This piece has gone around the blogsphere since last week. As I noted on another blog, Powell is being honest and on the mark. I feel and have felt this way about the Republican Party since high school. I disagree with Powell regarding his notion that the party has changed; I think it has been this way dating back to the 1980s when it sought to garner the attention of white religious conservative Americans; the party has expanded its agenda in that — as noted by Powell — it is now way farther to the right regarding economic and social policy (Tea Party). But with the Tea Party all but dead, as noted in the last election, Republicans might seek to move back to the right — that is from the far right; I do not think it is a reactionary party. With the Democrats taking a strong victory during the November elections, the Cold War Republican Party might seek to regain its identity with the likes of a Colin Powell.
Category Archives: Republicans
My Department Chair sent me this article in which it presents the argument that white people failed to elect Obama to office. I think the best thing she sent me was Chris Rock’s take on Obama’s whiteness. Warning: Do not drink anything while viewing this video. It is hilarious.
After engaging in a very long conversation with a friend of mine about the South, I have elected to devote my next 3 – 4 post on the topic of the racist South.
1. Are southerners racists?
2. Is the South racist?
Historically, the South has resisted the notion of progressive change; traditionally speaking, the South has not embraced legislation that empowers the poor, gays/lesbians, and blacks. It would not be wholly inaccurate to conclude that southerners’ sense of disdain towards Barrack Obama in 2008 was predicated on race and their racist attitudes.
I was first introduced to V.O. Key during my sophomore year of college. Dr. Mark Elrod discussed Key’s Southern Politics and his Theory of Critical Elections. Key contends that at historical points, a balance of power occurred. Hence, social and economic forces were at work and responsible for such political realignment. Case in point: After the historical period in U.S. history known as Reconstruction, Republicans dominated the national landscape except for in the deep South; in the South, the formation of anti-Lincoln/anti-Republicans dominated the scene. Southerners hate for the party and the president who emancipated the American Negro was fervent. Born was the solid South. This period was defined by one in which Southerners used racists tactics to uphold Jim Crow laws by electing only Democrats from 1877 to 1964. The Ku Klux Klan was instrumental in maintaining a state of racist order as a process of subjugation towards black Southerners.
By 1980, a major shift transpired in which Ronald Reagan swept the South and the rest of the nation in a promise of restoring conservatism. Much of this promise was born on Reagan’s promise to reduce the size of the government, and to restore social order brought about during the decades of the 1960s and the 1970s. Again, much of the progress during the 60s and the 70s were aimed at aiding gays/lesbians and racial minorities. Many Southerners today are simply a product of political realignment. Thus, they once embraced Jim Crow policies until federal legislation and the Supreme Court deemed it illegal. Conservatives reacted to the forced political actions of the federal government by seeking conservative candidates who would embrace the ideology of states’ rights. In 1980, Reagan clearly endorsed this position, which was clear by his objection to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; it was his position that the federal government could not legislate discrimination among civilians.
Though not a new ideological position of Southerners, it was one that many minorities deemed as threatening to their welfare. With the election of Obama in 2008, many Southern whites screamed as though the world had come to an end. Many of Obama’s policies were seen as overly progressive towards liberal ideology; but in truth, Obama has helped (better yet saved) white elites. Though I supported his stimulus policy, many throughout the country did not. Liberals saw it as a testament of serving the needs of the wealthy. And, with his health care policy still under attack, it is safe to say that Obama has done little to “fully” threaten the traditional base of the new Solid South; a Republican dominated South. One might contend then that race is a major reason in the South’s dislike of Obama. What makes matters worse is that Obama is not just a black man in the White House; he is the product of interracial sex…. A black man and a white woman; he represents the greatest threat to southern ideology.
So, I am not saying the South is a racist institution; I am saying that one must wonder why so many Southerners dislike a president who in theory has very little power.
 After the death of Abraham Lincoln, VP Andrew Johnson was a southern sympathizer and one who theoretically did not represent the Republican Party. It should also be noted that Grover Cleveland was elected in the years 1888 and 1896 as a Democrat. Republicans would continue to dominate the office of the presidency until FDR.
From what I am reading across the country from other bloggers, people are wearing star of David badges and showcasing fascist’s symbols to protest the state of Arizona.
I have spoken to a number of Hispanics, and all of them will tell you that they do not favor illegal immigration; in essence, it works against the plight of legals. But, to enact legislation empowering the state to ask people for their papers due to race, is borderline Fascism.
I hear all too often that people do not want too much federal government intervention, but the governor of Arizona stated herself that states such as hers have no choice due to the inactivity of the federal government. I think Ms. Brewer is about to get her wish; I suspect the Obama administration will act quickly to usurp that of states by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. As a black American, I tend not to trust the notion of states’ rights. Historically, states have discriminated against minority populations. Thanks to Interstate Commerce, the federal government used various tactics to remove Jim Crow. This does not mean the federal government does not discriminate. The United States has a history of implementing immigration acts and quotas against various groups: Southern and Eastern Europeans, Asians, and Jews.
As noted in The Huffington Post:
Arizona lawmakers approved a sweeping immigration bill Monday intended to ramp up law enforcement efforts even as critics complained it could lead to racial profiling and other abuse.The state Senate voted 17-11 nearly along party lines to send the bill to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has not taken a position on the measure championed by fellow Republicans. The House approved the bill April 13.
Patrick Ryan is a a junior at HCHS; he is a frequent reader of the Professor and has written posts here before. Feel free to leave a comment addressing his thoughts on the Bush epoch.
There is no doubt on my mind that almost every citizen of America today has their own views about the way that George Bush handled his term of presidency from January 20, 2001, to today, January 20, 2009. While each person has the right to their own opinion about how Bush acted during his tenure as the Commander-in-Chief (and the right to share these views with others), it has always been my theory that third party, non-biased historical accounts are what truly define the way that people think because it allows the reader to synthesize their own opinions and possibly even allows that reader to consider ways of improving ideas that may have been glossed over in a positive light in more biased historical accounts (ex: The New Deal). Perhaps it is my right brained tendencies that lead to my preference of objectivity over subjectivity. However, it has been increasingly difficult to come up with a definitive historical account of the Bush presidency that was free from the bias that our media has so readily embraced over the past decade. The following article was written by a historical idol of mine named Andrew Roberts, the writer of many books about the subject of warfare and the leaders therein. I found his article about how the Bush Presidency will someday be remembered to be very well written while also incorporating a minimal amount of bias and so thought that I would share it with you. Here is the link if you want to read some of the numerous comments that readers have left for him.
Here are a few examples:
In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush’s legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.
The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush’s presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.
At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this. The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America’s borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bushafter 9/11.
The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was “all about oil”, or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.
Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.
Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam’s own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.
Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN’s food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.
History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an “axis of evil” of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi’s WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.
With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support. The invasion of Iraq should probably have taken place months earlier, but was held up by the attempt to find support from UN security council members, such as Jacques Chirac’s France, that had ties to Iraq and hostility towards the Anglo-Americans.
I came across this story from my favorite college teacher; I find this piece published in the Abilene Reporter disturbing for attacking the student paper at ACU (Abilene Christian University) In essence, this guy is saying God and rich people hate ACU for supporting Obama; does that mean He hates me too? I doubt it. This guy is serving his own agenda — not that of Christians. As a Christian who supports Obama, I do not think God hates me. Read the entire article here. It is pretty good — but sad.
Here are a few snippets:
It’s a sad day for Abilene Christian University, and it’s going to get worse if things don’t change. Why?
The ACU on-campus paper endorsed Barack Obama for president. Ironically, this will mean bad economic news for students. Ironic because they endorsed Obama for economic reasons. How? Lost donations and tuition.
Over the last hundred years, who has given to ACU (tuitions and donation)? Who has endorsed the school, encouraged attendance and been loyal through thick and thin? Conservative Christians. Opponents of abortion.
Why does it cost $5,000 to $6,000 per year or more for ACU than Harding University (a Church of Christ school in Arkansas)? It’s the economics of a failure to stand up for biblical truth, and the campus support for liberalism — including this most recent endorsement by The Optimist for Obama.
Why is the attendance for Harding 1,000 to 2,000 higher than ACU? Why are West Texas families — who attended ACU themselves — sending their children to Harding (it’s getting rampant; I’ve personally met many)? Again, it’s the economics of liberal endorsements.
Proverbs 14:34, “God-devotion makes a country strong; God-avoidance leaves people weak.” NLT
Lord, forgive our Christian schools and nation for voting money over morals. Remind us that you are our eternal IRA and that you promised to take care of us if we’d only put Kingdom things first. Please create the circumstances in our lives and our nation that lead us to do just that. In Jesus’ name, amen.
You have got to be kidding me; I fell asleep due to being bored. Same old spill — nothing new. Good luck McCain. I am not even motivated to write about this.
I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open…
I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them.
I will cut government spending. He will increase it.
My tax cuts will create jobs; his tax increases will eliminate them
- …supports abortion
- supports gay marriage
- favors a tax increase
- believes in government social programs
After hinting that he might run for president, today New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he was leaving the Republican Party to become an independent. If he does this and still runs for the White House, there is a chance that he could pull 25% of the votes. Here is my question: Will Bloomberg’s independent run hurt Republicans or Democrats? Remember, he only became a Republican in 2002.
Cole Thomas addresses the man I believe could be the next Ronald Reagan. Fred Thompson, in my opinion, is not only a wonderful actor (Die Hard, Law & Order, etc), he is the only conservative candidate that has a chance at defeating Hillary R. Clinton. This is a really good piece. ~EC~
I have no idea whether Fred Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee, will run for the Republican nomination for president, but he should. He has Ronald Reagan’s communication skills and speaks plainly in ways most people can understand. Anyone who has listened to him substitute for Paul Harvey on ABC News Radio senses that, in this, he follows in Reagan’s footsteps. Radio is an intimate medium. People who are able to connect with a radio audience often can connect on TV and in person. Thompson, the actor, plays other people. On radio and in news interviews, he “plays” himself. He conveys Middle American, common sense values. When he is asked a question, he doesn’t sound as if he’s giving a poll-tested pabulum answer. Agree or not, his statements spring from conviction.
In an interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace in March, Thompson gave refreshingly direct answers to questions.
» On Iraq: “We’re the leader of the free world whether we like it or not. People are looking to us to test our resolve. People think that if we hadn’t gone down there (to Iraq), things would have been lovely.”If Saddam Hussein were still around today with his sons looking at Iran developing a nuclear capability, he undoubtedly would have reconstituted his nuclear capability. Things would be worse than they are today.” Yes, we made mistakes in Iraq, Thompson says: “We went in there too light, wrong rules of engagement, wrong strategy, placed too much emphasis on just holding things in place while we built up the Iraqi army, took longer than we figured. Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify things. I think we’re doing that now.”
» On abortion: “Pro-life,” he said. “I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges.”
» On gay rights: “I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe judges ought to come along and change that.” As for “civil unions,” Thompson thinks it should be left up to the states.
» On gun control: Thompson is “against it generally.”
Thompson is a member of the advisory committee for the Libby Legal Defense Trust, which supports Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, who is appealing his perjury conviction. Thompson told Wallace if he were president, he would pardon Libby immediately: “This is a trial that never would have been brought in any other part of the world. This is a miscarriage of justice.”
Thompson also doesn’t appear to be lusting after the job as if he needs it for his self-image. This, too, is much like Reagan, who knew who he was before becoming president and was the same after he left office.It’s said of Thompson that he always has “answered the call” of his country, whether it was serving as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee or in other capacities, including United States senator. Some political “experts” think it’s almost too late for any new candidate to announce for president. Actually, waiting might be the best strategy for these Republicans. Conservative Republicans are restless about what they regard as a weak field. They want someone who can take on Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and win.
Thompson thinks he can afford to wait until he again hears “the call.”
The following piece was written by Joe Moore, a sophomore in my World History course. Joe does a nice job following current trends and political developments. Feel free to leave Joe a comment regarding this political piece. Note: The views below do not represent those of Edward Carson. ~EC~
Let’s start out with the basics so members of the voting base will understand who these people are. Rudolph Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are the front runners for the Republican and Democratic Party, respectively. But don’t let their party affiliation confuse you. Giuliani is running on the Republican ballot (the GOP) while Hillary Clinton has maintained her status with the party that got her husband (Bill) elected to the Great White Prison. Remember, Giuliani was the spokesperson for the city of New York on 9/11 .
Just a few notes here: Giuliani has cleaned up the streets and subways for a number of New Yorkers, while Hilary Clinton has been riding the fame of being married to Bill, who wasn’t that bad of a president. Although both candidates are running on different ballots, they enjoy the benefit of being from the Great Northern Blue State (New York). They both have similar interests which may cause people in their own respective parties to go “What did they just say?” More importantly, both have been known to follow the latest polls. For example, Hillary changes the way she looks or talks to get extra votes or poll points (example: Selma, AL). Rudy tends to change not only his hairdo, but his political policies as well. As a republican, he believes in gay marriage and abortion. How is that?
Although “W” Bush supports Rudy, he does not support his social policies. Hillary, on the other hand, will support any policy as long as it will earn her a vote. She is very good at paying attention to her audience. In one of Hillary’s speeches (Selma), she all of a sudden came out on stage talking as if she were from West Texas or the South. Where is she from again? Oh right, SHE’S FROM ILLINOIS!! How does she get to be Senator of New York? Hillary has been very good at using the Clinton name to move ahead (sounds like someone…John Kerry). My only real problem with her is the unknown: Who will be making her policies, reforms, and appointments? Will it be Her or Bill? But in today’s society, what do we want? Someone who is far left or far right? For one I’d like someone who is extremely moderate but leans more to the right on most issues. Giuliani is the one that I believe is the most moderate candidate. Do not get me wrong, he has his flaws like everyone else. I think it is best that Giuliani explains his own flaws over time.
I recall reading Michael Savage’s The National Zoo some time ago. In it, he warns us about Giuliani saying that he is only popular when there is a need for him to be popular and strong. That is why I am supporting him. I will support him until he blows a debate or changes one of his many policies or reforms. Hillary will learn to deal without the White House for another 4 years.
The following piece was written by Alejandro Penafiel, a friend and former HCHS student of mine. Alejandro is a first year student at American University in Washington D.C. Moreover, he spent his first semester of college interning for the Republican Party at its national head office. This term and into the Summer, he will be working for Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign office. Alejandro is one of only three students that I have taught in four different Advanced Placement courses.
For the last few months, I have been living in Washington D.C. I have somewhat gotten entangled in this whole political thing of late. It started out that I just needed an internship to fulfill my program requirements, but all of a sudden, I was working in the heart of the Republican’s National structure at the RNC a few doors down from Ken Mehlman. I didn’t know it when I first arrived, but DC is fundamentally different than other cities when it comes to local affairs. Just to cite a few examples, the Washington Post is the local paper, subcommittee hearings are listed in the Metro section like they might be a fun thing to do if you’re bored one afternoon, and any policy issue of the day makes the 5 o’clock news. This is commonly called the “inside the beltway” mentality. It is called such because of the capital beltway that circles around DC. So imagine that by crossing the beltway you not only encounter more traffic, but also an entirely different dynamic and mindset. In light of my present context, I’m not surprised that I have gotten so into politics, seeing that I like it in the first place. Regardless of how it happened, however, I was spending two days a week trying to help the national party from hemorrhaging more seats than they had to.
Despite what my working for the national party might imply, I don’t really tow the party line blindly. Although it might seem slightly mercenary, I support a republican majority because I am first and foremost a fiscal conservative. Not that the Republican Party has been that great about balancing the budget, but at least they are not trying to nationalize healthcare which would somehow make it more efficient by complicating and enlarging the already enormous system. Oh, and there is that whole finding the money to pay for it thing. Anyway, I’m getting a little off topic. In my opinion, a legislature is always going to be a little corrupt and less efficient than we would like. That shouldn’t be surprising. While Washington may get new blood every once and a while (like in November), there is still plenty of old blood around and they are all running through the same old arteries. What I find most amusing about the republican bloodbath we all witnessed this fall is that they were all nailed to the cross of failed foreign policy. Congress can’t even set foreign policy, that is the executive’s job. If the policy is bad, which is difficult to argue against, the blame rest mainly on the guy who crafted it and those who trusted his judgment. I do have to admit that this is a highly unrealistic view to take. You can’t expect people to blame their own judgment when they can blame people on TV.
So in closing, I wouldn’t expect too much out of any legislature; I mean come on and look at the sixteenth century polish model. Ultimately, its up to the executive to set the agenda and make the policies that count, so hopefully we will get a guy or girl (though I hope to God not) that understands world affairs next time.
In some prior entries, I have mentioned the rainbow nature of some of the Democratic party candidates – Obama, Richardson, and Clinton. We should not leave out the Republicans. For the last several years, we have heard of a draft Condoleeza Rice for president movement. I have visited one of the sites, Americans for Dr. Rice
. It stresses her foreign policy experience as compared to Democratic candidates like Hillary. Rice has apparently pooh-poohed the idea of running in the past. How many of us think that the Republicans will encourage Condie to get into the mix? Will I see Condie shaking hands in Iowa country kitchens? Will she be brought in to support the shaky race/gender credentials of the various Republican candidates? Will the Republicans come up with anyone other than the standard Bush type? Does it really matter? To be honest, as long as there is a war in Iraq, there will not be a Republican in the White House.
Warning: The following numbers, although accurate, reflect the point of view of this blogger.
–Median household income in 2000: $47,599
–Median household income in 2005: $46,326
(US Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2005)
–Salary of a full-time minimum wage employee without vacation: $10,712
–Average time for top CEOs to earn that sum: 2.06 hours
(Forbes Magazine. “What the Boss Makes.” April 20, 2006)
–Federal minimum wage in 2000: $5.15/hr
–Federal minimum wage in 2006: $5.15/hr
–Loss in purchasing power, full time worker annually: $1,562
ON ENERGY PRICES:
–Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 3, 2000: $1.15 per gallon
–Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.42 per gallon
(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 4, 2007)
–Average price of gasoline on Jan. 3, 2000: $1.31 per gallon
–Average price of gasoline on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.38 per gallon
(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 5, 2007)
–Exxon Mobil profits in 2000: $7.9 billion
–Exxon Mobil profits in 2006: $36.1 billion
(CNNMoney.com, accessed Jan. 19, 2007)
ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
–Year Bush said Kyoto Protocol emission targets were “not based upon science”: 2000
–Decrease in NASA budget for Earth observation since 2000: 30 percent
–Year with highest average U.S. temperature ever recorded: 2006
(The White House, June 11, 2001; New York Times, Jan. 21, 2006; National Climate Data Center. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Jan. 9, 2007)
–Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2000: $9,958
–Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2006: $12,796
(Costs include tuition, fees, room & board. MSN Money 2000/Associated Press. Jan. 14, 2005. College Board. Trends in College Pricing 2007)
ON RETIREMENT SECURITY:
–Workers without retirement plans at work in the private sector 2006: 80 percent
–Baby boom Americans approaching retirement: 76 million
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2006; The Seattle Times. Jan. 22, 2005)
ON HEALTH CARE COSTS:
–Americans without health insurance, 2000: 38.2 million
–Americans without health insurance, 2005: 46.6 million
(US Census Bureau, Sept. 2001; US Census Bureau, Aug. 2006)
–Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2000: $135
–Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2006: $248
–Personal bankruptcies due to medical bills: 55 percent
(The Kaiser Family Foundation, Sept. 26, 2006; Health Affairs Health Policy Journal, Feb. 2, 2005)
ON THE IRAQ WAR:
–Number of US troops killed in Iraq prior to “Mission Accomplished” speech in 2003: 139
–Number of US troops killed in Iraq as of Jan. 22, 2007: 3,056
–Number of Iraqi civilians killed in 2006, according to the United Nations: 34,452
(iCasualties.org, Jan. 22, 2007; U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, Jan. 16, 2006)
–Number of US troops wounded in Iraq prior to “Mission Accomplished” speech in 2003: 542
–Number of US troops wounded in Iraq as of January 10, 2007: 22,834
(iCasualties.org. Jan. 10, 2007)
–Total US military expenditures (including in Iraq and Afghanistan) in 2006: $522 billion
–Total military expenditures of the 10 next top spenders combined: $386 billion
(Includes China, Russia, the UK, Japan, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Italy, and Australia. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Feb. 16, 2006.)
–U.S. Federal Discretionary Budget spent on Military not including Iraq, in 2006: 48.7 percent
–Amount spent on Education: 6.7 percent
(White House Office of Management and Budget, Feb. 6, 2006)
ON DEBTS AND DEFICITS:
–Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2000: $33.8 billion
–Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2006: $58.9 billion
(U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics. Jan. 10, 2007)
–U.S. Current Account Deficit, FY 2000: $435.4 billion
–U.S. Current Account Deficit, FY 2006: $900 billion
(Economic Policy Institute. March 14, 2001; Economic Policy Institute. March 14, 2006)
–Loss of value of U.S. dollar relative to the Euro, Jan. 24, 2000 to Jan. 23, 2006: 23 percent
(X-rate.com, accessed Jan. 23, 2006)
–US Budget Deficit in FY 2000: $230 billion surplus
–US Budget Deficit in FY 2006: $423 billion deficit
(White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 2007; White House Office of Management and Budget. Table S-1. 2006 budget totals)
–US National Debt in FY 2000: $5.7 trillion
–US National Debt in FY 2006: $8.5 trillion
(Bureau of the Public Debt, Jan. 16, 2007)
John Brummett wrote this great piece called All Hail Christian Nation Party. Some of you might recall an earlier post addressing the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Republicans use gays to do their hard work while exploiting fear into the minds of Americans about them. And, to an extent, the Democrats have not been much better. Brummett addresses the need for a true 3rd party.
Blacks are traditionally concerned with issues such as justice, equality, progress, and community rather than getting stuck debating gay marriage and abortion. With that in mind, I point you to the words of Martin Kilson, as noted in his Anatomy of Black Conservatism:
It is, indeed, one of the basic moral blindspots of American conservatism that its intellectual and leadership energy have never been focused in a proactive way on Americas racial caste legacy. This represents a fundamental moral crisis of modern American conservatism…American conservatives typically ignored the authoritarian and violent racial-caste practices and values arrayed against black Americans in southern states where the vast majority of blacks live. On the other hand, American conservatives have, throughout this century, often embraced freedom movements elsewhere in the world. However, not in the U.S.A.
Then, you have this comment by a Washington Post member:
For all the harping by the liberal left about racial discrimination, many black opinion leaders carry out viewpoint discrimination on a daily basis. Many blacks simply cannot accept any black politician or leader having a viewpoint that runs counter to their own. Leaders like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Maryland Lt. Governor and now Senate candidate Michael Steele can only be viewed as traitors to their race because they are Republican or conservative, much like the Left’s derision of Justice Clarence Thomas.
So, according to these black opinion leaders, the only good black leader is a black Democrat. Anyone who succeeds as a Republican or conservative means that there is something wrong with them, something that is wired not quite right. In the law, this is called viewpoint discrimination and it is rampant among blacks.
A white politician who pumps his/her fist in a black power salute or makes the claim that their favorite pastime is eating fried chicken and watermelon while listening to the blues should no more serve as the tipping point for potential black voters than a black pastor who equates Conservative “values” with the Bible itself , or makes the subtle claim that Jesus is a Conservative.
I think the notion of creating a political party that targets the needs of black Americans-only is a little short sighted considering the fact that we are in a country that is made up of different races. However, moving our votes to the most suitable bidder I think is the best and most effective approach.
The two-party system is failing this country. Black Americans can no longer be the last man on a sinking ship stuck rowing below. Black Conservatives and Liberals who have broken away from the traditional group-think voting pattern for the Democratic party should spend less time hurling insults at each other (that usually get racial and demeaning in nature) and begin to encourage fellow blacks to look at the entire political spectrum (the good and the bad) and not just through the eyes of the current two-party system.
In the end, if a black person still desires to vote a partial or straight Democratic ticket, he or she should feel free to do so. It should be our part (those outside the Party) to see to it that our people are making an informed decision and not one out of mere tradition.
There has been a lot of talk regarding how religious conservatives easily give in to Republican exploitation: liberals taking God out of things; gays gaining the right to marry, and the war on terror. I have long thought that both the Republicans and Democrats use religion and “family values” to gain votes. Recently, an ad was run by Republicans to cast a notion of fear amongst white Southerners who might vote for a black man who wants white women. Watch this and tell me what you think. Are people making too much out of this ad? Take a look at this clip.
I was listening to a radio address/ biography about George W. Bush today. In the address, the narrator spent a great deal of time discussing Bush’s elite education. I could not help but notice how the narrator emphasized the elite schools in which Bush attended. A great deal of time was spent addressing his years at Houston’s Kinkaid School, Andover Academy, Harvard, then Yale. He should thank the one program for his success that he is trying to kill, Affirmative Action.
Notable Kinkaid alumni
George W. Bush – Current US President
Jeb Bush – Current Florida Governor
Clark Ervin – Chief Inspector of Dept. Homeland Security
David Hornsby – Film and Television Actor
John Clay – Famous Actor
Lauren Bush – model, niece of President George W. Bush
Jeff Martin – writer (Late Show with David Letterman and The Simpsons among others)
Just in time for Sunday afternoon readers, NY Bill comes through with a free link to another great Frank Rich column, this one on the two faces of the Republican Party when it comes to gay people. They tolerate them — rely on many, even — as staffers and advisers, even as they cynically exploit fear of them in elections. Can they continue to have it both ways?