Is this what we — the voters — are going to get from now until Election Day?
I do hope the campaign can evolve into something a bit more edifying and educational.
I remain befuddled by Trump’s immigration policy … his softening and then re-hardening of his plan to deport undocumented immigrants.
What’s more, I also am equally befuddled as to how Clinton is going to explain whether foreign governments have sought favors from her by their huge donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the Clinton Global Initiative.
This week, though, the candidates are exchanging rhetorical artillery fire over who between them is more of a bigot.
Is there any reason to doubt just why public opinion surveys indicate such a low opinion of these two major-party candidates for president?
Donald J. Trump is trying to pander, er, reach out to African-American voters.
The Republican Party’s presidential nominee is plotting a curious course in that direction.
He’s held a couple of rallies in recent days. One was in suburban Milwaukee, Wisc., the other was in suburban Detroit, Mich.
I emphasize the “suburban” aspect for a specific reason.
He was standing in front of virtually all-white audiences telling them, apparently, about how terrible life has become for black residents of inner-city neighborhoods. “What the hell do you have to lose?” Trump asked, supposedly speaking over the heads of those who were standing in front of him. He was asking the larger audience that wasn’t there, the African-American voting bloc that — as of this moment — is giving the GOP nominee about 1 percent of its support.
It’s been reported that an avowed segregationist — the late Alabama Gov. George Corley Wallace — polled 3 percent of the black vote when he ran as an independent candidate for president in 1968.
A better, more sincere way to reach out to Americans is to speak to them directly. Venture into their neighborhoods. Look them in the eye, tell them you care about them and offer them demonstrative evidence that you have cared for them before.
Other politicians have employed that strategy while campaigning for African-American votes. I think specifically of the late Robert F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
Sure, President Clinton has had his hiccups regarding race relations, such as his occasionally frosty relationship with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and with Barack Obama and the time he scolded the rap singer Sister Souljah for spouting lyrics that promoted violence.
As for RFK, well, those of who are around at that time remember vividly his venturing into an Indianapolis neighborhood the night of April 4, 1968 to tell the black audience before him that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr had just been assassinated in Memphis, Tenn. Many of America’s cities erupted in violence that night. Indy, though, remained calm.
These days, such “outreach” by a leading politician consists of screeds shouted from podiums in affluent neighborhoods.
I’m trying to imagine Donald Trump following RFK’s example.
There must have been a reason my sleep pattern last night was so fitful.
When I rolled out of bed this morning, I discovered the horrible truth about what was unfolding overnight in Dallas: five law enforcement officers shot to death by snipers.
Millions of Americans are dumbstruck, shocked beyond belief at what transpired.
A demonstration turned into a riot last night after crowds gathered to protest the shooting deaths of two African-American men by police officers in Baton Rouge, La., and in a suburb of St. Paul, Minn. ; and yes, the officers are white.
Our knowledge of those tragedies is pretty compelling, too, and at one level I share the anger of African-Americans in those communities over the alleged conduct of the officers involved. It’s a fair question to ask: Would these men have died had they been white?
But then … to react in this fashion in Dallas?
Authorities have suspects in custody and they apparently have acknowledged that the shooters were targeting white police officers, that the shootings were acts of revenge over what happened in Baton Rouge and near St. Paul.
Hmmm. Do the Dallas shootings qualify, then, as hate crimes?
What in the name of all that is holy justifies this hideous violence?
The demonstrations in Dallas reportedly were peaceful, quiet and the demonstrators were interacting with police officers. I heard reports last night of officers posing for “selfies” with some of those who were protesting the violence elsewhere.
And then this.
It’s hard to come up with words of wisdom so soon after such senselessness.
I won’t try.
Perhaps it’s best at this point to rely on our first option — which is to pray for the victims, their families, for the community that’s in shock and for the nation that has been stricken once again by violence.
Allen has taken appropriate note of the hateful reaction from those who commented on Malia Obama — the older of the Obamas’ two daughters — deciding to take a year off before entering Harvard University. She writes: “Instead of celebrating the kid’s hard work, anonymous trolls took it upon themselves to disparage her with racist epithets.”
Fox News took down the comments after its website was filled with comments from the racist haters who took time to disparage Malia’s accomplishment.
The president’s policies are open to criticism, as are the policies of all presidents. It goes with the territory. They all know their public policy record is fair game.
What is not fair game, though, is the hate that is thrown at public officials — and their families.
We’ve seen far more than enough of it for the past nearly eight years. As Allen notes, the Obamas have done an admirable job of maintaining their dignity in public in the face of the comments that have been hurled at them.
If only the blogger’s demand to cease and desist the hatred would be met.
Of course, the Obamas are the only targets of the hatred. The blog notes that others have taken aim at interracial couples. Allen noted that U.S. Sen. John McCain’s son, Jack, is married to an African-American woman and has lashed out at the haters simply by posting pictures of himself and his wife on social media.
We’ve all heard about the “toxic” political atmosphere in Washington.
Many of us salute the progress we’ve made in the realm of race relations.
This latest spasm of hatred aimed at an accomplished young woman who happens to be the daughter of the president of the United States only shows us how far we have to go.
All this discussion about a professional football quarterback and whether criticism of him is based on his race has gone way over my head.
The QB in question is Cam Newton of the Carolina Panthers. He’s going to play in a big football game Sunday. The Super Bowl. He’ll be facing another pretty good quarterback, Peyton Manning of the Denver Broncos.
So what’s the big deal?
I keep hearing about Newton’s end zone antics after he takes part in a touchdown for the Panthers. He’s a bit of a show off, or so I’m led to believe.
So what? The National Football League is full of guys who like to dance, strut and carry on.
Personally, I prefer that they not do such things. Remember when Earl Campbell or Bo Jackson would score touchdowns? They’d hand the ball to the official and go back to the sideline and accept salutes from their teammates. Someone once said — maybe it was Vince Lombardi — that football players should act “as if they’ve done this before” when they score touchdowns.
As for whether Cam Newton, a Heisman Trophy winner at Auburn University, should do it . . . well, it doesn’t matter one damn bit to me whether a black guy does it or white guy does it.
It must have something to do with the position he plays. Are quarterbacks not supposed to be, oh, emotional? Is there some unwritten code of conduct for these guys that prohibits them from carrying on? I’m unaware of any such behavioral mandate.
I suppose all this discussion about a particular athlete’s on-field conduct betrays a sad truth, which is that we haven’t come as far along as we had hoped regarding issues involving race.
All that said . . .
I am not a particular fan of Newton, but it has nothing at all to do with his behavior on the field. It has everything to do with the fact that he led Auburn to a national college championship victory over the Oregon Ducks.
But if he dances and prances after scoring a touchdown on Sunday, that’s fine. I wish he wouldn’t do it, but it’s not the kind of thing that’s going to make me angry.
My view? It’s not that she’s white that ought to be so troublesome. It’s the lying.
She’s contended she’s black. Both of her parents are white. Her childhood pictures show her, as described in the link, as a “pasty blonde” girl. Her appearance today looks much different.
This story might even be weirder than, say, the Dennis Hastert alleged cover-up about hush money.
One question keeps gnawing at me: Do the NAACP membership requirements stipulate someone has to be a “colored person”?
The very title of the organization doesn’t say categorically that NAACP members must be African-American. It says it works toward “the advancement” of “colored people.” White people can do that, too, correct?
The saddest part of the story perhaps is that Dolezal’s parents are revealing the lies as well. The NAACP stands behind her — so far.
As for the question posed to her recently about whether she’s African-American, she offered a sly answer, which is that all humans hail from Africa.
Allow me this brief observation about the case involving the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and the riots that have ensued since that tragedy.
Baltimore authorities have charged six Baltimore police officers with homicide in Gray’s death, which occurred when he suffered a severed spine while in police custody. Gray was black and his death touched off another storm of protests by African-Americans about the treatment they receive from the police.
Then the charges came forward.
It’s fair to point out something about the events that have developed since Gray’s death.
Three of the six officers charged with a felony are African-American; the other three are Anglo. The prosecutor is African-American.
This case should turn, as President Obama noted, on whether “justice” will be delivered. By my way of looking at the arrests of the officers and the charges they face, the officers’ racial composition suggests that race doesn’t have quite the sting in this case that it once did.
Yes, let’s allow justice to be done. Let’s also dial back the race-baiting.
How does someone get their spine broken by police? What in the world is happening when these officers arrest someone?
* Eric Garner was choked to death by a Staten Island police officer. A grand jury decided to no-bill the officer.
* Michael Brown was shot to death by a Ferguson, Mo., officer. A grand jury there decided against an indictment.
* Trayvon Martin was killed by a neighborhood security officer, who then was acquitted of murder in a Sanford, Fla., trial.
* Walter Scott was shot to death in the back as he fled from a North Charleston, S.C., police officer, who’s now been charged with murder.
I am acutely aware that there are circumstances associated with some of these deaths, such as with Michael Brown’s conduct.
Still, we can add Freddie Gray to the list of individuals who’ve died because of police activity. And once again, parents, siblings and spouses of African-American men are going to express alarm that more men just like those who have died already will become victims of similar actions by police officers in their communities.
We’ve heard already about the need for a “national conversation” about police relations with African-American communities across the country.
UPDATE: This just in … House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., agreed late to commit to attending the Selma, Ala., rally commemorating the march that helped spark approval of the Voting Rights Act 50 years ago.
***
Virtually no Republican leaders will take part in ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the Selma, Ala., civil rights march?
How can that be?
The Party of Abraham Lincoln needs to have representation at this event. Doesn’t it?
The march helped produce the Voting Rights Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat who pushed it through Congress with help from his Republican allies. Indeed, the Democratic Party — particularly in the South — was well-known to resist civil-rights legislation. LBJ was warned by his Southern Democratic friends that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act would cost the party dearly in terms of Southern support. It did.
Fifty years later, it’s now Republicans who are staying away from events to commemorate the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
The GOP won’t be totally absent. An estimated 23 Republican members of the House and Senate will attend. Good for them.
Are the party leaders who should be there — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — all racists? I don’t believe that for a moment. One key GOP leader, though, really and truly needs to be there. That would be House Majority Whip Gary Scalise, who spoke to a David Duke-sponsored political event before being elected to the House; he’s since disavowed that appearance and has declared that he harbors no racial bias — but he needed to commit to this event.
The allegiances of the two major parties appear to have turned rather dramatically with regard to race relations.
We’re more polarized. Blacks are more distrustful of white authority figures.
Obama’s election in 2008 has resulted in deeper fissures between the races. “We are more racially fractured and fragmented,” said James Peterson, director of Africana Studies at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. “It has exposed more wounds than it has healed,” he said of Obama’s election. “It has exposed how racist our society still is.”
So, who’s to blame for that? Is it the president? His family? His closest advisers?
Or is it many of the rest of us — some of whom just cannot stand the idea of this nation being led and governed by an African-American president?
Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was supposed to signal the transition into a post-racial society. It hasn’t happened. There have been some terribly personal and inappropriate things said to and about the president and his family since they moved into the White House. The president has received more threats against his life than any of his predecessors.
Indeed, the Tribune essay suggests a deepening divide. “The number of people who think blacks and whites do not get along has increased throughout Obama’s presidency, from 19 percent in late 2009 to 28 percent in 2014, according to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center and USA Today,” the essay notes.
This is an uncomfortable subject to address. The president’s harshest critics insist with great passion that their opposition to his policies has nothing to do with race. Many of the president’s supporters counter that the level of disdain and the volume of the criticism suggests something more visceral is at work here.
Personally, I’ve always been dubious of those who start their criticism of Obama by saying, “I am not a racist, but … ” I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard that qualifier since the man’s election in 2008.
I wish it were different. I wish we could get past race. I wish with all my energy that we really could just look at each other without regard to the color of their skin.
It hasn’t happened — yet.
The president, however, doesn’t deserve blame for this sad reality.
