The Rutherford Lawson Blog

MSNBC had a field day when Chris Matthews on “Hardball” nailed conservative commentator Kevin James on whether or not he knew what the word appeasement meant. After some 24 attempts at getting an answer, Chris finally got Kevin to admit he didn’t know what he was talking about.

In full self congratulatory mode, on “Countdown with Keith Olberman”, Friday night guest host Rachel Maddow interviewed Chris about the confrontation and they shared their concern that words, especially hot button words, be used properly. Unfortunately, earlier in the same episode, Rachel noted a political anniversary by saying that back in 1868, “the Senate actually came close to impeaching a president”. For an analyst and a network so intent on the proper use of words, Rachel and MSNBC blew it big time. The president in question, Andrew Johnson, did not come “close” to being impeached. He was impeached. He was NOT convicted. What Rachel should have said was that the Senate came close to convicting and thereby forcing out of office a president. To make the mistatement all the more glaring, she identified the president as Andrew Jackson. Fortunately, after a commercial break, she corrected that whopper but neglected to correct her use of “came close to”.

If MSNBC is going to self righteously pound its chest over historical accuracy, they need to do some fact checking before opening their mouth.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

One alarming statistic out of the West Virginia primary was that some 21% of those polled said that race played a role in their voting decision and some 85% of that group voted for Hillary Clinton. Now, the immediate response of social conservatives is to ask why I am not disturbed by the 95+% of black voters that Barack Obama typically gets. Very simply, I do believe there is a difference between a large group of people voting for someone vs a large group of people voting against someone.  Most of the blacks who vote for Obama do not do so because they don’t want a white in the White House. The historical devotion of blacks to the Democratic party, which has always offered up white candidates, supports this. With Obama, they are voting for a black, not against a white. The same cannot be said for 17 or so % of the white folks who voted against Obama.

What troubles me much more than the numbers is our inability to dig underneath them. After every primary, we are left with the cold numbers and left to draw our own conclusions but do we ever really get any closer to a productive discussion about the possible racial issues behind the numbers? One of the things we hear a lot from the pundits is that it is a generational thing. The idea being that young folks today know better than to be racist. First, I think that it is somewhat of a myth. The old song from the musical South Pacific, “You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught” still holds true today. As I look at some of the West Virginians featured on the evening news saying “I don’t want no more Husseins” or “we’ve had trouble with blacks”, I do think that perhaps they have younger relatives who are mortified to see their kin represented this way in the media. But there are lots of other young folk who know nothing better than the mental rot being fed to them by their older relatives. Their generation will carry racism into the future.

So it is not sufficient to blame our current racial divide on generational differences and implicitly suggest that we don’t need to do anything cos once all the old bigots die off, we’ll be a free nation. The current presidential race highlights how imperative it is to begin a serious national discussion on race. Some of the West Virginians quoted saying nonsense this week, are surely “God fearing” church going folks. What is their minister telling them every Sunday that leaves them so wary of blacks? What are the educational and government leaders telling them? Why are these people not being inundated with a positive message that makes their racism seem absurd to them?

What is special about this moment is that we can look at a leader who has such a complex racial background that he makes clear, by just existing, that we all have much more in common than we have apart. Barack Obama’s candidacy provides us with a ready excuse to have an open, productive and enriching conversation about our differences, and how those differences make us stronger. I suppose my great fear is that our country will pass up this opportunity. We will allow the ignorant to remain trapped in their ignorance. We will continue to make laws to change behavior but make no attempt to really change hearts and minds.

The time has come to not just stand pat on the statistical questions. After the pollster asks “Did race play a a role in your vote?”, the next question must be “why are you a racist?”

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Senator Hillary Clinton greeted a throng of enthusiastic supporters last night as she celebrated what would become a 41 point Obama whupping in West Virginia. Her speech wisely steered away from bashing her opponent, Barack Obama. She managed to strike a nice balance between spunky contender and conciliatory loser.

There was one moment however that illustrated just how desperate Clinton’s campaign has become. She is now relying on dead people and 11 year old boys to pull her through. Read below:

“…tonight I’m thinking about Florence Steen from South Dakota, eighty-eight years old and in failing health when she asked that her daughter bring an absentee ballot to her hospice bedside. Florence was born before women had the right to vote, and she was determined to exercise that right, to cast a ballot for her candidate who just happened to be a woman running for president. Florence passed on a few days ago, but I am eternally grateful to her and her family for making this such an important and incredible milestone in her life that means so much to me. I’m also thinking of Dalton Hatfield, an 11-year-old boy from Kentucky, who sold his bike and sold his video games to raise money to support my campaign.”

Let’s take on the second example first and discuss what is wrong with this picture. An 11 year old boy sells his beloved possessions to finance the campaign of a multi-millionaire. From Hillary’s incredibly self centered view of the world, this seemed wonderful. I would have been happier to hear Hillary follow up by saying “when I heard about Dalton, I immediately sent him a check for $100.00 and told him to buy back his toys and enjoy his childhood.” Then again, when your campaign is in debt up to its ears, I guess money from anyone is welcome. I’m sure in her Kentucky speech, she will brag about the prostitute who sent her a month’s worth of hooking proceeds. It’s so thrilling to see everyone involved in the race.

Then there is the case of Mrs. Steen. It is not lost on me how important it might be for an elderly woman who never dreamed of seeing a woman President to actually have the chance to vote for one. Unfortunately, Hillary let us in on a little secret that Mrs. Steen is … dead. OK, she wasn’t dead when she cast her absentee ballot and I suppose this is no different from someone getting hit by a car on their way out of the polling place … the vote still counts. Still it seemed amusing to me that Hillary is now reaching out to the extreme ends of life’s journey, an 11 year old and a near dead woman, to find support.

Then again, as my wife reminded me, Hillary is originally from Chicago where counting the votes of dead people is somewhat of a tradition.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

There are many who say it’s time for Hillary Clinton to get out of the Democratic presidential nomination race. I am not one of them. It is not time for her to get out but it is time for her to get up. Her campaign always manages to find its way into the gutter and now is the time for Hillary to lift the campaign up and end her race for the 2008 nomination with dignity.

Her latest statement to USA Today hardly served this purpose.

“There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me and in independents, I was running even with him and doing even better with Democratic-leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

Putting aside the implication that those who are voting for Obama are not the “hard-working” Americans, the fact that she claims she has the white vote nailed down is just shameful. Not only is it polarizing (a specialty of Hillary’s going back at least 16 years), it is condescending and pandering at the same time.

This is what I would like to hear from Hillary Clinton:

“I do not want the vote of any American who votes for me because they do not want a black man in the White House. If you are supporting me because you do not want a black man in the White House, then please, do not vote for me. It goes against everything I have worked for throughout my political life.”

If Hillary cannot muster the courage to call for racial reconciliation in this country, even at her own political peril, then she should indeed get out of the race.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Barack Obama has essentially sewn up the Democratic nomination and therefore, from my perspective, he can afford to be a bit daring.

The pundits and most everyone else in the mainstream media has written off Obama’s chances in West Virginia and Kentucky. They don’t fit his demographic. My advice to Barack: it’s time to get down. Actively campaign in West Virginia and Kentucky, and don’t do it on the economy; don’t do it on the war. Do it on race! Be bold and say the following to the voters of West Virginia and Kentucky:

“The media says that Hillary Clinton will win by a landslide in your state. They cite your economic situation, your education and yes, your race as the reasons you will not vote for me. Even Hillary says that I cannot win the white vote. So, I ask you, citizens of West Virginia and Kentucky, do you really want to be defined by the media? Are you content to have them paint you as hopeless bigots who are in the pocket of Hillary Clinton? I’ve been accused of being elitist. What could be more elitist than Hillary and the media taking your vote for granted? There’s no way you’ll vote for me because you are backward, cash poor, poorly educated white folks. Is that characterization alright with you? Don’t let the folks who want to pigeon hole you define you. Forget about my being “post racial” and transcendent. Show America that you are post racial and transcendent. Show the pundits that we can shake their preconceptions upside down and that we can change America.”

That’s right. I say, now that Obama truly has the momentum, let’s take the gloves off, put this racial stereotyping of voters on the table, and make it clear to West Virginia and Kentucky that they have been pegged as totally predictable. I think that is Barack’s best chance at keeping Hillary’s lead in these states to single digits.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Frank Rich wrote an excellent OP-ED in today’s New York Times regarding the incredible bias shown by the media when they incessantly loop Reverend Wright’s sound bites but give very little coverage to Reverend John Hagee.

To help counter this bias, I present Rev. Hagee in all his bigoted glory. As you watch this, please remember that John McCain actively pursued this man’s endorsement.

While we’re at it, let’s take another look at a former friend of the Republican party, who if he were not dead, would still be a friend of the Republican party. His sidekick, Pat Robertson was embraced by Rudy Giuliani without anyone batting an eye. This clip is recorded a mere two days after the 9/11 tragedy.

Black ministers have not cornered the market on nutjobs. Until the main stream media lives up to the standard of fair and balanced, they need to stop pointing the disdaining finger at Fox News.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Earlier this week, Senator Hillary Clinton said that her daughter Chelsea would be at the Kentucky Derby placing a bet on the “only filly in the race”, Eight Belles. The parallel she was making between the Derby competitor and herself was quite obvious.

The outcome: Eight Belles came in second, broke both front ankles and had to be euthanized  right there on the track.

In a campaign where words matter, one can only be amused by Hillary’s choice of metaphor. (As a side note, the race was won by a horse named Big Brown. Comedy writers could not write anything better than this.)

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Regardless of how one feels about Reverend Wright, I must agree that the Reverend’s Q&A session at the National Press Club did nothing for Barack Obama’s campaign. I don’t see what more Senator Obama could possibly do besides what he did in today’s press conference.

Now it is up to the media to decide if this issue is resolved. If we continue to see the Reverend on TV 24/7, it will be clear evidence of the media milking this controversy for all it’s worth. The time has come for us to move on to the issues that should really matter to Americans.

Thanks to one of my faithful readers, Lilac, I stumbled upon the following blog entry from Dilbert author Scott Adams. It says something about political mathematics as well as a conclusion on where the collective intelligence of our voters will lead us in November. Depending on your perspective, Adams’ post gives us either a good chuckle or nightmares.

The Dilbert Blog: President McCain

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

I am ashamed to admit that after all the Reverend Wright controversy, I was too lazy to track down the full context of his infamous remarks. I always suspected that the sound bites were distortions and perhaps this suspicion was sufficient to make me feel no urgency at tracking down the facts.

Bill Moyers, whom I greatly respect, did America a favor last Friday night and interviewed Reverend Jeremiah Wright. More importantly, he played fuller versions of Wright’s sermons which put his “chickens coming home to roost” and “God damn America” comments in full context.  Any reasonable person, watching these full excerpts understands that Wright is not the crazy demon he has been portrayed in the media.

Surely, one has to listen to his sermon in the context of religion. On the Sunday following September 11, 2001, he tries to help his congregation make sense of the senseless slaughter that has occurred, and in particular what reaction should a Christian have to the tragedy. He points out, with biblical references to back him up, that all too often we move from attacking the armies of our oppressors to attacking the “innocents”. He points out that nations or governments are flawed just as humans are flawed. He points out that Japan, Germany, England and, yes, the United States of America have done shameful things … have killed and abused innocents to avenge a perceived wrong. His sermon was NOT meant to say that the United States deserved to be attacked on 9/11 but that our response to this attack must not take the form of irrational revenge.

What we have gotten over the past six weeks are the sound bites of Reverend Wright. It is not shameful that Obama’s political enemies sit back with glee as the snippets are endlessly looped on the nightly news. That is to be expected. What is shameful is that every major TV news outlet chose to dumb the story down. None had the courage to play even one more sentence beyond the limit of the original sound bite. After Wright said, “America’s chickens have come home to roost”, he then reminded his audience that these were the words and warnings of a white ambassador, who had been interviewed on Fox news. An ambassador, Edward Peck, who was warning America that its foreign policy had put it in danger. We never saw that part of the sermon. We just saw the damning few minutes that made the story sexy.

The ultimate irony, is that in the hours immediately following Moyer’s interview, the main stream media was again picking the sound bites that would make the best story. “Wright is saying that the Philadelphia speech on race was nothing but politics.” That of course, is NOT what Wright said. In fact, he said that the speech was important and was one of the only good things to come out of the despicable distortions that had preceded it. The fact that Wright said he is a pastor and Obama is a politician is not nearly as fatal a comment as the main stream media would have you believe. As Gwen Ifill pointed out on “Meet the Press” today, Obama is a politician, what a surprise! Wright made no degrading revelation there. He realistically pointed out that truth spoken from the pulpit must use different language from truth spoken on the campaign trail.

There remains talk about whether America is ready for an African American President. I think that misses the point. Is America ready for an intelligent discussion and analysis of people and issues? When the media reduces everything to easily digested simplistic video loops, are they reflecting their own condescension of the audience or are they reflecting our true capacity for intelligent, reasoned discourse?

If we truly are a sound bite nation, then perhaps we deserve John McCain in November?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

My daughter is four years old so the most sophisticated comment she can make about the current Democratic primary race is, “did Obama win?” In a few years she will be able to understand more of what goes on in these races and I wonder what lessons she will take from their outcome.

Let’s look at the just concluded Pennsylvania primary.

Candidate A:

1. Said that her Christian opponent was not a Muslim “as far as I know.”
2. Agreed to the “rules of the game” when primary season began but now wishes to change the rules in any way that will win her victory.
3. Has executive judgement that prompts her to hire a lead strategist who would engage in business practices that boldly contradict her stated platform. Rather than outright fire said strategist, she essentially demotes him and his poisonous influence can still be felt in her campaign.
4. Years ago advised her then President husband that his response to unenthusiastic working class voters should be “screw ‘em”.
5. Totally fabricated a story about being under “sniper fire” during a visit to Bosnia thereby trivializing every man and woman currently risking their lives in a war that should never have been authorized, a war she voted to approve.

Candidate B:

1. Put aside politics as usual and refused to denounce a reverend respected in the religious community who made controversial comments that are protected by our most sacred doctrine, freedom of speech.
2. Attempted to bring his country together and put his reverend’s comments in context by delivering the most important speech on race relations since Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech more than 40 years ago.
3. Had the guts to tell an audience of supporters that the way Republicans win elections is to use wedge issues like gun control, religion, and immigration to distract voters from the real issues that affect their daily lives. He told his supporters that it was not sufficient to throw the usual talking points at these voters. These voters were falling for the Republican okeydoke because they had given up on anyone in Washington helping them with real issues like health care, employment and rising costs. They needed to know that they were being heard and understood.
4. Consistently takes the high road in his campaign, most recently passing up an opportunity to rub his opponent’s nose in her own deceit during a presidential debate.

So, to whom did Pennsylvania give a 10 point margin of victory? Candidate A. What lessons did they teach our children last night?

1. Lying is ok if you just call it a “misstatement”.
2. Rules are for losers. To win, you have to make the rules fit your situation.
3. One great way to win is to insinuate falsehoods about your opponent.
4. Say whatever pleases your audience at the moment. You may get called on it but there will be no lasting consequences.

I can only hope that the good people of Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, South Dakota, Puerto Rico and Montana think about what they are teaching their children before they go to the polls.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance