RAGGED THOTS

Originally published in the New York Post, April 30, 2014.

Race in America is like everyone’s favorite Facebook relationship status: “It’s complicated.” Last week’s news, from Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, proves the point.

Blame conservatives (mostly) for helping make Bundy — locked in a conflict with the federal Bureau of Land Management — a national story in the first place, by “adopting” him as one more victim of federal overreach in the Obama era. How dare the feds send armed agents to threaten Bundy with eviction? How dare the feds hold onto nearly 90 percent of the land in Nevada?

In reality, the fact that Bundy was still on the land was a symbol of absurd federal restraint. He’s refused to pay fees, fines, etc. for more than two decades. But the “victim” coverage actually emboldened him, leading to daily press conferences — one of which provided The New York Times with the quote that “Negroes” might have been better off under slavery than being on welfare.

After first claiming he was misquoted, Bundy doubled down: “Are they happier now under this government-subsidy system than they were when they were slaves and they [were] able to [keep] their family structure together and … people [had] something to do?”

 It’s easy to conclude that Bundy is a flat-out racist (who never learned that slavery actually tore black families apart), but then there’s some of his other comments: “Now let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people … Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. Don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people … We need to have those people join us and be with us.”

That makes the “racist” formulation more, yes, complicated. Bundy’s a bigot? But his views on immigration sound like what most Democrats have been saying for some time. And his welfare comments clumsily echo not just conservatives, but Democrats like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

So do his welfare remarks make Bundy a full-fledged racist — any more than his Hispanic comments make him a spokesman for immigration reform? Ahem, no.

Together, they make him a confused clown who shouldn’t have been given a national platform in the first place.

Some on the right tried to change the subject to Bundy’s own “neighbor” — Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader.

Bundy wasn’t the only old, crusty Nevadan who had used the other N-word — “Negro” — in discussing black people, these conservatives noted. The history of the 2008 campaign, “Game Change,” quoted Reid as saying — privately — that then-Sen. Barack Obama was a strong presidential candidate because he was “a light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Hey, isn’t that racist?

Hardly. Reid was stating in rather non-PC terms what just about anyone steeped in political history would’ve said about the prospects of a black man winning the presidency. Recognizing this nation’s awkwardness with race, it’s hardly rocket science to divine that a light-skinned African-American with oratorical skills might gain an edge with white voters.

OK, but Donald Sterling’s surreptitiously recorded comments reveal old-school racism, right?

Yes, there’s no N-word or other slurs on this tape. And he’s revealed as happy to have black players on his teams, have a black coach — but he doesn’t want his Mexican/black girlfriend (with whom he’s been in a long adulterous relationship) coming to the arena or being pictured with high-profile blacks like Magic Johnson.

That’s reminiscent of slave-era and Jim Crow plantation managers who saw blacks as inferior, yet had no problem cavorting with black women sexually (see: Strom Thurmond).

But then there’s this: Sterling was about to be honored by the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP for a second time.

This, despite a history of racial animus that included referring to his players as n - - - - - s during an interview with a prospective head coach and being sued twice in federal court for discriminatory housing practices. In fact, both the NAACP’s national office and many of its local chapters have a recent history of choosing monetary support over the obvious best interests of their African-American constituency (in New York, see charter schools). Monday, the LA chapter declined to reveal how much “sterling” it’s received over the years from the Clippers owner.

 America has taken great strides in dealing with its “original sin” — slavery — and its legacy. But just about anything touching on race is still more “complicated” than our pundits or our press care to admit.

Labels: Cliven Bundy, Donald Sterling, Harry Reid, racism

How nice to see that, when it comes to race in American, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has such, ahem, "enlightened" (pun intended)!

On page 37, a remark, said "privately" by Sen. Harry Reid, about Barack Obama's racial appeal. Though Reid would later say that he was neutral in the presidential race, the truth, the authors write, was that his "

encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

E-mails sent late Friday to Reid staffers were not immediately answered. (Update: Reid apologized.)

2009 MLK Day of Service in Norfolk VA
Old Dominion University's annual Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture with Harold Ford Jr, U.S. Representative, D-Tenn. and Virginia Governor's Advisory Board on National and Community Service member Dr. Jarris Taylor Jr.

Labels: Harold Ford, Harry Reid, left-wing racism

RNC Chairman Michael Steele called out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his comment yesterday likening opposition to health care reform to opposition to ending slavery. He rightly called it "ignorant." Reid's spokesman said Steele's response was "feigned outrage."

Labels: Harry Reid, health-care reform, Michael Steele

You'd think someone made it the position of senate majority leader might have learned that old Mark Twain adage, "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel." So, what's going on with Harry Reid (D-NV) escalating a squabble with the main newspaper in his state? Chalk it down to just one more bit of miscalculation and misfortune that's been haunting both Nevada politicians and Democratic congressional leaders for quite sometime.

Reid is currently trailing two Republican challengers in polls -- including the son of former UNLV coach Jerry Tarkanian by double-digits.

To make matters worse, Reid is part of Nevada culture that is, to say the least, not in its best days. The other senator, Republican John Ensign, has been caught up in a most-unsavory sex scandal. Gov. Jim Gibbons, also a Republican, is deemed a "sure loser" by the Las Vegas Review Journal because of a host of personal and political problems.

The Review Journal would be the same newspaper that Reid is mixing it up with. On Sunday, the publisher revealed that Reid snapped at the paper's advertising director, "I hope you go out of business." Needless to say the publisher didn't take the comment well:

But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.

No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.

If he thinks he can push the state's largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics, I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.

Most unsurprisingly, this column was picked up by numerous blogs and other media outlets across the country. Reid's spokesman dismissed his boss's original comment, but still took a dig at the paper:

"Clearly he wasn't serious," Reid spokesman Jon Summers told CNN in an e-mailed statement. "Once again, the editors at the Review-Journal got it wrong."

That statement, of course, guarantees that the story will continue -- thus explaining the wisdom of Twain's advice. A politician never gets the last word in such a situation. (Reid might not get much favorable press in the rest of the country either, as word of this incident spreads. The newspaper industry is in tough shape everywhere; wishing that a paper goes out of business is not the best way to curry favor with writers and editors.)

If Reid's polls continue to sink going into 2010, he could go on to become the third Democratic leader to lose a re-election fight over the last 15 years: In 1994, the Republican revolution swept out House Speaker Tom Foley in the GOP landslide -- the first sitting speaker to lose re-election since 1862; Foley lost to lawyer George Nethercutt. Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) -- the then-minority leader -- lost to John Thune in 2004.

Reid may well face the same problem as Daschle -- leading a caucus that is far more liberal than the state he represents. Except Reid's in a more problematic position: He's trying to push through an ambitious agenda -- on both energy and health-care -- of a new president. These issues just might not sell in a state with libertarian sensibilities.

If the issues are against a politician, the best hope to remain in office to use charm and personality: Getting into a public, very ugly fight with one of the largest papers might not be the best idea (even though the media is always a favored whipping boy of politicians in trouble). Appearing to want to drive a paper out of business can get a politician portrayed as arrogant and out of touch (especially by said newspaper). Arrogance -- fraternal twin to pride -- can be as fatal to an electoral career as an actual scandal (a major reason Tom Foley lost in '94 was because he sued voters of his own state over term limits).

Since he can't win a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, Harry Reid needs to figure out what he can do to make sure he's not caught over a barrel. Lesson One: Just do your job.

Oh, yeah and try to be polite to ad execs major newspapers in social situations.

Labels: Harry Reid

I have always been bothered by the fact our legislators can vote on bills without ever having read them. But now we have evidence they are voting on Supreme Court nominees while knowing nothing of importance about them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry "Taxes are voluntary" Reid has this to say about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's:

I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them. But -- I'm not familiar with that opinion, but there will be plenty of time for people who are concerned about the Second Amendment -- and there are lots of people on the Judiciary Committee who are concerned about it -- they'll have lots of time to offer her questions and she'll proceed to answer them. But I don't know anything about that.

Harry Reid hasn't read anything Sotomayor has written. Reid doesn't WANT to read anything she's written.

Coming from ANY legislator, that quote is indefensibly deplorable. Coming from a person whom all Democratic senators voted as their leader puts the entire Democratic side of the U.S. Senate in a very bad light.

Having said that, I will add that I doubt the Republican senators are any better about knowing what they are voting for or against.

Personally, I consider it a national disgrace that legislators can openly claim ignorance about knowledge of things for which their job, for which the American people have hired them, requires them to know.

Put this in perspective: If you were hired as a taxi driver, and you later told your boss, "I don't know how to drive, and I don't really want to know", how long do you think you would stay employed?

Yet we keep sending lazy buffoons like Harry Reid back to Washington again and again.


(hat tip to Newsbusters.org)

Labels: Harry Reid, Sonia Sotomayor

Josh Marshall gets it

Agreeing with Dianne Feinstein, he recognizes that Rod Blagojevich -- disgraced in the public eye as he may be -- is still the governor of Illinois. He has the power to fill the vacant US Senate seat. He has done so. No one has charged Roland Burris with any sort of corruption -- and for an Illinois politician, that's saying a whole heckuva lot.

The longer Democrats refuse to seat him, they look, at best, politically venal -- obsessed with keeping the seat, they won't relent until someone other than Blagojevich appoints a senator who won't have the scandal hanging around their neck in 2010.

At worst, well barring one black man from taking his seat in the Senate -- when Reid "can't remember" whether he specifically told Blagojevich not to appoint Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., Rep. Denny Davis and Senate Minority Leader Emil Jones (three black men) -- may not be as racist as it looks. But it's pretty damn close.

By the way, Harry Reid might want to realize that racism takes many forms: No one is suggesting that Reid wouldn't want any of those men in the US Senate, simply because they are black.

But there is, to use one of George W. Bush's better political expressions, "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Trying to block an appointment because you think a given individual can't win statewide -- if part of your reasoning is derives from an assumption that voters won't support a black man, is, yes, a subtle form of racism -- even though it is dependent on the implied racism of others for it to be present.

As a Republican, I'm amused by the entire process.

But if Reid were smart, he would just realize that Blagojevich has outsmarted them on this, let Burris take the seat -- and move on (unless he plans on allowing Burris a three-fifths vote. Heh heh). Who knows? If Democrats have a successful couple of years -- and Obama campaigns for Burris (assuming he runs in 2010) -- maybe they can retain the seat. But the longer this situation plays out, the odds actually get better for the GOP -- regardless of whom is sitting in the seat.

Labels: Harry Reid, race, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris

The crooked one from Alaska -- now officially indicted.

The dumb one from Nevada -- explaining the U.S.'s "voluntary" tax system:



Just to clarify, the phrases "crooked" and "dumb" shouldn't be considered exclusive to specific senator attached to the specific adjective. Sen. Stevens (like many that run afoul of the law) can rightly be considered crooked AND dumb, just as Sen. Reid very could be as well (though no outside judicial or legal body has yet made such an official charge).

UPDATE: Should have paid closer attention to the fact that the Reid clip is actually a few months old. It was only just forwarded to me. So, it's still stupid -- just old, stupid (which, apropos of this post, could describe Ted Stevens).

Labels: Harry Reid, Ted Stevens

Democrats may regret for a long time their misfortune of having Harry Reid as their Senate majority leader. Earlier this week, on a conference call with liberal blogers, he referred to outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace as incompetent. The story was reported Thursday in The Politico.

Not surprisingly, all day yesterday, most of the conservative side of the blogosphere, plus presidential candidate John McCain -- pilloried Reid. Liberal bloggers were relatively silent, except for those that chose to attack the reporting of The Politico (which has been viewed skeptically by those on the left since it first started).

But now that a transcript of the conversation has come to light, along comes Taylor Marsh, a left wing blogger who puts the fault where it belongs -- with Sen. Reid:

Everyone is now going to be talking about the "context" of Reid's remarks, which is important. He has supposedly told Pace to his face what he thinks of him. Good for Reid, that's what any person of character should do. Senator Reid has many supporters in the military. He's earned them and I'm sure those who support him will continue to do so.

However, it doesn't make this event any less newsworthy. "Context" doesn't matter to most people when you hear the quote. Reid said it. It's confirmed. Cable news and talk radio will now be using it forever against Reid and the Democrats. In addition, when you weigh the Congress, which has a 23% approval rating, against what the American people think of the U.S. military, let's just say Congress loses. You don't get anywhere by calling a chairman of the Joint Chiefs "incompetent." If you're going to level a charge make it specific and cite the situation in which the soldier failed. Letting bin Laden go at Tora Bora comes to mind. But blanket charges just won't get the job done.

The other aspect is that this is a gift for the Republicans. They've been salivating to reclaim their "strong on national security" title, which has been slipping to Democrats through the '06 election. Iraq continues to erode their stength on national security. This issue has always been the political brass ring for the GOP, but now they get to question Reid and the congressional Democrats' "supporting the troops" reality, because they've been handed a quote. This is about restoring confidence in them and winning back what they've lost. It rallies their base big time. As much trouble as they're in they can't afford to pass that up. Lord knows we wouldn't.

As for the conference call itself, this turned into an unnecessary mess. What made it worse is that no one from Reid's office was confirming it, while Sargent said Reid sidestepped the question on whether he said it, which was the tell in this whole tale, as I wrote earlier.

Now, after a day to let the story unwind, conservatives got to frame it. That's not anyone's fault but Majority Leader Harry Reid and his office. If we were going to get this quote eventually, why not have it ready from the start; or at least confirm that Reid said what he said.

Why not? Well, because Reid doesn't have the courage of his convictions. After being slammed for his "war is lost" comment (an arguably defensible statement), Reid appears gun-shy on military issues. So, he had his fingers crossed that there would be no tape of the conversation (or prayed that no liberal blogger would "out" him).

The thing is that whether Pace is incompetent with respect to his military responsibilities, it seems pretty clear that he is somewhat dense in understanding political Washington: For example, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no business writing a letter of support for a defendant in the most politically radioactive case to hit the nation's capitol in years. Even if he thinks Libby is a good guy, Pace's got to think that inserting himself into a case that involves how the Iraq war was "sold" is likely not a wise thing to do when one's re-confirmation is coming up. The JCS chair is, ultimately, a political job and it takes a canny personality to survive it (love him or hate him, Colin Powell, certainly had the political chops to thrive in that job).

So, Reid could have been up front with the press on why he thought Pace wasn't the man for the job; he could have admitted using the "I" word. Instead, he tried to duck it -- and hoped that his liberal blogger troops would protect him from the firestorm that his own words created. That just makes him look craven.

And, of course, the conversation being had right now is about what Harry Reid did or didn't say about Pace -- as opposed to the daily carnage going on in Iraq. When Senate Democrats go seeking competence, do they find any in their leaders office ?

Labels: Harry Reid, incompetent, Iraq War, Peter Pace, Politico