During all-white-male Meet the Press panel, Novak claimed "woman or an African-American" Dem nominee would give GOP "hope"
During a panel discussion of the 2008 presidential election on the July 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, syndicated columnist Robert Novak asserted: "Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don't see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, 'OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.' And it gives the Republicans hope." Neither host Tim Russert nor any of Novak's fellow panelists, Bloomberg News Washington managing editor Al Hunt, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum -- all of whom are, like Novak, white men -- commented on or challenged Novak's assertion. As Media Matters for America documented, the four Sunday-morning talk programs on the broadcast networks, Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.
A breakdown of the guests on Meet the Press from 2005 to 2006 shows that 76 percent of the guests on the program were white men.
From the July 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Bob Novak, there also seems to be a rather subtle message -- subliminal, nonetheless real, in the [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] message, and that is, it's time to turn the page. Twenty-eight years of two families controlling the presidency.
NOVAK: Absolutely. And that is something that everybody talks about. And, you know, talk about nostalgia -- it's hard for a lot of these people to believe this, but there's not that much nostalgia for Bill Clinton. I just find people who aren't Democratic professional politicians, who are -- you know, are sorry that they've had eight years of Republicans, they don't really yearn for Bill Clinton. But the thing --
RUSSERT: But he does -- he's very popular in all the polls.
NOVAK: A lot of people don't want him back, though, for a third term. And I think it's very dangerous to call this a third term of Bill Clinton. There's one other thing: the morale of the Republicans --
RUSSERT: Who's done that? Who's called it the third term?
NOVAK: Me.
[laughter]
SHRUM: It's dangerous, and that's why he's doing it.
RUSSERT: Nice try, Novak.
NOVAK: There's a --
RUSSERT: Consider the source.
NOVAK: Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don't see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, "OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before." And it gives the Republicans hope.
HUNT: You know, I have a different take. I don't think the Bill Clinton thing is that big a deal at this time. I think if you look at these two front-runners, and you look at over the last six months, and they both have probably exceeded expectations. Go back to January 15. If you said, "Six months from now, Hillary Clinton will have minimized her Iraq problem, she will have raised over 50 million dollars, she would have done better than probably anyone in the joint forums, she would be cleaning up with political endorsements," you would say, "It's all over. She's won."
"OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before." And it gives the Republicans hope. - Novak
Novak,
Is it really breaking precendent? History as shown how blacks have had a struggle to get to where they are today. Women weren't allowed to vote unitl 1918. Given those facts I don't think precedent is the word for it.
Even today the Republican Party along with Bush and Rove in the White House is blocking legitimate minority votes from getting counted.
What was that...? "to break precedent..."
Oh gee, I thought he was saying, "break wind!"
What was I thinking? My apologies to all. The above shoulda said:
"Break wind!...'gives the Republicans hope.' - No va...k"
During this segment of touting the prince of darkness new book this group Strum , Al Hunt Mike Murphy Big Russ sat still and didn't say a word when Novack said and tried to revive the swift-boating of Kerry was responsible for his loss.No one mentioned that his son Alex Novak was the head of marketing for the book Unfit for Command.The word is now a perjoritive.
Wait, you're saying which word is now perjoritive: swiftboating or Novak?
I pick all of the above, personally.
Wow. You know, it took me a minute to realize that Russert didn't kick this off with a pretty harsh slam of Reagan. "Twenty-eight years of two families controlling the presidency." I initially took that to mean the past 28 years: 8 years of GWBush, 8 years of WJClinton, 4 years of President GHWBush, and another 8 years of GHWBush "controlling the presidency" as VP under Reagan. Oh snap! And he said it right to Novak's face!
I guess he was talking about 28 years if HRClinton were to be elected in 2008 to two terms. How disappointing.
As for Novak: he's aware that he's portraying the Republican Party as a country club full of nostalgia for the good ol' days for good ol' boys, yes? MMFA's headline doesn't do justice to the ugliness of his comment: "...[O]nly the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, 'OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.' And it gives the Republicans hope."
May Novak continue to portray Republicans as the party by and for insecure white men. It gives me hope.
That said, shame on everyone with a pulse on that panel who declined to call Novak on being a Grade A jerk. Russert might as well have poured Novak a refreshing mint julip and passed him a fine cigar.
Okay, so sixteen years of Clinton family (not sure about the math until Chelsea, should she decide to get into politics, would be old enough) ... but how many Bush felons are there? Plenty enough ...
A lot of people don't want him back, though, for a third term. And I think it's very dangerous to call this a third term of Bill Clinton.
Who, besides Novak, has said anything like this with regards to Hillary's chances?
And for the record, Constitutional limitations aside, I yearn for another Bill Clinton presidency, and I know many others who feel the same. Clinton was the best president we've had in my 31 years of life. We should be so lucky as to have that kind of prosperity again.
I honestly think that the Republican party thinks black people are stupid. I honestly do.
How often have I heard that the Republican party is the part of Lincoln. Code word for " You black folks remember Lincoln, he freed you." What they don’t tell is the Republican party of Lincoln is not the Republican party now. They hope that black folks won’t know their history. If you remember, black people primarily voted Republican for almost 100 years, because the Republican party pretty much came into existence in the 1850's on an anti-slavery platform. The Democratic party was pretty much the party of racist southerners. Blacks started switching to the Democratic party due to Roosevelt, and his "New Deal" policies. Many previously white southern Dems, still didn't want to move to the Republican party, because it was the party of Lincoln and "black people lovers".
Am I surprised that Novak would say that? Hell No!
April 9, 2003, House Republican Barbara Cubin said this in a long statement on the floor:
One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person….
There were objections to her language by Dems and requests that her statement be removed from Congressional Records. A vast majority of Dems reasonably found Cubin's wildly inaccurate claim to be offensive, not one Republican Party politician found the claim to be offensive. Not one.
"OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before." And it gives the Republicans hope.-Novak
No wonder they have hope, this is the party responsible for the Willie Horton ads. Can’t wait to see what they’ll come up with next.
In fairness, you're painting with a pretty broad brush, and not all Republicans are Barbara Cubin. We can talk about the "party of Lincoln" slogan -- which, I think, is actually a pretty fascinating and complicated title if taken seriously.
But really, Barbara Cubin has given the public every reason to believe that she's either an awful person, regardless of her political affiliations, or that she's just terrible at expressing herself... in which case, she shouldn't be in politics. Her comment during the gun bill debate was even worse than your excerpt indicated. The full remark, according to the record, was:
"My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my——" [interrupted, thankfully, by Mr. Watt]
Now, according to Cubin, she was going to finish that sentence by saying that her children look like the Columbine High School murderers, thus making an argument about how all stereotyping is wrong. A fine defense. Except that Harris and Klebold were not 25 and 30, so I have no idea why she would mention her sons' ages if she were trying to say that they fit some sort of stereotype. And what stereotype would that be, anyway? That white males with blond hair and blue eyes are serial killers? Funny, but I honestly hadn't heard that particular stereotype before. Wasn't there a national discussion after Columbine about how these kids DIDN'T "look" like stereotypical killers? Anyway, I haven't heard any shock-jock radio talk show hosts making "blond haired blue eyed white guy" jokes lately.
Anyway, I might be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt if not for Cubin's track record of saying god awful things like in 1995 when she compared welfare recipients to pen-reared beasts: "Just like any animal of the species," she said, "when you take away their freedom they can't provide for themselves."
Then there was the incident in 2006 with Thomas Rankin, who has MS and uses a wheelchair. Apparently Cubin told Rankin, "If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you across the face." Cubin didn't deny making the remark it, but nonetheless defended herself with the stupid, stupid excuse that "she may have been influenced by listening to too much Rush Limbaugh."
Anyway, I'm just trying to say that there's a distinction between Barbara Cubin's beliefs about minorities and the Republican Party's ideological disposition. The fact that Republicans aren't more vocal in their criticism of one another isn't necessarily a sign that they share Cubin's beliefs.
(Please don't take this as a defense of the Republican Party: I'd be making the same argument if a conservative held out one insane Democrat's positions as an example of the entire party's position.)
You are right it’s a pretty broad brush for individuals but not so broad for the party. I know many who are proud to be Republican but don’t like what the party’s history reflects.
Many Republican politicians proudly say they are the “Party of Lincoln” and I can only assume that they must think African Americans don’t know the “history” of Lincoln and the Republican party.
The fact that Republicans aren't more vocal in their criticism of one another isn't necessarily a sign that they share Cubin's beliefs.
How about one, just one speaking out. When the presented with the perfect scenario to speak out, they are silent. I can only say for myself that if a statement is made by an individual that can be attributed to me and I don’t agree, I will speak out.
In 2003 when former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie swore that increasing the GOP share of the Black vote was “a top, top priority.” no one speaking out against Cubin makes me wonder about the “top priority” bull sh*t. When you say “more vocal” how about vocal period. Cubin is only an example of the party. CofCC with Lott still a member. You can’t forget Jessie Helms. In 1990, locked in a tight race with an African American Democrat, former Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt, Helms aired a final-week TV ad that showed a pair of white hands crumpling a rejection letter, while an announcer said, "You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota."
This party’s is has a history of using African Americans as a wedge issue in politics. They have no shame and I can’t really expect any different if Obama were to get the nomination or even VP.
(Please don't take this as a defense of the Republican Party: I'd be making the same argument if a conservative held out one insane Democrat's positions as an example of the entire party's position.)
Maybe because I’m African American this one “insane” position I have for the Republican party will not allow me to ever consider them with major changes on this issue.
As with all your posts, Pearlene, you've given me a lot to think about and reconsider.
With respect to no Republican speaking out against Cubin's ugly remarks, it seems that a few did according to the report I read from the Washington Post on the incident, including Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.). However, Quinn's rebuke is pretty weak, and was apparently delivered after he voted that there was nothing unparliamentary about what Cubin said. Some of the other articles I saw characterized the vote as "largely along party lines" so I wasn't sure if perhaps a couple of Republicans did vote in opposition. But even if one did, your point stands: the overwhelming lack of Republican opposition to her remarks is effectively the same as no opposition whatsoever. No one spoke out in a significant way.
Frankly, I find everything you say to be absolutely right. I've just always assumed--perhaps too generously--that those Republicans who respond to charges of structural racism in their party with the claim that they are of "the Party of Lincoln" are not so much thinking that minorities don't know history... but rather than most Americans have never thought critically about Lincoln and the history of the Civil War.
Every time I hear reference made to "Lincoln freeing the slaves" I cringe. The history of slavery in America has been written perversely as the moral triumph of a white president who "freed the slaves" by acknowledging the obscenely obvious truth that slavery must end.
I've always assumed that Republicans played on this historical narrative simply because they didn't know any better themselves. But the more I think about your post, the more I think I've been doing the equivalent of looking the other way.
Thanks for your post, and for keeping me honest.
Since the days of Lincoln, it seems, the "Party of Lincoln" has been trying to attract more black voters to its ranks. I cannot remember a time during my life when that has not been so. In recent decades, we have tried with all of our might to demonstrate that we are "kinder and gentler," that we are "compassionate" in our conservatism, and that we "celebrate diversity" as much as the Democrats“- Ward Connelly
Vysotsky, thanks for the kind words. One of the reasons that I have such a strong opinion is the above quote by Ward Connelly. Here is a “black:“ man who is a Republican painting a picture of a “kinder, gentler and compassionate” Republican party. Why wouldn’t “black” folks vote Republican?
Republicans have said that “black” people follow the Dems like sheep. Basically saying that we have no reason to not vote Republican. It’s important for me to try to make others understand that we are not sheep. The continued lack of accountability for their actions along with the pretense of offering something different is why so few African Americans vote Republican. Holding up a few, Rice and Powell as examples while allowing others like Cubin a pass won’t work.
Enough of my rant.
Thanks again for taking the time to try to understand my point of view.
Enough of my rant.
If that's what you call a rant, by all means, rant on. :)
Thanks again for taking the time to try to understand my point of view.
Well, if I didn't try to do that, there wouldn't be much point in my participating in these discussions.
pearlene_scott1602,
I'm with you 100% on this one. Although bogotry knows no boundries, it seems to run thick in Republican leaders. It is also more prevailant in my Republican friends and family members. No broad brush, just a simple fact.
When one of them tells me that they belong to the party of Lincoln, (a favorite talking point of Sean Hannity) I respond with one of the following:
"Five bucks doesn't go as far as it used to."
"I don't care what you make, you're still one of my best friends."
"I'm not interested in how much you pay your employees per hour..."
Whichever is most applicable. It usually shuts them up.
SeeYa,
Rick
"she may have been influenced by listening to too much Rush Limbaugh."
Ah, yes, the famous Twinky Limbaugh Defense.
Five white men all in a one brew
Is a recipe that isn't new
It's a drink that is bland
It's the Pale Male brand
Forget females or a variant hue
I guess old habits die hard for Mr. Judy Woodruff, who's been playing Colmes to Novak's Hannity since the 80s. Never challenge Bob, just blather on.
We listened to this comment with mouths open in astonishment. We couldn't believe he'd just said that. We played it back three times on the DVR. Sure enough, that's what he said. You have to listen to the video to get the sarcastic tone: ONLY the Democrats, with EVERYTHING in their favor, would nominate a woman or an African-American. And then, the five white guys on the show just went on with the show. Unbelievable.Stupid Democrats, nominating the best candidates, regardless of race or gender. Don't they think everybody's as racist and sexist as Bob Novak? Apparently, Republicans do.
Go here: [link to www.frameshopisopen.com] And look at this: Frameshop: A Picture of the GOP on Civil Rights
Tancredo? The only Republican to accept the RSVP from the NAACP and nary a peep from the liberal media.
Roundhouse, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Thank for the link.
That's quite a big tent the Republican party has pitched for itself. Ick.
I'm horrified that this hasn't been more widely reported.
An enlightened lot they are not.
More than that, it is disgraceful that at this time in history it doesn't come automatically to question such a racist and sexist statement.
They were all thinking yes of course, a black man or a white woman leading this nation? Preposterous.
It obviously will take more than Imus's firing and the dignity of the women's basketball team to get people to pay attention (and bite their tongues or challenge others) regarding this kind of prejudice that is so deeply ingrained for too many.
C
I'd like to hear what Mr Christie has to say about that comment ?
The GOP seems to be developing some interesting strategies.Counting on running against somebody other than a white man, predicting terrorist attacks while simultaneously running on the "keeping you safe" angle, etc..
A while back, I linked here to a piece by Newt Gingrich, in which he suggested hope for the Repubs by comparing the situation to the French elections.His spin was that the French went more conservative in order to effect change.
By the end of the essay, he had successfully (in his mind) laid out the argument that anybody who was disgusted with Republican leadership should vote GOP,because they were going to be completely different this time, and the Democrats were going to be exactly like the Repubs.Interesting take.
I picked up the L.A. Times this morniing, and I got some more Republican strategy in an Op-Ed by Frank Luntz, which I think is worth a look.Here are some of my favorite parts;
'The electorate is the most pessimistic in a generation. Just 19% of Americans believe that the country is headed in the right direction, while 75% believe that things are "off on the wrong track," '
Not just observant, or unhappy with the current leadership, but pessimistic. Whatta bunch of Gloomy Gus's.(Gusses?)
"Despite majorities in both houses, Congress is seen as having failed to set tough ethics standards, failed to stop wasteful spending and failed to fix immigration."
They haven't cleaned up all of the Repubs messes yet? I'm voting Republican.
"And those failures offer a glimmer of hope for the GOP"
I don't understand opinion pieces like this.Anybody whose mind is going to be changed by this stuff I'd guess is already voting Republican.
And if you didn't go to the Luntz piece, he mentions stereotypes about Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards in the first few lines. Yeah, the expensive haircut, right off the bat in a Victory plan for the GOP in '08
"They haven't cleaned up all of the Repubs messes yet? I'm voting Republican."
By Republican, of course, you mean Sinn Fein, right?
Conchobhar ,I never see those other Republicans on my ballot.I don't think they'd appeal to our Repubs, as they've actually taken some steps toward taking away their own guns recently ;0)
In my long rambly Sunday night post, I didn't really get to what I found most fascinating about Luntz' article - that the GOP should capitalize on Americans anti-politician mood by convincing us that that mood is completely the result of a few months of Dem majority in Congress, and totally unrelated to the last 7 years of GOP control.
And I don't misunderestimate their chances of being successful to some degree - it's amazing to me, but the GOP has had some victories by appealing to the "rugged individualism" and "self-sufficiency" that Americans like to see in themselves.
That is, they are an impressive anomaly in that they've been able to get themselves employed by asserting that they have no confidence in the business that they're in, and promising not to do much work.
Although Luntz states that the "do-nothing" Dems should be a launching point for GOP victory, he seems to be encouraging more of a "feelings" campaign, based on the platform of "You hate government? So do we!"
The demise of this country is eminent. I am very willing to gamble on a fresh, clean man like Obama. I have never once voted for what someone looked like, their sex, or their religion. I have always looked at the credibility of the person, and I see that only Obama has that. If we have any hope at all to rise out of this quagmire we have sunk into, it must be with a leader who is willing to govern for the people. None of the other candidates offer this. They only offer their will. I don't accept that. It's going to take all of us together as a nation to become great again, and if people don't see this, then they aren't really looking at what's going on in America.
This guy novak is truley sickening he participated in one the most outrageous acts inb the history of our country by participating in the outing of a CIA. agent. And hes allowed to be sitting on national tv yuking it up and giving his opinion on national matters.Had I not logged on to MMFA I would have not been aware of this for I am so turned off by the "NEWS" that I try not to watch these shows anymore.
the 24/7 news format allows this buffoon to get microphone time and his supporters ( the GOP in general ) cite first ammendment rights to free speech as excuse. Mr Bush has not shown any leadership in restraining abrasive language emanating from his party. It is as though he doesn't care. I would love to give Mr Novak a permanet wedgie.
But according to Novak, his pocketbook has been deeply hurt by the Plame scandal. Part of the NYTImes interview by Deborah Solomon:
In your new memoir, “The Prince of Darkness,” you complain about the $160,000 you’ve spent on legal fees and claim that your income has taken a dive as a result of your role in this. Can you elaborate?
I left CNN, which was my biggest payer, and my lecture fees were down. I was a little bit untouchable in the eyes of some people. I was off “Meet the Press” for two years. I have a much lower role with Fox News than I had at CNN.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? As if he is having trouble making a living? I wonder what his income is, post-dive, compared with that of most Americans. Where I come from, we call this chutzpah.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19694666/page/6/
This is the most offensive thing that was said yesterday on MTP.
MR. NOVAK: Well, Mr. Armitage did come forward. He, he—before a special prosecutor was even named, he had—after a story appeared in which I said there was not a partisan gunslinger who gave me the information, he identified himself to the Justice Department. So they—that did come forward. And, of course, the wrong investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, came after they knew that—who had been the leaker and had made a decision, obviously, that no law had been broken. Because nobody was ever pros—Mr. Armitage was not prosecuted, nobody else was prosecuted.
MR. RUSSERT: Al Hunt, what have we learned from all of this?
They did NOT know that no law had been broken. They knew that they could not prove who leaked, and what the motivation of the leakers was. There were multiple leakers, not just one, and Libby caused the investigation to be obstructed, and he lied about his actions. Had he not obstructed justice, maybe someone would have been convicted of a crime.
An unsolved murder doesn't mean that no murder was committed. A covert CIA agent's name was broadcast.
Russert should have not let Novak get away with that comment. Apparently he wanted to move on to asking Al Hunt something, but that's no excuse for letting Novak say what he said.
So what. Novak spoke the truth. Is it not ture that there is a groups of Americans that will simply refuse to vote for a woman or minority? Have we gotten to the point where one cannot even say the truth anymore?
WOW! 2 typos in one post. I should've written true and group.
That's right discrimination is alive and well today. That's why affirmative action should also be alive and well today.
Bingo. This point cannot be repeated enough. The ugliness of Novak's comment isn't that he's acknowledging the reality of discrimination and bigotry... it's that he sees it as the Republicans' inside joke.
Negative. My point was that some groups, not exclusively white tend to vote for people who are similar to themselves. This group is very small so your assertion that affirmitive action is required is ridiculous.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611
Institutionalized discrimination is not completely dead but it is almost non-exsistant. Novak's comments do not show the "racist underbelly" of the republican party but the ignorance of Novak himself. While it is true that a white male candidate may be more attractive to some cons the group is so small I doubt it will actually make a difference. While what Novak said may be true to people like Novak, I don't think it is the prevailing con view.
Are you a white male? Ask a young black male if racism still exists. Go ahead and ask. Love to see what he says! You are living in a very small bubble if you think that sexism and racism hardly exists anymore.
Yes, I am a white male (OH NO!) who happens to work with three blacks, two women and one man who don't seem to adhere to your "whitey out to get the black man down view". Additionaly in 1994 a CNN poll found that 89% of blacks surveyed said that they had not experienced racism in their time, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.
And I work on a job where as a high school graduate we average 100,000$ a year. I work with maybe 400 or so in my dept at my location. There are maybe five or six black people. ALL of them hired AFTER 1971 and most of them after 1990 Now there are plenty of blacks in the other depts. If you really think institutional racism is gone you are simply delusional.
You're wrong.
The poll you cite was conducted in 1997 and the sample group was composed entirely of teenagers. Furthermore, 89% didn't say that they hadn't experienced racism; 89% of black teens answered that racism was "only a small problem" or "not a problem at all" in their own lives. Furthermore, more than 50% of those same teens characterized racism as "a big problem" in America.
You don't need to be a sociologist to recognize that there's an important distinction to be made between racism and how teenagers report their judgment of whether or not racism is a problem for them.
So no, I don't think anyone is letting the facts get in the way here... and you haven't presented any facts.
Sebastian,
For God sakes please provide a link to that poll. I am 49 years old and I live in a NE city. I rarely encounter overt racism but in my life time the following has happened:
The first time I was called the N-word was by White police officers. I was 13 years old and several fights had broken out on a single day at my integrated Junior high school and things were out of control and the police were rightly called. A group of White police officers called my friends and me (we were following the fights, not in them) N-word, bitches all kinds of ugly things. Our parents registered complaints with the police department of course.
We moved into an all White neighborhood when I was 13 and my brother was routinely approached by the police who had to been called by neighborhood people about why he was in the neighborhood.
When I was 25 years old I was waiting at a bus stop with another group of would be passengers who happened to be Black and we were called the N-word by a group of White teen-agers in a passing car.
Early in my career I routinely got what are you doing here looks during professional encounters and conferences. Thankfully that type of behavior has passed, they are used to people like me being there now.
I have moved into two previously predominantly White neighborhoods and seen them become predominantly Black, once as a child and once as an adult. Apparently Whites either get nervous about being in the minority or I suspect that neighborhoods that are predominantly Black are somehow seen as not good neighborhoods. When we were thinking about buying a new house in a near by county, A White friend told me we should look at homes in her town and not in a near by town that was predominantly Black. I actually looked up the stats of these two towns (crime rates, income averages, educational averages) on line and they were so similar except one community was predominantly Black and my White friend told me it was a bad neighborhood. It wasn’t, it was a Black neighborhood.
Most of my friends and relatives can cite similar incidents; we don't dwell on these of course because it's wasted energy to focus on negatives in your life in my opinion. I have had very positive encounters with people of all races and those negatives were the exception but they are indeed memorable, but I believe they aren’t representative of the actions or points of view of most people. Although these persistent de-facto segregated housing patterns make me wonder. I said all of this to say, I find that 89% number unbelievable high maybe the converse is true and 89% could recall incidents of racism.Peace, I have a better suggestion for Seb.
Go to a makeup artist, have him make you look African American and live in that color for a day. Stay in the same neighboohood, work the same job and keep the same friends.
I think there was a program like this on Fox but it didn't last long. Hard to face the mirror each day I assume.
You're in college right P_Scott? I'm talking about INSTITUTIONAL racism. Please feel free to read my posts before responding. I've never said racism was dead, that would be naive. My point is that it is almost (keyword) completely gone from every institution in America. Racists do not prosper under our social system. If a business man hired his employees based solely on race and not on ability how long would he last?
You're in college right P_Scott? I'm talking about INSTITUTIONAL racism
Seb, you've made my day. I'm a 72 almost 73 year of African American woman who with the help of my husband put three daughters and one grandson through college.
My bad, mistaked you for someone else...but the fact that your progeny went to college should help you with your "white man's out to get us" nonsense.
"Mistook you for someone else" Thought I'd correct myself before anyone else did.
Seb, first and foremost I’ve never nor have I raised my children to believe “white man” out to get us. The fact that “my progeny” went to college means that they are college educated. The fact that I have lived during some of the most violent racial times in this country is what “helped” my children knowledge of racism. My knowledge did not come from a college textbook, it came from life.
To pretend that those times are not apart of our history is exactly that, pretending. To pretend that those same times, while not as often nor as visible is also pretending. The racism of today is much more subtle but still in many many parts of this country alive and living. On June 7th, 1998, James Byrd Jr. was dragged behind the truck of 3 white men or Benjamin Nathaniel Smith’s shooting of minorities, Illinois1999. Not so long ago. Yes there have been changes regarding racism in this country but to pretend that the numbers are so small to be insignificant is to lie to yourself.
Right On Pearl! This utopia where racism institutional or otherwise has completely disappeared would be wonderful if only it were true. Sebastian seems to believe that all Blacks who won't join him in his delusional belief in this no racism utopia somehow just sits around lamenting how The Man is holding us back. You and I like most people are reality based and you unlike some who post here are informed. My Mom would be your age now if she were alive, and you guys definitely went through the fires and made a way for us. You guys gave us the life skills to succeed and even though it wasn't true when you were telling us you told us we could be whatever we wanted to be if we worked hard, and you built our self esteem and confidence so we absolutely believed that. I thank all the Blacks and Whites of your generation that worked hard to removed the obstacles that you guys encountered out of my generations way. We are going to work just as hard to remove those remnants of institutional racism that persists, like the disparities in the judicial system in sentencing, the disparities in lending practices and health care, and I am hoping that one day those segregated housing patterns that results in segregated public schools will be resolved too. We are also going to work to try to reverse this dysfunction as a norm practice that is being adopted by too many of our younger generation. We are going to tell them what we were told, WORK HARD, BE RESPONSIBLE , and do the very best with the system you inherited while trying to make it more equitable, that traditional message we got from our elders. God Bless you Pearl, I love your posts.
You're in college right P_Scott? I'm talking about INSTITUTIONAL racism.
Pardon me? What the he11 was THAT supposed to mean?
My point being that colleges no longer discriminate and if they do it is a very minute exception.
I really don't like being so blunt ...but seriously, just because you work with a few people and cite a friggin 1994 CNN poll, that doesn't say anything. Bottom line is that racism in every form exists, everywhere.... Seriously though, go speak to any sociologist and find that racism is alive and kicking everywhere. Sure, it's not as in your face in some places, but it's there! Oh and people like yourself don't "subscribe" to the blame whitey, more like to the ignorance is bliss category.
Actually, Sebastian didn't cite any poll. The poll to which I think he was referring was actually conducted in 1997, and his 89% figure actually corresponds to the percentage of black teenagers among who answered that racism was either a "small problem" or "not a problem at all" in their own lives. More 50% of that same group characterized racism as a big problem in America in general.
Sebastian, I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to your previous post, but to point to colleges as proof that institutional discrimination is a non-issue is ridiculous.
Others have provided you with examples of discrimination, and you've dismissed them as meaningless anecdotes. So let me appeal to basic logic.
Since the United States were a set of colonies, people were denied property and voting rights. Racial segregation and discrimination were legally authorized and enforced with state power in public and commercial institutions into the 1960s. The people who led movements to end racial discrimination were imprisoned, beaten, and assassinated.
We're talking here about CENTURIES of state authorized forced labor, segregation and discrimination. And yet you tell me that in less than 50 years, not only has institutional discrimination vanished, but it has left no traces?
Since you bring up education, how do you account for statistics like these from the 2000 U.S. Census? Here's some data on people in the U.S., 25 years of age or older:
Total pop. 25+, identifying as white alone: 143,085,659
Total pop. 25+, identifying as black alone: 19,858,095
25+, white alone, with any higher education experience (from college w/o degree to graduate or professional degree): 77,370,890 (or 54% of whites)
25+, black alone, with any higher education experience (from college w/o degree to graduate or professional degree): 8440618 (or 42.5 % of blacks)
Did you notice a disparity? And we're only talking about people who had ANY education past high school. We're not even comparing numbers of people with bachelors' and higher degrees. (But just in case you were interested, it's 9.5 % of whites 25 or older with professional or graduate degrees compared to 4.8 % of blacks 25 or older with graduate or professional degrees... half the proportion of whites.)
Now if that isn't an effect of discrimination -- including economic effects of past outright racial discrimination -- then how do you account for such a disparity? Bad luck?
Or do you think, maybe, just maybe, a few centuries of state authorized racism and discrimination might linger for more than a few decades?
Vysotsky,
What he meant , I’m not sure. What my first thought was he meant was I was “one of the educated ones“. Hard not to think that when he writes “should help you with your "white man's out to get us" nonsense. Hopefully I’m wrong.
Ah, I see. You must be soooooo flattered.
I'm special :-)
Futhermore, I belive I said institutional discrimination (notice I didn't say "racism")wasn't dead but was almost gone for several reasons, first, it's not good for business, secondly, it is not being taught to as many children as it used to and third because if one is viewed as a racist it is esentially a career killer and you become a pariah, unless of course your name is Sharpton or Jackson. I NEVER said racism was dead it is alive though not at the status it once was. It is alive in EVERY race creed and color but the American culture as it is today does not condone it and this is why a hardcore racist will probably not succeed in America today, again, with the exceptions of people like Sharpton and Jackson, Farrakhan, the group called "La Raza" (the race).
All-white jury sitting before white judge agrees with white prosecutor and all-white witnesses and convicts Black youth in racially charged high school criminal case.
http://www.sfbayview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=255&Itemid=14
The courts are an institution.
OMG! One story. Thank you for proving what I said about "almost gone". How many courts are there in this country? I guess you're right, this MUST be the norm not the exception. What about OJ's predominatley black jury and non-white judge aquiting him? Or the recent case in New York where a white man was sentenced for 15 years because he used a racial epithet while he beat a black man with a bat. Why is this wrong? The black man admitted to attempting to steal the car of the assailant's friend. Talk about cherry picking!
Well, clearly nothing will disabuse of your silly notion, so enjoy!
You came up with one example of institutionalized racism. I asserted that it is ALMOST gone. Your argument does nothing to dissprove my point. All it does is shine a light on a town in Louisiana that needs to be investigated. Furthermore, the article itself contends that 150 jurors were summoned but only whites showed up. Please come up with some evidence that proves that this is the norm not the exception.
If you are interested - you can find plenty of examples. I have no intention of enumerating the myriad of instances which would seem to discredit your contention. I will mention just two and you can go enjoy yourself felling like racism is more directed at whites these days (given your referencing of black leaders).1) mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine are greater than those for the powdered variety in most (all?) jurisdictions 2) one is more likely to face the death penalty if the victim is white than if the victim were non-white
I know about the crack law...it is a worse form of narcotic than the powdered version that is why it carries a more grave sentence but nice try. On your other point if you'll be kind enough to provide a link I'd like to read it.
Says who?
According to the majority of research I've seen on the subject (starting with the landmark work, by Dorothy K. Hatsukami, PhD, and Marian W. Fischman, PhD, "Crack Cocaine and Cocaine Hydrochloride: Are the Differences Myth of Reality?" in the Journal of the American Medical Association, November 20, 1996, Vol. 276, No. 19, p. 1580) any differences in addictiveness between the two forms of cocaine are far from proportional to the disparity in sentencing for crimes involving crack and powdered cocaine.
Pray tell what evidence you have to support your claim that crack is more dangerous than powdered cocaine in proportion to the severity of sentences against offenders in crimes involving crack.
Seb, the only way you can post all that stuff is from a "white" mans point of view.
I still suggest again that you go see the makeup artist, try being "black" for a day.
The thing that I love (sarcasm) is the Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan reference.
Louis Farrakhan while black is a Muslim. Most black folks I know, not all, are Baptist and disregard Farrakhan completely. Remember the masses black folks that followed Dr. King vs. the black folks that followed Malcolm X? Jackson is racist because of Hymie? And Sharpton is racist be cause of the Brawley deal? If the only black people you can names in regard to racism is Jackson and Sharpton you need to broaden you circle. If those are the two example used to judge both men on their total lives... I feel for you. The MSM appointed both Jackson and Sharpton as “representatives” of black people. The reason probably because they are to lazy to get up off their butts and find other black opinions. Unfortunately, you follow their laziness continue to do the same.
Wow. I wonder if anyone in my predominantly black and hispnic neighborhood would be insulted if I donned blackface....I'm pretty sure (considering our high rate of gang violence) I wouldn't make it throught the day but your reassertion of that asinine suggestion is cute. In pointing out the black men who are racists and the hispanic racist group I was merely pointing out that not just whites are racists (Sharpton did more than Brawley, he also called Jews "diamond merchants" and talked of "white interlopers"). Are you actually contending that my point about racism being counterproductive in america? No retort to that point? And to your assertion that I need to bulk up on black racists here goes - Gary sheffield claim Hispanics are more easily controlled by blacks. Will Smith once said the White man created AIDS to kill off blacks. Michael Irvin asserted that Tony Romo must have some black blood in him since he's such a great athlete, the list goes on. Now let me ask you a question, what if, say, Jim Thome came out and said blacks were more easily controlled than whites? Or if a white actor said the only reason Maxine Waters was smart enough to be in politics was because she must have some white blood in her? My point is that racism exists in much smaller areas than it used to and that it's a problem with every group the difference is while these people are still working ask John Rocker, or Don Imus if they could get away with such comments, I think not. Not only has istitutional racism almost gone the way of the dodo but it seems that in the court of public opinion it's OK to be a black racist, but not a white one. BTW, you still haven't given any evidence to support your "Institutional racism is rampant" argument....still waiting.
Not cute nor asinine but a reality that you can’t imagine UNLESS you actually live it.
In pointing out the black men who are racists and the Hispanic racist group I was merely pointing out that not just whites are racists (Sharpton did more than Brawley, he also called Jews "diamond merchants" and talked of "white interlopers").
You called them racists, not me. I’m no Sharpton nor Jackson lover but I would not called them racists. Maybe because I’m black. I don’t consider La Raza racists either. Why you would find a Hispanic group trying to help Hispanics racists is beyond me. I assume (probably should not) that you find the NAACP a “racists” group also.
Are you actually contending that my point about racism being counterproductive in America?
That not so smart question requires no answer
Gary Sheffield is an ass, Michael Irvin is an ass and Will Smith, while cute as a button is also an ass if they have said those things.
My point is that racism exists in much smaller areas than it used to and that it's a problem with every group the difference is while these people are still working ask John Rocker, or Don Emus if they could get away with such comments, I think not.
You know I was going along just fine but the Imus bull sh*t stopped me cold. You do not in 2007 go on radio and TV and call a group of African American women college athletes “nappy headed hoes” period. There is nothing to discuss Seb if you think that I should feel sorry for some old white man who has not learned in 2007 what he can and cannot say?
you still haven't given any evidence to support your "Institutional racism is rampant" argument....still waiting.
Sorry to disappoint and keep you waiting but you’ll have to continue to wait. I have not mention “institutional racism” you have.
It's been fun but on to other topics
I wonder if anyone in my predominantly black and hispnic [sic] neighborhood would be insulted if I donned blackface....I'm pretty sure (considering our high rate of gang violence) I wouldn't make it throught [sic] the day but your reassertion of that asinine suggestion is cute.
Now it's interesting you should put it that way. If the reason you would be attacked would be because of gang violence and not racial tension, then why did you bother mentioning that you live in a predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhood?
You're not suggesting that there's some kind of relationship between the racial and ethnic composition of your neighborhood and the local crime level and socioeconomics, are you?
You see, if you are, then you're acknowledging a link between race, ethnicity, and real socioeconomic disparity.
If not, then to what do you attribute the gang violence in your neighborhood? And why did you feel it necessary to mention the ethnic and racial demography of your neighborhood?
In any case, I'm very sorry that you believe that your "predominantly black and Hispanic" neighbors would kill you if you insulted them.
Sebastion Shaw: Futhermore, I belive I said institutional discrimination (notice I didn't say "racism")wasn't dead but was almost gone for several reasons...
Sebastian Shaw: You're in college right P_Scott? I'm talking about INSTITUTIONAL racism.
---
Seriously, Sabastian, you really need to make up your mind.
Guilty conscience or straw man argument? I never said anything about a racist Republican underbelly, you did and, by the way, I like it's ring.
Institutionalized discrimination is well, institutionalized. Just look at the Salvation Army, a tax exempt Christian organization which accepts federal money, is free to hire discriminately on the basis of religion. So say the circuit courts. That's about as institutionalized as one can get, no to mention infinitely more persuasive than some stupid polling data.
WOW! That's your evidence? A christian group that wishes to hire christians is discriminating? That is the most absurd thing I might hve ever heard heard. How many Playboy playmates have been male? Answer, zero. Why because the models must be female. How many white guys work for telemundo? Talk about a strawman arguemnt.
Are you flippin' kidding me? You can't be that dang dense, man. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
The thing about the Salvation Army is not that they are merely a discriminatory, federal dollar sucking, tax evading entity. They are a legally protected from litigation discriminatory, federal dollar sucking, tax evading entity. That is institutionalized discrimination.
That federal money they accept is paid by every last one of us, yet they do not serve every last one of us.
Sabastion, will you make up your mind??? Compare:
Novak spoke the truth. Is it not ture that there is a groups [sic] of Americans that will simply refuse to vote for a woman or minority? Have we gotten to the point where one cannot even say the truth anymore?
Sebastion Shaw / Monday July 16, 2007 01:35:20 PM EST
Institutionalized discrimination is not completely dead but it is almost non-exsistant. Novak's comments do not show the "racist underbelly" of the republican party but the ignorance of Novak himself.…While what Novak said may be true to people like Novak, I don't think it is the prevailing con view.
Sebastion Shaw / Monday July 16, 2007 03:07:06 PM EST
---
So which are you arguing, Sabastian? Did Novak speak the truth, or did he merely evince his ignorance?
Amazing...
People pay this guy MONEY for this kind of political analysis? Despite the polls and all the other available information, Novak makes these kinds of statements?
I guess if you never have to account for past mistakes and never have to support you opinions with facts, you can make these kinds of statements.
After the statement "he is very popular in the polls" when Novak comes back with "but people don't want a third term" the natural follow-up would be:
"Bob; are you on some kind of medication?"
Profit replaces accuracy and truth as primary goal in MSM
This is called the Taco Bell analogy. Taco Bell is division of PepsiCo, a giant multi-national corporation that also owns, Frito-Lay, Pizza Hut and other fine products. So, in the Taco-Bell management structure, one of the upper managers, let’s say the executive VP for the SW USA (they often have very impressive titles, the better to bandy about at reunions and weddings and so forth) comes up with an idea to eak out a little more profit by some improvement to the wholesale ordering system. This happens all the time as computers allow ever more automation. In fact, this ever increasing productivity is a good thing; it is a major driver of economic growth. Ok, so at the next management retreat in Scottsdale, this VP gets some nice award like a new BMW and few 100 k of stock options. No problem. Take note though, that the quality of the product was not improved. The tacos and chulpas at taco bell are still the same. However, the other VP’s say the Mid West VP for Frito-Lay is now under pressure to find some way to increase his division’s bottom line.
Now, take this whole scenario to a news gathering organization that is part of a mass media conglomerate. The VP of game shows is able to increase his profitability by buying a hit game show from Britain that features lot’s of extraordinarily attractive women, each with a suitcase that maybe has a million dollars in it. I guess it is debatable whether this is an improvement in the quality of game show programming. Personally, the only new game show that intrigued me was who wants to be a millionaire because it had Regis and there was lot’s of strategy as to when to use the various help options. Regardless, the game show VP is showered with praise, adulation and money. The point is that the VP of games did not improve the quality of any existing program, he just had the good luck to buy the US rights to a program that was doing well in another market.
But, the VP of the news division says to himself, “Hmm, I too would like an all expense trip to Bali and a new Cadillac STS, what can I do in my division to create more profits?“ So you see, the corporate conglomerate mentality that leads to ever increasing productivity when applied to mass media results in poorer quality, because quality really does not matter. All that matters is “what can we sell that will make a profit”? The whole Couric as anchor person is a perfect example. Rather than spend tens of millions of dollars on new foreign bureaus, more reporters, more investigators, more producers etc. In other words invest in the quality of the news gathering, CBS management decided to invest tens of millions of dollars in getting Couric. Did hiring Couric improve the quality of the news? Are the stories more accurate and better researched than when Schaefer was the anchor? Apparently not, they are losing viewers in droves.
There is no solution other than what we see here with the increasing reliance on digital online news, new sources of news that live or die by the quality of their product. By quality I mean accuracy, you know, truthiness.
I saw this on television and gave me pause when I heard it. Stupid thing to say. So he is saying that Americans are essentially racist and sexiest? Therefore voting for the establishment white male? Novak needs to go away now. He did do one thing right, pick the correct title for his book. Still, I loved the beat down Jim Webb gave to that chicken-(sh it) hawk Lyndsay Graham. "Don't talk to me about military service to this country, my family has been in the army since the revolution." Webb really stuck up for the troops. He really gave notice that he is on to the Republican party using the troops for talking points and political messages.... Graham's face was livid with anger and rightfully so (truth hurts). AND wow, Graham is REALLY out of touch with the issues in Iraq and what the war on so-called terror really means.
Sad thing about Novack's comment about the GOP wanting Hillary or Obama is that I think he's right. The GOP seems more concerned about Edwards who is trailing the top two, than the leading candidates. I think the GOP is looking forward to playing the race and gender card.
The thing is, most of the people who wouldn't vote for someone non-white and non-male are on the Republican side of the aisle. I think a Democrat would have a hard time being a leftie and a racist/sexist. It sort of goes against the policies, stated or otherwise, of the party. Not to say it's not possible, it's just not prevalent.
I know about the crack law...it is a worse form of narcotic than the powdered version that is why it carries a more grave sentence but nice try. -sebastion
What kind of nonsense is that? In what way is it"worse"? You may want to look into that here...
http://www.narconon.org/druginfo/cocaine_crack.html
Crack IS cocaine.
See the top of page two...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
Well, have to return to work...
S. Shaw
Um, can someone do me a favor and tell this person that George Soros isn't funding MMFA?
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/07/16/soros-funded-media-matters-white-men-have-no-business-talking-about-female-and-black-community-issues/
Wasn't there a retraction on that and nobody noticed?
I have a wish dream, that every time this pitiful old windbag appears on one of the cable shows, John Stewart would appear and tell him to please stop, because he is hurting America.