"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Are you also outraged by flag burning?

Yes. Although I think the Supreme Court was right in saying such burnings are protected by the first amendment. And I am proud that America lets people burn its flag without legal consequence. But I find people that do desecrate the flag intentionally despicable, and I wouldn't vote for someone who did such a thing, or for someone that defended someone for doing such a thing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
"yes, we have race issues in this country, and there are both Whites and Blacks that are more part of the problem than they are the solution, but if we are going to effect change, we need to confront that and get past it.

What is so ballsy about that? Seems obvious to me. Who could even argue with that? Its like saying we need to do something about the fact that our schools are failing. No shit.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
In all seriousness, if you really mean this, you should probably seek some grief counseling.

Your concern for my personal well being is touching.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is so ballsy about that? Seems obvious to me. Who could even argue with that? Its like saying we need to do something about the fact that our schools are failing. No shit.

You say this -- but you don't seem to mean it. You say that the taboo subjects are no big deal and it is best to just continue to keep quiet about them. Your statements indicate that you do not value honest dialogue on this subject.

You are hitting Obama pretty damn hard for the WAY he suggests dealing with it -- which took political courage. That is no surprise, because you and most GOPers were hardly likely to be converted and those steeped in partisan politics are unlikely to look beyond the demands of the current election cycle, but I think you should have more respect for the attempt.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
"Jesus Christ was a poor black man oppressed by rich white men”

I don't view this as defending Wright -- but I'll point out that this is a historical truth at least if you replace "black" with "brown." Although Christ was also oppressed by rich brown men.

S_A_M

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't know about defending Wright, but it took balls to say "yes, we have race issues in this country, and there are both Whites and Blacks that are more part of the problem than they are the solution, but if we are going to effect change, we need to confront that and get past it." King had a dream; it seems Obama has a goal.

No need for anyone to reply as I agree that this horse has been beaten to death.


I can't believe we think so little of our politicians that we celebrate when they state the obvious. I can't wait to see the reaction when he states in his next speech that "Heavy people would be healthier if they lost weight".

Is everyone celebrating what he actually said*, or are they celebrating it because Obama has taken the Wright situation and turned it into a positive? Or are they celebrating the fact that he actually said it?

Some time ago Sebby posted a link to "Things white people like" and how his favorite entry was about how white folks love to raise "awareness". This speech reminds me of that blog entry.

*Which part? That, just like the rest of us, he has a kind of racist grandparent? That those descended from non-slave owning white immigrants are especially hostile toward busing and affirmative action?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I can't believe we think so little of our politicians that we celebrate when they state the obvious.

Can't resist a sound bite response:

Sad but true, especially on the third-rail issues.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Your concern for my personal well being is touching.

You should probably also refrain from engaging in any sort of foreign policy debate, 'cause simple blind rage isn't terribly constructive.

Although is great if all you want to do is score political points.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is a crock of shit. I tried to draft Colin Powell into the presidency. And nothing I have said would have prevented him from running or would have hurt his run. But my position would definitely make it more diffiuclt for Lani Guinier to run for office. And I see that as a good thing.

Colin Powell illustrates what I'm talking about. The way you're playing the game, a black in politics either severs himself or herself from black constituencies, or has a black base and can only go so far (the House of Representatives, basically). This is, obviously, polarizing.

BTW, as much as I respect Colin Powell's accomplishments, he would have crashed and burned in politics in the same way that he crashed and burned trying to handle Cheney and Rumsfeld as Secretary of State -- it wasn't his thing, and he was up against people whose thing it was.

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I can't believe we think so little of our politicians that we celebrate when they state the obvious.

I can't believe the poor quality of our politicians when so few of them are willing to state the obvious.

And I'm surprised you find it hard to believe that we think so little of them. They generally confirm my worst opinions on a daily basis.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by ironweed
I can't believe the poor quality of our politicians when so few of them are willing to state the obvious.

And I'm surprised you find it hard to believe that we think so little of them. They generally confirm my worst opinions on a daily basis.

This got me thinking about why we think so little of politicians and what it says about the sort of person who goes into politics. I began to wonder why people of higher quality don't become politicians, which led me to wonder why Obama appeals to me even though I don't agree with his proposed policies. He comes across as someone just looking to help, to fix problems, as opposed to the other candidates.

Originally posted by soup sandwich
This got me thinking about why we think so little of politicians and what it says about the sort of person who goes into politics. I began to wonder why people of higher quality don't become politicians, which led me to wonder why Obama appeals to me even though I don't agree with his proposed policies. He comes across as someone just looking to help, to fix problems, as opposed to the other candidates.

I was talking with someone who noted that Bill Mahr (I think) said the speech had the quality of "an adult talking to other adults." It is pretty sad that that quality is so lacking that it becomes notable when we finally hear it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Colin Powell illustrates what I'm talking about. The way you're playing the game, a black in politics either severs himself or herself from black constituencies, or has a black base and can only go so far (the House of Representatives, basically). This is, obviously, polarizing.

BTW, as much as I respect Colin Powell's accomplishments, he would have crashed and burned in politics in the same way that he crashed and burned trying to handle Cheney and Rumsfeld as Secretary of State -- it wasn't his thing, and he was up against people whose thing it was.

I disagree. His problems in the Bush Administration were utlimately with Bush. Cheney and Rumsfeld had Bush's unconditional support, without question.

It is a far better thing to have been the singular voice of reason in the administration and have failed being such than to have won at the cost of rationality.

Powell should have run as a Democrat. The Republicans are a long way from seeing a black candidate get through their primary process.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is so ballsy about that? Seems obvious to me. Who could even argue with that? Its like saying we need to do something about the fact that our schools are failing. No shit.

You're arguing with it. So Jeremiah Wright said some mean things about white people. Big. Fucking. Deal.

Barack Obama gave a speech in which he said he didn't condone or agree with what Wright said, but the he wasn't going to treat him like a pariah. Good. Because Wright's out there and a lot of people are listening to what he's saying and it's ringing true for them.

You, on the other hand, are saying that Obama should have shunned Rev. Wright and had nothing further to do with him. You say that you yourself will have nothing to do with such people.

If it's so obvious that the only way we are going to get past racism is to deal with the feelings and concerns of people like Rev. Wright (and Trent Lott), then why are you arguing so stridently that they can't be allowed to be part of the dialogue?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't view this as defending Wright -- but I'll point out that this is a historical truth at least if you replace "black" with "brown." Although Christ was also oppressed by rich brown men.

S_A_M

It's also true that this country was founded on racism. The drafters argued for 10 months about whether they were going to address slavery, in the end, agreeing to shunt the issue off on future geneerations, rather than fail to reach a compromise.

Not just the agrarian South, but the Mercantile North was built with slave labor.

Here we are, 200 plus years later, and we are discussing, not whether race should be a factor in the election, but how much of a factor it will be. Yesterday, a Black columnist in the Sun-Times wrote a piece saying that some Black folks embrace Jeremiah Wright, and no Black folks condemn him. She said it was a "Black thing." Whitey wouldn't understand, but we should all just "move on."

So, tell me, Spanky, where exactly is your disagreement with Wright's statement that race plays a fundamental part in American social structure and it always has?