Yes, from the lips of (hopefully) soon-to-be-retired Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s lips, to your ears. Senator Reid describes how Ford Motor Company, along with Chrysler (sold off) and General Motors, was saved by our wonderful Hegelian-God state (government is from whom you gain salvation, didn’t you know?). Unfortunately, we find it necessary to remind Senator Reid that such is not the case. As a matter of fact, we dedicated an entire article to it when Ford first pulled themselves up by the boot-straps!
…it seems to me that Ford isn’t the only thing “F’d On Race Day,” as it appears Senator Reid will have the same problem this November. (And before anyone gives me a hard time for citing the Rasmussen Poll instead of the newer PPP Poll, I say it’s because PPP hasn’t be considered the most accurate pollster like Rasmussen has…)
Remember Tiger Woods and his many sordid affairs? The media ate that up. It only took two weeks for our media sources to have “investigated,” found him guilty and hung him out to dry. Meanwhile, it has taken months for the media to “officially” report that former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards had a child out of wedlock, denied it…and did both while a major candidate in the 2008 race. Too, remember that it was the National Enquirer that broke the Edwards story wide open. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER. Not The New York Times, which had this profile about Cindy McCain in 2008, or the Washington Post, which had a front-page story about Governor McDonnell’s thesis from two decades or even Drudge, which only last week had a picture of Senate Majority Reid (D-NV) and a story about his alleged facelift as the leading story.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- our professional media has failed us. However, in the age of the Internet, we have zero excuses. Let’s hold the professional media responsible by using the free market choices we have via the Internet, TV, newspapers, radio and magazines to show them Michael Jackson, facelifts, the Balloon Boy and other non-stories won’t cut it anymore.
In the episode of the FX show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia called “The Gang Goes Jihad,” the three guys who own the Philadelphia bar come face-to-face with a man who just moved from Israel and had bought land that included a portion of their establishment. Throughout the episode, the three characters banter over the proper use of the term Jew. At one point they T.P. the man’s building, during which this exchange occurs:
“That jew’s in for a hell of a lot of work.”
“Wow, wow, cool it man.”
“What? What are you talking about?”
“Dude, you just dropped a hard J.”
“No man, he is of Jewish descent and that is a lot of toilet paper. That is going to take a lot of time to clean up. I was thinking bout the context the whole time.”
Suffice to say, I love this show. But who needs to fork over the extra money to get FX Network when you can watch similar debates occur on the local news? It’s one thing to have three mentally unstable friends squabble over political correctness; how about a twenty three year Senator, and current Senate Majority leader demonstrating his inability to decide whether or not to use the out-dated term negro? In case you have been living with Patrick Star under a rock this past week, here is what Senator Reid is quoted in a new Mark Halperin book, Game Change:
“He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”
The words could have come straight out of Archibald Bunker’s mouth. What is it that has the country so enveloped in this demonstration of ignorance? Ironically enough, Sen. Reid was attempting to compliment the future President of the United States. Instead people are up in arms. If we dissect the statement, we can see that there are distinct parts that probably incite more reaction than others. In what context is the term Negro acceptable? None (and the same goes for you Rush, even though you used it in a parody that ended up making fun of just this situation). Is it true that lighter-skinned African Americans tend to be more influential, more popular, and more electable in society than those who are darker? Sadly this seems to be the case in many situations, but I cannot pretend to be able to comment on the use of such racially charged language and how blacks feel about it truly, in their heart of hearts. Perhaps we should look at what he meant by “Negro dialect,” what does he mean there? Surely he demonstrated that he is out of touch with America because most people refer to ‘Ebonics’ or ‘street-talk’ when they are trying to make a similar point. Nobody is unaware of either of these terms, and his comment just shows his ignorance to popular culture as well as manners.
There is a lot to analyze there; but there seems to be something missing that is causing such turbulence in the souls of many Americans. For me, it’s not what was said on the surface, as much as it is what was said without being said. How can we use this black man to our advantage? He is black, which is useful; he ‘is articulate,’ which is useful; he can turn his ‘blackness on and off;’ which is useful; in the end, this black man is useful and will succeed for us because he is black how we want him to be, but not black when we need him to be. THAT my friends, is racism. There seems to be a disconnect between people who are viewing these comments and only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and those of us who see the rest of the iceberg plummeting miles into the ocean.
This was seen on Sunday, when I watched with gaping mouth, as Liz Cheney and George Will clashed over this point. Mr. Will seems to be looking at the comments on a surface level, Ms. Cheney on the deeper level. In order to be completely forthcoming, I must fess up to a deep admiration to both people (and NONE of the others around the table). I was sad to see the two fight, and sad to differ from George Will, again. However, I think those African Americans who are tired of feeling like pawns in a political game; whether it’s an effort to win voting blocks in cities with programs that have proven to be detrimental to the black family and communities, or putting up candidates that fit a litmus test for winning and avoiding the Bradley Effect. This is not a case of Republican versus Democrat, this is a demonstration of a disgusting ends justifies the means mentality for domestic politics, and should be condemned as such.
So apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yet another racial comment- after comparing Republicans opposed to Democratic health care reform to supporters of slavery- and the political world is hung up on every word. Questions like the following dominate the arena:
1. Should he resign like former Senator Trent Lott did? (No, he shouldn’t.)
2. Are Reid’s remarks similar to Lott’s? (No, they aren’t. Lott’s were insensitive to the public’s eye, but meant to compliment a public servant. Reid’s were analytical but insensitive. Reid’s were definitely about race, Lott’s probably were not.)
3. What does President Obama think? (He doesn’t care.)
4. Will this hurt Reid’s already tough re-election campaign? (Duh.)
5. What does Reverend Al Sharpton (or some other race-baiter) think? (Sharpton defended Reid.)
So, this leads me to two questions, one important and one not so much. The less important one is this: why is Sharpton now coming out against former president Bill Clinton’s remark last year that “A few years ago, this guy [then-Senator Obama] would have been getting us coffee,” when he is defending Reid? After all, let’s say “a few years ago” was a reference to President Obama’s age, not race, and remember that sometimes “a few years ago” can mean as much as a decade, especially to older people such as Clinton and former senator Ted Kennedy (to whom Clinton made the remark). Perhaps the former president was merely remarking on the presidential candidate’s youth and inexperience? If he really wants to help black Americans, Sharpton should ignore these minor, attention-grabbing comments by public figures and concentrate on helping young blacks get a better education. Or, better yat, perhaps he could join Star Parker in helping diminish the number of black abortions.
My second question is more important, however, and more timely than the age-old complaint about Sharpton’s priorities. Namely, it is this: why are Republicans wasting their time on attacking Reid? This issue will have a minimal effect on the health care debate, it won’t help change the public’s view on the party one iota and few outside of politics remember Trent Lott’s comments. Republicans should release a statement or two, let Reid’s general election opponents use this comment and his slavery one to his or her advantage, and concentrate on the larger issues facing America and her citizens. If we are to win past November 2010, conservatives and Republicans must be viewed as the movement and party that can prioritize. The Bush years were incredibly harmful to the Republican and conservative brands, and Democrats have taken full advantage. We have to show the public that we deserve their trust yet again, and hammering Reid over a really stupid and insensitive comment won’t do it. In fact, it may very well hurt us in the long run.
Over the last few weeks, there has been talk of not having the traditional “conference” to meld the Senate and House health care reform bills. I laughed off such thoughts, as transparency is something this administration and congressional leaders have been hammered for over the last several months. However, it appears I was wrong. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and House Majority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) are setting things up so they will not have to have the conference, and instead get the “conference” bill without a conference.
This is bothersome. However, a number of media sources are doing their job and calling for the Obama administration to open the melding process to the public. (H/T to The Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry.”) Let’s make our voices heard in support of C-Span’s efforts and make certain Democrats know they should have full transparency in this debate or face the wrath of the voters come November.