Problems

Donald Trump knows. He knows that it's open season, as it always is,  on the opposition party. The President mentioned Joe Biden on thirteen occasions in Tuesday's State of the Union Address. You probably noticed that none of the references was positive- or even neutral. There were thirteen, in twelve paragraphs, six involving a variety of topics. (Feel free to skip to "The Democratic rebuttal....")

We ended all of Biden's environmental restrictions that were making our country far less safe and totally unaffordable. And importantly, we ended the last administration's insane electric vehicle mandate. Saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.

Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control. The egg price is out of control, and we're working hard to get it back down. Secretary, do a good job on that. You inherited a total mess from the previous administration. Do a good job.

It may be a little bit of an adjustment period. We had that before when I made the deal with China. $50 billion in purchases, and I said, just bear with me. And they did. They did. Probably have to bear with me again and this will be even better. That was great. The problem with it was that Biden didn't enforce it. He didn't enforce it - $50 billion of purchases. And we were doing great. But Biden did not enforce it, and it hurt our farmers.

I did it with China and I did it with others, and the Biden administration couldn't do anything about it because there was so much money. They couldn't do anything about it. 

And look, And look where Biden took us to. Very low. The lowest we've ever been. Jeff,

 But we're getting along very well with them and lots of good things are happening. Biden has authorized more money in this fight. than Europe has spent by billions and billions of dollars.

Six references to pertained to one of the few matters, immigration, on which President Biden's performance was faulty.

In comparison, under Joe Biden, the worst president in American history. There were hundreds of thousands of illegal crossings a month, and virtually.

So while we take out the criminals, killers, traffickers and child predators who are allowed to enter our country under the open border policy of these people, the Democrats, the Biden administration, the open border. insane policies that you've allowed to destroy our country.

Many of them were murderers, human traffickers, gang members and other criminals from the streets of dangerous cities all throughout the world because of Joe Biden's insane and very dangerous open border policies. They are now strongly embedded in our country, but. We are getting them out and getting them out fast.

That morning, Laken was viciously attacked, assaulted, beaten, brutalized, and horrifically murdered. Laken was stolen from us by a savage illegal alien gang member. Who was arrested while trespassing across Biden's open southern border and then set loose into the United States under the heartless policies of that failed administration. It was indeed a failed administration. He had then been arrested. and released in a Democrat run sanctuary city, a disaster before ending the. life of this beautiful young angel.

Joe Biden didn't just open our borders, he flew illegal aliens over them to overwhelm our schools, hospitals and communities throughout the country. Entire towns like Aurora, Colorado, and Springfield, Ohio, buckled under the weight of the migrant occupation and corruption like nobody's ever seen before. Beautiful towns destroyed. Now, just as I promised in my inaugural address, we are achieving the great liberation of America.

Countless thousands of these terrorists were welcomed into the U.S by the Biden administration. But now every last one will be rounded up and forcibly removed from our country. Or if they're too dangerous, put in jail…..

The Democratic rebuttal was offered by freshman senator Elissa Slotnick of Michigan.  At 22:27 of the video below, the Senator can be seen remarking

President Trump likes to say "peace through strength." That's actually a line he stole from Ronald Reagan. But let me tell you. After the spectacle that just took place in the Oval Office last week, Reagan must be rolling in his grave. We all want an end to the war in Ukraine but Reagan understood that true strength required America to combine our military and economic might with moral clarity. 

And that scene in the Oval Office wasn't just an episode of reality TV. It summed up Trump's whole approach to the world. He believes in cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends like the Canadians in the teeth. He sees American leadership as merely a series of real estate transactions. As a Cold War kid, I'm thankful that it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s Trump would have lost us the Cold War.

Probably so. However, Slotnick's reasoning is one all too common among among individuals who bring to mind the GOP slur "Republicans in Name Only" (RINOs). After showing this clip, an exasperated Kyle Kulinski at 23:10 responds

Ah, we have "you gotta hand it to George W. Bush and you gotta hand it to Ronald Reagan in the same Democratic speech- Democratic. Why can't you do a like "you gotta hand it to Lyndon B. Johnson with the War on Poverty and you gotta hand it to FDR with the New Deal."  Zero mentions of FDR; multiple mentions of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Guys, this is the core of the problem. This is the heart of the problem right here.

                 

By contrast, no Republican ever says of a disappointing Republican "why can't he be like Barack Obama (or Bill Clinton)" nor "Franklin Roosevelt would be rolling over in his grave." Never. He or she prefers to spend time and words blasting the favorite Democratic target of the era.

The President did that twelve (12) times, to little criticism or even notice. It is what both the media and Democrats have come to expect, and to neither is it news. Democrats never have defended their own as have Republicans and often have fallen back to the kind of argument invoked by Senator Slotkin. You are not a good Republican; You are not a true conservative. ("Remember when Republicans were for balanced budgets!"); You, sir, are no Ronald Reagan.

It's hard for a political party to build a message or brand out of that. If only there were a Democrat who is popular among party officials, more so among Democrats in the street, more so yet among the base (black women).  Ideally, that person would be able to speak with gravitas and legitimately claim that he or she uniquely understands the nature of the office President Trump holds. 

And yet former President Barack Obama remains silent. The man who served eight years as President, he of the (D) after his name, has barely been heard from the last eight weeks as Donald Trump takes apart the government, the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, and representative democracy. Crickets. "Where have you gone, Barack Obama?"

Obama did have a friendly chat with President Trump at the funeral of former President Jimmy Carter, an exchange I at the time erroneously thought meant nothing. Perhaps it was their status as among the fewer than fifty individuals who have ever held the highest office in what has been the most powerful nation on earth. Or there was some other reason. Whatever, as Bob Dole would have said.

              

Nonetheless, whether former President Obama or some other figure respected in the Party takes the reigns, someone has to break out of the pack and take a leadership role. For decades, Republicans used Jimmy Carter as a whipping boy, the name becoming synonymous with "failed," if not worse. The same is in danger of happening to Joe Biden, who was a very good President but whom very few prominent Democrats will defend. That's bad for Joe Biden, and bad for the Democratic Party. 

Share |

Tough Guy From Afar

In an unintentionally hilarious "Analysis/Opinion" piece on November 21, Charles Hurt of The Washington Times wrote

At some point, every warrior eventually runs out of arrows. His armor wears thin yet grows heavier still. He must lay down his weary helmeted head for rest.

Even Coriolanus was forced to retreat — at the behest of his mother.

Not so Donald Trump.

Not a weary drop of blood pumps through the man’s veins. He wears his thick armor light as skin. His bottomless quiver is never empty.

Fearlessly, President Trump sauntered away from his wife and son into the presence of his enemies. As casually as Clint Eastwood dispatching a horse thief, Mr. Trump laid waste to the media’s carefully choreographed plot to wrest the U.S. Senate away from Republicans and somehow smear the president with an accused child molester.

Would the president throw in with Judge Moore and defend a man accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl he picked up cruising the halls of family court? Would the president place politics above honor and try some wink and a nod? Would Mr. Trump give in and torch Judge Moore so thoroughly as to ensure that Democrats get one seat closer to controlling the Senate after next month’s Alabama election?

No, he wouldn't!  Instead

“I can tell you one thing for sure: We don’t need a liberal person in there, a Democrat — Jones,” Mr. Trump said calmly, referring to Judge Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.

“I’ve looked at his record. It’s terrible on crime, it’s terrible on the border, it’s terrible on the military. I can tell you for a fact, we do not need somebody that’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military, bad for the Second Amendment.”

As a sentient being having read those passages, you would assume that Mr. Hurt would state casually that the brave and bold actually endorsed Roy Moore. You would be wrong:

....The jackals were trying to trick Mr. Trump into getting all hung up on the salacious scandal. He missed the banana peel.Instead, he responded by talking about — ISSUES! Mr. Trump responded by talking about issues Alabama voters care most about. The outrage!....

Note how Mr. Trump did not endorse Judge Moore. He simply refused to endorse Democrat Doug Jones. Because Doug Jones is terrible on crime, the border, the military and the Second Amendment.

Now, that's a guy who knows how to give it to those jackals- he refused to support their candidate, a candidate from the opposite party of his own. Substituting for Steve M on No More Mister Nice Guy blog, Tom Hilton remarks

The most striking thing about this, besides the sheer awfulness of the writing, is the Onion-esque mismatch between rhetoric and subject. I mean, this slobbering paean to imaginary epic heroism is about a guy notable for his cowardice, whose epic battle is defending a guy who sexually assaulted a minor. 

This isn't the first time someone has noticed that Trump has a backbone composed of jelly.  Two months before the presidential election, Peter Beinart explained that the candidate had

begun doing something he previous avoided: talking to blacks and Latinos. Two weeks ago, he met with his Hispanic advisory council. According to media reports, he was “humble” and “conciliatory.” Did he call for deporting the undocumented immigrants already in the U.S., as he has repeatedly promised his overwhelmingly white crowds? Nope. According to Jacob Monty, who attended the meeting, Trump said “deporting them is neither possible nor humane.”

Then, last week, Trump flew to Mexico City to meet President Enrique Peña Nieto. Did he repeat the pledge that brings white crowds to their feet: that Mexico will pay for a wall along the two countries’ border? Nope. Beforehand, the two sides agreed not to discuss the subject. When Peña Nieto brought it up anyway, and announced that Mexico would never foot the bill, did Trump set him straight?

Nope. Rudy Giuliani, who was attending the meeting on Trump’s behalf, reportedly declared the topic “off the table” and The Donald moved on to less controversial subjects.

When Trump appeared publicly with Peña Nieto after their meeting, he again “avoided direct confrontation,” in The Washington Post’s words. He called it a “great, great, honor” to be invited to the country he has repeatedly trashed during the campaign. And he declared that he had “tremendous feelings” for the “tremendous” Mexican American people, a group he famously derided as rapists and drug dealers in his announcement speech.

But once Trump left Mexico and addressed an overwhelmingly white, anti-immigrant crowd that evening in Arizona, the Post noted, he ditched his “subdued and cooperative tone” and “returned to the aggressive tenor that has defined much of his campaign. Repeatedly raising his voice to a yell, he said that ‘anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation.’”

Twelve months prior to Beinart's article, I had written of the meeting between Trump and Javier Palomerez, chairperson of the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Palomerez's interview afterward with Chris Hayes when

Palomerez stated "The Donald Trump that I met today and that I sat with today was very different from the Donald Trump that I saw in the media," Hayes asked "what do you mean by that?" and Palomerez responded

The Donald Trump I sat with today was hospitable, he was a gentleman. He listened much more than he spoke. He asked questions.

We continue to disagree, particularly on the wall. We agreed on this notion of mass deportation of 11 million people. And we continued to agree on the fact that we will not use Trump properties.

Of course he was hospitable, unwilling or unable to confront Palomarez, there representing the "rapists" who are "bringing drugs (and) crime." Moreover, what Beinart understood in September, 2016 about candidate Trump was not limited to immigrants as

The oscillation continued this weekend, when Trump addressed an African American congregation in Detroit. “Trump’s subdued rhetoric,” noted Politico, “was a jarring contrast to his typically boisterous rallies.” The Republican nominee said nothing about Black Lives Matter being responsible for the murder of police, as he had told Bill O’Reilly. He didn’t imply, as he has to white audiences, that African Americans are prone to voter fraud. He said nothing about Barack Obama not being born in the United States. He didn’t repeat his claims that blacks should vote for him because their lives are so miserable that they have nothing “to lose.” Instead, he flattered his audience, calling black churches “the conscience of our country,” which had inspired America “toward a better moral character, a deeper concern for mankind, and spirit of charity and unity that binds us all together.” Trump’s remarks, noted the Post, constituted a “jarring shift in tone and message.”

Twenty-six months later, Slate's Fred Kaplan pointed out that in a joint appearance with mainland Chinese president Xi Jinping

in front of American business leaders, Trump repeated his long-standing charge that U.S.-Chinese trade relations are “very one-sided and unfair,” but, in a new twist, he quickly added, “I don’t blame China. Who can blame a country that is able to take advantage of another country for the benefit of its citizens? I give China great credit.”

Maybe Donald Trump is simply the most politically correct politician in America, frightened when face-to-face with the Red Chinese or minorities, preferring to slam either or both with the safety and  security of distance. Nonetheless, whatever he is, he is no Dirty Harry.








Share |

The Reactions Missing From National Democrats

On February 17, Lauren McCauley of Common Dreams reported that Senator Bernard Sanders had spoken at a rally in Michigan and

said that Flint “may be the worst example of a collapsing infrastructure, but it is not the only example.”

Sanders contrasted those who question the expense of replacing Flint’s damaged pipes and water infrastructure to the “trillions” spent on waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. “When we went to war in Iraq, the trillions we spent there, not a problem,” Sanders said.

Throughout the campaign for the Democratic nomination, Sanders has repeatedly differentiated himself from his opponent Hillary Clinton over their opposing votes on the Iraq War—which she supported and he did not. Both candidates, however, have made the ongoing water crisis in Flint a focus of their campaigns with Clinton visiting the city earlier this month.

And so they have, while GOP candidates for President largely have stayed silent, which was positive given what they would have said.   Sanders (in debate, below) and Clinton responded much more rapidly than did Republicans and have been much more decisive, as well as wiser in their assessment of the situation.








But their responses have been inadequate- and disappointing in the case of Sanders, the "democratic socialist," from whom much more should have been expected. Fortunately, we now know what we should have heard. At the hearing held by the House Government Oversight Committee on Thursday, Representative William Clay (D-MO.) observed (hat tip to Eclectablog)

You know, I have to hand it to my Republican colleagues. They are actually making their argument with a straight face. And, you know, just to be clear, Republicans here today are claiming that the EPA – the Obama EPA – should have been more aggressive in stepping in and seizing control and overruling the Republican-controlled state of Michigan. They are just outraged that the EPA wasn’t more assertive with Michigan and didn’t immediately go public with their complaints about the state’s failure to follow the law. Ms. McCarthy, the irony is almost overwhelming, isn’t it? Republicans have been absolutely slamming the EPA for overreaching at every possible turn. Now they criticize the EPA for not doing more when Gov. Snyder fell down on the job.

Let’s go through some of these ridiculous government statements.

Donald Trump has called for entirely eliminating the EPA and handing power over to the states. He said this, and I quote, “Environmental protection, we waste all of this money. We’re going to bring this back to the states. […]

Another Republican candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, agrees with Mr. Trump. He said this, and I quote, “I think states should press back using every tool they have available. […]

Marco Rubio, now a former Republican candidate, has vowed to scale back the Clean Water Act. He said this: “Regulations in this country are out of control, especially the ‘Employment Prevention Agency’, the EPA.” […]

Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa said this: “Let’s shut down the federal EPA and focus on those issues where, here in the state, the state knows best how to protect resources.” […]

Obviously the state of Michigan did not know best in this case. They poisoned thousands of their own people. […]

House Republicans, including some in this room, have voted at every turn to gut the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the list goes on.

That is a healthy dose of partisanship, needed and enlightening, which has not been heard from anyone named Clinton, Sanders, Obama, or Carter.  Neither has any of those individuals drawn the obvious cause and effect, explained by Charlie Pierce as

Regardless of who sent what memo to whom and when they sent it, the crisis in Flint is the result of a full implementation and exercise of a philosophy of government that noisy pissants like Chaffetz, Grothman, Carter, and Rick Snyder have proposed as a solution to almost all the nation's problems—government is bad, government bureaucrats are always incompetent, devolve federal powers to the states, and that government is best that is limited and, preferably, run like a business.

We haven't gotten anything like either remark from the Democrats running for President. Of course, neither has it been uttered from the former, living "Democratic" presidents- Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter nor the current one. Perhaps with a few breaks, and the realization of  the populist mood in the land, the next President- if a Democrat- will talk the talk and walk the walk (or at least avoid such bad cliches).  Hope springs eternal.










Share |

GOP Tax Myths, As Usual

It's a litmus test for Republicans: Thou must support lower tax rates for the rich. Republicans may disagree on abortion, gay rights, foreign policy, or even Social Security- but they must support tax cuts across the board, which produce greater gains for the wealthy than for the middle class.

So it was no surprise that on Friday Rush Limbaugh would claim

But we all know this. You go to the Reagan years. Reagan reduced tax rates from 70% to 28%, and the revenue to the Treasury doubled from about 500 billion to almost a trillion dollars over eight years. The capital gains reduction to 15% caused more revenue to roll into the Treasury during Bush.

Let's go to a May, 2008 report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years. (http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm)

Revenue, then, increased during the Reagan presidency- but at a slower rate than during the Clinton presidency, when taxes were raised. And lowering the capital gains tax rate reduces overall revenue. In fact, the average annual growth in the gross domestic product was higher in the Clinton years than during the Reagan years, when it was the same as during the Carter presidency. Further, it was lower during the presidency of George W. Bush than during any of those administrations. The role of the Reagan and Bush 43 tax cuts in exploding the deficit is simply inarguable and would concern conservative Republicans if their outrage over the national debt were not feigned.

Limbaugh said also:

Now, remember we've been told for the last year and a half (well, actually 2-1/2 years when you count the 2008 campaign) that the reason we are in the dire economic straits that we're in is because of the Bush tax cuts, and Obama and Biden say, "We can't go back! These are the guys, we gave 'em the keys to the car, they drove it in the ditch. We're not going back. Those Bush tax cuts created all these problems."

Democrats do point out that the Bushies "drove the car into the ditch." But of course they do not claim "those Bush tax cuts created all these problems." Democrats recognize the destructive role of deregulation and its primary role in creating the economic catastrophe we're beginning to climb out of. Rush actually was telling the truth until he slipped in a lie at the end.

Rush Limbaugh may (did) hire a prominent gay entertainer for his fourth wedding, but he still wallows in economic fantasy.

Share|

Sifting Through Race- Jimmy Carter On Racism (Or Not), Part 3

At first read, it's somewhat of a case of dueling columns. Pulitzer Prize-winning Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post in "The Favor Jimmy Carter Did Us All" on September 18 writes

....there's a particularly nasty edge to the most vitriolic attacks -- a rejection not of Obama's programs but of his legitimacy as president. This denial of legitimacy is more pernicious than the abuse heaped upon George W. Bush by his critics (including me), and I can't find any explanation for it other than race.

I'm not talking about the majority of the citizens who went to town hall meetings to criticize Obama's plans for health-care reform or the majority of the "tea bag" demonstrators who complain that Obama is ushering in an era of big government. Those are, of course, legitimate points of view. Protest is part of our system. It's as American as apple pie.

I'm talking about the crazy "birthers." I'm talking about the nitwits who arrive at protest rallies bearing racially offensive caricatures -- Obama as a witch doctor, for example. I'm talking about the idiots who toss around words like "socialism" to make Obama seem alien and even dangerous -- who deny the fact that he, too, is as American as apple pie.

This whole discussion was kicked off by Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst during Obama's address to a joint session of Congress. As the House members who voted to rebuke Wilson -- including seven fellow Republicans -- understand, calling the head of state a liar in such an official setting is way out of bounds. Grumbling and even booing come with the territory, but a flat accusation of mendacity is an impermissible sign of disrespect. Nobody ever called Bush a liar when he was speaking in the House chamber.

Why would Wilson think he was entitled to insult the president this way? Why would he refuse to offer a formal apology on the House floor, which would have ended the matter? I have no idea. Friends and colleagues say he is no racist, and they know the man a lot better than I do. But he does have a history.

Though not denying the role of race, in salon.com on September 17 Gene Lyons emphasizes economic insecurity and historic animus toward national Democrats. In "Obama gets the Clinton treatment," he deemphasizes the impact of race, explaining

From a political standpoint, the worst thing about blaming President Obama's perceived difficulties on racism is that there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. Determined bigots can't be shamed, while many see invoking race as more an excuse than an explanation.
Democrats who cry racism risk looking like whiners fearful they're losing the argument....

Criticizing Colbert I. King of The Washington Post and referring to the proprietor of dailyhowler.com, Lyons notes

So where was King when Bill and Hillary Clinton were accused of murder by Rush Limbaugh and in videotapes peddled by the Rev. Jerry Falwell? The latter's sanctimonious mug nevertheless continued to appear constantly on network TV talk shows as an honored representative of America's devout Christians....

How about when Democratic nominee Al Gore was depicted as a fraud and serial liar through the use of phony allegations ("invented the Internet") and manufactured quotes on the front page of, yes, the Washington Post? Where was King then? Studiously polishing his fingernails, evidently.

The same is true of establishment pundits such as the New York Times' Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, who participated gleefully in sliming the previous several Democratic candidates. (Dowd and Rich invented the myth that Gore falsely claimed to be the inspiration for the novel and movie "Love Story.") So now they don the shining armor of multiculti(sic) liberalism? Please.

"King and the rest of his cohorts drank the Kool-Aid during (the 90s)," writes Somerby. "Now, they pretend that the era never occurred -- and they express their vast surprise when the same lunacy is aimed at Obama. They are amazed to see what's being said about this new Democratic president. And they diddle their cowardly brains: It must be his race, they proclaim."

But in a more fundamental sense, Robinson and Lyons both view things similarly, and accurately. While the former salutes the former president for raising the issue of race, the latter notes "Rep. Joe Wilson's, R-S.C., rude outburst during the president's speech to Congress.... along with his longtime support for flying the Rebel flag over South Carolina's capitol," and the futility of Democratic presidential nominees in the old confederacy.

And how has the conservative community responded? Not whether whether prominent Repubs or conservatives agree with Carter that race is the biggest factor in the most extreme attacks upon Obama (they apparently don't)- Carter probably was wrong and, anyway, it's never wise political strategy to label your base as racists.

But another theme has been developing. A few conservatives, including the African-American Derrell Bradford, and the second-generation Jamaican-American Michelle Bernard, have been vigorously trying to rewrite history. They claim, as Bernard put it, "White people put Barack Obama into office."

Uh, no. According to exit polls, among non-Hispanic whites, John McCain garnered 55% of the vote last November, Barack Obama only 33%- a bulge of 12%. If only white votes were counted, John McCain would have shellacked Barack Obama, both in the popular vote and in the electoral vote. John McCain would have been President, and Sarah Palin, Vice-President. And this is what individuals in exit polls reported. Human nature (learned, in this case) not having been abolished, whites still like to say they voted for the black candidate, especially in an election termed "historic."

But there is method behind the madness- no, behind the dishonesty. They are saying (albeit fallaciously), if a majority of Caucasians voted for the black candidate, well, the election put race behind us. And if it, if we have transcended race, why are Jimmy Carter and all those mean liberals bringing it up? Surely, the critics of the Democratic Party are right!

But in the midst of a serious recession, a very unpopular war, and a nominee who couldn't get out of his own way, Barack Obama, the nominee of the nation's majority party, won 43% of the white vote. So the real question is not, or should not be, whether former President Carter or his GOP critics are right- the truth lies somewhere in between the two extreme positions. It is a matter of passing, of transient concern, and as Robinson and probably Lyons both understand, one that should be secondary to the largely unexamined impact of race in American politics.

Jimmy Carter On Racism, Part 2: Matthews Gets It Right- Exactly

Former President James Earl Carter famously, or infamously, told NBC's Brian Williams on Tuesday

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American....

He less famously remarked

And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.

Not just in the South but around the country. If you're a politician, better not to question that part. No way does an office holder or someone seeking office single out a particular section of the country for disapprobation. While liberal/progressive voters are likely to believe racism is pervasive, conservative voters would probably sympathize with a section of the country being labeled with the "r" word (whether or not it is used). Moral equivalence is far safer, politically.

But Chris Matthews is no politician and, whatever he may be, he's not typical. So he nailed it on Wednesday evening. First citing a poll asking voters whether they believe the President was born in this country, not born in this country, or unsure, he noted

All right. It is the Daily—I‘m not sure it‘s a good poll, but it‘s a poll. A majority of them aren‘t sure or are sure he‘s not from here. In other words, a minority of Southerners, white Southerners, think he‘s from America, the president.

Next, referring to the traditional understanding of the difference between anti-black sentiment among northerners (not only Philadelphians) and that among southerners, Matthews described

Growing up, I always thought the Northern white prejudice was, We don‘t want a black person living next door. In fact, a guy who was working, friend of mine, I got to know him—was working for Barack Obama in the campaign. He said when he went around northeast Philly, the biggest fear was not that Carter would—or that Obama would be elected president, but that he was looking for a house, OK?

Finally, the MSNBC host takes a look at last November's presidential election results and reminds us of the genesis of the Southern Strategy:

But let‘s take a look at these exit polls from the last election, last November. This isn‘t 100 years ago. This isn‘t during Jim Crow. This is last November. Ten percent of white voters in Alabama said they voted for Barack Obama -- 10 percent, 1 in 10. Eleven percent of white voters in Mississippi voted for him, about 1 in 10. Louisiana, up to about 14 percent.

Now, the national percentage is about 43 percent of whites voted for Barack Obama. So there is a geographic differential. In all fairness to the region of the South—and I went to Chapel Hill, which is not exactly, well, conservative, North Carolina, University of North Carolina—the—it is generally a conservative part of the country. But it also became a conservative part of the country in terms of racial issues and all—became a Republican part of the country after Civil Rights legislation....

So the idea that Barack Obama gets 10 percent of the white vote in Alabama, 11 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, 14 Louisiana, and the rest of the country, he gets 43 percent, doesn‘t that tell you? And by the way, this birther nonsense, that he wasn‘t born here...

Matthews has a tendency to say whatever pops into his head. Sometimes, therefore, he says something outrageous or ludicrous. Still, it's all worth it, with the periodic bursts of insight most others have never thought of and, if they have, are too cautious to admit. Charging Americans with racial prejudice is serious. If the bigotry applies disproportionately to the South- and the rest of the country is lumped in- the rest the country is being smeared with an unfair and inaccurate charge.

Jimmy Carter On Racism, Part 1

I suppose I'm missing the point here of the remarks of former President Jimmy Carter when he was interviewed by NBC's Brian Williams for the network's September 15 newscast. But Carter should have been queried further, given his remarks (video below):

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans....

And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.

Consider the former president's remark "I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans...."

Does this mean that a) the rest of the country previously shared the south's attitude toward blacks (good, given that the south has become more tolerant) or b) the rest of the country ("I've seen" not "I saw") still shares the south's attitude toward blacks? And is this bad (racism present "not just in the South, but around the country")- or good, considering he has "seen the South come a long way?"

Also: what is "an overwhelming portion?" Is this the same thing someone who wanted to be clear would have termed "the overwhelming portion?" Or does it mean "a lot?"

For those individuals who welcome controversy; or think that Carter has courageously spoken That Which Goes Unadmitted; or believe him a white-hating racist himself, Carter meant "most." But that's not what he said (though probably is what he meant) and it's not a mere matter of semantics. Not when the obvious, albeit easy, answer is: racism (well, not racism, but bigotry, but that's an argument for another day) is involved but is not the whole story.




Coming up, on Carter II (assuming availability of transcript): Chris Matthews gets it right.

Bob Dole's Fantasy

Jonathan Martin of Politico.com reports an e-mail sent on May 29, 2008 by former Senator (R.-Ks.) and Repub presidential candidate Bob Dole. I repeat these excerpts from the message (confirmed by Dole spokesman Michael Marshall) because they are so entertaining:


There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years.

(I won't read your book) "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job.

That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You’re a hot ticket now but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"


Having no degree or professional experience in abnormal psychology, I can't comment much on the nature of the man behind these attacks. But the issue raised by Dole and others- why didn't he resign?- does remind me of one Cyrus Vance.

Cyrus Vance became President Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State in 1977. He resigned in a letter written to President Carter on April 21, 1980 in protest of the upcoming Operation Eagle Claw. On April 24, 1980 this secret military mission was undertaken to rescue the 53 American hostages held in Tehran, Iran. Eight U.S. servicemen and one Iranian civilian died in the failed venture, which contributed to Carter's defeat by Ronald Wilson Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. The resignation was announced on April 28, 1980.

Wilkipedia's entry for Operation Eagle Claw does not mention Mr. Vance, nor do most Americans remember him. He is little remembered, and less so commemorated, despite- or perhaps because- he had the integrity to resign when he strongly disagreed with a policy decision made by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

So when the Bush Administration apologists, sycophants, and hacks castigate Scott McClellan for failing to "quit your cushy, high profile job" (as if they ever would consider such a courageous act), please remember Cyrus Vance. Someone has to.