In a recent op-ed on GayWired.com, black lesbian commentator Jasmyne Cannick wrote, "Charles Knipp is a self-described 45-year-old fat, gay white man who believes he's on a mission from God. A mission that involves mimicking Black women as his alter ego character Shirley Q. Liquor." After describing what she calls Knipp's "blackface minstrel show," Cannick writes, "I blame gay America, from the political leaders to the club owners, for turning a blind eye to Knipp's blatantly racist routines. We are the reason that his racist act continues to go nearly undetected on the race radar."
Having heard an excerpt of Knipp's act thanks to PamsHouseBlend.com, I think its obscurity is well deserved. Nonetheless, if Cannick wishes to call Knipp out as publicly as possible, that is her right. But it is a big jump from blaming club owners who book the act to blaming all of gay America. Cannick specifically targets white gays. She responds to Knipp's rendition of "a welfare mother with nineteen kids who guzzles malt liquor and drives a Caddy" by making disparaging racial generalizations of her own.
It is certainly easy to understand Cannick's anger at Knipp's insulting portrayals as well as his method of defending himself from her criticism. Knipp recently photoshopped Cannick's head onto a porn actress's body and posted it on his website. Previously, Cannick received death and rape threats after her private e-mail and phone number were posted by Knipp's promoter. Unfortunately, Cannick's response hits innocent and guilty alike.
Cannick says accusingly to white gays, "you usurp the Black Civil Rights Movement's strategies and language." This suggests that the black civil rights movement is the exclusive property of African Americans, which could hardly stray further from the spirit of a movement whose legacy belongs to all Americans.
Cannick says to Knipp, "Most people in your situation settle for surrounding themselves with Black friends, marrying someone Black, moving into a Black neighborhood, listening to hip hop, watching BET, eating Soul Food and voting for Barack Obama. Why don't you give it a try and leave the act of being Black to those of us who are?"
For white people to have black friends, marry someone black, and vote for Barack Obama is merely a reflection of life in a multiracial society. It is happening in numbers far beyond what can be ascribed to a pathological desire for a race change, and merits contempt only if viewed through the prism of racial separatism.
Noting that RuPaul has defended Knipp, Cannick dismisses RuPaul by saying "he's as disconnected from Black America as Ward Connerly." How can someone's racial authenticity depend upon holding particular views? Speaking of Obama, he represents a healthy departure from this perpetual state-of-siege mentality.
Cannick's throwdown with Knipp notwithstanding, there is no evidence that white people in blackface are the next big trend in entertainment. I had never heard of Shirley Q. Liquor until I read about her in an earlier piece by Cannick. In this respect, Cannick risks helping Knipp by increasing his notoriety.
In any event, it is unclear how people who have never even seen Knipp can be blamed for his depredations. Cannick's implication is that Knipp's ability to get paid for his performances proves that white gays in general are racist. Is Knipp playing to packed stadiums? It is peculiar that Cannick seeks to combat racism by venting her own racial hostility. If she wants respect from others, she should offer it herself.
Fortunately, a new generation is emerging which is less deferential to the old racial categories, and for whom racial mixing is increasingly commonplace. For those willing to drop their protective masks of cynicism, this social development might recall the redemption in Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables, where descendants of a judge from the Salem witch trials and of one of his victims dispel the old curse between the two families by falling in love.
Be that as it may, it is sad that Cannick would impugn the motives of those of us who have found love across the racial divide. Such attitudes help no one. Instead of the overused tactic of insisting that all white gays join her cause or be accused of racism, she should try something truly radical: treat people as individual human beings who are responsible for what they believe and say and do, the same as she.
35 Comments for ““Minstrel” Madness”
posted by Richard on
I suspect that part of the problem is that their was lots of protests when a black actor used the ‘f-word’, but little with this gay actor and his racist ‘face paint’ antics.
Racism is certainly a problem in the LGBT community as it is in the general population. I just hope that maybe, just maybe, a good and worthwild conversation manages to come out of all this.
posted by Patrick on
Cannick writes, “I blame gay America”- it’s all those ignunt homosexicals and bulldykers that are durrin it!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Incidentally, there happens to be an article in the Sunday Washington Post (3/16) on a similar subject, titled Hollywood’s About-Face On Blackface.
But despite the reference to blackface in the title, most of the examples cited do not involve burnt cork and the garish, stereotypical portrayals traditionally meant by “blackface” at all. The actual examples of blackface cited, such as Spike Lee’s movie “Bamboozled” and Ted Danson’s Friar’s Club appearance in 1993, were complete bombs. The article talks about gradations, but blackface is not about gradations. The cross-racial castings referred to by the article’s title are an interesting development, but have nothing to do with blackface.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I hadn’t heard of Shirley Q. Liquor until a couple days ago. Even less surprising than the outraged commenters on YouTube were the gay men who — quite predictably — defended the character on the grounds that some gay men claim to feel “solidarity” and “kinship” with Strong Black Women.
It seems to me that a much better defense of the Shirley shtick would be that, if “white trash” are socially acceptable targets for comedy because of their trashiness, then “black trash” ought to be fair game, too.
posted by MJ on
When I’m at the gym there are music videos constantly playing. Believe me, the rap/hiphop videos are the most embarrassing minstrel shows you’d ever want to see. Only even far more vicious and violent than Al Jolson ever was. And you know those videos are seen by more of the public than will ever even hear the name Shirley Liquor. People better start worrying about the real problem, instead of wasting their time on such trivialities.
posted by Richard on
The key issue — with certain rap/hip hop artists — is that their target audience is often young, white, suburban youth.
posted by dc on
As a gay black male I am not offended by Kipp’s comedy for this reason; black people make fun of gay people all the time. So why can’t gay people make fun of black people? It doesn’t mean I agree with either form of comedy; I just believe that if one happens, then why can’t the other.
posted by Bobby on
Since when are drag queens taken seriously? That’s like getting upset because Saturday Night Life did a sketch you didn’t like.
Cannick sounds like a black separatist, similar to Obama’s reverend. And if she wants to blame white gays, whatever, maybe some white gays will realize that voting for Barrack Obama is a bad idea if you end up getting people like Cannick in powerful positions.
After all, why would a man that wants to “unite America” do anything for gays? It’s too bad I can’t stand McCain, otherwise I’d advocate voting for him. Maybe the best thing to do is not to vote. All the choices are crap.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby wrote, “After all, why would a man that wants to ‘unite America’ do anything for gays?”
What is your point? That gays are not part of America?
If you were an American Catholic, would it be reasonable for me to determine your views by consulting your pastor or the Pope? Senator Obama is arguably better on gay issues than Senator Clinton, whose “co-President” in the 1990s gave us mostly photo ops and patronage jobs for his gay supporters, in addition to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the HIV immigration ban, and the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama’s positions on gay issues can be found at: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf. In any case, it is a complete non sequitur to draw conclusions about Obama from statements by Cannick, whose only comment about Obama was to mock his white supporters. Obama’s entire career has been one of reaching across political and racial divides. And if he were not sincere in his support of gay citizens, it is hard to imagine why he would have admonished the congregants at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on black homophobia last January.
posted by ted on
SQL’s humor (if I were a white woman) is onpoint and hysterical. It lampoons a poor black woman’s viewpoint of what all the rich white women must be up to. Neither is accurate, hence the humor. She’d be a Republican and go to the PTA (some of the things not limited to White Women, by the way.)
In the children’s names cut, SQL delivers up the weirder names (Orang’ello, Lemon’jello for exmaple, which are real names given to kids by women looking for anything to call them), again in a funny rant.
No one takes it as seriously as it needs to be taken, because pointing out the prevalence of ignorance in a culture is necessary when a segment of culture refuses to look at or advance itself. And someone may have the right to name their child after a chilled gelatin dessert, but can anyone fathom that that might somehow be limiting in the future prospects the child has for self esteem?
Simply demanding people be more accepting of the differences does not make it better. Check out http://www.snopes.com/racial/language/names.asp
posted by Bobby on
“What is your point? That gays are not part of America?”
—We’re a minority, it’s always easy to screw a minority. Jimmy Carter did it with gays. During his campaign for president, he even went to a gay bar in San Francisco. But once he got elected, he did nothing for us.
“If you were an American Catholic, would it be reasonable for me to determine your views by consulting your pastor or the Pope?”
—If your priest had crazy ideas, if he spoke about bombing abortion clinics or castrating anyone that has pre-marital sex, and this has been your pastor for 20 years, then yes, I would have a few questions. Having a weird friend is ok, supporting the congregation of a weird friend is not. Jeremia Wright has all kinds of crazy ideas, he believes the US government created AIDS to infect blacks, he thinks we deserve 9/11, he clearly stated “God damn America” which is just as offensive as refering to San Francisco as “sodom by the sea.” And Obama, Mr. Everyman, Mr. Uniter, has been sitting in his congregation for 20 years listening to that garbage? And we’re supposed to excuse him because hey, it’s the black church, right? And yet, did John McCain get a pass after his association with pastor Hagee was revealed? No. And let me tell you, Hagee may be politically incorrect, but he does not say “god damn America.”
“And if he were not sincere in his support of gay citizens, it is hard to imagine why he would have admonished the congregants at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on black homophobia last January.”
—All democrats admonish homophobes nowadays, it’s an easy thing to do, and unlike voting for a bill, it lacks political consequences.
But understand this, Obama lacks experience. If he had been 10 or 20 years in the senate, then you can examine his record. But right now, he doesn’t have a record, people just know him as the cute guy with the big ears. It’s a cult of personality, and what scares me about Obama is the things he has actually said:
1. He wants to increase capital gains taxes from 10% to 30%.
2. He wants to close Guantanamo.
3. He wants health insurance for everyone.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that everyone must have health insurance, and not pay high taxes. It does mention “cruel and unusual punishment,” but according to liberals, lethal injection is now cruel and unusual, so I don’t really buy that argument.
Frankly, I will not consider Obama until he’s interviewed one on one on Fox News, by either Bill O’reilly or Hannity and Colmes. If he doesnt’ have the guts to face the network with the highest ratings, if he can’t bear to be asked direct questions by the only media channel that is not in love with him, then he’s not ready to be president. Kerry learned that lesson the hardway, ironically, he has faced Bill O’ afterwards, and realized it wasn’t so bad.
posted by Brian Miller on
The left’s bizarre meltdown on race has been surreal to behold — both on Obama and the article Richard’s piece addresses. HRC’s declaration that it will no longer focus exclusively on LGBT issues and will spend more money and time on “issues important to black Americans” is another example.
You’d think, after reading the rhetoric, that black people weren’t treated equally under the law (they are), and that gay people were (though they’re not).
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hillary Clinton, her hubbie and the white leadership of the DNC prove that their advocacy for AFFIRMATIVE ACTION only goes as far as it doesn’t impact on THEIR plans. True liberals to the core.
The truth is that Sen Obama’s rise proves that rank and file independents and democrats do believe in affirmative action even for the Oval Office but the slave masters on the Democrat Plantation aren’t so ready to embrace diversity.
Maybe they’re taking a page out of the “Big Book on Hypocrisy” by Eliot Spitzer (D-NY)?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, Obama was interviewed on Fox last weekend. Given the way you spout off without appearing aware of that, it is not Obama’s fitness to be president that is properly in question, but your fitness to be pontificating on the subject.
Michigan-Matt, I support Obama because I think he is the best candidate. What does that have to do with affirmative action? Not only has Obama shown his superior managerial skills with the way he has out-organized Hillary around the country, and not only does he have an extraordinary capacity to inspire people from diverse backgrounds, and not only does he have an amazing capacity to remain cool and level-headed in the midst of people screaming for his head, but yesterday he showed his leadership gifts and political courage and conceptual ambition by delivering an historic speech of rare sweep and power. It is very sad indeed that some people are absolutely determined to respond with cynicism and scorn no matter what he says or does, but that is not going to stop those of us who recognize the opportunity his candidacy gives us to move our nation into a new and more productive politics.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby writes,
“All democrats admonish homophobes nowadays….”
That is simply not true.
“Obama lacks experience.”
The fact that he doesn’t have 10 or 20 years in the U.S. Senate does not mean he has no experience. In addition to his community organizing, he had 8 years in the Illinois state senate prior to coming to Washington.
“he doesn’t have a record….”
See above. If he had no record, what was it that Clinton’s people have been combing through looking for dirt?
“It’s a cult of personality.”
Rubbish. I have already (including in my separate article on Obama, which you can find on IGF) discussed the qualities the man brings that commend him as a candidate. And I did not include among those qualities anything like “I think he’s dreamy!” I think he has more leadership ability in his little finger than Hillary Clinton has in her entire body, and he would certainly not be as divisive, the scandal-mongering over Rep. Wright notwithstanding. BTW, Obama’s handling of that controversy has been a lot more Christian than that of those who refuse to be satisfied with anything short of throwing Wright under the bus.
posted by Richard on
Jimmy Carter NEVER went to a gay bar during his presidenital campaign. He sent, If I can recall, one of his children — at the time in college — to a fund raiser.
The Carter administration was by no means perfect when it came to gay rights, but important progress was made.
One has to take into account that it was not until the late 1970s, that gay groups started to focus on lobbying at the federal level.
In the 1940s – 1970s, the gay groups had mostly been focused on local/state issues. The HRC did not come about until the mid to late 1980s.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, I didn’t say your support of Obama had anything to do with affirmative action. You support him for reasons you’ve made clear.
I do think many on the farLeft are embracing the big O in the hopeful belief that America is set to move beyond the racial divide of the last 400 yrs. That, and the simple fact that the big O was against the IraqWar when few in the Democrat Party could find their nuts. I think more of the big O’s support is from his anti-war, troops out now stance than his broader message of hope.
I also think Obama’s gamesmanship and insider political battling of the last few weeks will unveil to most voters a different side to the big O… not only that but his continued embrace of racist and bigot Rev Wright. Voters always like to favor the underdog… so do the press in making the investment of “building a story” for readers.
When his wife offered that she’d never been proud of America until her hubbie slapped on the candidate shoes and starting hoofing it, I think she struck on what most black Americans feel -that race is still an impediment to progress and that we do not have an equal opportunity society. As a white male, I know we don’t have equal opportunities with blacks, women or racial minorities -we’re at a deficit on that score.
Is he a leader at the level you claim? Gosh, I can’t imagine it… I would have thought Americans had enough of Democrats under SlickWillie to last ’em a lifetime… but then we got NancyP and HarrygReid.
One thing I am very confident about, if the Democrats do nominate the big O, McCain will make morning toast of him… without making the big O a few shades darker.
The Democrats will have snapped Defeat from the jaws of Victory once again.
posted by Bobby on
“The fact that he doesn’t have 10 or 20 years in the U.S. Senate does not mean he has no experience. In addition to his community organizing, he had 8 years in the Illinois state senate prior to coming to Washington.”
—Just tell me what his legislative accomplishments are. He likes to talk about change, fine, what changes did he make? Oh, that’s right, he did not vote for the war in Iraq. Bravo!
“Rubbish. I have already (including in my separate article on Obama, which you can find on IGF) discussed the qualities the man brings that commend him as a candidate.”
—I’m judging Obama not from his articles, but from his speeches, his TV commercials, his website, and what others say about him. Frankly, I’m not impressed. I’m not happy with the way the media is in love with him, I’m not happy when CNN interviews voters and asks them why do they like Obama, and they don’t know. That is a cult of personality, just like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
“I think he has more leadership ability in his little finger than Hillary Clinton has in her entire body,…and he would certainly not be as divisive, the scandal-mongering over Rep. Wright notwithstanding.”
—Rev. Wright is a hateful man that says hateful things, and he’s been Obama’s pastor for 20 years. He says “god damn America,” he says that the US government invented AIDS to screw black people, he says that we deserve 9/11, that we’re the US of KKK. Hillary hasn’t even said anything about Wright, because she doesn’t have to. In fact, she’s a classy lady, she’s succesful, talented, when she was First Lady, she was very much involved in public policy (unlike most first ladies), she’s a liberal but not a puppet of the far left, and the only reason she’s in trouble is because many Americans are sexist, even some women are sexist and can’t trust a woman with power. When a man has a strong personality, they call him a leader, but when a woman does the same, they call her a “cunt” or a “bitch.” That’s the reality, Richard.
And don’t get me started on Ms. Obama, I’m glad she’s proud of her country for the very first time.
Why can’t Obama be more like Kucinich? Mr. K is a liberal, he’s clear about all the issues, he doesn’t spin, then again, he’s as popular as watching paint dry.
And by the way, is Obama too much of a pussy to go on Glenn Beck, Hannity and Colmes, The O’reilly Factor? I mean, those shows have high ratings, lots of independent viewers watch them, including republicans that don’t want to vote for McCain. But apparently Mr. Obama preffers to do The View, CNN, David Letterman, Meet the Press, Bill Moyers, and every other show where the hosts seem to be aroused every time they see him.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, your emphasis on the names people call women senators, in contrast to the alleged free pass Obama gets as a man, is utterly laughable when you look at (A) how tough Hillary is, (B) how clearly her specific history plays a role in people’s hostility to her, rather than her being some generic representative of womanhood, and (C) his disadvantage as a black man in winning over rural and working-class white voters, a disadvantage that the Clinton campaign has sought to capitalize on. So spare us the crocodile tears.
It is pathetic that you use a single statement by Michelle Obama to justify casting her contemptuously into the outer darkness. If everyone were judged on a similar basis, we would all be hanged. By persisting in this pettiness you show your position to be bankrupt.
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly are contemptible demagogues, though of that grouping I consider O’Reilly the least bad. Obama is cool and deft enough that I have little doubt that he could hold his own with any of them, but I see nothing for him to gain by wallowing in the mud with them, and no reason why he should help them increase their ratings. Hannity in particular is utterly vile and unscrupulous, and doesn’t care at all what damage he does to our puplic discourse. Obama last weekend did give an interview to one of the more credible journalists at Fox, a fact that I have pointed out before and that you show your dishonesty by refusing to acknowledge.
As to Obama’s record: The NYT reported on his years in the Illinois state senate and in the U.S. Senate. In Illinois he sponsored over 820 bills, including introducing 233 involving public health, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 dealing with crime, 97 on the economy, 62 on education, 60 on human rights and discrimination, 21 on ethics reform, 20 on the environment, 6 on the military and veterans. In the U.S. Senate he worked on numerous bills, including: Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (S.2590), which requires full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds. It became Public Law # 109-282. Also, the Lugar-Obama Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006, (S.2566), which was included in the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006, Public Law # 109-472. Also: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S.2611), of which Obama was not a sponsor but played a key role in crafting the version that the Senate passed. Prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress; he offered three amendments that were included in the Senate bill. His efforts in the 110th Congress include the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007 (S.230). The bill passed by the Congress drew key provisions from S. 230. Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-81. Obama introduced the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 (S.1977).
None of which will make any difference to you at all, will it, Bobby? Because you don’t care about any facts except those that you can use to justify your cartoonish and contemptuous view.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
According to Lisa Miller in the March 24 issue of Newsweek:
“As a leader, Wright defied convention at every turn. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last year, he recalled a time during the 1970s when the UCC decided to ordain gay and lesbian clergy. At its annual meeting, sensitive to the historic discomfort some blacks have with homosexuality, gay leaders reached out to black pastors. At that session, Wright heard the testimony of a gay Christian and, he said, he had a conversion experience on gay rights. He started one of the first AIDS ministries on the South Side and a singles group for Trinity gays and lesbians?a subject that still rankles some of the more conservative Trinity members, says Dwight Hopkins, a theology professor at the University of Chicago and a church member.”
Bobby, you fixed your opinion of Rev. Wright as “a hateful man” based upon a few seconds of clips. If you are unwilling to step back and rethink your stark and harsh statement based on additional information such as the Miller article (including the above-quoted paragraph), then you show yourself to be a dishonest and unscrupulous person. Rev. Wright is a friend of my ex-boyfriend Robert’s friend Reggie, and has been in his home. He is gay-supportive, and more broadly has done extensive service to lift up the people in the struggling southside community that he serves. Anyone for whom that counts for nothing is certainly no Christian. The way that Obama duly repudiated Wright’s offensive and misguided comments while refusing to throw his old friend and mentor under the bus is the model of a decent and responsible Christian response. How wilfully blind you are not to see that.
posted by Bobby on
“his disadvantage as a black man in winning over rural and working-class white voters, a disadvantage that the Clinton campaign has sought to capitalize on.”
—What disadvantage? I like what Geraldine Ferraro said, she said that if Obama had been white, nobody would care about him. And it’s true, Obama’s chic factor is based on race, looks, and being articulate. Come on, haven’t you seen those stupid girls making music videos about Obama on youtube?
“It is pathetic that you use a single statement by Michelle Obama to justify casting her contemptuously into the outer darkness.”
—The same game is played with Ann Coulter, Bill Bennet, Bill O’reilly, and every conservative/libertarian out there. And Michelle Obama hasn’t made just one single statement, she also told Ohio voters in a small town, that they should not seek a job in corporate America, that they should not seek to get rich. There’s a term for what she’s doing, “class warfare.”
“Obama is cool and deft enough that I have little doubt that he could hold his own with any of them, but I see nothing for him to gain by wallowing in the mud with them, and no reason why he should help them increase their ratings.”
—Kerry thought the same thing, and look who’s president now. If you want to “unite all Americans,” then you have to speak to all Americans, you have to visit their churches, appear at the TV shows they watch, etc. The only reason Obama isn’t doing it is probably because he fears offending the far-left. And frankly, if you can’t handle a few direct questions from O’reilly, you can’t handle America.
“Hannity in particular is utterly vile and unscrupulous, and doesn’t care at all what damage he does to our puplic discourse.”
—Well, he has Alan Colmes to balance him out, they take turns, one questions from the right, the other from the left.
“Obama last weekend did give an interview to one of the more credible journalists at Fox, a fact that I have pointed out before and that you show your dishonesty by refusing to acknowledge.”
—Well, that’s a start. Hillary did the same. But it’s not enough.
“None of which will make any difference to you at all, will it, Bobby? Because you don’t care about any facts except those that you can use to justify your cartoonish and contemptuous view.”
—So he has a record, great, why doesn’t he ran TV commercials with his record? Why doesn’t he talk about his record instead of generalities about hope? Why does he avoid “hard news” programs? Why doesn’t he explain why he wants to close Guantanamo? Why won’t he visit the troops in Iraq like McCain did?
The more Obama makes mistakes in these areas, the more animosity he will create.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, kindly look at the Ohio voting results, which were much discussed. There is no way that in some seldom-visted part of your brain you don’t know full well the falsehood of Ferraro’s comment. Of course the uniqueneness of Obama’s personal story helps him to some extent, but the evidence (and common-sense familiarity with our nation’s history on matters of race) shows that there is also a disadvantage with rural and working-class white voters. Why do you persist in denying this? Your glibness in machine-gunning a bunch of questions does not enhance your credibility the way you seem to imagine it does.
Obama HAS cited his record. Gee, you only seem ever to notice what suits your biased argument.
The notion that a candidate has to appear on O’Reilly and Hannity or he cannot win is a silly outgrowth of the preening self-importance of those demagogues. To be sure, if Obama did not show toughness or a willingness to address his critics his chances would be seriously impaired. But not only has Obama appeared on Fox, he just this past Tuesday gave one of the bravest and most honest speeches on race in America ever delivered. Regardless of your overall view of his candidacy or his positions on the issues, refusing to give him credit for what he did on Tuesday only shows you to be blinded by bias.
Alan Colmes is a relative milquetoast opposite Hannity. The notion that he adequately balances Hannity is ludicrous.
Obama HAS explained his position on Guantanamo. Where do you come up with this crap? If you judge a person’s readiness for higher office based on how many junkets he’s taken overseas, let’s just see who’s taken the most such trips and give him or her the presidency. I don’t think so.
posted by Brian Miller on
Richard, your support for Obama underscores why Democrats continue to assail gay rights and patronize queer people.
Barack Obama has never, in his entire career, taken a substantive action to benefit the equality of gay people under the law. Not one.
And no, “giving a speech” is not a substantive action.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian wrote, “Barack Obama has never, in his entire career, taken a substantive action to benefit the equality of gay people under the law. Not one.”
Brian, what effort did you make to verify that claim before posting it? Obama’s LGBT summary sheet, the URL for which I provided earlier in this thread, points out that he:
1. co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes law to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation or gender identity.
2. sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
3. voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
4. traveled to Kenya and took a public HIV test to encourage testing and reduce the stigma of the disease.
5. worked to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act.
posted by Bobby on
“you don’t know full well the falsehood of Ferraro’s comment.”
—But she was right, she said that if she had been a man in the 1970s, she would not have been popular enough to run for vice-president, so if Obama was white, the same would hold true. The “falsehood” is the media calling her a racist, specially since she has fought for civil rights for years. But in today’s society, you can’t mention race without being called a racist.
“shows that there is also a disadvantage with rural and working-class white voters. Why do you persist in denying this?”
—Because Obama has managed to win a bunch of 99% white states like Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, among others.
“The notion that a candidate has to appear on O’Reilly and Hannity or he cannot win is a silly outgrowth of the preening self-importance of those demagogues.”
—It’s not a silly outgrowth, politicians spend millions of dollars in advertising, getting exposure on a TV show is priceless. Ask anyone who works in public relations or advertising. You want EVERYONE talking about you, you want your face all over the place.
“he just this past Tuesday gave one of the bravest and most honest speeches on race in America ever delivered.”
—Anyone can give a prepared speech, Richard, but it takes a real man to face tough questions from reporters that aren’t in love with you.
“refusing to give him credit for what he did on Tuesday only shows you to be blinded by bias.”
—I’m not biased at all, if I was, I wouldn’t be supporting Hillary Clinton. I’m glad he gave a speech, but it wasn’t enough.
“Alan Colmes is a relative milquetoast opposite Hannity. The notion that he adequately balances Hannity is ludicrous.”
—Well, just because he doesn’t shout “stop this goddam war” doesn’t mean he’s a liberal. You’d like him, he supports gun control, abortion, he doesn’t like Ann Coulter saying mean things. You know, there’s a difference between being a liberal and being a far-left daily koss loon.
“Obama HAS explained his position on Guantanamo. Where do you come up with this crap?”
—I want to hear him explain it to O’reilly, Glenn Beck, or any other talking head that isn’t in love with him, capish? You want my vote? Work for it!
And by the way, why the hell does he want to raise capital gains taxes from 10% to 33%? What the hell is his problem?
Why the hell are democrats so goddamm greedy? They’re already getting 10%, they’re like a child getting a $100 allowance and then demanding $500 a week. This is nothing but class warfare.
The economy is bad enough without Obama promoting socialism.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It seems to me that taxing is better than borrowing as a way to pay for one’s programs. Conceding for the sake of discussion that Obama is promoting socialism, which of the remaining candidates is not?
Bobby, your obsession with Obama’s need to face O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity suggests that you are more interested in setting up more cartoonish right-wing throwdowns than in evaluating the candidates. Obama is trying to conduct ad adult conversation, for which those talk show hosts barely qualify. (Oh dear, I’m sounding elitist. Where are my rosary beads?)
posted by Bobby on
Well Richard, I hate giving credit to McCain, but he’s not promoting socialism. And while Hillary may want free health insurance, she’s willing to compromise.
“you are more interested in setting up more cartoonish right-wing throwdowns than in evaluating the candidates.”
—I evaluate the candidates by their performance on those shows. I happen to like Kucinich because he doesn’t bloviate and can defend his ideology in any setting. Your candidate is calculating, that’s something he has in common with Hillary, except that Hillary has been forced to show her humanity after doing so badly in the polls. Obama on the other hand, doesn’t want to say something stupid on live TV, that’s why he prefers live speeches and rehearsed interviews.
“Obama is trying to conduct ad adult conversation,…Oh dear, I’m sounding elitist”
—You are, and that’s fine if your candidate is running in Beverly Hills, San Francisco and Berkeley. But your hero needs votes from all kinds of people, truck drivers, farmers, union members, white collar idealists, independents, christians pissed off with the GOP, etc. And I would think that part of having an adult conversation is talking to people that don’t completely agree with you.
And by the way, most people in this country don’t like elitists. They don’t mind the elite when they behave themselves like down to earth people, good examples include Donald Trump, George Bush, Richard Branson, Ophra and others. Bad examples are Leona Helmsley, Michael Jackson, John Edwards, and others.
posted by KamatariSeta on
“” They don’t mind the elite when they behave themselves like down to earth people, good examples include Donald Trump, George Bush, Richard Branson, Ophra and others.””
But they aren’t “down to earth”, they just pretend to be.
posted by Brian Miller on
Brian, what effort did you make to verify that claim before posting it?
I’m quite aware of his record, thanks.
1. co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes law to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation or gender identity.
That’s not equality, that’s putting gay people into a special law enforcement class.
2. sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
That’s not equality, that’s putting gay people into a special protected class.
3. voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
That’s not equality, that’s opposition to pushing us into fourth class citizenship from our present third class citizenship. (Incidentally, John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted against the FMA too).
4. traveled to Kenya and took a public HIV test to encourage testing and reduce the stigma of the disease.
That’s not only not an issue of equality, it’s not a gay issue.
5. worked to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act.
Not equality, and not a gay issue.
Really, Richard, I’d expect better from you.
Equality is defined as “treated equally.” Barack Obama has not done anything, including in this list, to ensure we have equality under the law.
He supports segregation based on sexual orientation in marriage, has been a resolute opponent of UAFA (and keeping binational couples separated/exiled), has refused to introduce or co-sponsor legislation repealing DOMA, has refused to introduce or co-sponsor legislation to provide equal treatment in military service, has refused to introduce or co-sponsor legislation providing equal tax treatment, and on and on.
Voting for a couple of token feel-good “privileged class” programs (and HIV stuff) doesn’t make him a supporter of equality. Then again, you knew that, I suspect.
posted by Brian Miller on
Obama is trying to conduct ad adult conversation
Yes, he declares that “typical white people” are racist.
He introduces a black separatist pastor to public notoriety who screams “God Damn America!”
He refers to the “President of Canada.”
He lifts ridiculous speeches on “okeydokes” from Spike Lee films.
Yes, very adult.
In a childish, “everyone else must be an idiot” sort of way.
posted by Bobby on
“has refused to introduce or co-sponsor legislation providing equal tax treatment”
—That’s a great point, and more proof that Obama is a “classist,” a person who discriminates on the basis of class. We should all pay equal taxes. Why should success be penalized? Frankly, I hate rich assholes like Obama trying to take more of my hard earned money.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian writse, “Yes, he declares that ‘typical white people’ are racist.” No, he did NOT make a charge of racism. If what he actually said was bad enough, you shouldn’t have to put extra words in his mouth. He was talking about common stereotypes to which we all fall prey, and he has repeatedly stated that he himself is not immune from them. Your refusal to give him any credit only discredits you. Yes, he DOES treat the voters as adults, far more than most politicians do.
posted by Brian Miller on
No, he did NOT make a charge of racism.
Sure he did. He claimed that “typical white people” like his grandmother cross the street when black people walk towards them on the sidewalk.
That’s an assertion of racist activity that he said was “typical” of white people.
Trying to sugarcoat that does his campaign no favors. He should instead apologize.
he has repeatedly stated that he himself is not immune from them
He has repeatedly inferred that only he can rise above them — while shamelessly leveraging those biases to try and gain tactical advantages through racial divisiveness.
That’s not healthy. I’m tired of America being divided on the basis of race, age, religion, sexual orientation, and all the other categories the old parties use to segment us against each other.
Obama is still part of the problem.
Your refusal to give him any credit only discredits you.
Gosh, Richard, you ARE an Obamaniac. This sort of cliche is one of the things that makes Hillary Clinton supporters (and most everyone else) roll their eyes. It’s a true-believer myth worthy of a cult, not a statement of fact or even debateable opinion.
Yes, he DOES treat the voters as adults, far more than most politicians do.
Another meaningless cliche.
The reality is that Obama is an inexperienced empty suit who has risen to prominence on an Oprah/media love-fest; the endless puffery of media commentary; and speechifying liberally lifted from Spike Lee, Deval Patrick, and The West Wing.
I guess those are all adults, but repeats of other people’s speeches (and endless platitudes) isn’t so much adult as it is substance-free.
posted by Richard on
“is an inexperienced empty suit who”
Well, take away the suit and you got the Libertarian Party…
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
“Hillary hasn’t even said anything about Wright, because she doesn’t have to. In fact, she’s a classy lady, she’s succesful, talented, when she was First Lady, she was very much involved in public policy (unlike most first ladies), she’s a liberal but not a puppet of the far left, and the only reason she’s in trouble is because many Americans are sexist, even some women are sexist and can’t trust a woman with power. When a man has a strong personality, they call him a leader, but when a woman does the same, they call her a “cunt” or a “bitch.” That’s the reality, Richard.”
Sorry, Bobby, but to borrow a line from your friend O’Reilly: what kind of Kool-Aid are you drinking? No, Hillary is not detested by a large percentage of us because she’s a woman. Rather, it is because she is a classless, untalented, unprincipled, hypocritical, amoral opportunist (exactly like her hubby), whose only real achievement has been living off the reflected glory of the man she married. I suggest you look at the recent issue of TIME that shows all of her supposed “achievements.” They are as fraudulent as she is, and as your platitudes about her are.