Nov 28, 2007 at 9:35 PM by Political Chase
In a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed, The Rev. Jesse Jackson has made allegations that the Democratic candidates, with the exception of John Edwards,”have virtually ignored” African Americans in the 2008 campaign process.
[T]he Democratic candidates — with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans’ Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign — have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country. The catastrophic crisis that engulfs the African-American community goes without mention. No urban agenda is given priority. When thousands of African Americans marched in protest in Jena, La., not one candidate showed up.
I can’t attest to the credibility of Rev. Jackson’s allegations, which are for the most part very generalized and ambiguous. The only specific incident Jackson cites is related to the Jena 6 matter.
I know John Edwards has campaigned extremely hard for the disenfranchised and impoverished. I know he has advocated the needs of the poor and made countless trips through poverty-stricken areas across the nation trying to draw attention to the need, but as Greg Sargent accurately noted the other day, the press does not give him fair coverage. Even the New York Times‘ public editor published a piece admonishing his paper for giving Edwards “scant coverage”
With respect to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the other Democratic candidates, I am not aware of any allegations of gross neglect as Rev. Jackson claims in his op-ed. That doesn’t mean anything except I’m not aware of any real neglect other than by most GOP candidates, which has been unconscionable. But, if things are as bad as Jackson attempts to portray, is it not reasonable to presume there would be numerous complaints from multiple sources? And would they not have a certain level of specificity?
I by no means intend to imply that my knowledge of what each campaign is doing (or not) is comprehensive; however, I am quite likely more aware of the candidates’ activities and positions on the issues than the average American voter. Taking that into consideration, the most frequent ethnic issue I continue to hear is: “Is Barack black enough?” Moreover, I hear that question raised by Chris Matthews more than any other source. And frankly, I find the question to be repugnant, irrelevant, and downright stupid. If the next president will be elected on the basis of whether that person is black, white, or green “enough,” then we have a seriously dysfunctional society.
No one can legitimately argue that ethnic or gender discrimination does not exist, but I believe the majority of Americans do not condone those types of discrimination.
One can only make assumptions about most of Rev. Jackson’s statements because he does not suggest a single solution for any issue. He does not make a specific request, nor does he reference specific incidents, except as noted on the Jena 6 issue. Rev. Jackson’s complaints are so broad and generalized that he seems to be demanding presidential candidates have two custom platforms: one for African-Americans and another for whites, which literally turns We the People on its head.
Patterns of discrimination are sharply etched. African Americans have, on average, about half of the good things that whites have, and double the bad things. We have about half the average household income and less than half the household wealth. On the other hand, we’re suffering twice the level of unemployment and twice the level of infant mortality (widely accepted as a measure of general health).
Policies on health care, employment, wages, and the judicial system should be established to promote the general welfare of all the people. If Rev. Jackson is concerned about discrimination and is positioning himself as an advocate of the disenfranchised, he failed to meet the objective. He does not address the plight of amongst others: homosexuals, Hispanics, Native Americans and whites. Accept it or not, white people are discriminated against, albeit not to the extent African-Americans endure. I don’t have statistics or references to prove my posit, but I believe the predominant factors related to discrimination in general are economic. I have little doubt that the lower the economic class is, the greater the prevalence of discrimination. A turquoise man in the lowest economic classification will have a greater probability to be the victim of discrimination, than for example, Vernon Jordan or Warren Buffet
And what about religious discrimination? Jackson does not mention it. What better example to cite than Mitt Romney’s view that the ratio of people who are Muslims is not high enough to merit a Cabinet position in his administration.
The level of commitment by the current Democratic presidential candidates with respect to social issues that promote the general welfare for all the people is unprecedented in modern politics. Not since Lyndon Johnson have Democrats or Republicans proposed the level of social changes that are basically common to the platforms of all the current Democratic candidates.
Is Rev. Jackson serving as a true advocate of equal rights or is he attempting to raise the level of rhetoric to serve his personal interests? If the answer is the latter, then Rev. Jackson should consider some reflective time on inclusiveness. Rhetoric that attempts to pit two specific races against each other is counter-productive and indicative of 40-year-old tactics. Listening to a few of Barack Obama and John Edward’s speeches may be insightful.
To emphasize a few points,, I quickly wrote an over-the-top fictional tale-of-woe, but debated at some length whether I should include it in this post. By including it, I obviously made a decision. The outlandish tale, but unfortunately all too realistic for many, follows the jump.
I raise my point/issue after the tale-of-woe.
Continue reading ‘Does Jesse Jackson need to refocus?’
Nov 28, 2007 at 4:25 PM by Political Chase
In an interview with Charlie Rose a few days ago, Karl Rove said Congress was responsible for staring the war in Iraq, not George Bush. After all these years, I thought George Bush and Dick Cheney could not get the war started fast enough, and to learn last night Congress is responsible…well, I’m just dumfounded. (Short video here. Full video here.)
KARL ROVE: One of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate vote on the Iraq War Resolution in the Fall of 2002?
CHARLIE ROSE: Why?
KARL ROVE: This administration was opposed to it. I’m going to talk about that in my book.
CHARLIE ROSE: Well tell me, give me…
KARL ROVE: No I’m not going to…
CHARLIE ROSE: Come on - give it to me…give me something.
KARL ROVE: No.
CHARLIE ROSE: Give me something.
KARL ROVE: No. I just did. I just told you the administration was opposed to voting on it in the Fall of 2002.
CHARLIE ROSE: Because?
KARL ROVE: Because we didn’t think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up in a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad.
Karl Rove is absolutely correct that the White House was concerned about the potential impact the prelude to war might have on the elections, but their concern was just the opposite of what Karl stated in the interview. Instead, the White House desperately wanted to put war with Iraq at the forefront of the 2002 election. They made all kinds of public statements heralding the war, established unconstitutional plans to invade Iraq as quickly as possible if Congress did not approve the war, and pressured Congress to pass the resolutions to invade Iraq.
First, this is straight from the White House.
President Bush in a September 24, 2002 photo-op with the Cabinet* in the Cabinet Room:
Thanks for coming. We just had a very productive Cabinet meeting. We realize there’s little time left in — before the Senate and the House goes home, but we’re optimistic a lot can get done before now and then. Congress must act now to pass a resolution which will hold Saddam Hussein to account for a decade of defiance.
President Bush from the Rose Garden* on October 2, 2002
Today I’m joined by leaders of the House and the Senate from both political parties to show our unity of purpose in confronting a gathering threat to the security of America and to the future of peace.
I want to thank [Hastert and Gephardt] for…building bipartisan support on this vital issue. I also want to thank [Warner, Lieberman, McCain and Bayh] for introducing this resolution which we’ve agreed to on the floor of the Senate this morning.
President Bush from the Roosevelt Room*, October 10, 2002 (emphasis in original)
President Bush Pleased with House Vote on Iraq Resolution
I would like to thank the members of the House of Representatives, just as I thanked Speaker Hastert and Leader Gephardt a few minutes ago, for the very strong bipartisan vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq if it becomes necessary.
I’m also pleased with the progress being made in the Senate, and I look forward to a final vote soon.
In August 2002, the White House had Timothy Flannigan, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel, to issue a legal opinion giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq without the approval of Congress. (Charlie Savage, Takeover, pp. 156-157). If Congress didn’t pass the resolution the White House, especially Dick Cheney, was prepared to move forward without Congressional approval.
Savage further writes:
When Congress returned in September [2002] for a few last weeks...before the mid-term election, administration officials abruptly demanded that Congress immediately approve a hypothetical invasion of Iraq, just in case Bush later decided that diplomacy had failed and war was necessary…At the same time, administration officials escalated alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iraq, warning that “the smoking gun” for Iraq’s alleged weapons programs and its alleged links to Al Qaeda could come in the form of a “mushroom cloud.”
Note: This sudden surge had been crafted by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which had been secretly formed in August 2002 to coordinate a strategy for coming confrontation with Iraq. Its members included Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Condoleezza Rice, and Stephen Hadley.
The proposed hurry up vote on the eve of the first election since 9/11 presented a win-win scenario for the White House: If Democrats voiced caution or skepticism about the proposed war resolution, then the GOP could portray them as weak on terrorism ahead of the election, and if Democrats supported the bill, then the Bush-Cheney administration would fortify its powers by eliminating even the suggestion that it might later need to ask for permission to launch any war against Iraq.
Book stores and libraries will have to put Karl Rove’s book in the fiction section.
* - pdf
Nov 28, 2007 at 1:09 PM by Political Chase
Zogby conducted an interactive poll (web based, no phones) that has Hillary Clinton losing to every Republican presidential candidate. The poll also shows Obama and Edwards would defeat or tie every Republican.
I would not put any confidence in the poll until Zogby can provide additional evidence the methodology used is credible. It was basically a straw poll. Zogby’s poll is no different than if I had put up a poll here and then published the results as scientifically credible.
Maybe Zogby has some new science to apply to the poll that he hasn’t discussed yet or maybe it’s part of a test phase that will lead to something more credible in the future. But putting credibility in an interactive poll that surveys "individuals who have registered to take part in online polls" probably has mathematicians laughing in univerisities around the globe..
The poll results are here.
Nov 28, 2007 at 12:23 PM by Political Chase
(Update below)
The Arab world is not buying into the Annapolis Middle East peace talks. Their opinion? Photo-op.
Arab commentators on Wednesday dismissed the relaunch of Israeli-Palestinian talks as a U.S.-staged media event unlikely to lead to Middle East peace.
Some argued that U.S. President George W. Bush’s real aim in convening Tuesday’s conference in Annapolis, Maryland, was to rescue his image after failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to persuade Arab states their deadliest foe was Iran, not Israel.
What else are they supposed to believe when George Bush committed a measly three hours of his time, which include a meal?
Reuters has a long list of commentaries.
Update: Analysis from the Washington Post. Maybe Mr. Bush has finally found something more compatible with his capabilities. Answering the phones.
The outcome of Bush’s new effort, in the twilight of his presidency, will depend greatly on the personal commitment he is willing to invest in the unfolding process, according to officials and experts on the Middle East.
"At this point, he’s come to an event and he’s made a speech," said Dennis Ross, the Middle East peace envoy of Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. "The investment will come if he starts engaging in serious diplomacy."
White House officials reject the frequent criticism that Bush has been disengaged from the Middle East peace process, while waging war in Iraq and focusing on other issues. In an Associated Press interview yesterday, Bush described himself as "very engaged, up to the moment” in bringing Israelis, Palestinians and the representatives of more than 40 countries to Annapolis to launch his most serious attempt at Middle East peacemaking.
"I work the phones, I listen, I encourage, I have meetings. I do a lot of things," Bush said in the White House interview, shortly after returning from Annapolis.
