If Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford loses next Tuesday, the exit polling data will ultimately tell us whether race is still a determinant in certain parts of the country for what candidates to vote for. Usually exit polls ask the question, "When did you make up your mind on who to vote for?" If by a wide margin more Corker supporters answered "within the last two weeks," then we will know that Ken Mehlman's race-bating ad made the difference. Let's hope that in the 21st century, for crying out loud, our country is educated enough to think beyond ethnic and racial divisions. If we are not there yet, then maybe we should work hard enough to achieve that before America's next generation of children are born.
As Democratic strategist Donna Brazile in Wednesday's USA Today, we are almost there:
"African-Americans are now able to come through the political pipelinesand break through old barriers," says Donna Brazile, a top Democraticstrategist. "Whether they make it to the finish line is another thing,but the door has been left ajar."
If Harold Ford wins, he will become the first southern black Senator since reconstruction.
Terry Nelson, who was in charge of the unit within the RNC that created the anti-Ford ad last week that had racial undertones, is also the of John McCain's PAC that raises money for his possible presidential bid. And according to , Nelson is also the head of a consulting firm called -- which acts as a publicist for Wal-Mart. But within the last few days, Wal-Mart its ties with Nelson due to all the outrage.
However, regardless of the Terry Nelson's smutty ad, reports that John McCain is refusing to fire him:
Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) PAC has no plans to cutties with top GOP strategist Terry Nelson, who ended his contract withWal-Mart this week amid complaints from Democrats and union groups overhis authorizing of the now-infamous Tennessee Senate ad linkingDemocratic nominee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. to a Playboy Bunny.
Nelsonheads the Republican National Committee's (RNC) independent expenditureunit, which sparked a pre-election dustup over racial rhetoric in theSouth with an ad featuring a bubbly white woman claiming to have metFord "at the Playboy party" and telling the young black Democrat,"Harold, call me!"
TheDemocratic National Committee (DNC) took aim on Sunday at RNC ChairmanKen Mehlman, who defended the Tennessee ad, and McCain, whose StraightTalk America PAC hired Nelson in March as a senior adviser.
"EvenWal-Mart fired Terry Nelson for his role in making this ad. Instead ofdoing what's right, Ken Mehlman and Republicans like John McCaincontinue to stand by Terry Nelson and these racist, divisive campaigntactics," DNC Communications Director Karen Finney said, adding that"Ken Mehlman and John McCain should fire Terry Nelson."
As of this moment, they are continuing to embrace Nelson's campaign tactics.
If this is the kind of campaign John McCain plans to run in 2008, then he is more of a Rovian than a Maverick.
S.R. Sidarth, a volunteer for the Webb for Senate Campaign, has the job of videotaping incumbent George Allen so that voters can know what he stands for. On one occasion, during a Allen Campaign rally, the Republican Senator called Sidarth a "Macaca." Sidarth is of Indian dissent. The means monkey, which is often used as a racial slur.
Of course, Allen is denying that was what he meant. But what else would the word Macaca mean?
On Tuesday, CNN reported how it all went down.
--- Partial Transcript ---
ALLEN: "So, let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America, and the real world of Virginia."
Maybe it should also be noted that George Allen has a in his living room.
James Webb needs our help. Click to with his campaign to unseat Republican incumbent George Allen. ---------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , , , .
A huge Supreme Court ruling came down today -- disappointing for the most part. By a vote of 5 to 4, they upheld a lower court ruling that Tom DeLay's 2003 redistricting plan was legal. Essentially, it opens the door for both party's to consistently change district lines to give them a leg up heading into each November election.
:
The court rebuffed Democratic arguments that the remap adopted in2003 was an unconstitutional mid-decade partisan gerrymander. In sodoing, it left open the possibility that other state legislatures mightchoose to redistrict more than once a decade if party control shifts.
In 2002, under a court-drawn map, Democrats won 17 of Texas’ 32 U.S.House seats. But Republicans captured control of the state legislaturethat year, and at the instigation of former U.S. House Majority LeaderTom DeLay, R-Texas, they pushed through a new redistricting plan in2003.
Underthe new map, Republicans won 21 of the 32 House seats in the 2004election, which enabled the GOP to increase its overall House majority.
However (and this is rather interesting), conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy hinted that Tom to divide the Hispanic vote, preventing them from electing a Hispanic Congressman in San Antonio:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, saidHispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosingin south and west Texas under the state's plan.
The plan's "troubling blend of politics and race — and the resultingvote dilution of a group that was beginning to achieve (the federallaw's) goal of overcoming prior electoral discrimination — cannot besustained," Kennedy wrote.
The Dallas Morning News predicts that this ruling could , who narrowly won because of Tom DeLay's gerrymandering of the San Antonio district.
Other than that, though, this is a major victory for Republican majorities in the southern U.S., who now can legally redraw the district maps as they please. As the before the decision was handed down, this ruling would hold nationwide implications.
Sadly, when you draw district lines based on political advantage and not on simple geography, you are pretty much throwing a punch to the gut of representative democracy.
Some would argue that the immigration debate has sparked a certain kind of indirect racism that we have not seen in years. To be fair, both sides might be guilty of it. But at the same time, almost all of the race-based comments are not coming from individuals who themselves are racists. So, for the most part, this is just a case of people sometimes not fully analyzing the context of what comes out of their mouths, which is clearly different those that clearly intend to be racial supremacists.
On the other hand, some, such as conservative radio host Michael Savage, make statements that are so racist that their hate-filled language separates themselves from the activists on both sides. The news watchdog web site . Savage demonstrated over and over that he is not afraid to be overtly racist. Read some of this:
"Do you think thatthe minorities, when they take over the country, will be quite as benevolentand as enlightened as the European-Americans are today? Or do you sensethat just perhaps, just maybe, they will not bring the learnings of the MagnaCarta, the Bill of Rights, to their new power?"
Or how about this?
"Well, the question is, the European-American, or thewhite person, is being erased from America'sfuture, and the only question is why? Now, you say, 'Wait a minute. That goespast the immigration.' No, it doesn't. There is a racial element to theimmigration invasion, at least I see it that way."
And then there was this:
"Now, then, the question becomesin 20 years, what will Americalook like? And, what is the social landscape like? And what happens to whitepeople? That's the real question here. Will our brown brethren, who are so nationalisticand so anti-gringo and anti-Anglo, be as enlightened as the European-Americanis? I don't think so. Do you?"
And then Savage compared Mexican-Americans to junkies and murderers:
"Why won't they pass a law saying wehave to study the contributions of junkies? That might be a nice one, becausethey're an underrepresented group. Like any other underrepresented group,murderers are an underrepresented group."
It is really important that progressive bloggers like myself make an effort to distinguish people like Michael Savage from most other people who favor deportation and fining businesses that hire them illegal immigrants. Although we might disagree with conservatives on immigration, hardly any conservatives who favor the position held by the GOP in the House of Representatives are racist. Take this Letter to the Editor of the Baylor University newspaper the Lariat Online, where Min Kim for doing more to defend our borders:
"Before anyone can become a citizen, the individual has to obtain astatus of being legal and eventually become a permanent resident. As aformer immigrant, becoming a permanent resident was not an easyprocess. My family and I waited 10 years before we gained the status ofpermanent residency..."
-- Min Kim, Sociology 2006
I might think that Min did not fully analyze the matter. But that does not make that individual a racist. Let's be at least civil about this discussion. Not all conservatives are racist against Mexican-Americans. Hardly any liberals are racist against European Americans. We are both in the same boat. That is completely different than fringe radio talk-show hosts, such as Michael Savage for example, who are definitely using race as a motivator to justify their positions. Savage is not your typical tolerant American. And he definitely does not share the views of progressives or most conservatives.
So, as this debate unfolds, let's realize the power of the label "racist". And when we call someone a racist, it should only be because that individual makes it beyond obvious. Michael Savage is definitely of that type.
The media seems to spend a lot of time reinforcing the subjective notion that the political left is a threat to our political system. While that might rarely be the case, such as in cases of eco-terrorism, what the media for the most part ignores is the daily hatred coming from the far-right. In order for this sort of thing to be exposed, it takes media watch dog sites and blogs like this one to get the word out.
On Monday's edition of the Michael Savage Show, host Michael Savage endorsed the idea of killing 100 million Muslims. , thanks to the watchdog site "Media Matters":
SAVAGE: There are too many RDDBs [red-diaper doper babies, Savage'sterm for people supposedly raised by Marxist parents] in high placesand in the media and in the courts for us to stand up to this fanaticalenemy. And so unless the RDDB is reined in somehow or taken out ofpower, we're going to die as a nation. I swear to God that's whatpeople are saying to me. And these are intelligent people, wealthypeople. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showingto these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, "Oh, there's abillion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'llbe 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die -- would yourather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for youpeople to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or wouldyou rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have tomake that choice sooner rather than later.
, this time verbally attacking the victim in the Duke rape case:
SAVAGE: Now, we got the Durham dirt-bag case. The Durham dirt-bagcase disgusts me to my core. Here, you have a drunken slut strippingwhore accusing men of raping her when there is absolutely no evidenceof such a rape other than what comes out of that filthy mouth of hers.And what really gets to me, here, is not only the piling on by thevermin in the media -- the spineless eunuchs in the media who aretaking the side of an unknown accuser without ever having to ask herone question. What kind of system do we have that anyone can screamrape and not have to show her face, not answer to the public. And, yet,those she accuses are suddenly guilty until they're proven innocent.This is all the product of the out-of-control lesbian feminist movement.
This is not some no-name right-wing nut-bag. Michael Savage has , about the reading audience of some major national newspapers.
But the hatred doesn't stop with Michael Savage. . That victim is black. But when it comes to the Natalie Holloway case, Sean Hannity doesn't blame the victim at all. That victim was white. Thanks to watchdog sites like Media Matters and, in the case of this Sean Hannity example, , the lid is slowly coming off the jar of hatred coming from the far-right.
After taking American history classes in elementary school, middle school and high school, and viewing how our school systems were once segregated, I never thought that I'd live to hear about what is happening now to the Omaha school system. The into three groups among racial lines: one that is largely Hispanic, one that is largely black and one that is largely white:
Republican Gov. Dave Heineman was expected to sign the measure into law.
Omaha Sen. Pat Bourne decried the bill, saying, "We will go down inhistory as one of the first states in 20 years to set race relationsback."
"History will not, and should not, judge us kindly," said Sen. Gwen Howard of Omaha.
The idea of giving racial groups an independent burden of managing their own school districts clearly . You can bet that this will reach the doorsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court. Aside from the constitution, it turns the social clock of the United States back to a day that many of us don't want to remember.
Recent Comments