Newspapers / The Charlotte post. / Oct. 5, 2006, edition 1 / Page 5
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
5A OPINIONS^ CMtte Thursday, October 5, 2006 Clinton lost his temper: Great! It’s about time that somebody in the leadership of the Democratic Party had the backbone to stand up and con front the right wing drivel that passes for respectable news that is now cloaked in “am-Bush” journalism. The coverage of Bill Clinton’s response to the questions about Osama bin Laden raised in his interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News has been replete with charges that “Clinton flew off the hook,” ‘lost his cool” or was “unpresidential.” Tbtally understated was the tinith of his message that he had attacked Bin Laden ^ * 1R with more vigor than Geoi^ W. Bush and almost got him But Republican critics charged that it was a “wag the dog” action to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. However, an old debating tactic I learned in high school is that some times when you can’t attack the content of the message, attack the stjde in which it was delivered. Just a cursoiy look at Clinton’s record, however, reveals that in 1996 he proposed and led tiie pas sage of the Anti-Tbrrorism Act, partly in response to the bombir^ofthe Oklahoma federal building by home-grown terrorist. Nevertheless, the biQ had a healthy internation al focus, and some of the instruments were used after the bombing of the USS Cole, when he prepared battle plans to go after the Taliban in Af^anistan. But the action was canceled because the FBI and the CIA refused to certify that Osama Bin Laden was the source of the bombing and the mihtary was unable to secure basing right in Uzbekistan. Nevertheless, USA Tbday reported that this administra tion’s use of reconnaissance sateUites to record Bin Laden’s phone calls prevented six more bombings of U. S. embassies after the Kaiya and Tanzania bombings. And even in the last years of Clinton’s administration, in May of2000, he announced the addition of $300 million more to the terrorism fightir^ units of the governments. I don’t think that is a bad record, considering he had nothing like the unity of public support behind his policies that Bush had after 9-11. Nevertheless, there is - or should be — a political effect of Clinton’s defiant response to Chris Wallace. Fu-st, Republicans have been attempting to har^ 9-11 aroimd Clinton’s neck, saying that his administration did nothing about terrorism, something the facts simply do not bear out. The point of this is obviously to shift the blame for the fact that the war in Iraq is goir^ badly and Osama bin Laden has not been captured, potentially leaving a legacy for the Bush administi'ation of failure all around. Second, effectively rebutting Republican charges that his administration was ultimately to blame for 9-11 creates some running room for Hilary Clinton’s presidential aspi rations; she would surely have to address that issue. Right now, she has strongly supported her husband’s forthright response to these charges, sayir^ that he was right to stroi^ly defend his administration and agreed that the Bush administration dropped the ball when it came into office. Third, there is a need to shore up the base vote of the Democratic party for the fall general election and this is the kind of red meat that gets the blood flowing. Democrats have been rolled over by the aggressiveness of the Republican Party beginning with their impeachment of Clinton. Most recently they have consistently flouted bi-partisan governance and run rough-shod over Demoa*ats over elec tions, over the nomination of conservative judges, over the budget, over whether the war is either wise or just and Demoa*ats just have not fought back. Thus, I agree with David Geigen’s comment that this might have just created a dynamic that is needed by the base of the Democratic Party in seeing a credible leader finally stand up to the Republican onslaught. Howard Dean, Democratic party Chair, has suffered rebuke 'fiom fellow Democrats when he has tried to lead in the direction of confionting Republicans. But party leaders were either outright timid or preferred a more moderate approach because they believed the American people were afraid of the topic. But Clinton proved that he is not afraid of any topic. RON WALTERS is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar. Director of the African American Leadership Institute and Professor of Government and Politics at the Universitv of Maryland— College Park. it’s about time somebody in leadership of the Democratic Forty hod the backbone to to stand up and confront the right wing drivel that passes for respectable news... When politicians sell out our interests Wake up, black folksi The time has ccme, indeed, it is far past due, to “call the roll” or to identify clearly those among us who sdl us out, either for personal-political gain and/or as ^ents support ing or peipetuating white supremacy-racism in this community And state Sen. Malcolm Graham, imquestionably is an exam^e of a politically dangerous “sell out” of the interests of blacks in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Indeed, as history teaches us, some of slave traders in Afiica, with black faces and apparentlynaive about chattel slavery, sold us out to Eturopeans who bought us here in chains, branded us like cattle, broke up our families, enslaved-brutalized us for nearly 250 years, exploited our “fiee” labor, while accumulat ing great wealth for themselves, providing the eco nomic foundation for America-wealth passes on finm generation to generations of whites-as dispro- GyaSI portionate poverty was passed on to us. FOLUKE Moreover, after chattel slavery ended in 1865, blacks remained enslaved economically Ihrou^ a quasi-slave system of share cropping and subsistence wages; that is, those of us who managed to survive the barbarism of massive lynching, urban pogroms, the dehumanization of racial segrega tion and/or related forms of domestic terrorism. And during these years, we also had a number of black “sell outs” or traitors who worked against the interests of the black masses for their p^on- al-poUtical gain Addirg insult to injury the dominant majority made it a crime to teach blacks to read or write during the era of chattel slav«y-a public policy designed to keep us gnorant, noncompetitive and sodo-economicaUy subordinate on the bottom or dung heap of American society And these dastardly immoral public policies were followed by over 100 years of separate, grossly unequal mis- education of our people, misusing our tax dollars, as usual, for enrichment of the dominant majority And these evil policies also were supported by some black “sell outs” or traitors. Closer’ to ‘home,” let us recall that the City of Charlotte recently abandoned any pretense to provide meaningful assistance to black or minority businesses by ellminatii^ its already meager black or minority business program, while creating a so-called small busi ness program, benefitir^ mainly whites, as usual. And let us not forget that it was Senator Malcolm Graham that provided the black face on this relatively usdess or specious public policy Therefore, we should not have been surprised that generally white merobers of “our” City Coundl supported Senator Graham during his election campaign to the N.C. Senate, while gena-ally black council members supported his white opponent. Moreover, and naivdy in retrospect, I once supported Senator Graham’s candida cy for the state Senate. More germane, Senator Graham, with $100,000 of state money is now planning to premote a black leadership conference in early January of next year-an idea initially sv^ested by this author. Senator Gi ahaiu, after promising to cooperate with me on this endeavor, subsequently betrayed, disrespected, and hed to me, having created a small clique of unknown supporters-most hkdy “sell outs.” He exduded this author from an apparent series of “secret” planning meetings, where, among other featured speak ers, “they” plan to invite Mr. Juan Williams to Charlotte, appar ently another “sell out” of black inte:ests. And for those who may not know anything about Mr. Wikiams, I encourage you to read his book, “Enough Is Enough/’ where he attacks reparations for blacks, equating it to “begging” which z-eflects that “blacks are wards of the state because they are a bro ken people.” And yes, to the degree that we ARE ‘hroken” and broke (i.e., in poverty), it was done mainly by white racists in col laboration with their ‘kneegro” allies or traitors. Moreover, on reparations. Mi*. Williams has written: “Social ills in the black community would be ecaggerated as black people, flzish wilh one big check, decide they don’t need school, don’t need a job, and remove themselves fi-om the vitality of mainstream American hfe”- outrageous nonsense, par excellence. Finally and totally apart fi’om the reality that most blacks, never, have been in the “mainstream American life”-with the Katrina dis aster in New Orleans reflectii^ a recent case in point—many, if not most i-eputable black scholars and activists, past and present, have supported I’eparations, including the late Dr. Martin L. King Jr. Moreover, we strongly support the posture of Attorney Randall Robinson, author or The Debt, who reminded us that the race problem in America CANNOT be resolved in the absence of repa rations. Therefore, I challenge Senator Graham and other political “sell outs” who thrive - like County Commissions Bill James, on Blaming the Victim (Ryan, 1971) - to provide us with their solu- tionCs) to our spiritual or so-called race problem in the absence of reparations. Indeed, if the so-caked small business program pro moted by Malcolm Graham while he was on the City Covmcdl is an example of one of his solutions, “God help us.” GYASI A. FOLUKE. K4A. DD, a non-tradilional Minister, is an author-lec- lurer-consultcmt, public access television producer, retired Air Force officer and pgrt-time CEO of The Kushile Institute for Wholistic Development. I challenge Senator Graham ...to provide us with their solution(s) to our spiritual or so-called race problem in the absence of reparations. National voter ID poses threat Just two months after overwhdmingly passing the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization of 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives recently reversed its com mitment to ensuring the right to vote for all. Under legislation passed recently they want U.S. citizens to show proof of their citizenship to vote and then show photo ID. when they cast their ballots. Introduced by Illinois Republican Rep. Hem’y Hyde, the bill, titled the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (H.R. 4844), passed the House by a vote of 228 to 195. In the process, lawmakers are threatening to disen franchise thousands of elderly, poor and minority Americans by burdenii^ them with costly and inconvenient requirements. Only a quartei’ of eligible voters have passports, which cost $97 to obtain, and naturalization papers used to prove citizenship cost $210 to be replaced. An estimated 6 to 12 percent of votere do not have government-issued photo identification, accord- ir^ to the U. S. Department of Transportation. People of color, people with disabilities, the elderly young, and people who live in poverty ai’e among the groups least likely to have documents proving their citizenship. In certain parts of the United States, elderly African Americans and many Native Americans were bom at home, under the care of mid wives, and do not possess lirth certificates. According to a University of Wtsconsin study fiom Jime, 2005, 23 percent of persons aged 65 and older in that state did not have driver’s licenses or photo identification It also fozmd that less than half of Afiican-American men in Milwaukee County had valid driver’s licenses. H.R. 4844, while appealing on the surface, poses one of the greatest threats to fair and equal voting ri^ts today We shoiild be focusing on encouraging full participation of our dtizmry not finding new ways to hinder the precious ri^t to vote. While it would be great if all citizens had documents such as a passport or a birth certificate readily available, the truth is that many do not, which means that they would have to pay for them in oi’der to vote. Four states - Georgia, Missouri, Indiana and Arizona — have enacted laws requiring photo ID to vote. In two of those states, federal courts have struck them down as unconstitutional. In 2005, a federal judge in Georgia characterized the requirement as a poll tax. I can’t agree more: It’s a 21st Century poll tax. The bill’s proponents maintain they’re trying to crack down on voting fraud. But I would say they are perpetuating the greatest fraud of all. They’re ti’ying to prevent eligible Americans finm exercising their most sacred and important dvil right. Falsely daim- ing dtizenship and voting fraudulently have long been federal offenses. According to the Brennan Center for Jizstice, Americans are as likely to commit election fraud as they are getting killed by listening. Since Octob^ of 2002, a total of 86 U.S. residents have been convicted of federal dection fraud, while nearly 197,000,000 ballots have been cast in general elections. In Ohio, a statewide survey foxmd four instances of ineligible persons voting or attemptii^ to vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9,078,728 votes cast - a rate of 0.00004 percent. Cathy Cox, the secretary of state for Georgia, has admitted that she could not recall one documented case of voter impersonation at the polls during her nine yeare as the state’s top election offi- dal. It is obvious that our current laws against voting fraud work when properly enforced. Even if voters have valid ID, many eligible voters will be tizmed away because H.R. 4844 would place an inordinate amoimt of discretion in the hands of overworked and sometimes poorly trained poll work ers. Deciding whether a voter matches or does not match the photo in an ID card - which can be many year’s old — is a very subjective process and prone to mistakes. MARC MORIAL is president and CEO of the National Urban League. Connect with $0J(t Send letters to The Charlotte Po.st, RO. Box 30144 Charlotte, NC 28230 or e-mail editorial@thecharlottepost.com. We edit for grammar, clarity and space. Include your name and daytime phone number. Letters and photo.s will not be returned by mail unless accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope. f THESE POMMIES RUNNlIf 'N fSLIW FOT VVWT ARE\ I THE OOPS OF YOU EVER JWINNING THAT LOTTERY “ YOOYE PWYEP EVERY WEEl^ FOR THE LAST .TWO MCAPES?
Oct. 5, 2006, edition 1
5
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75