The following assessment of our president comes from Harry C. Alford, president/CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Let me restate the source. This is from Harry C. Alford, not Sean Hannity.
And for my brother Vern I have not doctored a single word of this evaluation of president Obama turning his back on his black brothers when they could have used his assistance.
For those progressive, left wing, Democrats who might allege that this assessment was altered by me I have added the story link below.
“Has President Obama Become the Head Gate Keeper?
In November 2008 the Black component of the Democratic Party was flying sky high. We just elected our first Black president at lightening speed. It appeared the replacement for his senate seat would go, by default, to another Black leader. We had two Black governors in the key states of Massachusetts (Deval Patrick) and New York (David Patterson). The environment was beckoning all potential Black leaders to adjust their goals upward and shoot for it all. Black political power was real and it was charging like a big steam roller.
Mysteriously something happened along our way to the year 2010. The Obama Administration has fewer Blacks in key positions than the first administrations of Bush and Clinton. Is this progress? Time will tell but at least the inspiration for campaigning for the top congressional, state and city offices is apparently undeniable. It is undeniable but there appears to be some very strong resistance from the top office in the land. Presidents, who have political capital, share that with aspiring party mates. They endorse, raise money and just by visiting and appearing with the candidates they can propel a rising star to victory. Not only is there reticence but there is apparent push back or discouragement. Has the first Black president become the “HNIC” of the Democratic political gate? Let’s look at some glaring examples.
The state of New York is very key to the two party political system. There are significant electoral votes and a large population and money base that any political party with some common sense would want to court. The state has its first Black governor and he is going to need a lot of support from the Democratic National Committee and a strong push from the pool of other Black political players. However, he is not getting the support or even encouragement from President Obama. In fact, the President has told him to consider stepping out of the race. That’s right. He is asking for him to disappear.
It gets worse. Black city councilman Bill Thompson should have won the recent New York City mayoral race. He would have with just some decent interaction by President Obama. A few fundraisers, photo opportunities and strong words of encouragement from the White House probably would have done the trick. Instead, there was practically nothing. The only praise went to his opponent, independent incumbent Mayor Bloomberg. Thompson raised $9 million while Bloomberg spent more than $100 million (much of his own). In the end, Thompson lost by just 4.5%. President Obama’s involvement would have made a difference. A close friend of candidate Thompson sums it up, “The first Black President who tells the first Black governor to get out and he won’t help the guy who wants to be the second Black mayor? The irony is thick.” Yes it is.
Congressman Harold Ford recently announced that he will be running for the New York senate seat that was previously held by Hillary Clinton. All hell has broken loose. Here’s a guy who is supposed to be in the Democratic National Committee inner circle and they are throwing everything at him to stop his plans. Shouldn’t they be encouraging them?
In addition to the New York City mayoral race, two other major cities had close races. In Atlanta, Kasim Reed barely won. He had to go through a runoff and then a recount but he barely edged out his opponent. Funny, all he needed was a little support from the White House but this Black man barely beat out a white candidate who appealed to the extreme conservative right. In Atlanta, we were lucky.
We were not so lucky in Houston. This city which is majority minority had a similar close race. In a runoff, candidate Gene Locke lost to his white opponent. Locke also has strong credentials and just needed strong support coming in to assist. It never came.
Senator Roland Burris should be gearing up for his re-election in Illinois. He holds the seat Obama had but he is being bludgeoned by the powers to be. His fundraising infrastructure has been destroyed and they want him to go away big time. In the end, I feel the Republican Party, which is now amused by this, will take this seat at the next election.
Congressman Kendrick Meek is running for the Florida senate seat while Artur Davis has announced his bid for Governor of Alabama. They, too, are meeting resistance from those we would think would embrace their endeavors and fully support them. President Obama, just what is going on? We need to get our act together and support what the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement provided for us. The above activity coupled with the recently exposed racist remarks by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid causes us to wonder: “Have things actually gotten better?””
Mr. Alford is the co-founder, President/CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce®. Website: www.nationalbcc.org.
http://www.nationalbcc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=965:has-president-obama-become-the-head-gate-keeper&catid=63:beyond-the-rhetoric&Itemid=8
Larry,
Please spare us your crocodile tears for the “poor black man”, you could give a flying f**k about ANY of this EXCEPT for the fact that it is CRITICAL of Obama. A quick google of the subject will show you that Obama is damned if he does, danmed if he doesn’t. Can you imagine the howling cries of “reverse racism” from the right-wing if Obama went to bat for some of these black candidates, some of whom are very flawed?
FYI found this on Diversity Inc.;
Obama Vs. Bush: Scorecard on Cabinet Diversity
By Sam Ali – Nov 4, 2009
President Obama can’t seem to catch a break. Poor guy can’t even shoot a game of hoops at the White House without being castigated by one group for not including another.
His administration is too white, some say. Too male, others argue. He doesn’t have enough women in top Cabinet-level jobs. He doesn’t have enough Blacks or Latinos in the White House press office. Well, we decided to see just how Obama’s Cabinet stacks up against his predecessor’s initial lineup in terms of racial, ethnic and gender diversity.
Bush’s administration, which included the appointments of retired Army General Colin Powell and Dr. Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, both Black, was one of the most diverse in history.
What our analysis revealed: Bush will have to relinquish his title. The nation’s first Black president is now the reigning champ of the most diverse Cabinet in history. In fact, Obama’s Cabinet appointments beat Bush’s initial Cabinet appointments hands down in terms of racial/ethnic/gender diversity on nearly all counts, with women and Asians faring the best.
Of the 23 key Cabinet-level positions in Obama’s administration, 10, or 43 percent, are filled by white men. Four of the top jobs, or 17 percent, are filled by white women—former Sen. Hillary Clinton, former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, economist Christina Romer and former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.
Three positions, or 13 percent, are filled by Asian Americans (former Washington Gov. Gary Locke, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki and Nobel Prize winner Steven Chu). Two out of the 23 appointments, or 8 percent, are filled by Latinos (former Sen. Ken Salazar and former Rep. Hilda L. Solis). And four jobs, or 18 percent, are filled by Blacks (Eric H. Holder Jr., Susan E. Rice, Lisa P. Jackson and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk).
For the full article go to;
http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/6319/
anonster. As you would beat up on Bush 43, unless I am mistaken, let me restate George’s support of Latino’s at a Town Hall convention held in Ontario in Jan 2002. Ron Winship and I covered that packed house on the Cutting Edge a talk show. Watch the program and listen as Hispanic leaders commend the president for his support of Hispanic’s and inclussion of Latino’s at the decision making table.
I expected someone to react with some form of spin. So you are telling us that elected blacks are not qualified to serve? It’s OK for Obama to come across the country to hold up that white man named Harry Reid when there were black candidates closer to DC that he either opposes or chooses not to help?
Didn’t blacks vote for him in huge numbers? Like 96%.
Hey, I’m D man now so it’s OK to throw you under a bus.
If you look at that website, you’ll see that minority owned businesses (Hispanic, Asian, Black, women) have received very little of the stimulus money. Definitely less than their share of the population and the number of businesses they own.
Sorry, but Obama is doing a lousy job. He takes his orders from Wall St, and
as long as they are allowed to plunder the Treasury everything is OK. Obama couldn’t care less about the economy.
Senator Roland Burris was appointed by the former disgraced governor. They were told at the time that if the governor appointed someone they would not be supported for re-election. But Burris and what was his name cooked up a deal of sorts. In this case and at this time Obama is keeping out of it very wisely.
The other two I do not know about and you could be right perhaps he should have been there to help. But it seems to me that he has been extremely busy working on attempting to keep his campaign promises along with two wars and attempting to reverse the ecomonic disaster he inherited.
Perhaps he was too busy trying to do the job he got elected to to get involved in mayorial races.
Jim. Mr. Patterson is the governor of New York state. That is not chump change. President Obama should be focused on governing and not campaigning during these troubling times. He has placed the mid term elections above the need for jobs, especially in the heartland of our nation.
Re: “he has been extremely busy working on attempting to keep his campaign promises…”
LOL
Larry,
“…let me restate George’s support of Latino’s at a Town Hall convention held in Ontario in Jan 2002. Ron Winship and I covered that packed house on the Cutting Edge a talk show. Watch the program and listen as Hispanic leaders commend the president for his support of Hispanic’s and inclussion of Latino’s at the decision making table.”
I don’t know how the above statement is relevant (please, stay on topic), but here’s Obama’s record on Hispanic appointments;
Obama Naming Hispanics to Top Posts at Record Pace
by Laura Wides-Munoz, Associated Press , December 22, 2009
President Obama and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (White House photo by Pete Souza)
MIAMI – President Barack Obama is on track to name more Hispanics to top posts than any of his predecessors, drawing appointees from a wide range of the nation’s Latino communities, including Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Colombians.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is by far Obama’s most famous Hispanic appointee. In less than a year in office, the president has also tapped at least 48 other Hispanics to positions senior enough to require Senate confirmation. So far, 35 have been approved.
That compares with a total of 30 approved under Bill Clinton and 34 under George W. Bush during their first 20 months in office, according to U.S. Office of Personnel Management data.
***********************
“So you are telling us that elected blacks are not qualified to serve?”
Where did I state that, be specific?
************************
“It’s OK for Obama to come across the country to hold up that white man named Harry Reid when there were black candidates closer to DC that he either opposes or chooses not to help?”
Yeah, Harry Reid IS the Senate Majority Leader, kind of a crucial position for helping his agenda through congress, where as David Paterson is a mediocre Governor (at best), I refer you to a recent NY Times article on him;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/nyregion/19paterson.html
*************************
“Didn’t blacks vote for him in huge numbers? Like 96%.
Hey, I’m D man now so it’s OK to throw you under a bus.”
Huh? What’s a “D man”, honky?
**************************
Jim. Mr. Patterson is the governor of New York state. That is not chump change. President Obama should be focused on governing and not campaigning during these troubling times. He has placed the mid term elections above the need for jobs, especially in the heartland of our nation.”
Which is it Larry, should he be campaigning for black candidates or focus on governing? Like I said, Damned if he does, Damned if he doesn’t, thanks for making my point!
***************************
“As you would beat up on Bush 43,”
You’re right, I blame Bush jr., because he gave us TWO DISASTROUS WARS, TOOK A SURPLUS AND CHANGED IT INTO A HUGE DEFICIT, ALLOWED A MASSIVE OUTFLOW OF AMERICAN JOBS, PEOPLED OUR GOVERNMENT WITH PARTISAN HACKS, CRONIES AND INCOMPETENTS, RUINED OUR REPUTATION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, AND DIDN’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS ABOUT ANY OF IT!
I know Patterson is the Gov of New york, I just had not paid any attention to his record, so I was not going to make a judgement about if he should be supported for re-election or not.
Which is it Larry, should he be campaigning for black candidates or focus on governing? You post seemed to indicate he was not campainging when he should have been
Jim.
He is not up for reelection this fall. So while members of Congress beat the bushes for votes the president should spend his time addressing the problems that millions of Americans are dealing with.
What’s the current rate of unemployment in the states? Just below 10 percent.
I wonder if that includes those who have given up or are working in a part time job to feed their families.
The DNC is in panic mode.
anonster.
According to your comments Bush Jr is responsible for NAFTA and Asian manufacturing?
Are you joking? Do you have any clue as to when we began losing jobs in America?
I addresses that topic when speaking at a trade show circa 1985
Larry,
More crocodile tears, where was your “concern” over job losses during the Bush years?
This graph tells the REAL tale;
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/02/house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-compares-job-losses-under-presidents-obama-and-bush.php?page=1
anonster.
You are truly testing me. On Jan 5,2002 we covered President Bush at a Town Hall in Ontario entitled “Working for America” that was sponsored by several Hispanic organizations.
Prior to hearing from the president one of the event sponsors, Mario Rodriguez, Chairman stated that “many elected officials make promises but don’t deliver. President Bush has appointed more Latino’s in Federal Government than any president.” He went on to say that “Latino’s have been at the table” when policy issues are being discussed.
This was followed by a standing ovation where president Bush told the audience:”siéntese, siéntese por favor.”
While I do not track who has appointed more minorities I will not give you a pass this time.
.
anonster.
nice try. But this post is about president Obama, not W
Larry,
I agree that Clinton’s signing of Bush Sr.’s NAFTA agreement has been a disaster for this country, but Bush jr. was President for 8 years after, why didn’t his Republican policies of “free trade”, “deregulation” and all those juicy tax cuts turn this country around? You want to blame Clinton, give Bush a pass and act like all of America’s troubles (deficits, wars, unemployment, etc.) sprang to life on Obama’s watch.
Here’s a REALITY CHECK;
The Bush Legacy Takes Shape
As you might guess, it’s not quite what his supporters have in mind. Consider the damage he’s done to the economy.
PAUL WALDMAN | January 13, 2009 |
In the late 1990s, Grover Norquist and some other conservative activists realized that all across the country, Americans were landing in airports, driving on roads, and attending junior high schools named after such non-conservatives as Thomas Jefferson, John Kennedy, and Franklin Roosevelt. To remedy this state of affairs, they started the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, whose primary goal was to get something named after the 40th president in every last county in America, not to mention getting Reagan on the $10 bill. (And yes, they have a Web site. My favorite part of the site is the page titled “This Day in Reagan History,”, which reads, in its entirety, “This is where content goes.” So true.)
Silly as it might sound, this is actually serious business, as it concerns our national memory and the way future generations understand our history. Those who appreciate this include the supporters of the man who will be president for just one more week. Whenever George W. Bush himself gets asked about his rather remarkable record of ineptitude, he usually responds that “the historians will decide” if his administration really was the train wreck it appears today or if over time the true wisdom of his decisions will have revealed itself. But behind the scenes, as The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes revealed last month on CNN, “there’s an ongoing Bush legacy project that’s been meeting in the White House, really, with senior advisers, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes has been involved, current senior Bush administration advisers, and they are looking at how to sort of roll out the president’s legacy.” To illustrate the magnitude of their challenge, witness this recent headline from The Washington Times, which has practically been the Republican National Committee house organ for its entire quarter-century of existence: “Rove: Bush Hardly Worst President.”
We’ll never settle whether Rove is right — after all, how do you compare Bush to Franklin Pierce or Millard Fillmore? But now that Bush’s tenure is coming to a close, we can begin making some conclusions about the eight years we just lived through. For the moment, let’s look at one of the areas people used to believe Republicans were really good at managing: the economy.
Start with jobs. Just before Bush took office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the total seasonally adjusted nonfarm employment in the United States of America was 135.8 million. In the report the bureau released last week, that same figure was 143.3 million, meaning that there are 7.5 million more jobs in America at the end of Bush’s term than there were at its beginning. That may not sound too terrible, until you consider that over that time the country’s population has increased by 22 million (two-thirds of the population is in the labor force competing for those jobs). It also means that there were about three jobs created during the Clinton years for every one job created during the Bush years.
How about Bush’s management of the government’s fiscal condition? Like other Republican presidents, Bush came to office decrying the size of government and promising to don his green eyeshade and make sure the books were balanced. And like other Republican presidents, he managed to increase government spending and balloon the deficit.
Perusing the historical tables of the 2009 budget, we see that during the last year for which Bill Clinton was responsible (2001), the surplus was $128 billion, or 1.3 percent of gross domestic product. That’s surplus. In Bush’s budget for 2009, which was submitted last February, the deficit was projected to be $407 billion, or 2.7 percent of GDP. That, of course, was before the $700 billion we gave to the banks (don’t ask what they’re doing with it, by the way, because the Treasury Department won’t tell you).
Of course, Barack Obama plans to add about $1 trillion to Bush’s deficit with his stimulus plan, the success of which will go a long way toward determining whether Obama does better on the deficit question than Bush did. While Obama is unlikely to reduce what the government spends, he can reduce the deficit if he can duplicate what happened under Clinton: powerful growth that fueled an explosion in tax revenues.
Nonetheless, we shouldn’t forget that Clinton’s expansion of government was extraordinarily modest compared to that of his successor. If you compare George H. W. Bush’s last budget (for 1993) to Clinton’s last budget (for 2001), you see an increase in spending of 12.7 percent in constant dollars. Compare Clinton’s last budget to George W. Bush’s last budget, and you see an increase of 34.7 percent, or nearly three times as much. Calculated as a function of GDP, the difference between the two is even more stark: federal government spending as a proportion of GDP declined by almost 3 percentage points under Clinton, then increased by more than 2 percentage points under Bush. So much for those profligate Democrats and thrifty Republicans.
And what about the typical American’s paycheck? Although incomes went up at all levels during the Clinton administration, you will be unsurprised to learn (if you didn’t know already) that most of the gains Americans got from the Bush years were concentrated at the top. As the Economic Policy Institute’s new State of Working America report says, “For the first time since the Census Bureau began tracking such data back in the mid-1940s, the real incomes of middle-class families are lower at the end of this business cycle [from 2000 to 2007] than they were when it started.”
By almost any measure, this administration failed on the economy. Unless, of course, you measure corporate profits (they did quite well) or the taxes with which the wealthy are burdened (these have been compassionately reduced). It was the latter that seemed to animate the administration’s sense of urgency for its time in office. Remember what Dick Cheney told then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill when O’Neill objected to eliminating the tax on stock dividends because of the effect it would have on the deficit: “We won the [2002] midterms. This is our due.” It may not make any economic sense, in other words, but it’s our reward for a political victory, the thing we want so bad our lips are quivering with desire for it.
There are other means we could use to assess Bush’s failure — the Dow Jones, for instance, was 2,000 points lower at the end of 2008 than it was at the end of 2000. Gross domestic product, which rose by an average of 3.6 percent per year during the Clinton years, rose by only 1.4 percent per year during the Bush years. But all the figures can numb us to the fact that what we’re talking about is real human lives. Every lost job is a family in crisis, a couple fearing for their future, a blanket of misery covering a home. The decline in the stock market represents people in their 70s who after a lifetime of labor now have no choice but to end their retirements and go back to work. There may well be a generation whose entire outlook on the world is shaped by the suffering coursing through the country right now, just as the generation who grew up during the Depression was shaped by the ravages of that period.
Karl Rove and the other Bush loyalists will try to burnish George W. Bush’s legacy in the days to come — after all, his failures are theirs as well. It’s up to the rest of us to never let anyone forget what this presidency was really about.
anonster.
Do you truly expect me to read through all of this history?
As I remind people, our cars rear view mirrors are much smaller than our windshield for a very good reason. While its important to know where you’ve been, we need to keep our eyes on the road ahead to avoid potholes. I didn’t mention Clinton yet you respond naming him and Bush 41. Both off the thread
Larry,
Sorry, I forgot how thin-skinned and childish you are.
“But this post is about president Obama, not W”
Yeah, you Repug’s wish you could “disappear” Bush’s legacy, but it’s a liberal’s job to hang the stinking, rotting mess of an economy Bush left, around your necks, where it belongs.
At your service in truth, justice and the American way.
anonster. Are you joking? Everyone writing for this blog has a thick skin. That’s a prerequisite for dealing with anonymous people like yourself.
That said, I do look forward to our, on the thread, exchanges.
Larry,
“Do you truly expect me to read through all of this history?”
It’s an article Larry, perhaps if you read more you would be better informed.
“As I remind people, our cars rear view mirrors are much smaller than our windshield for a very good reason. While its important to know where you’ve been, we need to keep our eyes on the road ahead to avoid potholes.”
Unfortunately, the MESS that Bush left ISN’T BEHIND us, a better metaphor;
Bush drove the car right smack dab into the middle of a GIANT CROCODILE INFESTED SWAMP and Obama is left to maneuver it out , meanwhile the Republican’s and their cheer squad Faux News continue throwing brickbats at him and DON’T seem to grasp the fact that OUR COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE and NEEDS SOLUTIONS, NOT PETTY PARTISAN POLITICS!
” I didn’t mention Clinton yet you respond naming him and Bush 41. Both off the thread”
But YOU did bring up NAFTA, that agreement that Bush Sr. negotiated and Clinton signed, I at least don’t pretend that history didn’t happen. NAFTA has been a disaster for US manufacturing, but even after knowing NAFTA’s lessons, George W Bush went ahead and pushed for CAFTA and who can ever forget that midnight vote and the Repug’s wheeling and dealing;
The Poison Sausage Factory
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Congress passed a multinational trade bill known as CAFTA last week, but not without a feverish late night vote marred by controversy and last-minute vote switching. Leaving aside the arguments for or against CAFTA itself, the process by which the bill ultimately passed should sicken every American who believes in representative government.
Late-night arm-twisting by House leaders to get votes is of course nothing new. We witnessed far worse when Congress passed the ruinous Medicare prescription drug bill in the dead of night two years ago. Yet even after months of unprecedented wheeling and dealing by corporate lobbyists, congressional leaders, and the White House, the Washington establishment still failed to pass CAFTA in the US House. That’s right, when the 15-minute voting period expired last Wednesday evening, CAFTA seemingly had been defeated.
Here’s how. As the vote progressed, the tally was neck and neck. When the 15-minute period ended, CAFTA had gone down in flames. But pro-CAFTA forces were so determined to get what they wanted, they broke the rules. House leadership ignored the time limit and kept twisting arms and making deals until they finally had the votes to pass CAFTA nearly an hour later.
What kind of deals? Well, one member of House leadership told reluctant legislators, “We’ve got to have you; you tell us what you want.” And tell they did. Lawmakers in textile producing states were bought off with promises of textile subsidies. Lawmakers in sugar-producing states were bought off with promises of special treatment in the 2007 farm bill. On and on it went, with promises of new bridges, parks, and whatever else it took to pass CAFTA.
Rest assured that you will pay dearly for these bribes used to buy votes. Every favor granted and every pet project funded comes on top of the pork-laden appropriations bills already passed in the House this year. These new goodies will be added to the final House-Senate versions passed later this year. One of my colleagues estimated that the price tag for buying the CAFTA vote will be at least $50 billion. That’s right, $50 billion to win a vote. Is this what you want from your representatives in office?
Perhaps the strangest vote buyoff occurred two days before the CAFTA vote. Lawmakers from hard-hit manufacturing districts steadfastly have opposed CAFTA, arguing that it would accelerate the outsourcing of jobs to nations with cheap labor. So House leaders scrambled to craft last-minute legislation to “get tough” on China, which is the real source of concern for most American manufacturers. A bill was drawn up, and a hasty vote cast, so lawmakers could explain that they traded a yes vote on CAFTA for action against China. One small problem presented itself, however: the China bill failed on the House floor! So House leaders went back to the drawing board, struck some and held a second vote on the same bill the next day. This time it passed, but its chances of surviving the Senate or a White House veto are virtually nil. So members from manufacturing districts literally sold their votes for nothing. Their months of double-talking, coyness, and vote peddling resulted in nothing more than an empty promise.
The president’s press secretary called the CAFTA vote “a real victory for the American people.” The problem is the vast majority of Americans have not even heard of CAFTA, and those who have overwhelmingly oppose it. CAFTA was conceived and created by corporate interests, and to claim otherwise is preposterous. The CAFTA vote had nothing to do with the American public, or even trade policy per se. CAFTA was driven by politics and nothing more. Multinational corporations and political globalists share the same goals, namely the centralization of political power in international bodies and the diminution of national sovereignty. What we witnessed last week was not just the selling of votes, but also a sellout of American control over our own trade regulations.
anonster.
Is it possible for you to come up with your own opinion rather than someone else’s talking points?
Sorry friend but Bush 43 is not part of this post. Nor is Bill Clinton or George Washington.
Get it!
Brother Larry.
Sister Anonster (who is not quite as anonymous as you make out, you and I are quite capable of seeing her name) DOES post some very lengthy copy & pastes of extremely valuable articles, to back her points. They may be wearisome and disquieting for you to read, as they come from sources you would normally eschew. But they are verifiable. What’s her alternative – just babble off the cuff like grate one or quinn with no documentation to back her up – or just post a link that will probably not be clicked on?
Pursuant to her comment #11, I had been wanting to post that chart for a while. It’s pretty freaking hard to argue with. But I, unlike anonster, have the capability to actually place it here. Job losses/gains under the last year of Bush and this first year of Obama:
Yes, and the ineffable Tom Friedman might VERY well say “SUCK. ON. THAT.“
Brother Vern. For starters. George W Bush no longer lives on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Second. This post is about president Obama and the Black Chamber president.
Third. If you want to post a critique of Bush 43 you surely have the ability to do so without contaminating this thread. Beyond that I have no intention to respond to the above comment
Larry,
Have you NO SHAME?
“Is it possible for you to come up with your own opinion rather than someone else’s talking points?”
That’s rich, considering that 90% of YOUR original post was copied and pasted from “someone else”.
*****************
“Sorry friend but Bush 43 is not part of this post. Nor is Bill Clinton or George Washington.”
Sorry Larry, but again, YOU brought Bush 43 and Clinton into this debate not ME!
Lest you forget;
” As you would beat up on Bush 43, unless I am mistaken, let me restate George’s support of Latino’s at a Town Hall convention held in Ontario in Jan 2002.”
“According to your comments Bush Jr is responsible for NAFTA and Asian manufacturing?
Are you joking? Do you have any clue as to when we began losing jobs in America?
I addresses that topic when speaking at a trade show circa 1985”
How predictable you are, when you’re on the LOSING END of a debate, you cry; OFF TOPIC!
Really. Very. Childish.
Anonster. While I can’t speak for our other contributors many of my posts come from press releases and published stories or remarks of others to stimulate debate. While I add my own opinion to these posts I also include the link to avoid being accused of fudging facts.
There is no problem with backing up your disagreement however I truly prefer not reading an entire book to get to the meat of the point you are trying to make.
As to my reference to “circa 1985.” You took me off this thread by blaming the Bush administration for our job losses when I addressed an international electronics conference on that very issue of job losses long before he ran for president.
You left me no choice other than to refute that comment.
Losing the debate. What debate? The president of the Black Chamber did not state verifiable facts?
I await your proof.
Vern,
Thanks for your support. Actually, I just learned how to cut and paste and must admit to over use.
For a non-typist, it’s like being a kid-in-a-candy-store, I just can’t help myself.
CONTAMINATING! Now that is nasty talk!
How about if I post that chart again on my own post, will you come over and discuss it? Or do we all pass each other like ships in the night around here?
Brother Vern. Go for it. Perhaps you might post a story about Jimmy Carter as your rear view mirror is apparently larger than your windshield.
Larry, you so miss the point. I do not dwell overmuch on the past. The POINT is that the chart above shows that our current President is doing something right!
Larry,
“Losing the debate. What debate? The president of the Black Chamber did not state verifiable facts?
I await your proof.”
From YOUR post quoting Harry C. Alford, president/CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce;
“The Obama Administration has fewer Blacks in key positions than the first administrations of Bush and Clinton. Is this progress?”
Facts from Diversity inc.;
“What our analysis revealed: Bush will have to relinquish his title. The nation’s first Black president is now the reigning champ of the most diverse Cabinet in history. In fact, Obama’s Cabinet appointments beat Bush’s initial Cabinet appointments hands down in terms of racial/ethnic/gender diversity on nearly all counts, with women and Asians faring the best.”
Obama’s cabinet; 18% of positions filled by blacks, Bush’s cabinet; 13% of positions filled by blacks, but you’d KNOW this if you had bothered to access and read my link.
http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/6319/
**************************
“Brother Vern. For starters. George W Bush no longer lives on Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Yes Larry, we know that, but he left a MOUNTAIN of TRASH behind.
Vern,
Don’t you wish Larry’s fantasy world, where each President starts with a clean slate, were true, think of it; no massive debt, no huge deficits, no disastrous wars and no trillion dollar budgets to pay for it all.
anonster.
And based on your clean slate we might not have experienced 9/11. If president Clinton had taken care of al Qaeda terrorist attacks on his watch the world would be a safer place today. Examples: Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, two US Embassies in Africa and the USS Cole for starters. We did not walk softly and carry a big stick giving Osama the impression that we are a nation of doves.
Spending too much time in the rear view mirrors leads to accidents when the focus should be on the road ahead. Glad you enjoy the blame game. Is this Solitaire or do you want me to join in?
Larry,
Sorry, taking care of the USS Cole was Bush jr’s job, and NEVER FORGET he had PLENTY of WARNING about 9-11, he just CHOSE to IGNORE it.
I think criminal defense attorney’s would LOVE your philosophy, “it’s all in the past, forget about it”.
anonster.
Your silence on Khobar Towers and terrorist attacks on two US Embassies is not included in your rebuttal.
When someone smacks you and get’s no reaction they tend to get bolder in their future actions.
Perhaps I can tell you of a CIA operative whose unit was called off when going after these terrorists in Afghanistan by someone high up in the Clinton Administration.
Don’t put off for tomorrow something that can be dealt with today applies in this case.