Today we all woke up to the horrible news out of Aurora, Colorado. A murderer killed 13 people and injured 34. The situation can only be described as a national tragedy. The President and Mitt Romney have stepped off the political stage as the nation grieves, but some simply can not take the day as a time of reflection. Laura Ingraham has sent out some purely political tweets today. The victims have seemingly been forgotten in her effort to criticize the future actions of the president regarding the mass shootings. In one of them she said the president would probably go to Colorado and give a “healing speech”. That is generally what any president would do and she followed that tweet up with the following tweet” The President should also fly to his hometown Chgo for a “healing speech” given the fact that 27 murders have occured there this month.” It is fine to disagree with the president and his policies, but to turn this into political fodder demeans the lives lost. It seems that the only time some people address black on black crime is when they do it for purely political reasons. When I heard about the shootings in Colorado my first thought was not to compare it to what is going on in Chicago and to say the president needs to address hometown issues. The president has a right to address the issues of this nation and to offer communities his sympathy and assistance when necessary. This kind of attack is simply classless.
-
Live Feed
Comments
I agree with you that whites do frequently introduce the issue of black on black crime into the discourse for political posturing. But the sad truth is that the black leadership in this country refuses to broach that subject under any circumstances. There is no racism in that therefore no potential for political gain.
The president does as you say, have a right to address issues of this nation and offer sympathy and assistance when necessary. So this begs the question, why has he been so silent on the nightly murders occuring in Chicago? Does anyone think those victims would be any less appreciative of his sympathy and assistance? Or could it be argued that the Colorado tradegy is somehow more egregious?
I think it would be safe to say that if the President paid any more attention to the murders (mainly black on black) occurring in Chicago, he would be accused of playing favorites toward blacks. We have seen this in the past, and I think he’s smart enough not to fall into that trap at this point.
I think your assumption may be accurate that if the president did pay more attention to the black on black crime problem in Chicago or any other city, than those issues affecting any other races there could potentially be a backlash. But so what? They are his constituent too. I am not lamenting that he has not paid more attention to this issue than those involving others; my complaint is that he has not acknowledged the existence of the problem in Chicago or anyplace else.
He has demonstrated that he is not shy about speaking out about other social ills. Recall the incident in Boston involving Professor Gates from Harvard and the local police there. He wasted no time inserting himself into the kerfuffle decrying that the police had acted stupidly. But there was a component of perceived racism in that case and no danger of charges of a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the victim.
Sadly, it seems as though in spite of the fact that the president received approximately ninety five percent of the black vote, black are left in the precarious position of having their issues ignored by the president for fear of appearance of favoritism. Now that was a really unique way for black voters to render their votes worthless, meaning they get nothing for it.
” This kind of attack is simply classless. ”
▲ The above is an understatement ▲ .
Agreed Bill, you are totally correct in my humble opinion. I am however, trying to remember when was the last time we got anything for our votes? That’s partial sarcasm and partial memory.
Actually I think there is more sincerity than sarcasm in your comment. Blacks long ago rendered our vote worthless when we became rabidly loyal to Democrats demonstrating that we will tolerate neglect, mistreatment and offense of our values. Such is the case with the president’s advocacy of gay marriage. Democrats recognize that we suffer from a malady seemingly akin to Stockholm’s Syndrome. We endure their abuse and neglect and dutifully justify why it is necessary. An example of this is the justification offered in the above comment by theonlyoneintheroom. To have the president address black on black crime risks the charge of favoritism?
On the other side of the equation are the Republicans who accurately assess that expending valuable resources courting the black vote would be fruitless and a poor allocation of resources. The Democrats know this and know that “yall ain’t going nowhere” even when you feel ill served.
So pondering when we last got anything for our vote is legitimate. What is unique about the present situation, it is posited, we now must endure neglect of our needs because having a black president address the needs of his black constituent may smack of favoritism.