.jpg)
Yesterday, Barack Obama made headlines with the following statements while at the Hampton University Convocation Center:
“This administration was colorblind in its incompetence,but the poverty and the hopelessness was there long before the hurricane.”
All the hurricane did was to pull the curtain back for all the world to see,” he said.
Repeatedly, he referred to the riots that erupted in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted four police officers of assault charges in the 1991 beating of Rodney King, a black motorist, after a high speed chase. Fifty-five people died and 2,000 were injured in several days of riots in the city’s black neighborhoods.
”Those ‘quiet riots’ that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and the destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths,” Obama said. ”They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better.”
Predictably, Republican strategists took to the airwaves accusing Obama of fear-mongering about the ever present “race issue.”
Ironic, isn’t it? The difference between the Republicans and Obama on race is that while the Republican party is fear-mongering about what immigrant minorities MAY do to America if we are not sufficiently vigilant (hopping the border, terrorism…), Barack Obama is talking about conditions that actually exist for minorities in America, and is being vilified for it.
So, then, the choice in this year’s election is between a party pushing convenient, fictionalized problems in an effort to secure the angry white vote, and another party offering up the truth on the issues and pushing tough solutions to real problems.
To call Rodney King a “black motorist” instead of “a convicted criminal on parole who was believed to be high on PCP.”
<
p>
The courts found the police used appropriate force, but hey, let’s just lie and say Rodney King was a nice guy and didn’t see the police behind him. It probably wasn’t him who beat up his wife in 1999 either, that was probably the police too.
<
p>
I think the administration made a ton of mistakes in the wake of Katrina, but when you start bringing up Rodney King and make dishonest statements, it makes me want to discount the entire post, so please, try to keep it objective.
Call the post “incomplete” if you want (and back your assertion up with links, by the way), but “black motorist” is certainly an accurate description of Rodney King. I see no relevance to the fact that King had a modest criminal record — I doubt the cops knew that at the time. The PCP thing has never been established — the only thing known is that he was drunk. Also, I have no idea how something that happened in 1999 has any relevance to the 1991 incident. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate.
<
p>
Keep it real, Joe, keep it real.
Maybe he should have NO criminal record. Good call on the drunk though, that’s so much better to be behind the wheel than high on PCP. How is the 1999 thing related? He’s consistently a P.O.S. Oh yeah, he was also high on PCP at the time. He also got arrested for going through a red-light and speeding in 2003…..while high on PCP.
<
p>
Frankly, anyone who’s drunk and leads the police on a high speed chase should get a baton or four to the face, white, black or whatever.
<
p>
Calling this loser a “black motorist” is tantamount to just calling Jack Kevorkian a “white doctor.”
…You aren’t seriously going to argue that the police were justified in beating Rodney King in 1991 because he had something of a criminal record, are you? It is unlikely that he knew who he was when they beat him.
<
p>
Nor are you seriously going to argue that the police were justified in beating him in 1991 because of what he subsequently did. Unless the police were prescient, they would not have known what he might do subsequently.
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned, they might have been justified in stopping him and ejecting him from his automobile, but that’s about it. From what I can tell, they were not justified in beating him into submission.
he knew who he was
<
p>
should be
<
p>
they knew who he was
usually you’re a sensible guy. Today, you’re blathering. Rodney King seems to be a serious sore spot for you.
<
p>
Sure, maybe he “should” have no criminal record — it would be better if no one committed crimes. But it’s really hard to see how his record is relevant, since it was unknown to the cops at the time of the incident. Ditto for his future conduct.
<
p>
And yes, for what it’s worth, it probably is better to be driving drunk than driving high on PCP, though both are a bad idea.
<
p>
Finally, it’s not as though the LAPD had no history to speak of. You want to talk about a record that was relevant…
Simply for the sake of argument, I’ll agree to stipulate that your party of choice is “offering up the truth on the issues”. I agree to the stipulation, because, you know, truth varies.
<
p>
I will instead disagree that the Democrats are “pushing tough solutions”?
<
p>
I presume from your speech outtake, the issue de jour is poverty. If I presume wrong, then ignore the remainder of the rant, and let’s marvel at how the Yankees are doing.
<
p>
What’s Obama’s “tough solution”? Cause I just checked out his website, and I don’t see it or them.
<
p>
Perhaps the tough solutions to poverty are here where we see that Obama tagged onto Olympia Snow’s Bill (yeah, she’s a Republican) to broaden Child Care Credits.
<
p>
Or, maybe where he sponsored a Bill to create the Federal crime of Mortgage fraud–it’s like saying murders illegal! Yeah for Federal purposes too!. Regardless, how’s that a “tough solution”? How tough is it to be against crime?
<
p>
I see he co-sponsored the S3894, which looks like a pretty broad Bill to fight Poverty. The Bill’s not gone anywhere yet, and introducing it doesn’t really seem so tough, but YMMV.
<
p>
The tough thing to do might be to point out that the US dumped $9 trillion on the war on poverty since LBJ and the poverty rate isn’t significantly better.
<
p>
If all that cash didn’t fix poverty, then surely more cash will. Right? Thinking like that may not be tough but at least it’s stupid.
<
p>
But I’ve digressed. Just show me the tough solutions you’re seeing that I’m missing.
<
p>
<
p>
What a stipulation! To quote Bill Simmons, now I can die in peace!
<
p>
I see where the rest of your post is going. I, and others here, have already gone back and forth with you ad infinitum about the virtues, adn vices, of the welfare state. I’ll never convince you that a liberal’s solution to fighting poverty is worthwhile since you don’t believe in the concept of fighting poverty (quite necessarily with tax dollars) to begin with.
<
p>
But let’s stick with this topic: as a Republican, does it at all bother you that the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln has now become the party of the raging xenophobe? That has to be at least a little embarrassing, right?
The topic I thought was relevant was, to quote you:
<
p>
<
p>
I’m seeking the person who is “pushing tough solutions”, or at least, examples of the “tough solutions” of which you speak.
<
p>
Well, I’m undecided in the race, but know enough to know which party has my vote. So, as you’ll notice, I said “party” above.
<
p>
So, here ya go:
<
p>
http://www.democrats…
<
p>
So, about that xenophobia. It’s borderline racist, isn’t it? Isn’t it sad to watch guys like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani practically trip over one another to lay claim to who is toughest on that family from Cuba who came over on a raft made out of three picnic benches tied together? Surely they know better.
I’ve done my bit on the xenophobia elsewhere:
<
p>
<
p>
Ack! Xenophobe! Let’s instead look to them Dems for “tough solutions” to immigration. Thank goodness you’ve shown me the way. I’ve followed your link, and here’s what them tough talkin’ straight shootin’, botox injectin, wise dems have to say.
<
p>
The ONLY thing you link has to say about immigration:
<
p>
<
p>
Um…bold.
<
p>
<
p>
“…you’re making my point.”
<
p> That’s what xenophobia is, right? Fear of foreigners, and what their culture might do to yours when added to the mix.
<
p>
<
p>
No, but you are saying that non-whites better be ready to assimilate their culture to yours in order to fit neatly into this “successful story” we’ve written. (Successful for everyone? Not quite. Hence Sen. Obama’s speech).
<
p>
Yes, I definitely question the position that American’s have a “cultural unity”. Based on what? Speaking english, eating McDonald’s and watching baseball? “American culture” as a concept is nebulous at best.
<
p>
I also wonder where you’re going when you say that immigration risks opening the country up to “cultural squabbles” seen in other countries. (Actually, you said “uncontrolled immigration”, and no one’s talking about immigration without control). So, are you saying that other cultures are more inherently prone to violence or “squabbling” than your average American WASP?
Whether American culture exists or not, I suppose we’ll just agree to disagree. But if you wish to diversify your reading.
<
p>
However, with respect to this:
<
p>
<
p>
Certainly I’m not talking about immigration without control. Republicans aren’t talking about immigration without control. Democrats really aren’t talking about anything. [see Party position upthread ] Yet, that is what we have currently: immigration without control.
The block quoted stuff came from the NYT, by the way. But AP has this story and it can be easily googled.
<
p>
I’m surprised to hear Obama talk that way about Ray Nagin.
…if the shoe fits…