One characteristic of this year's presidential campaign was the non-stop attempt by McCain-Palin to rally the Republican base. John McCain, allegedly a "maverick" who often broke with his party, chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in order to excite GOP-base voters enough to come out and vote for the elephant ticket.
Even in the last days of the campaign, using embarassingly buffoonish characters like Plumber Joe, McCain and Palin were still, and only, appealing to the GOP's core supporters. Republican mouthpieces, when asked about this strategy, responded by saying that if they had not used such a base-attracting tactic right up to the election…..their defeat would have been even worse. It was a face-saving strategy….I guess.
Yet, seven weeks after the election, the GOP, curiously, is still rallying their political base. Many, not all, of the Republican party leaders, people like John Boner(sic)(R-OH) and Eric Cuntor(sic)(R-VA), have analyzed their party's crushing November defeat and have concluded that the GOP's electoral failure is a direct result of too much moderation in the party. I know it sounds a bit wacky….but it is what it is.
Following that too-much-moderation call comes former Tennessee GOP chairman, Chip Saltsman's gift of a CD to RNC members. Saltsman wants to be the new Republican National Committee Chairman, so he decided to campaign for the job by sending out CD gifts. Saltsman, demonstrating his non-moderate stance, included on the CD Rush Limbaugh's non-moderate song, "Barack, the Magic Negro." Set to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon", the song includes non-moderate phrases like "white guilt" to explain how a black man got elected to the presidency. The most non-moderate appeal of "Barack, the Magic Negro" is the ghettoized, gangsta' vernacular used throughout. Nothing says 'we're not moderate, we're Republicans' quite like white guys making fun of the way blacks talk, huh?
Then the cat fight broke out.
Mike Duncan, current RNC chair, and obviously a stinking moderate, responded to Saltsman's gift….
“The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party,” said Duncan, who is seeking reelection to his post. “I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction.”
Duncan's response seemed, you know, reasonable. Other GOP non-moderate leaders disagreed….
Mark Ellis, the chairman of the Maine Republican Party. “When I found out what this was about I had to ask, ‘Boy, what’s the big deal here?’ because there wasn’t any.”
Alabama Republican Committeeman Paul Reynolds said of the CD….“didn’t bother me one bit.” “This is just people looking for something to make an issue of.”
Oklahoma GOP Committeewoman Carolyn McClarty added. “I think it was innocently done by Chip.”
But what better way for non-moderate Republicans to justify non-moderate songs poking fun at "Negroes" then by blaming the turmoil on…wait for it….the liberal press….
…one committee member told Politico. “Mike Duncan is a nice guy, but he screwed up big time by pandering to the national press on this.”
Ohio's own non-moderate, hyper-theocon, Uncle Tom, former election fixerOhio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, displayed his non-moderate posture with this….
“Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-elect Obama being the first African-American elected president,” Blackwell said in a statement.
Yeah, that touchy press….liberal tight-asses, they…. just can't appreciate a good "Magic Negro" song about America's first-ever black president. No sense of humor.
If what you've read thus far seems a bit bizarre, even coming from GOP leaders…get a load of this….
As a result of his position, a source close to the race said that at least 12 uncommitted committee members have contacted Blackwell to thank him for his support for Saltsman and have expressed anger toward Duncan and Anuzis(Mich. GOP chair) “for throwing a good Republican under the bus.”
Indeed, in a fluid race in which six candidates are vying for the votes of 168 members, both Blackwell and Saltsman stand to benefit from a backlash to the flap. Link
GOP'ers attribute their huge losses in 2008 to being too moderate, too soft. GOP national chairman candidate, Chip Saltsman, mails out proof he's not soft……he's willing to make racial fun of our new "Magic Negro" president. That's how non-moderate he is, by god,….Rush Limbaugh-like non-moderate. Ken Tom Blackwell, responding to criticism of Saltsman, blames the "hypersensitive media" adding, "When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal." A dozen non-moderate brethren immediately thank Uncle Ken Tom. All this, according to the non-moderate Politico.com, benefits Saltsman and Uncle Ken Tom.
All I can say to these crazy cats is…..I'm glad you know what you're doing…..because this all looks like a non-humorous, political clusterf*ck to me.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Rev,
I dont give a shit aboutthe "majic negro" ditty one way or the other but I assume you are aware of the author of the piece.
Is it not hypocritical to denounce the absurd ditty yet call someone an Uncle
Tom?
The sterotype of those that are not liberal has been narrowminded,intolerant and filled with hate(or disdain at the very least) of those that are not like them. Liberals are those that are tolerant , compassionate, and embrace the diversity of man. When I read your posts I fail to find much of the latter and a constant dose of the former.
Isnt it time to look foreward and accentuate the postive things that the people that you have supported can bring to this country. To continue to rant and rail and demonize those you oppose will only continue the divide that the Obama wants to diminish. It is about to be Dem Congress and White House why waste your time spewing your vile. How about charting a positve course of ideas and action and quite beating up those that you oppose. If you want to marginilize the "enemy" work towards a better future.
I apoligize for the sermon. You are a knowlegable and passionate person but your over the top rants can be dismissed as the ramblings of a doctrinaire
Chill out and let Uncle Jay explain the year to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWiXy55OHyY
Dear Rev–
While interesting, I found parts of this blog entry confusing, particularly the sections concerning Kenneth Blackwell and your Uncle Tom. Are they related? Are they the same person? Is "Uncle Ken Tom" a third, separate person altogether? Maybe you didn't have time to proofread. I know you must be very busy, but please try to be more careful in the future. I realize that proofreading can be a pain, but it is important. Clarity matters!
newslamp is confused and average doesn't like my tone.
Many times I fail in my attempts to convey a particular idea. Just the way it is.
The modern GOP, and I've said this many times, is little short of an organized crime group. To many, that's going too far. For me, it's not far enough.
When I witness this cancerous party being coddled by the number one establishment blogsite, Politico,…..about GOP'ers benefitting politically because of being castigated for sending out "Barack, the Magic Negro" CD's….and then Kenneth Blackwell jumps in and is praised for defending such a despicable and out of touch action…..well…that pisses me off and I feel compelled to voice my opinion…harshly.
average says…
"The sterotype of those that are not liberal has been narrowminded,intolerant and filled with hate(or disdain at the very least) of those that are not like them. Liberals are those that are tolerant , compassionate, and embrace the diversity of man. When I read your posts I fail to find much of the latter and a constant dose of the former."
Fair enough. But how would you describe a political party who sought only to campaign for the far-right voters in America? A party that thrives on division and hateful acts? A party whose mentor, Rush Limbaugh, has done his best for 20 years to tear our nation apart……and has done so by using rhetoric like I used in this post? Or shouldn't any of this ever be pointed out?
What can be said about a political party that only attracts 5% of black voters in November….and then says that the "Magic Negro" president song being sent out to GOP hopefuls is "no big deal?"
So, I figured that if Blackwell didn't think calling Obama a "Magic Negro" was a problem…..and, you know, he's a big time politician….then me calling him an Uncle Tom would be mild in comparison.
Historically….legendarily….Blackwell being called an Uncle Tom is far more accurate than calling Obama a "Magic Negro".
Having said all that….the GOP is right now preparing, with complete cooperation from Knee Pad Media, to derail Obama's presidency. It's 1993 all over again…..and it's as if G.W. Bush never happened. Anyone who thinks that the 8 year delegitimization campaign waged against Clinton, finally ending up in impeachment proceedings, was a fluke…..thinks wrongly.
The powers that directed the Clinton-destroying campaign are back in the saddle, riding roughshod over any truth, preaching endless "what if" negativities and insinuations BEFORE Obama even takes office.
average, you speak honestly and fair-mindedly. I respect that. When we disagree we can do it agreeably. I'll take your advice under consideration.
To newslampoon: I found your comment confusing. Particularly the questions. Maybe you didn't have time to review your comment before submitting it. You know, proofreading comments is such a pain. And while I agree that clarity matters…..a lampooner, like yourself,…..already knows the answers to those questions. But that's the point, isn't it?
So now you're saying Obama is not magic? Newslamp is right–you are confusing.
Hey, Rev–
You caught me. But thanks for taking the time to click onto the site!
To larry d.:
I see no reason for ad hominem attacks on The Rev. Perhaps some of his entries are confusing, but it's way out of line to call HIM confusing.
I, too, like consistency, but it is easier to be humorous when one doesn't confine oneself to the high road. But it will be interesting to see how the GOP reinvents itself from the current debacle. The Democratic party spent its time in the wilderness by becoming the party of the financial sector, leaving its traditional constituency disappointed, but with nowhere else to go. If the Republican party were smart, it would redefine itself as a truly conservative party, return to its isolationist roots, reject the unitary executive nonsense, and become a party most interested in preserving and protecting the Constitution.
But I think the Rev is right that the Republicans will do all they can to derail the Obama presidency. And once again, the Democrats will let it be done. As the recent release of LBJ tapes by his library indicates, LBJ knew that Nixon's team was sabotaging the 68 Vietnam peace talks, but "for the good of the country" did not bring this information to the public in time for the election. Nixon was subsequently pardoned "for the good of the country". Reagan's team sabotaged Carter's attempts at securing the release of the Iranian hostages. With the held of the compliant Democrats, this was swept under the rug. Iran-Contra was also defused with the help of Lee Hamilton (the Republican's favorite choice to head any inquiry) and by Clinton's refusal to pursue the investigation and risk any display of partisanship, again, "for the good of the country". And, I would wager that Obama, like Clinton, will issue a pass for Bush and the members of his administration whom have violated their oaths of office, our laws, and international law "for the good of the country". It is interesting to speculate what our country would be like today if the Democrats had had the courage to uphold our Constitution instead of patronizing the electorate as if we were children.
I agree the ditty is in bad taste but that doesnt excuse one who claims to
oppose such verbage to do the same thing. Am I to understand because the Reps. received only 5% of the black vote that proves those who find no problem with the parody are wrong?
I agree that the Right was over the top on their hate Clinton campain and although Bush gave his enemies more ammunition the lib side is every bit as quilty of attacking Bush regardless of what he said did or didnt
Mr. angry conserv,
The difference is that the attacks on Clinton were personal. They tried to destroy him by digging up dirt on his business deals and his sexual proclivities. Those attacking Bush did so on the basis of his political decisions, like ignoring the warnings about Al Qaeda, and invading Iraq instead meting out justice to the perpetrators of 9/11.
You always start out so rationally, frank.
Larry,
I am no fan of Bush but we could argue untill the cows come home about who is more responsible Clinton or Bush for allowing 9/11 to succeed. But you have to admit had he announced to the American people that their was a plot to hijack planes and do what was done he would have been demonized
and ridiculed from all quarters. Hell it is still going on. A few days ago I listened to K. Obermann riducle the very idea that assholes convicted in New York for planning to bomb a New York airport were a threat He blew the whole idea off as ludicrous .
Was Bush demonized by media when he lied us into attacking Iraq?
What I remember was how the media praised and uplifted Bush as a strong and gallant war leader. Even Democrats, you know, like Chris Matthews, said that only "whackjobs on the left" didn't like W. when W. was playing dress-up, grabbing his codpiece.
frank not only starts out rational, larry…..he is rational.
average says this…
"But you have to admit had he announced to the American people that their was a plot to hijack planes and do what was done he would have been demonized."
You mean like how W. was demonized with that 90% approval rating when he lied us into Iraq? Like that, you mean?
The laugh, if you want to call it that, is how revisionist thinking starts the Bush-Cheney administration, conveniently, on Sept. 12th, 2001. Funny how that all works.
Mr. angry conserv,
Let me start by saying that I feel nearly as much contempt for Clinton as Bush. He is a traitor to all working class people. By the time that the bombing of the USS Cole was identified as an Al Qaeda operation, Clinton was a lame duck and didn't want to hand off an ongoing operation to the incoming administration. However, the Clinton administration, especially Richard Clarke, explicitly warned them that Al Qaeda was going to be their #1 security concern. The new Bush administration was apparently not impressed. They apparently weren't impressed with warnings from at least 5 foreign intelligence units, nor the FBI. And, of course, there was that early August PDB explicitly stating that Al Qaeda was determined to attack.
Hey Angry! Bush was in office for 20 months ,had 9 PDB's in which the topic of terrorists hitting U.S. targets with hijacked planes was discussed and yet the first words out of his mouth were that"…nobody could have anticipated that terrorists would use planes as weapons to attack the U.S."…Sounds like a guy worried about getting reelected.Oh, and those N.Y.dudes,.the ones entrapped by a very highly paid informant[looking to lose hard time in the bighouse for prior convictions] …..they were, by the FBI's own admittance wannabes who were clueless and no real threat.
Rev, did you really complain about the Magic Negro song and then call Ken Blackwell an Uncle Tom in the same post ?
LOL. You are a piece of work.
What's good for the Rush Limbaugh geese isn't good for the anti-Rush Limbaugh ganders?
While Obama is not a Magic Negro…unless he owns yet undisclosed supernatural powers….it is certainly true, given Blackwell's Clarence Thomas mindset….that Uncle Tom describes him accurately.
And….once again, frank drives the nail with one swing.
Additionally….we now know with certainty that pre-inauguration Bush-Cheney planned on invading Iraq. It could be that Bush-Cheney's plan to invade and occupy Iraq actually WAS their plan from the beginning to deal with Islamic extremists. 9-11 gave them the excuse to implement their pre-9-11 plan. Ignoring Clarke and other warnings, I think, is best understood from Bush-Cheney's predetermined Iraq policy.