On March 14, 2013, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) announced he had changed his stance on same-sex marriage. The change came as a result of his son Will coming out as gay to Portman and his wife in 2011. Before this, Sen. Portman's opposition to gay rights was reflected in his voting record. He co-sponsored the 1996 federal ban on same-sex marriage and in 1999 voted for a measure prohibiting same-sex couples in Washington, D.C. from adopting children. You can watch an exclusive interview with CNN in which Sen. Portman discusses changing his stance on same-sex marriage.
While I'm glad Sen. Portman has come over to my side on this issue, his change in stance seems hollow. Usually when it comes to social issues, it seems the only time conservatives can consider another perspective is when it affects them. One exception which comes to mind is when Rep. State Representative Maureen Walsh made a plea to fellow legislators about same-sex marriage in 2012. Even in that case, it's fair to question whether or not Rep. Walsh's feelings about same-sex marriage were changed by her daughter coming out as gay. However, whereas Walsh's speech was full of passion, humor and honesty, Portman came off as robotic and political.
Here is my question for conservatives: Why does it seem your side has to be personally affected by an issue in order to consider another perspective?
In the clip below, The Majority Report host Sam Seder (sitting on the right) and guest Cliff Schecter discuss Sen. Portman and other instances of conservative politicians changing their stance on positions only after they are affected personally by an issue.
Last week marked the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death (5/2/11). To coincide with this historic event, President Obama's campaign released the following ad featuring Bill Clinton:
In the latest round of IOKIYAR, many on the right have hypocritically accused President Obama of "spiking the football", politicizing the death of bin Laden, etc. Because the raid which killed bin Laden happened under President Obama's watch, he effectively took away one of the GOP's biggest talking points against Democrats: their alleged softness on terror. Outside of the fact they weren't able to do it, I don't see why the right is upset with President Obama for touting this accomplishment. If a Republican president had ordered the raid which took out bin Laden, do you think the right would have been low-key about it? Please!
In the clip below from Hardball with Chris Matthews, he discusses the GOP's phony outrage over the ad with David Corn of Mother Jones magazine and Ron Reagan.
The ad also drew criticism from the left, including Dana Milbank and Arianna Huffington. Their beef was with the portion of the ad which asked if Mitt Romney would have done the same thing if he were president. While I think the criticism is valid, I also feel the question posed in the ad is fair as well. After all, the ad did use Romney's own words.Speaking of Romney, I think he lost any sympathy points the ad may have generated for him by taking a cheap shot at one of the Right's favorite punching bags, Jimmy Carter.
What are your thoughts on the Obama campaign's bin Laden ad?
On the February 18th episode of SNL, the guest host was former regular Maya Rudolph. Although I missed it last night (I heard it was very good overall), I did catch a few of the skits online this afternoon. In the first skit below, Michelle Obama (Rudolph) introduces her new campaign for fighting childhood obesity: a sitcom starring her family, their secret service agents and the vice-president.
In the 2nd clip, Seth Meyers and SNL alum Amy Poehler take on the birth control debate in the "Really?!?" portion of Weekend Update.
No, the title of this post is not a typo. Even though I rip on Republicans (deservedly so) either with family and friends or in the blogosphere on a regular basis, I have no issue praising them when I think it's warranted. On February 8, 2012, the Washington House of Representatives debated on the legalization of same-sex marriage. During this, Republican State Representative Maureen Walsh made an emotional appeal to the legislators. This is one of the best political speeches I've heard in a long time. Ironically, what I loved about the speech is that it wasn't the typical political speech you hear these days. You could tell that Rep. Walsh was speaking from the heart. Judge for yourself:
By the way, the House voted 55-43 in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage!!
Earlier this week at a Houston rally, conservative activist Apostle Claver Kamau-Imani called the Democrats a racist party of the KKK. The words were spoken at an event sponsored by the Clear Lake Tea Party where GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain was the keynote speaker. Kamau-Imani is the chairman of the right wing blog RagingElephants.org. The name of organization may ring a bell because it was responsible for this foolishness.
Cain took the stage after Kamau-Imani and has not condoned nor condemned the comments. "Our campaign is all about promoting civil dialogue -- while there may be differences of opinion on a wide variety of topics, we believe in never being disagreeable," Cain's spokesman told NBC News. Cain was not on stage while Kamau-Imani was speaking and his spokesman said he does not think Cain was aware of Kamau-Imani's contentious remarks.
In his speech, Kamau-Imani resorted to one of the oldest tricks in the GOP playbook. Just as I said in a post earlier this year, Republicans/conservatives will often go back in time to prove their "theory" that today's version of the Democratic party is racist. You'd have to be stupid on multiple levels to buy into that line of thinking. Does Kamau-Imani really expect to lure blacks to the GOP with his distorted, inflammatory rhetoric?!
Conservatives crack me up when they relive the glory days of the GOP's history of civil rights. It would be like a Miami Dolphins fan talking about the franchise's distant past as if that has anything to do with the 2011 team. The Dolphins were great at one time. However, they flat out suck right now with no signs of improving. Sadly, the GOP is the political version of the Miami Dolphins.
As many of you know, the Hispanic population in the U.S. is booming and won't be slowing down anytime soon. With this population growth comes potential political power. The manner in which the Hispanic community wields this potential power remains to be seen.
The clips below demonstrate how neither party is doing themselves any favors in currying the Hispanic vote. In clip #1, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks discusses how President Obama's policies on certain issues important to Hispanics could come back to haunt him. In the 2nd clip, a Hispanic conservative appears on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show to talk about why she has walked away from the GOP. Below the 2nd clip is a link to an article about the Hispanic community's past, present, and future role in American politics.
Earlier this week during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain gave his explanation as to why a majority of blacks vote Democrat. According to Cain, blacks who don't vote Republican are brainwashed. In addition to being insulting, Cain's comments are one of the reasons why most blacks have no use for the GOP. Apparently, he cannot comprehend the reality that there are blacks who think differently than he does. Cain is indicative of many conservatives in that he's unwilling to take a hard look at the Republican party and entertain the possibility that GOP policies, attitudes towards minorities, etc. could be why most blacks vote Democrat.
Herman Cain is very useful to conservatives because when he makes derogatory remarks about a majority of blacks, non-black conservatives feel they have license to say it too. Both Bill O'Reilly (see 2nd clip below) and Pat Buchanan have backed up Cain's assumptions about blacks who vote Democrat. Rep. Allen West serves the same capacity as Cain because he's made similar comments.
Watching the GOP's attempts at obtaining the black vote is akin to a Wile E. Coyote/Road Runner cartoon. With each feeble effort, they go over the proverbial cliff... crashing to the ground leaving a cloud of dust. Meep, Meep!
Cenk Uygur and Jayar Jackson of The Young Turks give their take on Herman Cain's comments.
Bill O'Reilly discusses Cain's remarks with liberal Fox "News" contributor Jehmu Greene
And the hits keep right on coming! On April 27, 2011, while debating in favor of SJR 15, a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate Affirmative Action in Oklahoma, Rep. Sally Kern (a Republican member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives) said the following:
"We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them."
In the clip below Michael Shure of The Young Turks gives his take on Kern's recent comments:
In just the past couple of years, Republicans have made several missteps in regards to race issues. Although some of these stories have been covered here at Diversity Ink, frankly it's been hard to keep up. Whenever Republicans/conservatives cite examples of racism within the Democratic party, they often have to go back in time to prove their case. For example:
Quotes by Thomas Jefferson (I once asked a conservative blogger to explain the inconsistency of touting the values of Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers while also using a Jefferson quote as proof of racism within the Democratic party. I never got an answer)
The late Robert Byrd (the Democratic Senator from West Virginia) was a member of the KKK when he was young.
The fact that it was a Republican president who abolished slavery. Of course, what they fail to acknowledge is that the Republican party of the Lincoln era was considered liberal/progressive as opposed to the Democrats during that period. It wasn't until much later that the two parties switched ideologies.
On the other hand, if a Democrat/liberal wants to look for examples of racism on the Republican side, all they need to do is follow current events. If there happens to be a dry spell and a couple of weeks go by without any racially offensive comments by a Republican such as the ones made by Rep. Sally Kern, just wait. Bill Maher said the following in 2010 and I agree with him:
"I would never say and I have never said, because it's not true that Republicans, all Republicans are racists. That would be silly and wrong. But nowadays, if you are racist, you're probably a Republican."
In an effort to smear President Barack Obama, one of the sleazier tactics used by some on the right is to paint him as being anti-American, "other", "different than us", etc. The latest right-winger to jump on the "Obama is anti-American" bandwagon is Fox contributor/author/possible GOP Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. He began his journey into the muck during a 3/1 appearance on Steve Malzberg's radio show. He then descended even further into it during subsequent appearances on Bryan Fischer's radio show and on "The O'Reilly Factor". Although I disagreed with his politics, I used to think Huckabee was decent guy who was above this type of stuff.
Why has Huckabee decided to pander to the fringe element of the GOP? Is he trying to boost sales of his new book, gearing up for a bid to run for POTUS, or both? Whatever Huckabee's reasoning is, I don't see it as a winning strategy.
In regards to the depths some conservatives/Republicans have sunken to over the last couple of years, I used to ask, "Have we reached the bottom?" I don't even bother asking anymore because sadly, I suspect there is no bottom. Credit to people like Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Cenk Uygur, and John King for calling out Huckabee on his nonsense.
In late October, the Houston-based group Raging Elephants put up the billboard above in Houston, TX and Dayton, OH. Raging Elephants is the same organization behind the grossly misleading (if not flat out dishonest) "MLK Was A Republican" billboards put up in summer 2009 and earlier this year.
The first clip below is from a discussion between community activist Quanell X and Republican Judge Michael Fields that took place on a late October newscast of a Fox affiliate out of Houston. You can read the accompanying story by clicking here.
Meanwhile, in parts of Houston with a mostly Black population, fliers were recently handed out to voters claiming that voting a straight Democratic ticket is actually a vote for the Republicans. The flier states that the group responsible for the flier is the Black Democratic Trust of Texas. However, it appears that no such group even exists! The following clip is from a news story on the Fake flier controversy by ABC's Houston affiliate.
If the GOP is serious about reaching out to the black community, I'm all for it. However, it's going to take more than superficial billboards. I often hear conservatives/Republicans say that the GOP is a big tent open to everyone. Sure it is. From what I've seen, recent history indicates the GOP intends to use one of those tent poles to stab blacks, Latinos, the GLBT community, etc. in the back. Or are they aiming lower? Ouch!!
South Carolina Sen. Glenn McConnell (center) flanked by two members of the Gullah-Geechee cultural group
In early September, The National Federation of Republican Women held its annual fall Board of Directors meeting in Charleston, SC. One of the sponsored events connected with the meeting was a themed one dubbed "The Southern Experience". This involved people dressing in attire from the Civil War era such as military uniforms and slavery garb.
Why would anyone think this was a good idea? Even if this were 1970, I'd ask the same question. It's incidents like this which is why I think many in the GOP are clueless when it comes to race matters in this country. Oh and just to be clear, the blacks who dressed up as slaves for this event aren't off the hook either!
Below is the segment in which WCBD-TV Channel 2 in Charleston covers the incident:
One of the goals of Diversity Ink is to allow people with differing viewpoints on race-related issues to share them here. Earlier this week, I came across the following post (The Democratic Party, Racism & The Inferiority Complex) on the blog Teresamerica. I contacted the blogger (Teresa) and asked if she'd be interested in letting me use it as a guest post at Diversity Ink; she enthusiastically gave her consent. Teresa also agreed to do a post on her blog inviting readers to come here and join in on the discussion. Even if our discussions end in a stalemate, I think it's important to try and understand why someone with an opposing view thinks the way they do.
This was posted by Teresa on her blog on January 12, 2010:
As the Harry Reid racism controversy has been looming the past couple of days I have been pondering the issue of racism with regards to the Democratic Party. Here are some of my thoughts:
It seems to me that the Democrats have forced African-Americans and other minorities to be reliant on the government and thus beholden to the Democratic Party and their policies as well. The Democrats have forced minorities into the mindset that they are weak, have little opportunity, deserve and need more help, and thus need the Demoratic Party to survive. The Democratic Party have impressed upon minorities and drilled it into their minds that they are inferior and as a result I believe that minorities suffer from an inferiority complex. "Inferiority complex is a term used to describe people who compensate for feelings of inferiority (feeling like they're less than other people, not as good as others, worthless, etc.) by acting ways that make them appear superior. They do this because controlling others may help them feel less personally inadequate."
I believe that the Democratic Party wants to keep minorities poor so that they stay dependent on the government social programs which the Democrats have expanded over the years, thus keeping minorities beholden to them and therefore shoring up their base. I believe that over the last 50-75 years the the Democratic Party has created its own "Democratic Plantation." Why hasn't the income desparity between minorities and caucasians decreased substantially over the past 50 years? Why hasn't the economic situations of minorities improved? If the Democrats were actually helping minorities than why are there still so many problems within minority communities today? Is it because the Democrats are taking advantage of minorities and taking their votes for granted?
Martin Luther King Jr. did not want African-Americans to be treated as if they were "special" or "different", but rather as EQUAL human beings and EQUAL Americans. He wanted African-Americans to be freed from the bondage of the chains. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted people of all races to join hands right next to each other as sisters and brothers. But, are African-Americans really free in a more sociological sense today? It seems to me that the Democrats are keeping African Americans bound by "chains", the chains of pverty. Is the Democratic Party aiding African-Americans so that they can thrive and achieve their maximum potential? I don't think so. Or, we would see far less poverty and violence within minority communities.
Conservatives/Republicans do help minorities and want to continue helping minorities but we also want to help them succeed in life instead of being dependent on the government for money. We want to help everyone achieve a sustainable income so that every family can support themselves and not rely on the government for funds. This gives people a sense of pride and accomplishment. But, maybe conservatives need to be a little bit more proactive in courting the African-American vote? Maybe, we should help them understand history, help them to understand that we really do want to help them, and that we don't want to keep them beholden to us for funds but rather in believing in our ideals and in our common sense conservative ideology. We are ALL Americans and don't ascribe to a color.
