Condi Rice

August 5, 2006


I was listening to the Al Sharpton Show he threw out a question about Condi Rice.  He asked should black people be proud of Condi Rice?

I thought this question was interesting because I have heard many different opinions about Rice from the black community.  Here are a few that I heard:

  • She does not believe in affirmative action therefore she doesn’t care about black people.
  • We can’t consider her black because she is a part of the Bush Administration and she is a republican
  • She did not do enough to persuade Bush to send Federal help to New Orleans during Katrina therefore she is not to respected and can’t be black.
  • She does not fully appreciate the struggles of our people from the Civil Right’s Movement;and since she thinks that she is in the position she is in based solely off of her credentials, then we can’t consider her black.

I will say as a Democrat, I am not happy with the policy decisions of her party.  Republicans have missed the mark on policy, because it is geared more toward the elite in this country.  As far as foreign policy is concerned, I am not happy with her lack of involvement with the genocide situation in Sudan.  And the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake and her and her party must take accountability for taking us down this never ending and disruptive road.

The Israel issue was totally mishandled.  The government waited too long to intervene, they should have attempted to persuade Israel not to attack.

As an African American, I respect her academic and professional accomplishments.  She is a black women to become Secretary of State of the United States.  She was raised in the segregated south; at a time where black people were not supposed to make it.  so yes I respect her accomplishments as a person of color, but I do not agree with her stance on domestic or foreign policy especially if the decision to invade Iraq was based off of misguided, made up faulty intelligence.  It has nothing to do with her skin color.  I feel that some of us don’t know when to separate race from certain issues since we are hurt.  We are frustrated because we feel as if we are not being heard.  But we must learn that our ancestors fought for us to be free and the right for us to participate in the political process regardless of party lines.  And trust me I am apeaking to you as a Democrat.



Michael Steele’s bogus victimology

July 27, 2006

Source: Skeptical brotha 

Michael Steele, Maryland’s Lt. Governor and favorite GOP black Trojan horse, is now claiming victim-hood because of his status as a Republican Senate candidate with $2 million in the bank in a bad GOP year. Only in the alternate universe that is the GOP Opportunity Society can anyone assisted by the sitting President of the United States and his minions Rove, Cheney, and Card in raising campaign cash from wealthy white folks be considered a victim. Bush was unpopular when he decided to run for the Senate. Bush was unpopular when he set up the fundraisers.  Bush is still unpopular all these months later. It hasn’t deterred him on his quest to be a Bush enabler in the U.S. Senate.

Aided in his quest to become a GOP Trojan horse are the upper echelons of the Democratic Party that organized themselves into a fund-raising juggernaut for Congressman Ben Cardin which effectively squeezed out the first candidate to enter the race to succeed Senator Sarbanes, Kweisi Mfume.  Black voters noticed that nobody prominent was helping Kweisi and they began to take a second look at Steele, a negro double agent if there ever was one.

On the one hand, there are the warm-and-fuzzy-feel-good issues of school choice and the faux examination the equity of capital punishment in Maryland. On the other, are the massive social service and education budget cuts the Ehrlich-Steele Administration imposes on the most vulnerable people.

A disproportionate share of these people are people of color. Those feel good public relations initiatives make it easy for Steele to look engaged in Policy while he actually uses his office to campaign for another and Governor Ehrlich uses his power to govern Maryland for the benefit of their mutual malevolent corporate benefactors.

The Ehrlich-Steele Administration has made draconion cuts to Medicaid in the last three fiscal years. According to the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute, ”In FY 2004 and FY 2005 more than $250 million was cut from the Medicaid program. These cuts include:  Reducing payments to health care providers. Restrictions on length of stay in hospitals. Cuts in drug assistance programs for the elderly and non-Medicaid groups. Greater cost sharing for enrollees (i.e.,increased premiums and co-payments). Tighter controls on disease management Switching long term care support and services from fee-based to managed care. The cumulative effect of these cuts and this year’s $ 112 million dollar Medicaid cut is to reduce the access to medical care for the most economically insecure Marylanders.

The Ehrlich-Steele Administration also reduces funds availble for Higher Education and k-12 education in direct contravention to recent Maryland law.  The resentment over the treatment of Mfume and the lack of an African American running mate for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has created an opening to black voters for the GOP to exploit.  44% of African Americans polled recently are open to an appeal by Steele for their vote. Sadly, middle class blacks are largely delusional on this score because all Steele can offer are opportunites to press the flesh and phony feel good campaign events that don’t have a damn thing to do with policy.  Steele has made substantial inroads into middle class black Maryland by pretending to care and pay attention to their inconseqential need for attention while the majority of black Marylanders suffer economically under the massive social service cuts imposed by Steele’s partner in crime.

It remains to be seen if this strategy will bear fruit in the end.  All I know is it ain’t hurting Steele in the least to try and seduce the black community into cutting its own throat by voting for him. 

Changing Places: Could Black Republicans Alter African-American Voting Patterns?

July 25, 2006

Here is an interesting post from that I just had to share.

BILL KING — Almost as soon as President Bush was declared victorious in the 2004 election, some Republicans immediately turned their attentions (and/or ambitions) towards how to keep this roll going. For half the Senate and numerous Republican governors, that meant increasing their vacation time in New Hampshire and Iowa. For many Republican supporters it meant focusing their attention on an heiress from the current administration: Condi. The 2008 election is historic in that it will be the first election since 1952 where there is no incumbent president or incumbent vice president running. In ‘52, the Republicans chose the moderate and wildly popular former general Dwight D. Eisenhower to reverse their 24-year election slump. This time around, Republicans may be looking to a new formula for keeping power in the midst of sagging poll numbers and lingering problems. Condolezza Rice is the member of this administration who runs counter to nearly every idea Americans have about the Bush White House and Republicans. She is female and fairly young in what at times appears to be a male-dominated administration personified by a crotchety, elderly Vice President who has some trouble maintaining his constitutional duty of staying alive. But perhaps, most importantly, she is an African-American, in a party which has struggled mightily to attract any African-Americans to their ranks. Currently, zero black members of Congress are Republican. Bush pulled in 11% of the African-American vote in the 2004 election, which was actually an increase from 2000. Here in Georgia, African-Americans make up approximately 50% of the Democratic voters in the state. And the Republicans did little to endear themselves to blacks nationwide after the rather slow and inept response to Hurricane Katrina unfolded on national television, greatly affecting the large, urban African-American population of New Orleans. (You may remember “George Bush doesn’t care about black people”?)

Read More >>>

Where’s Condi?

July 25, 2006

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Columnist

The day before President Bush spoke to the NAACP, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus. The meeting didn’t happen. The CBC did not say why it was cancelled, or when it would be rescheduled. But if it had happened, the Caucus would, and should, have asked Condi tough questions on Bush foreign policy. If it did, it wouldn’t have been the first time Rice has been on the foreign policy hot seat. In February, Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee virtually dumped Bush’s international miscues on her.

That’s fair and unfair. Rice is Bush’s point person on foreign policy. Her job is to sell administration policy decisions on North Korean nukes, Iran, the Middle East turmoil, the war on terrorism, and Iraq. When things go wrong internationally, she, as other Secretarys of State have, will take heat. More>>>

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a columnist for, a political analyst and social issues commentator. He is also the author of the forthcoming, The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006). The book is a hard-hitting look at Bush and The GOP’s court of black voters.

Florida GOP’s Crist, Gallagher court black voters in September’s primary

July 24, 2006


Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist touts his civil rights credentials. State Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher talks about values and school vouchers.

The two Republican candidates for governor hope to win over black Republican voters, who could sway a close election. But they’re also taking the unusual step of quickly reaching out to the overall black electorate, which traditionally has overwhelmingly voted for Democratic candidates.

More >>> 

Author Reginald Bohannon responds to comments from AA Political Opinion reader

July 23, 2006

Source: Reginald Bohannon |


To personally respond to some of your comments, you stated that, “I had thought we has stopped carrying water for massa.” First of all, I think you demean yourself when you write in this type of language. Secondly, with 90-95% of blacks voting for the Democratic Party, I would think that it is the majority of blacks, including you, that is carrying the water for the Democratic Party.

Case in point; as I write in my book, during the 2004 Democratic Party presidential primaries, Al Sharpton was the only black candidate amongst seven whites. Knowing that Sharpton would garner the black vote and the other seven white candidate’s votes would be split amongst white voters, the party decided to get Donna Brazille (a black lady) to talk another black person (Carol Moseley-Braun) into running in the race, only to split up Sharpton’s support. Months later after both of their campaigns were failing, Brazille asked both Sharpton and Moseley-Braun to drop out.

Another case in point; in the past few years, the Democratic Party powers that be had three opportunities to select a black Democrat to either run for U.S. senate or outright become a U.S. senator without having to be elected. Each time, they selected a 70-plus year-old white man (New Jersey – Lautenberg; Minnesota – Mondale). The other one was in my state of Georgia, the cradle of Civil Rights, home of Dr. King as well as Andrew Young, Maynard Jackson and other prominent black democrats. But rather than the Democrat governor selecting a black icon such as Jackson or Young, he selected a 70-plus year-old white man, Zell Miller. Miller though, came back to haunt the Democratic Party because he supported President Bush. Now tell me, who is carrying water?

If you were to get my book, “Coming Out of the Republican Closet – Coming to terms with being black, patriotic, and conservative”, you would get a better understanding of politics including both the Democrats and Republicans relationship with blacks. In my book, I list other writers, particularly black writers, who have been studying the issues much longer than I have and they can give you a great lesson on politics and race.

Thank you.

Reginald Bohannon

Readers comment on article regarding Reginald Bohannon book “Coming Out of the Republican Closet”

July 23, 2006

Richard Says:

Mr Bohannon.. I do look forward to reading your book. However.. it comes as something of a shock to me that someone with even a CASUAL read of american history would think that the NAACP would in some way need to be educated about the Republican Party or its role in championing the end of slavery. After all.. most politically active blacks WERE members of the Republican Party into the 1950s when the support for the Party was almost nonexistent among WHITES who lived in the south… that is Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, Lousiana, Arkansas, and Texas. Any child can open a history book and show you that several blacks served in the United States Senate in the post civil war era and they were all Republicans… in fact they were called RADICAL REPUBLICANS and if Rush Limbaugh had had a radio show then… he’d have spit out those words with the same contempt he says “LIBERAL” today(incidentally… why beat around George Bush… when you say Liberal you are actually saying “northeastern secular jew” or it’s equivalent).

We know the south was solidly Democratic and solidly racist and that the Northern Democrats generally maintained peace within the party by being mealymouthed, as they are today. on the very divisive and fundamental issues that face us. Meanwhile.. the Republican Party was mainly the party of the north and west… it abandoned it’s abolitionist and anti racist elements from the period including the election compromise of 1876 through the split in the party in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran on his own Bull Moose Party ticket while his protege Taft ran with the support of big business creating the business wing of the Republican Party and the remnant of liberal and moderate Republicans who are being run out of the party nowadays like McCain, Snowe, Nelson Rockefeller et al.

Strom Thurmond who was a lifelong democrat through his siring an illegitimate black child, storming the beaches of Normandy to fight for freedom justice and democracy, then promptly returned home to run for Governor of South Carolina and then in 1948 ran a campaign for President on a Segregationist ticket in a challenge to the Democratic Party then being led by Roosevelt’s succesor Truman who apparently wasn’t QUITE racist enough for Thurmond’s liking. Thurmond, Jesse Helms and the various dixiecrats who serve as the villains in the civil rights movement were ALL Democrats it’s true. However… after their fellow dixiecrat Lyndon Johnson claimed he would see through the mealy mouthed northeastern Liberal President John Kennedy’s pledges on civil rights and then signed the civil rights act of 1964 and 1965 what did all those Southern Democrats do? Well.. as I hope I will see noted in your book. You will come to grips with the fact that the solid Democratic south is now solidly Republican. That the black political leaders who served as mayors of Atlanta and made changes which created that city, temporarily, as a black mecca, were indeed Democrats in the 1970s. That the last Democratic President before Bill Clinton was a Governor of Georgia who had spoken out against segregation. That Georgia had no Republican Party to speak of(except for the blacks who registered as republicans for decades after the party ceased being the “party of Lincoln” in 1912… as MOST blacks, if they COULD register to vote, registered Republican). Hopefully your book will be honest about the oft used Republican talking point “a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats and Lyndon Johnson thanked the Republicans who voted for the civil rights act as he couldn’t have gotten it through without them.”… well we all know about lies, damned lies and statistics! The Republicans made up a minority of the Senate and House at the time as their party almost did not exist in the SOLID SOUTH. The greater percentage of Republicans represented a LESSER NUMBER of actual Senators and Congressman as Democrats made up a wide majority of both houses and indeed NORTHERN DEMOCRATS and PRE-1965 REPUBLICANS did indeed stand together to support Civil Rights.

But WHY did Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott et al LEAVE the Democratic Party and all become Republicans after 1965? Was it the Democratic stance on the windfall profits tax or abortion? No… it was Civil Rights. The Republican Party went from being a minority party to near parity with the larger Democratic Party based on THE WHITE MALE RESPONSE TO LEGALLY ENFORCED EQUITY BY THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. All the talking points in the world can’t overcome that truth. One need only look at what the Republican party does, emphasizes, activates for, and says.. to see behind it an agenda based on WHITE MALE RULE over all the Empire of the United States sees and surveys. That is the right-wing and republican parties disease and why black conservatives, no matter how well intentioned, spoken, or educated ultimately rest on a foundation of clay and why black americans who are indeed relatively traditional and conservative DO make a more or less correctly informed pull of that lever for Democrats. We may not like the variety of issues included under the Democratic tent… racist labor unions, communists, poorly thought out radicalisms, or militant gay activists… but we ALSO know that all of these things MUST be dealt with within a body politic where all people stand equal OR else it doesn’t make a difference WHAT any of us think. The black community.. perhaps reflexively if it errs… it errs on the side of EXPANSION of rights and openness of the political process, legislatures, and courts to those seeking that expansion. We may share a culture and christian tradition with the southern white man and get along with him well on a one to one basis, but we go 90% to 95% percent or BETTER voting against any agenda that makes him and his interests sovereign over all who come under the American umbrella. That is an honorable role for our people to play and while I feel we MUST indeed hear conservatism well and logically articulated, we do well to avoid ‘talking points’, talk radio, and bumper sticker so-called “conservative” philosophy being aimed into the american body politic by the Rush Limbaugh’s and Tony Snows of the world and their spiritual forebear Goebbels.