MichaelFauntroy.com

Mike's Minute: It's Over for Clinton

Click here to listen to the first installment of "Mike's Minute" a new audio feature of MichaelFauntroy.com.  Here's a snippet --

It’s over.  I know Senator Clinton is talking about continuing her quest for the Democratic nomination, but the reality is that the outcome of yesterday’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina have, for all intents and purposes, closed the door on her.  She didn’t win by enough in the Hoosier state and lost by too much in the Tar Heel state.  That’s not the kind of performance that will neutralize or inspire wavering superdelegates.  As a result of last night’s primaries, it is now impossible to see her winning nomination without the kind of fight that will hurt the party for a generation or more.

"Mike's Minute" is a new audio commentary exclusively available on MichaelFauntroy.com.  Tell a friend.

For Justice, Dems Must Win the White House in 2008

Much has been made of recent polling data which suggest a substantial number of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters will stay home or vote for John McCain if their favored candidate does not win the Democratic nomination.  While I think those polls are meaningless this far out from the election, I do think it's important to impress upon anyone so inclined to stay home or vote McCain the importance of getting behind the Democratic nominee, whomever it is.

One of the biggest motivations to support the nominee is the makeup of the federal courts.  While most people focus on to the U.S. Supreme Court -- understandably so when one considers the symbolism and finality of its rulings -- I think more attention should be given to who gets on the federal district courts and the courts of appeal. 

If you believe that a President McCain will appoint people to the federal bench who are similar to those installed by President George W. Bush -- and, given that McCain is more conservative than Bush (admittedly a distinction without much of a difference) -- then read Silja J.A. Talvi's article on Gustavus Adolphus "Gus" Puryear IV, a 39-year-old blue blood awaiting confirmation for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.  Puryear is the wealthy general counsel of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the notorious private prison operator.  A Black woman, Estelle Richardson, was beaten to death in a CCA facility so viciously that the medical examiner who oversaw the autopsy likened her injuries to those seen in a fall from a car accident.  Puryear led the CCA's defense and his appointment will result in an inside man serving on the bench there to defend CCA and other such prison-industrial complex profiteers.

According to the story,

Under Puryear's direction, a bevy of outside lawyers was already hard at work so as to minimize the damage to CCA. Medical experts were brought in to challenge chief medical examiner Dr. Bruce Levy's original autopsy conclusions about the injuries indicating that she had been murdered, who reported that her fatal injuries were several days old and thus could have been self-inflicted or caused by earlier fights with prisoners. CCA's hired pathologist, Dr. William McCormick, went so far as to postulate that the "cause of the rib and liver injuries is almost certainly the resuscitative attempts made on Ms. Richardson."

So, if you're a Clinton supporter who won't vote for Obama or an Obama supporter who won't vote for Clinton or if you don't think it matters who wins the presidency because nominations to the federal bench aren't that big of a deal, then click here to be re-educated.

So Mr. McCain, where do you stand on the confirmation of Gustavus Adolphus "Gus" Puryear, IV?

 

N.B. The opposition to Puryear's nomination is getting organized and likely to be a factor in the nomination fight.  Puryear's qualifications are scant at best.  Stay tuned.

Cuba's Future

While this is a domestic policy blog, I do find some international stories irresistible. Here's one on some of the changes that are taking place in Cuba.

Raul Castro has loosened things a bit in Cuba and, while it's unclear what real changes will take place, I think the changes should be closely watched.

McCain's Pastor Problem

While I think entirely too much has been made of the link between Senator Barack Obama and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I can't help but notice how little has been made of the support Senator John McCain is receiving from televangelist John Hagee.  McCain has been allowed to slide unscathed despite the support of the incredibly controversial Hagee by while the media make roadkill out of Obama and Wright.  Newsweek has put together a very interesting story profile of Hagee and his beliefs.  While Hagee doesn't have the history with McCain that Wright has with Obama, it's difficult to see how Hagee's beliefs won't be problematic for McCain in the general election.  Here are a few snippets --

"When someone endorses me, that does not mean that I endorse everything he stands for and believes in," McCain said last month. "I don't have to agree with everyone that endorses my campaign." But that may seem insensitive to those who have been offended by Hagee's more controversial positions. The pastor has made some outrageous comments. He called the Catholic Church, among other things, "the great whore" and "a false cult system." Hagee says his comments were taken out of context; he says he was not referring to modern Catholicism, but to what he says were the anti-Semitic views of the Catholic Church in the past. The Catholic League, which published a list of Hagee's "slurs" against the church, has called on McCain to renounce the endorsement.         

Hagee also has strong views about the Middle East. He believes the United States has a Biblical obligation to support Israel, and he has advocated a pre-emptive strike on Iran to protect the Jewish state. He opposes a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, suggesting that if Washington backs such a plan, God might punish Americans by dispatching terrorists. "If God brings this nation into judgment," he warns in an undated video on YouTube.com, "he will very likely release the terrorists you've let get here through the ridiculous immigration policy you refuse to stop, and this nation is going to go through a bloodbath."

You can read the story here.

Report: Mandela on U.S. Terrorist Watch List

Blow up the terrorist watch list.  Get rid of it.  It’s a joke.  It doesn't appear to pass the "common sense" test and has provided far too many examples of the wrong person being detained for the wrong reason.

We’ve all heard of well known people being stopped at the airport and detained because their names have turned up on the terrorist “no fly” list.  I scratched my head in disbelief that Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative John Lewis were stopped at airports.  I know conservatives can’t stand either of them and have tried to portray these and other liberals as America haters.  But, really, is there any reason to believe that they are in cahoots with the bad guys?  I have gone from scratching my head in disbelief to outrage after reading a USA Today story that noted former political prisoner, Nobel Peace prize winner, former South African President, and world icon Nelson Mandela is on the U.S. terrorist watch list.  You read that right: Mandela is on the list and can’t come to the U.S. without special permission.  The current administration will certainly go down as one of the worst ever, but the incompetence that resulted in Mandela being placed on this list is a stunning and redefines ineptness.  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the revelation “embarrassing.”  I call it ridiculous.

The pathetic bureaucratic reasoning behind the listing seems to be residue from the African National Congress' (ANC) efforts to end Apartheid.  Conservative apologists for the Apartheid regime successfully branded the ANC as a terrorist organization because it had the audacity to accept assistance from nations with which the U.S. had frosty relations.  It was ridiculous then to brand the ANC a terrorist organization and is even moreso now.  After all, the ANC has been the governing party in South Africa for more than 15 years and we have full diplomatic relations with the nation.

According to the story:

When ANC members apply for visas to the USA, they are flagged for questioning and need a waiver to be allowed in the country. In 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was denied a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006, was denied a visa to visit her ailing cousin and didn't get a waiver until after the cousin had died.

Read the rest of the sorry details here.

Obama: Yes or No?

The May issue of The Progressive magazine includes a very interesting cover story.  Writer Edwidge Danticat and Professor Adolph Reed, Jr. give their views of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy and what it could mean for the country.  Please check out the articles.  I think you'll find them very interesting.  There's something for Obama supporters and detractors to consider.  Kudos to The Progressive for taking the debate to a new level.

Obama Divorces Wright

In a rather public breakup, Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama took severed ties today with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, contending that his former pastor’s words were outside the bounds of decency, calling them wrong and destructive.  I think Obama’s public denunciation of Wright was a necessary, albeit poll-driven, step that may keep his campaign from being derailed by the controversy surrounding Wright.  However, Obama may be kidding himself if he thinks he’s putting this issue to rest.  While it won’t keep him from the nomination, it will prove to be political poison in November.  Obama runs the risk of being seen as disingenuous by contending that he didn’t know what Wright was about.  After all, he disinvited Wright from his campaign announcement speech in February 2007.  Obama and his campaign knew then, and now, what Wright was about.

This may prove to be a seminal moment in the campaign that may cause a problem for him in the Black community.  Obama has essentially thrown a very popular Black minister under the bus.  That may not mean much to the larger society, but Black, church-going people may see this for what it is: poll-driven political expediency.  That may damage Obama more than we now know.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote.  A registered Independent, he blogs at:  www.MichaelFauntroy.com.

Wright Speaks

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright made a few public appearances over the weekend that I am sure left some Barack Obama supporters out there asking “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”  Obama supporters need to understand, however, that Wright’s friendship with Obama doesn’t require the Reverend to crawl under a rock until after the election in the hopes that his presence won’t sink the SS Obama.  Wright has the right to speak.  And he should, given Big Media’s spasm of Wright coverage, launched by some inflammatory clips hurtling through cyberspace.

Wright has no choice but to defend himself against charges that he’s a racist, unpatriotic, conspiracy-theory spouting kook; in the court of public opinion, silence is akin to a guilty plea.  His recent visibility is clearly intended to counter the one-dimensional characterization of him that Big Media ran with.  I’m also willing to bet that there is a part of him that feels his most famous congregant, Obama, didn’t go far enough to defend him.  He may even be offended by the fact that, as the story began to fade, Obama went on the ABC television show “The View” and, as if to shovel dirt on his mentor, noted that he would have left the church if Wright had not retired.  This came after Obama went to great lengths to explain why he hadn’t left the church and had the faint whiff of someone scrambling to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  Wright's words strike me as those of a father who feels like his son didn't come to his defense.  It's akin to a scorned father who decides to take a pound of flesh from his son.

In a speech before the National Press Club, Wright broadened the discussion to contend that the attacks on him are really an attack on the larger Black church.  As The New York Times reported, Wright said that political opponents of Senator Obama were exploiting the fact that the style of prayer and preaching in black churches was different from European church traditions emphasizing that it was “different, but not deficient,” he said.  While I think it’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that it’s about the Black church, there is no doubt in my mind that we too often fear and demonize that which we do not fully understand.  So I won’t summarily dismiss Wright’s larger point.

Of course, this all boils down to one question: How will Wright’s words impact Obama’s quest for the presidency?  I think it will have a very limited impact in the nomination fight; it’s still his to lose.  It would certainly have been a different story had this erupted just before Super Tuesday.  This controversy may still prove to be political poison for Obama in the general election.  Many voters, including some who may have been inclined to support Obama, have seen the video, heard from Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, and people of their unfortunate ilk, and already decided that Obama is unsupportable.  For Obama’s sake, let’s hope that universe of people doesn’t grow as the story continues.  And it will.

Michael Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote.  An Independent, he blogs at www.MichaelFauntroy.com.

Television Interview: Michael Fauntroy on Voice of America TV

Here is a clip from an interview I did on Monday, 28 April on Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

McCain's Gamble

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain is trying hard not to get lost in all the attention the country is devoting to the hard-fought Democratic presidential nomination contest. He is taking an unusual step in this regard for someone from the Grand Old Party (GOP): he’s touring mostly Black, poverty-ridden communities, such as last week’s trip to the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans, to speak out against poverty and other societal ills. These are the kinds of communities that most Republicans couldn’t find with a map and a Sherpa, so his “It’s Time for Action” tour is notable. While he should be commended for trying to address these issues and reach out to Black voters, the reality is that he is fighting against two important factors: history and his own Senate record.

Historically, Republican policy makers have not been particularly interested in the economic realities of the poor. From tax cuts to wealthier Americans on the mistaken notion that those new funds would be invested in America for the benefit of all, to vociferous fights against social programs that helped the poor, the GOP earned its reputation as the party for the rich. And McCain was there virtually every step of the way. The Reagan-driven massive shift of jobs to cheaper labor markets abroad took place on McCain’s watch. He supported the supply-side economic policies, also known as Reaganomics, that gave $750 billion in tax cuts and reduced support for human service programs by $280 billion. African Americans and the poor were disproportionately and negatively impacted by the economic policies of the 1980s, so there is a certain irony that McCain is touring areas and decrying poverty while his congressional history supported some of the policies that exacerbated the problem.

The GOP has also antagonized Black voters over the years through public policy and political symbolism, so it’s no surprise to me that McCain has a steep hill to climb. From Willie Horton to “reverse discrimination” to voter purge programs to the “welfare queen” to the “Southern strategy,” and beyond, his party has perversely used race to demonize African Americans and Black candidates to win elections. As I note in my book Republicans and the Black Vote, the Republican Party built its rise to national dominance during the 1980s and 1990s on racial animus and symbolism. Add to that McCain’s vote against both the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday Bill, and a relatively weak Civil Rights Act, and it’s difficult to see how McCain or any Republican can now be taken seriously on these important issues.

So, given party history and McCain’s record, you’ll have to forgive me for skeptically viewing McCain’s tour as a serious attempt to raise attention to the issue of poverty and reach out to Black voters. I see it, first and foremost, as a well-choreographed attempt to neutralize Independent voters who may move to the Democratic nominee if the GOP is seen as gratuitously hostile to minorities and the poor. Secondarily, it may be seen as an attempt to win Black support, particularly so if Senator Hillary Clinton emerges as the Democratic nominee. Clinton, in the eyes of many Black voters, can only win the nomination by stealing it from Senator Barack Obama. A Clinton nomination, then, could provide McCain with an opportunity to peel off some Black support and that of of White Independents.

McCain can travel to Selma, Alabama, Youngstown, Ohio, or New Orleans, Louisiana in an attempt to soften his image and that of his party, but history suggests that he won’t get very far in the process.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at: www.MichaelFauntroy.com.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Bill Moyers Journal

Here is a link to the Bill Moyers' interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright that aired Friday, April 25 on PBS' Bill Moyers' Journal.  Wright will also hold a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Monday, April 28.

Paperback Book Release: Republicans and the Black Vote

I'm happy to let you know that a new, updated paperback version of my most recent book, Republicans and the Black Vote, has just been published.  You can get from the publisher for $19.95.  The book explores how the Republican Party has used public policy and racial symbolism to demonize African Americans to fuel the party's rise to political dominance.  It's a timely topic, as presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain has at least voiced an interest in trying to win African American support.   His recent tour of Selma, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana have sparked interest in just how seriously he will pursue the Black vote.  Obviously, I'm biased, but I'm proud of the book and think you'll learn something if you read it.

Here are some book jacket comments --

"An illuminating analysis of how the Republican Party has strayed from African American voters and how much ground there is to make up."—Keith Reeves, Political Science Quarterly

"A balanced and nuanced discussion of race-party intersections.... I recommend this book highly."—Peter W. Wielhouwer, Perspectives on Politics

"Tackling a topic that has not received nearly as much attention as it merits, Fauntroy's timely work provides a comprehensive overview of the GOP in relationship not only to black voters, but to racial politics writ large."—Linda Faye Williams, University of Maryland

"A comprehensive and much-needed analysis of party identification among African Americans since passage of the 15th and 19th Amendments.... Fauntroy does a great job assessing the obstacles plaguing the Republican Party."—Maruice Mangum, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville