Responding To Death By Demography

Patrick J. Buchanan sounded the alarm when in late July he wrote

Race, age and ethnicity are at the heart of the problem. And they portend not only the party’s death in California, but perhaps its destiny in the rest of America.

Consider. Almost 90 percent of all Republican voters in presidential elections are white. Almost 90 percent are Christians. But whites fell to 74 percent of the electorate in 2008 and were only 64 percent of the population. Christians are down to 75 percent of the population from 85 in 1990. The falloff continues and is greatest among the young.

Consider ethnicity. Hispanics were 15 percent of the U.S. population in 2008 and 7.4 percent of the electorate. Both percentages will inexorably rise...

Of the seven mega-states, California, New York and Illinois appear lost to the GOP. Pennsylvania has not gone Republican since 1988. Ohio and Florida, both crucial, are now swing states. Whites have become a minority in Texas. When Texas goes, America goes.

This year could be the last hurrah...

If your racial and ethnic voter base is aging, shrinking and dying, your moral code is being rejected, and the tax-consuming class has been allowed to grow to equal or to dwarf the taxpaying class, the Grand Old Party has a problem.

Buchanan followed that with "but so does the country."   Without the ethnic or class animus, CNN's Fareed Zakaria recognizes

a demographic problem for the Republicans. They are alienating too many large groups to be viable - at least in the long run. A recent Pew poll shows Obama with an 18-point advantage over Mitt Romney with women because of the recent discussions about contraception and abortion.  Polls show Latinos supporting President Obama 6-to-1 over Mitt Romney. African Americans poll something like 9-to-1 in Obama’s favor.

Seemingly panicked, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) summarized "The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

What's a party to do?     It could have (warning: awful cliche ahead) "doubled down," but that would have risked the opprobrium of the media, generally sympathetic to the plight of ethnic minorities, especially immigrants.   The GOP might have increased its appeal to minorities, but would risk its overwhelming support among men and with married women with children. The Party might have chosen to ignore the issue and hoped it went away, but with Obama ordering Dream Act Lite (and himself being black), it wasn't going to disappear.

No, the problem needed to be addressed.   And so it has.  In state after state, as noted by Timothy Noah, voter suppression efforts are underway, whether by targeting non-profit groups which conduct voter registration drives, shortening polling hours, automated phone calls discouraging registered voters from going to the polls, or requiring voter identification.

The latter, of course, has proven to be the suppression tactic of choice of Pennsylvania's GOP.    A Republican Commonwealth Court judge last month denied a preliminary injunction against the state, even after it stipulated that there have been no investigations or prosecution of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania, it is unaware of any incidents of such fraud anywhere in the U.S.A., and it would offer no evidence that any in-person voter fraud would be prevented by the new photo ID law.

The law is ineffective in combating a problem which doesn't exist, with ten cases (eleven, including Mitt Romney) of in-person voter fraud in the U.S.A. since 2000.    But in the Keystone State, as elsewhere, GOP officials have had to confront the demographic time bomb.  And if they're unable or unwilling to modify their tone or wish the issue away, and if going after the rights of blacks, women, immigrants, students, or the disabled is just too risky, there is only one option available.   And they've taken it.



Share |

Don't Appeal; Suppress!

When Patrick J. Buchanan was unceremoniously dumped from MSNBC several months ago, he was not amused.    He has been, understandably, waiting anxiously for the opportunity to spring an "I told you so" moment on the network.

That time has arrived.     He explains   

Among the more controversial chapters in "Suicide of a Superpower," my book published last fall, was the one titled, "The End of White America."

It dealt with the demographic decline of the white majority and what it portends for education, the U.S. economy, politics and national unity.

That book and chapter proved the proximate cause of my departure from MSNBC, where the network president declared that subjects such as these are inappropriate for "the national dialogue."

Apparently, the mainstream media are reassessing that.

For, in rare unanimity, The New York Times, The Washington Post and USA Today all led yesterday with the same story.

"Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.," blared the Times headline. "Minority Babies Majority in U.S.," echoed the Post. "Minorities Are Now a Majority of Births," proclaimed USA Today.

The USA Today story continued, "The nation's growing diversity has huge implications for education, economics and politics."

Buchanan argues as many liberal/progressive bloggers and mainstream journalists have argued, that these demographic trends spell almost inevitable doom for the GOP.      He maintains

The Democratic base is growing inexorably, while the Republican base is shriveling.

Already, California, Illinois and New York are lost. The GOP has not carried any of the three in five presidential elections. When Texas -- where whites are a minority and a declining share of the population -- tips, how does the GOP put together an electoral majority?

Western states like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona, which Republican nominees like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan swept almost every time they ran, are becoming problematic for the party.

Fret not, Pat.    Your party is one step ahead of you.     The Huffington Post's Janell Ross notes 

Less than two months after a Florida effort to identify and purge ineligible voters from the state's rolls began, opponents say it seems likely to disqualify a disproportionate share of eligible Latino voters.

About 180,000 people -- a group roughly equal to the population of Tallahassee, Fla. -- are at risk of being purged from the state's voter rolls because they have been identified as possible noncitizens, the Miami Herald reported. Looking at a smaller sample of 2,600 suspect voters initially identified by the state, the newspaper found about 59 percent to be Latino. Hispanic voters constitute just 13 percent of the state's electorate, according to federal data.

Florida often grabs national attention because it's home to 11.3 million voters and wields 29 Electoral College votes. But Republican secretaries of state elsewhere, including Colorado and New Mexico, have also launched aggressive efforts to identify noncitizens on their voter rolls. Critics contend that many of these purges have relied on questionable methods and allow public officials to make inaccurate claims about the number of ineligible people who have actually obtained and used voting credentials.

The purges have significant legal and political resonance. Black and Latino voters have historically seen their right to vote restricted by law and by practice, making an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, a century later, the 1965 Voting Rights Act necessary. Some states and counties, including five in Florida, remain subject to detailed federal oversight of their electoral systems.

Voters of color are also more likely to be registered Democrats. So voter roll purges that call into question the eligibility of large numbers of minority voters are generally thought to be helpful to Republican candidates.

The growing Hispanic population of Florida is now less than half of Cuban descent, with only 540,000 of 1.5 million Latino voters being Cuban-American.      That community itself is no longer overwhelmingly Republican, with the individuals born in the U.S.A. far more amenable to voting Democratic than those born in Cuba.    The ranks of Puerto Ricans, more likely to vote Democratic than Republican even in Florida, are growing in the state.    In 2000, Barack Obama captured 57% of Florida's Hispanic vote, no longer reliably Republican with the growth of the Puerto Rican population and attrition of Cuban-Americans born on the island.

It's not as if Republican Secretaries of State are virgins at purging voter rolls of likely Democrats.    Why, even a presidential election can be won by doing so and, not coincidentally, it has been done in Florida.    Sourcewatch.org reminds us

Prior to the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and Governor Jeb Bush hired Database Technologies to purge voters whose names mathced or were similar to those of ex-felons, which resulted in the removal of 82,389 voters from the rolls. An investigation by Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho revealed that 95% of those purged in his county were, in fact, legally entitled to vote. Greg Palast of the BBC found that more than half those wrongly purged were African-Americans, even though African-Americans represent only about 11% of the electorate and that the purge list contained almost no Hispanics, notwithstanding Florida’s sizable Hispanic population. (In Florida, Hispanics largely vote Republican, and African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

Buchanan concludes by asking "But how does the GOP appeal to them (Hispanic voters)?" The Repub Party may not need to "appeal" to Hispanic voters.    Keeping Hispanics from voting may be more important, as Republicans work overtime suppressing the votes of elderly people, college students, and minorities.

Share |

Shut Him Up!

Color of Change wants you to petition MSNBC "to demand that you fire Pat Buchanan immediately." It argues "Pat Buchanan has the right to express his views, but he's not entitled to a platform that lets him broadcast bigotry and hate to millions."

Neither Pat Buchanan or anyone else has a First Amendment right to a platform on MSNBC, though the concession that someone we disagree with may express his views, but not in a public forum, is no prescription for a vigorous political debate or dynamic democracy.

Linking to the plea of Color of Change (and that in turn to its petition) for immediate dismissal of Buchanan, Nicole Belle argues that MSNBC has ended its relationship with Markos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, and David Shuster while continuing to offer Buchanan's punditry "despite a rather bewildering portfolio of racist, sexist and just plain hateful statements."

Buchanan long has held an unfortunate preference for white, Christian (preferably Roman Catholic) males, though neither Belle nor Color of Change, tellingly, wastes much time identifying their target's bias against women and finds it unnecessary to charge him with anti-Semitism. Color of Change does, however, accuse Buchanan of believing "people of color" (presumably, blacks, though the vagueness may be strategic) are genetically inferior to Caucasians. One wonders: are hIspanics and Asians "people of color?" And would they answer to the label?

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that constructive debate in a democratic republic presupposes that individuals with noxious views not be fired or intimidated, but confronted by arguments demolishing their own. Ironically, Belle, besides citing Moulitsas, Olbermann, and Shuster, knocks MSNBC also for terminating Cenk Uygur "for being too tough on Republicans."

Well, yes, Uygur- graduate of Columbia Law, Wharton, and the finest high school in the U.S.A.- was very tough on Republicans. Uygur, who holds a law degree and had some journalistic experience before being hired by MSNBC, was not reluctant to call the President out when facts warranted. By contrast, Sharpton's professional qualifications were meager and, an informal adviser to the President, Sharpton has become Obama's toady.

Further, Sharpton has been prone to anti-white, anti-Korean (people of color?), and anti-Semitic behavior- not in the recent past but, unlike in the case of Buchanan, behavior and not mere analysis or advocacy. More recently, during the previous presidential election cycle, Reverend Sharpton exhibited regrettable anti-Mormon prejudice, though apparently he does not regret it.

Thankfully, and properly, the right has not called for Al Sharpton's dismissal from MSNBC. The left, for its part, should resist the temptation to meet intolerance with intolerance.

Share|

Abandonment Of Country

Salon's Joan Walsh offers a critique of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” by Pat Buchanan, with whom she periodically clashes on MSNBC. Buchanan, as one would expect, attributes an increase in blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews and a declining birth rate among whites to what he believes is a precipitous decline of the United States of America.

Buchanan's preference for Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants of the Caucasian variety, coupled with discomfiture at a multi-ethnic society, is of long-standing. Nor is it especially significant- though rather ironic- that an American conservative who loathes "political correctness" and embraces the nation's European origins would be so pessimistic about the survival of Europe, which he slams for its influx of Muslims, decline of Catholicism (which he conflates with Christianity), and acceptance of abortion. (This is Pat Buchanan, remember.)

Significantly, though, Walsh notes "It’s Buchanan and his Tea Party friends who’ve given up on the idea of America." She explains

I can’t imagine giving up on my country, my party and even my religion, just because the people who had come to share it didn’t quite look like me. I take this book seriously because I owe a certain debt to Pat Buchanan. Doing television with this infamous Irish Catholic conservative, I began to reflect seriously for the first time on the vision of America I grew up with. It was handed to me by my parents, working-class Irish Catholics who believed in e pluribus unum – that those words made their inclusion possible, and they would stretch forward to make sure the civil rights movement accomplished its goals, too.

They took seriously the promise of America – that a nation composed of the world’s cultures and religions could be stronger than the sum of its parts, indivisible – and so do I. Pat Buchanan doesn’t.

Buchanan, writing unashamedly of "the back of the bus" and high abortion rates among Jewish women (this is Pat Buchanan, remember), is merely more forthright than most on the right. But the strong inference that America has been taken over by other sorts of people (to Pat Buchanan, racial or ethnic upstarts; to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, middle- and lower- income people) is endemic to modern-day conservatism.

The tea party brought this sense of paranoia to the fore. However, it is one seemingly embraced by other Republicans, favorites of the tea party or not. There is a parallel to Herman Cain's new ad (video, below) now famous for its depiction of chief of staff Mark Bloch taking a puff on a cigarette, followed by a glowing smile from the candidate. (That is another issue for another time; or maybe not.) At the close of the ad, Bloch states "Together, we can do this. We can take America back."

Take America back. From whom? Where did it go? And when did it go there?

Presumably, the message is: those mean old liberals hijacked our country. Now we're going to yank it away and exile them to purgatory, or worse.

But who decreed that conservatives were no longer a part of the nation now that they're out of power- or, rather, no longer run the whole show? Certainly not liberals or Democrats, who do not suggest that the U.S.A. belongs only to one group. But conservatives demand total control- they are the rightful heirs of the land handed down to them by the Founding Fathers.... with no death tax, of course. And if they can't control it, they'll pronounce it alien until they can "take America back."

Contrast this with the message of Occupy Wall Street: we are the 99%. We're in this together- even the remaining 1%, as long as they play by the rules which the rest of us do. It is a message, as Walsh puts it, of e pluribus unum- out of many, one. And it is an inclusive message intrinsic to this nation's character, even if abhorrent to today's right wing.

Share|

Share|

Iran Defies Buchanan

File this one under: I couldn't make this up if I tried.

Our conservative pundit, more trusting of Tehran than Jerusalem, wrote in Tell Israel: Cool the Jets! on July 31, 2009:

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who is wired into the cabinet of "Bibi" Netanyahu, warns that if Iran's nuclear program is not aborted by December, Israel will strike to obliterate it....

America's policy of patience is working....

Why does Israel insist that America has only five months to halt Iran's nuclear program, or Israel must attack?....

Now, Iran's nuclear "production facilities" may be "churning" out the low-enriched uranium of which it has produced enough for one test bomb.

But IAEA inspectors still have their eyes on this pile. None of the LEU has been diverted anywhere.

There is no evidence Iran has built the cascade to raise LEU to highly enriched weapons-grade uranium, or that the facilities even exist to do this. The Iranian regime has declared it has no intention of building nuclear weapons, indeed, that their possession would be a violation of Koranic law.

And the United States has not rescinded its own National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that Iran, in 2003, abandoned its weapons program.

Israel has been saying for years an Iranian bomb is months away.

Where is the proof? Where is the evidence to justify a new U.S. war in the Middle East to destroy weapons of mass destruction that may not exist in Iran, as they did not exist in Iraq?

That's right. Iran does not want to build nuclear weapons- they said so themselves. And now the news that Patrick J. Buchanan figured he would never read:

The leaders of the United States, France and Britain announced Friday morning they have disclosed intelligence information to the IAEA that confirms an underground nuclear facility has been built into the side of a mountain near Qum and demanded an in-depth investigation.

Iran's decision to start building the nuclear facility years ago, without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the non-proliferation regime, U.S. President Barack Obama said Friday at the G20 meetings....

Iran did not disclose existence of the facility, 160 kilometres southwest of Tehran, to the IAEA until Monday after Tehran reportedly became aware that Western intelligence had already discovered it.

The size and configuration of the facility is inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear program and the IAEA must immediately investigate it, Obama said....

Iran's letter contains no details about the facility's location, whether operations have started or what type of centrifuges it will use, according to the IAEA.

Iranian officials had previously acknowledged having only one enrichment plant — which is under IAEA monitoring — and had denied allegations of undeclared nuclear activities.

A U.S. official who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity said the facility has 3,000 centrifuges that could be operational by next year.

Given that 3,000 centrifuges is not enough to produce nuclear fuel to power a reactor but is enough to produce material used for a nuclear bomb, it is clear that Tehran's intentions are malevolent.

Darn those paranoid Israelis!

Also on July 31, Mr. Buchanan assured his readers "And when one looks to U.S. and Iranian interests, they coincide as much as they conflict." Someone must alert President Obama, who on Friday declared "Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they will have to make a choice," one of which is to “continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation.”

The newly-revealed facility near Qom is not expected to be operational for approximately a year and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015 (inclusive, I presume) holds. Today, though, Iran ominously tested a long-range missile, which could reach Russia, Israel, and U.S. bases in the Gulf. Even before the latest threat, the warning issued by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at the United Nations on Thursday was self-evident: "The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

It's not only the former Nixon speechwriter, though his constant attacks on Israel, and occasionally on Jews, harkens back to the 1991 statement of the late William F. Buckley Jr. regarding Buchanan's criticism of prominent supporters of Gulf War I. The National Review publisher wrote in his publication "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament."

There have been, recently and over the years, plenty of individuals on the left- especially bloggers- reflexively hostile to Israel (and especially to Netanyahu), including the ever-consistent and misguided Juan Cole. Even now, as one administration official told The New York Times, the Iranians "have cheated three times. And they have now been caught three times,” these critics have at least one thing in common with Pat Buchanan: they were wrong- about Israel and about Benjamin Netanyahu. And another thing: they won't admit it.

Health Care Without A Public Option

Of all the things we can disagree with Pat Buchanan with, this might seem minor. Still, Buchanan's opinion about the strategy of Democrats toward health care reform is characteristic of that of the mainstream media. On Hardball on Monday, August 17 Buchanan asked "how liberal Democrats," faced with the loss of a public option,

are going to vote against something like that, which does 60 percent of what they want done. How can you vote against this?

Why would someone oppose a bil which "does 60 percent of what they want done?"

Hopefully, you're tired, even aggravated, at sports analogies. So here is another one:

The offensive coordinator of the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers, Bruce Arians, calls for a long pass from quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to Santonio Holmes, Super Bowl MVP. The offensive line does its job marvelously, keeping a great Indianapolis Colts pass rush from getting close to the quarterback. Holmes runs a great pattern, somehow getting ten yards of separation between himself and the Colts' cornerback. And then Roethlisberger's pass falls.... ten yards short.

Theoretically, it was the right call in the situation, the Colts' defense sufficiently surprised that little pass rush was mounted and the lone defender (Holmes would have been double-teamed if the defense expected the ball to go that way) not getting near the receiver. The receiver got open, way open, making him an easy target for the quarterback. Several things were done right.... except that the quarterback made a bad pass, which thereupon was intercepted. The offense got almost everything it wanted- and the play severely backfired.

Sixty percent? The offense got more than sixty percent what it wanted, and it would have been better off doing almost anything else.

Now consider health care reform those in the know believe the left should roll over and accept. Mandatory health coverage- check. No discrimination against anyone with a pre-existing health condition- check. But a public option, being very controversial, is dropped. What do we have?

A vastly increased demand, probably around 40 million souls, would be covered by health care. Individuals with a pre-existing health condition now would gain health insurance. Pretty good so far.

These people would be very expensive to insure, which is why health insurance companies assiduously avoid them now. But under the reform plan which Buchanan, and so many others inside the Beltway, believe liberals should be thankful for, they would be covered. By health insurance companies which would pass some of the individual cost off on the relatively healthy segment of the population. (Otherwise, those with the pre-existing condition likely could not afford the coverage; hence, contrary to law, would not be covered.) And there are a lot more people the private companies get to insure. Vastly increased demand in a health insurance market with little competition in any one geographical area. Demand up, supply flat. You know the rest.

Load up on those health insurance stocks!

Here's.... Barack!

It hurts to write this, but Rush Limbaugh got it right, sort of. Criticizing on Friday's (3/20/09) program President Obama's decision to go on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Limbaugh contended

What I really fear is that we have a culture in this country now that thinks this is what a president ought to do. I think we have a culture in this country that thinks that is cool, that finally the president is just like a real guy going on all these television shows like every other celebrity does, like every other pop culture icon does. So whereas you and I of a certain age and a certain generation have certain expectations and standards about what is presidential, it's changed with a lot of people. A lot of people think this is really neat and a lot of people think this is real cool. They don't care what Obama says. The fact that he went on the program shows that he's also a new president. He's in touch with us. He goes places that we watch....

Limbaugh is right about this- but as Lawrence O'Donnell (at approximately 2:00 of the video) implied on Friday's (3/20/09) Hardball (video below), this all began with Richard Nixon on Rowan and Martin's Laugh In in October, 1968, when he exclaimed (video way below) "Sock it to me." Prior to Nixon's appearance shortly before he was elected President of the United States, U.S. Presidents and those who would aspire to the office consistently displayed dignity. (And candidate Humphrey, classy to the end, declined an invitation to appear on the program.) When Matthews referred to Nixon- whom a young Patrick J. Buchanan served as speechwriter- Buchanan remarked that he had opposed his boss' appearance.

The ironic, thing, of course, is that Barack H. Obama was not elected President because voters related to him, believed he was "in touch with us," or even liked him. Rather, he was viewed as an extraordinarily intelligent, eloquent, and able individual- having risen to the brink (as of then) of the presidency after overcoming a difficult upbringing and minority status in a nation which had elected only white males to the office. In a time of economic turmoil, Obama was the picture of calm. Now, though still calm, Obama is something else, or so he appears-"blase," to Buchanan.

Buchanan concedes that it's not a "lack of respect for the office" but "too much familiarity." There is a reason, as Buchanan (who argues that Obama "is bringing himself down to the level of campaigner again") understands, that politicians do this sort of thing. It humanizes them, insinuating into voters the idea, the feeling, that the candidate (or office holder) is one of them, not a member of the elite who doesn't understand their problems. But as Buchanan (and Matthews, who nevertheless appreciated Obama's appearance) understand, President Obama's style probably doesn't suit the gravity of the moment.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Of Holder And Obama

Patrick J. Buchanan, practically ubiquitous on MSNBC, appeared on Hardball Thursday in debate with Michael Eric Dyson about Attorney General Eric Holder's remarks Wednesday to Justice Department employees on to mark African American History Month.

Not surprisingly, but accurately nonetheless, the passionately culturally conservative Buchanan argued that referring to Americans as "essentially a nation of cowards" is not conducive to starting a dialogue about race.

Fair enough, but also fair enough to note that Holder's remark as applied to the reticence of Americans to discuss the issue with people of another race is largely valid. The Attorney General deserves credit also for observing "there can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited." Unfortunately, a moment later Holder would refer to officials, "black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced- a somewhat cryptic reference to those who would promote "divisive," AKA conservative, solutions.

But then Holder ventured into the arena of political incorrectness, ripping the security net America has erected by establishment of "black history" apart from American history. Without resort to awkward metaphor, he explains it better:

For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called "real" American history.

Still, the main thrust of Holder's remarks (and especially as captured by the mainstream media) is the need for honest communication among Americans of all races about race. And it's not going to happen.

For many years, numerous individuals on the left, such as former New Jersey Senator and presidential aspirant Bill Bradley, have argued for the need for racial dialogue in this country. It has not happened, and will not happen until the right is convinced the left is sincere and open to all opinions on the subject- and maybe not even then. Ironically- but predictably- the election of the nation's first black )or African-American, or biracial) President will not facilitate such a discussion, and may even inhibit it. In his generally wrongheaded monologue today regarding Holder's remarks, Rush Limbaugh reminded his audience that

A number of you people called here, and some of you said, "It's an interesting thing, Rush, I mean if we elect Obama, can't we say the country is no longer racist?"

Similarly, on January 2, 2007, Steve Sailer, a columnist for American Conservative magazine, blogged

So, many whites want to be able to say, "I'm not one of them, those bad whites, like that guy on Seinfeld. Hey, I voted for a black guy for President!"

Plus, I suspect there's an even more hidden reason many whites wish Obama is elected President: They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn't the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama—and their problems will be over!

In what is only one example, the day after the presidential election, the Wall Street Journal reported on a conversation between a husband and wife (Democrats who decided, reluctantly and at the last minute, to vote for Obama):

Look at all the power people they have,” Mrs. Kluchar added. “Oprah, Colin Powell, Obama. What’s that woman who works for Bush?”

“Condoleezza Rice,” Mr. Kluchar said.

“Right, Condoleezza Rice. I think it’s proof that there are no excuses anymore. It’s up to the individual,” she said.

The dialogue advocated by Holder is desirable. And the election of Barack Obama over John McCain (and, especially, Sarah Palin) was desirable and necessary. But, alas, the latter is not likely to lead to the former.

Quote Of The Week

an array of quotes, now so close to the election:

"....let's be clear who Sen. McCain's fighting for. He's not fighting for Joe to Plumber; he's fighting for Joe The Hedge Fund Manager. John McCain likes to talk about Joe the Plumber but he's in cahoots with Joe the CEO.”

-Barack Obama at a rally in Henrico County, Va. on 10/22/08


"When you've got Hank Paulson nationalizing the banks, the meaning of socialism is kind of obscure at this point (and it's kind of obscure, anyway)."

-Joan Walsh, editor of Salon, on MSNBC's Hardball on 10/22/08, of GOP charges that the Democratic nominees are Socialists or advocating socialist ideas


"The economic crisis may not have been Sarah Palin's doing but she was the worst possible person to have on the ticket, given that happened."

-Rachel Maddow on "Rachel Maddow," 10/22/08, explaining to Patrick J. Buchanan that Sarah Palin has harmed the Republican ticket in part because of the current economic crisis

More Palin

Two do not make a pattern. Still....

In her coming out speech on Friday in Dayon, Ohio, Sarah Palin boasted

I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress — I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves.

Thanks to thinkprogress.org, we know a little about the veracity of that statement. When Mayor Palin was interviewed by the Anchorage Daily News during her campaign for governor in 2006, she stated

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

She was, it appears, supportive of the bridge when it looked like money would be coming from the federal government, then changed her tune when Congress rejected funding- almost the opposite of what she claimed when she appeared with McCain in Dayton, Ohio.

It gets worse. On Friday, Pat Buchanan told Chris Matthews on Hardball that Palin "was a brigader in 1996 as was her husband, Chris, they were at a fundraiser for me, she's a terrific gal, she's a rebel reformer." Bad enough- but the Mayor reversed herself the next day, for McCain-Palin spokesman Michael Goldfarb explains

Governor Palin has never worked for any effort to elect Pat Buchanan -- that assertion is completely false. As Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin did attend an event with Mr. Buchanan in her home town where reports described her wearing a Buchanan for President button. She wore the button as a courtesy to Mr. Buchanan and in an effort to make him feel welcome during his visit, but immediately sent a letter to the editor of her local paper clarifying that the button should not have been interpreted as an endorsement of any kind.

And even worse. ABC's Jake Tapper notes in his blog, The Punch, that Goldfarb states that in 2000, Palin supported neither Buchanan, Bush, or McCain, but rather the "Empower The Rich" (made up, but accurate) campaign of Malcolm Forbes Jr. (name not made up). Tapper says

And indeed, another AP story from August 7, 1999 -- one month after the Buchanan trip to Wasilla -- states that joining state sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks on the Forbes campaign's Alaska "leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs."

Dishonest, two-faced, or simply a sharp politician. It's still fewer than 48 hours since the announcement and there is no telling what we're going to learn from the person John McCain wants us to believe is a credible vice-presidential candidate.

The Negative Side Of "The Speech"

There were a few aspects of Barack Obama's speech about race in American society which I found really disappointing. These were:

1) This time, we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

The cause of job losses in the United States are many. Among them are "the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit." But also involved is "that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job." And the issue, though Obama implies otherwise here ("that someone who doesn't look like you"), is not racism. It is that someone is taking your job. At a lower wage. And, oh, perhaps someone who isn't in this country legally. Our concern about the corporation interested only in profits and the government that aids and abets it must not blind us to the reality that the same private sector is happy to lobby that same government for policies increasing the labor pool (with legal or illegal workers) and thereby drive wages down.

2) I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

That was a long time ago, Senator, in a land now barely recognizable. It is a cheap shot against your own mother.

3) I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

This speech was given in response to the controversy over Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Ultimately, though it was clever to pose the issue as to "disown" an individual (no one could be for that- in fact, Pat Buchanan commended Obama for standing by his man!), there is still the matter of an adult sitting week after week (if in fact he did attend church regularly), year after year, insufficiently concerned about the rantings of an irrational man to raise an objection.

Looking back over the last two postings, the positive and the negative, I can't avoid the conclusion that it was a very good speech, dealing as it was with two very difficult issues- Reverend Wright and race- in nearly as effective a way as possible. However, the major purpose, understandably, of the address was to enhance Obama's bid to gain the presidential nomination and I can't figure how that will play out.

GOP Scenarios

Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough a few minutes ago on MSNBC agreed about the importance of the South Carolina Republican primary. The reasoning goes something like this: if Mike Huckabee loses in South Carolina on 1/19/06, it's hard to imagine him winning in Florida; then this (border state) Southerner moves into Super Tuesday after having lost in two southern states. If John McCain, whom polls suggest is leading in South Carolina at this moment(and stands to benefit from the veterans in this state, which purportedly has the highest concentration of veterans in the U.S.A.), loses, his money may drive up- and questions arise surrounding his second straight presidential primary loss in this pivotal state. Admittedly, victory in South Carolina is less critical for Mitt Romney, who is the favorite in the closed caucus being held the same day in Nevada, and for Rudy Giuliani, who is banking it all in Florida.

Another word about South Carolina- about the Democratic primary there, to be held on January 26, 2008, one week later than the Repub primary. The latter is an open primary, which will lead some Independents and Republicans to vote in the Republican primary. Most of those individuals probably would not have voted in a Democratic primary, featuring candidates of a very different ideological stripe. Still, some of them, especially Democrats, would have voted in the Democratic primary and, I suspect, most of them for John Edwards. These are votes he cannot afford to lose in a state in which he is, at least as of this moment, a prohibitive underdog.

Debate Wrap-Up:

As pulled from nytimes.com which in turn credited Congressional Quarterly's transcript, these are the highlights (in chronological order) of the Repub Presidential debate held in Orlando, Florida on October 21, 2007 (skip to the end if you'd like):


Anything For A Buck Fred:
WALLACE: Senator -- Senator Thompson, have these two guys convinced you that you're wrong and that, in fact, they are both consistent conservatives?

THOMPSON: Well, we've got an hour and a half.

Maybe they can work on it.

(LAUGHTER)

But, they...

(APPLAUSE)

Actually, Mitt, I didn't know there was any room to the left of Ted Kennedy, but maybe there...

(LAUGHTER)

In fact, I didn't know there was any room to the right of him, either, but maybe...

(LAUGHTER)



Rudolph Giuliani:
He voted against $250,000 caps on damages, which they have in Texas. He voted against almost anything that would make our legal system fairer: loser pays rules, things that would prevent lawsuits like that $54 million lawsuit by that guy who lost his pants -- you know?

I did 210 weddings when I was mayor of New York City. So I have experience doing this. They were all men and women.

(LAUGHTER)

I hope.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)


GIULIANI: You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City, you know, but it's not just a religious institution.
(LAUGHTER)


Mike Huckabee:
HUCKABEE: Let me begin by saying, for the first time in about nine debates, I'm kind of glad I wasn't in on the first few minutes because it was all about these guys fighting each other.

(LAUGHTER)

And I am more than content to let you let them fight all they want tonight, shed each other's blood and then I'll be ready to run for president because...

(LAUGHTER)


Duncan Hunter:
HUNTER: It's got to have, for example, fertility coverage. Well, what if you're 90 years old? We may appreciate Governor Romney's optimism...

(LAUGHTER)

Mike Huckabee:
And we've got a situation with 10,000 baby boomers a day signing up for Social Security, going into the Medicare system. And I just want to remind everybody when all the old hippies find out that they get free drugs, just wait until what that's going to cost out there.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


Tom Tancredo:
We should actually be debating that specific point, not what kind of government program. You know, Michael Moore went to Cuba not too long ago, and wrote this documentary about the greatness of the system, how wonderful it was to be in Cuba and have a socialized medical system.

You notice, however, that Michael Moore came back to the United States.

(LAUGHTER)


Mitt Romney:
... when Clinton hears about private sector, she thinks that that's a new recruit in the Army.

(LAUGHTER)



Rudolph Giuliani:
Governor Romney says the Republicans aren't going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton. And the point seems to be that on a lot of the social issues, like abortion and gay rights and gun control, that there's not much difference between you and Clinton. Is there?

GIULIANI: You got to be kidding.

(LAUGHTER)

You have got to be kidding.

Wait a second. There is -- there are two things I agree with Hillary Clinton on. First of all, we're both Yankee fans.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, wait a second. I became a Yankee fan growing up in New York. She became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you believe that?

(LAUGHTER)

Second, she made a statement last week -- and I've been very critical of her, but I want to tell her I agree with this one. Quote, Hillary Clinton, I have a million ideas; America cannot afford them all.

(LAUGHTER)


Rudolph Giuliani:
If those polls are correct, we’d have Al Gore here to – I don’t know, it might be a little colder, I’m not sure. But I’m not sure we’d be any better off. Right, we’d be in a lot worse shape with Al Gore.

Thank, thank you Florida.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

GIULIANI: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

You saved us in 2000. That was a big one.

(LAUGHTER)


John McCain:
In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event.

(LAUGHTER)

I was tied up at the time.

(LAUGHTER)



Mike Huckabee:
You know, it's interesting, the most, I guess, wonderful reaction we've had in this entire room is when Hillary's name is mentioned. It gets louder than an Aerosmith concert.

(LAUGHTER)



Mitt Romney:
And, you know, Democrats also love America. As Ronald Reagan used to say, it's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that what they know is wrong.

(LAUGHTER)


Mike Huckabee:
Because the problem is the actuarial tables were designed so that people would retire at 65 and die at 67.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, I'm sorry, but folks aren't dying that early. And short of taking them out, which is not a good idea...

(LAUGHTER)


John McCain:
HUME: Senator McCain, you've grappled with this issue as long as anybody here. You've heard all the proposals and you heard what Senator Thompson offered.

Your thoughts?

MCCAIN: First of all, I'm glad they're not dying at 67, Governor.

(LAUGHTER)


Tom Tancredo:
But let me add one more thing, and Mr. Mayor quipped something to me during the break, and here's my chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you were saying.

(LAUGHTER)



John McCain:
Vladimir Putin has announced just in the last 24 hours that he plans a new, quote, grandiose, nuclear weapons program to counter the U.S. missile defense system. President Bush just recently described President Putin as wily.

(LAUGHTER)

Are we headed back to a new Cold War, or has the Bush administration been naive in dealing with Mr. Putin?

MCCAIN: I don't know about naive, but I do know that when I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, I saw three letters: a K, a G and a B.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


Anything For A Buck Fred:
The week after, though -- you took a week off after the last debate. Speech yesterday was about five minutes long. Some people say you're lazy, sir.

How do you deal with that?

(LAUGHTER)

THOMPSON: Well -- no, it's OK. Let me answer that.

I was a father at the age of 17 and a husband at the age of 17. I got started working in a factory. I borrowed and worked my way through. My folks did what they could to help. They were country folks -- came in off the farm.

I was able to be an assistant U.S. attorney when I was 28, prosecuting most of the major federal crimes in middle Tennessee -- most of the major ones.

THOMPSON: Howard Baker selected me to go to Washington and be his counsel on the Watergate Committee at the age of 30.

I came back, took on a corrupt state administration, and won against them. I went to the United States Senate, got elected twice by 20 points in a state that Bill Clinton carried twice.

Condoleezza Rice called upon me to head up an international security advisory board to advise her on international security matters. President Bush called me to help shepherd Chief Justice -- now-Chief Justice John Roberts' nomination through the Judiciary Committee.

If a man can do all that and be lazy, I recommend it to everybody.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


For those keeping score at home, that's Huckabee 4; McCain 3; Giuliani, Romney, Tancredo, and Thompson 2; Hunter 1; Paul 0. Huckabee was the winner of the debate.

But to consider only quantity, and not also quality, of the humor is superficial. In last place, other than the serious Paul and Hunter, obviously would be Tom Tancredo. He muffed one of his jokes- I don't think he meant to say "...and here's my chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you're saying," rather "...and here's your chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you're saying." Romney's lines were clearly scripted, and he appeared a little ill at ease going for the laughs. Thompson was passable, and making light of the girth of someone (Ted Kennedy) should work well with Repub activists.

But McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani could quit their day jobs. I recall consider laughter at McCain's joke about Woodstock- a twofer, ridiculing both Hillary Clinton, and Woodstock as "a cultural phenomenon," sparking excitement among the high rollers and politicians present, most of whom probably no longer use pharmaceuticals, except those prescribed by their obliging doctors.

Huckabee's delivery was best- this guy is at ease with himself and actually looks like he made up these jokes himself, on the spot.


Giuliani's material was brilliant: "I became a Yankee fan growing up in New York. She became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago" (I'm just an average guy, love sports; and by the way, Clinton is disloyal.). "You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City..." (Otherwise, I wouldn't have dressed in drag.). And by reminding Florida that it was their votes (o.k., the votes from blacks that were ruthlessly discouraged, the votes from Jews that erroneously went to Pat Buchanan, and the votes that weren't counted) that determined the 2000 election, he flattered (always a good thing to do) his (Floridian) audience and strongly implied to a Repub audience that election of George W. Bush wasn't the unmitigated national and international disaster it has proven to be.

All in all, a pretty good night for a few of the contenders. And if I seem to be taking this debate as lightly as did some of the candidates, consider this: they were preaching to the Repub electorate, the same group that (almost) elected George W. Bush President in 2000 and elected him in 2004. And that was not comical, but a serious mistake.

The GOP Problem With SCHIP

So of what relevance is Rachel Maddow commenting of the SCHIP "George Bush discovering fiscal conservatism on this issue would be like you telling me Pat Buchanan discovered multiculturalism?" Because Pat Buchanan, appearing with Maddow on MSNBC's "Hardball," really was crediting George Bush with standing up to Democrats "doubling the size of an entitlement program."

Put aside for a moment the farcical notion that George W. Bush, who took the Clinton budget surplus and turned it into a record budget deficit, cares any more about the size of the deficit* than you and I do about, say, tomorrow's weather in Madagascar. And ignore Chris Matthews saying of Democrats- yes, Democrats- "once again, they're borrowing money saying they're going to some day pay for it." And disregard Pat Buchanan, asked by Maddow "who is paying right now for the 8,000,000 kids who don't have health insurance?" contending families are "paying for it themselves, or getting it free" (sort of like paying for a Persian Gulf War off-budget with a tax cut for the wealthy).

Buchanan inadvertently hinted at the real issue when he complained about "doubling the size of one entitlement program" and railed against the increasing cost of Medicare and Social Security. The problem is this: the State Children's Health Insurance Program works. And it is a government program. And the raison d'etre of the Repub Party is to convince the American people that they should distrust government and instead entrust the private sector government with its functions. So like Medicare and Social Security, the SCHIP program is successful and popular. And it cannot be expanded.


*Yes, he does care about the size of the deficit. He wants it larger, for reason(s) you may already understand.

Quote of the Week:

"George Bush discovering fiscal conservatism on this issue would be like you telling me Pat Buchanan discovered multiculturalism."


-Rachel Maddow of Air America to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" during a debate on expansion of the SCHIP Program, 10/3/07

Quote(s) Of The Week:

both from MSNBC's coverage following President Bush's Iraq speech tonight-

by Keith Olbermann, to Patrick Buchanan, regarding Mr. Bush's plan for a U.S. presence in Iraq well beyond January, 2009:

"Did we all know that this was not a date, but a wedding, five years ago?"


by Rachel Maddow of Air America:

"There's almost nothing really weirder than hearing George Bush, of all people, warn ominously about people who want to topple Iraq's government."

Some reflections on comments made by MSNBC (on their bi-weekly Super Tuesday) pertaining to the July 20, 2007 Democratic debate at the Citadel:

Charlie Cook of Cook Political Report said that it's easy to overrate the importance of any of these debates, that one way of viewing a debate is whether it upset the order of the race. It did not, as he pointed out. And as to the importance of the debates: the most searing memory I have of the GOP debates thus far is Senator McCain, more than once, forcefully defending the war in Iraq. He's wrong on the issue, of course, but he appeared confident, committed, and principled. And he has sunk like a rock.

Patrick Buchanan argued that the fellow from Michigan who brandished his rifle and referred to it as his "baby" represented real Americans that Democrats have to appeal to. No, Pat. Democrats have to appeal to gun owners and to those NRA members (not synonymous)for whom gun control is not their primary concern. But most of these would refer to a gun as their "baby," and they will not vote Democratic anyway. For the vast majority of Americans, some other issue such as national security, fear of terrorism, high taxation, immigration/illegal immigration, mediocre education, inadequate health care, or Social Security ranks higher. If registering your weapon, or not being able to obtain one if you're mentally ill (well, in some states), is your primary concern in life, you either should be congratulated for living a blessed, secure and sheltered life- or you're a criminal.

Host for the hour Andrea Mitchell and journalist Eugene Robinson agreed that John Edwards should not have criticized Hillary Clinton's jacket when, toward the end of the debate, each candidate was asked to say something he/she liked and disliked about the candidate to his/her left. They disapproved of a male candidate being negative about the clothing as, Mitchell put it, the only female candidate. But the former North Carolina Senator was obviously merely trying not to take too seriously a question which should not have been taken seriously. (In fact, Joe Biden would term it a "ridiculous exercise.") And Edwards was not asked to comment on anyone else. We may be on the verge of "making history" (as Senator Clinton and her supporters are not shy in emphasizing), but we still must be condescending toward women, treating them differently, more deferentially, than men. Or at least that's the way Andrea Mitchell and some who consider others to be sexist would have it.