The Buchanan Theorem

15 May 2008

Pat Buchanan, having a complete racist meltdown on MSNBC. When a black person succeeds, it drives folks like Pat to insanity, because it destabalizes the underlying assumptions of white superiority that they hold as articles of faith.

Let’s take these claims one at a time shall we?

1. Barack Obama is only getting 90% of the black vote because he’s black.

Many people have cited white candidates, such as Al Gore or John Kerry, who have one the black vote by overwhelming margins in the general election. But this is somewhat apples to oranges, since Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aren’t in the GE, they’re in the primary. A white Democrat like Al Gore would never win the black vote in such overwhelming numbers against a white opponent like Bill Bradley, would he?

Actually, that’s exactly what happened.

2. Barack Obama is only winning because he’s black.

It’s true that Barack Obama is propped up by a long line of black Chief Executives, like Presidents Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely Braun, Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes. But the fact that Obama is winning might have something to do with the fact that he’s a really tough campaigner, a shrewd fundraiser and has built a fantastic organization. I hear he can talk purty too. Unfortunately, that’s the kind of thing that would require Pat Buchanan to admit that black people can be as brilliant and capable as any white person, which is a thought that makes him wake up in the middle of the night swaddled in urine soaked white sheets. No, he wasn’t in bed, he just slept in his clothes.  

3. If Barack Obama had not been black he would have been beaten by John Edwards.
This is indisputably true that, despite the dynamics of a three way race in which Hillary Clinton had the decided advantage, John Edwards alone would have beaten  this Barack Obama in whiteface (let’s call him Barry O’Bama) thus preserving the honor of white men everywhere, something that Hillary Clinton can’t do because she lacks the right reproductive organs.  There’s actually a mathematical theorem I’ve invented that proves it. I call it The Buchanan Theorem. 

Black Man < White Woman < White Man
Any questions?

Good Morning.

What have you found out there in cyberspace that you’d like to share with your fellow JJP readers?

Drop those links; have those discussions.

Have a peaceful day.

Regarding the West Virginia primary and the Borg Queen’s victory, that is.

However, it does say quite a lot about the fact that the Borg Queen has to play the race card in rural Appalachia (where no person of color has been seen nor heard since slavery), scare the be-jeezus out them Jed Clampett-move-away-from-there mountain folk in order to claim a victory.

Which as time goes on, and more superdelegates are throwing their votes to the “O” man, will be MEANINGLESS when she hits the Denver City Limits.

She needed the votes of a population that includes among their midst, church going folk who believe in signs and wonders following them while challenging God through handling poisonous snakes; Lynndie England (remember her, the first face of torture of Iraqi prisoners during this fiasco of a war?)and the family that kidnapped, raped and tortured a sista named Megan Williams, who has yet to see any kind of justice for her ordeal of being leashed like a dog, being made to eat dog and people shyt, drink out of a toilet, while the whole damned family sexually abused her.

Hillary Clinton is so desperate for votes, she’ll take the votes from a State that may very well be a fine state in many ways, but what we have seen come out of the likes of West Virginians, these individuals are giving the state a very bad rep.

And, she’s spinning this better than I do in spin class (and with worse results,too).

I don’t know about y’all, but if claiming the victory of a state that she has historically written off and being of no consequence when Obama wins them, the Borg Queen’s badly in need of being put out of her misery like a rabid dog. Just how loud does Gentleman Jim Clyburn have to sing in the mine before Howard Dean gets a clue?

From Naralprochoiceamerica.com

NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA ENDORSES SEN. BARACK OBAMA

Washington, DC – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, released the following statement today, announcing that her organization’s political action committee proudly endorses Sen. Barack Obama for president.

“Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC is proud to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president. Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman’s right to choose throughout his career in public office. He steadfastly supports and defends a woman’s right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians.

“Sen. Obama has been a leader on this issue in the United States Senate. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both side of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. Sen. Obama supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access to family-planning services.

“We are confident that Barack Obama is the candidate of the future. Americans are tired of the divisive politics of the last eight years, and will unite behind Obama in the fall. We look forward to working with a pro-choice Obama White House in January.”

Keenan also praised Senator Clinton as a pro-choice leader. “Americans have been fortunate to have two fully pro-choice candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination. But only one can go forward to the general election. It is truly historic for us to have these two outstanding candidates in the race.”

Ah, to be a fly on the wall when Camp Hillpatine found out.

Appalachia

14 May 2008

graphic via TPM.
Josh Marshall at TPM has a pretty interesting rundown of where Obama struggles most, in Appalachia.

These regions were settled disproportionately by Scots-Irish immigrants who pushed into the hill country to the west in part because that’s where the affordable land was but also because they wanted to get away from the more stratified and inegalitarian society of the east which was built by English settlers and their African slaves. Crucially, slavery never really took root in these areas. And this is why during the Civil War, Unionism (as in support for the federal union and opposition to the treason of secession) ran strong through the Appalachian upcountry, even into Deep South states like Alabama and Mississippi.

As I alluded to earlier, this was the origin of West Virginia, which was originally the westernmost part of Virginia. The anti-slavery, anti-slaveholding upcountry seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union after Virginia seceded from the Union. Each of these regions was fiercely anti-Slavery. And most ended up raising regiments that fought in the Union Army. But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery, both of which they viewed as the linchpins of the aristocratic and inegalitarian society they loathed. It was a society that was both more violent and more self-reliant.

This is history. But it shapes the region. It’s overwhelmingly white, economically underdeveloped (another legacy of the pre-civil war pattern) and arguably because of that underdevelopment has very low education rates and disproportionately old populations.

I am apparently the only person on the internetz who is foncused by that last idea that Appalachian folk saw slaves as equally resonsible for aristocratic and egalitarian society as slaveowners.

Really? Word? You’re going to blame slaves for that? Like they had a choice?

I’m also not entirely convinced that wealth is a good predictor of tolerance. But I’m sure someone has the stats to prove me wrong. 

cross-posted to goodCRIMETHINK

While Politico, TIME and others. are running headlines that say “Edwards Endorses Obama,” I think mine is better.

My initial reaction was:

about friggin time dude. where you waiting for hillary to come out in blackface and campaign for mccain?

There’s nothing particularly impressive about his decision. After all, he’s coming out even after the mainstream media has concluded that the race is over. So it’s not so much an endorsement as it is the only possible thing to do.

I’m a bit harsh on people who lead after the fact. Your decision means more to me when I feel like you made it in a difficult environment. It’s one of the reasons I’m so critical of Hillary’s Iraq War vote. She made the easy decision to go along with a popular president and look “strong.” The truly strong decision would have been to stand up when few others did.

For all John Edwards’s talk of being a fighter and standing up for the little guy, I’ve gone from impatient to furious to bored over his non-endorsement after so many months. When Hillary’s campaign, months ago, started acting the fool, where was this Mr. Edwards? Hiding in North Carolina.

The calculating political side of me understands that he probably wanted to keep as many doors and options open as possible and might have been afraid of the wrath of the Clintons had he miscalculated or endorsed “too soon.” But I have the luxury of not being in that position, and I don’t really care.

That’s my take. I may update it after his speech tonight. And no matter how unimpressed I am with the timing of Johnny Come Lately, it will be good to have him on the campaign trail if only to silence this stupid narrative about Obama and the white vote. Given the thoughtfulness behind many of his policy positions, I also think he has a lot to offer the country.

Update at 6pm ET
Craig Hickman in the comments below points out that this timing is kind of good, coming on the heels of West Virginia. As far as its ability to change the headline from Hillary’s “rural white” win, that is a good thing. I still maintain I’d have been more impressed with an earlier endorsement (remember Richardson??), but this is OK. Anyhow, let’s get about the business of McSame.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post in This Is an Ex-Candidate

2:57 p.m., Yeager Airport, Charleston, W.Va.: A steep descent brings Clinton’s plane to Charleston’s hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane’s wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.

On the way into town, she makes an unscheduled stop at an upscale farmers market, but about 30 Clinton supporters, several wearing AFSCME T-shirts and waving Clinton campaign signs, have somehow gotten wind of it. Clinton works the crowd, signing autographs and making small talk (“Is that your dog?”). She makes her way past rows of geraniums and marigolds.

But even among the blooms, Clinton is reminded of her troubles. She stops at Ellen’s Homemade Ice Cream and orders a scoop of espresso Oreo and a scoop of butter pecan. “Ooh, that looks good,” she says after taking the confection, then pauses. “Now, let’s see. Who’s got my money?” asks the woman who has lent her campaign $11 million to keep it afloat. She laughs. “Where — where’d they go, the people with my money?” Finally, two aides arrive to retire Clinton’s dessert debt.

What Harold Myerson Said.

14 May 2008

He’s got it right.


There are good reasons Republicans are focusing on identity rather than issues this year: In poll after poll, there’s not a single major issue on which the public agrees with them or their presumptive nominee. Not Iraq, certainly. Not the economy. Should the election turn on the question of “What are you going to do for America?” rather than “Are you a real American?” Republicans are doomed. They offer no solutions for the stagnation (or decline) of American living standards, or for the weakening of America’s economic power. They offer no resolution to America’s war of choice in Iraq. Their party leader, the incumbent president, let a great American city drown. They are the American party, and McCain the American nominee, that hasn’t a clue about how to help America in its (prolonged, I fear) moment of need.

What remains for the GOP is a campaign premised more on issues of national identity, aimed largely at that portion of our population for which “American” is synonymous with “white” and “Christian,” than any national campaign has been since the American Party (also known as the Know Nothings) based its 1856 campaign chiefly on Protestant bigotry against Irish and German Catholic immigrants. In Appalachian America (the heart of which went to the polls yesterday in West Virginia), as Mark Schmitt notes in the forthcoming issue of the American Prospect (which I edit), a disproportionate number of people write “American” when answering the census question on ethnic origin. For some, “American” is a race — white — no less than a nationality, and it’s on this equation that Republican prospects depend.

Hey, if it didn’t even work in Mississippi…

Good morning.

I hope you’re having a good day.

Drop those links; drop those discussions. What’s on your mind?

Discuss…discuss…discuss….

Have a peaceful day.

Hat tip: ms. martin here at JJP

The results for the Mississippi First District Special Election:

This is Northern Mississippi. The seat was vacated when Congressman Wicker became Senator Wicker when Trent Lott resigned.

This is a SOLID REPUBLICAN SEAT.

IN MISSISSIPPI.

Results:

93% of Precincts Reporting
Travis W. Childers (D): 53% (54029)
Greg Davis (R): 47% (47361)

YES, this is one of those seats where they tried to Swiftboat the candidate by tying him to Obama and Rev. Wright.

Mississippi, people.

First, Hastert’s seat.
Then, the Louisiana seat a couple of weeks back.

Tonight, Mississippi.

This was it. The last ‘ argument’ Hillpatine had against Obama to the SuperDelegates – his potential to be a ‘ drag’ on downticket Democrats.

Childers WON a solid GOP seat in MISSISSIPPI.

Biggest election of the night.

Since we know the ‘memo’ from Camp Clinton will be about Obama’s ‘problem’ with Working Class Whites, maybe it’s time to look at some hard numbers, from the latest ABC/Washington Post Presidential Polling:

But primaries only tell us so much about general elections. In our latest ABC/Post poll, testing each of the Democrats against John McCain, there’s a shortfall among less-educated whites for both: McCain leads Obama by 12 points in this group, Clinton by 8.

Obama, with his upscale appeal, does better among better-educated whites: McCain’s just +3 vs. Obama, compared with McCain’s 12-point advantage against Clinton among college-educated whites. That accounts for Obama’s better showing against McCain overall, 51-44 percent in our poll, vs. 49-46 percent in a Clinton-McCain matchup.

Whites, no college
Obama——40%
McCain —-52

Clinton—-44%
McCain—–52

Whites, college grads
Obama ——47%
McCain —- 50

Clinton—–42
McCain——54

There are other potential impacts of race and socioeconomic status. As we noted in our poll analysis yesterday, 17 percent of less-educated whites say they’re at least somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of an African-American president; among better-educated whites that declines to 4 percent. As noted, there’s a similar effect on comfort with a woman president – and McCain’s age is a far bigger negative than either of these. Each of the candidates has room for some consciousness-raising on these concerns.

It’s also worth noting that the latte-vs.-lunch bucket effect has not been entirely consistent in all primaries this year. Obama won less-educated whites in the Vermont and Wisconsin primaries, was +2 in Utah and came within 4 points in his home state of Illinois (although in each he again did better with upscale whites).

It’s fair for the Obama camp to point out that he doesn’t do significantly worse against McCain among working-class whites than Clinton does, and that he does better with their upscale counterparts. And Obama’s numbers are nothing like John Kerry’s and Al Gore’s; they lost working-class whites to George W. Bush by 24 points and 17 points, respectively.

Rest of article at link above.

Is the situation dire? No.
Hopeless? No.
Does Obama have work to do with this group? Yes.

But, considering that Obama hasn’t even truly begin the General Election campaign in earnest, stop letting folks lie and overstate his ‘ problem’ with Working Class Whites.

Congress is considering a bill which would allow the FDA to ban flavored cigarettes like cloves, because critics believe they’re targeted at children. But menthol cigarettes would fall under that jurisdiction, and some folks think it’s because black folk are more likely to smoke them. Part of the problem is that menthol jacks are a huge segment of the market:

The reason menthol is seen as politically off limits, despite those concerns, is that mentholated brands are so crucial to the American cigarette industry. They make up more than one-fourth of the $70 billion American cigarette market and are becoming increasingly important to the industry leader, Philip Morris USA, without whose lobbying support the legislation might have no chance of passage.

[...]

Menthol is particularly controversial because public health authorities have worried about its health effects on African-Americans. Nearly 75 percent of black smokers use menthol brands, compared with only about one in four white smokers.

That is why one former public health official says the legislation’s menthol exemption is a “cave-in to the industry,” an opinion shared by some other public health advocates.

“I think we can say definitively that menthol induces smoking in the African-American community and subsequently serves as a direct link to African-American death and disease,” said the former official, Robert G. Robinson, who retired two years ago as an associate director in the office of smoking and health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The high rate of menthol cigarette smoking isn’t a coincidence. The tobacco companies specifically targeted menthol advertising at black consumers (not that you’d know if from those Newport ads). From a 1998 NYT article:


The internal company records from tobacco giants, including the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, show how the cigarette makers ran advertising campaigns in magazines, on billboards and buses and in other media to attract blacks, especially to mentholated brands like Salem and Kool.

[...]

One 1973 Brown & Williamson document, for example, showed that 17 percent of the company’s promotional budget for Kools was spent on marketing to blacks, who made up only 10 percent of the population.

What’s interesting is back then, some black publications were actually happy about the advertising revenue, and said they might go out of business if the cigarette companies weren’t buying so many ads. That’s a pretty grim price to pay for the mortgage.

Some studies suggest menthol cigarettes are actually more addictive, which may account for racial disparities in lung cancer:


Scientists who study smoking have identified various disparities in the health of black and white smokers. National Cancer Institute data shows that African-American men get lung cancer at a rate 50 percent higher than white men — a gap that most scientists say cannot be fully explained by historically higher rates of smoking by black men.

One theory suggests that menthol in cigarettes, by providing an additional pleasurable sensory cue to smokers, reinforces addiction.

“There is evidence from different studies that it’s harder to quit menthol cigarettes,” said Dr. Neal L. Benowitz, a pharmacologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco and one of the nation’s leading tobacco researchers. He calls menthol a “public health risk.”

I don’t know how I feel about banning cigarettes. On the one hand, it’s kind of like fatty food; it’s bad for you, it can kill you, but you have to choose to put it in your mouth. And I say that as a former smoker. Aside from making a lot of people I know really irritable, I’m not sure that banning menthols would actually convince smokers to quit.

UPDATE: Just call me Rev. Wright, because…um…

I mean really with the Daishiki though? It’s not just aimed at black folks, it’s kinda saying you ain’t even really black unless you smoke Newports. 

Image via Stereohyped.

Give Me Strength…

13 May 2008

The above t-shirt is courtesy of this fool:
Marietta tavern owner Mike Norman says the T-shirts he’s peddling, featuring cartoon chimp Curious George peeling a banana, with “Obama in ’08″ scrolled underneath, are “cute.” But to a coalition of critics, the shirts are an insulting exploitation of racial stereotypes from generations past.

[...]

Norman said those offended are “hunting for a reason to be mad” and insisted he is “not a racist.”

Why picture Obama as Curious George? “Look at him . . . the hairline, the ears, he looks just like Curious George,” Norman said.

He’s not a racist, he just thinks black people look like monkeys. To quote Ta-Nehisi Coates, who exactly does a guy have to lynch around here to get called a racist?

UPDATE: So obviously, Curious George is a registered trademark of Houghton Mifflin Company. The T-shirt is most likely protected as parody, but if you’re as irritated as I am, feel free to contact the good folks there and let them know what people are doing with their property.

Houghton Mifflin Company
Permissions Department
215 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10003

You may also contact our general interest and children’s Permissions Department by fax at 212-420-5899
or via e-mail at trade_permissions@hmco.com.

hat tip to Americablog which caught this horrible, horrible ABC News “reporter” convert the fact of Obama’s Christianity into a mere assertion.

I have neither watched ABC News nor linked to its website since the shameful excuse for a debate it conducted in Philadelphia. The following clip and transcript are from the network’s Good Morning America today.

GMA’s KATE SNOW: Janis said she can’t support Obama.
JANIS: He’s Muslim and you know, and that that has a lot to do with it. I just, you know, I just rather have Hillary.
GMA’s KATE SNOW: Just for the record he constantly says he’s a Christian -
JANIS: I know he does. He says he is.
GMA’s KATE SNOW: You don’t believe him?
JANIS: No.



Rangel just needs to shut up. I left him in the clip for fun. Yes, the Clintons have a clear track record with Black America, but it’s not the record they claim. I want to focus on Kate Snow.

Is it so difficult to correct someone who’s clearly wrong? Is she duty bound to repeat all forms of false foolishness or just the ignorant and discriminatory kind against Obama? The Obama as Muslim angle is wrong on two levels. A) There’s nothing wrong with being Muslim; B) He’s not Muslim and attempts to paint him as such prey on the fears ignorant, hard-working white folk like Janis here.

Let’s imagine Ms. Snow was interviewing a different voter about a different candidate.

GMA’s KATE SNOW: Jason said he can’t support Clinton.
JANIS: She’s a Lesbian and you know, and that that has a lot to do with it. I just, you know, I just rather have Obama.
GMA’s KATE SNOW: Just for the record she constantly says she’s a Heterosexual -
JANIS: I know she does. She says he is.
GMA’s KATE SNOW: You don’t believe her?
JANIS: No.

Let’s try another one:

GMA’s KATE SNOW: Beth said she can’t support McCain.
JANIS: He’s a baby-eating son of Satan and you know, and that that has a lot to do with it. I just, you know, I just rather have Hillary.
GMA’s KATE SNOW: Just for the record he constantly says he’s not a baby-eating son of Satan -
JANIS: I know he does. He says he isn’t.
GMA’s KATE SNOW: You don’t believe him?
JANIS: No.

I don’t really care about Janis. Janis is wrong. Unlike Hillary, Janis doesn’t “take [Obama] at his word,” and she thinks being a Muslim should disqualify you from being president. I think her demonstrably weak powers of reasoning should disqualify her from voting, but sadly, this is a free country, and she can use whatever criteria she wants.

I do care about Kate Snow. She wasn’t just interviewing an ignorant voter. She was giving hate, ignorance and falsehood a platform without challenging it. This should disqualify her from being in any position to “inform” millions of American households. Ms. Snow should see how a real reporter handles this situation.

Schoenholtz is an Ohio resident talking to CBS News reporter Steve Kroft on March 2nd.

Schoenholtz told Kroft he is leaning towards Obama, but that there were a couple of issues he was “not too clear” on.

Asked what they were, Schoenholtz said, “Well, I’m hearin’ he doesn’t even know the National Anthem, you know. He wouldn’t use the Holy Bible. He’s got his own beliefs, got the Muslim beliefs. Couple issues that bothers me at heart.”

“You know that’s not true,” Kroft remarked.

“No. I’m just…this is what I’ve been told,” he replied.

It’s people like Kate Snow that helped get us into an illegal, unnecessary and dumb war. The administration said Iraq was a response to 9/11; they made up a connection to al-Qaeda; they hyped WMDs. All of these things were false, but too many “reporters” merely transcribed these ideas and filled the minds of millions of Americans with unjustified fear, which in turn allowed members of Congress to authorize the war.

Nothing has changed in the media. No lessons have been learned, and while I’m looking forward to the election of Barack Obama as president, I dread the coverage of that presidency by those who’ve proven time and again to be woefully inadequate to the basic task of separating truth from fiction.

Write ABC. Demand an on-air apology and correction.

Pretty accurate summary, in fact.




Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell

Special Contributors: James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Adam Luna, Kamala Harris

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats




Sponsors

Advertise here!

Obamacare – Get Some


Archives

Peep ‘Em

I Am A Community Organizer (300x243)

Community Activity



Black Behind Coverage/Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog which does not represent the views of the authors' employers, clients nor vendors.

Ain’t Like All The Rest

Jack and Jill Politics is not affiliated with Jack and Jill of America, Jack and Jill Magazine, "Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill to Fetch a Pail of Water" nor any of the other Jack and Jills out there on the Google. Just so's you know.
Bitnami