our problems would go away. (I am not sure what kind of look on President Obama's face Mr. Cohen was looking for) Sadly, competence and hard work is not praised, but rather, with the black president, it is seen as being distant and arrogant. Mr. Cohen, like some other whites this election cycle, will not be on the O train for that very reason: The "dazzling smile" didn't last. And yet, Cohen admits that he will vote for President Obama (albeit with regret) because of the "good things" he did.

I guess Mr. Cohen just wanted him to do it with a bigger smile on his face. 

   

Surviving Sandy and political rhetoric.

I survived Sandy. (I think. I am still watching for those falling trees) Girlfriend was no joke; she slapped folks around as far South as Jamaica  (pics with this post) and as far North as Connecticut. Most of us were all lucky, this time.

Thankfully I will still be around to speak my mind and piss off folks who have issues with the truth

To all of you sending your best wishes to us folks on the East Coast, that is field Negro behavior on your part. Thank you for keeping us in your thoughts. Mitt, please tell your supporters to keep their canned goods; we lots of food, we need FEMA and the federal government to work with local governments to fix roads and bridges, and to get the mass transit systems running again. Don't think we forgot what you said about FEMA, Mitt. I know you tried to ignore questions about it today, but your words won't go away.

"Mitt Romney refused to answer reporters' questions about how he would handle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after a Tuesday "storm relief" event in Ohio for Hurricane Sandy.
From the Romney pool report:

TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA. He ignored the qs but they are audible on cam. The music stopped at points and the qs would have been audible to him.

A follow-up report noted the specific questions Romney ignored, as he was collecting hurricane supplies following his event:

"Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?" a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.

Wires reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.
Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

"Gov are you going to see some storm damage?"
"Gov has [New Jersey Gov.] Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?"

"Gov you've been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?"
 

He is refusing to answer the question because he is hoping that, like everything else with his charmed -etch a sketch- campaign, we will forget everything he has said to get to this point. The thing about American poli-tricks is that his supporters -and the Obama haters- are going to vote for him no matter what he says or does, and the members of the press will all fall in line for fear of tipping the balance in the elections and ruining the this is a close election narrative that they have worked so hard to craft.

Chris Christie is not helping that narrative by praising Obama for the job he has done with helping the East Coast governors so far. Obama is even appearing with Christie tomorrow to tour areas of Jersey that was slapped around by Sandy. If you are Mitt this cannot be good. You are probably thinking that you should have picked the guy to be your VP, and not the little work out fiend Eddie Munster look alike from Wisconsin.

Mitt will now tell his volunteers not to send any canned goods to Jersey.

  

The wrath of Sandy.

This storm is real folks. Cranes are hanging in New York, and here in Philly we are preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. The Mayor and all the usual suspects have been on television all day telling the folks here to be safe and to listen to the warnings that are being given. Hopefully my peeps will listen.

The feds have given all the states what they needed so far, and from what I can tell, FEMA (the same agency that Mitt wanted to privatize) has been on their game. The last thing that O needs is a "Brownie you're doing a heck of a job", moment.

I caught O's live news conference as well, and so far so good. One reporter asked him how Sandy would affect the upcoming elections and he didn't bite. I am glad to see that he has his priorities right.

Mitt, as he always does in a moment of crisis, has been trying to play Commander in Chief as well. For his sake I hope that this works out better then his other attempt to meddle in the day to day affairs of the office of president. 

I am going to hurry with this post, because I could lose power any minute now.

If you live on the East Coast please keep yourselves safe and out of harms way.

And, if you can't swim, stay away from the water.  

Representing the "phenomenon of demographic change."

This Sandy is no Joke. Watching my Mayor now as he declares a state of emergency for the city. All you republicans who hate the government, I sure hope that you will not be needing the services of FEMA or any other government agency. Ask the folks at Bain Capital to give you a low interest loan to fix up your home.  

I don't have time to do much writing tonight, but I read a wonderful article from Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post that I would love to share.

"This election is only tangentially a fight over policy. It is also a fight about meaning and identity — and that’s one reason voters are so polarized. It’s about who we are and who we aspire to be.

President Obama enters the final days of the campaign with a substantial lead among women — about 11 points, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll — and enormous leads among Latinos and African Americans, the nation’s two largest minority groups. Mitt Romney leads among white voters, with an incredible 2-to-1 advantage among white men.

It is too simplistic to conclude that demography equals destiny. Both men are being sincere when they vow to serve the interests of all Americans. But it would be disingenuous to pretend not to notice the obvious cleavage between those who have long held power in this society and those who are beginning to attain it.

When Republicans vow to “take back our country,” they never say from whom. But we can guess.

Issues of race, power and privilege are less explicit this year than they were in 2008, but in some ways they are even stronger.

Four years ago, we asked ourselves whether the nation would ever elect a black president. The question was front and center. Every time we see the president and his family walk across the White House lawn to board Marine One, we’re reminded of the answer.

The intensity of the opposition to Obama has less to do with who he is than with the changes in U.S. society he not only represents but incarnates. Citing his race as a factor in the way some of his opponents have bitterly resisted his policies immediately draws an outraged cry: “You’re saying that just because I oppose Obama, I’m a racist.” No, I’m not saying that at all.

What I’m saying is that Obama’s racial identity is a constant reminder of how much the nation has changed in a relatively short time. In my lifetime, we’ve experienced the civil rights movement, the countercultural explosion of the 1960s, the sexual revolution, the women’s movement and an unprecedented wave of Latino immigration. Within a few decades, there will be no white majority in this country — no majority of any kind, in fact. We will be a nation of racial and ethnic minorities, and we will only prosper if everyone learns to give and take.

Our place in the world has changed as well. The United States remains the dominant economic and military power; our ideals remain a beacon for those around the globe still yearning to breathe free. But our capacity for unilateral action is diminished; we can assert but not dictate, and we must learn to persuade.

Obama’s great sin, for some who oppose him, is to make it impossible to ignore these domestic and international megatrends. Take one look at Obama and the phenomenon of demographic change is inescapable. Observe his approach to international crises in places such as Libya or Syria and the reality of America’s place in the world is unavoidable.

I’m deliberately leaving aside what should be the biggest factor in the election: Obama’s policies. It happens that I have supported most of them, but of course there are legitimate reasons to favor Romney’s proposals, insofar as we know what they really are — and the extent to which they really differ from Obama’s.
In foreign affairs, judging by Monday’s debate, the differences are too small to discern; Romney promises to speak in a louder voice and perhaps deploy more battleships, but that’s about it. Domestically, however, I see a clear choice. I consider the Affordable Care Act a great achievement, and Romney’s promise to repeal it would alone be reason enough for me to oppose him. Add in the tax cuts for the wealthy, the plan to “voucherize” Medicare and the appointments Romney would likely make to the Supreme Court, and the implications of this election become even weightier.

Issues may explain our sharp political divisions, but they can’t be the cause of our demographic polarization. White men need medical care, too. African Americans and Latinos understand the need to get our fiscal house in order. The recession and the slow recovery have taken a toll across the board.Some of Obama’s opponents have tried to delegitimize his presidency because he doesn’t embody the America they once knew. He embodies the America of now." [Source] 

I was recently at a suburban gym getting my workout on, and a middle aged white lady and her friend were running on the treadmill across the way from me. I caught a little of her conversation because she was actually being quite loud, and every now and then she would furtively glance in my direction.

"I am so mad at my kids. They didn't even register to vote. I told them that we need them to help us beat this man; he is destroying the country." Her friend was nodding the entire time.

"Ruining the country"? You gotta love Americans.  From the looks of her and her surroundings, I would be willing to take a bet that she will survive. She should be more worried about Hurricane Sandy than she is Barack at this point.

A party "full of racists"?

"All republicans aren't racist, but all racist are republicans".

I am sure you have all heard that before. I am actually starting to think it's true.

Still, some racists must vote dumbocratic, but given the direction of the dumbocratic party, I am sure that they (the racists) are leaving it in droves.

But hey, don't take my word for it; read what a republican insider says:

"Wilkerson, who is white, didn't mince words on MSNBC'sThe Ed Show Friday night. "To say that Colin Powell would endorse President Obama because of his skin color is like saying Mother Teresa worked for profit," he said. And although he gave Sununu a bit of a pass, blaming his statement on an "unfortunate" choice of words, Wilkerson had much harsher words for the GOP as a whole.
"Let me just be candid," he said. "My party is full of racists. And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander in chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that's despicable." [Source] 

It's not only the republican party, it seems like all of the folks in the majority population are starting to be a little....well, less tolerant as well.

"Four years after electing our first black president, the United States is somehow more racist than it was before, according to an online poll by the Associated Press: A majority of Americans (51 percent) now hold "explicit anti-black attitudes" — up from 49 percent in 2008 — and 56 percent showed prejudice on an implicit racism test. Yes, Republicans tend to score higher on the explicit metric (just ask Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, who said the party was "full of racists" on MSNBC on Friday night), but Americans' unspoken racist tendencies are apparently nonpartisan — and may ultimately cost Obama about two percent of the popular vote. As one political scientist put it, "President Obama's election clearly didn't change those who appear to be sort of hard-wired folks with racial resentment." Mind electricians of America: you have a lot of work to do. " [Source]


OK Negroes, so white folks (especially the ones who vote republican) don't like you. Please do not let that affect how you live your lives. What is really important is the following: Your family, your environment, and your personal happiness and self-fulfillment. White folks might not like you, but they will not harm you, and they will do a very good job of pretending to like you when you are in their company.

If you are on the East Coast, be careful out there, Sandy is on her way.

"Niggergate", and Sununu "backs away".

I used to see "Screaming A. Smith" around town from time to time when he worked for our local paper, The Inquirer. All that I remember about fam is that he wore some ugly Steve Harvey type -five button- suits, and that he had a messed up hair cut.

Now my man has blown up. ESPN, NBC, books; you name it. Hell he is even being parodied on SNL. (It doesn't get any bigger than that.) Sadly, however, it seems that Stephen A. Smith (his real name) has gotten himself into some hot water. It's what one of my twitter mates is calling, "niggergate".

"Stephen A. Smith's mouth seems to have gotten him into trouble again on ESPN's "First Take" on Thursday morning. This time it wasn't any inane point that he was trying to make or illogical argument that he was staging with Skip Bayless. Rather, it sounds a lot like Smith let fly with some inappropriate language.   
 
While discussing Kobe Bryant's foot injury, Smith scoffed at the notion that the five-time NBA champion would sit out for the season opener and may have accidentally dropped a racial slur.

Here's what it sounds like Smith said:
"Opening night. Kobe Bryant is going to miss it because, 'my foot is sprained?' Are you crazy, nigga please," Smith may have said.

The Big Lead wrote "may have said" it in its headline for a post about the video clip. BuzzFeed Sports believes Smith "definitely" used that phrase.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part about this incident is that it would mark the second time in less than a year that Smith "may have" said the n-word live on ESPN. In December 2011, a frustrated Smith "may have" used it while talking about how LeBron James should be more like Kobe.
Smith denied saying it then on Twitter. He hasn't denied Thursday morning's incident yet. [Source]

I honestly don't know what to say about this one. I mean, unlike some folks, I can take the word when it is used in its proper context, or when used to express some form of artistic expression. I loved, for instance, when Touré used the word to describe how Mitt Romney and some of his surrogates wanted to paint the president. (BTW, dude was right. Have you seen how John Sununu has been acting lately? More on him later) But if Smith did use the word in that context with his white co-host sitting across the table from him, he was definitely out of line. (Double standard alert!) Had his co-host been black he might have gotten a pass from the kid. But "nigger please" isn't cutting it with me when you are in a heated discussion with your white co-host about sports.

Stephen, I know that you are denying it, but if you did use that word, you might want to check yourself. Save the word for when you are in the comfort of your home throwing some back with your boys from Winston-Salem State.

Finally, I am glad that John Shamu is backing off his comments about Colin Powell. Maybe, at last, he has reached his lunatic tipping point.

"A top adviser to Mitt Romney is backing away from his suggestion that fellow Republican Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama because both men are black.
Former New Hampshire governor John Sununu issued a statement late Thursday night saying Powell is a friend and he respects the endorsement. He said he doesn’t doubt that Powell’s backing of Obama is based on “anything but his support of the president’s policies.”

Appearing on CNN earlier Thursday, Sununu said he wondered whether Powell had “a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.”

Host Piers Morgan asked what reason that would be.
Sununu said, “Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.”'
 
Mitt and company must realize that this is not the time to play the race card. That was for the primary. Time to put away those dog whistles. You already have the single digit IQ vote. You don't want to piss off moderate Americans by throwing race into the mix. (Again)







  

Colin makes a pick and Sarah is still "shucking and jivin".

“Not only am I not comfortable with what Governor Romney is proposing for his economic plan, I have concerns about his views on foreign policy,” Powell said during an appearance on “CBS This Morning” — adding that the Republican nominee had “some very, very strong neo-conservative views” and describing Romney’s foreign policy vision as a “moving target”.

This is interesting. Is it just a case of you Negroes sticking together? Or is it a Bushite hating on Romney thing? Naw, that couldn't be it; didn't Condi endorse  Mitt?

Anyway, it seems that this election is breaking down along racial lines. Colin is supposed to be "post racial" so maybe his endorsement will bring some of those other folks over to O's side. O, No matter what these Negroes tell you, you can't beat Flipper without the white vote. (Obama is trailing Romney by 33% for the white male vote.) White folks still make up about 75% of people who will actually vote in this country. Most of these Negroes will not be voting come election day. They will have other things to do, such as watch television and shop for clothes.

Finally, Sarah Palin took offense to folks saying that her "shuck and jive" statement about the president was racist. She actually used a variation of the "some of my best friends are black, meme". 

 "For the record, there was nothing remotely racist in my use of the phrase “shuck and jive” – a phrase which many people have used, including Chris Matthews, Andrew Cuomo, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to name a few off the top of my head. In fact, Andrew Cuomo also used the phrase in reference to Barack Obama, and the fact that Mr. Cuomo and I used the phrase in relation to President Obama signifies nothing out of the ordinary. I would have used the exact same expression if I had been writing about President Carter, whose foreign policy rivaled Obama’s in its ineptitude, or about the Nixon administration, which was also famously rocked by a cover-up.
I’ve been known to use the phrase most often when chastising my daughter Piper to stop procrastinating and do her homework. As she is part Yup’ik Eskimo, I’m not sure if this term would be deemed offensive when it’s directed at her or if it would be considered benign as in the case of Chris Matthews’ use of it in reference to Rachel Maddow." [Source]

So there you have it. Sarah's daughter is part Eskimo and she uses the phrase to her. So of course that makes it alright to use the same offensive phrase when speaking about the black guy in the White House.

That, my friends, is called wingnut logic.
 

I could use that five million, Sarah being Sarah, and the black information bubble.

If I have to cut this post short I hope you will understand. I am waiting on word from my peeps who are out there trying to dig up Obama's college transcripts and his passport. I could use that five million Mr. Bad Hair is offering  to O. Maybe if I get it to him first he will give me the money.

".. Donald Trump, whose birtherism helped fuel a presidential exploration last year and prodded President Obama to release his Hawaii birth certificate, is now challenging Obama to release college and passport records.

“Many, many people have questions, and very serious questions,” Trump says today in a video statement that doesn’t elaborate on what those questions are.
“If Barack Obama opens up and gives his college records and applications, and if he gives his passport applications and records, I will give to a charity of his choice….a check, immediately, for $5 million,” The Donald says. To claim the reward, Trump says, Obama must release the records by 5 p.m. on Oct. 31.
“If he releases these records it will end the question and indeed the anger of many Americans. They’ll know something about their president. Their president will become transparent like other presidents,” Trump says."

So this is Mr. Bad Hair's "October surprise" and bombshell? Sometimes I swear the man is working for the dems.

So anyway, I saw a little of Mitt's speech in Colorado, today. Mitt, who is the "colored" candidate in this race? WTF is that on your face? Is that an orange spray tan? Yes, I think it is. Mitt, I sure hope that you aren't tanning up again for the Hispanic vote.

Finally, it seems that thanks to sports and our girl Sarah Palin, there are some racial issues to address.

First Sarah.

"Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin released a statement on her Facebook page accusing President Obama of engaging in "shuck and jive shtick" regarding last month's attack in Benghazi, Libya.

"Why the lies? Why the cover up? Why the dissembling about the cause of the murder of our ambassador on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil? We deserve answers to this. President Obama's shuck and jive shtick with these Benghazi lies must end," Palin wrote.

For those who aren't familiar with the phrase, "shuck and jive" is a racially-tinged expression. According to the user-submitted Urban Dictionary, the term "originally referred to the intentionally misleading words and actions that African-Americans would employ in order to deceive racist Euro-Americans in power, both during the period of slavery and afterwards." [Source] 

Yawn. Sadly for her, Sarah is no longer relevant. These comments might as well be coming from some redneck in a trailer down in Mississippi.

Besides, I am done calling out racism in the republiklan party. If the Negroes who belong to that party and support it aren't bothered, then why should I concern myself?   

Then there are sports.

Jason Whitlock is at it again. This time he is calling out what he calls the black "information bubble" for protecting black quarterbacks like Cam Newton:

"The “information bubble” is the No. 1 obstacle/hindrance for black NFL quarterbacks.

This bubble creates delusion, erodes self-awareness and unwittingly undermines a black QB’s chance of sustaining success.
Cam Newton is a victim of the information bubble. Robert Griffin III is the bubble’s next target.

Let me explain. We’re in our political season. Democrats and Republicans both have their respective information bubbles, MSNBC and FOX News, respectively. They can lock their televisions on a single channel and avoid hearing their perspectives challenged in a credible way and hear their critics’ lambasted. It’s comforting. It’s polarizing. It’s unhealthy for intellectual growth and our democracy.

Black sports fans and black pop-culture media (not sports media) have created a loosely-formed-but-influential social-media and talk-radio information bubble for black QBs. This network of groupthink roars on sports-talk radio, black-owned radio stations, Facebook and Twitter, pumping out the message that Newton, Griffin and others can do no wrong and any criticism of them is rooted in racism. Fear of backlash from this network of well-intentioned enablers causes many mainstream sports analysts (media and fans of all colors) to avoid being totally honest about black QBs.

That’s how a career-killing, information bubble is formed.
White QBs don’t have to deal with this. In Kansas City, a group of fans paid for a banner to be flown over Arrowhead Stadium that called for owner Clark Hunt to bench Matt Cassel. Kansas City’s backup quarterback is Brady Quinn, the Cleveland bust. He’s not a solution. But he was named the starter on Monday.
  Imagine the uproar if Eagles fans took similar action against turnover-machine Michael Vick? There would be riots in the streets. Philly fans would be labeled racist." [Source]

Jason has written a lot of dumb things in his day, but this one might just be the dumbest. The post was so absurd, that Rush Limbaugh ,of all people, found vindication in Jason's words.

First of all, Jason needs to understand the passion of the average football fan be he black, white, brown, or green. If he did, he would understand that Eagles fans could care less what their QB looks like as long as he is winning. Some of Seven's biggest critics here in Philly are black. Why? Because they want to win, and in their minds Seven isn't getting it done right now. If Jason had done a little research before writing his ridiculous article he would have realized that.

Pic from mashable.com

 


 

Ann's R word, and Mitt gets a beatdown.

"I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard.
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 23, 2012

Oh my! Ann Coulter calls the president of these divided states a "retard", and the next day she is on conservative talk radio and FOX NEWS as a surrogate for "Myth" Romney praising his debate performance. (More on that later.)

Ann outraged a lot of people- including her fellow conservative motor mouth, Michelle Malkin- but apparently she didn't upset Mitt and his peeps, because we have yet to hear a renunciation of Ann's words from them.

Americans with children with special needs are upset, because they found what  Ms. Coulter said to be very offensive:

"Parents of children with special needs are demanding an apology from conservative political pundit Ann Coulter for tweeting after Tuesday's foreign policy debate that she approved of "Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard."

It appeared to be a response to critiques of Mitt Romney's debate performance, but it wasn't the first time Coulter used the "the r-word" during this election season. And, it's not the first time blogger Ellen Seidman has called her out on it.

 

"At this point, I'm thinking the woman must surely be aware that the word is offensive, and she chooses not to care. That's pretty vile and heartless," said Seidman, the mother of a special needs child who shares her world on the blog "Love that Max."

 

"You want to slam the president, go ahead. But you can't think of any other word to use? Come on."

 

Ending the r-word: Ban it or understand it?

 

The word "retard" demeans Max and millions more with intellectual disabilities, Seidman tweeted at Coulter. Still, the comment was favorited 1,215 times and earned 2,993 retweets as of this writing, presumably by a number of people who didn't find it offensive. But sentiments from those who chose to respond to Coulter on Twitter ranged from disappointment to outrage. [Source] 

 

The fact that Ms. Coulter's tweet was favored over 1,200 times tells you all you need to know about the people on the right in this country who hate Barack Obama.

 

"You disgust me. That man is the president of this country. (& I'm sure all of the disabled children in America appreciate you.)," actor Sophia Bush tweeted.

"Politics aside, this tweet from @anncoulter was offensive & disgusting. ANY use of the "R" word is unacceptable," @amurphy217 said.

 

The Special Olympics also condemned her use of the word, saying that it was "sad to see @AnnCoulter continue her use of hateful language by using the #Rword in her discourse."

 

Honestly, I think that Ann, like her wingnut friends, was just frustrated with Flipper last night. I listened to the spin all day from the right about how he just wanted to seem presidential, but it didn't work. Stevie Wonder could see that he got his ass kicked. When you debate someone, you debate; you don't "stay above the snipping", you snip back.

 

Barack Obama jumped into Mitt and never let go. Now we are hearing from his friends that he had a stomach virus. And his spinners all say that not fighting back was a part of his debate strategy. (Ask O how that worked out for him in the first debate.) I actually heard one conservative pundit say that "Romney was playing chess while Obama was playing checkers". I guess that means that it only looked like he was getting his ass kicked, but in the wingnut reality he was not. Our eyes were deceiving us; it was a Mitt mind game and only the wingnuts could see it. Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

“Gov. Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia … The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

Checkmate?

   

 

 

  

  

More voter intimidation, and if corporations are people they are the bullies.

The GOP's quest to suppress the minority vote continues. This latest case of the GOP's attempt at voter suppression might be the worst of all.Thankfully, they  were not successful because the person (or persons) bankrolling the campaign didn't have the courage to tell America who they really are.

"The 140 billboards warning residents of inner-city neighborhoods in Wisconsin and Ohio that they could go to jail for committing voter fraud are being taken down Monday. The move comes after the private family foundation funding them declined to make its identity known.

Civil rights groups criticized the ads as an attempt to intimidate voters in primarily low-income, minority neighborhoods by associating voting with jail time. The billboards show a large gavel and the text "Voter fraud is a felony! Up to 3 1/2 yrs & $10,000 Fine."

Clear Channel, the company that put up the advertisements, said the foundation funding the signs was mistakenly allowed to remain anonymous when it bought the billboards, a violation of the company's policy against accepting anonymous political ads.

"We reviewed the situation and in light of the fact that these billboards violate our policy of not accepting anonymous political ads, we asked the client how they would prefer to work with us to bring the boards into conformance with our policy," Clear Channel spokesman Jim Cullinan wrote in an email. "The client thought the best solution was to take the boards down, so we're in the process of removing them." [Source]

Hmmm, I smell a rat with a big R. 

We might as well get used to money influencing elections. Now that the supremes have declared that corporations are people, big corporations now have carte blanche to fire people who don't vote for the candidate of the corporations choosing.

Mitt Romney, bless his sneaky soul, has been taking advantage of this very issue.

"Newly-discovered audio from a conference call in June captures Mitt Romney asking business owners to urge their employees to vote for him.
Romney, speaking on a call to the very conservative National Federation of Independent Business, tells a group of business owners that they should “make it very clear” how they feel about the candidates. The audio, discovered by In These Times, also captures Romney telling the business owners to “pass… along to your employees” how their jobs might be affected by who wins in November:

I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees. Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well." [Source]

But Mitt isn't alone. His supporters all seem to be on the same page with him.

"As a contentious election season enters its final weeks, a flurry of communication from corporate leaders to rank-and-file workers strongly implies that voting for Obama could imperil their jobs and their financial stability.

Employees of a paper company owned by the outspoken billionaire Koch brothers received a mailing warning that they could “suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills" if they voted for candidates not supported by Koch-owned companies or its political fund-raising arm.

The company also provided workers with a list of those candidates it supports. At the top: Mitt Romney, according to media outlet In These Times, which broke the story. “The packet also included an anti-Obama editorial by Charles Koch and a pro-Romney editorial by David Koch,” it said.

“This is in no way an attempt to ‘intimidate’ employees,” Greg Guest, senior director of corporate communications at Georgia-Pacific, said in a statement on the site kochfacts.com." [Source] 

Welcome to the new America, where plutocrats rule the day, and corporations really are people. Oh, and just in case you were wondering if this type of employer employee voter intimidation is legal, in my humble opinion- unless you live in a strong union state like California- it probably is. Employers have free speech rights as well, and many employees (especially in Southern states) are working under "at will" conditions, so yes, your boss can probably   suggest that you vote for the candidate of his/her choice in order for you to keep your job. 

The good news is,of course, that they can't go in the voting booth with you. Although if you happen to be a person of color living in certain neighborhoods, you might not even make it to the voting booth. If the billboard doesn't stop you, the overzealous poll worker will.    

Enjoy the debate.





  









  



 

Scoring political points by any means necessary.

Americans have been talking a lot about a place called Benghazi of late. Most Americans never heard of Benghazi prior to September 11. If you said Benghazi to the average American prior to September 11, he or she would have thought you were talking about a restaurant chain.

Anyway, republicans are certainly glad for Benghazi. Their candidate for president couldn't wait to get on television and politicize the tragic attack on the US consulate in that city. To him, it was a political opportunity, not a national tragedy. Not to be outdone, republicans in congress have been going down that same inglorious path.

 "The U.S. Senate's number two Democrat and others in his party criticized a Republican House of Representatives committee chairman on Sunday for releasing government documents related to last month's violent attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

Senator Richard Durbin charged that Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, had politicized the Benghazi events during a presidential election campaign, in particular by releasing sensitive papers with the names of Libyans who have worked with the United States.

"This idea of Chairman Issa, that he's going to dump the names in public of Libyans who are risking their lives to support America and keep us safe in an effort to get a political toehold in this election is unconscionable. It is unacceptable," Durbin, the Senate's Democratic whip, told "Fox News Sunday."David Axelrod, a campaign adviser to President Barack Obama, also blasted Issa, charging it was "disgraceful" that he had released government papers "to score political points in the final weeks before an election."

Issa released 166 pages of unclassified memos, diplomatic cables and other government documents related to the Benghazi mission on Friday as part of his committee's investigation of the attack in the eastern Libyan city. The papers were not classified, but some were diplomatic communications marked "sensitive." [Source]

Oh my! The things we do for power here in America.

Finally, you Negroes are going to have to stop resorting to taking out a bunch of people -like those other folks- when things don't go your way.

Just today some Negro in Wisconsin took out a bunch of people and then himself after having what is being described as "domestic problems". Last Thursday some lunatic went to his "estranged" girlfriend's place of employment and shot her before killing three other people.

Seriously folks, domestic violence is not something to be taken lightly. Every woman out there should watch for all the red flags when they hook up with "Mr. Right." And fellows, if you find yourself obsessing over someone, you might need to get help. Call your pastor, grab a stiff drink, or call one of your boys to go and hang out with.

Mitt and the black vote.

You Obamaholics of the Negro persuasion might want to skip this next post.

I love reading Politic365 (shout out to Kristal and Lauren) and in the spirit of true disclosure I am a sometime contributor to the site.

Anyway, I saw an interesting and provocative article over there that I wanted to share with you. It was written by a man named Raynard Jackson, and he is clearly no fan of his Oness.

"With the presidential election right around the corner and most of the pundits saying the race is Obama’s to lose, I have begun to ponder the possibility that Romney might win and the impact that would have on the Black community.
Romney has been polling around zero percent of the Black vote. We all know that the usual Black liberal groups have sold out to Obama years ago – Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, etc.

Romney, like Bush in 2000, will owe absolutely nothing to Blacks should he win the election. But, unlike Bush, I have no allusions that Romney will surround himself with the number of Blacks that Bush did. Romney will feel compelled to make some token hires, but not much beyond that.

This will lead to the above-named liberals to complain that Romney is ignoring Blacks and not being inclusive. But these same groups have yet to raise their voices to criticize Obama on the same issue. Bush had more Blacks in his administration than Obama or Bill Clinton. How’s that for a White supposed racist Republican?

So, how can they, credibly, hold Romney to a standard that they refused to hold Obama to?

Let’s assume that Romney agrees to meet with these liberals and they make their typical left-wing demands: higher minimum wage, amnesty for illegals, homosexual rights, input on hiring decisions, etc. If the current incarnation of Romney shows up, he will not agree to their demands.

So, how will they respond if Romney says to them, “Why should I do these things when Obama didn’t do them for you? Congressman Cleaver, will you promise not to march on the White House during my administration like you did for Obama? Mr. Jealous, if I don’t address your annual conference, like Obama, will you give me a pass because my schedule is supposedly full? Members of the CBC, if I tell you to stop complaining like Obama did, will you label me a racist, even though you didn’t call Obama a racist?”

If the first Black president ignores the Black community, how can we then make demands on the next White president, regardless of party? This is why having Blacks put all their votes in one party is so dangerous. We have absolutely no leverage if Romney wins the White House.

What’s amazing about the groups that claim to represent all Blacks is they all claim to be non-partisan. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
On election night, should Romney win, he will say all the right things about wanting to be president for all of America, even those who did not vote for him.
But, in raw political terms, why should Romney engage with these liberals? They don’t represent the Black mainstream. They have been bought and paid for by the Democratic Party and the likes of George Soros." [More here]

Great questions from Mr. Jackson, but I have a couple for him:

What makes you think that Mitt Romney's policies would be any better for black people? Tax cuts for the uber rich so that they can build more companies and hire more people has been tried before, and it didn't work for the country at large. Trust me; it sure as hell won't work for black people.

Mr. Jackson takes simplistic view of politics in Washington and fails to factor in other issues which contributed to our current state of affairs: The senate minority leader vowed to make Obama a "one term president".

And these liberal progressive groups didn't go looking for black folks; black folks came looking for them. Why? Because most black people who work and struggle in these divided states of America realize that their (the progressive groups) policies serve their interests in a more practical way.

And why does the hiring of minorities have to be "token" hires?
Surely there must be qualified black (conservative republicans included) who would be able to contribute to Mitt's administration on issues from education and health to crime and other urban issues.

Sounds like Mr. Jackson is worried about his own political handouts from Mitt and company. He is saying that politics is all about giving to those who support you. OK, I can ride with that, but groups who are committed to a particular political ideology can't just pick a candidate and ride with him in hopes of getting handouts, later. Obama didn't give them all that they wanted, but would they have really gotten more under Romney?

That is the million dollar question, and only time will tell what the answer is.

Onward Christian Slave owners.

I will be the first to admit that even though I am the son of a preacher I am not too up on my religious teachings. Still, even a theological neophyte like myself knows that we had to be farther from God during slavery than we are now. At least I thought we were.

"We strayed away different times. Andrew Jackson's time was not a great time; different times slavery was a blot on our existence," Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said this week, adding, "But the trouble is we have never as an entire nation overall been so far away from God’s teaching." Speaking on a conference call with far-right pastor Rick Scarborough, he warned that the much-worse-than slavery sins going on today could lead the nation "toward the end of [its] existence." [Source]

"Much worse than slavery sins"? Hmmm, let's see now, slaves were murdered, raped, and forced to work for free; what could be worse than that?

But this kind of rhetoric barely gets noticed in our country these days.  Americans are either too embarrassed or too willfully ignorant to let these reminders of just how backwards we are get into our collective psyche.
Poor Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter can't even shock us anymore with their verbal antics. When elected politicians are telling us that we are more sinful now than when we held human beings as our animals, what could those two (and others like them) possibly say to get our outrage meters up?

Finally, I know that my wingnut friends are trying very hard to suppress the vote of...ahem ahem....certain people, but I sure hope that the rest of the country is keeping their eyes on people like Colin Small. [That's Colin in the pic. Doesn't he just look like a little angel?Not! ] It seems that Colin and his peeps have been busy trying to make sure that we don't have a close election this year.
 

The Rockingham County Sheriff’s office arrested Colin Small, a 31-year-old resident of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, after receiving a report from a Harrisonburg store manager who says he saw Small throwing eight voter registration forms into a nearby dumpster, just before the Monday filing deadline.

Investigators say Small works for Pinpoint, a company hired by the Virginia GOP to register voters. The Sheriff’s office said there doesn’t seem to be a widespread case of voter form destruction and that the incident may not have been politically motivated.

Chairman Pat Mullins, of the Republican Party of Virginia, called Small’s actions “a direct contradiction of both his training and explicit instructions given to him.”
“The Republican Party of Virginia will not tolerate any action by any person that could threaten the integrity of our electoral process,” Mullins said. “The individual in question was fired immediately after we learned of his alleged actions.” [Source]

Mr. Mullins, I think your nose is growing.

Binders full of blunders.

*

Just like my man Mitt Romney, I had a "binder full of women" back in the day. Now, fortunately, my binder only has one woman. Unlike Mitt, however, I am telling the truth about my binder. Mitt seemed to have been exaggerating- just a little- about his.

We joke about it, but Mitt's "binder full of women" is troubling on a lot of levels. Consider the following from a Yahoo News contributor:

"..Instead, Romney gave an answer that could hardly have been worse had he let me write it for him. First, he told a story about assembling his cabinet as Massachusetts Governor that underscored his complete ignorance of the subject. In 2002, at the age of 55, Mitt Romney just got around to noticing that women were underrepresented in positions of power. “…I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men,” he noted, quizzically."

I am not surprised; this is the same Mitt Romney who didn't realize that blacks were his equal until 1978.

This all fits a troubling pattern: An obvious disdain for the feminine gender. (Mitt's line about women getting home in time to cook dinner was downright scary.)The racist food stamp dog whistles, the knuckle dragging sycophants around the campaign, and the obvious cluelessness when it comes to connecting to real people. (Washing already clean dishes at a soup kitchen? Are you serious?)

Finally, I know that we are all having fun with Mitt's "binder full of women" moment, but a couple of things came out of that debate that troubled me even more:

1. Mitt's linking gun violence to single mothers.

"It was a strange answer Romney gave, in a portion of the debate during which I must have tuned out while writing something for the site. In response to a question about limiting the availability of assault weapons, Romney veered off into strange ground. “We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the — the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.” 

Ok, the poverty and crime connection; I get it. But single mothers and assault weapons? Mitt, that's one hell of of a stretch

2. And then there is Tagg Romney wanting to jump out of his seat and "take a swing" at his Oness. My man said he didn't like the president calling out his father. (So you resort to violence, Tagg?)

Can you imagine if the president had a son and he made a comment like that? The polls would be heading south for O twice as fast as they are now.

Nobody in America wants to hear a black man talk about doing violence, even in jest.     

*Pic courtesy of rumproast.com





 

The debate dilemma.

So I am all over the Internet looking for some honest objective assessment of last night's American presidential debate. It was tough. It seems that everyone in America is already locked into their own political gang, and so getting a truly objective opinion on the debate is a little like getting Rush Limbaugh to get on a treadmill. It's just not happening. 

Still, I found one article that I stumbled on to be rather interesting.

"I guess you want to know who won the debate, and the answer is PresidentBarack Obama. He was as alive tonight as he was asleep two weeks ago. He defended his record and called out Mitt Romney on his flip-flops. Romney looked defensive and rattled, particularly when he badly botched the exchange onLibya.

But setting aside the horse race, I found the substance of tonight’s debate incredibly depressing, because neither candidate made a remotely convincing case that he can fix America’s economy.

Romney repeatedly talked about his “five-point plan,” which is a rehash of Bush-era policies. It has no content aimed at the specific problems of our time: weak demand, high unemployment and a still-troubled housing market.
Obama touted his misguided fetish for manufacturing and green jobs, as though what America needs is the federal government deciding which industries should grow. He combined those talking points with platitudes about education.
That’s not to say I’m surprised. If Obama had a serious economic agenda, he would presumably be working to implement it. Instead, his administration appears resigned to plod along in a tepid recovery that will leave unemployment above 6 percent for years to come.

And if Romney has a serious economic agenda, he has worked very hard to ensure that nobody finds out what it is.

Romney and Obama fought with each other a lot tonight, but the subtext of their messages was sadly similar: If elected, they will sit around and hope the economy gets better. That's not a message that gives me much hope for the next four years, no matter who wins. " [Source]

Josh, welcome to politics in America. We are just a bunch of mindless drones who have no clue how our lives are controlled. Sadly, we join political gangs and parrot vacuous talking points in our logic-proof echo chambers.

*Pic from Mike Blake My Opinions blog.

1967?

I am getting ready for the second debate with his Oness and Flipper. Poor O did such a poor job in the first debate that he really put a lot of pressure on himself for this one.

Pundits and those in the chattering class have been going on and on about Flipper's surge in the polls. But, as I have said all along, this election will be close. The country is split right down the middle. No matter what you hear from now until November 6th, it's important to remember that only about five states really matter: Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Virginia, and  Pistolvania. We know that Mitt will probably win Virginia and Florida, but O will probably win the other three states. If he doesn't, Ann Romney will be measuring the drapes at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue really soon.

Anyway, wingnuts (Thomas Sowell is one of them) have been spreading a rumor that if O doesn't win Negroes will riot in the streets. Apparently they don't know their Negroes too well. That would never happen. Now if Mitt gets in power and tries to pass legislation to do away with all KFC's we would have a problem. Sadly, Negroes just don't care enough to take to the streets to advocate for the things that matter most to them. We kind of just go along to get along. No civic, social, or political engagement.

Still, if you Negroes do decide to riot, could you please take it outside of your own neighborhoods?

 "The Infowars story from Monday collects 11 tweets — all from accounts with African American avatars — talking about rioting if Obama loses the election. Infowars claims they only included 11 because “there are simply too many to track.”

“If obama dont get re-elected & romney wins .. on life every white persons getting pistol whipped and im startin a riot.”

           If Obama don’t win lets start a riot so Romney know what he’s getting himself into.”

“You know you ain’t shit if you gotta “MAKE” Mafukas vote for ROMNEY ! …. Mannnn OBAMA better get back in office . Or BLACK FOLKS will riot.”
“If Romney wins im goin on a rampage.”
“If Mitt Romney wins the election I think its our duties as Black folks to riot and fuck shit up.”
“If every action IS met with an equal and opposite reaction ..what should workers do to employers if Romney’s elected? #Riot in the streets!!”
“If Romney becomes president let’s all start a riot.”
“I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do .”IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT.”

   “If romney wins, imma start a mf’n riot! Rns.”

The original Infowars story cited right-wing blog Twitchy, which compiled more black people talking about rioting on Twitter. As these sites have limited audiences, a Drudge link can explode their traffic and circulates their otherwise fringe theories.

As the election looms closer, right-wing groups and bloggers have amped up their racially-charged attacks on President Obama, such as in a Tea Party ad falsely accusing Obama of giving poor minorities phones. The Drudge Report has led the charge, most recently with an old video, condoned by the Romney campaign, meant to stoke fears that Obama is inciting aggression against white people.' [Source]   

Wow! Eleven tweets? Call out the National Guard.

OK folks, I am off to watch the debate now. Good luck gentlemen.

"The End of White America?"

I have heard quite a few people of color declare that the potential election of Barack Obama would be devastating for some people in the majority population. This is because many of these people are under the illusion that they are losing their country to non-white people.

This type of thinking reminds me of an article I read by Hua Hsu.

"Civilization’s going to pieces,” he remarks. He is in polite company, gathered with friends around a bottle of wine in the late-afternoon sun, chatting and gossiping. “I’ve gotten to be a terrible pessimist about things. Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?” They hadn’t. “Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”

He is Tom Buchanan, a character in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, a book that nearly everyone who passes through the American education system is compelled to read at least once. Although Gatsby doesn’t gloss as a book on racial anxiety—it’s too busy exploring a different set of anxieties entirely—Buchanan was hardly alone in feeling besieged. The book by “this man Goddard” had a real-world analogue: Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, published in 1920, five years before Gatsby. Nine decades later, Stoddard’s polemic remains oddly engrossing. He refers to World War I as the “White Civil War” and laments the “cycle of ruin” that may result if the “white world” continues its infighting. The book features a series of foldout maps depicting the distribution of “color” throughout the world and warns,
“Colored migration is a universal peril, menacing every part of the white world.”
As briefs for racial supremacy go, The Rising Tide of Color is eerily serene. Its tone is scholarly and gentlemanly, its hatred rationalized and, in Buchanan’s term, “scientific.” And the book was hardly a fringe phenomenon. It was published by Scribner, also Fitzgerald’s publisher, and Stoddard, who received a doctorate in history from Harvard, was a member of many professional academic associations. It was precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan’s profile—wealthy, Ivy League–educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure—might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.

As white men of comfort and privilege living in an age of limited social mobility, of course, Stoddard and the Buchanans in his audience had nothing literal to fear. Their sense of dread hovered somewhere above the concerns of everyday life. It was linked less to any immediate danger to their class’s political and cultural power than to the perceived fraying of the fixed, monolithic identity of whiteness that sewed together the fortunes of the fair-skinned.

From the hysteria over Eastern European immigration to the vibrant cultural miscegenation of the Harlem Renaissance, it is easy to see how this imagined worldwide white kinship might have seemed imperiled in the 1920s. There’s no better example of the era’s insecurities than the 1923 Supreme Court case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, in which an Indian American veteran of World War I sought to become a naturalized citizen by proving that he was Caucasian. The Court considered new anthropological studies that expanded the definition of the Caucasian race to include Indians, and the justices even agreed that traces of “Aryan blood” coursed through Thind’s body. But these technicalities availed him little. The Court determined that Thind was not white “in accordance with the understanding of the common man” and therefore could be excluded from the “statutory category” of whiteness. Put another way: Thind was white, in that he was Caucasian and even Aryan. But he was not white in the way Stoddard or Buchanan were white.

Whether you describe it as the dawning of a post-racial age or just the end of white America, we’re approaching a profound demographic tipping point. According to an August 2008 report by the U.S. Census Bureau, those groups currently categorized as racial minorities—blacks and Hispanics, East Asians and South Asians—will account for a majority of the U.S. population by the year 2042. Among Americans under the age of 18, this shift is projected to take place in 2023, which means that every child born in the United States from here on out will belong to the first post-white generation.
 
Obviously, steadily ascending rates of interracial marriage complicate this picture, pointing toward what Michael Lind has described as the “beiging” of America. And it’s possible that “beige Americans” will self-identify as “white” in sufficient numbers to push the tipping point further into the future than the Census Bureau projects. But even if they do, whiteness will be a label adopted out of convenience and even indifference, rather than aspiration and necessity. For an earlier generation of minorities and immigrants, to be recognized as a “white American,” whether you were an Italian or a Pole or a Hungarian, was to enter the mainstream of American life; to be recognized as something else, as the Thind case suggests, was to be permanently excluded. As Bill Imada, head of the IW Group, a prominent Asian American communications and marketing company, puts it: “I think in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, [for] anyone who immigrated, the aspiration was to blend in and be as American as possible so that white America wouldn’t be intimidated by them. They wanted to imitate white America as much as possible: learn English, go to church, go to the same schools.”

Today, the picture is far more complex. To take the most obvious example, whiteness is no longer a precondition for entry into the highest levels of public office. The son of Indian immigrants doesn’t have to become “white” in order to be elected governor of Louisiana. A half-Kenyan, half-Kansan politician can self-identify as black and be elected president of the United States.

As a purely demographic matter, then, the “white America” that Lothrop Stoddard believed in so fervently may cease to exist in 2040, 2050, or 2060, or later still. But where the culture is concerned, it’s already all but finished. Instead of the long-standing model of assimilation toward a common center, the culture is being remade in the image of white America’s multiethnic, multicolored heirs.
 
For some, the disappearance of this centrifugal core heralds a future rich with promise. In 1998, President Bill Clinton, in a now-famous address to students at Portland State University, remarked:

Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time ... [These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.

Not everyone was so enthused. Clinton’s remarks caught the attention of another anxious Buchanan—Pat Buchanan, the conservative thinker. Revisiting the president’s speech in his 2001 book, The Death of the West, Buchanan wrote: “Mr. Clinton assured us that it will be a better America when we are all minorities and realize true ‘diversity.’ Well, those students [at Portland State] are going to find out, for they will spend their golden years in a Third World America.”

Today, the arrival of what Buchanan derided as “Third World America” is all but inevitable. What will the new mainstream of America look like, and what ideas or values might it rally around? What will it mean to be white after “whiteness” no longer defines the mainstream? Will anyone mourn the end of white America? Will anyone try to preserve it?" [Entire article here]


One could argue that if we want to truly have a great republic, we will not "mourn" the end of white, black, or any other group in America.

*Pic courtesy of The Atlantic.