Herman Cain is bringing out the worst venom from the liberal media and entertainment complex, and the left-wing blogosphere.
Just as we saw liberal feminists fall all over themselves to bash Sarah Palin as an insult to women, so too we see liberals who claim to be enlightened on matters of race fall all over themselves to bash Cain as an insult to blacks.
There are so many examples just this past week so I’ll let you choose:
1. Touré on The Dylan Ratigan Show, who called Cain a media whore and compared Cain to Flavor Flav:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
2. Bill Maher, who referred to Cain as a “token black“:
BILL MAHER: Big news, of course, in the Republican ranks. There is a new – I say this every week – but there is a new frontrunner: Herman Cain, Herman Cain. The Republican establishment is freaking out because their token black guy is in the league now.
3. Pam Spaulding at Firedoglake who accuses Cain of shameless tap dancing for conservative white voters:
But back to race. I’ll never understand Herman Cain and his relationship to the GOP establishment; like former puppet Michael Steele, they don’t see (or don’t care) how rancid race-based politics in the Republican party has become… [T]he Republican leadership has made its bed with the fundamentalists and nativist know-nothings, making Cain and other black Republicans curious cases that border on self-loathing.
4. Cartoonist Telnaes at The Washington Post who portrays Cain as Bull Connor holding an attack dog on a leash (h/t Dana Loesch):
5. Ulli K. Ryder, a “visiting scholar” at Brown University in Providence, quoted in The New York Times calling Cain “minstrelsy” (h/t John Nolte):
“It makes the hair on my neck stand up,” said Ulli K. Ryder, a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America at Brown University. “The larger issue that a lot of people have, and I certainly have, is that he uses a certain kind of minstrelsy to play to white audiences. Referencing negative stereotypes in order to get heard to a white audience in the 21st century is really a problem.”
It’s a tough choice. (Poll open until 5 p.m. on Sunday, October 23)
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
What is so appalling to me about Toure on MSNBC is that an African American is saying all this; the MSNBC haters – whiter than white in all their major slots until Al Sharpton was hired – find a guy to spew this hatred. And it is “okay” because a “black man” is saying it about another “black man.”
That is why I voted for that one. The others are on par with Chris Matthews and his fellow travelers, Martin Bashir, Piers Morgan with David Gregory, and their ilk.
Toure stands out to me as beyond the pale sickening. And he manages to lowers MSNBC to a new low – quite an achievement, to his shame.
Agree DINORightMarie.
There’s nothing more annoying in this world than the perpetually adolescent poseur-hipster-jivester who is nothing but a media affirmative-action case, who has done nothing in his life but string worthless sentences together, orally and written, and who has the gall to talk about a truly accomplished black man like that.
Well … there is one thing more annoying. When he also has the mandatory faux-French name. One name at that. Like a celebrity. Pathetic, thy name is Toure.
All of the above.
All of the above.
Agreed. That would have been my vote.
.
There was no *other* option Professor, so I did not vote. Because I think this one tops them all. Bashir Asks Liberal Guest ‘Do You Think Herman Cain Can Spell the Word “Iraq?”‘
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/10/21/bashir-asks-liberal-guest-do-you-think-herman-cain-can-spell-word-ira#ixzz1bYhi9ftk
Granted, there is no racial undertone to it (is there?), but this is despicable.
“By transferring electoral votes to a “national popular vote” this (NPV) “Compact” would usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally.
“Once enough states have passed the NPVC bill into law to reach the requisite 270 Electoral Votes (by totaling the EV’s of those states which pass this bill) the NPVC goes into immediate effect in the next – and all subsequent – Presidential elections. It doesn’t matter how strongly other states oppose this. We’d all have to go along, if even a minority of states pass it! • Currently, this bill has passed enough state houses to reach more than 160 EV’s – so they are well over half way to their goal right now.
According to most up-to-date information this National Popular Vote Pact has already passed 1 of the 2 required chambers in more than 30 other states- without public attention.
If their magic number of 270 EV totaling states is reached, it won’t matter how the rest of the states vote on this; nor whether other states never take up the bill; not even if other states vehemently object and oppose this action. It would be the Law of the Land!”
This sneaky scheme to upend Constitutional rights and protections of all states and their residents in selecting the nation’s leader is underway as an explicit attempt to defeat the careful Constitutional amendment process with no public knowledge, no voter input, no public referendums and no input from states which object to this measure. All NPVC takes is a portion of current state houses to make it law for all of us – always! -FOREVER!
http://gulagbound.com/22535/warningprogressives-npv-plan-for-white-house-control-happening-now-2012-permanently/
Please comment on the NPVC, Professor Jacobson. I am very surprised you have not already.
“ELECTORAL THEFT LAW ALREADY PASSED IN: CA, HA, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, RI, D.C., and most recently NY
AR, CT, DE, MI, NV, NM, NC, OR, VT (& according to NPV site CO has now passed it in both chambers and sent it to the Governor for signing.)
I’m going to look into that.
Please see comment below, which SHOULD be here.
Thank you very much Professor. It’s bad news.
Would like to see more about this topic under another post.
As for it being bad news, I don’t especially like it, but that depends on which side you are on.
Right now, being in CA, my presidential vote means nothing as no Republican is likely carry this state for the forseeable future. We (here in CA) all know this and I think it suppresses our turnout by quite as bit. There are a lot of us here, but not quite 50.1% (though I could be wrong about that — some people have estimates we are actually have a slight majority) and if our votes counted toward the national popular vote, and that determined who CA’s electoral votes had to be assigned to, I think a more of us would vote.
But as pointed out below, this movement does not undermine any constitutional protections, because there are none.
States can do what they want in this area and I think it would take an amendment to force all states to assign their electors according to a winner-take-all standard.
I’ll be interested to see how this plays out. I would not be surprised if next summer finds the national polls are against Obama, the CA legislature making a mad dash to repeal this rather than forcing our electoral votes to be given the Republican populat vote winner!
I sort of hope they don’t because I’d love to see the frothing wrath of the Libs when they see their votes going to the Republican because the national popular vote is in our favor. 🙂
I don’t like this scheme, it’s not ALWAYS and forever. The states that passed this law can rescind it ay any time.
National Popular Vote has hardly been unnoticed.
As noted, NationalPopularVote.com has been active around the country since 2006. There have been almost daily postings around the internet, and 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate. No one would be disenfranchised with National Popular Vote. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Don’t troll here. Do you work for NPV? http://reclaimtheblue.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/electoral-college-follow-up/
I’m with @kobayashi here, ALL OF THE ABOVE…
I am starting to really dislike liberals.
Leave a Comment