Stop Social Security Privatization! Bush and the House GOP are warming up to privatize social security and gamble your retirement with their Wall Street Cronies. Sign the Pledge to Protect Social Security! Get this ad for your site. Paid for by the DCCC.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006


I attended the State of the Black Union (Tavis Smiley's gig) in Houston, this past weekend. It was somewhat weird, as I was born in Houston, but haven't lived there for the past 30 years. Forgot how much there's new meaning to the phrase, "Urban Sprawl".

My commentarary on this event will be published at The Black Commentator on Thursday (, so look for it.

The "Covenant with Black America" tour is going on this week, and I know members of the Congressional Black Caucus should be in attendance in Los Angeles, Atlanta, New York City, Memphis, Oakland and San Francisco.

That means that the derelicts of the Congressional Black Caucus (Bishop and Scott - Atlanta; Ford - Memphis; Meeks - New York...wait, that's about it)should show up, huh?

How much you want to bet they won't go near that "Town Hall" meeting when Smiley and crew gets there? I'll be watching, because this will be one more nail in said coffin towards cleaning the CBC house.

Monday, February 27, 2006

Andy Young - Wal Mart Pimp


If your place in history is being known as marching with and standing with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as he fought for the integration of African-Americans, then your stomach should be churning at the sight of Andrew Young becoming the new poster boy for Wal-Mart, a corporation that believes in slave labor on the half and full shell.

Wal Mart doesn't believe in providing educational opportunities for African-Americans unless they can control how many African-Americans get an education. Read this as the promotion of school vouchers and the annihilation of the public education system.

Wal Mart doesn't beleive in paying livable, sustainable wages. Most employees never think when you go to work, your employee orientation book contains the references for resources in obtaining government assistance to suppliment what little money you do get paid.

Wal Mart believes in renting Negroes into doing the dirty work of tearing up our communities and yours, for a price. My goodness, they get bought cheaply, while you and I pay the ultimate price.

Oh, Andy, how could you do this? How could you betray everything Dr. King, Medgar Evers, and Malcolm X fought and died for? Even though it's in a new and pretty container, it still contains the ugliness that continues to be called discrimination. How could you sell your soul like that?

Most importantly, how could you let it known that you were so willing to be bought?

Tuesday, February 14, 2006



From Robert Parry of Consortium News. It's a must read.

And yes, I've posted my disgust at the caving in of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, better known as Kos of DailyKos. I could go along with his making a mistake, but flat out lying about whether or not Paul Hackett announced his candidacy before Sherrod Brown, when it was reported that Brown announced after damaging Kos' credibility, gives the GOP ammunition to deal the blogsphere a major blow, and threw Paul Hackett to the wolves.

Read this story. It explains in factual terms that far from the Democrats wanting to win, they just act like it, but are really content with being in the minority party and they want to keep it that way.

Democratic Leaders 'Betray' Hackett

By Robert Parry
February 15, 2006

The ultimate goal in politics should be to do both what’s right and what’s smart, what’s honorable and what works with voters. In the American context, that could be telling a hard truth instead of pandering or standing for principle at a time of fear – and thus inspiring the public.

In recent years, however, what’s right and what’s smart have rarely made joint appearances on the stage of U.S. politics.

The Republicans have built their national dominance – controlling the White House, Congress, the courts and much of the news media – by doing what’s politically smart but rarely what’s right for a healthy democracy.

For instance, White House political adviser Karl Rove has exploited the Sept. 11 terror attacks to marginalize the Democrats as people unconcerned about the security of the American people. Those tactics may be terribly wrong – because they divide the nation – but they certainly work.

The Democrats are even more galling. They seem zeroed in on both doing what’s wrong and what’s stupid. The latest example is the party leadership’s “success” in driving Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett out of the Ohio Senate race apparently because he speaks his mind too much and takes the fight directly to the Republicans.

Instead, Democratic Senate leaders, hoping to win in Ohio by default because of Republican disarray, opted for an establishment Democrat, Sherrod Brown, a seven-term congressman who has raised $2.37 million, tenfold more money than outsider Hackett.

But by settling on a business-as-usual strategy, Democratic leaders offended the idealism – and fighting spirit – of their base and may have ultimately hurt their chances for victory in November, a lose-lose strategy that has become all too familiar for Democrats.

Iraq Veteran

Hackett, who returned from Iraq angry at George W. Bush for risking the lives of U.S. soldiers over the hyped threat from Saddam Hussein, ran a strong but losing race in 2005 for a House seat in an overwhelmingly Republican district in southern Ohio.

That performance made Hackett immensely popular with rank-and-file Democrats and prompted Democratic leaders to encourage him to undertake an uphill fight to unseat Republican Sen. Mike DeWine.

Over the past several months, however, the Ohio Republican Party has suffered a series of damaging scandals, making DeWine an endangered incumbent. Meanwhile, Hackett has offended Republicans – and some non-Republicans – by talking bluntly.

Earlier this year, Hackett came under criticism for saying that the Republican Party had been hijacked by religious extremists who “aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden.” Instead of apologizing, Hackett declared, “I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it.”

Suddenly, the state and national Democratic leaders were changing their calculations, favoring a more traditional and experienced Democrat, someone like Rep. Brown, a longtime fixture in Ohio politics.

So, according to Hackett, for the past two weeks, party leaders, including Senators Harry Reid and Charles Schumer, have urged him to drop out and run instead for a House seat, an option that Hackett had previously forsworn.

While agreeing to withdraw from the Senate contest on Feb. 13, Hackett said he would not go back on his word to other Democrats about not running for the House seat.

“This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me,” Hackett said. “For me, this is a second betrayal. First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me.” [NYT, Feb. 14, 2006]

The Hackett fiasco upset rank-and-file Democrats trying to recruit Iraq War veterans to challenge Republicans. “Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run,” complained Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group urging veterans to run as Democrats.


The Democratic base also is fuming. It has long despised the consultant-driven Democratic hierarchy in Washington, which is seen as putting political machinations ahead of principle – and still managing to lose.

Many of these Democrats blame this cozy community of Washington pollsters, strategists and ad consultants for the “triangulation” strategies that have failed to give the Democrats control of Congress since 1994. This timidity also has been blamed for Bush taking the White House in 2000 and 2004.

For instance, during Campaign 2004, national Democratic operatives were so spooked by Republican charges that the Democratic convention would become a “Bush hate-fest” that the organizers started censoring critical comments about Bush out of many speeches.

The convention’s keynote address, delivered by then-Senate hopeful Barack Obama, didn’t even mention Bush’s name or give any reason for ousting him. The mild-mannered convention ended up giving Democratic nominee John Kerry a zero bounce.

By contrast, the Republicans held a convention that bashed Kerry at every opportunity – with GOP operatives even passing out “Purple Heart” band-aids to mock Kerry’s Vietnam War wounds. Disgruntled Democratic Sen. Zell Miller excoriated Kerry in the Republican keynote address – and Bush opened up a double-digit advantage.

Bush’s lead eroded only after he stumbled through the first two presidential debates. Kerry, with his strong debate performances, took the momentum and appeared headed for victory. But his consultants again intervened, urging caution and convincing Kerry to pull his punches in the third debate.

In that pivotal last debate, Kerry once more looked like the indecisive figure who had failed to impress the voters over the summer. Down the campaign stretch, Kerry seemed to be coasting, rather than driving for a clear-cut win. He gave Bush a chance to regain his political balance and pull almost even.

On Election Day, amid widespread complaints of voting irregularities, Bush wrested the White House again from the Democrats. Though Kerry had vowed to make sure every vote was counted, he listened to his advisers who urged him to concede the day after the election, dooming hopes for a meaningful recount in the pivotal state of Ohio.

New Divisions

The divisions between the Democratic base and the Democratic leadership have widened again in 2006 as Senate Democrats fought only a half-hearted battle against Bush’s Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito.

The base saw Alito’s radical theories of the “unitary executive” as tipping the court balance toward a majority in favor of an all-powerful President and thus endangering civil liberties and the Founders’ concept of checks and balances. But the Democratic leadership feared the political fallout of an all-out fight to block Alito’s confirmation.

Though the Democrats had enough anti-Alito votes (42) to sustain a filibuster, Senate Minority Leader Reid refused to invoke party discipline and 19 Democrats joined with the Republicans in closing off debate, thus ensuring Alito’s confirmation. Many in the Democratic base were livid.

Now, the rank-and-file Democrats see the party hierarchy adopting the same old “safe” strategies that have failed to restore the party to the majority. Ahead in the latest opinion polls and counting on the Republicans to self-destruct, congressional Democrats are seeking out establishment Democrats who can raise big bucks and avoid controversy.

Political analyst Jennifer Duffy told the New York Times that Hackett’s bluntness – while loved by the Democratic base – made the Democratic leaders nervous.

“Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker, and he became an icon of the liberal bloggers because he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician,” Duffy said. “On the other hand, the Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown.”

But many rank-and-file Democrats see something besides decorum at stake. Some conclude that the national Democratic leaders are addicted to losing, content as long as the party holds some seats and the consultants get shares of the campaign ad buys.

Some angry Democrats compare the party’s performance to an exhibition basketball game between the razzle-dazzle Harlem Globetrotters and the slow-footed Washington Generals. While the Globetrotters (or Republicans) need an opponent in order to have a game, the Generals (or Democrats) aren’t supposed to win.

The Generals stand around looking befuddled as the Globetrotters make fancy passes and dribble behind their backs and between their legs. It wouldn’t do for the Generals to start jumping into the passing lanes and stuffing shots into the faces of the Globetrotter stars.

The problem for the Democratic leaders is that the Democratic base has grown tired of watching these exhibition games with their predictable outcomes. Many grassroots Democrats actually believe the Bush administration has put the fate of the democratic Republic in jeopardy and that decisive action is needed.

To them, it’s not a game anymore. They don’t want politics as usual. They want the Democratic Party to compete to win. They want leaders who understand that they can do what’s right and what’s smart.



Jesus, do the Democrats actually want to regain Congress, the Senate and take back the White House?

Not when the DLC starts engaging in tactics to kill their own party members. This is Civil War at it's most egregious, during a time when the Democratic Party, already tethered to life support, can ill afford to be doing crap like this.

Paul Hackett has been forced from the Senate Primary Race against Sherrod Brown. Send Chuck Schumer a "Thank You" card for pulling this mess against a person who actually went and fought in Iraq, only to come home and face a more personal betrayal by his own Government. Twice.

My friend, Autoegocrat has more on this shameful development over at the Pesky Fly.

Monday, February 13, 2006


I've read blogs where the blogger began to question the purpose for why he or she began keeping a blog. Today, I find myself in the same situation, and for the same reasons.

I blog about issues that are near and dear to me. I blog about issues that I hope can be used to raise questions and facilitate deep thoughts about the political landscape we now live in, and not just be herded along like sheep because the leader shines as bright as the stars, but is empty of substance. Most of all, I keep a blog because I want to educate people about elected officials and why more should be demanded of them when they obtain public office.

You know that you're on the right track when you begin to attract trolls. They don't come to engage in worthy debate or discussion of the issues; they would rather engage in personal attacks of the blogger because they disagree with what the blogger has posted on their board and either are reluctant to articulate those disagreements, or are too lazy to do the homework and rebut the blogger on factual basis, documented proof and verified evidence.

Anyone can access the Internet. But, depending on the subject matter, it takes a dedicated individual to keep a blog and post their thoughts or information that hopefully gets visitors to think about the issue and respond to the issues. I choose to blog, and I accept what goes with the territory, but I've had people send me emails attacking me, my family and all kinds of things that go with being a troll and the only point of power you have is the keyboard.

I've been watching fellow bloggers like Steve Gilliard, The Pesky Fly, and Thaddeus Matthews deal with trolls. They just keep plugging away and eventually, the troll gives up and goes in search of new bloggers to harass. I've seen trolls attack Matthews for his attempts to hold the Mayor of Memphis accountable. He's been harassed about his appearance, his weight and has had to endure attacks on his wife, his family and his past, which he has never made any attempt to hide. I say to myself, when I read the comments that "he must be on the right path and is scaring the crap out of the hierarchy."

Like a Timex watch, he takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

I watched one of my associates give up his blog because he felt that he wasn't making a difference. He made a difference to me, in that, his impassioned posts gave me the courage to start blogging. For Autoegocrat, I am always humbled and awed when he rips a post that reflects his soul. Thinking about him, and Thaddeus, gives me the courage to go on.

I don't like being attacked, but I'll accept it as part of the territory. But I look forward to the day when I'm proven right about my positions, and instead of saying "I told you so", I'm going to say, "You didn't know then, but you know now, so get up and do better."

Message to the trolls, especially the female ones - I'm here to stay, and I'm not running from you at all. What I won't do is feed your behind by responding to your posts. You may think that's running; I call it engaging in a strategy that you know nothing about, because if you did, you would engage in a meaningful discussion of the issues and not speculate about my love life or the object of it. From now on, as Stephen Colbert would say, "YOU'RE DEAD TO ME" because I won't waste my time or my energy being angry, upset or pissed off because you post something stupid, mundane or off topic here.

But if it's a fight you want; it's a fight you'll get, so fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a very bumpy ride...for a troll, anyway.

Sunday, February 12, 2006



According to the following article, the venerable GOP pundits are starting to turn on their own Leader. And they chose him to be their leader.

Oh, well. You get what you pay for. And in following Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" Rule: "You break it; you pay for it."

The best line is from Fighting Keyboardist Jonah Goldberg,:

Commentator Jonah Goldberg, miffed that Bush has piled up record deficits and boosted the size of government, writes that Bush "is spending money like a pimp with a week to live."

You can't make this stuff up. But it was only a matter of time before people sobered up off the GOP Kool-Aid.

Saturday, February 11, 2006


I admire the fact that Harold Ford, Jr. has many supporters, however sincere they may be. But there is one blogger in particular, named David Bander, and it is to him, I'm devoting my blog entry today.

Mr. Bander really wants to know why I have the opinions of Mr. Ford that I have. Well, really, it's based on watching him elevate himself on a National Scale and advertising himself as a new modern Leader of African-Americans, while he tries to distance himself from those whom he seeks to lead. I started to post the rest of this in the comments section, but why deny those of you passing by the fun of reading my response?

Dear Mr. Bander:

So, you figured it out. I have two screen names which accurately reflect my beliefs, my passions and my personality. I just happen to like them both, and I didn't want to be boxed in, though I am in a way, huh? LOL

I knocked your man around because he's so prone to taking opportunities to prove us wrong, and pissing them away, in order to further ingratiate himself with people like Don Imus. And yes, I wrote my blog based on that mush he posted at Arianna Huffington's blog where he basically said nothing in response to the howling coming from the likes of Kate O'Beirne, Hannity and everyone who cried "foul" because Rev. Joseph Lowery and Jimmy Carter told the truth and said what Coretta Scott King would have wanted them to say in her eulogy.

Please don't ask me what I would do if I were Harold Ford. The only thing I can say is that (1)there is nothing on earth that I want that would make me sell out my family members;(2)prostitute myself to the highest bidder; (3)or create a voting record that runs counter to what I say I represent in terms of beliefs, values and/or morals, or the needs of my constituency. As I mentioned, I am a Political Scientist in training, and I have learned that when you have determined your demographical base in campaigning for elected office, more often than not, you do have to tailor your campaign to attract the majority of voters needed to win. This means that you craft your campaign and your platform based on what you know people want in their elected official, and based on the issues directly affecting them, be they economic, social justice, environment, education, healthcare. These are very basic needs of the average voter; from the shores of Los Angeles to the most rural parts of Appalachia. Most voters, if asked, would prefer to see a candidate that remains true to who they are as a human being, because who they are as a human being, and their character is in large part, who will be representative of individuals like you and me. Because I'm not familiar with Tennessee, I'm not going to say that Harold Ford can't get elected to the U. S. Senate because of his race or his family's foibles.

Most people want a candidate that will usher in fiscal responsibility, tax breaks for those who can use them, and balanced governmental involvement, while maintaining a concern for, and facilitating programs that assist those who are in need. We also want an individual who respects the Constitution and the 200+ year governance found in the system of Checks and Balances. We want an individual that speaks to us plainly and not throw $10 dollar words at us to make themselves sound important when they have actually said nothing.

We want a candidate who at least has enough contact with everyday individuals through local events and Town Hall meetings, that he knows the issues facing his district, like infant mortality or rampant poverty. He or she is ready to talk to you when you approach them to discuss these concerns, and they don't blow you off because you didn't make a monetary contribution to their campaign. You should leave with the feeling that your elected official heard you and your concerns, and vows to do something about them. The next election takes care of itself, as long as the elected official is doing what he/she was sent to public office to do. As long as your candidate was slumming in the House of Representatives, only Memphians were affected by his performance as a lawmaker. Because he is seeking higher office that would afford him opportunities to cast votes that may directly impact me as an American citizen, I have to raise my voice in protest. When I think about how the recent Supreme Court nominee, Sam Alito, could have been stopped in committee if 19 Democrats had joined with the other 25 in voting against Cloture, the Alito nomination would have failed. Or if another incompetent like Michael Brown gets a Cabinet post because of his alliance with the President and not because he's qualified. Because Harold Ford is asking for that degree of higher responsibility, when he has yet to demonstrate his competence as a Member of the House of Representatives, I will not be silenced about his political positions, his voting record or his affiliations, and that includes sucking up to Nationally known racists like Don Imus.

He's jetting around the country asking people to give him money for his Senate campaign. You wouldn't believe the emails I've gotten from Chicago, New York, DC, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles(he got busted in San Francisco, and I guess Oakland was too "ghetto" for him to mess with their ATM)from people who either read my posts here or over at the Pesky Fly, or my work with CBC Monitor, from people who are fed up and wonder why should they give their hard earned and rapidly dwindling money to a Congressman from Tennessee? What benefit will be returned to them if Harold Ford wins that Senate seat? Will he further protect the interests of Corporate America, while American citizen join the ranks of the unemployed and uninsured as a result of his looking after Corporate interests, rather than the people who vote for him?

That could be a conservative or a progressive; take your pick. What many people won't vote for is an individual whose naked and blind ambition is front and center for everyone to see, and holding office is only a means to a very personal end that has no consideration for the people who elect him. They won't vote for an individual who could care less for the underdog, and only wants public office because he doesn't want to punch a clock on a 9-to-5 basis, as if that's a humiliating position to be in.

Seems like every elected official is worrying about "pandering to their base" but fail to discover what their "base" really wants, unless their "base" are the lobbying interests groups and K Street Citizens who pay for play. People like you and I get left behind in that scenario and it's the reason why all of Congress collectively has a 25% approval rating. That means 75% of Americans do not approve of Congress' performance at this date. The President has been holding 40% approval or less. And this is whom Harold Ford wants to emulate, when, according to my blogging pals in Memphis, 60% of Tennesseeans are pissed off at the loss of healthcare, jobs, and trying to comply with the requirements of No Child Left Behind; requirements that facilitate the ushering in of school vouchers and closing of public schools on a mass scale.

Let me share an example with you and hopefully you'll understand my positions here.

My representative is Barbara Lee. The demographics she represents consists of 30% African-Americans, so we're not the majority of her constituents. Sixty percent of the constituents she represents are Whites, Asians and Latinos, with better than 40% of that mix being Whites. So, if what you're saying is correct, the voters Mr. Ford is trying to reach roughly matches Ms. Lee's constituency.

Yet, Ms. Lee's voting record is so progressive, she co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus. But based on your theory, Ms. Lee should continue to get re-elected to her House Seat because she needs to "pander to her base". If that were the case, when everyone in this country was crying for War, she was the only Congressmember who resisted giving George Bush carte blanche for war authorization back after 9/11. But, before she did that, she didn't sit in DC and take the pulse of a media poll to decide what she was going to do.

She caught the first plane smoking back to Oakland, called a Town Hall meeting and told us, her constituents, what she was going to do. She explained that she was in favor of voting for war appropriations if they were going to be limited to going after Osama bin Laden- in retaliation for 9/11. What she didn't want to vote for was to give George Bush unlimited authority to wage war whenever he wanted. We told her to go back to Congress and speak for us. Mind you, this was coming during an election year.

She should have lost her seat, right? We re-elected her with 82% of the vote. Because we said, "Barbara Lee Speaks for Me!" loud enough to send those dogs Tom DeLay and crew dispatched to Oakland to unseat her, packing. Has Harold Ford shown this degree of courage that Ms. Lee did? Not if you're going by his voting record.

Or take Cynthia McKinney. Because she actually had the audacity to ask if Bush deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen so he could have an excuse to bomb Iraq. She lost her seat over that one to Denise Majette. But Atlanta voters were not fooled, and Ms. McKinney returned to Congress with 65% of the vote, because she was proven to be more credible than the President. Would Harold Ford have shown the same degree of courage and moral commitment to vote based on what defines his character as a human being?

Because, if I were Harold Ford, my voting record would reflect the needs and concerns of the constituency I represented in Memphis and Shelby County. Your state has the highest rates of poverty, infant mortality, and highest rates of bankruptcy filings in the country, but Harold's not on the floor of the House screaming about that. He'd rather swindle people out of their Social Security retirement checks and tell them he's doing it for their own good. He's telling you he voted for the Bankruptcy bill because it will be for the good of those who will have no other way out of debt, except to be thrown in debtor's prison, because your wife got sick with breast cancer and all your savings had to go pay what wasn't covered under TennCare, before it was eliminated.

If you wish to send your child to public school, Harold Ford will be waiting at the schoolhouse door with vouchers in his hands, and you still won't be able to afford to send your child to private school, or support your household, on Wal-Mart Salary. His voting record favors Wal-Mart, and it's no suprise that Wal-Mart is one of his biggest donors. And if Wal-Mart hires you, Ford will take credit for providing jobs to his district, labor record, lawsuits because of labor practices, and all.

You can only take that type of credit if you're bringing in Halliburton, or Kellogg, Brown and Root, where the average salary is $50,000 a year; not below poverty level, where you earn not enough to support a family, but too much to qualify for government assistance. And contrary to popular belief, African-Americans account for less than 20% nationally of governmental aid recipients. The rest live in your neck of the woods and accounts for much of the South. You can look it up in the Census tracts.

I haven't begun to touch the surface of your question regarding why I rip Harold Ford for his political positions as I do; has he determined how many people in the state of Tennessee actually listens to Don Imus? Cause if that's the case, that would explain his appearances on Hannity & Colmes, Rush Limbaugh, and explains why his Memphis constituency has been snookered with his representation of them for the last ten years. Nationally, Howard Stern is still making Imus eat his dust. A person with the courage of his convictions can campaign on a viable, clear and concise political platform in a state like Tenneessee and win, because his honest character as a person is demonstrated, and his ensuing reputation facilitates the trust of people who vote for him to do what he believes is right for his district. Tell me where this applies to Rep. Harold Ford, and if I can't beat it upon further debate, I have to stand it (yes, I'm having a "Brokeback" moment here, LOL).

Thanks for visiting the blog and do come back soon. I would apologize for the comprehensiveness of my response, but you asked me about Harold Ford, and I want it clear that it's not him as a man, but his political positions, which aren't making a good argument for reasons to support his candidacy for that Senate seat.

Friday, February 10, 2006



So, the Democrats are going around the country, talking about how they need to appear "tough".

Time for another "BOO FRIGGIN HOO" award, when you have to convince the public that you're really Popeye and not Bluto, especially after Popeye eats his spinach.

Well, this is what Sen. Evan Bayh is doing these days - talking tough and saying nothing.

David Sirota politely informs Senator Bayh his 15 minutes of fame (which includes Presidential aspirations)are up. He's like the Major League Player who stays in the game so long, and so far beyond his productive years, that the management has to embarass them into retirement. (News Flash to Rickey Henderson: I know you think you can still play, but you're 47 years old. Know when to say "When", LOL)

From SirotaBlog:

"Frankly, I hope Bayh keeps running around America inadvertently reinforcing what a weak-kneed wimp he is. Because in order for us to really get political leaders to be "tough and smart," the weak and stupid often must first embarrass themselves off the stage."

Click on the link to read the rest. Sirota nails it.

Thursday, February 09, 2006



We may be able to forgive Harold Ford Jr., for a lot of things he's done in his quest for Bill Frist's Senate seat.

Okay, maybe that's asking too much. But, as my friend Pesky Fly says on his blog, the real "moment of truth" for Harold Ford will come when he appears on Don Imus' show to discuss how African-Americans should conduct themselves at the homegoing of an African-American dignitary like Coretta Scott King.

We will get to watch Harold piss all over the legacy of African-Americans, in an effort to further ingratiate himself with white people in Tennessee who have no intention of voting for his rusty behind. But it appears Ford is immune to the rocks many of us have been throwing at him lately. Yet, that doesn't mean we stop hurling, does it.

My friend, the Minister of Intelligence has more on the subject. I'm posting his blog entry below:

Apparently Don Imus, radio host whose show is simulcast on cable news outlet MSNBC, was troubled by yesterday's Coretta King funeral. He implored the mourners to "act like Jesus," whatever that meant, and called Jimmy Carter "despicable."

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! (Actually it isn't, since the kettle has been inaccurately described in this case.)

You might find it interesting to know over the years, Imus and characters on his radio show have:

* compared the appearance of black NBA players to apes
* called award-winning black New York Times journalist Gwen Ifill "the cleaning lady"
* referred to award-winning black New York Times journalist Bob Herbert as a "quota hire"
* referred to residents of Harlem as "molignans" (the Italian equivalent of "coons")
* referred to the black wife of former Secretary of Defense William Cohen as a "big-haired ho"
* called tennis players Venus and Serena Williams "animals"

And in a July 19, 1998 interview on "60 Minutes," Imus admitted to hiring a producer specifically "to do nigger jokes" for the show.

So I'll be damned if I'm gonna let a dusty racist cracker alcoholic like Imus tell me how to mourn the loss of a leader in my community.

First of all:

When is the last time Imus has seen Jesus? So how can he tell African-Americans how to act like Him, when Imus has no relationship with Him?

Imus doesn't get to dictate the discussion regarding African-Americans unless he decides to turn himself brown, give up all his accoutrements and become one of US. Otherwise, he needs to drink his glass of STHU, and Harold Ford needs to quit engaging in enabling behavior with his continual brown-nosing of the I-Man, who, would call Ford a Nigger to his face, if he could do it and get away with it.

Thursday, February 02, 2006



I was flying to Atlanta on business today, and a passenger sitting an aisle away from me was reading Roll Call, and the following caption caught my attention:


It seems to me that the Democrats should be worrying about how they are going to keep us, the people who have supported their behinds, year after year, giving billions of dollars to elect candidates that truly represent our interests and the core values of the Party, from dropping out of the party, telling them to stick that "WE CAN DO BETTER" motto up you-know-where, and drying up the donations as a result of being let down, AGAIN.

Not worrying about the failed attempt to Filibuster the nomination of Strip Search Sam Alito.

Or making his Stepford wife cry during the hearings (shame on you, Ted Kennedy, er, I mean, Lindsay Graham!!!).

Now they're worrying about how the Republican Party is going to continue to Punk-Slap their behinds, while handing them their lunches on a hourly basis.

I say to that: BOO "FREAKING" HOO!

So what if the attempt to filibuster didn't succeed. At least twenty-two of you had the guts to go for it. Yeah, I know there were 25 who eventually voted, but I'm not giving any credit to the following Senators, because after their appearances on the Sunday talk shows, if not before, they literally had to be kicking and screaming to vote "No" on cloture:

Barack Obama
Harry Reid
Dianne Feinstein.

I'm from California. We punk-slapped Ms. Feinstein about voting No on Cloture. But then, again, the threat of Cindy Sheehan challenging her behind in the Democratic Primary may have had a lot more to do with it than those of us on the Left Coast.

Reid...hard to read Hammerin' Harry on this one. Maybe the Nevada voters let him have it in the emails and faxes.

Obama - give me a friggin' break here. The folk in Illinois reminded him not to slurp that DLC Kool-Aid in front of them on this issue. Maybe he received a "promise" Al Capone-style and possibly worthy of preventing his own "Valentine-Day Massacre."

As comedian George Lopez would say, "Why you cryin'?" At least you fought.

The way I see it, we who remain in the Democratic Party, have bigger issues to worry about, than mixing it up with the Rethugs on the Hill taking pot shots because the Senators were willing to listen to us, the People, rather than their own self-interests.

No, who we need to worry about are the 19 Democratic Senators who voted in favor of Cloture on Alito. They just confirmed George Bush's view of the American Constitution, the system of Checks and Balances, and the forming of a dictatorship:

That the Constitution is toilet paper;

He just wiped himself and this Country with it;

Now he will rub our faces in it;

Because 19 Democratic Senators gave him permission to do so. And it's disingenious for any of them to count themselves in the number who voted against confirming Alito, when the real issue was preventing his nomination from going to a full confirmation vote, and they voted "Yes" on cloture.

Sort of like, "Yes, I voted for Cloture, but I didn't vote to confirm him, either."

Sorry, Senators. YOU LOSE...BOTH WAYS.