Will White Racism Put a White Man In the White House?

Does Mitt Romney approve of THIS message?

I’ve been asked by my Republican friends to refrain from criticizing all of them and instead single out individuals or simply say “some Republicans, not all Republicans.”

I can do that.  Some Republicans are racist assholes.   One specific Republican who is a fucking racist asshole is John Sununu, the chairman of Mitt Romney’s campaign.   Following Colin Powell’s endorsement of President Obama for a second term, Sununu was interviewed by CNN’s clownish Piers Morgan.

You would expect Team Romney to shrug off the former Bush Administration Secretary of State supporting their rival, but Sununu, a man with a breathlessly nasty temperament couldn’t refrain from showing just how nasty he is.

MORGAN: “Colin Powell has decided to opt for President Obama again, despite apparently still being a Republican. Is it time he left the party?”

SUNUNU: “Well, I’m not sure how important that is. I do like the fact that Colin Powell’s boss, George Herbert Walker Bush, has endorsed Mitt Romney all along. And frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder if that’s an endorsement based on issues, or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.”

MORGAN: “What reason would that be?”

SUNUNU: “Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.”

That’s today’s Republican Party.  There’s nothing too reactionary or inflammatory or just flat-out stupid someone with an “R” after their  name can say that goes too far.    Is Sununu backing Romney because he’s of his own race?   For far too long it’s been thrown in the face of Black supporters of Obama that, “You’re voting for him because he’s Black.”   Which is crap.   I’m voting for Obama because he’s not Mitt Romney.

Hey Mitt. Put a muzzle on your dog.

Whites vote for candidates for no reason than they’re White and that’s accepted as standard operating procedure.   Blacks are supposed to apologize and explain why they support someone who looks like them.  Could it be the content of his character, not the color of his skin, makes Obama the best man for the job?

Not to shitheads like Sununu.    Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told liberal talk show host Ed Schultz “My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people, not all of them, but most of them, who are still basing their decision on race,” Wilkerson said. “Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists.”

“And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House  has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable.”

President Obama refused to bite Sununu’s race-bait.   In a radio interview Obama said, “I don’t think that there are many people in America who would question Gen. Powell’s credibility, his patriotism, his willingness to tell it straight.  So any suggestion that Gen. Powell would make such a  profound statement in such an important election based on anything other than what he thought would be best for America doesn’t make much sense.”

The Republican Party is not racist.  Republicans are not by nature any more racist than Democrats.   But racists are voting Republicans and when Romney allows his people to race-bait in such an overt way it speaks volumes on how little he cares when his campaign wallows in craven appeals to bigotry.

Not only do anti-Black attitudes still exist, they have been growing and thriving since America elected its first Black president.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.

Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some Americans’ more favorable views of blacks.

Powell and his peeps hangin’ out.

Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.

In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.

“As much as we’d hope the impact of race would decline over time … it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago,” said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.

Romney will never say he wants anyone to vote for him because he’s White, but he certainly knows he will get a lot of votes because he is.

Race matters and racism matters as well.  What some suspected, many already knew: if Obama will get Black votes because he’s Black, it’s equally true that he won’t get votes from Whites because he’s Black.

This has nothing to do with party affiliation.  There are Democrats who won’t support a Black candidate too.   The sentiment that there needs to be a White man in the White House doesn’t have to be said out loud.   It hangs in the air unsaid, but clear.

If Obama loses, White racism won’t be the reason.   But it will be one of the reasons.

Advertisements

GLAAD’s Outrageously Selective Outrage

Kirk says for gays it doesn't get better.

Like an example of double standards and selective outrage?  Me too.  Here’s one case of it in action.

LOS ANGELES, March 4 (TheWrap.com) – Former “Growing Pains” star Kirk Cameron‘s negative comments on homosexuality and gay marriage, made Friday on CNN’s “Pier Morgan Tonight,” have drawn a rapid response from GLAAD.

Cameron said he thought homosexuality was “unnatural.”

“I think that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization,” the actor told Morgan.

Cameron, who is an evangelical Christian, also spoke out against gay marriage.

“Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either,” Cameron said. “So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.”

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement Saturday in response to the actor’s appearance on the CNN program.

“In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character,” Herndon Graddick, senior director of programs at GLAAD, wrote “Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”

Graddick also addressed Cameron’s remarks regarding gay marriage.

“With an increasing number of states recognizing marriage equality, Americans are seeing that marriage is about committed couples who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for each other and that gay and lesbian couples need equal security and legal protections. That’s not ‘redefining’ anything.”

In brief remarks to TMZ Saturday night, Morgan called Cameron “brave” to voice his beliefs. Morgan said he feels Cameron “was honest to what he believed” even if most people find his views to be “antiquated.”

When Roland Martin tweeted remarks GLAAD considered homophobic and possibly an incitement to gay bashing, they unleashed their rap on him leading to CNN suspending him indefinitely, despite Mr. Martin’s apology.

GLAAD gives Piers Morgan a pass on enabling homophobia.

Piers Morgan gives Kirk Cameron a forum to call homosexuality “unnatural,” “detrimental” and “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization” and though a has-been, hack actor like Cameron gets the GLAAD smack down, why is Morgan given a pass for telling TMZ Cameron’s remarks were “brave” and “honest?”  Does the qualifier that they were “antiquated” give Morgan a pass from Martin’s apology does not?

Seems like GLAAD has their own evolving standards when it comes to Martin’s silly Tweets and  Morgan’s tacit approval of Cameron’s clear and present homophobia.   What’s the lesson to be learned here?   It’s a bad thing when a Black CNN contributor implies homophobia but it’s okay when a White CNN host applauds it?

How can GLAAD plausibly criticize a nobody like Cameron while giving Morgan a pass?   I could care less what a nobody like Cameron says.  This is a guy who attacked Steven Hawking and John Lennon for not believing in heaven.  To go after the former teen idol of Growing Pains while saying nothing about Piers Morgan, the enabler and defender of Camerion’s bigotry makes no sense.  Or maybe it does if GLAAD figures they’ve bagged their quota of CNN personalities by getting Martin off the air.

GLAAD apparently considers the sin lies in making remarks they consider offensive.  But if you give the homophobe a forum and defend his right to be homophobic, it’s no harm, no foul.

Or maybe the simplest answer is it’s true that hypocrisy IS the greatest luxury and GLAAD is more willing to take on homophobic remarks when they’re coming from self-described Christians like Martin and Cameron and tolerate them when Morgan sticks up for bigotry.

The White privilege card.  Don’t leave home without it