Tag Archives: republicans

Obama’s Pastor Picks on Italians

Rev. Wright and his church, Trinity United of Chicago, are making news again, for all the wrong reasons. It seems they’ve moved on from targeting whites and Jews. And as journalists and bloggers pour over his sermons, which have proved to be a treasure trove of hate-speech and vitriol, CNS News has uncovered a recent article in Trumpet Magazine which sheds light into another nationality the Reverend holds in little regard. Italians.

From CNS News:

“(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him,” Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue.

Wright goes on to spin the birth of Christ: “From the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. …

Public lynching Italian style? Ok. Maybe I should just let it slide. After all, this is a guy who called the U.S, the U.S. of KKK A. Maybe he was simply remembering how Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were hanged in a public square in Milan.

But his bigoted remarks then extended to their anatomy. “The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”

The Reverend and his ilk seem to have a peculiar preoccupation with noses. The founder the New Black Panthers, whose endorsement was proudly posted on Obama’s website until it made news, referred to the “hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating” Jews.

Garlic noses… hooked noses… What about Caucasians? We have noses too?

Advertisements

The Day Obama Became ‘the Black Candidate’

 

obama1.jpgI couldn’t wait to hear Obama’s speech and how he would respond. Surely he would make the attempt to distance himself from the conspiracy laden diatribes of his “former” minister; I say former because he reminds us every chance he gets. I believed he would try to reassure us: No the CIA didn’t throw crack into inner cities to destroy young black men, nor did the U.S. government invent AIDS to destroy African Americans.

When he brought up his white ancestry, more specifically his grandmother, I thought, hey, maybe he’s going to delve into his unique cultural background to demonstrate his how he won’t be bound by labels or defined only by his relationship African American pastor and the black community. Instead, he used his grandmother to remind Americans that, hey, there are plenty of white racists too.

 

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

 

 

Thanks, but, I’m married to a dark skinned Italian with a heavy accent. I don’t need Obama to remind me there are still racists in America, I know all about it. A police officer once threatened to have Riccardo deported, telling him, “I don’t know where you come from but you’re as ignorant as you can be.” His accent is frequently the subject of snide comments and jokes. A distant relative even refused to call him by his full name, shortening it instead to create a ridiculous cartoon like persona.

But unlike Wright and the members of his afro-centric church, my husband is proud of the opportunity this country has presented him. He’s also well aware that despite his occasional racist encounters and America’s ugly past, the U.S. is the most racially tolerant nation on the planet.

To escape the self-created firestorm, Obama turned to the tired old liberal tactic of shifting the blame from the offender to the offended. It’s whitey’s fault for his minister’s outrage and conspiracy theories. And America’s slave-owning descendants are responsible for black men loitering on street-corners without jobs.

 

He sought to allay the fears of Americans through today’s speech. In my estimation, he’s only deepened them.

Are Republicans after the Anti-Bush?

John McCain Hangry

Lost in the analysis of the ever-changing complexion of the Republican primary—more specifically the ascension of John McCain—is why conservatives seem to be bucking conventional wisdom by gravitating toward someone who hasn’t simply bucked party principles but has been the party maverick, the one most likely to appear first under results of a ‘Republican outcast’ Google search.    

Some pundits cite a less than stellar field as a rationale for McCain’s popularity, and perhaps they’re right. Others believe it’s his electability, in so much as he might be the only one that can knock off Hillary Clinton. But there is one motivation for the McCain surge not making the editorial roundtables—Bush fatigue. Usually mentioned in connection with Democratic frustration and voter turnout, it’s rarely mentioned as an explanation for McCain’s emergence.

Republicans haven’t forgotten McCain-Feingold or his roguish ‘gang of 14’. They also don’t share his view on immigration. From Zogby:

“An overwhelming majority of American adults say a candidate’s stance on immigration is important to their voting decisions, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows. More than 76 % of the online poll respondents said a candidate’s position on immigration is a “very important” or “somewhat important” factor in their decision on who to vote for in the presidential elections of 2008”

So obviously, many Republicans are ignoring recent history with regards to McCain, his amnesty proposal and his forever needling of conservatives. Maybe they too want change and are looking for the anti-Bush.

Who better than that Republican who has been most openly critical?

Hillary’s freefall; Is Barack the man to beat?

Living in Italy gave me an opportunity to learn about European politics, but it also gave me an education on American politics, only from their perspective, not The New York Times. For political geeks like me, election year entertainment is wall to wall TV coverage and site to site web reportage. But until I moved to Italy and had lived there for a while, I didn’t realize Europe’s level of interest in U.S. politics, and how significant American elections are and were abroad.

Headlining Italy’s Corriere della Sera is Hillary Clinton’s freefall from favored status. Another major Italian magazine, Panorama, calls Barack “the man to beat in New Hampshire.”  France’s Le Figaro leads with “Hillary Clinton in turmoil” and goes on to say (with Google translator’s help):

“The campaign of the former first lady, long time favorite of the Democratic primaries, seems mired in disarray. Officially, her staff ensures that the setback in Iowa hasn’t influenced its plans and that there is no need to change strategy. The emphasis is always on “experience” and to “swallow” the hope embodied by Barack Obama to the rank of perilous adventure”.

Germany’s Der Spiegel explores how populism and fears of a recession have factored into the success of Obama and Edwards—the angry crowd rouser who “speaks with rage” against the existence of  the “two Americas.”

I wonder though.

Are these European writers sympathetic to an electorate driven to the polls by 4% unemployment and $3 dollar gas? As mentioned in my book, The Absentee Ballot, as of last year, Italians were paying almost $6 per gallon for unleaded gas. European journalists and their readers suffer taxes, gas-prices and employment rates much higher than populism enthusiasts. American voters who are attracted to the message du jour see a nation filled with problems, while many others around the world see a paradise full of opportunities.  

 This election is closely followed, not just in the U.S, and is paramount, not only to the American people. It’ll be interesting to watch their reactions to Hillary’s fall, Obama’s rise and whichever Republican gets the nod.

long-banner-wp3.jpg