politics from the eyes of an ebony momFiscal cliff conversations got heated and the Speaker of the House John Boehner told Senate leader Harry Reid to go “f-himself”. Sadly, we hear this word everyday, but should it be used in the hallowed halls of government? Is it ever appropriate to use profanity in the workplace? Share your thoughts.
Harry Reid says he knows somebody who knows Mitt Romney might not have paid taxes for 10 years. That sounds like heresay to me and it is ashame that Reid is repeating this. Today I saw a Romney aide being interviewed on CNN by Candy Crowley. She brought up the Reid allegations and she said this could all be settled if Romney would simply release more tax information. So Romney is supposed to surrender to blackmail. I believe Romney should submit more tax information, but not because of this. This tactic is simply wrong and this is not the American way. No one should have to prove themselves because someone says somebody told me something aout you. If Harry Reid has some facts he should release them if the does not he needs to shutup.
I am so disappointed with our elected officials. How did we get here? We have two days to resolve something that has been discussed for weeks. So why would we believe that with their backs against the walls now all of a sudden the word compromise will again become relevant? The House passed a bill last night that they knew would be DOA once the Senate looked at it. Senator Mitch McConnell has 43 Republican senators already in place ready to shout no to anything that Senator Reid presents to them. McConnell is demanding that the president be involved in the discussions, but why? Isn’t this now something that has to be worked out by the legislative branch of the government? I talked to my retired uncle today. He worked for over 40 years, he served his county in the Korean War and now he sits wondering if he will receive his Social Security check. Fortunately, he does not live from check to check. He can last for a few months, and I hope that is enough, but from what I am looking at I can not help, but have my doubts. I could think of a lot of words to describe how I feel but I think disappointed describes it best.
I live in Maryland, but judging from the amount of times that I saw Nancy Pelosi’s face on my televison screen I would have thought she was running for office in my state. She was demonized by the Republicans in almost every state in the union. She along with the president and Harry Reid became symbols of what was wrong with Washington at least according to the Republicans. So now the Republicans have the majority in the House and Madam Speaker will have to surrender her gavel. Her time as speaker was indeed historic, but it is over and it would be a mistake to elect her minority leader. The party needs some new faces. This afternoon I received an email from NOW encouraging me to contact my representative and encourage him to vote for Pelosi. I won’t be doing that because I believe it is time for her to step aside as we recover from last week and chart the future.
This morning I fully expected Joy Behar to come out on The View and apologize to Sharron Angle. That did not happen Behar actually doubled down on her stance. She contends her rant was in response to the racist political ads that the Angle camp is running in Nevada. Yes the Angle ads are racist and repulsive but that does not give a television host license to call the candidate a bitch. The View is always talking about empowering women but this seemingly only applies to women they agree with. Behar was wrong and Barbara and the gang refuse to call her on it. Yes Behar has a right to verbalize her frustration and anger with the candidate, but calling her a bitch is simply wrong. Behar mentioned that she had received flowers from the Angle camp with a thank note saying that her rant had helped the campaign raise $150,000. Way to go Behar if you keep talking your words alone might finance one those commercials you despise.
More and more women are seeking higher office, and that is a good thing, but can they just say anything? During the Nevada Senatorial debate the other night challenger Sharron Anngle told Senator Harry Reid to “man up.” This term is usually reserved for someone who is not showing the right amount of boldness. It is distasteful and insulting and it placed the Senator in an unenviable position. If he said something in this same demeaning vein he would probably be accused of sexism. There needs to fairfighting. Angle is following the Sarah Palin handbook. She is infamous for making this kind of remark regarding the president. They need to back off this very sexist rhethoric or not act insulted when this same kind of language is directed their way.
The problem with elections is campaigning. Nothing is off limits. This is a Harry Reid ad. The ad points out that his opponent voted against enforcing a restraining order issued from another state when she was in the state legislature. So does this mean that Sharron Angle sides with abusers? “The charges in the most recent spot stem from a vote Angle cast in 2001 against AB581, a bill that required Nevada courts to enforce protection orders dealing with domestic violence offenders from out of state. Angle was one of nine assembly members to oppose the measure (which passed by a 31-9 vote). Her campaign has insisted that she agreed with the spirit of the law but had “concerns with the execution.”* Could she have really had genuine concerns about enforcement or should we really believe she sides with the abuser? I believe Angle is extreme on a number of social issues, but to say she sides with the abuser to me is below the belt. Tell me what you think.
*Huffington Post
Over the past few days I have written several posts regarding Senator Harry Reid’s remarks. I won’t repeat the quote because unless you have been under a rock you have heard them or read them. Some of my readers have said alright already, while others have encouraged me to continue the dialogue. I am done addressing this specific incident, but why is a discussion of race a blueprint for controversy? It seems we can only talk about the issue when we are forced to do so. In 2008 during the Democratic convention then candidate Barack Obama accepted the nomination on the same day that Dr. King had delivered the I Have a Dream speech at the March on Washington in 1963. I knew that Barack Obama would take the opportunity to pay homage to Dr. King, but he referenced a “young preacher from the south”. The next day in a post I said he should have referenced Dr. King by name and a reader said that it would have been political suicide to do that. Why? It would have reminded people that they were both black. Another incident that brought race to the table was the Rev. Wright tapes. Wright had made some very controversial and explosive statements in his pulpit. What made this news is Obama was a member of Wright’s congregation. Some said if your spiritual leader is radical than you too must also be radical. This forced the candidate to address the issue of race during the campaign. He delivered an eloquent speech detailing his feelings on the race issue. His speech successfully diffused the issue. The reality is Barack Obama was never the black candidate. He refused to be pigeon-holed in that box, but the black community still supported him even when he did not fully embrace the community. Obama knew if he was going to win race could not be a central issue. Politics is not the only place where race is as explosive as the third rail. How many of us have friends that are other races? Have we ever discussed race with any of them. Even in the face of controversy do we steer clear of the subject for fear of damaging the friendship? Racial issues in this country are like an accident. If 2 people witness it you will get two different versions of what happened. Racial issues are the same. When I look at a situation I am looking it at it from my own history, my own experiences and I will find my truth through that prism. When someone else looks at it they too will be looking through their own prism. So where does it leave us? Waiting for the next racial grenade to explode and waiting for the talking heads to try to extinguish it or throw lighter fluid on it to keep it going.
To some the election of Barack Obama signaled a post racial America. America is just as racial as it has always been. The interesting thing about Harry Reid’s comment is he talks about a subject that is talked about in the black community on a daily basis. At some point every black person in America has discussed the light-skinned dark-skinned schism that exists within the community. There is no mystery that during slavery times the light-skinned blacks tended to work in the house because they also tended to be offspring of the master. The darker slaves were relegated to the field and the more menial slave jobs. So this thing has been going on for hundreds of years. It is no secret that many blacks who have broken barriers tended to be light. Rosa Parks was not the first black person to refuse to give up her seat on the bus, but she was the one that viewed as an acceptable person to rally around. Vanessa Williams was the first black Miss America. She like the president is biracial. When People magazine names the most beautiful people on earth Halle Berry always makes the list. She too is biracial and universally adored. White America feels more comfortable with people who look like they do and that tends to be black people who are light-skinned. Reid’s words were poorly chosen, but what he said was true whether we admit it or not.
Race is a difficult subject to discuss. If you are a politician and you are ever asked a question on race you need to say next question. Whatever you say might come back to haunt you. Harry Reid commented on the fact that the president is light-skinned and does not speak with a Negro dialect. Now let’s really analyze what he said. It is a fact that the president is light-skinned and he is a very articulate and prolific speaker. So Reid really told the truth but America really can’t handle the truth. Within the black community there has always been a light skin/dark skin war. Radio personality Tom Joyner has an annual cruise and he actually has a water fight between the light skin and dark skin passengers. Everyone talks about it and laughs about it. I have never heard a listener calling in saying he needs to stop this event. My own light-skinned grandmother once told me that I should look for a light skinned man to marry to make sure the children would not be too dark. I just dismissed her musings because I knew she was passing on what she had been taught. There have always been degrees of color within the community. On the light end of the spectrum you will find: light, bright and damn near white. Back in the day your fate was determined by where you ended up on that spectrum. The 60s and the 70s were decades when black not only became acceptable, but also beautiful. So is it just alright for people in the black community to point out the differences, but if a white man does its racist. Let’s talk about the Negro dialect. What is this? Is he talking about the language that is heard in rap videos or on the corners of most urban cities? He would need to define what he is really talking about. Some have tried to compare Reid’s statement to the statement made by Senate majority Leader Trent Lott. Lott waxed poetic about the good old days of segregation at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond. Lott noted Thurmond’s 1948 run for president on the anti-civil-rights “Dixiecrat” ticket and said that “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years” had Thurmond won.” Lott insisted he was just trying to flatter Thurmond but others believed Lott was embracing the segregationist views Thurmond touted in the 1940s. Lott was forced to step down from his position over this remark. Some are saying Reid should do the same, but this is not the same situation. Reid pointed out a fact, an uncomfortable fact, but still a fact. Reid is not a racist he is just a politician that should have simply said next question.
