« Bloomberg on Obama: He's the most arrogant man he's ever met | Main | Blast From The Past »

"Federal Government Needs A Chief Operating Officer"

The following is excerpted from a Washington Post op-ed by Bob Kerrey, Mark Alderman, and Howard Schweitzer. I had to read through it a couple of times in order to believe what I was actually reading. Now it's your turn:

Given the sheer size and cost of this enterprise, the federal government should borrow a page from the corporate world. The country's chief executive officer needs a chief operating officer to run the day-to-day government, to cut through budget battles, political fiefdoms, parochialism and inertia to assist the president in keeping this country moving. Let the president's chief of staff manage the White House - an enormous responsibility in itself. We need a chief operating officer to manage everything else.

... Several recent examples of government action and inaction underscore the need for a COO. Few would dispute that the Federal Emergency Management Agency failed to perform during the Hurricane Katrina tragedy and that the Minerals Management Service fell far short of its mission leading up to the Deepwater Horizon crisis this year. The COO would be responsible for ensuring that such situations do not happen again.

... What are qualifications for this position? The COO should have significant business experience as well as sensitivity to the mechanics of government. That experience would serve him or her well in managing the government's vast moving parts. Bringing an accomplished business person into the Obama administration would have the added benefit of providing private-side perspective and experience.

And so on from there. But you get the idea.

Of course the fundamental problem here is that the government already has enough chiefs and way too many indians. FEMA already has its own director, who is answerable to the Secretary of Homeland Security, a Cabinet-level position. In the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Minerals Management Service has been divided into three separate government agencies, all under the purview of the Department of the Interior, whose Secretary is also a Cabinet member. Why do we need yet another tier in the Executive Branch?

And what exactly are Bob Kerrey and his pals trying to say? Certainly they must realize that publishing this op-ed is roughly the equivalent of tugging on the nation's sleeve, and now they're pointing and whispering about the Obama Administration's most serious handicap -- the embarrassing absence of administration officials who have previously achieved a genuine level of success as business managers or entrepreneurs, combined with the now painful reality that our Chief Executive also had no meaningful track record of business, diplomatic, economic, or military accomplishments when he assumed office.

Oh, and guess who they think would be perfect for the job? Michael Bloomberg. Allahpundit writes, "In fact, what this really is -- whether they know it or not -- is a "Bloomberg for president" piece filtered through Kerrey's loyalty to his party.

The idea of a Presidential COO is just too absurd to be taken seriously. So we are left to wonder: could this really be the first not-so-subtle signal from the real Democratic party leaders (as opposed to the Chicago mob currently occupying the White House) that very few Democrats, even those with the deepest loyalty to the party, are going to continue shilling for Emperor Obama's Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat? Are they trying to tell the President, perhaps in a way that will only minimally damage his fragile ego and self-esteem, that he is not capable of handling the job?

Will it be the Democrats who ensure that Barack Obama is just a one-term president?
___________________________

UPDATE: Um ... yeah. Let the full CYA / damage control campaign begin:
Dana Milbank: "Would We Be Better Off Under A President Hillary Clinton?"


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40517.

Comments (45)

I guess they're telling Bar... (Below threshold)
JB:

I guess they're telling Barack that he is a king in need of a Prime Minister.

Unfortunately this is America. We ain't got no kings, and if Barack ain't upto the Prime Minister/President job, we can easily find someone else.

I see this as a not-so-taci... (Below threshold)
sanssoucy:

I see this as a not-so-tacit admission that Obama is an incompetent boob who's unfit to head up the executive branch.

Kerrey's answer is we should take Obama off the hot-seat by appointing someone to run the government for him.

My answer is "fire Obama" and get a new president who's up to the job.

How appropriate that the pa... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

How appropriate that the party which is shamelessly wedded to ever larger government now tells us the government is too large to be overseen by one executive. Of course, the solution is - even MORE bureaucracy. No Mr Kerrey what is really at play here is that the CEO has been found to be incompetent/lazy/stubborn and completely unaware of the "company's" basic mission. So this past Tuesday the board of directors - the American electorate - submitted a collective vote of no confidence and continued poor performance could result in dismissal maybe, oh, in 2 years or so. A very generous period of time. It would probably serve Mr Obama well to re-read the mission statement of his "company" and if he doesn't have a copy there is one on public display at the National Archives.

If Mr Kerrey really wants to be serious in his analogy why does he ignore the concept of down-sizing? That has certainly made many companies leaner and more efficient and would seem to better solve his concerns than another layer of bureaucracy.

Wisdom as per Woody Allen: ... (Below threshold)

Wisdom as per Woody Allen: Ninety percent of life is just showing up. Barack Obama wants to president without having to be bothered with that showing up thing. Obama is uneducated, arrogant and lazy.

Maybe if there was a Presid... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Maybe if there was a President who had some experience actually leading something (other than his mighty campaign), producing something, creating jobs, then this wouldnt be a problem.
Instead we have Obama.

Hmmm an executive to head t... (Below threshold)

Hmmm an executive to head the Executive Branch. Not a bad idea actually. But definitely too important a position to leave to the whole Senate advise and consent system. I think we need to come up with a way for the people to select the executive.

How about this, the people vote for an executive. We'll call it "an election" and have one every four years.

That ought to work.

The Milbank article wasn't ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

The Milbank article wasn't too far off the mark as far as what Hillary might have done as President. However, it presumes that the howling on the right wouldn't have been as loud. I disagree.

Instead of email pictures of witch doctors we'd have photoshopped pictures of a red-faced Hillary having hot flashes. Instead of "birthers" and "secret Muslim" conspiracy theorists we'd have a revival of the zombie corpse of Vince Foster. And ANY attempt at health care reform would still have been derided as "socialism ZOMG!!!"

All ginned up by corporate interests, as they have been the last two years, to promote their lackeys in the GOP. And swallowed whole by rubes who imagine themselves a part of a "grass roots movement." Oh, they might not have taken the form of "tea parties," with buffoons in tricorner hats, but they would have been just as persistent, and perhaps as successful, as they were under Obama's presidency.

Before Obama rose to prominence, the right wing blogosphere and media was filled with dire predictions of what would happen if that "harpy," "shrew," "bitch" Hillary Clinton became President. I'm pretty sure that it would be just as hysterical today as it was then, if the Clinton candidacy had prevailed.

This shows that, despite wh... (Below threshold)
recovered liberal democrat:

This shows that, despite what the liberal/statist say, they know they are in trouble for 2012. They have an albatross around their neck and it is Obamalala. They are in full damage control and it is fun to watch.

Bruce,Identity polit... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Bruce,
Identity politics being what it is for the Democrats they were going to make an historic decision either way. The first African-American president or the first woman President. The Republicans would have taken their shots at Hillary but less face it. She is clearly a much more seasoned and canny politician than Obama and although the MSM would have supported her as they do Obama I think she's much better at taking care of herself as well. And she is also married to the best politician the Democrats have had in a long time. Can I surmise Pelosi would have not been allowed to compromise a Clinton presidency as she has the Obama presidency?

As far as your comment about grass-roots movements, your political persuasion is loaded with them as well. The problem is their agenda is much less palatable to the average American so it is very important to keep them in the attic.

DaveD:Good points.... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

DaveD:

Good points.

What I mean, DaveD, is, "go... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

What I mean, DaveD, is, "good point." Singular.

Hillary IS a more seasoned and canny politician than Obama.

But when you say, "Republicans would have taken their shots" at her I believe you underestimate the creativity of the Noise Machine. I'm pretty sure there would have been a "movement" comparable to the Tea Party if Hillary had become President and Obama was still a junior Senator awaiting another opportunity.

So the net result may have been close to the same, as far as midterm elections go. Maybe not, because latent misogyny is less prevalent than latent racial mistrust, but the attack dogs would have sure tried.

Used to be that the ruling ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Used to be that the ruling class would argue that you needed to be a career politician in order to really understand government and run it properly. This argument was intended to keep the outsiders from spoiling the fun that the ruling class was having with our money.

Now they are arguing that they are not competent to run the government they have created and we need an unelected manager to do it for them.

I think we can consign this to the same ash heap that contains ideas like "we should let obama be a dictator for a while so he can get stuff done", "If only we could be China for a day" (although today, if you meant having a more sound economy and a promise of affluence that sounds more appealing).

This is just another attempt by dems to circumvent elections and create an unelected permanent liberal government.

Didn't the American public ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Didn't the American public elect 'an executive officer'?

Maybe those 3 liberal elites of the WaPo can also point out where such a job is described in the Constitution.

On the bright side, it would give Barry more time to work on his golf game and take exotic trips with Michelle.

Kerrey and crew are true to... (Below threshold)
OldflyerG8r:

Kerrey and crew are true to their nature. The U.S. Constitution, and the attendant form of government must be abandoned. Why, we can look around the world and see much better results from more effective governments. I mention: China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, as examples. Then there are the UK, Greece, France and numerous others of a more benign nature that we could emulate.

Then again, there were times in our history that were much more challenging than the present; yet our system functioned successfully. I suspect that the designers envisioned that the President would appoint a cabinet of individuals with experience and competence in certain disciplines, who would serve both as Advisers and Heads of Departments. Our current Leader seems to have missed that point.

One other point in the grand design that Supereme Leader has clearly missed. It was never envisioned that the President would exercise dominion over every facet of every citizen's affairs. Hmm! Maybe there is a way to reduce his workload.

Here's something else to co... (Below threshold)

Here's something else to consider:

If the government is too damned large for the person elected to run it - maybe the answer is to make the government smaller.

Just a thought.

On the other hand, it's nic... (Below threshold)

On the other hand, it's nice to see a bunch of liberals asserting that Katrina wasn't Bush's fault. If he had a COO everything would have gone perfectly.

"Maybe not, because latent ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"Maybe not, because latent misogyny is less prevalent than latent racial mistrust, but the attack dogs would have sure tried."

Bruce,
Please, enough with the labels. They seriously detract from what is potentially a cogent argument. I do not believe racism is any more prevalent among conservatives than liberals. That is a myth. Let me just list Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, JC Watts. These men are hardly marginalized. Just because conservatives do not lower expectations for certain ethnic groups does not make them racist. The same can be said of misogyny.

Well, even without the labe... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, even without the labels, DaveD, is there any reason to suppose that the attacks on Hillary from the right, in Milbank's alternate "what if" scenario, would be any less shrill, persistent, imaginative, or cynical than those on Obama are today?

And you may not believe it, Dave, but there is quite a lot of evidence to prove the adage "Not all conservatives are racists, but most racists are conservatives," nowadays.

Unless you buy into Wizbang's famous "He who smelt it, dealt it" theory of racism-detection, in which liberals are the real racists because they acknowledge that racism still exists. Which of course is circular nonsense, but gets a lot of play in the comments here.

Bruce, you want racism? How... (Below threshold)

Bruce, you want racism? How about this? How many Obama supporters voted FOR him pretty much solely because of his race? How many of Obama's policies and ideas would be embraced by his detractors if they were proposed by a white guy? How many corrupt members of the Congressional Black Caucus would have been bounced years ago if they were NOT black?

You keep bringing up Obama's race (well, technically, half his race) as if it's some kind of liability. For his entire career, it's been an asset. It's been his biggest asset. Sometimes, it's his only asset.

That's why I don't like to bring up his race -- it only helps him. And I don't believe in judging someone based on the color of their skin -- either favorably or disfavorably.

Give it a try some time.

J.

Is "disfavorably" a word? W... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Is "disfavorably" a word? What happened to "unfavorably"? ;)


How many Obama supporters voted FOR him pretty much solely because of his race?"

Well, considering he got about 97% support from black voters as opposed to Kerry's 88%, I would say about 9%. Or roughly the same percentage as the number of people who voted AGAINST him "pretty much solely because of his race."

"How many of Obama's policies and actions would be embraced by his detractors if they were proposed by a white guy?"

That's unknowable, but I would guess "some." And there would probably BE fewer detractors if he were a white guy.

How many corrupt members of the Congressional Black Caucus would have been bounced years ago if they were not black?"

I know what your point is here, but I can't resist pointing out that they wouldn't be members of the CBC if they were "not black." But anyway, that's unknowable too. Didn't seem to help the guy with cash in his freezer.

Maybe it's because I'm almost 20 years older than you, Mr Tea, or maybe because I'm a Southerner and you've apparently never left New England, but in the America I know, being black is rarely an "asset," as you put it. More like an obstacle in others' perception, to be overcome.

As demonstrated by the same tired examples of black conservatives dragged out by DaveD above. Every time black conservatives are mentioned we hear about mediocrities like Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, or the creme de la creme of middlebrow thought, Clarence Thomas. Got anybody ELSE?

Gee it's like the attacks f... (Below threshold)
John:

Gee it's like the attacks from the left for 8 years of GWB's presidency were not shrill. Please politics is blood sport if Obama's skin is too thin maybe he's in the wrong job.

Bruce,Racism has b... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,

Racism has been institutionalized in the dem party since before the Civil War.

Dems are the only party demanding that we keep black kids stuck in worthless inner city schools. Dems were the ones in favor of busing black kids on the theory that putting them in classes next to white kids would make them do better in school.

Dem filibustered the Civil Rights act and blocked the creation of the civil rights commission. They were the ones that passed the Jim Crow laws.

But today we teach in our schools that the "GOP is the party of slavery". I actually had a staff member proclaim that her "Black Studies" professor had taught her that. Sorry to say that I had to correct her and inform her that Lincoln was a Republican and that the very notion of the GOP (a party founded in part on an abolitionist platform) was the party of slavery was nonsense.

All that to say this: The dems have been, still are, and likely will continue to be the party that sees minorities as a group to be exploited and not as individuals who deserve a fair shot at the American Dream. Dems see minorities as people who cannot make it without a hand out. They see minorities like they do the disabled: as people who need to have special accommodations made for them so they can hold a job and earn a living. Dems do not believe that a minority can stand on his own ability and achieve the same success as a white person and that is not merely because of the existence of racism but also because of discrimination.

If you say this is not true then tell me why some minorities are more in need of the dems to help them than others? Why are Asians not getting the same help as blacks? Why aren't Indians (from India) getting that help? Why are all those minorities found in the GOP? Why has the GOP elected 2 governors of Indian descent? Why has the GOP elected more Asians to congress? Why is the dem caucus so white when the vast majority of their seats are found in the inner cities dominated by black voters? Why does Massachusetts not have a single black in its 100% dem congressional delegation despite the fact that the state is 12% black?

While on the subject of Massachusetts: Why was the first black senator elected a Republican from MA? What the dems couldn't nominate an African American in 1966?

Don't go telling me that the GOP or conservatives are racist. The real racism is predominantly on he left. It always has been.

"but in the America I know,... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"but in the America I know, being black is rarely an "asset," "

Gee Bruce, in the America I know being Black doesn't mean anything. Neither does being, white or Asian, or Indian, or Hispanic...

The whole point is that the dems are the ones obsessed (really, pathologically obsessed) with race. If I'm interviewing someone I want to know if they can do the job, not worry about the racial diversity of my staff. I look at their ability and not at what color their skin is or where they grew up.

Stop worrying about tales of grievance and how someone somewhere else was not treated fairly and start making sure that we focus on character. THAT is what counts.

MLK Jr didn't have a dream that one day his children would live in a country that counted their skin color an "asset". Stop trying to make the US that kind of a country and start making it one where character counts.

"Or roughly the same percen... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Or roughly the same percentage as the number of people who voted AGAINST him "pretty much solely because of his race.""

PROVE IT!

Citations please.

But that all leads me to my... (Below threshold)
jim m:

But that all leads me to my next point:

Would the dems be saying that Barry needs help if he wasn't black? Why does someone they billed as the greatest intellect ever to sit in the oval office need help?

And Bruce why are black conservatives "Mediocrities"? So we can add Senator Edward Brooke to the list of mediocrities then?

I could list out politicians, Judges, Athletes, entertainers, businessmen, authors etc. All have been successes in their fields. All are African American. All are conservative. all would be considered "mediocrities" by you on account of their skin color and conservative views.

That alone is a clear admission of your own racism Bruce.

Well, Jim, we've had the ar... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, Jim, we've had the argument before about history, and the fact that the Democratic Party of the 19th and 20th centuries (most of it, anyway) had a racist wing, with guys like Wallace, Bilbo, Stennis, and, yes, Byrd.

I know you are not so stupid as not to understand that that history has little to do with the positions of the parties since, oh, say, 1965 or so. You just pretend, here on Wizbang, that the Democratic Party who in 2008 nominated and elected Barack Obama is the same Democratic Party who stood athwart history in 1868. You're not that stupid, so I have to assume you're disingenuous. Because it's one or the other, Jim.

As for your arguments about how "Dems see minorities" I just have to say, "There you go again, explaining what others think." How about if you just tell us what YOU think and refrain from the Amazing Kreskin act?

To your questions, those are interesting. Perhaps the Indian thing has to do with the fact that most Indians have come here SUBSEQUENT to the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s and so have not had to overcome as many centuries of prejudice as have previous waves of immigrants, and, especially, black and Latino folks. Even so, hang around any restaurant break room or salesman's hangout and you'll hear plenty of anti-Indian slurs being thrown about.

Now, as to Edmund Brooke, the senator from Massachussetts, being a Republican, perhaps it was because, in those days, there WAS such a thing as a Liberal Republican. There were many, both black and white. And those who haven't died or switched parties have long since been purged from the GOP. As the racist Democrats from the Sixties were.

Re # 25:"The Dems"... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 25:

"The Dems" aren't saying "Barry needs help." The 3 guys who wrote this WaPo article are. And they're not saying it specific to Obama, but referring to any modern president. At least that's how I read it.

"hang around any restaurant... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"hang around any restaurant break room or salesman's hangout and you'll hear plenty of anti-Indian slurs being thrown about."

Really?

What kind of places do you hang out in? My first jobs in college were in restaurants and we didn't tell racial jokes like that. I worked for a decade in sales and we never told jokes like that. Maybe it is just the kind of people you hang with Bruce. Maybe that says more of your character than it does of society.

The GOP is more open to minorities as people than the dems. The dems look at minorities and try to divide them from the rest of society. Dems tell them to "Punish their enemies" and appeal to racial bitterness like Loretta Sanchez did. No I don't think that the dem party is the same as it was in the 1860's. But the apple didn't fall far from the tree. One only has to look at the racial remarks of Harry Reid or Joe Biden to realize that these men look down on blacks as inferiors and expect them to be servants and not equals.

Again the dems ad libs in general focus obsessively on race. The GOP and conservatives endeavor to look at the individual and the ability and character of that person. It is the focus on race that keeps racism alive. Libs are so focused on the tree at the side of the road that they keep driving right into it.

Ever see "Glengarry Glen Ro... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Ever see "Glengarry Glen Ross," Jim? Or "Waiting"?

I'm glad you have never had to live and work with racist creeps as I have, Jim, but because you (claim to) have never run into them does not mean they're not a huge swath of the population. While it's true that racism is not something to be worn on one's sleeve nowadays, it's hardly disappeared. It just has been pushed below the surface. Hell, even David Duke claims not to have a low opinion of black people per se, because even HIS followers claim not to be racists.

As for the GOP being more open to minorities, is that why they routinely get only 5-10% of the black vote? Or are black people so stupid that eevil Dems can fool or bribe them for 60 years? Is that why the GOP percentage of the Latino vote keeps shrinking, election after election, including this most recent one? Are Latinos stupid and easily fooled, too?

"Every time black conservat... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Every time black conservatives are mentioned we hear about mediocrities like Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, or the creme de la creme of middlebrow thought, Clarence Thomas."

Yeah! Franklin Raines, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Cold Cash Jefferson, et al. Real upstanding examples of liberalism.

Right Bruce?

And when am I going to see that citation?

Besides never.

"No I don't think the dem p... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"No I don't think the dem party is the same as it was in the 1860s."

So why do you keep trying to pretend, in every thread dealing with the subject, that it is? Not stupidity, so you admit it's disingenuousness.

Garand Fan, you're usually ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Garand Fan, you're usually OK, but on this thread, you're annoying. I'll post a citation proving how many voted for or against Obama "pretty much solely because of his race" about when you do, Mr Prosecutor. One assertion is about as provable as the other. Would you guess that NONE of the people who voted for McCain did so because Obama was black? None? Really? Wouldn't you think that the two groups would be roughly equivalent? If not, why not?

And the SPECIFIC examples of black conservatives cited by DaveD are, indeed, mediocrities in my book. Like I said, got any others?

Bruce,If by easily... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Bruce,

If by easily fooled you would mean that dems pander to special interest groups and through promises of graft and patronage secure their votes by promising some minor pecuniary advantage, while passing legislation that keeps them trapped in poverty and poor schools. Yes.

I don't think it is a racial thing. I think it is a strategy that the dems have used for years to divide the electorate by promising targeted graft and ignoring the real issues. Just like Barney Frank claimed that there was no housing crisis when he was pushing for mortgages to be given to minorities that could not afford them. Dems promise for short term gains for the few while working to the long term disadvantage of all.

"I'll post a citation provi... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"I'll post a citation proving how many voted for or against Obama "pretty much solely because of his race" about when you do, Mr Prosecutor."

In other words, your full of shit with your assertion of "fact". Let's face it Bruce, neither you or I know what's in peoples minds....well, maybe just me. Liberals always seem to know what's in the minds of others.

That 97% of Blacks voted for Barry is a "fact". As to "why"......that's subject to opinion. But were 97% of Whites to vote for McCain, that is no longer "fact", that just PROVES the racism of whites. At least according to liberals.

Bruce, I meant "tossed out ... (Below threshold)

Bruce, I meant "tossed out of Congress," as I know the only reason for getting booted from the CBC is straying off the liberal plantation.

And as far as your different perspective, perhaps it's because you're a superannuated old fart who can't accept that the world has changed from the days when you were younger and cogent. That the racist world you grew up in is no more.

I understand that at your advanced age, you don't want to admit that change has come, and you're more comfortable with pretending that things are just as they ever were.

Sorry, Charlie. The nation has grown up and moved on, and dinosaurs like you who want to constantly re-fight the old struggles need to accept that. 'Cuz no amount of your "respect your elders, you young punks!" is not gonna convince us to put on the mantle of your old foes just to make you feel better.

Now go find somewhere else to spend your time and your Social Security money, Bruce. Enjoy it, because I sure as hell don't expect to collect one red cent of what I've paid in, largely thanks to people like you.

J.

(Sorry you brought up the age difference now?)

"As demonstrated by the sam... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"As demonstrated by the same tired examples of black conservatives dragged out by DaveD above. Every time black conservatives are mentioned we hear about mediocrities like Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, or the creme de la creme of middlebrow thought, Clarence Thomas. Got anybody ELSE?"

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_Republicans

Here you go boys: Race a... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Here you go boys: Race and voting for Obama
Of course the poll depends on people being honest like any other. I think the number is likely low both for and against, so to speak.

I have to admit, Mr Tea, th... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I have to admit, Mr Tea, that I'm no master of snark when compared to you. A little mean-spirited of you, considering how nice I've been lately, but I can handle being called names like "old fart" just fine.

I do envy the fact that you live in a world where racism disappeared between what, 1980 and 1992? Is that when America "grew up and moved on"?

Anyway, I sidetracked this thread into an argument about racism (sorry) when what I meant to express is disagreement with Milbank's fantasy that there would be more bipartisanship and less vitriol had Hillary been president instead of Obama. My contention is that Hillary would have endured just as much, and as vicious, vituperation, and much of it would have "worked," just as the bogus charges od libislamunistofascism have "worked" against Obama. But instead of race being the subtext, it would have been the fact of Hillary's gender.

Can't get your link to work... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Can't get your link to work, Mr Wuzzy.

And DaveD, your list of Afr... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And DaveD, your list of African American Republicans includes Sojourner Truth, Harriett Tubman, and Frederick Douglass. Just a leeeetle out of date. Never heard of most of the rest of 'em. Have you?

No, Bruce, racism didn't di... (Below threshold)

No, Bruce, racism didn't disappear. What happened was, it became unacceptable. Which means that your side won.

That doesn't mean that "my side" lost. I wasn't part of that fight. I probably would have been on your side for that fight, but we'll never know.

But you can't seem to accept that. You want to keep re-fighting the battles you won years ago.

There's a term in sales that you need to learn -- "never sell past the close." Once you've won a sale, stop trying to sell. Selling is persuading, and once you have won the other side to your side, you can only then convince them to change their minds.

What the left has done, Bruce, is utterly devalue the charge of "racism." It's been so overused, that it's now used as a derisive badge of honor -- "hey, a leftist called me a RAAAAACIST! I've made it!"

I don't laugh at racism. I despise it. What I laugh at are those folks like you who see it everywhere (or, at least, act like you see it everywhere) and try to use it to suppress your opponents when you have nothing else to try.

Find a new tool, Bruce. This one's worn out and way, way past its expiration date.

J.

Well, like I said, Mr Tea, ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, like I said, Mr Tea, I didn't really mean to get off on the subject. I think I screwed up about comment # 11.

Now, your conservative commenters could have shook their heads and said "Silly liberal..." but instead launched a full-throated defense of their non-racism, complete with references to 19th century Democratic Party history. Oh, and lists of African American Republicans largely from the distant past. The saying "methinks the lady doth protest too much" comes to mind.

Here's a link for you Bruce... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Here's a link for you Bruce with some more recent names on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_conservatism_in_the_United_States

I suppose you would call the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court a mediocrity. But I'll bet you wouldn't call him that if he were a dem. Just more evidence of your racism.

So what you "bet" is eviden... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So what you "bet" is evidence now, Jim?

I'll bet a bet of my own. I bet you get out of jury duty a lot.

Next time you argue about racism, see if you can make an argument without the "Democratic Party of the 19th Century" canard. I'll bet you can't. Or rather, won't. No matter how dishonest you know it is.

And I never said all black conservatives were mediocrities. I said the guys DaveD used as examples, and also Thomas, were. And they are.

Tired-talking-point-repeaters Elder and Sowell, and the sphinx-like Thomas, are indeed mediocre thinkers. In that regard, they are no different than most white conservatives.

Bruce, you are entitled to ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Bruce, you are entitled to your opinion. The irony is that your racism/misogyny argument is as much a "tired" liberal talking point as you believe my mention of Elder, Sowell, et al.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy