Fox News contributor Tommy De Seno wrote an interesting blog about the plight of the print newspaper industry. As the writer points out, a number of people are of the belief that a key component of the struggles of the print newspaper industry has been putting content on the Web for free while still trying to sell the printed product in coin boxes and through subscriptions. On the surface, it makes sense. De Seno makes another interesting point, later in the article, that the success of a newspaper he wrote for is built on a foundation of ditching the old-school image of newspaper reporters as these objective beacons of integrity and letting them give opinion and allowing readers to make the decision (the Fox News model). Unfortunately, as is the case with Fox News, the model fails if there is not a balanced view of issues. Fox News is rarely balanced in its presentation particularly on its evening shows like The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes (in spite of how much they pretend they regularly give no balance to “analysts” like Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Bernie Goldberg and others) and On The Record.I am clearly in favor of opinion, but with both sides equally presented, and this is where Fox News fails most often and most notably. But, on the other hand, I think Fox News has contributed to the tabloidization of news and I think that is the reason for its success. It has turned the news into A Current Affair or Inside Edition- the old-school tabloid television shows. In this respect, Fox News has been brilliant and that is part of the reason for its success: Constant hard-hitting opinion (that blurs the line between news and opinion), a right-wing lean, tabloid stories of missing women and children, adults having sex with kids, scandals involving stars, etc. Newspapers could, to some extent, learn from the successful Fox News model. And, to be honest, so could some of the other cable networks. I think MSNBC is getting the picture, but CNN needs to bring back shows like Crossfire (a program that Fox News stole the template from when it created Hannity and Colmes).
Archive for December, 2008
Here was a comment, in regard to the attempted appointment of Roland Burris by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich to the vacant U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, from a Fox News article published on its Web site:
“But Rush, a former Black Panther member, praised Burris as ‘worthy’ and urged lawmakers — as Blagojevich did — to distinguish the governor from his nominee.”
Why is it relevant that he is a former Black Panther? It almost strikes me as this being added by Fox News to inflame the racial aspect of the story. If that is the case, then who really is playing the race card … Rush, Fox News or both?
Politics are, obviously, at play in this attempted appointment of Roland Burris to fill the United States Senate seat from Illinois vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. But, Obama and the other Democrats who are serving as an opposition force, are wrong on this one. As much as I feel that Rod Blagojevich should step down as governor of the state of Illinois (not because I am saying he is guilty, but because of the scandal he has brought to Illinois), I do think that legally it is wrong for anyone to oppose Roland Burris. I especially think it is wrong to oppose Burris simply because he was appointed by Blagojevich. That goes back to the ridiculous guilt-by-association politics Obama himself was victimized by throughout the presidential campaign (Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Michael Pfleger, etc.).
Here is a statement from Obama:
“They cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it.”
Of course, politics are involved, but right is right and wrong is wrong. Barack, you’re wrong on this one (along with Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats standing for the forces of opposition).
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, is behaving extremely unfair and displaying a disheartening prejudice toward former state Attorney General Roland Harris, the man being pushed by embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. We know that Blagojevich is being investigated for allegedly trying to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder, but Burris has nothing to do with that (as far as evidence we’ve seen to this point in regard to the investigation).
Here is Reid’s statement about Blagojevich’s attempt to send Burris to the U.S. Senate:
“It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris’s ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.
“Next week we will start one of the most important debates of the year – outlining an economic recovery plan to create jobs and invest in America. And in the coming weeks, we will be working to protect homeowners and consumers, make America more energy independent, strengthen our national security, and improve health care and educational opportunities. There is much work to do and a lot at stake. It is thus critical that Illinois and every other state have two seated Senators without delay.
“We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat.”
Reid is the one who is being unfair to Burris by not giving the man a chance and by pushing the notion that he is somehow tainted because he was picked by Blagojevich. The guilt-by-association politics has to stop, and it’s a shame that Reid is keeping it going. It’s shameful. Give the man a chance to stand up or fall down on his own merit.
I would be less than honest if I did not say that the comments from U.S. Representative Bobby Rush didn’t make me feel more than a little uncomfortable at times. Rush, flanked by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and former state Attorney General Roland Burris (who Blagojevich is pushing to be Obama’s replacement in the United States Senate from the state of Illinois). I’m no Blagojevich fan, but unless or until proven guilty it’s still his right to make the appointment. And, I think people should respect and judge whoever Blagojevich appoints (if he is in fact allowed to do so) without prejudice and put an end to this ridiculous notion of guilt-by-association politics we saw far too often during the presidential campaign. Burris should be judged on his own merit and should not be treated with prejudice simply because he was appointed by Burris. For those who do treat him that way they should be ashamed of themselves. Judge the man on his own record. Now, that being said, I was a little dismayed by Rush pushing the race issue so hard during his press conference. I agree that it would be nice to see more blacks in the United States Senate, but I think Rush pushed the issue too hard. I think Rush would have been best served to perhaps mention it, but work more behind the scenes to make his point. That would have been more effective and less controversial. Invoking the word “lynch” was a bit much, but Rush’s underlying point was well taken about not prejudging. I have to admit, I had not thought about Obama being the only black official in the Senate prior to his resignation as president-elect.
Here is a quote from Rush:
“This is a matter of national importance,” Rush said. “There are no African-Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone, any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate right now wants to go on record to deny one African-American for being seated in the U.S. Senate. … And so I intend to take that argument to the Congressional Black Caucus.”
I do see his point, to a large extent, but Rush clearly could have and should have handled the situation better. Had he done that he would have been far less polarizing in this increasingly politically-correct world. Judge Burris on his own merits and how he can represent the people of Illinois.
Former Detroit Lions President and CEO Matt Millen, in the simplest terms, had a horrifyingly-inept tenure running the football franchise in the Motor City. Millen was an outstanding college and professional football player and, prior to the time he came to the Lions, he was a solid television analyst for National Football League games. But, his run of success, however, fell into a tailspin as he tried to improve the Detroit Lions franchise. Detroit, as many of you know, became the first team in NFL history to finish 0-16. During the painfully unforgettable Millen Era, the Lions had a pitiful record of 31-97 before he was fired on Sept. 24, 2008 – to end eight years of football terror.But, I have a question that intrigues me: What if Matt Millen was a black man with that same record? I can imagine so many things that would have been said about Millen if he was a black man: He would have been called an affirmative action hire, his credentials would have been questioned, that he was only there because of skin color, that he wasn’t fired because of the fear of firing a black man … yadda, yadda, yadda. Now, to be fair, one or two questions like this were asked of Millen from time to time (when he made himself available to the media). But, imagine if black Matt Millen worked so hard to avoid media the way the real Matt Millen did? Imagine if black Matt Millen ducked out of town without facing the media as Millen did when he was given his walking papers by Fords? Imagine what would have happened to (or been said about) black Matt Millen in regard to his horrible draft record like the one the real Matt Millen had? What would be the reaction to black Matt Millen’s 31-97 record? Was the real Matt Millen referred to as some kind of an affirmative action hire? No. I am not so much speaking about the media as much as I am about fans (and especially fans who submit comments to message boards, anonymously, and disparage people and hurl generally unfounded accusations). These are some of the questions I pondered after I read so much of the racial crap said about Detroit News columnist and ESPN contributor Rob Parker. Parker, who came under fire after inappropriate comments he made to former Lions coach Rod Marinelli during a press conference a few weeks back, has been bashed over and over again for being an affirmative action hire, for being a racist (because he has the nerve to bring up topics of race), for only keeping his job because he is black … and so on and so forth. How many people thought Mitch Albom was an affirmative action hire (or only kept his job because he was a white guy) when he got in trouble (and was subject to an internal investigation) at the Detroit Free Press? I have nothing against Mitch Albom. He is an outstanding writer and he is very good at a lot of what he does. Imagine if now ex-Lions head coach Rod Marinelli was a black man? How would people have reacted if black Rod Marinelli had generally answered no questions with specificity, stuck to mind-numbing bland and generic talking points, defiantly confronted or ignored simple questions from the media, hired a son-in-law as a defensive coordinator (who runs a horrible defense), finished 0-16 (the first team in history to do so) and so on and so forth? So, what if Matt Millen and Rod Marinelli were black? Would they have been treated the same way as the real Matt Millen and Rod Marinelli were treated? Would affirmative action have come up? Just a few questions to ponder.
Here are a couple of comments that I found on a Web site for Debbie Schlussel, a fellow blogger. Now, I understand reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the blogger (a lot of times they do), but still I found a couple of comments interesting.
What I would give, to have one WHITE sports reporter that’s allowed to be even half as racist as nine out of every ten black ones are,on ESPN,magazine or newspaper, and gets to keep his job,no matter how anti-black he may be.
MY TAKE: So, this reader apparently yearns for white racist sports writers because “nine out of every ten black ones are, on ESPN, magazine or newspaper, and gets to keep his job, no matter how anti-black he may be.” First, the comment is sexist because it seems to imply that women can’t be sports writers. Second, to say that nine out of every 10 blacks sports writers are racist is just plain stupid.
With affirmative action you can never state the obvious. If someone sucks they suck. It is more racist than straightforward racism. It is more racist to not openly criticize someone because of their particular race. This perverted mindset of liberals to codify minorities hides a hidden guilt that they don’t see minorities as their equals. Liberals ignore the obvious until it gets to a melting point and then go into denial it ever happened.
KING HUSSEIN COBRAMA has benefited from this and now treats the nation and the media like its Bi**h. He knows he doesn’t have to answer questions and is so arrogant he will be given rationalizations for all his actions by this same media. All the questions about his past wont have to be answered because the liberal media has made a deliberate choice to use his presidency as an apology to blacks for slavery.
MY TAKE: On the surface, the first paragraph seems to make sense. But, the problem is that many conservative whites view any successful black as an affirmative action hire, a sympathy hire or some other kind of diversity hire. Many conservatives look at any successful black person as being an inadequate beneficiary of an unfair practice. Now, the second paragraph is a hate-driven chunk of words. It is just plain ignorant and shows the bitterness, frustration, hatred and anger that has filled that particular writer’s heart.
The Republicans working overtime to defend the use of the “Barack The Magic Negro” song to make fun of President-elect Barack Obama simply do not get it. It’s amazing that individuals with intelligence, people who are the face of a major political party, still don’t understand the offensive nature of referring to Obama or any other black person as a “magic negro” these days. The stupid and insulting song is inappropriate and is indicative of the inability of the Republicans to appeal to everyday people (of all races) in our society. To try and marginalize Obama as just a “negro” and a “magic negro” is inappropriate and speaks to the exclusive nature of the Republican Party that must change. I must commend MSNBC segment host Tamron Hall for keeping it real and making sure that people understand the inappropriateness of such divisive comments.
When you finish 0-16, the first team in National Football League history to earn that distinction, heads are going to roll. On Monday, the Detroit Lions dumped head coach Rod Marinelli … one day after finishing 0-16 following a Sunday afternoon loss at Green Bay. Marinelli is a good man, but he appears to have been in over his head as the head coach of the Lions. I think he will make a fine coordinator again some day and he could, believe it or not, make a decent head coach (but, it has to be in a perfect situation). Marinelli will get back into the game of football and he will be coaching again somewhere and probably sooner rather than later. I am listening to Marinelli’s press conference and I wish he had been as open and candid during his entire tenure as head coach as he is the day he has been fired.
For the sake of full disclosure, I have been a big fan of the “Planet of the Apes” film series for quite some time. Now, I was not a fan of the series from the first time I saw one of the movies. As a kid, I thought the films were stupid and the costumes too unbelievable to be given anything beyond laughter. However, as I grew older, entered adulthood, and matured, I started to look at the series differently. I started to look a little deeper at the series for its commentaries on: 1.) war, 2.) anti-war protesters, 3.) racism, 4.) what happens when people become drunk on power, 5.) the wasting of crucial resources unnecessarily, 6.) fighting against progress, 7.) maintaining status quo for selfish reasons 8.) peace 9.) civility to others, 10.) hunting as a sport, 11.) the treatment of “animals” … and on and on it goes. Recently, I was reading an article posted on Black America Web that discussed what the writer felt was the racist nature of the “Planet of the Apes” series. Now, this writer (Gregory P. Kane) is not the first person to think of the series as being racist. I’ve heard and read of other people who see it as racist too. A lot of people have used the film series to put down black people (for those of you who recall it being used that way in the classic Spike Lee film, “Do The Right Thing”).
Here are some of the chief points made by the writer:
1. He mentions that, in the original film, the human astronauts land on future Earth and there are few (if any blacks, Latinos or Asians) in the area. It is hard for me to comment much on this since, admittedly, I didn’t pay much attention to that aspect. Next time, however, I will. If that is true, then that does seem odd (from a casting standpoint).
2. In one of the sequels, “Beneath the Planet of the Apes,” there is a black man and this writer says he is listed as “negro” in the film credits. Obviously, by current standards, that is not politically correct and would draw all kinds of fire. I get the writer’s point about insensitivity and don’t necessarily strong disagree, however, I cut some slack since this was an early-1970s film. That is interesting and something I had not paid attention to in all of the times I have seen the film. I guess the closing credits generally are not that important to me, but perhaps they should be a little more important.
3.) The writer asserts that there was a “racial hierarchy” with orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas. Now, the writer sees the orangutans (the lightest colored) at the top, the chimpanzees (a little darker) next and gorillas (the darkest) as the lowest. I don’t know that the orangutans were considered so much smarter than the chimpanzees, but certainly they had more power and probably were a little smarter. The gorillas were not dumb, however, they were driven by a xenophobic, war-happy obsession. The writer sees the racial hierarchy, but I also see the old people (orangutans) fighting against progress to maintain status quo, the chimpanzees wanting to do the right thing and rationalizing and the war-thirsty gorillas being too obsessed with war to realize they were driving civilization toward extinction.
The social commentaries are critically important in a series that examines how we handle knowledge, how we treat each other and how we treat the world. People who criticize the movie as racist remind me of the one character Martin Lawrence played in the movie “Boomerang” when he thought the game of pool was racist. The pool table was green and represents the Earth. The white ball is the dominant ball and systematically wipes the earth clean of all the colored ball and only wins when it drives the black ball completely off the Earth. The film may not be politically correct in the minds of some people (particularly by today’s standards), but that does not make “Planet of the Apes” racist.
I found this blog interview with Detroit News columnist and ESPN contributor Rob Parker, who came under fire for his comments toward Detroit Lions head coach Rod Marinelli (inappropriately asking, in a poorly-timed joking manner, if Marinelli wished his daughter had married a better defensive coordinator), to be more than a little interesting.
The Starting Five:
Somehow, the Detroit Lions managed to do what so many people felt was next to impossible. The Lions finished a full 16-game National Football League schedule with zero wins and 16 losses. The Lions are the first team in NFL history to finish 0-16. The latest loss was a 31-21 defeat to the Green Bay Packers on Sunday (Dec. 28) at Lambeau Field in Wisconsin. Few people gave the Lions much of a chance to win on the road against the Packers. So, the inevitability of 0-16 was cemented even as the Lions chalked up their 15th loss of the season just one week prior. In the simplest of terms, the Lions now need to make a bold move. Owner William Clay Ford must find a strong football man and hand control of the franchise over. Maybe its Bill Parcells or Bill Cowher or someone of that kind. But, it has to be a bold move that moves in a direction that is different than the paththe the Lions are on these days. The Lions have few talented players that other teams would want (among the exceptions are the brilliant wide receiver Calvin Johnson, running back Kevin Smith and linebacker Ernie Sims). Beyond that, the Lions have some guys who could develop into good players, but few other certifiably-strong NFL-caliber players. Talent (or lack thereof) must be addressed by the Lions. Head coach Rod Marinelli is a good man, but he is in over his head as a head coach (in spite of the fact that he is coaching inferior talent). The coaching staff must be dismissed (Marinelliincluded). The Lions have some high-grade draft choices this season, but is anyone confident that the current front office and coaching staff would know what to do with those picks?
The Answers To Kathleen Parker’s Questions About Difference(s) Between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah PalinPosted: December 28, 2008 in Uncategorized
Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist for the Orlando Sentinel who is syndicated and appears all over the country, shares a common sentiment among right wingers these days. She, and her fellow GOPers, are up in arms about what they view as a hypocrisy between the way that Sarah Palin was treated, as she pursued the vice presidency on the John McCain ticket, and Caroline Kennedy, who is apparently in the running for the United States Senate seat in New York that will be vacated by Hillary Clinton. Parker, a fine writer with strong opinions, wrote a Sunday-published column in the Detroit News entitled, “Does Kennedy pass Palin test?”
Here is Parker:
It is a legitimate question: Why is the resume-thin Caroline Kennedy being treated seriously as a prospective appointee to the U.S. Senate when the comparatively more-qualified Gov. Sarah Palin received such a harsh review?
It is legitimate, at least, to those inclined to see apples and oranges as essentially the same.
Here are two differences:
1.) John McCain spoke about the inexperience of Barack Obama and how we did not need people who required on-the-job training in the White House. The foundation of his run for the presidency was established on experience and readiness. Then, McCain turns around and nominates Palin for the vice presidency when there were a number of far more qualified men and women who would have looked better and drawn far less criticism. McCain played the experience card and then trumped his own argument with the nomination of Palin. So, it was not necessarily her experience that was bashed on its own merits. Her experience was bashed relative to McCain’s talk of the importance of experience.
2.) Sarah Palin bungled (BADLY) interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric where she made even the simplest questions (what newspapers do you read, important Supreme Court cases, etc.) appear painfully complicated. She turned herself into a caricature and that is why she is and will continue to be viewed far differently than Caroline Kennedy.
I agree with a lot of the stuff Parker said about Kennedy benefiting from name recognition and about Palin having to take a harder road to national recognition. However, Kathleen Parker needs to be honest with herself about why Palin found herself under the microscope, ridiculed (most notably on Saturday Night Live) and judged so harshly by critics.
I’ve always had mixed feelings about President George W. Bush. He strikes me as a good guy, but he has simply been a bad president. Maybe some of it isn’t his fault, but a lot of it (the majority of it) is his fault. That being established, it seems most Americans in the United States will not be exactly depressed to see President Bush go back to Texas to get his chill on, according to a Think Progress article:
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll finds that 75 percent of Americans are glad President Bush is leaving office; just 23 percent indicated that they will miss him. CNN notes that when Clinton left office, more Americans — 45 percent — said they would miss him. Twenty-eight percent also believe that Bush is the worst president ever.
Only 23 percent will miss him. That is not good. Although, I guess I’m a little surprised that 23 percent of people say they will miss him. I thought that number might be a tad inflated, but maybe not. I was a little surprised that only 28 percent thought he would go down as the worst president ever. I thought that would be a touch higher. But, it’s difficult to compare presidents from so many different areas and it is especially challenging considering the unique situations that each president has had to face.
Here is a blog I recently discovered while I searched what people are still saying about Detroit News columnist and ESPN contributor Rob Parker. I’ll explain in a little bit while I am continuing to be intrigued by this issue. I found a blog written by Debbie Schlussel that caught and held my attention all the way through. Parker, is under a lot of national fire for his joke (admittedly in very poor taste and ill timed to say the least) toward Rod Marinelli. Parker, after the Lions fell to 0-15, asked Marinelli if he wished his daughter had married a better defensive coordinator (Joe Barry, the defensive coordinator for the Detroit Lions is married to Marinelli’s daughter). It was a cheap shot. No doubt about that being a cheap shot and just plain bad to use it in such a situation. It’s hard to imagine what Rob was thinking there (and I say that as a person who has met Rob and thinks Rob is a good guy).
But, here is an excerpt from a blog by Schlussel:
“When I discussed affirmative action on my show and how I was against it–he called my show, angrily. But the fact is that he had a show and his lackluster column in The Detroit News because of race. At the radio station, he was mostly absent, and the show was basically done entirely by his on-air co-host. His colleagues at the News tell me he’s heavily edited, and his column is still terrible.
And that’s why a guy who says the kind of things Rob Parker said to Rod Marinelli about his daughter is in the position to begin with–affirmative action. He’s a lackluster columnist, and there are other Black writers at the paper who are far better–like Terry Foster. The Detroit News should fire Parker, but they won’t. And race isn’t the only reason.”
Parker clearly has strong opinions and he has some strong opinions about race issues (just as it appears Schlussel does). Affirmative action is a controversial issue and there are strong opinions on both sides of the aisle (black and white people are for it and black and white people are against it). Here is one of the disturbing lines from her blog, “But the fact is that he had a show and his lackluster column in The Detroit News because of race.” When people do not like a black columnist, when people are uncomfortable with a black columnist bringing up an issue related to race, or do not think he/she is good, the first thing they do is accuse the individual of being an “affirmative action hire” who is only in the position because of race. A lot of writers and columnists are heavily edited and that just, frankly, comes across as a bitter cheap shot by a former “colleague” out for some sort of revenge. It’s not like Rob is the only black columnist in America. He has gotten where he has gotten not because of affirmative action. He has gotten there on his own skills, his willingness to ask tough questions, his willingness to tackle the controversial issues that make some columnists pee their pants and more. He steps out of line from time to time and he has made some notable mistakes, but to say he is an affirmative action hire is a baseless and, quite frankly, idiotic argument. Schlussel is funny in being critical of Parker for being “militant” with race. it seems that she is at least as militant, if not more so, than Parker. Want evidence? Look at the last two lines of the excerpt I quoted from her blog. I am intrigued by this Parker issue because it smokes out the people who think that black columnists (a true minority in the industry) only get what they get because they’re black.
Whenever Republicans get into trouble, with something racially offensive, you can bet that the leadership calls on a few of its favorite helpers to come in to bail them out. Generally, the Republicans rely on men like Michael Steele, Jesse Lee Peterson and Juan Williams. But, according to Politico, a new voice is coming to the rescue of Republicans making racially-offensive mistakes (such as Republican National Committee Chairman candidate Chip Saltman distributing a hate-filled CD that includes the Rush Limbaugh favorite, “Barack The Magic Negro”): Ken Blackwell, a frequent Fox News contributor (that should tell you plenty right there). Blackwell is in the race to become RNC Chairman as well.
Here is Blackwell, as quoted by Politico:
“Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-Elect Obama being the first African-American elected president. I don’t think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people.”
It’s a shame that Blackwell would turn his back on racial insensitivity in a color-free Republican Party for the sake of his own benefit. At some point, the Ken Blackwell’s of the GOP need to step forward and work to build bridges with minorities instead of burning bridges. The Republicans are behind the times and seemed determined to stay on a course toward its own destruction as minority populations continue to grow. Someday, maybe all of us will be dead by the time it happens, Republicans will pay dearly should they continue to aggressively resist racial progress and cultural diversity.
Republicans lost badly in the recent elections of Nov. 4, but apparently the lesson went over the heads of the Republicans or in one ear and out of the other with little to slow it down. When will Republicans cease playing racial politics … as they are again by raising from the dead the tired and racist “Barack The Magic Negro” song pushed hard by right-wing extremist Rush Limbaugh. It’s sad when this party is having so much of what it hopes to accomplish driven by someone like Limbaugh, one of the most divisive political figures/commentatorsin the United States of America. The GOP, however, is taking some heat for practically spitting in the face of black people with one of the candidates for Republican National Committee Chairman looking unbelievably stupid. The man’s name is Chip Saltsman, who mailed an offensive CD to a number of Republican officials containing numerous offensive songs, including “Barack The Magic Negro.” Hopefully the Republicans will reject this kind of racial garbage and prepare itself to become a more inclusive party instead of the exclusive and virtually all-white party it is right now. The Republicans must adapt with the times.
Here is a pssage from an article run by Politico:
In the “Republican Plan for Victory” that is Saltsman’s platform in the chairman’s race, he writes: “I believe that countering an emboldened Democratic Party, led by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi troika, requires an aggressive national strategy. This campaign’s message cannot depend upon traditional media outlets or communication methods. It will require building upon new media and developing and mastering new tactics.”
Apparently, the new media is an offensive CD and the new tactics include racially divisive words, songs and deeds from GOP leadership. Apparently this is Saltsman’s idea of an aggressive national strategy.
Republicans Bringing Back “Barack The Magic Negro” Shows It Wants To Continue To Be A Party For Whites PrimarilyPosted: December 27, 2008 in Uncategorized
Conservatives, led by talk radio’s king of hate (Rush Limbaugh), has pushed the racist song “Barack The Magic Negro” as an obvious shot of hate aimed at the president-elect (Barack Obama). Limbaugh and others pushed this throughout the presidential campaign and now, it appears, even high-ranking Republican officials have taken a liking to the song. The Republicans, a party that has long since turned its back on all people of color, gays, lesbians and (well, I could go on and on), continues to play racial politics in an effort to strengthen its own political base. As always, the GOP prefers to appeal to the lowest common denominator in its party.
From The Hill:
RNC candidate Chip Saltsman’s Christmas greeting to committee members includes a music CD with lyrics from a song called “Barack the Magic Negro,” first played on Rush Limbaugh’s popular radio show.
Saltsman, a personal friend of conservative satirist Paul Shanklin, sent a 41-track CD along with a note to national committee members.
“I look forward to working together in the New Year,” Saltsman wrote. “Please enjoy the enclosed CD by my friend Paul Shanklin of the Rush Limbaugh Show.”
The CD, called “We Hate the USA,” lampoons liberals with such songs as “John Edwards’ Poverty Tour,” “Wright place, wrong pastor,” “Love Client #9,” “Ivory and Ebony” and “The Star Spanglish banner.”
Several of the track titles, including “Barack the Magic Negro,” are written in bold font.
Republicans simply don’t get it and maybe never will.