The Black Liberal Boomer Blog

Maybe I should just trust the polls. In my gut it doesn't make sense what I'm hearing, but if the polls are the true barometer of what's going on out there, then maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe I'm missing a lot.

Because here's what I don't quite get; more than a few pundits, news commentators, and news stories have all been pedaling the story that  the general election race between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is going to be a real nail-biter that will take us down to the wire. In earlier months, when the Republicans were doing their best to self-destruct, Obama was given a fairly comfortable lead over Romney and everyone else, but now that Romney is the clear leader the latest storyline is that the Republican troops have resigned themselves to the fact that Romney is The Guy and they are rallying behind him. And now that they are all united behind their guy, whatever reservations they may have - and there are plenty - the numbers indicate that this rallying of the conservative base around the Mittster is creating enough of a bump that Obama may have one hell of a fight on his hands come the general election campaign.

And I agree that in politics few things are certain except that they're not. The sure front-runner can be dog catcher within a matter of weeks - or days. But I must admit I'm having a  hard time understanding how this race is supposed to be so damned close. Sure, I'm an avowed Obama supporter and want the man to win a second term. But you don't have to be an Obama fan to see how much Mitt Romney has distanced himself from practically every voting constituency except for rich white folks like himself and angry not-quite-so-rich folks who just cannot stand Obama and want him out of there even if they're not that enthused about Romney. That does not equal the majority of voting age Americans.

Consider:

• Women voters now prefer Obama to Romney by a double-digit margin of at least 14 points according to one poll. More than a few say that it is virtually impossible to win an election with that many women committed to the other candidate.
• Hispanic voters favor Obama by a nearly 6 to 1 margin according to a poll conducted by FOX News Latino. Hispanics are becoming a critical constituency in states like Colorado and Arizona, let alone Texas.
• African American voters are once again expected to come out in large numbers (close to 90 percent) in favor of Obama.
• Although the rock star image has been tarnished somewhat due to the realities of politics and governing, which can be hard for the more idealistic young to stomach, it does appear that they will once again be more solidly in Obama's corner this time just like last election, although not as fervently as before. But even if they come out in lower numbers, the likelihood of them gambling on Mitt Romney this time around seems, well, remote to say the least.
• Not only are the Teamsters throwing their support behind Obama, which wasn't necessarily a shock, but they are committing thousands of door-to-door volunteers who now have the ability to knock not just on the doors of other union members but the general population. This could go a long way toward attracting the white working class that so many say are weary of Obama, especially in states like my home state Of Michigan and also Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

Once again, I'm not going to go so far out on a limb as to suggest that Obama is going to win this running away. He may not even win by the same comfortable margin as he did in 2008, due largely to the soon-to-be-seen impact of the massive voter suppression efforts that have been underway ever since Obama became President, and the disproportionate amount of funds being shoveled into the SuperPACs which Democrats simply cannot compete against. These are formidable barriers to be sure.

But even against those negatives, and factoring in disenchantment amongst the progressive block represented by those such as Prof. Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, Ralph Nader, and others, the embarrassingly tepid support of Romney amongst his base - and his pathetic campaign - make it hard to imagine how he's going to present such a massive threat to a campaigner such as Obama with a more than impressive record of achievement that is only now receiving the exposure that it should have gotten long ago. It's hard to imagine an army of enthusiastic Romney supporters swarming the nation, especially when it is Romney himself whose perpetual gaffes are providing the Obama campaign with the best negative political ads they could ever ask for. Even conservative commentator Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show 'Morning Joe' blurted out publicly during prime time that none of the Republican political leaders and heavy hitters with whom he is in regular contact believed Romney was going to win in 2012.

As for those who want to trot out the losses of incumbent President Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the loss of Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis to George H.W. Bush in 1988 to show how a Democrat can lose this, I say you can't seriously be comparing Barack Obama to either one of those gentlemen. And especially in the case of Jimmy Carter, where not only can you not compare Carter to Obama, you damned sure can't compare Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan, whose actor's charisma and base of enthusiastic support were off the charts.

Sometimes I think you have to question the polls...

Mitt may have squeaked out a win in Michigan (mostly due to stupid statements by Santorum), but as the POTUS reminded U.S. autoworkers on Tuesday, Feb 28:

• Mitt's Detroit Appearance at Ford Field Goes Bankrupt (thedspotredeux.blogspot.com)
• The 5 Biggest Lies About Obama in Mitt Romney's Michigan Victory Speech (politicususa.com)
• Barack Obama vs. 'Folks' (a.k.a. Mitt Romney) (swampland.time.com)
• Romney Wins The Battle, But May Lose The War (usnews.com)
• Mitt Romney's decisive Michigan win won't be enough to oust Obama - The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)

A few days ago Brother Mitt was back here in Michigan- or 'back home' as he likes to say when trolling for votes - and he said the cutest thing; he said that in Michigan the "trees are the right height". He also said that he loves lakes. And cars. And dogs, especially when strapped to the roof of..

OK no. He didn't say the part about the dogs. That was just mean.

But the rest? Yeah, well...he kinda did...

This is your brain. This is desperation. This is your brain on desperation.

It really doesn't get any better than this for the Democrats.

Yesterday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy when he wouldn't allow a woman to be placed as a witness for a committee hearing he was chairing about contraception. He laterdefended his decision by saying the woman's testimony would have been irrelevant because she "wasn't a member of the clergy" and therefore really wasn't qualified to be on the panel of imminently 'qualified' men. Men who were called to testify about contraception in a hearing called to 'examine' the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Because only men are qualified to testify about this religious freedom issue (Issa's words) which actually has nothing to do with women but is strictly about "what would Jesus do?" or something like that.

Riiiiiight.

In truth, the only purpose of Issa's hearing is to put Obama's new policy on trial in an election year when the Republicans are running out of issues and are stuck with a pack of bad jokes in place of candidates. Sad, but in an entertaining sort of way.

From ABC News:

“Where are the women?” the minority Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked early in the hearing.

She criticized the Republican committee chairman, Rep. Darrel Issa, for wanting to “roll back the fundamental rights of women to a time when the government thought what happens in the bedroom is their business.”

“We will not be forced back to that primitive era,” she said.

Issa bristled at the charge and said Democrats could not add their witness because she was not a member of the clergy, but a student at Georgetown. He also faulted Democrats for not submitting the name of the witness, Sandra Fluke, in time.

Among the witnesses invited by Issa to attend the hearing was a representative of the Catholic bishops, who oppose the Obama administration “accommodation” on birth-control coverage. Joining them are many other men of other religions. Not invited, complained Democrats, were representatives from the Catholic Health Association, which is run by a woman and actually runs the Catholic hospitals, nor Catholic Charities, both of which said Friday they supported the president’s plan.

Issa’s staff sent a letter to the Democrats, saying, “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes  that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”

Darrell Issa issa crazy.

At this point all I want is for the Republicans to keep handing the Democrats ammunition. They really are making this too easy.

This morning the President spoke at the University of Michigan, which is why it made sense for him to hammer as hard as he did on the critical issue of student loan debt which, as he pointed out, is now surpassing credit card debt as the number one debt burden faced by middle class families. But another thing Obama said in the speech caught my attention just as much, namely that he and his wife, First Lady Michelle Obama, would never have accomplished all that they have without the assistance of a first-rate education. Never would have happened.

This is supremely important for struggling families of color, because the Obamas, similar to most African American families, hardly came from privilege. They are well-acquainted with struggle. Matter of fact, you might even say they are on a first-name basis with financial strain and struggle. But despite their challenges, Obama was able to attend Harvard, where he excelled. His wife - and her brother Craig - both attended Princeton where they excelled as well. Obviously this education made a massive difference in all their lives, just as a college education makes a significant difference in the lives of most who are able to attend. Matter of fact, as the President pointed out in his speech, the unemployment rate of college graduates is half the national average, so that tells you something right there.

But what also tells you something is that college tuition is swiftly escalating far beyond the affordability range of many families, and that's not just Harvard or Princeton but many state institutions as well. Matter of fact, according to Obama, 40 states cut their education budgets last year, forcing state institutions to make up the difference by significantly raising tuitions, thereby putting college out of reach for many. Others are now forced to choose whether it is worth it to get a college degree if it means paying back that loan for practically the rest of their lives.

If something is not done to address this issue, this country will become even more divided along race and class lines than it is already. So many of our children are already receiving grossly inferior education in public schools that have been practically abandoned by all except the poor non-white kids who have no choice but to attend. To slam yet another door in their faces is unacceptable. But the rates of college tuition are now so high that it is not just these kids who cannot attend, but kids from slightly better off middle class families who may have even attended private schools.

If you want a better idea of what we're looking at if we continue down this road, consider what this excellent article in The Nation had to say about discrimination in education:

How Educational Redlining Works

The racial and economic segregation that sets the stage for redlining is now firmly in place. One in four American children lives in poverty, nearly 60 percent more than in 1974, and the number of people living in severe poverty has reached a record high. A national study released in 2009 found that one in fifty children in America is homeless and living in a shelter, motel, car, shared housing, abandoned building, park or orphanage. The proportions in some school districts exceed one in ten, and the number is growing rapidly.

Furthermore, this poverty is concentrated in increasingly resegregated communities and schools. More than 70 percent of black and Latino students attend predominantly minority schools, and nearly 40 percent attend intensely segregated schools, where more than 90 percent of students are minority and most are poor.

Poverty rates make a huge difference in student achievement. Few people are aware, for example, that in 2009 US schools with fewer than 10 percent of students in poverty ranked first among all nations on the Programme for International Student Achievement tests in reading, while those serving more than 75 percent of students in poverty scored alongside nations like Serbia, ranking about fiftieth.

The schools identified as low-performing not only serve a growing underclass of impoverished families; they also typically do so with fewer state and local dollars per pupil than wealthier districts around them. Unlike high-achieving nations that fund their schools centrally and equally, most American states spend three times more on their wealthiest schools than they do on their poorest.

To take a page from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., this is why we can't wait.

I'm sure most of us have heard much of this before, but during the week of the Dr. Martin Luther King Holiday, and as we ease on down the road of the 2012 campaign season, the bitter subject of mass black incarceration needs to be raised at full volume once again. Many props to one of my favorite shows, Democracy Now!, for airing this recent episode focusing on this topic, featuring longtime activist Randall Robinson and Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow.

A few things to note in the following excerpt of the interview, which should really be heard in full,  and the number one thing to note is that half of all young black men in America (or at least half in major urban areas which is where most of them are) have been incarcerated or are on parole. As Robinson points out, this not only affects their ability to vote, it has the potential to wreck the rest of their lives. If we still cherish the oft-stated belief that our children are our future then we're either looking forward to a swirling storm or a blank canvas, depending on how your glasses operate.

From Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: And let’s talk about what happens when you have a person going to prison, how that affects the rest of their life. First of all, just the astounding figures. It’s something like half the young black men in this country have been incarcerated or on parole, probation. Half?

MICHELLE ALEXANDER: Yes. Well, you know, in large urban areas, half or more than half of working-age African-American men now have criminal records and are the subject to legalized discrimination for the rest of their lives. In some cities like Chicago, it’s been estimated that nearly 80 percent of working-age African-American men have criminal records and are now part of this undercaste, a group of people, defined largely by race, that are relegated to a permanent second-class status by law.

Discrimination is bad enough, but when it becomes legalized then it borders on government-sanctioned terrorism.

What Herman Cain was gambling on (praying for on both knees with kneepads on) was that the women making these accusations of sexual harassment against him would at the very least remain anonymous and somehow bound by this agreement they apparently all signed at the behest of the National Restaurant Association years ago preventing them from saying mean and nasty things about the guy whom they claim did mean and nasty things to them.

Herman gambled. Herman lost.

Now that Sharon Bialek has come out publicly with her lawyer Gloria Allred and given a face to these accusations that Cain swears up and down simply aren't true, Cain is confronted with a variety of problems, such as how many accusations of this sort can he dismiss? The ramifications of this short-sighted approach are dealt with in more detail by my colleague Cheryl Contee in her post on the issue today. But one of the largest - and so far little-discussed - stumbling block issues that could very well cause Cain to stumble and fall is, well, the complexion of this face that Sharon Bialek has presented to the media.

Sharon Bialek is a white woman. Sharon Bialek is a blonde white woman who, from what I can see, also appears to have blue eyes. She is a single mother.

You know, Ann Coulter says that "our blacks are so much better than their blacks," and Herman Cain is the poster Negro Exhibit A for "their blacks." But brother? Let's you and me be clear on this one thing; the more credible this white woman becomes (and it doesn't have to be by much), the more I suspect you're gonna feel your neck start to itch and burn. Because if Clarence Thomas (your hero, I know) had been accused of sexually harassing a white woman? Yeah, well. Let's just say his now-famous accusation that he had become the victim of a high-tech lynching during his ultimately successful confirmation circus would have become a reality and the only bench he would be sitting on would be the one in his garage.

Sure, for now Rush Limbaugh is attacking Bialek's credibility and standing firm for House Negro Numero Uno. Others on the far right appear to be rallying to their boy's defense as well, claiming that this is just a well-orchestrated ploy. A hastily-constructed ad defending Cain makes the case that Herman must not be treated the same way they did Saint Clarence. But let's see what happens when accuser #2 steps forward and she turns out to be white as well...

I wonder what wonderful song Herman Cain plans to sing at this evening's press conference? He might want to steer clear of "Strange Fruit."

After President Obama revealed his "Can't Wait" campaign early this week, essentially utilizing the power of issuing executive orders to accomplish what reason and compromise never could with a Republican party held hostage by a certifiably insane rightwing, I have been told any number of times by friends - and foes - from the more progressive left that this is nothing to celebrate because these gift-wrapped deceptions are nothing more than chess pieces in a well-crafted yet evil campaign strategy orchestrated  by a smooth politician who wants to get re-elected in 2012.

Yep, you heard it here first; President Barack Obama is a politician behaving like a politician as he plays the political game of timing-is-everything as he greases the wheels for the  2012 presidential re-election campaign by delivering the goods at an opportune time that is likely to benefit him  politically.

So what?

The toxic word here is the word 'politician', a word now considered equally repugnant as the words 'Washington' and 'liberal'. Ever-conscious of  being on the right side of the ever-changing political word game, the demonizing of these three little words has resulted in the oft repeated lies spouted by so many national-level candidates that they are repulsed (repulsed, I tell you!) by Washington, are 'outsiders' to the Washington game, and that they are not politicians. For Democrats, who long ago caved to the Republican rightwing instead of standing up for all the benefits of liberalism, most are now obligated to maintain an arm's length distance from the 'L' word. This is the same 'L' word that is one of the cornerstones of the Democratic Party and is responsible for some of its most significant milestone accomplishments such as Social Security and Medicare. Personally I believe this Democrat buy-in to the demonization of liberalism is what laid the groundwork for the so-called Blue Dog Democrats (DINO's), who have frequently proved more than useless when it came to crunch time and we needed their support. The compromises that had to be made with the Blue Dogs to achieve passage of Obama's Health Care bill is a prime example of that.

But I'm getting off track. Here's the point; hell yes Obama is a politician. When are we going to understand what that means? Did we not know that he was a politician when he was running for office? Did we not understand that the only wayany candidate gets elected to office - especially the presidency - is by being an extremely good politician who knows how the game is played and has the ability to play it better than the competition? Did we honestly expect Obama to accomplish anything at all without acting like a politician?

President Lyndon Johnson was one of the most effective presidents in history. This was largely because he had a virtual super majority in both the House and the Senate (something Obama can only dream about), but Johnson was also one who didn't even bother trying to cast himself as an outsider to Washington ways. He was a creature of Washington in every sense of the word - both good and bad - but he never ran away from it. Nor did he run from his Texas roots and the rough-and-tumble political tactics he learned in his early days. Johnson had served as both a congressman and a senator, and he had been an aide to some of Washington's most powerful and influential political figures prior to becoming president. Johnson capitalized on his extensive knowledge of the Washington political game - and his noted arm-twisting ways - to make it all work for him. He may have been a ruthless son-of-a-bitch who throughout his career frequently exchanged political purity for expediency, but he was our son-of-a-bitch. And in the end? It was Johnson who actually got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. No way could he have accomplished any of this as an ideological purist who tried to pretend he wasn't a professional politician. And he definitely could not have gotten it done trying to be more of a Republican than a Democrat.

Because when it comes to the heavy lifting, you don't want an amateur; you want a professional.

I mean, you just have to wonder how Mitt Romney must feel right about now. Once the stage lights are off and the last interview for the day is through, the last campaign stop completed, what must it feel like?

And you know where I'm going with this. Here's a man whose father,George Romney, was a governor (Michigan's 43rd governor, 1963-1969), Republican Party powerhouse (U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 1969-1973, candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968), and a bigtime businessman  (CEO of General Motors 1954-1962). Then along comes Junior, who goes on to essentially follow in his father's career footsteps; in addition to being 70th Governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), Romney Junior also  became successful in the business world when he eventually rose through the ranks to become CEO of Bain & Company, a company which he is said to have rescued from fiscal crisis. He later co-founded Bain Capital.

So Romney comes from lots of money. He himself has lots and lots (and still lots more) money. His dad had government experience. Junior has government experience. Junior is good-looking. Junior is clean-cut. Junior's wife is an attractive blonde, and together they have five great-looking kids. Junior has a strong campaign organization. Junior has a fat campaign chest. Junior has a Colgate smile. I don't know if the family has a dog, but if they do I'm sure the little feller can perform countless amusing tricks on queue and is faithful, obedient, and can recite the pledge of allegiance in six languages.

How can this guy not be running away with the Republican nomination? Even worse, how in the hell can he be losing to a black former pizza chain owner with no government experience and a three-digit laughable excuse for a campaign platform? I think it's pretty safe to say that the Republican Party as it stands right now is essentially the rich white man's party. This party is tailor-made for fat white cats with fat bank accounts. Even many of the hundreds of thousands of Republicans who don't match that description at all still seem to be okay with that. Let's just call it guilt by association.

So then why is the black guy still at the top of the polls? The black guy with hardly any money in his campaign war chest, with no real campaign organization to speak of, and who most definitely is not a rich white man? How did this happen?

At the end of the day, sure, everybody pretty much knows Herman Cain will not be allowed to pass 'Go' on the campaign game board. The rug will eventually be pulled out from underneath his feet and the Republican troops, such as they are, will grumblingly accept the pathetic inevitability that is Mitt. That's why Cain is spending so much time selling his book and being entertaining is because he knows those entertainment fees are what is going to butter his bread once this charade is over. But even given that eventuality, how must it feel to be Mitt and to be running neck and neck with Engine Number 999 -after the almost-but-not-quite savior Texas Governor Rick Perry fell on his face and after the almost-but-not-quite-savior-who-never-was Gov. Chris Christie refused to be begged into the race. And both of these men were targeted by the Republican multitudes who wanted anybody but Mitt.

This may not last much longer, but it has already lasted more than long enough to make Mitt wonder this one simple question; when was being a wealthy white man in America with connections and family pedigree not enough to stave off a challenge from somebody like Herman Cain?

And then? Once Romney does get the nomination (assuming Ranger Rick doesn't mount a 4th quarter game changer),  he's got to go up against another brother. And this one got skillz kid!

Just what kind of an America is this, anyway?