Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Opinion - Stanley Crouch: Ed Bradley lived up to his high hopes - sacbee.com

Opinion - Stanley Crouch: Ed Bradley lived up to his high hopes - sacbee.com:

Stanley Crouch: Ed Bradley lived up to his high hopes

By Stanley Crouch -

Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, November 18, 2006
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B7

Print | | Comments (0)

Ed Bradley died last week at age 65, and his passing drew a great deal of attention because he had been in the eye of the American public for a quarter-century. His work on "60 Minutes" made him one of the most highly regarded professionals in television. Both Bradley and the Sunday-evening show managed to maintain viewers while remaining separate from the medium's inclination to the superficial, the stupid and the overstated.

It was because of that separation that Bradley was so important in our time, which has come to distinguish itself by the descent into a vulgar combination of crude materialism supported by narcissistic self-obsession that would not have been imaginable when this black guy first kept turning up week after week. His extraordinary range of reporting was so rich in quality -- and the human depth that makes all quality possible -- that Bradley could not be dismissed as just another example of liberal guilt. He had been done no special favors because of his skin tone. Clearly, he was one of those superb individuals got where he was because of his talent and his belief in the possibility of upward mobility.

Bradley grew up impoverished in West Philadelphia and was told by one of his teachers at a Catholic school for the underprivileged that any one of the students in class could become whatever he wanted. He loved to point out that there he was, sitting and listening, having neither a pot to fill nor a window to throw it out of, but taking his teacher's word. He lived his life accordingly.

In our time, celebrity is almost always connected to wealth and popularity, not accomplishment. Bradley was fortunate to have grown up in an era that might have been much more overtly racist, but people of his caliber were not oppressed by the kind of mediocre dreams that come from the world of hip-hop and a mass culture in which one can be paid inordinate amounts of money for candid photographs taken of unknowing movie or pop-music stars.

Bradley benefited from the tough and unsentimental background that taught him there was a compensation for the fact that the world might not be fair and one might be cheated out of something he should win or something he should own. If one learned something, that information was his or hers for life. That could be why Bradley believed his teacher at Catholic school.

That belief led him to become a disc jockey, to report on the war in Vietnam from the ground, three years among the bullets, the grenades, the killed, the wounded, the maimed and the devastated countryside. Like all reporters who have bedded down in the mouth of death, Bradley understood the universals of courage, cowardice, competence and ineptitude. He learned that bullets and bad luck play no favorites in terms of color, religion, class or nationality.

That realization undergirded the quality that he brought to all that he did, as a professional and as a man in the world. The result is that he seemed to be as respected by a mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh as he was by Michael Jordan, perhaps the greatest athlete of his generation.

That was made possible by Bradley's upbringing, which supplied him with more than the paralytic cynicism of those who supposedly know all too well or all too much. He was also protected from the spiritual squalor, the ignorance and the putrid dreams of our debased popular culture.

Ed Bradley was a great individual, and whatever our culture does, it needs to nurture the cultural elements that fuel the drive of those who wish for more than a high position in the gutter.

Opinion - Stanley Crouch: Ed Bradley lived up to his high hopes - sacbee.com

Opinion - Stanley Crouch: Ed Bradley lived up to his high hopes - sacbee.com:

Stanley Crouch: Ed Bradley lived up to his high hopes

By Stanley Crouch -

Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, November 18, 2006
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B7

Print | | Comments (0)

Ed Bradley died last week at age 65, and his passing drew a great deal of attention because he had been in the eye of the American public for a quarter-century. His work on "60 Minutes" made him one of the most highly regarded professionals in television. Both Bradley and the Sunday-evening show managed to maintain viewers while remaining separate from the medium's inclination to the superficial, the stupid and the overstated.

It was because of that separation that Bradley was so important in our time, which has come to distinguish itself by the descent into a vulgar combination of crude materialism supported by narcissistic self-obsession that would not have been imaginable when this black guy first kept turning up week after week. His extraordinary range of reporting was so rich in quality -- and the human depth that makes all quality possible -- that Bradley could not be dismissed as just another example of liberal guilt. He had been done no special favors because of his skin tone. Clearly, he was one of those superb individuals got where he was because of his talent and his belief in the possibility of upward mobility.

Bradley grew up impoverished in West Philadelphia and was told by one of his teachers at a Catholic school for the underprivileged that any one of the students in class could become whatever he wanted. He loved to point out that there he was, sitting and listening, having neither a pot to fill nor a window to throw it out of, but taking his teacher's word. He lived his life accordingly.

In our time, celebrity is almost always connected to wealth and popularity, not accomplishment. Bradley was fortunate to have grown up in an era that might have been much more overtly racist, but people of his caliber were not oppressed by the kind of mediocre dreams that come from the world of hip-hop and a mass culture in which one can be paid inordinate amounts of money for candid photographs taken of unknowing movie or pop-music stars.

Bradley benefited from the tough and unsentimental background that taught him there was a compensation for the fact that the world might not be fair and one might be cheated out of something he should win or something he should own. If one learned something, that information was his or hers for life. That could be why Bradley believed his teacher at Catholic school.

That belief led him to become a disc jockey, to report on the war in Vietnam from the ground, three years among the bullets, the grenades, the killed, the wounded, the maimed and the devastated countryside. Like all reporters who have bedded down in the mouth of death, Bradley understood the universals of courage, cowardice, competence and ineptitude. He learned that bullets and bad luck play no favorites in terms of color, religion, class or nationality.

That realization undergirded the quality that he brought to all that he did, as a professional and as a man in the world. The result is that he seemed to be as respected by a mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh as he was by Michael Jordan, perhaps the greatest athlete of his generation.

That was made possible by Bradley's upbringing, which supplied him with more than the paralytic cynicism of those who supposedly know all too well or all too much. He was also protected from the spiritual squalor, the ignorance and the putrid dreams of our debased popular culture.

Ed Bradley was a great individual, and whatever our culture does, it needs to nurture the cultural elements that fuel the drive of those who wish for more than a high position in the gutter.

New York Daily News - Home - Stanley Crouch: Memo to young black men: Please grow up

New York Daily News - Home - Stanley Crouch: Memo to young black men: Please grow up:
Memo to young black men: Please grow up



Last week, I was in a studio in midtown where a popular program for black youths was being filmed. I found myself surrounded by black men, ages 18 to 35, and I was appalled.

As a father with a daughter nearly 30 years old who has never been close to marrying anyone, I was once more struck by what my offspring describes as "a lack of suitable men." She has complained often about the adolescent tendencies of young black men, as will just about any young black woman when the subject comes up.

Those who believe that America is perpetually adolescent will point at the dominance of frat-boy attitudes among successful white men and will say of the black hip-hop generation, "So what? How could they not be adolescent? They are not surrounded by examples of celebrated maturity. The society worships movie stars, wealthy athletes and talk show hosts. These are not the wisest and most mature of people."

There is more than a little bit right about that. Our culture has been overwhelmed by the adolescent cult of rebellion that emerges in a particularly stunted way from the world of rock 'n' roll. That simpleminded sense of rebelling against authority descended even further when hip hop fell upon us from the bottom of the cultural slop bucket in which punk rock curdled.

Hip hop began as some sort of Afro protest doggerel and was very quickly taken over by the gangster rappers, who emphasized the crudest materialism in which the ultimate goal was money and it did not matter how one got it. The street thug, the gang member, the drug dealer and the pimp became icons of sensibility and success. Then the attitudes of pimps took a high position and the pornographic version of hip hop in which women become indistinguishable bitches and hos made a full-court press on the rap "aesthetic."

At the television studio, as I watched and listened to those young men, each of whom seemed to be auditioning for a lifelong part as a "man-child," I discussed this phenomenon with a black woman in her 40s who is a writer.

She had worked for rap magazines, magazines that had focused on black women and in black television. Her analysis was quite direct and could be profoundly true. Her profession and being the mother of a teenage daughter has made her pay close attention and forced her to give these issues a good deal of thought.

The way she understood it was that these young black men do not see growing up as having any advantages to it. One is either current or old-fashioned and outdated. The only success they think they can believe in is had by either athletes or rappers. Young black men. So they hold on to adolescence and adolescent ways as long as they can.

The writer also said, "I am sure many knew of Ed Bradley but they did not identify with him. He was too sophisticated. They identify with the overgrown boy, who is everywhere and who is getting over. He's got a lot of cash, plenty of girls, lots of jewelry, an expensive car. To them, that's the world. Or it's the world they want to be a part of."

So what can be done to make adulthood seem attractive to these young black men?

Good question.

From one end of the country to the other, adults sleep in the street for nights on end as though they are homeless in order to have choice places in line when PlayStations go on sale. That alone gives us more than an indication of how great a problem we find ourselves facing.

Originally published on November 20, 2006

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Bandages and Bayonets - New York Times

Bandages and Bayonets - New York Times:

November 12, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

Bandages and Bayonets

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

GOZ BEIDA, Chad

In diplomatic circles, the Sudanese government can be wonderfully polished as it scoffs at accusations of genocide and denounces calls for U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur.

In isolated villages, everything is more straightforward — like the men in Sudanese military uniforms who on Tuesday captured Abdullah Idris, a 27-year-old father of two, in the fields as he was farming. They tried to shoot him in the chest, but the gun misfired.

“So they beat him to the ground,” explained Osman Omar, a nephew of Mr. Abdullah who was one of several neighbors who recounted the events in the same way. “And then they used their bayonets to gouge out his eyes.”

Mr. Abdullah lay on his back on a hospital bed, his eye sockets swathed in bandages soaked in blood and pus. A sister sat on the floor beside him, crying; his wife and small children stood nearby, looking overwhelmed and bewildered. He was so traumatized in the incident that he has been unable to speak since, but he constantly reaches out to hold the hands of his family members.

Three men and two women were killed in that attack by the janjaweed, the militias of Arab nomads that have been slaughtering black African farmers for more than three years now. A 26-year-old woman was kidnapped, and nobody has seen her since.

The janjaweed even explained themselves to the people they were attacking. Survivors quoted them as shouting racial epithets against blacks and yelling, “We are going to kill you, and we are going to take your land.”

Mr. Abdullah’s eyes were gouged out as part of a wave of recent attacks here in southeastern Chad. Officials from the U.N. refugee agency counted at least 220 people killed in the last week in this area near Goz Beida.

We’re used to seeing brutal janjaweed attacks in Darfur itself and along the border with Chad, but now they have reached 60 miles and more inside Chad, and Chadian Arab groups are joining in the attacks on black African tribes.

As I write this on my laptop, I’ve just returned from a long drive through abandoned countryside. The village of Tamajour was still smoldering after being burned by janjaweed attackers two days earlier.

I finally found some residents of Tamajour, clustered around the hospital of Goz Beida. Abdelkarim Zakaria, a 25-year-old man, lay in a bed with two bullets lodged in his back. Friends had carried him more than 20 miles to the hospital to save his life.

Outside the hospital, two old women from Tamajour lay on the ground, suffering from terrible burns. The women were too feeble to flee, and they said that the janjaweed fighters set fire to their huts even though they knew the women were inside. One woman, Gida Zakaria, who said she thought she was about 70, had a back that was just an ulcerating mass of raw flesh.

After more than three years of such brutality, it seems incredibly inadequate for the international community simply to hand out bandages when old women are roasted in their huts and young men have their eyes gouged out. What we need isn’t more bandages, but the will to stand up to genocide.

A starting point would be to rush U.N. troops to Chad and the Central African Republic to prevent the cancer of genocide from completely upending these two countries. It’s incomprehensible that we’re allowing the madness of Darfur to spread inexorably into two more countries.

President Bush could visit Chad and the Central African Republic as a show of support to keep those two countries from collapsing — and he could invite Chinese leaders, who provide Sudan with the guns used for atrocities, to join him.

At the least, Mr. Bush could dispatch Condi Rice to Chad to show the U.S.’s support — then have her stop off in Cairo for meetings with Arab leaders on the crisis. The U.S. could also try targeted sanctions against Sudanese leaders, a no-fly zone to stop Sudanese jets from bombing civilians, and especially a major new effort to start a real peace process in Darfur, for ultimately only a peace agreement can end these horrors.

The most painful sight I’ve seen here isn’t Mr. Abdullah’s bloody face, but the expression of disgust on his children’s faces as they stare at him. You see that, and you can’t help feeling equal horror and disgust — at our shamefully weak international response, which allows this first genocide of the 21st century to drag on and on.

2006: The Year of the ‘Macaca’ - New York Times

2006: The Year of the ‘Macaca’ - New York Times:
November 12, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

2006: The Year of the ‘Macaca’

OF course, the “thumpin’ ” was all about Iraq. But let us not forget Katrina. It was the collision of the twin White House calamities in August 2005 that foretold the collapse of the presidency of George W. Bush.

Back then, the full measure of the man finally snapped into focus for most Americans, sending his poll numbers into the 30s for the first time. The country saw that the president who had spurned a grieving wartime mother camping out in the sweltering heat of Crawford was the same guy who had been unable to recognize the depth of the suffering in New Orleans’s fetid Superdome. This brand of leadership was not the “compassionate conservatism” that had been sold in all those photo ops with African-American schoolchildren. This was callous conservatism, if not just plain mean.

It’s the kind of conservatism that remains silent when Rush Limbaugh does a mocking impersonation of Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s symptoms to score partisan points. It’s the kind of conservatism that talks of humane immigration reform but looks the other way when candidates demonize foreigners as predatory animals. It’s the kind of conservatism that pays lip service to “tolerance” but stalls for days before taking down a campaign ad caricaturing an African-American candidate as a sexual magnet for white women.

This kind of politics is now officially out of fashion. Harold Ford did lose his race in Tennessee, but by less than three points in a region that has not sent a black man to the Senate since Reconstruction. Only 36 years old and hugely talented, he will rise again even as the last vestiges of Jim Crow tactics continue to fade and Willie Horton ads countenanced by a national political party join the Bush dynasty in history’s dustbin.

Elsewhere, the 2006 returns more often than not confirmed that Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, are far better people than this cynical White House takes them for. This election was not a rebuke merely of the reckless fiasco in Iraq but also of the divisive ideology that had come to define the Bush-Rove-DeLay era. This was the year that Americans said a decisive no to the politics of “macaca” just as firmly as they did to pre-emptive war and Congressional corruption.

For all of Mr. Limbaugh’s supposed clout, his nasty efforts did not defeat the ballot measure supporting stem-cell research in his native state, Missouri. The measure squeaked through, helping the Democratic senatorial candidate knock out the Republican incumbent. (The other stem-cell advocates endorsed by Mr. Fox in campaign ads, in Maryland and Wisconsin, also won.) Arizona voters, despite their proximity to the Mexican border, defeated two of the crudest immigrant-bashing demagogues running for Congress, including one who ran an ad depicting immigrants menacing a JonBenet Ramsey look-alike. (Reasserting its Goldwater conservative roots, Arizona also appears to be the first state to reject an amendment banning same-sex marriage.) Nationwide, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote fell from 44 percent in 2004 to 29 percent this year. Hispanics aren’t buying Mr. Bush’s broken-Spanish shtick anymore; they saw that the president, despite his nuanced take on immigration, never stood up forcefully to the nativists in his own camp when it counted most, in an election year.

But for those who’ve been sickened by the Bush-Rove brand of politics, surely the happiest result of 2006 was saved for last: Jim Webb’s ousting of Senator George Allen in Virginia. It is all too fitting that this race would be the one that put the Democrats over the top in the Senate. Mr. Allen was the slickest form of Bush-Rove conservative, complete with a strategist who’d helped orchestrate the Swift Boating of John Kerry. Mr. Allen was on a fast track to carry that banner into the White House once Mr. Bush was gone. His demise was so sudden and so unlikely that it seems like a fairy tale come true.

As recently as April 2005, hard as it is to believe now, Mr. Allen was chosen in a National Journal survey of Beltway insiders as the most likely Republican presidential nominee in 2008. Political pros saw him as a cross between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush whose “affable” conservatism and (contrived) good-old-boy persona were catnip to voters. His Senate campaign this year was a mere formality; he began with a double-digit lead.

That all ended famously on Aug. 11, when Mr. Allen, appearing before a crowd of white supporters in rural Virginia, insulted a 20-year-old Webb campaign worker of Indian descent who was tracking him with a video camera. After belittling the dark-skinned man as “macaca, or whatever his name is,” Mr. Allen added, “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.”

The moment became a signature cultural event of the political year because the Webb campaign posted the video clip on YouTube.com, the wildly popular site that most politicians, to their peril, had not yet heard about from their children. Unlike unedited bloggorhea, which can take longer to slog through than Old Media print, YouTube is all video snippets all the time; the one-minute macaca clip spread through the national body politic like a rabid virus. Nonetheless it took more than a week for Mr. Allen to recognize the magnitude of the problem and apologize to the object of his ridicule. Then he compounded the damage by making a fool of himself on camera once more, this time angrily denying what proved to be accurate speculation that his mother was a closeted Jew. It was a Mel Gibson meltdown that couldn’t be blamed on the bottle.

Mr. Allen has a history of racial insensitivity. He used to display a Confederate flag in his living room and, bizarrely enough, a noose in his office for sentimental reasons that he could never satisfactorily explain. His defense in the macaca incident was that he had no idea that the word, the term for a genus of monkey, had any racial connotation. But even if he were telling the truth — even if Mr. Allen were not a racist — his non-macaca words were just as damning. “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia” was unmistakably meant to demean the young man as an unwashed immigrant, whatever his race. It was a typical example of the us-versus-them stridency that has defined the truculent Bush-Rove fearmongering: you’re either with us or you’re a traitor, possibly with the terrorists.

As it happened, the “macaca” who provoked the senator’s self-destruction, S. R. Sidarth, was not an immigrant but the son of immigrants. He was born in Washington’s Virginia suburbs to well-off parents (his father is a mortgage broker) and is the high-achieving graduate of a magnet high school, a tournament chess player, a former intern for Joe Lieberman, a devoted member of his faith (Hindu) and, currently, a senior at the University of Virginia. He is even a football jock like Mr. Allen. In other words, he is an exemplary young American who didn’t need to be “welcomed” to his native country by anyone. The Sidarths are typical of the families who have abetted the rapid growth of northern Virginia in recent years, much as immigrants have always built and renewed our nation. They, not Mr. Allen with his nostalgia for the Confederate “heritage,” are America’s future. It is indeed just such northern Virginians who have been tinting the once reliably red commonwealth purple.

Though the senator’s behavior was toxic, the Bush-Rove establishment rewarded it. Its auxiliaries from talk radio, the blogosphere and the Wall Street Journal opinion page echoed the Allen campaign’s complaint that the incident was inflated by the news media, especially The Washington Post. Once it became clear that Mr. Allen was in serious trouble, conservative pundits mainly faulted him for running an “awful campaign,” not for being an awful person.

The macaca incident had resonance beyond Virginia not just because it was a hit on YouTube. It came to stand for 2006 as a whole because it was synergistic with a national Republican campaign that made a fetish of warning that a Congress run by Democrats would have committee chairmen who are black (Charles Rangel) or gay (Barney Frank), and a middle-aged woman not in the Stepford mold of Laura Bush as speaker. In this context, Mr. Allen’s defeat was poetic justice: the perfect epitaph for an era in which Mr. Rove systematically exploited the narrowest prejudices of the Republican base, pitting Americans of differing identities in cockfights for power and profit, all in the name of “faith.”

Perhaps the most interesting finding in the exit polls Tuesday was that the base did turn out for Mr. Rove: white evangelicals voted in roughly the same numbers as in 2004, and 71 percent of them voted Republican, hardly a mass desertion from the 78 percent of last time. But his party was routed anyway. It was the end of the road for the boy genius and his can’t-miss strategy that Washington sycophants predicted could lead to a permanent Republican majority.

What a week this was! Here’s to the voters of both parties who drove a stake into the heart of our political darkness. If you’ll forgive me for paraphrasing George Allen: Welcome back, everyone, to the world of real America.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

courant.com: Still A Democrat, Joe Says, To Preserve Seniority

courant.com: Still A Democrat, Joe Says, To Preserve Seniority: Still A Democrat, Joe Says, To Preserve Seniority



By MARK PAZNIOKAS
Courant Staff Writer

November 9 2006

Now that he's won re-election as a petitioning candidate, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is pledging to remain a Democrat, if for no other reason than to keep his 18 years' seniority in the Senate.

"I'll sign up with the caucus to protect my seniority," Lieberman said Wednesday. "My seniority is important to my ability to deliver for the state of Connecticut."

Lieberman briefly joked about how the Republicans might coax him into joining the GOP, a switch that could keep the closely divided Senate under Republican control.

"There is a little playfulness in me that wants me to make a joke about that, but it's too serious. The answer is no," he said. "When I give my word I stick with it, and I am definitely going to organize with the Senate Democrats."

He said he delivered that message Wednesday in a phone conversation with the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. He did not take Reid's call on election night.

"He was gracious enough to call me last night, but in the pandemonium, I didn't get to take the call," said Lieberman, who did accept a congratulatory call Tuesday from a Republican friend, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

Lieberman was re-elected Tuesday without the backing of a major party, rebounding from losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. Unofficial results showed Lieberman beating Lamont, 562,850 to 448,077.

With all precincts reporting, the finish of the five-man race was: Lieberman, 49.8 percent; Lamont, 39.6 percent; Republican Alan Schlesinger, 9.7 percent; Ralph Ferrucci of the Green Party, one-half of one percent; and Timothy Knibbs of the Concerned Citizens, four-tenths of one percent.

Lieberman said exit polling showed him winning only 25 percent of the Democratic vote; his victory was due to the support of unaffiliated and Republican voters.

On Tuesday night, he described his re-election as a victory of the "mainstream over the extreme," a statement that seemed to put him at odds with Democratic voters, who overwhelmingly backed the anti-war candidacy of Lamont.

"My mission now is really an independent mission," Lieberman said Wednesday, calling his win a mandate to "be beholden to no one except the voters of Connecticut and my own conscience."

At a noon-time press conference in Hartford, he declined to articulate his role in the Connecticut Democratic Party, nor could he give a philosophical reason for organizing with the Senate Democrats.

Other than keeping his seniority, he was asked, what is the reason to organize with the Democrats?

"Well, I've been a Democrat," he replied.

Any reasons beyond that?

"Seniority is an important factor," he said.

Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo said she was uncertain what role Lieberman saw for himself in the state party.

"You know, everything is new right now," DiNardo said. "The senator never left the party. We don't have a litmus test for people to be members of the party. We certainly don't throw people out of the party."

She said she encouraged Lamont to remain active, saying his candidacy had energized the party and attracted new voters.

Under state law, Lieberman remained a registered Democrat as he sought re-election as a petitioning candidate on his own ballot line: Connecticut for Lieberman.

Lieberman, 64, is poised to become the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee if Democrats regain the majority. Official results from Tuesday give Democrats a 50-49 majority, with the race in Virginia undecided.

The senator said he remains opposed to imposing a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"What we are doing now there is not working, but that doesn't mean in any sense that it is time for us to retreat," he said. "This is a test in a very difficult and dangerous hour in our history."

(News broke of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation after Lieberman's press conference. He later issued a statement praising the president's choice of a successor, Robert Gates, but withholding judgment until confirmation hearings.)

At times, Lieberman seemed to struggle with closing the book on his bruising campaign, in which he often was vilified by Internet bloggers as being too cozy with the Bush administration.

In response to a question, he had trouble describing how the energy exhibited by the bloggers and other Lamont supporters might contribute to politics. He saw many of them as "destructive."

"There's too much venom in our politics. There's too much hatred," Lieberman said, adding that his comment applied to both parties. "If we don't stop hating the people across the political aisle, how are we going to strengthen this country and get anything done?"

He also groped for an answer when asked whether he took anything to heart from his critics and opponents in the recent campaign, saying many of their comments were "hurtful."

Lieberman said he will continue to operate as always by making a judgment and sticking with it, even if unpopular. Then he softened his answer, perhaps sensing he was too unyielding.

"I have no sense of self-righteous perfection here, trust me," he said. "You just do the best you can. And you listen to people who have a different point of view. Because you know they might just happen to be right."

CBS 46: News and Weather for Atlanta, GA, WGCL, CBS46.com | Georgia Democrats Look to Regroup After Loss

CBS 46: News and Weather for Atlanta, GA, WGCL, CBS46.com | Georgia Democrats Look to Regroup After Loss
Georgia Democrats Look to Regroup After Loss

Nov 9, 2006 03:56 PM

ATLANTA (AP) -- In much of the country, Democrats this week were savoring victory at last. Not so in Georgia, where a humbling loss in the race for governor and gains by the GOP in other statewide contests made it clear that Democrats here had better get used to sitting in the cheap seats for awhile longer.

The state's most prominent Democratic stars -- Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox -- are packing it in at the end of the year, leaving the party without a clear leader. The two faced off in a bitter primary battle. Taylor won but emerged as damaged goods. He went on to lose resoundingly to Gov. Sonny Perdue.

State Democratic Party Chairman Bobby Kahn does not plan to stand for re-election in January. After generations in power, Georgia's Democrats are struggling to find their footing in the state's altered political landscape.

Still, Democrats say the news from Tuesday is not all bleak.

Not a single incumbent Democratic state legislator lost re-election in Georgia despite heavy spending and aggressive campaigns by some Republican challengers.

"I think what that says is the core of our party is still strong," state House Democratic Leader DuBose Porter, of Dublin, said.

The makeup of the state Senate remains 34 Republicans and 22 Democrats. The GOP picked up six seats in the state House of Representatives, but four of those were Democrats who defected. The other two were open seats.

In middle Georgia, U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall beat back a fierce challenge from former Mac Collins, a retired Republican congressman.

The lone question mark is in eastern Georgia, where Democratic U.S. Rep. John Barrow is leading challenger Max Burns by the slimmest of margins. An automatic recount is predicted.

Democrats said it is time to rebuild and regroup. That will mean grooming some young talent.

"We've got some really sharp, young, smart people," Porter said. "I think you'll be seeing more of them."

But in the short run, speculation centers on who will be in a position to run against U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss in 2008 or for governor in 2010 when Perdue wraps up his second term.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker, the top Democratic voter getter in the last election, could be a contender. He ran on a strong law-and-order platform and drew 1.17 million votes, almost 370,000 more votes than Taylor did at the top of the ticket.

So too could Marshall, who was able to eke out a victory in conservative middle Georgia despite President Bush touching down there twice to stump for his opponent.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin is a star in the metro area, but might be seen as too liberal in other parts of the state.

And there is talk that Cox could mount another bid for office after losing the Democratic gubernatorial primary in July to Taylor.

Democrats agree on one critical point: They cannot afford another divisive primary.

"The gubernatorial election was lost in July," state Rep. Calvin Smyre, D-Columbus, said.

"We lost not one but two key Democrats because of the clash between Mark Taylor and Cathy Cox. We do not have the luxury of running against each other."

Democrats will be hurt by not having much of a say in the redistricting process in 2010. And while they remain out of power they will likely lag in fundraising. Perdue and the state Republican Party raised almost twice as much money as Taylor and the state Democratic Party were able to muster in the last election cycle.

Porter said he expects Democrats will be united in the coming legislative session behind education, job training, open government and ethics -- issues he noted that Democrats nationally rode to victory on Tuesday.

Eric Johnson, the state Senate's top Republican, said he hoped his colleagues across the aisle would be willing to work together in a more bipartisan fashion now that the election was over.

But asked who he thought would speak for the Democrats in Georgia, Johnson quipped "some poor sucker."

Article written by Associated Press writer Shannon McCaffrey.

CBS 46: News and Weather for Atlanta, GA, WGCL, CBS46.com | Georgia Democrats Look to Regroup After Loss

CBS 46: News and Weather for Atlanta, GA, WGCL, CBS46.com | Georgia Democrats Look to Regroup After Loss
Georgia Democrats Look to Regroup After Loss

Nov 9, 2006 03:56 PM

ATLANTA (AP) -- In much of the country, Democrats this week were savoring victory at last. Not so in Georgia, where a humbling loss in the race for governor and gains by the GOP in other statewide contests made it clear that Democrats here had better get used to sitting in the cheap seats for awhile longer.

The state's most prominent Democratic stars -- Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox -- are packing it in at the end of the year, leaving the party without a clear leader. The two faced off in a bitter primary battle. Taylor won but emerged as damaged goods. He went on to lose resoundingly to Gov. Sonny Perdue.

State Democratic Party Chairman Bobby Kahn does not plan to stand for re-election in January. After generations in power, Georgia's Democrats are struggling to find their footing in the state's altered political landscape.

Still, Democrats say the news from Tuesday is not all bleak.

Not a single incumbent Democratic state legislator lost re-election in Georgia despite heavy spending and aggressive campaigns by some Republican challengers.

"I think what that says is the core of our party is still strong," state House Democratic Leader DuBose Porter, of Dublin, said.

The makeup of the state Senate remains 34 Republicans and 22 Democrats. The GOP picked up six seats in the state House of Representatives, but four of those were Democrats who defected. The other two were open seats.

In middle Georgia, U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall beat back a fierce challenge from former Mac Collins, a retired Republican congressman.

The lone question mark is in eastern Georgia, where Democratic U.S. Rep. John Barrow is leading challenger Max Burns by the slimmest of margins. An automatic recount is predicted.

Democrats said it is time to rebuild and regroup. That will mean grooming some young talent.

"We've got some really sharp, young, smart people," Porter said. "I think you'll be seeing more of them."

But in the short run, speculation centers on who will be in a position to run against U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss in 2008 or for governor in 2010 when Perdue wraps up his second term.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker, the top Democratic voter getter in the last election, could be a contender. He ran on a strong law-and-order platform and drew 1.17 million votes, almost 370,000 more votes than Taylor did at the top of the ticket.

So too could Marshall, who was able to eke out a victory in conservative middle Georgia despite President Bush touching down there twice to stump for his opponent.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin is a star in the metro area, but might be seen as too liberal in other parts of the state.

And there is talk that Cox could mount another bid for office after losing the Democratic gubernatorial primary in July to Taylor.

Democrats agree on one critical point: They cannot afford another divisive primary.

"The gubernatorial election was lost in July," state Rep. Calvin Smyre, D-Columbus, said.

"We lost not one but two key Democrats because of the clash between Mark Taylor and Cathy Cox. We do not have the luxury of running against each other."

Democrats will be hurt by not having much of a say in the redistricting process in 2010. And while they remain out of power they will likely lag in fundraising. Perdue and the state Republican Party raised almost twice as much money as Taylor and the state Democratic Party were able to muster in the last election cycle.

Porter said he expects Democrats will be united in the coming legislative session behind education, job training, open government and ethics -- issues he noted that Democrats nationally rode to victory on Tuesday.

Eric Johnson, the state Senate's top Republican, said he hoped his colleagues across the aisle would be willing to work together in a more bipartisan fashion now that the election was over.

But asked who he thought would speak for the Democrats in Georgia, Johnson quipped "some poor sucker."

Article written by Associated Press writer Shannon McCaffrey.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Stanley Crouch: Why Obama isn't black like me - sacbee.com

Stanley Crouch: Why Obama isn't black like me - sacbee.com:

Stanley Crouch: Why Obama isn't black like me

By Stanley Crouch -
Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, November 4, 2006

If Barack Obama makes it all the way to becoming the Democratic candidate for president in 2008, a feat he says he might attempt, a much more complex understanding of the difference between color and ethnic identity will be upon us for the very first time.

Back in 2004, Alan Keyes made this point quite often. Keyes was the black Republican carpetbagger chosen by the elephants to run against Obama in Illinois for a U.S. Senate seat. The choice of Keyes was either a Republican version of affirmative action or an example of just how dumb the party believes black voters to be, since it was very obvious that Keyes came from the Southeast, not the Midwest.

Keyes lost to Obama by a wide margin. Perhaps one of the reasons was that Keyes might get so hopped up and hysterical about religious issues that he could appall even a conservative audience with his self-righteousness until he was savagely booed away from the microphone.

Keyes was not able to make a distinction between himself as a black American and Obama as an African American. After all, Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock, and his father is a black Kenyan. Other than color, Obama did not share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.

Of course, black Americans were obviously involved in bringing slavery to an end, but the peculiar institution initially came under fire from white Christians -- the first of whom to officially stand tall and separate themselves from slavery were Quakers. The majority of the Union troops were white, and so were those who have brought about the most important civil-rights legislation.

So why, with slavery having ended for good in 1865 with the loss of the redneck South to the Union Army, do we still have such a simple-minded conception of black and white? It seems to me that the naive ideas coming out of Pan-Africanism are at the root of the confusion.

Quite clearly -- and understandably -- when Pan-African ideas began to form in the 19th century, they were based in serious complaint. All black people suffered and shared a common body of injustices, regardless of where they lived in the world. Europe had colonized much of the black world in order to get control of its natural resources, and the United States had enslaved people of African descent for nearly 250 years. After American slavery ended, there was the time of long-suffering under segregation and bigotry, appearing in either hard or soft form.

So when black Americans refer to Obama as "one of us," I do not know what they are talking about. In his new book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama makes it much clearer than he did when running against Keyes that he has experienced some light versions of the many negative assumptions based on his color, but he cannot claim those problems as his own, nor has he lived the life of a black American. That should not actually matter.

I doubt Obama will crash and burn as Colin Powell did when he seemed ready to knock Bill Clinton out of the Oval Office. But if Obama throws his hat in the ring, he will be running as the son of a white woman who married an African immigrant. So, if we end up with him as our first black president, he will have come into the White House through a side door, which might be the only one available at this point.