CNN Mischaracterized As A ‘Liberal Media Outlet’ On Booker Rising

The anatomy of a misguided statement from the Booker Rising blog:

Asks liberal media outlet CNN, about alleged racial insensitivity. Included in its article are two black conservative Republicans, who are no strangers to regular Booker Rising readers. “Lenny McCallister is African-American, a Tea Party member and a conservative Republican. He says Republicans ‘have to speak out against this stuff because it does not fit our principles, morals or values. At the same time we cannot alienate the most active aspects of the conservative base at this time.’ He’s calling on conservatives to help the Republican Party walk that tightrope in a way they did not in 2009.”

CNN is far from a liberal media outlet. In fact, CNN at times bends over backward to accommodate guests with a variety of opinions and bends over backward to balance its discussion panels.

To refer to CNN as a “liberal media outlet” as the blog Booker Rising did is ridiculous. It seems almost a spiteful reply to the obvious fact that Fox News is a right-wing outlet (to be fair: MSNBC’s prime-time commentators are to the left).

More Irrational Reaction From President Obama’s State Of The Union

President Obama’s State of the Union address really stirred something in those on the far right.

Here is another example from the blog Booker Rising:

Paige Perkins, a conservative Republican, writes on Facebook: “Obama’s SoTU Checklist: Blame Republicans, Blame Republicans, Blame Bush, Encourage bi-partisanship, Declare it’s not my fault, Pat myself on the back, Deliver bad news, Repeat as necessary.”

This is an anger point for many conservatives.

Paige missed the part where President Obama talked about what his administration has added to the deficit. Pointing out the facts (about the state of the economy when President Obama took office) is not blaming.

In baseball, just because a relief pitcher comes in does not mean he assumes responsibility for the runners on base. The starting pitcher bears some responsibility.

Black Extremists Protest President Obama; Some Conservatives Label Them ‘Leftists’

Originally, as I heard the story of a group of 200 black protestors marching on the White House, my sense of interested became elevated. Contrary to popular belief, not all black people like President Obama (as you will see below). Perhaps naturally, I wanted to learn a little more about the topic to try and understand the motives of these protestors. It was at that point I saw an Associated Press story that described the protestors as seeing President Barack Obama, the first black president of the United States of America, as “white power in black face.” So, like a good number of people, I shook my head in disappointment. I was not    shocked, but I was fairly disappointed with such a march (even though there are marches of all kinds that take place in Washington D.C.) as the one that took place on Saturday.

This group views the president as largely continuing policies it deems to be “imperialist” by nature and symbolic of the way this group seems to view the United States of America.

Here is one quote (of many) that grabs attention from the story:

“We recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is white power in black face,” civil rights activist Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black is Back coalition which arranged the protest, called into a megaphone as the group marched outside the mansion’s gates.

“He is a tool of our imperialist enemies and we demand our freedom. And we demand that Obama withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan right now.”

The story goes on to talk about how protestors want the president to pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (among other issues members of this group were upset about). Now, these individuals representing extremist groups are entitled to their Constitutionally-protected opinion, but they are not entitled to our approval.

Here is another passage that is amazing:

Charles Baron, a New York city councilman and former member of the Black Panthers, a Black Power movement in the mid-1960s and 1970s, attacked the president for turning a cold shoulder to the plight of African-Americans.

“We’re not satisfied with him, and… this hope and change rap has not been a reality for black people,” Baron told AFP during the demonstration.

“We are glad that Barack Obama broke up the white male monopoly on the White House, but we were not looking for a change in the occupant of the White House from white to black, we were looking for change in foreign policies and domestic policies,” he added.

“To have a black person exploiting me just like a white person, that’s no easier pain.”

Wow, that is enough to make you want to shake your head and wonder what if anything could possibly satisfy some people.

So, what about the reaction of some people who read this story (people who might have had a different take on the issue). So, I stumbled upon this headline from the blog Booker Rising:

Black Leftist Protesters: “Obama Is White Power In Blackface”

So, again, I became curious. By the way, we should be cautious with those kinds of labels.

The blog entry starts off with this passage:

Decrying U.S. President Barack Obama as “white power in blackface,” hundreds of leftist African-Americans marched on the White House today to protest policies of America’s first black president, and demand that he bring U.S. troops home (hat tip: Robert Oliver). More than 200 people gathered for the first public demonstration by African-Americans against the Obama administration since his historic inauguration in January, and slammed the president for continuing what they described as Washington, D.C’s “imperialist” agenda around the world.

In the words of the ESPN Monday Night NFL Countdown crew, “C’mon, man!”

This is not about left or right. Is a Ku Klux Klan march or a neo-Nazi rally automatically symbolic of right-wing values (because they may share some basic beliefs)? Of course not. I realize there are some who want to desperately show that not all black people love President Obama, but this was the wrong case at the wrong time to make such a disappointing statement.

More Shots Being Taken At Van Jones … This Time From Booker Rising

I always attempt to give black conservatives the benefit of the doubt for a few reasons (among others): (1) People have a right to their opinion, (2) it’s difficult to be a black conservative since you are going against the grain and (3) I used to be a black conservative/moderate and not that long ago. Still, I am always amazed at how some black conservatives turn a blind eye to the use of racial politics against black progressives. Yet, many of these same black conservatives are lightning quick to follow the conservative herd that demands blacks are accused of ”playing the race card” whenever most issues of race come up (particularly related to controversial issues of varying degrees). As I’ve written several times before, “playing the race card” is a shield used by many conservatives to deflect people off the disguised and more subtle racism being used by far too many hardcore conservatives (obviously not all, but far too many).

With that as the backdrop, let me mention this blog I stumbled across posted on Booker Rising:

I commented last week in one of the threads that Van Jones, the now-former green jobs czar for the Obama administration, was an Eldridge Cleaveresque black nationalist. Mr. Jones reminds Duane Brayboy, a conservative blogger, of the “talk black, sleep white” black nationalist character in “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka” (1988): “Just some closing point on Van Jones~

# Jones said that he was a victim of a ‘vicious smear campaign’ against him. So now it is considered a ‘smear’ if your past comments and actions are repeated to the public.

# I, we, all expected, Van Jones’ departure is being blamed on race. The left is gonna burn up all their race cards – and we have not completed one year of Obama’s Presidency. Seriously, all this race card business is shaping up into a live version of the boy who cried ‘wolf’. More sooner than later, the race card is going to lose its effectiveness.

# I have no problem at all with interracial marriages. But all I could do was laugh when I saw the following picture. Van Jones is ‘Kalinga’.”

This is a picture of Van Jones and his family. Apparently it bothered a few ignorant people that he has a white wife and biracial kids.

A few points I will make:

• I am always amazed at how people love to try and pain someone with a broad brush based on knowing very little about a person. More and more people are trying to paint Van Jones as this angry black radical who is highly militant (note the reference above to Eldridge Cleaver). Then, sadly, the writer’s point heads downhill thanks to attempts to make fun of Jones by comparing him to a character in the comedy movie “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka.” It’s an interesting comparison, but it seems you first (to a greater or lesser degree) accept the premise that Jones is an angry and black radical for the comparison to the character in the movie to work.
• The smear is based on Glenn Beck who was angry that ColorOfChange targeted him for his vicious attack on President Obama. Beck targeted Van Jones (I believe) because he was once affiliated on a high leve with the group. Beck used his platform on Fox News and on the radio to wage a campaign against Jones. There is nothing wrong with people having to answer for their words and deeds of the past, but when someone initiates a campaign to smear you (even using your own words and deeds) that is a smear campaign. Beck set out at nearly every turn to attempt to take down Jones using the truth at times, stretching the truth at times and being dishonest at times.
• I mentioned earlier about conservatives using race (for example … Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh almost every day of their lives) to attack blacks and then accusing blacks and other liberals of “playing the race card” when race comes back at them.
• It’s interesting to have no problem with interracial marriages but to then turn around and laugh at the picture of an interracial family and make fun of the family by negatively comparing it to characters in a comedy. It’s almost like saying, “I’m not racist … I have black friends.” Then, you proceed to say something racist or you say that after you’ve said something racist.
• As far as “playing the race card” some would argue you can only play the hand your dealt.

Then there were these two responses to the article:

Robin Martin, a conservative Republican blogger, writes: “On yesterday I decided to see if Van Jones had a Facebook page so that I could read the words of encouragement offered to him by his supporters and I happened upon this picture of Van Jones and his family….Now please understand that I have absolutely no problem with interracial marriage (especially for the sistahs – but that’s another blog post) but I hardly expected to see Van Jones in an interracial marriage. I had to scratch my head. This morning as I read my daily dose of the BlackInformant, I noticed that Duane had the same reaction and related it to a scene from ‘I’m Gonna Git You Sucka”….Ah come on, can’t you take a joke…lol”.

Booker Rising response: Yeah, that’s why you almost never see his wife near Mr. Jones when he’s giving one of his fiery “power to black people; down with whitey” speeches. Very, very few photos of them posing together as well. Mr. Jones practically hides his family. Then again, how ya gonna build a black nation/black unity/you name it when your wife is white? Negro, please…

Being in an interracial relationship does not mean you can’t fight for the rights of people of color. People act as if you sign away your blackness if you get into an interracial relationship. People act like you can’t be down for black causes if you are married to a white person. This is just plain ignorant.

By the way, check out this video to see how “Mr. Jones practically hides his family.”
http://bravenation.com/carl_pope_van_jones.php

Booker Rising:
http://www.bookerrising.net/2009/09/van-jones-kalinga.html