“I’m an American Black Conservative – an ABC — and I’m proud of it,” Cain said. “And because I’ve been affiliated with the conservative movement, and had the audacity to go on talk radio and do a talk show, and promote conservative principles, I’ve been called a racist too. Go figure”
Cain then went on to say he thought liberals were upset with him “because I won’t stay on the Democrat plantation like I’m supposed to.” “It may shock you but some black people can think for themselves,” he added.
Let it be said that people discrediting the way the game is played, always seem to know the score. Herman Cain knows this better than most. He seems to have the victimization game perfected, even if he is drowning in the race hustling pool he’s swimming in.
I bet Herman Cain is proud of his conservative bonafides, and he should be. I don’t judge the man for his political ideology. But the slavery comparisons don’t go over particularly well with me. Neither does pandering to a white audience who seemed to be gleeful when he uttered them. It’s counter-productive to what he’s attempting to accomplish. He seems to be thriving as the purveyor of politically motivated racial animus–a narrative he and his conservative ilk have assailed when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are perceived as doing the same over the years. Is this the only way for Cain to get a bite at the big table?
Even worse is Cain’s utter inability to differentiate hostile extreme elements of radical Islam from peaceful Islam. As a result, he’s managed to master the art of derisive fear mongering for political expediency–clearly a trait one must share in order to appeal to the far right base. While it may appeal to the core, it hardly represents the elements necessary to steer the world’s greatest democracy.
I suppose it must make some conservatives proud. They finally have someone in their tent who can use his blackness as an ebony shield– deflecting accusations of racism and bigotry– and who’s free to wield the sword of reverse victim hood and racial persecution.
In fact, why is it black conservative candidates only seem to gain traction when they’re seen as berating and belittling other blacks? And how authentic are you, if you purport to base your ideology on the purity of constitutional theology in one breath, then turn around and pervert it by discriminating against a group of people to support your own fear doctrine? Cain exhibits a brand of political dissonance that seems to be shared by fellow republican contenders– and it’s layered in hypocrisy. It may play well in the corn fields of Iowa, but it won’t work where it counts; with people who can see through the veil of racial ideological pandering.
Donald Trump made headlines earlier today when he provided what he said was a copy of his birth certificate—but a quick check reveals it’s actually not an official document.The paper that Trump released says “Jamaica Hospital” on top and lists the date and time of what he says was his birth to “Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Trump.” The piece of paper has a seal at the bottom.
But after several New York City-based readers contacted POLITICO’s Maggie Haberman, her call to city officials revealed that an actual birth certificate, which is issued by the Department of Health, would have the agency’s seal and also a signature of the city registrar – neither of which the Trump document has. Officials said the city Health Department is the “sole issuing authority” of official birth certificates in New York, and that the document would clearly say so, and “city officials said it’s not an official document.”
It appears instead to be a hospital “certificate of birth,” meaning the piece of paper the hospital gave to his family saying he was born. Such a document typically has the signature of the hospital administrator and the attending physician.
Trump’s insistence on birthplace purity– and his zeal to crown himself king of the Birther crowd– as exposed him for exactly what he is; a tyrannical attention whore. His only true purpose is to drive viewers to his asinine reality television show–and to jump on board the monolithic, meaningless ideology crew. He fits in well with them. He should be leery about not having his proper birth certificate however. They might start accusing him of being born elsewhere.
It was a beautiful speech, especially the end. But I still don’t know how long we’re going to be in Libya. Or what we ultimately want to see there, aside from Qaddafi leaving, somehow. Or what we’re obligated to do, now that we’ve done what we said we were going to do, but not really. It was vintage Obama: I’m moved but unconvinced.
I’m torn. The president’s speech was a sweeping ode to American exceptionalism, and the need for American intervention to clamp down on the scurrilous reach of the unjust and wicked. I got that message loud and clear. What I didn’t get loud and clear, was the implicit directive, or the direction our new engagement will take us. How will we achieve our aims if the resistance steps up their attacks and drives the rebels back? How entrenched will our involvement get?
I’m not sure the president himself truly knows these answers. I wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t. But I would surmise that this is precisely what make people leery of his policy and direction a tad bit nervous. Committing to yet another engagement without a clear, concise directive in a time of economic uncertainty and war fatigue is a dangerous political calculation. And this one will be owned solely by him.
Then again, maybe the answer lay in America’s ability to exert our exceptionalism as I’ve stated. Maybe this president–giving a turn as the unapologetic freedom fighter–has one true aim: to defend liberty. That can never be bad can it? Let’s hope it is not.
I suppose I’ll have to see the Obama Doctrine on Libya as one of American moral relativism– and democratic righteousness in the face of callous, cruel and despotic behavior. And while it does not answer the questions I posed above– or deal with the real possibility of a continuing Qaddafi regime– it is what we have. I hope we can all live with the consequences.
Herman Cain tries to blend his sycophantic style into the conservative pool of abhorrence that is the Conservative Principles Conference in Iowa:
Don’t get me wrong: I have major issues with anyone lumping black folks into the democratic voting bloc. But I have a bigger problem with folks like Herman Cain–believing his blackness gives him a pass in identity politics– buying into this nonsensical discussion. Race baiting and religious intolerance isn’t an American trait. I would expect Herman Cain of all people to recognize this.
“based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them.”
The problem with Cain–and other misguided panderers to the fringe right–is they base their arguments on little knowledge. At least Cain recognizes that fact, even if it was only in passing. I simply wish he would strive to gain more than just a little knowledge regarding Islam.
I’m not going to attempt to analyze Brown’s behavior. Far better people than me can diagnose him. But dude is just too damn old to be throwing hissy fits and tantrums about the things he’s done in the past. He is no longer a kid. As much as the line of questioning may have irked him, handle it with a modicum of maturity and move on.
I think we all know the answer to that question. In the event you do not, listen to Congressman Jim McGovern attempt to draw a parallel–and expose the hypocrisy of conservatives–looking to cut funding for National Public Radio:
The amendment fell short, and Fox News continues to provide highly biased news unscathed.
This has been shown before obviously, but I think it illustrates an interesting dichotomy in today’s republican party.
Reagan may have been talking about private sector unions, but the ideals he trumpeted here– the need to bargain collectively being intertwined with freedom is universal–and it epitomizes American principles.
For all of the professed love and adulation given to President Reagan by conservatives today, neither Reagan nor today’s conservatives remotely resemble one another politically. Would the former even be moderately popular in today’s republican party?
Would they consider his brand of conservatism their own? No. Therein lies the tragic hypocrisy; This new brand of scorched earth conservatism is less about pragmatic ideology and application– and more about derisive scorn, social wedge issues, and burn down the village to save the hut political expediency.
This isn’t a choice between one form of political ideology over another–it’s a choice between sanity and recklessness. The reckless seem to have the ear of the masses.
When discussing the act of defunding National Public Radio– and placing the recently release video of known liar and deviant James O’Keefe in context– the average citizen can probably make two assumptions: First; why would you quickly castigate NPR before discerning all of the facts of the case? Second; James O’Keefe is an inveterate liar, thus his shabby, juvenile investigative reporting should be seen as just that: juvenile.
When clips are spliced and edited, you’re virtually assured of achieving the results you’re looking for–regardless of what the actual context is. It achieves the results you desire– which, truth be damned– is all that matters. Is this the case with O’Keefe and NPR? You be the judge.
UPDATE: For some reason, this video clip has been removed. Curious am I .
The irony is rich here. The Blaze, run by Glen Beck–perhaps the biggest charlatan and conspiracy theorist in America–has uncovered the truth behind another conservative conspiratorial charlatan. Truth has no agenda apparently.
So the presidential campaign, here’s the question. You got an incumbent, Barack Hussein Obama. Does the Republican nominee focus on what we all believe to be true, the guy’s got a different view of the American tradition than all the rest of us? Do we say, does our nominee, does our campaign focus on portraying Obama as anti-traditional American values, do we say this guy is a socialist, this guy’s models consist of Marx and Alinsky, do we go that way, do we point that out? Or do we say to ourselves, you know what, most people don’t want to think that about their president. There’s such reverence for the office that people don’t want to think that even if they admit that they made a mistake in voting for the guy, they don’t want to think that they’ve elected somebody who is essentially an enemy of traditional American founding values.
…I guarantee you the nominee, whoever he or she is, is gonna think there’s nowhere else you can go but him or her. So they may not think they have to service you in the campaign. They may think we have to offer the red meat of this guy’s socialist, Marxist, Saul Alinsky, ’cause they’re afraid doing that might lose precious independents and so forth and so on. So they just focus on policy. I’m just asking the question here, what do you expect, what do you want, what would your reaction be?
Rush, your point is backward. It wouldn’t take courage for a republican nominee to spew this garbage. It would take courage to actually battle earnestly, and engage in tete-a-tete over real, substantive policy issues. You know, the ones the American people care about. Last I checked, arguing the point of President Obama being an Alinsky-Marxist-Socialist-Kenyan-Navi-alien, wouldn’t create one new job, or balance one budget. You’re more than welcome to give it a shot though. Baseless, divisive invective seems to be the only think you’re good at anyway.