Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

Putin on team Landrieu? I'd cut an ad if I was her.

Hell yeah. What an odd assortment of senators.

 

[speculawyer]

Putin on team Landrieu? I'd cut an ad if I was her.

Is that the Putin sanction list? I wanna be on it.

I bet McCain is beaming that he is on it.

Edit: Yep . . .

John McCain ✔ @SenJohnMcCain
Follow
I'm proud to be sanctioned by Putin - I'll never cease my efforts & dedication to freedom & independence of #Ukraine, which includes #Crimea
9:14 AM - 20 Mar 2014


And Putin has managed to unite Dems & GOP:

Sen. Robert Menendez ✔ @SenatorMenendez
Follow
If standing up for #democracy & sovereignty in #Ukraine means I'm #SanctionedByPutin, I'll take it.
9:00 AM - 20 Mar 2014

 

[Oblivion]

We always knew they'd struggle to address this once the law was passed, but I'm impressed Brown had literally no response. Totally unprepared to deal with real people instead of talking points.

I'm more shocked at the idea of a Republican legislator actually gushing over Obamacare. Usually, you'd see guys like that accept all the goodies that come with Obamacare while pretending that they're actually suffering under it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Is that the Putin sanction list? I wanna be on it.

I bet McCain is beaming that he is on it.

‏@SenJohnMcCain
I guess this means my spring break in Siberia is off, Gazprom stock is lost & secret bank account in Moscow is frozen http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=fb0cfcb4-99c3-4ee5-b4ee-c761faa766a3 …

and

@SenGillibrand
My book "#OffTheSidelines: Raise Your Voice, Change the World" comes out in Sept.--here's a first look at the cover: pic.twitter.com/RGAlLR5BQf

Oh

 

[speculawyer]

I don't understand the South.

Ground Zero For GOP Civil War

At the Rotary Club in LaGrange, Georgia, Rep. Jack Kingston answered every question, shook every hand he was offered with a “thanks, man,” or a “yes, sir,” and stooped quickly to pick up a business card that had fallen from a woman’s purse.

In his pursuit of the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Saxby Chambliss, Kingston left his audience with the impression that he is friendly, reasonable, and entirely competent. But in a GOP primary packed with Tea Party pleasers, pro-life crusaders, gun lovers, and a millionaire whose cousin is a former governor, being friendly, reasonable and entirely competent may be Jack Kingston’s biggest problem.

“I think he was pretty much right on it,” said Danny Graddy, a Republican and financial planner from Pine Mountain, Ga., who got what he was looking for in Kingston’s Rotary speech, which focused on preserving America’s military, supporting agriculture in the state, balancing the federal budget and ending the gridlock in Washington. “But being right on it and getting elected are two different things.”

To Graddy’s point, the congressman is stuck in what amounts to a five-way tie with Rep. Paul Broun, Rep. Phil Gingrey, former Secretary of State Karen Handel, and former CEO David Purdue. With just five weeks left until early voting begins for the May 20 primary, most polls show the five separated only by a margin of error. A recent PPP poll showed Broun with a double digit lead over the entire field.

Broun has gotten activists’ (and the media’s) attention by giving away magazine-fed rifles on his campaign website, racking up local Tea Party endorsements, or offering up quotable declarations like calling evolution and other sciences “lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

http://news.yahoo.com/ground-zero-gop-civil-war-094500634--politics.html

"Evolution and Big Bang Theory are lies straight from the pit of Hell.” . . . is a line that GETs votes?

 

[empty vessel]

I don't understand the South.

It's full of crazy people.

 

[speculawyer]

Obama designated a National Monument in Northern California . .

On Tuesday, President Obama held a ceremony at the White House to announce his use of executive authority to expand the California Coastal National Monument (CCNM) to include the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands on the Mendocino Coast. This is the first land-based addition to the CCNM and permanently protects more than 1,660 acres of beach, bluffs, and the Garcia River estuary. The area is home to rare and endangered species such as coho salmon, steelhead, the Point Arena mountain beaver, and the Behren’s silverspot butterfly. The Mendocino Coast of California was recently picked for the number 3 spot in the New York Times “52 Places to Go in 2014.”

This is the 10th national monument designated by President Obama. For comparison, President Clinton created 19 new monuments and enlarged three others, while President George W. Bush used his power under the Antiquities Act just 5 times.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/11/3390781/obama-new-california-national-monument/

And the GOP decided it was time to take-away the president's ability to do that.

Responding to President Obama’s decision last week to protect a stretch of California’s Coast near Point Arena as a new national monument, the House of Representatives is planning to vote next week to overturn a 108 year-old law that presidents of both parties have used to protect iconic American places, including the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, and Arches National Park.

The bill, H.R. 1459, aims to block presidents from using the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish new national monuments by putting caps on how many times it can be used, requiring congressional review of proposed monuments, and forcing local communities to engage in an ironic exercise of reviewing the environmental impacts of protecting lands for future generations.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/20/3416916/house-no-more-national-parks/


I really think the GOP's core set of principles at this point is "Do the opposite of whatever Obama wants to do."

 

[explodet]

@SenJohnMcCain
I guess this means my spring break in Siberia is off, Gazprom stock is lost & secret bank account in Moscow is frozen http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=fb0cfcb4-99c3-4ee5-b4ee-c761faa766a3

Oh

 

[PhoenixDark]

Nunn might be able to beat Paul Broun. He's certifiable.

Georgia is a state where the Supreme Court's Medicaid expansion decision will likely doom democrats. A lot of people aren't getting coverage solely due to republican governors refusing the money, and those on the exchanges are facing higher premiums and delays due to obstruction. Texas has been pretty notorious about dragging their feat on exchange issues, and I'd imagine most of the south is doing the same thing.

This creates an electorate that has been unable to see the benefits of the law for themselves, and thus is more skeptical of it. That confusion and skepticism makes it hard to mobilize voters.

I think this is one of the main reasons why red states are bullshitting. If people see the benefits of the law they'll come around. Withholding the benefits makes it easier to demonize the law, since you're arguably about an abstract concept.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nunn might be able to beat Paul Broun. He's certifiable.

Georgia is a state where the Supreme Court's Medicaid expansion decision will likely doom democrats. A lot of people aren't getting coverage solely due to republican governors refusing the money, and those on the exchanges are facing higher premiums and delays due to obstruction. Texas has been pretty notorious about dragging their feat on exchange issues, and I'd imagine most of the south is doing the same thing.

This creates an electorate that has been unable to see the benefits of the law for themselves, and thus is more skeptical of it. That confusion and skepticism makes it hard to mobilize voters.

I think this is one of the main reasons why red states are bullshitting. If people see the benefits of the law they'll come around. Withholding the benefits makes it easier to demonize the law, since you're arguably about an abstract concept.

On the other hand, Democrats in Georgia are basically starting from square one and can blame the elected Republicans for all the problems.

Its trajectory is similar to North Carolina where demographics are helping it become a purple-blue state on the presidential level, except Republicans have also dominated on the state level for the past decade or so. Unlike in NC which still elected Democrats from time to time so there was still potential for voter resentment.

 

[speculawyer]

Nunn might be able to beat Paul Broun. He's certifiable.

Georgia is a state where the Supreme Court's Medicaid expansion decision will likely doom democrats. A lot of people aren't getting coverage solely due to republican governors refusing the money, and those on the exchanges are facing higher premiums and delays due to obstruction. Texas has been pretty notorious about dragging their feat on exchange issues, and I'd imagine most of the south is doing the same thing.

This creates an electorate that has been unable to see the benefits of the law for themselves, and thus is more skeptical of it. That confusion and skepticism makes it hard to mobilize voters.

I think this is one of the main reasons why red states are bullshitting. If people see the benefits of the law they'll come around. Withholding the benefits makes it easier to demonize the law, since you're arguably about an abstract concept.

Of course this could all backfire on them big time. As soon as a lot of people get coverage they may turn around and think . . . why were you preventing me from getting this?

 

[ElectricThunder]

Bet on GA to do the right thing for the public and generally downtrodden at your peril---our shitheel legacy of late up top is second perhaps only to Arizona and other such locales.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm assuming this will fail in the Senate, but... seriously?

Party of Teddy Roosevelt, ladies and gents.

And what happened to the strong unitary executive theory? I guess that is another one of those things that only applies when a Republican is in the White House.


I'm happy that Reid got rid of filibusters on appointments because the GOP would have done it the next time they got in the White House (or maybe not because spineless dems wouldn't block their nominees) but it doesn't seem like they've used it to get more appointments. 1 step forward, 1 step back.

 

[FyreWulff]

I'm assuming this will fail in the Senate, but... seriously?

Party of Teddy Roosevelt, ladies and gents.

Pretty pathetic to see a party's entire goal to just be "deny the sitting President as many actions as possible until his clock runs out so he don't get in them history books"

He seriously should have someone draw him up a list of pet projects/things strong up-and-coming GOP candidates want and back all of them, and watch the GOP collapse in upon itself like a black hole.

 

[Gotchaye]

I can't tell whether or not Chait is trying to atone for his Obama/Paul race post with these posts on basketball racism.

 

[Oblivion]

I can't tell whether or not Chait is trying to atone for his Obama/Paul race post with these posts on basketball racism.

Ha! I read those just now.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I agree with Chait, honestly. I like Coates, in fact I really like him, which is why I'm disappointed his views on Obama discussing personal responsibly mirrors the less than thoughtful comments I expect from inferior commentators.

Obama has never blamed black problems solely on personal responsibility. He tackles the issue like he tackles every issue: by pointing out the complexity, noting two extremes and reaching for a middle ground. IE something along the lines of "we cannot overlook the impact of disparity and inequality within the economic and legal system, however we also cannot overlook the importance of taking education seriously and raising our children." That's been Obama's thing since Harvard.

I understand why Coates was upset with Cosby, although I think you could argue Cosby was being hyperbolic to make his point (which he does on every issue, even in his comedy acts). But his Obama criticism continues to puzzle me. Granted he's not crucifying him like Cornell West or some other nonsensical bomb thrower, but it's still surprising.

 

[Oblivion]

 

[RustyNails]

Of course this could all backfire on them big time. As soon as a lot of people get coverage they may turn around and think . . . why were you preventing me from getting this?

"Preventing you from getting Obamacare made it better! Also guns gays jesus and abortion. Now vote for me"

"done!"

 

[Metaphoreus]

Kick him when he's down.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nj-lawmaker-clean-up-christie-tesla-mess-2014-3

Greenwald is either ignorant of the law or being disingenuous--which I guess is why he's an elected officeholder.

Like I pointed out in the thread on this topic, direct sales of automobiles have been illegal in New Jersey since 1985. The MVC ignored the law in issuing Tesla a license to sell automobiles directly. So, to the extent that there's a "governor's mess" in this, it's because the license was initially granted, not that it's now being denied.

And how can a person reject the claim that the problem has to be solved by the legislature while vowing to have the legislature solve the problem?

 

[kehs]

Economic cold war going on.

This explains the huge push for energy independence.

=/

 

[Gotchaye]

I agree with Chait, honestly. I like Coates, in fact I really like him, which is why I'm disappointed his views on Obama discussing personal responsibly mirrors the less than thoughtful comments I expect from inferior commentators.

Obama has never blamed black problems solely on personal responsibility. He tackles the issue like he tackles every issue: by pointing out the complexity, noting two extremes and reaching for a middle ground. IE something along the lines of "we cannot overlook the impact of disparity and inequality within the economic and legal system, however we also cannot overlook the importance of taking education seriously and raising our children." That's been Obama's thing since Harvard.

I understand why Coates was upset with Cosby, although I think you could argue Cosby was being hyperbolic to make his point (which he does on every issue, even in his comedy acts). But his Obama criticism continues to puzzle me. Granted he's not crucifying him like Cornell West or some other nonsensical bomb thrower, but it's still surprising.

My read is that Coates is frustrated that Obama finds plenty of time to act as encourager-in-chief to black America but very little to forcefully advocate for policies to help fix the problems in black America. He contrasts Obama's rhetoric about and actions concerning black Americans with those about female Americans - Obama has no problem pushing for policies clearly aimed at helping women and has no problem with selling them in those terms. The first thing he did was sign the Fair Pay Act. To my knowledge Obama hasn't similarly argued that black people get a raw deal and proposed a policy aimed at helping. "Black people have it rough" is mostly only throat-clearing on the way to "twice as good" talk. That's more-or-less fine for someone who's just a respected figure among black Americans, although of course it's easy to argue that someone with Cosby's prominence does harm by giving ammunition to people who want to oppose helpful policies, but Obama has actual power in addition to being someone that the whole country pays attention to.

Now, obviously one can plead political reality here. It would certainly have hurt Obama and the Democrats in 2012 if he were to have come across as partial to black people in his first term. But it seems fair to me to say that, judging by what he's actually said and done, without trying to figure out what he's hiding out of fear of political consequences, Obama thinks that the path forward for black America is more personal responsibility. I think Coates is basically right that Ryan isn't saying something very different from what Obama has said. They disagree on how best to promote personal responsibility - Obama favors exhortation and Ryan favors cutting food stamps - but neither seems to think that there's much more that government could be doing and neither seems interested in fighting for that. I think Obama gets a pass because everyone who thinks much about this strongly suspects that he's hiding his support for government intervention for political reasons. But I also think Coates is valuably pointing out that there's a cost to this pretending - it helps create space for people like Ryan who are really sincere about emphasizing the importance of black bootstraps over government assistance.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

My read is that Coates is frustrated that Obama finds plenty of time to act as encourager-in-chief to black America but very little to forcefully advocate for policies to help fix the problems in black America. He contrasts Obama's rhetoric about and actions concerning black Americans with those about female Americans - Obama has no problem pushing for policies clearly aimed at helping women and has no problem with selling them in those terms. The first thing he did was sign the Fair Pay Act. To my knowledge Obama hasn't similarly argued that black people get a raw deal and proposed a policy aimed at helping. "Black people have it rough" is mostly only throat-clearing on the way to "twice as good" talk. That's more-or-less fine for someone who's just a respected figure among black Americans, although of course it's easy to argue that someone with Cosby's prominence does harm by giving ammunition to people who want to oppose helpful policies, but Obama has actual power in addition to being someone that the whole country pays attention to.

Now, obviously one can plead political reality here. It would certainly have hurt Obama and the Democrats in 2012 if he were to have come across as partial to black people in his first term. But it seems fair to me to say that, judging by what he's actually said and done, without trying to figure out what he's hiding out of fear of political consequences,

I don't see Obama saying what Coates is implying he's saying. Obama is also a politician and understands that he can't just give speeches and solve racism and overturn peoples prejudices. Coates is a writer who I love I just think he's selectively quoting Obama to arrive at a point that isn't supported by the totality of Obama's rhetoric . If he wanted to attack Dems for it fine, Obama is the wrong target because his rhetoric isn't the same as Ryan. And superficial similarities mask the completely different setting and background Obama makes his comments from.

Listen to his speech in the 2008 campaign, A more perfect union. Listen to his Trayvon Martin comments. I don't know how any rational person can come to the conclusion the rhetoric is objectively the same. Yeah, you can find quotes that are similar but the overall thrust of Obama's comments aren't the same by any means.

And the question I have to Coates is how does Obama change his speeches to push policies that clearly help black Americans? He's pushed sentencing disparities in racial terms, attacked voter ID laws in similar terms, and even drug policy. He's defended AA in court, pushed the Justice department to focus on civil rights, and sought economic help to disadvantaged communities. Other polices like wider economic reforms that would help blacks also would help whites. I don't know why he would selectively only highlight black Americas benefit. He certainly does when he's speaking to that audience but is he supposed to defend government spending and welfare on the basis it helps blacks? What about the other people who very clearly benefit from the program? he's not arguing for 40 acres and mule for minorities he's arguing for 40 acres and a mule for everyone.

The only think I think Obama could do would be attack dog whistles a bit better. Otherwise I don't think his advocacy is in need of racial tuning.

Obama thinks that the path forward for black America is more personal responsibility. I think Coates is basically right that Ryan isn't saying something very different from what Obama has said. They disagree on how best to promote personal responsibility - Obama favors exhortation and Ryan favors cutting food stamps - but neither seems to think that there's much more that government could be doing and neither seems interested in fighting for that. I think Obama gets a pass because everyone who thinks much about this strongly suspects that he's hiding his support for government intervention for political reasons. But I also think Coates is valuably pointing out that there's a cost to this pretending - it helps create space for people like Ryan who are really sincere about emphasizing the importance of black bootstraps over government assistance.

This is absolutely not true. Obama explicitly ran on a Warren type (you didn't build that, the government needs to level the playing field, help) idea in 2012. Its correct that he didn't single out the benefits for blacks but when he runs a national campaign on a message the government needs to help all I think its disingenuous to claim he thinks the path forward is more personal responsibility. Obama has explicitly rejected Ryans ideas but by having some message of being a better man he's 'creating space' for racists? How bout just calling out racist ideas for being racist?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards officially announced he is running for Congress on Monday, hoping to recharge a political career after serving nearly a decade in prison on federal corruption charges.

DEM PICKUP BABY

I know you said this as a joke, but

http://lapolitics.com/2014/03/edwards-leads-congressional-poll/

— Edwin Edwards, “Democrat, former state senator, congressman and governor,” 43 percent
— Dan Claitor, “Republican state senator and tax attorney,” 20.3 percent
— Paul Dietzel, “Republican Baton Rouge businessman,” 19.2 percent
— Craig McCulloch, Republican, Baton Rouge small business owner,” 4.4 percent
— Garret Graves, “Republican, Gov. Bobby Jindal’s point man on coastal restoration,” 4 percent
— Cassie Felder, “Republican, Baton Rouge tax attorney,” 3.9 percent
— Charles “Trey” Thomas, “Republican, Baton Rouge schoolteacher,” 2.6 percent
— Richard Lieberman, Democrat, “LaPlace real estate broker,” 2.5 percent

 

[rocketknight]

My interpretation was exactly Gotchaye's, and I completely agree with TNC. A president who is ostensibly aware of these issues should know better than to frame an initiative the way Obama did. He could have launched the same program with progressive rather than conservative rhetoric and avoided giving right-wing pundits and agitators cover for the racist shit they've been saying for years.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I do agree with Coates to an extent. On mobile, will expand later. This is a good discussion to have, I had posted TNC's first article on this topic a long time back but it didn't get much traction.

 

[B-Dubs]

I know you said this as a joke, but

http://lapolitics.com/2014/03/edwards-leads-congressional-poll/

Damn, you can't make that shit up. After Rick Scott nothing surprises me though.

 

[Gotchaye]

And the question I have to Coates is how does Obama change his speeches to push policies that clearly help black Americans? He's pushed sentencing disparities in racial terms, attacked voter ID laws in similar terms, and even drug policy. He's defended AA in court, pushed the Justice department to focus on civil rights, and sought economic help to disadvantaged communities. Other polices like wider economic reforms that would help blacks also would help whites. I don't know why he would selectively only highlight black Americas benefit. He certainly does when he's speaking to that audience but is he supposed to defend government spending and welfare on the basis it helps blacks? What about the other people who very clearly benefit from the program? he's not arguing for 40 acres and mule for minorities he's arguing for 40 acres and a mule for everyone.

But this is helping to disguise the real problems we face.

Like, it's true that some people are paid more than others for doing very similar work. There are lots of facially plausible explanations for this fact. Maybe some people just do a better job than others. Maybe some are better at negotiating for raises. Maybe some are more committed to the job and don't take as much personal time. Put that way, it's not very clear that there's a problem here. That only becomes really obvious when we notice that sex is a powerful explanatory variable. Policy aimed at helping people who don't get paid as much as their colleagues is probably going to fail to address a lot of what's actually going wrong.

Similarly, it's a problem when Democrats talk like the only important difference between people is income. Income inequality and poverty are concerning, of course, but disproportionate black poverty is a non-identical problem. Addressing it requires a lot of work beyond that which is necessary for addressing white poverty. Saying that the goal should be "40 acres and a mule for everyone" is like saying that Affirmative Action ought to be completely race-blind - you can't get there without ignoring that race still matters. And just like the pay equality example I gave above, this plays into a nasty way to frame the issue - if there's nothing racist about the system which needs to be addressed, then plausibly poverty is nothing more than a result of a lot of people being dumb or choosing to work less.

This is absolutely not true. Obama explicitly ran on a Warren type (you didn't build that, the government needs to level the playing field, help) idea in 2012. Its correct that he didn't single out the benefits for blacks but when he runs a national campaign on a message the government needs to help all I think its disingenuous to claim he thinks the path forward is more personal responsibility. Obama has explicitly rejected Ryans ideas but by having some message of being a better man he's 'creating space' for racists? How bout just calling out racist ideas for being racist?

He (publicly) doesn't think that black people need more help than similarly-situated white people. Therefore the reason black people do worse than similarly-situated white people is... ? I don't see what new solution he's offering to persistent racial inequality other than more personal responsibility.

And I don't think Coates would be criticizing Obama in these terms if Obama actually were calling out Ryan as a racist. This is the heart of Coates' complaint; the president is unwilling to actually call out racism and racist policy.

 

[zero shift]

For real, you guys really don't see the very serious problem in spying on someone like MLK?
That type of crap was abused to hell and back in the history of the US (not to mention elsewhere).

Nice easter egg.

I do agree that his attempt to attach himself to civil rights is hilarious, but whatever, he's more than welcome to continue to embarrass himself in his minority outreach.

Holy fucking shit. This is gold. Rand Paul really is pretty much exactly like most of his fanbase: white, male, privileged, and naive.

Since we're on the subject, what do you guys think about Jon Chait disagreeing with Ta-Nehisi (sp) Coates on Obama's criticism to Black folks:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/obama-ta-nehisi-coates-poverty-and-culture.html

I couldn't agree more that there is this raw division of the left on this issue. I always say that there are two questions that divide the left wing. One of those two questions is: "Do you think people choose to be poor or are they made to be poor." A rightist will say that they choose to be. However leftists will be divided. One half will say that, "they are made" while the other half will say, "it's more difficult but you can really do it if you want to!" This is ultimately what divides the left in America.

You often see this divide on GAF all the time. But what's striking is, as the article says, it isn't merely a white vs black thing. Go to any thread that turns into a discussion over the black community. Several black posters will butt heads with one another whether the issue is "family values" or "bad schools and lack of money". It also serves as a reminder that the division of between left and right in the country is much more frail than it really is.

This is why left wing policies can never pass. There is this division of the left between the center-left and the left, with the center-left being far more center than left. However this problem doesn't really occur with the right, at least in the same way. The right is divided by the right and the far right. This means that it is very difficult to turn the tides to the left compared to the right. It's THE problem that the left has to learn to overcome to take back the country.

Spoiler

The second question that divides the left, that I find, is: "Do you think people should have moderate/non-significant differences in income?"

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But this is helping to disguise the real problems we face.

Like, it's true that some people are paid more than others for doing very similar work. There are lots of facially plausible explanations for this fact. Maybe some people just do a better job than others. Maybe some are better at negotiating for raises. Maybe some are more committed to the job and don't take as much personal time. Put that way, it's not very clear that there's a problem here. That only becomes really obvious when we notice that sex is a powerful explanatory variable. Policy aimed at helping people who don't get paid as much as their colleagues is probably going to fail to address a lot of what's actually going wrong.

Similarly, it's a problem when Democrats talk like the only important difference between people is income. Income inequality and poverty are concerning, of course, but disproportionate black poverty is a non-identical problem. Addressing it requires a lot of work beyond that which is necessary for addressing white poverty. Saying that the goal should be "40 acres and a mule for everyone" is like saying that Affirmative Action ought to be completely race-blind - you can't get there without ignoring that race still matters. And just like the pay equality example I gave above, this plays into a nasty way to frame the issue - if there's nothing racist about the system which needs to be addressed, then plausibly poverty is nothing more than a result of a lot of people being dumb or choosing to work less.

I'm for AA and targeted programs at minorities but what are the policy solutions to this problem that you think he's not advocating for? Civil rights legislation, affirmative action? Obama has supported both publicly and in court. Where is the criticism of Obama coming from on this issue. I think its much broader than that, of course but where is the government's role in that to be? What do you want him to do? All I hear is criticisms for it being 'broader than income' which I agree with but nobody every explains what they want done to solve that beyond what is already being done (with perhaps a more forceful advocacy of it) . The problems that go beyond income disparities are chiefly societal and cultural. Hollywood can do more to change that than the president.

Obama has defended AA
Passed laws that target racial disparities in sentencing
Fought against Felon disenfranchisement
Started a push for drug law reform (drug courts, decriminalization, not fought Colorado and Washington)
Called for specific economic aid for underprivileged areas
Spoken out against racial targeting (Trayvon, his own experience with racism)
Passed laws such as the ACA which have very important benefits for minorities

Do you think he should advocate for more benefits for blacks and hispanics? A bigger welfare check? I don't mean to be condescending but I struggle to see what he can do beyond more forceful advocacy of what he has done.

He (publicly) doesn't think that black people need more help than similarly-situated white people. Therefore the reason black people do worse than similarly-situated white people is... ? I don't see what new solution he's offering to persistent racial inequality other than more personal responsibility.

And I don't think Coates would be criticizing Obama in these terms if Obama actually were calling out Ryan as a racist. This is the heart of Coates' complaint; the president is unwilling to actually call out racism and racist policy.

Where are you getting the bold from? I haven't see him express that unless your talking about more direct assistance in the form of wealth transfers. Its countered by his biggest new program My Brothers Keeper which is specifically directed at minority youth, not all youth. That seems like and implicit acceptance that they face additional struggles than white youth.

Obama has constantly pointed to discrimination as something that has hurt many youths chances. He doesn't shy away from that.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws -- everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

....

They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

And to the underlined, I've point some things out. And from his speech on Trayvon (sorry for the long quote but its his list). I see a lot more than personal responsibly. But has he points out this problem is disperse and local and hard for some new program to fix. Again, what do you want him to do?

That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let's figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

The last paragraph of your post is probably the best critique of Obama I think one can offer. He doesn't do the best job in combating dog whistles. But Obama understand psychology and politics. Calling Ryan a racist or a promoter of racist ideas might win him support and accolades in the Progressive community but does nothing to change anything, if anything it breeds more resentment and reactionary defense of said racism. Fixing and eliminating racism isn't going to be solved by rational explanations of why its wrong. People change based on emotion and empathy, calling them racists, factually true or not doesn't make them less racist.

The civil rights movement didn't convince white people to desegregate by screaming about the horrible racists and calling them to raise up black america, it succeeded by convincing white america that this was an injustice to fellow human beings and these laws and programs would benefit all by targeting and eliminating injustice. There are many quotes in MLKjr's doctrine on non violence that can be twisted in to the 'twice the man' critique. But is someone really gonna say MLK jr. is Booker T Washington or an Uncle Tom? Wait, they did.

I just feel Obama's overall thrust is very much in the civil rights movement's tradition. He knows and expresses the vast injustice that slavery, and jim crow was to blacks and how that injustices continues in the form of discrimination and racism. He thinks the government and society need to play a large part in fixing it. The fact that he occasionally exhorts for more action by Black America doesn't mean that he's saying that is the biggest problem or that its the solution.

that argument can be made for a lot of other liberals though.

 

[empty vessel]

Obama's having said this . . .

And then, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years, there were times when some of us, claiming to push for change, lost our way. The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots.

Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior. Racial politics could cut both ways as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination. And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support, as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself. All of that history is how progress stalled. That's how hope was diverted. It's how our country remained divided.

... to mark the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech should be sufficient to disappoint all people interested in racial justice. Anything good Obama ever said or did on race was eradicated by this public homage to Southern racism. This is worse than anything Bill Cosby ever did, because Bill Cosby never spoke like this as the president of the United States.

 

[KingK]

One of my biggest problems with Obama is how he refuses to directly challenge Reagan's legacy, at least in his rhetoric, and how he constantly caves to right-wing framing of issues. I understand doing so would be politically toxic because of how many independents still view Reagan as one of the greatest presidents ever, but Obama constantly praising Reagan and buying into the narrative that liberalism was out of control and Reagan/Clinton were needed to right the ship certainly isn't going to change people's minds and only hinders progress. The sooner this country stops worshipping Reagan as our messiah the sooner we can improve things, and Obama has been pretty counterproductive in that regard.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Obama's having said this . . .



... to mark the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech should be sufficient to disappoint all people interested in racial justice. Anything good Obama ever said or did on race was eradicated by this public homage to Southern racism. This is worse than anything Bill Cosby ever did, because Bill Cosby never spoke like this as the president of the United States.

Is your entire argument one quote that you twist as an homage to Southern Racism?

Anything good Obama ever said or did on race was eradicated

Get out of here with this crappy hyperbole.

There are problematic portions of that statement (chiefly the government help) but much of that isn't out of the spirit of MLK who condemned riots and preached non-violence and turning the other cheek even when subjected to centuries of injustice and oppression.

 

[empty vessel]

There are problematic portions of that statement (chiefly the government help) but much of that isn't out of the spirit of MLK who condemned riots and preached non-violence and turning the other cheek even when subjected to centuries of injustice and oppression.

Those lines have nothing to do with that, and it was a huge mistake for Obama to include them in his speech. Coming from the first African American president of the United States, they affirmatively set back the efforts of people working for racial justice.

 

[zero shift]

The racial war is mostly just a class war in disguise. The fact that there are studies that show that poor whites are just as limited on social mobility as poor blacks strongly supports this point. If you raised the income for the poor and the working class, made education more accessible, and just used smart policy from there on out, the problem would be solved.

Racial politics could cut both ways as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination. And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support, as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.

I had to re-read this part. If this had dumbed down language I would have thought that you quoted Chichikov's Rand Paul post about him saying something stupid. Man that is terrible.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Those lines have nothing to do with that, and it was a huge mistake for Obama to include them in his speech. Coming from the first African American president of the United States, they affirmatively set back the efforts of people working for racial justice.

Yes they do, especially when you don't cut the quote at the beginning

And then, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years, there were times when some of us, claiming to push for change, lost our way. The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots.

Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse- making for criminal behavior. Racial politics could cut both ways as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination. And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support, as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.

but you read them as condemning blacks for being angry about their oppression rather than the specific racial calls for purely racial restitution and violence to counter injustice that were often broadcast aimed at black nationalists and new black panthers and groups like them:

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

Haley: Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?

King: I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages—potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races.

Every statement you make is presented as if its unquestioned fact. They're not. Obama isn't responsibly for racist interpretations of his words. Again, I would not have worded them in such a way but your characterization of his quotes and overall rhetoric is hyperbolic at best.

One of my biggest problems with Obama is how he refuses to directly challenge Reagan's legacy, at least in his rhetoric, and how he constantly caves to right-wing framing of issues. I understand doing so would be politically toxic because of how many independents still view Reagan as one of the greatest presidents ever, but Obama constantly praising Reagan and buying into the narrative that liberalism was out of control and Reagan/Clinton were needed to right the ship certainly isn't going to change people's minds and only hinders progress. The sooner this country stops worshipping Reagan as our messiah the sooner we can improve things, and Obama has been pretty counterproductive in that regard.

And then there were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle-class Americans of a great untruth, that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity -- that distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant.

?

 

[empty vessel]

Yes they do, but you read them as condemning blacks for being angry about their oppression rather than the specific racial calls for purely racial restitution and violence to counter injustice that were often broadcast aimed at black nationalists and new black panthers and groups like them:

You are quoting parts of his speech that I don't take issue with. I am talking about the extremely problematic nature of what I quoted. I did not claim that the part that you quoted was problematic. I see nothing wrong with urging people to "conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline" and to "not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence." I don't understand what that has to do with complaining that the civil rights movement and its demand for racial equality has devolved into a movement that "too often" demands government handouts, which is the part I find problematic.

There is no other way to characterize his words. He said what he said. That he said it in a speech on the anniversary of the march on Washington is appalling.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You are quoting parts of his speech that I don't take issue with. I am talking about the extremely problematic nature of what I quoted. I did not claim that the part that you quoted was problematic. I see nothing wrong with urging people to "conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline" and to "not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence." I don't understand what that has to do with complaining that the civil rights movement and its demand for racial equality has devolved into a movement that "too often" demanded government handouts, which is the part I find problematic.

There is no other way to characterize his words. He said what he said. That he said it in a speech on the anniversary of the march on Washington is appalling.

mere desire for government support, as if we had no agency in our own liberation

mere: no more than, just, only, merely

I think you can very much characterize that as a critique the blacks should play a large part in leading their communities, organizing, creating businesses, being good parents, etc. and not just say give me money and leave it be. MLK constantly invoked the need for the Church and morality I don't see where he differed except on emphasis.

You can criticize that as an inaccurate characterization but don't do that while eliminating away important words which color the statement

 

[rocketknight]

The crowd at the Wild Irish breakfast laughed when Jindal shared Edwards’ observation upon marrying the decades-younger Trina Edwards. Edwin Edwards famously quipped: “You’re only as old as the woman you feel.” After the laughter died down, Jindal admitted that his own wife didn’t think that line was funny. The Jindals are more matched in age than the Edwardses.

The GOP loves women!

 

[speculawyer]

Dirty Harry and his posse.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

lol

 

[Wilsongt]

The GOP loves women!

Sexist and ageist. Damn!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

 

[PhoenixDark]

lol

I wonder what Drudge would have said about Pat Nixon wearing a red dress to China in the 70s. Actually I know - nothing.

 

[Wilsongt]

This is why I weep for the future of science if the Christian fundies keep getting their way into higher and higher positions of power in the government.

It must be wonderful to be smart, but smart doesn't hold a candle to the wisdom and knowledge contained between the front and back covers of the most profound book of all time, the Bible. And since I'm no scientist I rely solely upon the Word. A faith that tells me that God's spoken word is entirely, unequivocally true no matter what scientists think.

 

[Black Mamba]

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, says he has “pretty much quit answering” questions about his dad, the libertarian ex-congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

“I’ve been in the Senate three years, and I have created a record of myself,” Paul told the Daily Caller. “And I have my opinions.”

Easier said than done. The elder Paul is a factor moving forward for an array of reasons, despite the younger Paul’s frequent protestations.

::Attacks Hillary Clinton via husband Bill for infidelity::

::Whines when people attack him for his father::

Rand Paul, Senate Dunce. Can't believe any of you *coughPDcough* think he's remotely close to a viable candidate.

 

[Wilsongt]

::Attacks Hillary Clinton via husband Bill for infidelity::

::Whines when people attack him for his father::

Rand Paul, Senate Dunce. Can't believe any of you *coughPDcough* think he's remotely close to a viable candidate.

Since when have we gone back to listening what PD has to say? He's started his schtick again recently.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This is why I weep for the future of science if the Christian fundies keep getting their way into higher and higher positions of power in the government.

Science blows!

Except when I can conveniently cherrypick science to support my religious text.

 

[Ormberg]

I was wondering if anyone could help me. I think I red a thread here about how you are inclined to agree with a subject not because of the subject itself but rather whom purpose it. I.e. if you are left and a left politician suggest something you think it's a good idea, but if a right politician suggests the same, it's a bad idea, and vice versa of course.

There was supposedly a study or report done. If anyone could help out, or at least confirm I haven't dreamt it, I would be very thankful.

 

[thepotatoman]

::Attacks Hillary Clinton via husband Bill for infidelity::

::Whines when people attack him for his father::

Rand Paul, Senate Dunce. Can't believe any of you *coughPDcough* think he's remotely close to a viable candidate.

It's still better than Paul Ryan's insane weekly statements like the paper bag story and filling your hungry stomach with dignity, or being stuck with scandals like Christie.