Last week, George Bush caused quite a stir when he compared those that advocate including diplomacy as part of our strategy with dealing with Iran to “appeasers” of Hitler in the run up to World War II. Bush did so in Israel during that country’s 60th anniversary and, it appears that he may have been targeting certain key Democrats with his comments.

This is not the first time that Bush has played the “Nazi” card when trying to silence political opponents. But, what always amazes me is that no one has made him uncomfortable in doing so, particularly considering his family’s Nazi ties.

I have shared this with you before (see here and here, for example). George Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, knowingly worked for and did business with companies that backed the Nazi war machine. Furthermore, it appears that he was somewhat sympathetic to the Nazi cause because Prescott Bush, along with other corporatists of his day, plotted a coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency to implement the policies of Hitler and Mussolini as a means of beating the Great Depression.

I say all that to say that little, if any, is ever mentioned about the Bush family in this regard. So, it was somewhat shocking to find out that one of the hosts of The View raised this issue on their show yesterday. I find it interesting that with all of the journalists we have out there, a daytime talk show host on a show usually know for its lighter fare is one of the few with the guts to actually bring it up.

Here’s a clip of the show below (click on the video to play):

 

 Bush Family History on The View: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 10% [?]

Well, it looks like the GOP’s minority recruiting efforts have proven to be a miserable failure.

In a party that treats words like “diversity” like profanity and has made race-baiting an art (okay, I’ll admit Bill Clinton is pretty good at it, too), it’s no wonder that this is a problem for them.

So, as this November looms, this campaign season marks six years without the GOP running a single minority candidate for the House, Senate or a state governorship.

Now, in all fairness, the GOP can tout rising star Bobby Jindal, Governor of Lousiana and an Indian-American, as a strong minority political figure.

But, at this same time, the Democrats can talk about the dozens of Black and Latino House members, a Black Senator/Presidential candidate and three minority governors.

What this tells me is that, if I had political aspirations, I might stand a better shot in the Democratic party, though, to be fair, it has its own issues with race, too.

Nonetheless, the Republicans need to realize something that I continue to say about race in America — African Americans are not just white people in blackface. By extension, you can say that about any other people of color in this country. Republicans seem to believe that everyone must think and act like old, white men and are inflexible to the notion that the country, by and large, is not that way. It’s a simple notion — you evolve or your die.

Perhaps, one day, Republicans will get a clue and realize that if you want black candidates, which really means they want the black vote, they’ll have to make institutional changes in their party that really address the concerns of black voters.

Popularity: 9% [?]

This is not to pick on Mississippi. I live in the Cincinnati, Ohio area and I can see such a thing happening here. Some city officials in Greenwood, MS are wanting a city councilman to, at least, apologize, if not resign. This stems from a racist email sent by the councilman.

City councilman John Lee, one of two white Republicans on city council, decided to show the stereotypical side attributed to many southern whites. Lee sent an email to 15 people, all of them white. The target of his scorn in the email was state sentator David Jordan. However, not being able to adequately criticize him on substance, Lee decided to resort to racism, even referring to Jordan as the “ole nigger”.

In his e-mail, Lee alleged that he “had a long talk after the city council meeting … with David Jordan. The ole nigger can’t understand why the black’s (sic) continue to shoot one another. I told him he needed to spend less time with the old people at the Voters League and more time with the young people about getting an education.”

Lee’s e-mail erroneously claims that Jordan missed an opportunity to help a “big black” who asked him for employment. In fact, according to an outraged Jordan, he had previously employed the young man during several election cycles.

The young man, Lee claimed, told Jordan that he is a rapper. “I told David he missed his chance. He should have told that black boy he should be in school getting his education in order to have a future.” Jordan said the “black boy” is a 28-year-old man.”

Needless to say, some want Lee’s head on a platter. I would imagine that a resignation will be on the way soon. The last thing Mississippi wants is press that reinforces its reputation as a racist state. That is, unless it’s still true. Hmmm…

Popularity: 16% [?]

All I can say is “Wow!”

EDIT:  It looks like YouTube took down the earlier video.  Get this one while you can.

Popularity: 13% [?]

If you’re not a politics geek like me, you might not know the two players in this scene. Donna Brazile has a long, distinguished resume but, many know her as a long-time Democratic insider who has held such high positions as campaign manager for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential run and head of the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute. Lately, she’s be working as a political contributor for CNN.

Paul Begala, on the other hand, is one of those people who seems to see politics more as a business and a game so, he is always in spin mode. So, a few hours ago, he tried to put words in Ms. Brazile’s mouth by saying she was advocating that the Democratic party abandon white, working-class voters. Well, Ms. Brazile proceeded to remind him of her credentials in campaigning for the votes of working-class whites and checked him on his attempts to drive wedges between the constituencies that comprise the Democratic party.

Popularity: 11% [?]

As expected, Obama took North Carolina but, it was not as close as some in the Clinton camp had predicted.

However, the big story of the night is Indiana. After the Rev. Wright drama, the Clinton camp had been saying that Obama was the weaker candidate and unable to win in “states that mattered”. In looking at the early returns, I thought Clinton would coast to an easy victory in Indiana and that she would be able to push this argument further. I flipped back and forth between MSNBC and CNN and watched a high double-digit Clinton lead shrink to 8 points, then to 6 points, then to 4. As I sit here at 12:17am EDT, 92% of the Indiana vote is in and Clinton is only up by 2%.

So, there is another possibility for Indiana. There are some areas where Obama was expected to perform well that haven’t turned in their numbers yet. What this could mean is that an expected Clinton victory could turn out to be an Obama victory. Or, nearly as bad for Clinton, she squeaks out a win in an area that should have been a sure thing for her, casting serious doubts on her claims that Obama couldn’t win in states with predominately white, working-class voters.

So, I’m going to stay up a little while longer to see how this turns out. I feel that I might be witnessing the transition of Barack Obama from Democratic primary contender to Democratic presidential nominee.

UPDATE: At about 1:15am, CNN projected Hillary Clinton the winner in Indiana. It looks like it will be a 51%-49% victory for Clinton. However, even with this victory, her argument to the superdelegates has been weakened. She has said that the delegate count and popular vote should be what matters. Well, Obama has increased his delegate lead and moved his popular vote lead from over 500,000 to over 700,000. The next two weeks should be very telling.

Popularity: 14% [?]

So, as we go into what seems to be the umpteenth week of talking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I want to know why white preachers associated with other politicians aren’t receiving this same level of scrutiny.

For example, John McCain sought out and got the endorsement of John Hagee. Hagee runs a church with over 17,000 members and is a televangelist. However, Hagee also has some views that many would consider extreme. But — surprise — there is no call for McCain to reject and denounce Hagee.

I have added a couple of clips at the end. The first is where Hagee refers to the Catholic church as “the great whore”, a “false cult system” and quotes Hitler as a way of likening the actions of the Catholic church to some of Hitler’s atrocities.

The second clip shows Hagee hawking a book (”In Defense of Israel”) in which Hagee says that Jesus never saw himself as a Messiah. In other words, he is saying that Jesus never saw himself as the Christ, which I would say is pretty interesting for a Christian minister.

Rest assured, there’s much more on this guy out there and I intend to share it with you. As I understand it, he has made some very interesting statements about why Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and a “slave sale” fundraiser he held in 1996.

At any rate, here are the clips so you can see for yourselves.

Also, here’s a sort of rebuttal of Hagee’s book by a member of the same Christian United for Israel group as John Hagee:

Popularity: 16% [?]

Well, Democrats, you just might have done it.

You find yourself on the precipice of losing your black supporters during this year’s election cycle. If you do, you will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

McClatchy News Service has run a story about black voters and their possibility of staying home if they feel Obama is cheated out of the nomination. I can’t lie — I know I can’t stand McCain but, with Hillary Clinton trying to be Republican-light, I ain’t feelin’ her too tough, either.

Though they get the views of,primarily, voters in Indiana, I hear people from all over the country expressing similar disdain for the way things are going down in this election. Some might call it bitter or sour grapes but, when black people have so greatly supported a party for so long, to get slighted will turn a lot of folks off.

We also see how the so-called big tent of the Democrats really doesn’t have room for opinionated black people so, this is also leaving many to wonder where we really stand with them.

Democrats, the race is your to lose. If Clinton gets the nod, it better be because she flat-out won and not because of political gaming on the part of the party. Otherwise, you might have to kiss the black vote goodbye.

Popularity: 15% [?]

I’m not willing to play “YouTube gotcha” with this one so, I’ll let people decide what Hillary Clinton meant on this one. Is she saying, “God bless us — we’re rich and I want to preserve that for us rich folks” or is she saying “God has blessed rich people and we need to use our wealth to help”?

I’ll let the reader decide.

Popularity: 13% [?]

In looking at the candidacy of Barack Obama, I am reminded of something that I once read from author Amos Wilson. In his book, Black-On-Black Violence: The Psychodynamics of Black Self-Annihilation in Service of White Domination, Wilson referred to what being a black man is in America. To paraphrase him, a big part of our experience is that no matter how one might adjust one’s dress, tone or mannerisms, because you are a black man you are always going to be seen as foreign and, possibly, as a threat.

So, it was of little surprise to hear that, in Pennsylvania, the issue of race was glossed over, though it was clear that a significant number of white voters indicated that race was a factor in voting for Clinton. Granted, black turnout for Obama is extremely high, too but, most would agree that this tide did not turn his way until what was construed as race-baiting began in the Clinton camp (a charge I believe true). Prior to that, Sen. Clinton enjoyed an advantage among black voters.

Whatever the reason, a question is now coming forward: How big a role will race play in Obama’s march toward the White House? In the wake of large, majority-white, working-class states, there is a concern that Obama’s race may be factoring into the votes for these states. Okay, let’s step back for a minute. We know that Hillary Clinton will have to deal with sexism and, to a certain extent, McCain will deal with ageism. However, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have advantages — they are white. Sorry to be blunt, but, it’s true. No one will question their patriotism out of hand (for example, how many questions do Clinton or McCain get about lapel flag pins, though I rarely see either wearing one). No one will tell Clinton or McCain who they can or cannot associate with if they want to be serious Presidential candidates (i.e. pastors) or, even more importantly, no one will ask either McCain or Clinton to “reject” or “denounce” people with whom they have no association (i.e. Minister Louis Farrakhan). However, when you’re black, your job becomes one of not only showing whether or not you’re qualified but, also, whether or not you’re “safe”. It’s as if there is some fear that if a black person is in charge, they’d look for retribution or revenge for past injustices.

To bring it down a notch, let’s focus on the Democratic party. For my entire life, Democrats have enjoyed the reliable loyalty of black people. Though I lean left, I still consider myself an Independent. (In fact, until this year, I would get issues-only ballots in primaries because I refused to be tied down to a party. I only declared this year in order to vote for Obama.) The reason why my independent streak kicked in was due to Clinton’s behavior in the White House in 1998. You see, I am not condemning the man for his sexual indiscretions. Instead, it was the actions of the Democrats that really bothered me. Nearly all we heard was spin and excuses but, what we should have been hearing was a clamor for President Clinton to simply tell the truth and put it behind him before things got out of hand. Because they did not, we ended up with President Bush and, a short while later, the Senate fell into Republican hands, which gave them a lock on the Executive and Legislative branches. This, in turn, allowed them to appoint the judges that favored their positions and allowed them to put total incompetents into positions overseeing the most major crises our nation has felt (ex. Donald Rumsfeld overseeing the Iraq War, Michael Brown overseeing FEMA after Hurricane Katrina and Alphonso Jackson overseeing HUD in our current mortgage crisis).

Also, let’s not forget that it was also Bill Clinton who brought us NAFTA, which further exacerbated our problems with lopsided trade policies, and brought us further deregulation in telecommunications which is all but killing independent and small media outlets.

But, even after all this, black people continued supporting the Democratic party, though the party continued to move further from our interests.

Today, I think we stand facing of a truth that we’ve been trying to ignore for a long time–the Democratic party and black folks may need to part company. Don’t get me wrong–unlike Republicans, there is at least an acknowledgment on the Democratic side that there are issues of concern that are particular to black people but, that’s not good enough any longer. If, after all our support, white Democrats feel comfortable saying that not wanting to vote for a candidate simply because of skin color is an acceptable criterion to use in voting, we, as black people, need to reevaluate our associations. Trust me, as my vote for John Kerry proves, I can hold my nose to vote for certain Democrats because, in my mind, George Bush’s presidency has been nothing short of a nightmare. But, if what I am reading is true, there are white Democrats out there willing to risk a continuation of Bush policies (via McCain) because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a black candidate.

I don’t know what the future will bring. However, at least for this cycle, the Democrats face a major quandary. They obviously need white voters but, are they willing to lose their black constituency because they are willing to cater to the racist elements within their white constituency? If so, they run the risk of alienating a group of voters who have been largely responsible for the electoral successes they’ve enjoyed for the last four decades.

Popularity: 13% [?]