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.



Lieberman pissed off over blackface but not about war in Iraq

August 4, 2006

The Washington Post reports Senator Joseph Lieberman is a little sh** faced over a blackface. A doctored photo of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) in blackface that was posted by a blogger who has been an influential promoter of challenger Ned Lamont.

The post reports Lieberman angrily demanded that Lamont denounce the action and sever all ties with Jane Hamsher, the founder of the Web log Firedoglake, who posted the photo on another blog,

African-American Political Pundit says: “I only wish the Senator could get as angry about the the war in Iraq (which he supports) and slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Its about time the Senator denounce both wars”.

As you can tell, I’m not a supporter of Lieberman, I really think he is a “snake in the grass”. But, in this situation blackface was not appropriate. It brings up old race issues. like, is Lieberman angrily demanding that Lamont denounce the action because he (Lieberman) would never want to have a black face (ouch)! Or is he (Lieberman) loving this because he (Lieberman) a white guy, can use the RACE CARD (double ouch)!

Blogsphere:Bloggers are generally saying the picture could be racist in nature. It’s too bad they can’t be united against war.

Patrick Riding High in Massachusetts

August 4, 2006

Source: Groff/Ellison Political Report

As the campaign season jumped this year in earnest, many political observers said Harold Ford, Jr., Kenneth Blackwell and Lynn Swann were the big names to watch.

Very few people mentioned Deval Patrick. The former US Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Clinton administration was seen as a long shot in his ambitious bid for Governor of Massachusetts.

Running against the current state Attorney General and a big money venture capitalist, Mr. Patrick was an unmistakable under-dog at the time, with heightening odds stacked against him.

But as the campaign stumped through the streets, neighborhoods and towns of the Bay State, something unusual happened. Patrick’s community and opportunity themes resonated heavily with Massachusetts Democrats. and his poll numbers began to rise. By June, signs of Patrick as a serious contender began to surface, with Patrick looking more credible … and much more gubernatorial. He wowed the faithful at his state party’s convention with a speech on “Politics and Hope.”

Riding the wave of what the Boston Globe called the ” … day’s most enthusiastic response” Mr. Patrick secured the top line on the September 19th primary ballot by winning 58% of the vote.

Besides winning the coveted top line at the convention, Mr. Patrick leads most primary polls and mock match-ups with presumptive Republican nominee Lt. Governor Kerry Healey.

In fact, recent polls show Patrick leading Attorney General Thomas Reilly by an average of 9 points, and businessman Chris Gabrieli by over 12 points. In a fall showdown with the Lt. Governor, Patrick leads by an average of 14 points in the last three polls. That 14 point advantage is a tremendous boost to the Patrick campaign, averaging higher than either AG Reilly or Gabrieli leads in potential match ups with Healey. It may also galvanize anti-Republican sentiment in that state.

If the polls prove correct, the big name on November 8th may very well be that of Deval Patrick .

African American Political Pundit

August 3, 2006

Don’t forget to visit the new home of African American Political Pundit.

We have completed the migration of African-American Political Pundit to its new blogger platform. With change comes opportunity. African-American Political Pundit has decided to take the opportunity to change the way his blog is structured. The blog will become more of a daily journal regarding my thoughts on current political events involving African-Americans throughout the U.S. He will post political news articles, videos, and comment on politics, screwed up politicians, good politicians (which will probably be very rare) and things that piss me the hell off.

So… sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. and go to African-American Political Pundit Blog here. He has a lot to say about African-American politics and what is going on in our nation and around the  world.

Payment Due

July 25, 2006

Source: urban village blog & commentary 

Richard Cohen of the New York Times has some interesting views on Israel as well. You can find them here.

By Heru Ammen
In 1947 the State of Israel was formed over the objection of all of the Arab nations. The U.N mandated 1947 U.N. Partition Plan divided the Palestine territory into two states with roughly 55% of that territory belonging to the newly formed State of Israel. This partition plan was summarily rejected by the Arab League primarily because the plan forcibly displaced the indigenous Arab population. The partition and the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel lead to the displacement of over 700,000 indigenous Arabs; with some estimates placing that number as high as 900,000.
The official reasoning for establishing the modern State of Israel can be found in the aforementioned Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel where it reads “…the Land of Israel, was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.” By stressing their own religious beliefs and history as the foundational premise for the establishment of modern day Israel, the Jewish people (with the approval of the U.N., Europe, Russia, and the United States) effectively dismissed the spiritual, religious, and political identity of the entire Arab world. Not surprisingly the Arabs reacted violently to this declaration. The interjection of a Jewish state in what was for over 1800 years Arab territory was followed by the first Arab-Jewish war. Since that period tension between Israel and its Arab neighbors have ebbed and flowed with atrocities being committed against the other by both parties.
Due primarily to its close relationship with the USA, Israel has always held military superiority in that region; which has enabled it to withstand all incursions from its Arab neighbors. Arab militants bent on the destruction of Israel have always known that America had Israel’s back and that threat has acted as a stern deterrent to any nation wishing to impose its military and political will upon Israel. That is up until now. Because of the war and the subsequent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan there is a perception amongst Arab militants that America is no longer in a position to readily assist Israel at this time.
Additionally the arming of the Hezbollah and Hamas militias by Iran and Syria has changed the military dynamics of the region. So while America continues to be bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel is now faced with the prospect of fighting a war on multiple fronts without that (perceived) American military advantage. Needless to say the perception that America is not in a position to readily assist Israel and the upgraded military prowess of Hezbollah and Hamas may result in an escalation of violence in the Middle East to unprecedented proportions. Israel may have acted as it did (some say disproportionally) due to this perception.
Another factor that is in play in this drama is the fact that in the past when tensions have spilled over into violence between Israel and its neighbors, America was in a position to offer a diplomatic solution. Unfortunately the Bush Administration is arguably the most diplomatically inept administration in modern American history. Also the fact that this administration is now perceived to be unethical, dishonest, and untrustworthy by most Americans and Europeans alike does not bode well for an American led diplomatic solution to this crisis.

In my last commentary I discussed the (metaphysical) consequences of wrong actions. A simple analogy one can take from that commentary is that an individual or even a nation cannot engage in acts contra-posed to justice and peace and escape the consequences of their actions. It is inevitable that at some point in time the universe will (sometimes violently) re-balance itself in some form or fashion and that is a sobering reality that the world will have to deal with.

Darryl Hicks Sets Sights On Secretary Of State Position

July 24, 2006

Atlanta, GA. With a list of issues at hand and big shoes to fill, Democratic hopeful Darryl Hicks says he is ready to become Georgia’s first African American Secretary of State.With current post holder Cathy Cox tossing her hat into the Governor’s race, the Secretary of State Job is one many have their eyes on. Ten candidates are listed on the upcoming ballot for the statewide race, most of which are newcomers to public office.
Hicks however, says he is the most qualified candidate Georgian’s should look to for the service they deserve. “I am a hands-on, experienced candidate ready to use my talents,” he said. “Direct public service is critical to the average Georgian, and will be my focus once elected Secretary of State.” Born in Atlanta, Hicks is the fourth of seven children raised in Reynolds, Ga., on his grandfather’s farm. It was there, he learned early the benefits of strong virtues, good work ethics, determination and the value of facing and conquering life challenges.A graduate of Morris Brown College, Hicks earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting and later an MBA in Executive Management from the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. With 20 years of applicable experience in corporate America, Hicks said he fully understands the administrative role and responsibility the Secretary of State’s office has in implementing the laws put forth by the general assembly.

African-American Leaders split on Lieberman

July 24, 2006

African-American Political Pundit says: Well it appears a number Congressional Black Caucus members are split regarding Senator Lieberman. Two prominent members, U.S. Reps. John Lewis and Maxine Waters, are split over Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and his primary with Ned Lamont. As reported in the courant newspaper its a divide that highlights the question of how the black vote might sway the outcome of this election. We will see how it plays out in the polls. You know my opinion on the matter. I’m in agreement with Congresswoman Maxine Waters.