Racism Is Still Around And It's As Blatant As Ever

I was angry when I saw this image the other day, because it happened in my home state. It's a picture of some students from Flower Mound (just north of the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex) in the crowd at a basketball game between Flower Mound High School and Plano East High School (whose team was largely African-American).

The signs stayed up for about 30 seconds before, to their credit, teachers from Flower Mound rushed over and made the students take them down. It later turns out that someone had also urinated and defecated on the team bus of Plano East. Citing privacy concerns, the school administrators wouldn't say whether the perpetrators had been punished, or what their punishment was. I'm not buying that argument. These students (aka, racist creeps) committed their offense in a very public way -- now the public deserves to know if and how they were punished.

But perhaps even more important is just why these students thought they could get away with such a public display of racism. They obviously are surrounded by many others, both students and adults, who find this kind of behavior acceptable, or worse, maybe even heroic. And they were willing to risk some minor punishment from the school to receive the accolades and pats on the back from their fellow racists.

The truth is that racism never died in this country -- it just went underground for a while. But the election of an African-American to be president horrified the racists, and now they are back with a vengeance -- and far too many Americans let them get away with their blatantly racist behavior. And they are egged on by the behavior of some of our elected officials.

We saw a prime example of this in a couple of statements from elected officials this last week. In Mississippi, Republican State Rep. Gene Alday told a reporter that African-Americans in his town were "lazy" and just laid around waiting for their "welfare crazy checks". He went on to say he had to wait for hours in an emergency room because of all the black people "in there being treated for gunshot wounds".

Alday later said he was not a racist, and his remarks were supposed to be off the record. Unfortunately for him, that makes no difference. A racist remark is evidence of racism, whether it was made on or off the record. If you quack like a duck, then you're probably a duck.

Then we have the case of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani had the audacity to say "I do not believe that the president loves America". Since Giuliani has not made that accusation against any other president (of either party), we can only assume he said it because the president is African-American (and he knew it would please the racists in his party's base).

Giuliani later came up with a rather lame and silly excuse after being called out for his racist statement. He said he couldn't be a racist because the president's mother was white. That's utter nonsense. It sounds like the old joke about being a "little bit pregnant". Racism is an all or nothing game, and it can't be explained away by saying the person you are denigrating is only half-black. Being a little bit racist is just as abhorrent as being blatantly racist -- and it cannot be acceptable in a country that preaches equal rights and opportunity.

These are just two of many examples -- and whether they realize it or not, these politicians are setting a behavior example for people like the "white power" students at Flower Mound. If racist behavior is OK for our politicians (who should be setting a better standard), then it is OK for anyone else.

But it is NOT right -- not for the politicians or for anyone else. It is reprehensible behavior, and it hurts other people. It is time for decent Americans to step up and make it known that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

Is Rudy Entering The Race ?

This surprises me just a little bit. I figured after the embarrassment of his short-lived presidential run in 2008, Rudy Giuliani wouldn't want any part of another run for that office. But it looks like he might be a glutton for punishment. With Daniels and Huckabee out of the picture now, the establishment Republicans are casting about for someone to take on the right-wing extremists in the race (which includes most of the candidates except for Romney, who seems to be as adept at shooting himself in the foot as Gingrich).

And the name some people are tossing around is that of Rudy Giuliani (and rumor has it he may actually be considering jumping in the race). CNN decided to find out if there was any chance for a Giuliani candidacy, so they included his name in the latest poll they did with Opinion Research. The CNN/Opinion Research Poll was done May 24th through May 26th of 1,007 adults (and has a margin of error of 3 points). Surprisingly, Giuliani did very well in the poll, finishing in first place (although Romney and Palin were both within the margin of error).

Here are how the Republicans stacked up in this latest poll:

Rudy Giuliani...............16%
Mitt Romney...............15%
Sarah Palin...............13%
Ron Paul...............12%
Herman Cain...............10%
Newt Gingrich...............8%
Michele Bachmann...............7%
Tim Pawlenty...............5%
Rick Santorum...............2%
Jon Huntsman...............1%
Gary Johnson...............1%
Buddy Roemer...............*
Someone else/no one...............8%
No opinion...............2%

And here are the numbers when they took Giuliani out of the mix:

Mitt Romney...............19%
Sarah Palin...............15%
Ron Paul...............13%
Herman Cain...............11%
Newt Gingrich...............11%
Michele Bachmann...............7%
Tim Pawlenty...............5%
Jon Huntsman...............3%
Rick Santorum...............2%
Gary Johnson...............2%
Buddy Roemer...............1%
Someone else/no one...............9%
No opinion...............2%

Those numbers may be good enough to get Rudy Giuliani to enter the race. He's always had a taste for power, and I think he'd love to be relevant again. The real surprise for me is that the candidacy of Herman Cain may be actually getting some traction. This poll backs up a couple of other recent polls showing he has now jumped up into double-digit territory. Maybe the Republicans have finally found their token Black (after Michael Steele turned out to be such an incompetent fool).

The other interesting item is the hopeless nature of the candidacies of Huntsman, Santorum, and Pawlenty. I never expected Huntsman and Santorum to get anywhere, but Pawlenty was supposed to have a real chance according to some pundits. Unless he gets out of that 3-5% range in the polls pretty soon, he's just going to be another "also ran".

There's still some talk of Texas governor Rick Perry entering the race, and the Austin American-Statesman is reporting that he and his advisors are seriously thinking about it. And right-wing radio nut Laura Ingraham says she heard from a source close to Perry that he definitely will be entering the race. I'm not believing it -- at least not yet. The latest Texas Tribune/University of Texas poll put his support at only 4% in his home state.

I think it may be time to heed the words of the late great Molly Ivins. She said, "Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention." This nation needs to take those words to heart.

Would A Giuliani Candidacy Help Democrats ?

It has become obvious in recent months that the religious right has lost much of its momentum. In the last few years, a candidate could not get the nomination of the Republican Party to run for president unless he had the approval of the evangelical movement. That is no longer true.

None of the major candidates running for the Republican nomination have the credentials expected of a candidate of the religious right. Although he is now parroting the beliefs of evangelicals, Romney has a history of liberal beliefs and actions. It is doubtful that he could gain the trust of most fundamentalists. McCain has never been trusted by the right-wing fundamentalists.

Thompson has been touted as the darling of the religious right, but with his trophy wife, his admission that he doesn't go to church regularly, and his refusal to support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, he has already raised opposition from some leaders of the religious right, such as James Dobson.

In fact, the candidate most likely to receive the nomination is also the most liberal of the Republican candidates -- Giuliani. Until recently, I thought his candidacy might pose the most problems for Democrats. That may not be true.

The fundamentalists are still united in their opposition to abortion, but beyond that issue many are starting to pay attention to many other issues -- issues such as racism, peace, fighting HIV, helping the poor and the environment. Some believe that if the abortion issue were nullified, it would open the campaign to these other issues that are championed mainly by the Democrats. Giuliani is pro-choice, and his nomination would nullify the abortion issue.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, says, "Most evangelicals have been voting Republican because they were given a bright-line choice between a pro-life candidate and a pro-choice candidate. If that issue were taken off the table, then other issues get oxygen, issues where evangelicals are not nearly as certain that Republicans offer the best answer. Issues like economic justice, racial reconciliation, the environment. If the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate a pro-choice candidate, they give the Democrats a license to go hunting evangelical votes".

I still expect most evangelical votes to go to the Republicans, but it is an exciting prospect to think that Democrats could make inroads with this demographic group. After all, this is the "base" that Republicans have counted on for the last few years. Given the moral problems experienced by the Republican Party recently, and it's even easier to believe some evangelical votes could go to Democrats.

So while Giuliani might appeal to a few independents (although not many, considering his support of the war), he might actually free many evangelicals to vote for the Democratic candidate.

McCain Is Fading Fast In Race For Prez

You might as well wave goodbye to John McCain, because he's fading fast in the 2008 presidential race. But do it quick because he may not survive much longer as a viable candidate.

After the 2004 election, most people had McCain pegged as the favorite for the Republican nomination. But evidently that wasn't good enough for McCain. Since then he's made some really bone-headed decisions, and thrown most of that support away.

I guess he believed the idiots at Fox who said he must appeal to the far-right of the Republican party if he wanted to win. So several months ago he began to move to the right and pander to the nut-wing of the party. But the ultra-right just doesn't like McCain - they didn't like him when he opposed them, and they don't like him now that he's kissing their butts.

Instead of gaining votes by pandering to the right, he has just lost the votes of many moderates. In an effort to regain his lost momentum, McCain then makes an even worse decision. He decided to pin his hopes on rabid support for the war in Iraq. I can't believe that someone in his campaign didn't point out to him that 70% of the American people now oppose the war.

I'm glad he's fading fast, because I'd hate to have a president that makes such poor decisions. It would be like replacing Bush with his own clone!

The Los Angeles Times tells us that in a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll conducted recently, McCain finished third behind Giuliani and Fred Thompson (who is not even in the race). Romney finished a poor fourth. Here are the numbers:

Giuliani.............29%
Thompson.........15%
McCain..............12%
Romney.............08%

While McCain is dropping like a rock, Romney is not doing very well either. He may be a whiz at raising money, but it's not being translated into real popular support. And frankly, Giuliani's 29% is not all that impressive either. I'm starting to think that Republicans are not too happy with any of the three (and I don't blame them).

I think any of the major Democratic candidates (Clinton - Obama - Edwards - Richardson) could beat any of the three major Republican candidates. But there is one Republican that comes out of this looking good - Fred Thompson. He got 15% and he hasn't even said he wants to run.

Thompson is the only one of the Republicans that kind of scares me as a Democratic supporter. He has a lot of built-in name recognition after being both an actor and a senator. He also has a kind of homey grandfatherly image that makes you want to trust him. He is liked by those on the right and could easily be accepted by moderates. Personally, I hope he stays out of the race.

In other news, Bill Richardson continues to impress with his diplomatic abilities. He has just returned from North Korea, where he helped in the return of the remains of six American soldiers who had died in the Korean War. While he was there, he had high-level talks with the North Koreans, and now it looks like they will be shutting down their nuclear program.

In a letter to his supporters, Bill Richardson had this to say:

"The bottom line is that diplomacy works - there is no other lesson to draw from this monumental breakthrough. And we desperately need someone in the White House who understands this and can restore American international leadership.

In today's world, we have to be willing to engage our adversaries in tough and direct talks that lead to resolution, not more confrontation and isolation. I don't have to tell you that there are trouble spots all over the world that could use some of this tough and smart American diplomacy.

I'm running for President, in part, to keep our country safe and secure. I'm proud that yesterday in North Korea I was able to make a contribution to real progress toward that goal."

We need more of Bill Richardson's miracle-working diplomacy. Wouldn't it be nice to have a truly competent president?

Giuliani Firm Lobbys For Hugo Chavez In Texas

We do live in a strange world! Maria Comella, spokesperson for the Giuliani for President campaign says, "Mayor Giuliani believes Hugo Chavez is not a friend of the United States, and his influence continues to grow because of our increasing reliance on foreign sources of oil."

That's a high-minded statement, obviously designed to appeal to the conservatives who think Chavez is the devil incarnate. Giuliani would like for conservatives to believe that he is one of them. He would like for them to believe this because it's almost impossible to get the Republican nomination without widespread support from the party's right-wingers.

But evidently Giuliani is the latest victim of a disease running rampant through the Republican party - greed. Like many of his party cohorts, Giuliani seems to believe that platitudes and beliefs are fine when talking to voters, but they must not be allowed to interfere with business.

There is a law firm in Houston called Bracewell & Giuliani. The partner in that firm is the same Rudy Giuliani who is the former mayor of New York and the current Republican presidential candidate. I don't think he'd like for conservatives to know who is one of the biggest customers of that firm.

Since 2005, the law firm has received up to $200,000 to lobby for the oil company Citgo in Texas. A controlling majority of Citgo is owned by Venezuela, which is currently controlled by Hugo Chavez (arch-enemy of President Bush and U.S. conservatives). Oh my! That's got to be embarrassing to someone trying to get conservative votes.

Of course, the Giuliani campaign says the former mayor has nothing to do with the lobbying efforts of his law firm. Maybe he doesn't, but I bet he doesn't refuse to accept his share of the payments his law firm receives from Citgo (and therefore Chavez).

Maybe Giuliani doesn't see a conflict of interest in this situation. Maybe he thinks it's OK to bad mouth Chavez while accepting the money his firm makes for lobbying for Chavez. I don't believe the American voter will make such a fine distinction.

I think most Americans are tired of politicians saying one thing while doing another. I don't think it's a crime to lobby for Citgo and Chavez. But it is hypocritical to do so while bad-mouthing them on the campaign trail.