Many people wonder why Republican legislators and Tea-Party members are so hard on President Obama. Frederick Douglass may have given us the answer 128 years ago:
“Though the colored man is no longer subject to barter and sale, he is surrounded by an adverse settlement which fetters all his movements. In his downward course he meets with no resistance, but his course upward is resented and resisted at every step of his progress. If he comes in ignorance, rags and wretchedness he conforms to the popular belief of his character, and in that character he is welcome; but if he shall come as a gentleman, a scholar and a statesman, he is hailed as a contradiction to the national faith concerning his race, and his coming is resented as impudence. In one case he may provoke contempt and derision, but in the other he is an affront to pride and provokes malice.”
September 25, 1883.
Recent studies have shown that most Tea-Party members are nothing but hard-core republicans. These frustrated and disgruntled republicans insist on “taking-back” their country. Since they didn’t express this sentiment when George Bush jnr. was in power, then I have to conclude that they must feel they lost their country to Barack Obama (a half-white and half-black man): thus a call to action. Does anyone else see the inherent racism entombed in this “taking-back” refrain? Tea-Party people obviously don’t.
I have written on this current crop of GOP presidential candidates before. I told you folks that John Huntsman makes the most sense out of all the republican contestants. And yet I don’t expect him to attain the Republican nomination. Note that I don’t have the republican mindset; so I could be totally wrong about all this. It is always possible that the GOP may just start making sense again (I am hopeful but not optimistic about this).
In attempting to channel a republican mindset I have come up with a possible sleeper: Rick Santorum. He used to be a darling of the conservative crowd for years. He is also brave enough to engage media sources way beyond the protection and safety of the folks at Fox News Network.
I suspect that neither Rick Perry nor Mitt Romney will get the republican nomination. I base this on positions both individuals took during tenures in their respective governorships. These positions were outside mainstream republican-thinking on policy-solutions. Rick Perry’s call for Texas seceding from the rest of the country will come back to haunt him; so too his mandated vaccination program. And Romney’s flip-flops over the years (especially on the abortion and health care issues) will prove fatal in my estimation.
Don’t forget Romney was pro-abortions before he turned against a woman’s right to choose. He was for “don’t ask don’t tell” until he changed his mind; same for civil-unions for gays (he once supported it). He was for gun control until he became a fervent pro-gun supporter. He was for government control of health care until he was against Obama’s health care legislation (almost identical to the reforms he passed and championed as governor of Massachusetts).
Let me qualify all this by admitting I am a democrat. Both Perry and Romney are top contenders here, but both have hard-nosed detractors within the party: the type of detractors who will go to great lengths in order to stop either from becoming the party’s nominee. Detractors like Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh: who don’t play pussy-cat politics.
I find Michelle Bachman to be an intellectual midget, and as such I will be totally shocked if she got past the Iowa caucus. Ron Paul has a loyal base of support within the party (and also with the Libertarian crowd) but it cannot translate into primary victories. This has been proven over the years, during his many failed attempts at securing said nomination. It has also been proven during attempts at mobilizing to take on some of the many constitutional issues he has raised. He always comes up short.
When I watch the debates, I return to a familiar place relative to Newt Gingrich. The former house speaker is intellectually gifted and quite articulate; but a developed intellect doesn’t guarantee a compassionate, decent, humane and moral being. Newt is no nice guy. Plus he lies too much. It is as simple as that. He will never be president of this country.
This brings me to Herman Cain; despite the fact that there are a few others in the race -who only count for academic purposes at this point. Herman Cain has emerged as one who is polling surprisingly high numbers right now. This guy is an embarrassment for a human being. Please someone; do get him a cane for his scrambled brain: it’s limping along behind his vapid rhetoric.
Last week he said the present Wall Street protesters who are poor and unemployed, need to blame only themselves for their condition(s). This tells me that he has no clue as to what is happening to the US economy. Automation/technology (high-tech to be exact) has displaced US workers at a pace the private sector couldn’t maintain or compete with. Between outsourcing for cheap labor, global changes in trade agreements, a failed education system, unscrupulous capitalists, disloyalty/treachery from investors and wealthy Americans, plus a few other significant reasons (too long to expound on here) we have an economy as fragile as a two-year-old baby’s butt. It is obvious that Cain isn’t able; since he cannot grasp the complexities of the contemporary economic climate.
When Herman Cain was the CEO of the Godfather’s Pizza chain, somewhere around 90% of all its employees were paid the prevailing minimum wage. Cain refuses to answer why the pay scale was so low for so many; in a company so profitable.
This is the same man who recently said blacks were being brainwashed by the democrats; implying their loyalty in that political party is misplaced. The same man who in the fifties and sixties preferred to sit at the back of the bus rather than protest Jim Crow laws. The same man who -as a college student in Atlanta- refused to participate in the civil rights struggle: because his father always told him “not to make or cause trouble”. This house-negro is an apology even for a house-negro. Wait until you hear some of the outrageous things he has said on radio over the years. You will be even more embarrassed at his world-view, and the way he views black people in general. He is obviously a self-hater with a stinking inferiority complex. And he has the gumption to constantly attack Barack Obama: at least Obama paid dues working as a tenant organizer on Chicago’s south side. What dues did Herman paid for his entry into the Negro Hall of Fame?
Last week both Chris Christie and Sarah Palin officially stated they would not be seeking the republican nomination this round. Christie’s blunt approach to articulating policy-positions have been appealing to many all over the political spectrum. He is refreshing in that he calls it the way he sees it: minus the silly games most pols play. Word is that he will soon endorse Mitt Romney. This won’t help Romney get pass his “Mormon” problem. Many hard-core Christian bible-types see Mormonism as a cult not a religion. Mitt Romney is one o the favorites to win the Repugnican nomination; but he is no shoo-in.
Look; I know political-science theory suggests that Americans routinely “vote their pocketbook”; but despite the horrible economy, Barack Obama still has a very good chance of surviving a republican challenge to his presidency. This is true because the republican field isn’t impressive folks. If you try to go beyond Huntsman you will find a group of ideologues who not only contradict themselves often, but also offer nothing new in terms of policy-prescriptions for these troubled times. BO is correct in calling himself the underdog in this race.
It is hard to predict who will be our next president if Obama is taken down or taken out. Collectively, this republican field is a motley bunch of challengers. It is even possible that the republican convention might just be deadlocked without a clear primary winner. In that scenario Chris Christie can re-emerge to provide a very formidable challenge to BO.
Stay tuned-in folks.