It’s amazing the schisms that have broken open in this campaign season. Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project has an eye-opening post up, “Why is EMILY’s List endorsing anti-semitism, racism and homophobia?” EMILY’s List, an organization that promotes and helps fund women who run for public office, the primary goal is to ensure that pro-choice candidates are elected.
In one Congressional race (Tennessee’s 9th district, which includes Memphis and environs), EMILY’s List is backing a candidate, Nikki Tinker, who is up against a pro-choice, pro-LGBT incumbent, Steven Cohen. Tinker’s campaign and surrogates have engaged in disturbing tactics that show how conflicts between core Democratic constituencies have erupted into ways difficult to paper over.
Rep. Steve Cohen, who is Jewish, was attacked in a flier (left, “Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the Jews hate Jesus”) distributed by a black homobigoted pastor from Murphreesboro who is not even from Cohen’s district, Rev. George Brooks. Tinker, who happens to be black as well, and was called to condemn the flier. (WaPo):
[T]he literature encourages other black leaders in Memphis to “see to it that one and ONLY one black Christian faces this opponent of Christ and Christianity in the 2008 election.”
The Commercial Appeal wrote an editorial in Wednesday’s paper condemning Tinker for not speaking out against the anti-Semitic literature.
“What does Nikki Tinker think about anti-Semitic literature being circulated that might help her unseat 9th District Congressman Steve Cohen in the Democratic primary next August?” the editorial asked. “The question goes to the character of the woman who wants to represent the 9th District, and 9th District voters deserve an answer. But Tinker declined to return a phone call about the flier.”
The Memphis Baptist Ministerial Association, an organization of black pastors that has backed Tinker’s campaign as well, has openly criticized Cohen for his support of hate crimes legislation. Why is this not an issue for EMILY’s List? Certainly its resources can be spent more effectively in another race, given incumbent Cohen’s pro-choice record. Why back such a divisive candidate if your primary issue is already supported? Is there something missing from this picture that we should be aware of?
You can read more over at Bil’s pad. He concludes that in this case, for EMILY’s List, it has placed working to elect a pro-choice woman above any concerns about anti-Semitism or homophobia pouring from Tinker’s campaign and supporters.
“We as black people now have hope that we have never, ever had,” Mr. Sam-Brew said. “I have new goals for my little girl. She can’t give me any excuses because she’s black.”
What a wonderful country, and I can almost hear Mr. Sam-Brew explaining it to his daughter: Littlest darling, because of the Obama Ascendancy, you will never have to endure the institutionalized racism in America that I never actually endured either, seeing as how I was born in a different country in 1970. But after I arrived from never-prosperous Ghana the race hustlers here in America assured me it was awful, and I have no reason to doubt them. But let’s not look backwards - let’s look towards a brighter future, in which you have a great shot at being accepted into a top school or getting preferential treatment in hiring because you, too, are a once-oppressed minority. It’s a wonderful world.
See, paragraphs like this are the reason why a better strategy for the Republican Party to gain votes in the black community would be to leave bags of flaming dog shit on doorsteps in Birmingham.
Mr. Sam-Brew, incidentally, has a five year old American-born daughter, meaning that he’s been living in America for (wait for it…) at least five years. And those are American years, not those shitty Ghana years. Now, the fundamental question here is whether or not a man with black skin, living in America for any significant portion of time, would experience the same sort of racial prejudice that a man with black skin who was born in America would experience over the same amount of time.
If you can’t answer that question, then here’s another one: does the bouncy ball go bouncy bouncy? I think it does!
Leaving out the “black people get all the breaks” affirmative action knock, let’s move on, because pride is a stupid, stupid thing for people to have.
It was a difficult day on The Michelangelo Signorile Show yesterday, as Mike spoke with several angry callers who are ready to vote for John McCain before casting a ballot for Barack Obama. In the clip below, the caller cites a few reasons I’ve seen out there, including: 1) we know McCain, we don’t know Obama; 2) There’s just something about him (Obama) I don’t like. Watch it:
This whole call needs to be transcribed and circulated because we seriously need to have a discussion about the underlying issues here that are hitting on the third rail. Mike challenges the caller to explain these positions, given the huge political gulf between McCain and Obama on nearly every issue. The caller ends up admitting that his decision to vote for McCain is not based on logic.
Caller: My arguments aren’t logical…this is what my gut is telling me; I don’t consider myself a racist or bigoted…there’s just something about the man I don’t like and I’m not going to vote for him.”
Mike: It’s funny that you say your gut is telling you this and then you go on to say that you’re not a racist, funny how that works, right? Because maybe your gut is telling you something that you’re not wanting to admit…but listen, but you should be voting based on logic, based on rationality. What Republicans want is for you to vote on emotion. And you are a perfect example of how they get votes from people who are voting against their own self interest.
Obama’s and Clinton’s positions are far closer than Obama vs. McCain—it doesn’t make any sense to vote for McCain. For some, not all - there really is a deep-seated fear out there about being led by a black man, so much so that they’d vote for McCain. They think electing Barack Obama is somehow going to erase white privilege— as if it was possible—and then exact some sort of revenge for past wrongs perpetrated on minorities. Jesse and I blogged about this jokingly the other day, but this aspect of the rejection of Obama is not being honestly articulated—the caller in this case went out of his way to bring up how he’s not racist—when race had not come up in the conversation at all up until that point.
Another caller provided a comment on Mike’s blog. Read it below the fold.
I’ll admit - for a while, I even bought into the “Obama can’t win because he’s black” idea. It was disturbingly easy to believe, if for no other reason than what I call the Mike Alstott theorem.
Mike Alstott, for those of you who are unfamiliar with NFL fullbacks (and if this describes you, please fix this glaring personality flaw posthaste), played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for twelve seasons. The fullback is essentially a dying position in the NFL, with a backup running usually taking the same spot. The point of the fullback is to often serve as a miniature lineman on certain plays, providing another blocker for the quarterback or runningback. Other times (and far more rarely), the fullback serves as a ball carrier, using their superior mass and the unpredictability of their involvement to gain yardage in tough defensive situations.
Alstott was a fan favorite for the duration of his career in Tampa Bay, always drawing outsize cheers to what was, in the scope of football’s offensive positions, a relatively minor (but still key) role. There’s a certain breed of football fan who loves the tough guy, and between his position and his brutalizing style of play, he fit that to a tee.
I always wondered, though, how he became The Man in Tampa Bay, and how even outside of the team’s home market, he still drew cheers from fans who had no reason to particularly like a fullback who averaged 32 yards a game. Much of it was the tough guy aspect, a guy who hearkened back to an era when football players played in leather helmets and had to watch out for the goalpost every time they got near the endzone. For a small group of people, though, it was something else.
(I go away for three years, come back, and John Cole is not only making sense, but he’s a really good read? Is Digby the despotic overlord of Oakland now?)
...the “whitey” tape rumors that are tearing up the rumor mill. And by “tearing up”, I mean ping-ponging back and forth between Larry Johnson and late night weekend Fox News programming.
I am not worried about any “bombshell,” but I am tired of hearing about one. Right now, we have been subjected to days of hype, and I don’t think that is an accident. It is as if folks are simply spending weeks prepping the ground preparing people to expect a bombshell, they can release some weak nonsense, and then pretend it is a big deal. While the “bombshell” will fizzle, the psyops will have been successful enough to make people think it is a big deal even when it isn’t.
Geraldine Ferraro had one thing right - there is a lot of racial resentment on the part of many white voters towards black Americans, based in no small part on the idea that if black people insist they’re lower on the ladder than white people, any black person being ahead of any white person is de facto evidence that black people are whiny victims and white people are the true downtrodden in America.
This is indelibly stupid. But it’s also a powerful argument.
Obama is going to become Blackazoid, the Nubian Avenger, here to right all the perceived wrongs black people illegitimately feel were heaped on them since we solved racism in 1963. Reparations? He wants them. Islam? Prepare to pay a prayer mat fee for your kids’ next school year. I can’t wait to hear the shit we didn’t even know was racist - did you know Obama wants to put elastic bands on all our pants? And ban straws?
Blackness is about to become the best privilege imaginable, and stories of disadvantaged white people the new currency of the Republican realm.
Michelle Obama engaging in an alleged rant against “whitey” is just the tip of the iceberg - learn now to fear your new Negro overlords.
Father Pfleger sermon is not what he said about White privilege. Melissa’s post recognizes this while properly focusing on the misogyny. In fact, for the first half of the video, I was getting ready to post about it positively, in contrast to Michelle Malkin (thanks for the transcription, Michelle, such as it is):
to address the one who says, “Well, don’t hold me responsible (gesticulating) for what my ancestors did. But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did and unless you are ready to give up the benefits (voice rising), throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money you put into the company you WALKED INTO BECAUSE YO’ DADDY AND YO’ GRANDDADDY AND YO’ GREATGRANDDADDY–(screaming at the top of his lungs)–UNLESS YOU’RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE BENEFITS, THEN YOU MUST BE REPSONSIBLE [Malkin’s sic] FOR WHAT WAS DONE IN YOUR GENERATION ‘CUZ YOU ARE THE BENEFICIARY OF THIS INSURANCE POLICY! (Wild gestures, wild applause).
…We must be honest enough to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head.
Malkin’s editorializing punctuation aside, I was nodding my head in agreement until after all that, when he got to the part where he became a raving misogynist. (See Melissa’s post.) But I’m not bringing it up as a 50% defense of Pfleger; merely to point out that the media attention is focusing on the wrong part of the sermon. Which, of course, and unsurprisingly, is just redoubling the misogyny at play, with the added bonus of denying the existence of white privilege!
Goddamn it. The only thing that would piss me off more is if a large portion of commenters at a place that called itself “TalkLeft” were behaving exactly the same way. (Looks like Big Tent Democrat got sick of it and closed comments.)
Update: As Incertus in comments indirectly reminds me I should have said “But I’m not bringing it up as a 50% defense of Pfleger; merely to point out that the media attention, and Obama, are focusing on the wrong part of the sermon.”
Rep. Steve Cohen, who is Jewish, was attacked in a flier (left, “Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the Jews hate Jesus”) distributed by a black homobigoted pastor from Murphreesboro who is not even from Cohen’s district, Rev. George Brooks. Tinker, who happens to be black as well, and was called to condemn the flier. (WaPo):
I’ll admit - for a while, I even bought into the 