The only thing Herman Cain has going for him is that Barack Obama was elected the first black president of the United States.
So Serious, Yet Such a Joke
Unfortunately for Cain, history shows that such a “precedent” doesn’t extend to black Republicans.
In the last one hundred years, only six black Republicans have been elected to national public office. Only five of the 101 black members of Congress elected in the last century were Republicans, and only one black Republican has been elected to the Senate in the last century.
Even on the state level, the first black Republican governor, Pinckney Benton Stewart Pinchback of Louisiana, was also “the last black Republican governor.” Pinchback served a grand total of 35 days while (white) incumbent Gov. Henry Warmoth battled impeachment charges. And though Pinckney gained the title of the “first black Republican governor,” he was never actually elected.
This is not a trend that is likely to be broken in the 2012 election, mainly because the American people have a more favorable view of the racist, inarticulate and intellectually vapid Texan, Rick Perry, and the flip-flopping Mormon, Mitt Romney, than they do of Cain.
Arguably, the only reason Cain is in third place at all is that the other six Republican presidential candidates include (in order of their poll ranking): a philandering asshole; a pro-prostitution, anti-everything isolationist Libertarian; a nightmare in fake eyelashes; an advocate of banning blowjobs; another Mormon who ranks below Tim Pawlenty on the excitability index; and Gary Johnson, who is…uh…Who is Gary Johnson?
New Media Narrative: President Obama And Democrats Are On A Roll!
West Virginia is a very conservative state and in the special election for governor that happened yesterday, the Republicans spent nearly twice as much as the Democrats on the race. The Republicans went out of their way to tie President Obama to the Democratic candidate, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and how did that work out for them?
Governor Tomblin won the election and thwarted the media’s plans to continue their anti-Obama narrative — the one that makes the President responsible for every election in every state. Individual candidates don’t matter anymore to the media, everything is a referendum on President Obama. I’m waiting for the media to blame the drain commissioner election in my township on President Obama, oh shit, maybe I shouldn’t have tipped them off.
There never seems to be any referendum on the Republican controlled House that hasn’t created one fucking job yet, hasn’t even tried to create one job and in fact, has been trying to do the opposite by playing games with the debt ceiling and anything else that is game-worthy.
I spent a couple hours trolling the various Twitter streams of the OccupyTogether movement, wrestling with my initial cynicism with the Occupy Wall Street protests, and trying to draw inspiration from the people on the ground; and I mean that quite literally — people were tweeting as they prepared to sleep outside on the sidewalk (in the rain, in some cases).
During my stroll down Twitter lane, I found the following video:
Behind every great political campaign there is a great team of managers, advisers and consultants.
Mitt Romney doesn’t have one.
In an article from the New York Times, “Perry and Romney Set Clear Lines of Attack” (Sept. 24, 2011), reporters Jeff Zeleny and Nicholas Confessore unveil each campaign’s approach to contrasting their candidate with the other.
Gov. Rick Perry and his aides in Texas have spent hours studying old footage and records of Mitt Romney, stretching back nearly two decades, building a list of issues on which they believe Mr. Romney has waffled or wavered, seeking to brand him as inauthentic.
Mr. Romney’s team is honing plans for an attack on Mr. Perry’s readiness to be president and commander in chief. They intend to press Mr. Perry on foreign policy, demand that he produce a national jobs plan and relentlessly pursue the case that Mr. Perry is out of step with his party on how to address illegal immigration.
In any political race, effectively contrasting your candidate with the other team’s candidate may well be no less important than shaking hands and kissing babies.
But the strategy of Romney’s campaign is flawed. Foreign policy is subject that will be mostly irrelevant in the 2012 general election, to say nothing of its importance in the GOP primary race. Immigration is a subject on which Romney has a record of waffling. And the former Massachusetts governor’s record on job creation is unflattering if not dangerous.
Talking about talking is a phenomenon in politics that has no equal.
The Economist Cover – Kevin Kallaugher
We all smell smells and taste tastes. We sing songs and say sayings. And though thinking about thinking may be an exercise only the philosophically inclined among us entertain as a form of entertainment, we all think thoughts – when we’re not busy dreaming dreams, puzzling over puzzles, believing in beliefs, supposing suppositions and fantasizing about fantasies.
Beyond our promises, however sincere, to call mom on Sunday, Americans don’t generally talk about talking. If we want to talk, we talk – or “converse” if we’re part of the “professional elite,” or “conversate” if we’re card carrying members of the Tea Party.
When it comes to the big stuff, politicians don’t want to have a conversation, they want to have a conversation about having a conversation.
When Rep. Paul Ryan proposed a plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program in April, he was spurned by the American public and shamed into silence by the leadership of his own party, but he nonetheless was commended by many on the Right for “starting a conversation” about the future of entitlements. Unfortunately for Ryan, polls showed that his plan to “end Medicare as we know it” wasn’t the best way to start that conversation, which is why it was so short-lived. The only conversation Ryan actually started was a conversation about starting a conversation.
I made the mistake of reading John Aravosis’ take on the furor induced by Melissa Harris-Perry’s articles in The Nation. I don’t know why I bothered.
After all, John Aravosis rarely (if ever) has anything nice to say about Obama; never has a word of understanding to offer; and — on the day that black Americans watched in horror as President Obama “prove to the man” that yes, he is an American citizen born in this country, actually had the temerity to wonder why President Obama “took so long” to release his birth certificate. With that in mind, John Aravosis’ “good show, old girl” post in defense of Joan Walsh is unsurprising:
As Zandar has already written here and here, Professor Melissa Harris-Perry set off a firestorm with her article in The Nation. In that article, Professor Harris-Perry argued what many black (and white) Americans believe to be true: that the disappointment felt by disaffected white liberals may be a result of their tendency to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts (notice I said “may”):
The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.
Professor Harris-Perry’s statement came as somewhat of a shock to white liberals (as gauged by the harsh response Professor Harris-Perry has garnered on Twitter and in the comment section of her post at The Nation), and it is interesting which white liberals have come out against Professor Harris-Perry’s article — almost as if they were positive Harris-Perry was talking about them.
I will address three of these liberals in separate and consecutive posts, and then end on a post which is solid advice that every liberal and/or progressive should heed.