Trying to explain Barack Obama and the impact his appearance is having on people around the world is a gargantuan task.
This article from France’s Liberation takes a good stab at it by examining his influence on young people - especially on those in the French suburbs which are so often areas of violent confrontation between police and that nation’s alienated minority population.
“Products of postcolonial immigration, the older generation - around the age of Obama’s father - say it’s extraordinary to see this in their lifetime and didn’t dare imagine such a fate for their own children. The younger generation, whose hostility against the United States took root during the war in Iraq, are finding something to smile about. One high school student told us that Obama’s victory would mean the “liberation of all Blacks in the world!”
“French born in France have to fight constantly with employers or in communicating and dealing with police against the idea that “being French is something observable.” Tired of having to respond to the eternal question, “Do you feel more Malian (Cameroonian, etc.) or French?” They have begun to dream of a country where when someone asks a Black person from whence they came, it’s to find out whether they were born in Ohio or California. They recognize themselves in Obama’s ambiguity of identity. …”
“But we shouldn’t be naively optimistic. First, because the words of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, by reintroducing the specter of racial division, showed that America’s old demons could undermine the dream of this new generation. Republicans will surely play on the senator’s “dubious” origins and on these fears.” Read the rest of this entry »
The impact that Martin Luther King had in the United States is well-known to us. The effect he had on the rest of the world less-so.
Referring to the 1958 Montgomery Bus Boycott boycott, Enrique Dussel writes for Mexico’s La Jornada, “It was a routine ‘event’ that would launch Martin Luther [King] into history. Such ‘events’ are always of humble origin, but resonate strongly with the public. As with the ‘water war’ or the ‘gas war’ that ended up toppling two Bolivian governments, what began small ended up having a huge impact. … Dr. King became involved in the boycott and led demonstrations … and was was transformed into a leader of Afro-American multitudes who had already begun mobilizing.
In describing his growth into a global leader, Dussel writes, “Martin Luther began to discover other forms of oppression. So his discourses began to include all of the poor of the United States, from the urban working poor, Hispanic farm laborers and the marginalized, to the jobless. And after 1964, he began using his leadership to oppose the Vietnam War. In that year he received the Nobel Peace Prize. … But there is more. His discoveries led him to accuse his own country of being the cause of misery to other peoples. In 1967 he led the ‘Poor People’s March,’ which lifted the issues of racial and economic injustice to the national and global level. He reached out beyond the poor of the U.S. to those of Africa, where the slaves originated, and to Asia and Latin America.”
Dussel concludes, “It seems as though he had overstepped the limits of allowable criticism. … And so on April 4, 1968 (the same year as the May unrest in Paris and Berkeley, and the October Massacre in Tlatelolco), the life of Martin Luther King was cut short.”
By Enrique Dussel*
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
April 4, 2008
Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)
Forty years ago on April 4th, Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis! It’s an anniversary that provides food for thought.
Martin Luther, an Afro-American from a Baptist community, was born in the midst of economic depression in 1929. As his father was a pastor and having obtained a doctorate in Boston [Boston University, in systematic theology], he took charge of a community of believers in Atlanta, Georgia [actually, it was in Montgomery, Alabama; the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church]. The struggle for the civil rights was picking up, but it was a routine “event” that would launch Martin Luther into history.
Such “events” are always of humble origin, but resonate strongly with the public. As with the “water war” or the “gas war” in Bolivia, what began small ended up toppling two Bolivian governments. One shouldn’t dismiss “events” that could develop into storms - an issue exposed by Alain Badiou in his “Being and Event,” and which Walter Benjamin referred to as “now-time” in regard to the arrival of the messiah.
In this case, the “event” was the simple fact that an Afro-American woman, tired after finishing work, refused to give up her bus seat to a White person who wanted to take it, as the established custom and the discriminatory laws of the south dictated. The woman preferred to have the bus stopped. The police were summoned and a full-blown confrontation ensued. But the best part is that the other Afro-Americans on the bus not only got off, but they declared a boycott of the bus company. The controversy spread. The local pastor, Dr. Martin Luther King, became involved in the boycott and led demonstrations. Meanwhile, every Afro-American in Atlanta began to walk to work, sometimes over long distances and for days or even weeks.
The bus company sued the movement because it went into bankruptcy. King was accused in a court of law and found guilty of causing economic damage the company by holding the boycott and had to suffer incarceration. All this had the effect of raising the social pressure, and the young, 26-year-old pastor was transformed into a leader of Afro-American multitudes who had already begun mobilizing across the country for the fight against racial discrimination.
In 1956, a law was decreed to end racial segregation in the United States (which is not the same as making it a reality), and slowly but surely, Afro-Americans began accruing political clout. Martin Luther’s leadership continues to inspire, not only in his native state, but across the country. Reflecting on Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of “non-violence” (which was inspired by the ancient Jain school of Indian thought), he began a true strategic struggle against racism in the United States, a phenomenon as old as slavery, which was established in the 17th century. Martin Luther was arrested again several times. While “non-violence” isn’t a universal principle, it’s a strategy that works in a country that respects the rule of law (for the powerful, of course, not for the poor).
It was August 28, 1968 when he delivered his most famous speech before 200 000 people in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
Gradually, the Atlanta preacher [Alabama, actually] began to realize that that Afro-American people had been discriminated against since the dawn of modernity; since the onset of European slavery that involved over 15 million Africans. It was a terrible kind of oppression, and yet it was an oppression that went unnoticed by French Revolutionary and Enlightenment thinking. Then Martin Luther began to discover other forms of oppression. So his discourses began to include all of the poor of the United States, from the urban working poor, Hispanic farm laborers and the marginalized, to the jobless. And after 1964, he began using his leadership to oppose the Vietnam War. In that year he received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Global reaction to Barack Obama’s speech continues to pour in. In this op-ed article from France’s Le Monde, Daniel Vernet writes, ‘The senator from Illinois put himself in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers of the United States. … Obama’s leitmotif is marked with a seal of hope and optimism in a union that can be ‘perfected.’ It is not perfect. It never has been. … The Philadelphia Convention, which proclaimed independence and drafted the Constitution, drew on a political philosophy that was a mixture of Christian faith and the spirit of the Enlightenment. It nevertheless accepted the continuation of slavery.’ Vernet concludes, “Obama’s speech in Philadelphia is a mix of political aptitude and candor. Expressed by a man of color who has succeeded, his faith in America is particularly suited to rallying those who thrive along with those who hope; White, Black or immigrant.”
By Daniel Vernet
Translated By Kate Davis
March 25, 2008
France - Le Monde - Original Article (French)
In order to escape a dangerous association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ, a man who married him and baptized his children, on March 18 Barack Obama delivered a speech on the relationship between the races in the United States. It is a speech that has generated attention, admiration and controversy. Read the rest of this entry »
It seems that just about everyone, both here and abroad, have concluded that the Clintons have been wrongfully manipulating the issue of race. But according to this op-ed article by columnist Rik Kuethe of The Netherlands’ Elsevier, widespread realization of this is unlikely to stop this anti-Obama plot from working. Kuethe writes unapologetically, “the Clinton couple, one of the most powerful political machines America has ever seen, is making sure that Obama’s blackness gets rubbed into the electorate like its shoe polish.”
By Rik Kuethe
Translated By Meta Mertens
January 28, 2008
The Netherlands - Elsevier - Home Page (Dutch)
It’s not young Senator Barack Obama ensuring that race remains an election issue. That’s the work of the Clintons, as it suits them in view of Super Tuesday.
Barack Obama’s won a resounding victory in the South Carolina Democratic primary. He received 55 percent of the vote against his main opponent, Hillary Clinton, who won 27 percent. And at the start of the month [January], Obama scored his first win at their first showdown in White Iowa.
Americans are easily susceptible to something new. Many, including John F. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline, consider this “lemon-fresh man” to be in an excellent position to win the Democratic nomination.
Whether he succeeds will be decided on Tuesday, Feb. 5 - otherwise known as Super Tuesday - when 22 states hold their primaries simultaneously. The chances that Obama will come out the victor, however, are small.
SNOW WHITE
The young Senator from Illinois says time and again that these elections are not about race. Quite apart from the fact that he had a mother who was as white as Snow White, he certainly means what he says. He also has an interest in keeping it so.
But more recently, the Clinton couple, one of the most powerful political machines America has ever seen, is making sure that Obama’s blackness gets rubbed into the electorate like its shoe polish.
What’s the ground look like in California right now for the primary candidates? For one thing, it’s a pretty blue state, even if we’re talking about Michael Bloomberg. From the California Progress Report:
In a dizzying week of polls on all subjects near and dear to our state’s voters, today’s offering from the California Field Poll showing that only one in four California registered voters would even consider voting for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg if he were to run for President sends a clear message.
62% of the voters in the largest state in the nation, according to Field, say they “would definitely not support him.” [Emphasis added] This includes 68% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans and even a slight plurality of “non-partisan/others) would not countenance the thought.
…
When asked if a Bloomberg independent candidacy would be a good thing or bad thing, California’s registered voters are perhaps a bit more charitable, but Read the rest of this entry »
Mexico - Excelsior - Original Article (Spanish)
For those who wonder about the impact on America’s image of the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one need only read foreign press overage of the U.S. election. According to this op-ed article from Mexico’s Excelsior newspaper, ‘Today, two members of those ‘minorities’ aspire to lead the most powerful country, whose enormous influence is the fruit of a meticulously constructed capacity: A tolerance toward the other, the different, and the victims of that which has been called ‘inequality.’
The electoral competition in the United States shows the consequences of setting certain ideas in motion. How can we not exclude, discriminate or despise the other, the different, they who aren’t and don’t want to be like us? These are the minorities which put together, really are a majority. Those of different origins; women, young people and those of so-called senior-citizen age. Today, two members of those “minorities” aspire to lead the most powerful country, whose enormous influence is the fruit of a meticulously constructed capacity: A tolerance toward the other, the different, and the victims of that which has been called “inequality.”
The story is simple and requires few words. For humanity and in particular the USA, where there has been at least two hundred years of humiliation within an ocean of privilege, human beings have had to fight the phantoms of self-fulfilling prophecy. That is to say, prejudice. That condensation of popular “wisdom” which is expressed in so many sayings, and which are repeated every day and often. That “sentimental education” which says that it’s the suit that makes the man, that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, and that women are just abject loose-canons, and so on.
This requires the breaking of old habits, engaging with entrenched sentiments and promoting reverse discrimination. In other words, affirmative action. How difficult it is. How important it is. How just. To rediscover everything contained in a word: Woman. Black. Native. Handicapped. Erase it. No, better yet, transform their meanings. Introduce affirmative inflections. Disrupt the scholars of language. Redefine the accuracy of syntax to avoid the suffering caused by odious inequality.
The Empire and the global economy (ie: the peace the development of all) in the hands of Obama and Hillary … This is what the women who met at Seneca Falls, New York, over a hundred years ago dreamed of . Their dream was the result of a conference in London to abolish slavery and promote the rights of Black people in the Western world [the International Anti-Slavery Convention of 1840]. It was at this same conference, in London, capital of the civilized world, that those same rights were denied to women. Who could have predicted what we are witnessing today? They dreamt the impossible and we are succeeding.
Is the over-dependence on the use of English hampering Puerto Rico economically and socially? According to this op-ed article from Argentina’s Argenpress, Puerto Rico must have its national sovereignty, not only to correct cultural and historical wrongs committed by the ‘United States Empire,’ but to revert to Spanish simply to do business with the growing number of other countries that embrace Spanish over English.
“Those who wish to remain isolated from the rest of the world, either by extending Puerto Rico’s current colonial status or through annexing it as a U.S. state, care little about the fate of the Spanish language, because their worldview has shrunk.”
By José R. Bas García
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
December 28, 2007
Argentina - Argen Press - Original Article (Spanish)
In Puerto Rico, there remains a constant debate about language that has its roots in the inconclusive political status of the island. There are the same divisions on the issue of status as there are on the defense of Spanish or English. Those who favor independence [for Puerto Rico] see Spanish as an integral part and a unifying factor of the Puerto Rican nationality. Those statesman [those in favor of U.S. statehood] have adopted a seemingly pragmatic position, downplaying the importance of the cohesive value of Spanish and extolling the teaching and use of English as an instrument for achieving better economic conditions. “English is a universal language of business,” they insist. Many, following the false notion that if their children don’t learn English they won’t be able to succeed in life, make great sacrifices to keep them in exclusive and prohibitively expensive private schools, where the teaching is done in English.
But the myth of English seems to be waning. According to a news article [ - in Spanish] published on a Web site devoted to the Spanish language, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has ordered the teaching of Spanish restored to her nation’s public schools. Information has been circulated unofficially that suggests the teaching of Spanish in Philippine schools will begin in January 2008.
How much do people in Latin America resent the way the people of the United States refer to their nation as ‘America’? This op-ed article from El Caribe of the Dominican Republic offers people in our country a taste of this long-simmering ‘Latin American’ angst.
“It seems that for all the world, America includes only the United States. The rest of the hemisphere is something else, with America as a surname [Latin America], and if they want to be even more derogatory, they just call us Caribbean and pass us off as savages.”
By Pedro Domínguez Brito, an Attorney
Translated By Virginia Gillenwater
December 5, 2007
Dominican Republic - El Caribe - Original Article (Spanish)
The first time I visited the Old Continent [Europe], someone asked me where I was from. “I’m from America,” I replied. So you’re from the United States? He asked me. “No,” I replied, “I’m from America.”
In schools in the United States, they teach that our continent isn’t one, but three: America, which is them, Central America (including the Caribbean), and South America. On their maps, we all have different colors, so as to avoid any confusion.
And we accept this discrimination - not even Fidel protests. This explains those famous encounters between presidents of the region, which are called the “Summit of the Americas,” thus clarifying that a George [Bush] is probably not be from the same place as an Evo [Evo Morales, President of Bolivia].
We ourselves comply with the same distinction when - now and again - we say “you know those Americans,” referring to inhabitants of the colossus to the North. In the Dominican Republic, even one of our airports bears the name “The Americas.”
In Europe, for example, we are simply sudacos [This means South American, but is regarded as something of a slur]. It would be too daring for them to catalogue us simply as Americans. That word, they think, is too big for us.
“It seems that for all the world, America includes only the United States. The rest of the hemisphere is something else, with America as a surname [Latin America], and if they want to be even more derogatory, they just call us Caribbean and pass us off as savages. They believe that whoever visits us had better bring their own aspirin and that tourists here can go on safari, with the opportunity only to hunt lions, rhinos and baboons.
And with no intention of discriminating against the Saxons and Arians who inhabit these lands, I am convinced that the most authentic Americans are those born thanks to the great racial encounter of the indigenous, black and white races. What emerged from this mixture is what has gaven us the flavor of the Amazon, of drums, of maize, of tobacco, of Duarte, of Montezuma, of Bolivar and of Martí …
I actually heard most of this one while I was out running errands. As a Democrat who is dubious of the new NIE, I am not happy with our candidates’ insistence that the military option be “off the table” with Iran. I hope I don’t have to cast my first vote for a Republican presidential candidate in November of 2008.
November 21st, 2007 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
“Just a moment ago we were children… Just a moment from now we awaken as elders…” **
Dear Brave Souls
I am sitting here on a snowy night in the Rockies; there’s a fire in the fireplace, it is darkest night out with a big yellow half-bellied moon hanging over the little lake we live on. I am thinking about all of you… and about thankfulness in these times we live in….
One of the things I have been thankful for in years past are the old ones in my family, in all families really, those cantankerous, odd, strange, loving, horrible, on most days loveable, “last of their kind” elders that belong to each of us.
Yet, I have been having this strange reaction now every holiday for the last 9 years, this strange reaction… when I go to a restaurant or to church and I see people with their old ones— it makes me weep.
I see people wheeling their very old folks around in wheelchairs. I see them helping them with their walkers. I see them being mostly patient and laughing with each other, toasting each other. I see the old one’s eyeglasses sparkling.
I see the elderly ladies wearing corsages. Some of the elder woman are dapper and stylish. Others have bad wigs on sideways and are in great humor. I hear the wisecracks only the truly elderly can make… and get away with.
Some old guys are dressed to the nines with cufflinks and patterned hose. I see other elderly men, having shrunk over the years, are wearing clothes that sometimes don’t fit, or fit lopsided now. But they are in good spirits for the most part, for they are with their families and are taking in the often much deserved help and regard their family members have stored up for them
…including all the little children getting and giving hugs, sometimes acting up, but overall, just being children, lovely children, or sullen teenagers, or intense souls, including ‘brand new with the owner’s manual’ young adults… everyone pretty much just as they are, in this ‘non-father-knows-best’ world.
The Family Thrall/ Brawl
In my family it’s not been so Norman Rockwell though. More like Rube Goldberg under siege… every holiday, wedding and funeral has to last at least three days otherwise our family would have been destroyed long ago…
–the first day everyone so happy to see each other;
–the second day WWIII breaks out, often on several fronts… in the kitchen, at the card table, out back;
–the third day is for making up and meaning it. Mostly. At least until provoked again.
Some of us who hosted these triathlon holidays ran around like zombie-maniacs with food and drink constantly appearing from our hands.
–We tried to not let Uncle Luis bring up that subject again in the presences of his brother
– tried to quarantine Aunt Izzy so she and her ex wouldn’t be in the same room together
– kept count of the liquor bottles to make sure the young cousins weren’t sneaking a magnum out into the woods and coming back with ‘the smile of Zendo-khan’ on their mugs
– took the role of caterer and cop, shrink for the troubled, schmata for the weeping.
Thus, we kitchen slaves always thought holidays and celebrations really needed a fourth and fifth day too… for us to recover from our 13th nervous breakdown… that came from that deeply ingrained ethnic tradition of trying to keep everyone happy– not only because we try to be gracious, but because if they fight, it’s your fault. “Remember Thanksgiving 1977 when we were at Rose’s and she let Skinny and Sal tear each other apart?”
Sobriety Ain’t for Sissies
Several years ago when my adoptive mother passed away, my elderly adoptive father came to live with us. He was 86 at the time. An immigrant from the old country, he brought his village life and values to America, including the idea that women were to serve men, and that men were supposed to demand that. Read the rest of this entry »
Avert your eyes. This is going to be ugly, a drunk falling off the wagon.
Over a year ago, I raised the question, “Is Lou Dobbs running for something?” Today we have the answer:
“Lou Dobbs for President?” John Fund writes in the Wall Street Journal. “Don’t’ laugh…Friends of Mr. Dobbs say he is seriously considering a race…”
In a moment of blinding clarity a while back, I swore off writing about Dobbs. Dobbs-bashing was becoming addictive, and friends were threatening an intervention.
But today’s news has me bellying up to the bar again for straight shots. So here’s Dobbs in your eye.
November 11th, 2007 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
Just the point of view of a Latina mestiza:
In Spanish, as in other languages, words and phrases often carry subtext. And as we joke amongst ourselves, in Spanish, we have ‘five versions of yes that mean no,’ and ‘three versions of no, that mean yes.’
So, when a person with the diplomatic skills of a man like King Juan Carlos unleashes an epithet; it carries far more nails and broken glass flying than just the words alone.
Viz: The King’s words to Chavez were, “¿Por que no te callas?” which can certainly be translated as “Why don’t you shut up?” likely from callarse, meaning ‘to hold one’s tongue,’ ‘to be suddenly made silent,’ and yes, ‘to shut up.’
But, more so, in Spanish, as in English, such a phrase carries the intent of a warning snarl. Not with aim to kill. Yet. It is the equivalent of the claws unsheathed and poised… but it is not the powerful downward slash. Yet.
“Por que no te callas?” has several subtexts: One is: ‘Basta, Enough! with your blather.’ Others are, ‘What do you know, you who have never suffered/ experienced?’ … and ‘Stop trying to wear an honor you have never earned nor paid for.’
Moreover, amongst many Spanish-speaking people, (and there are many versions of Spanish) this phrase also refers to the condition of being el gordo, obese. “Por que no te callas?”is then also meant as a double entendre, meaning, not just ‘Close your mouth,’ but also something like this: ‘Look at you, why don’t you stop eating so much… for surely the grease has drowned your brain.’
Amongst many Spaniards/ Spanish blood people, there are some acceptable gestures to show public displeasure when people violate not a genteel protocol, but a protocol of character. That King Juan Carlos vacated the room leaving Chavez to speak to the air, is the equivalent of ‘invisibilizing’ a person. It is on par with the far less elegant spitting to the side, or giving the kiss of betrayal, or passing a note with a black dot in the middle.
King Juan Carlos was not vacating the room out of exasperation or pique, but to show the displeasure of the Spanish Delegation with Chavez’s grandstanding and lack of ability to conduct himself as a person at the table, instead of a pindejo dancing on the table.
On this day, in the world of the mysteries of Spanish character and protocol, King Juan Carlos doesn’t exist as an anachronism, but as an exemplar.
November 8th, 2007 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
An interesting book claims that in the next few decades one of the strongest forces shaping American culture—perhaps the strongest force—will be Mexican. More here…
Gays, pro-choicers and the liberal elite can relax. The Republicans have found their domestic target for ‘08 and, from all indications in New Hampshire, it is now illegal immigrants who are threatening the very fabric of American society.
“It’s becoming a litmus test of how conservative you are,” according to a professor of political science quoted by the McClatchy newspapers. “Absolutely an important issue,” confirms the director of the University of New Hampshire’s Granite State Poll.
Following the Karl Rove playbook, GOP contenders are reaching a consensus on this election’s objects of fear and loathing for their Base. Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11, has the franchise on external threats–terrorists and, coming up strong on the outside rail, Iran.
But fear-mongering the domestic dangers is up for grabs. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson want to withhold federal money from cities and states that don’t report illegal aliens, toughen border security and speed up the process of deporting them. Duncan Hunter wants to double the fence to keep them out, and Tom Tancredo may soon up the ante with a proposal to nuke them.
Even Mike Huckabee has swerved from his Golden Rule approach to take swipes at the target. “We need to make it clear,” he told the Values Voters, “that we will say no to amnesty, and no to sanctuary cities, and no to the idea that there can be some complete ignoring of the fact that our laws have been broken.”
Only John McCain, who made the mistake of straight talk on the issue, is not benefiting from the wave of Lou Dobbsian outrage over the threat from people who mow America’s lawns and wash dishes in restaurants.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of such strangers?
I haven’t hid my position: I support full amnesty and a spiking (if not elimination) of immigration quotas. I pair this position with heavily tightened border security, so that we know who is coming into our country (and know that, if someone is trying to sneak into the country undetected, its likely for a “crime” more serious than pursuing a better life). But outside of that position, I think at a far more basic level we have an obligation to recognize when something is our own fault, and I think we need to stop the absurd and inhuman rhetoric that treats five-year olds like willful fugitives. Cases like this, where there is really no coherent argument against letting this woman stay in the country, are the ones that really worry me about the immigration debate, because they show more than a policy difference — they show an irrational anti-immigrant ideology that’s resulting in serious perversion of soul. It’s moral corruption that’s poisoning too many American hearts. And it genuinely frightens me.
Hispanic Heritage Month (September 15-October 15) gives all Americans the chance to gain insight into the nation’s largest minority.
You might as well give it a try. There are more than 44 million Hispanics in the United States, and the Census Bureau estimates that — by 2050 — we’ll represent one in four Americans.
And despite efforts by nativists to keep out both legal and illegal immigrants in a desperate attempt to turn back the demographic clock, Hispanics aren’t going anywhere. Why should we? In many cases, we were here first.
September 25th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The n.s. has hit the fan in the Republican Party.
“N.S.” stands for no shows, the GOP’s top, leading candidates who insisted they just could not squeeze in the time to participate in a debate focusing on minority issues. Of course, it’s merely a coincidence that it just happened that none of the four big front-runners showed up.
And former Rep. J.C. Watts, a charismatic African-American whom Republican Party bigwigs pointed to for years as proof that the Republican tent was a big tent and not really a pup tent, minced no words — in words that seem both blunt and a bad omen for the Republican Party in the long run:
A former member of the House Republican congressional leadership — and the last African-American to serve as a member of the GOP in Congress — harshly criticized Tuesday the decision of the Republican presidential front-runners to not attend a debate focused on minority issues.
“I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this,” said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, is “that African-Americans might say, ‘Was it because of my skin color?’ Now, maybe it wasn’t, but African-Americans do say, ‘It crossed my mind.’”
Watts is basically saying what many Americans and pundits — and Republicans — have said: the the decision to snub en masse a forum where key Republicans could have shown that they are not virtually writing-off minority voters is seemingly beyond belief for a party that seems to be on the political ropes. And coming from Watts, who is highly respected by the media and one of the most visible “talking heads” on television and cable shows, there is likely to be long term damage to the perception of the Republican Party among minority voters.
But it is NOT just Watts who has blasted the front-runners’ move that seems indicative of candidates who may not be front runners in a general election: Read the rest of this entry »
September 21st, 2007 by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist
If you are a black, it wouldn’t take a stretch of imagination to think that the Republican presidential candidates would like nothing more than to ship you off to Jena, Louisiana. If you are a Hispanic, it wouldn’t take a stretch of imagination to think that the Republican presidential candidates would like nothing more than to ship you off to Mexico or wherever the heck you came from.
That is the resoundingly negative message being delivered almost without exception by the Republican presidential wannabes, who in an astoundingly knuckle-headed but revealing group move, are shunning a major debate next week on PBS on minority issues and another debate on Univision, the big Hispanic network.
The excuse the candidates are giving is that they have scheduling conflicts, which actually is quite true: They’ll be at the GOP country club giving their drool cups a workout while tut-tutting about how the Party of Lincoln has gone so far into eclipse that you’d think these white boys were wearing black-face. Besides which, they say, we’d just get booed. Got that? These guys would stand up to Osama bin Laden, but would wet their Depends if they had to address an auditorium full of black college students.
You can talk around the issue all day, but the reason that the Republican Party can fashion attractive platforms on, say, taxes but not minority issues is that the party’s base just doesn’t like blacks. They may not all be a bunch of racists in the David Duke mold, but they are opposed to leveling the playing field in employment, housing, education and other areas where minority Americans continue to be disenfranchised and want a voice in who the next president will be.
This current runs so deep that it resulted in a rare setback for Karl Rove, whose plan to convince black and Hispanic voters that the Republican Party was welcoming was doomed even before he sent former party chairman Ken Mehlman around the country to proclaim that fried chicken and tacos were the GOP’s favorite foods.
Mehlman says the debate snubbing is a mistake, while one of the party’s few remaining wise men, Newt Gingrich, calls it “an enormous error.â€
Pardon the term, but the reason for their refusal (save for John McCain) to appear on Univision is even more black and white.
The candidates are taking a monolithic view of the contentious issue of immigration reform and while the podium-pounding approach may work on the stump, it won’t play well with the millions of people from Mexico and Latin America who represent the fastest growing bloc of voters.
“Are we going to have audio?”
“Vamos a tener audio?”
Reporters who didn’t speak Spanish were already anxious about the translation devices that didn’t quite fit in our ears. (Porque soy de California, yo hablo un poquito Espanol.)
But 90 seconds before the forum began tonight, the Media Room had no sound - not in Spanish, English or French. Nada.
Spanish- and English-speaking reporters in the room erupted in a panic, sending University of Miami staff scrambling to try and fix the feed. What most reporters heard for the first 16 minutes of the debate was static - both from the closed television feed and from the translation device. … (MORE)
They are at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. I understand enough to know that the candidates are being asked about Cuba and Fidel Castro.
![[Excelsior, Mexico]](http://www.exonline.com.mx/XStatic/excelsior/images/espanol/carton_gregorio_0502.jpg)
