Blog by reformed leftist "Paul Hue", and his friends, including some UnReformed Leftists; the headlines reflect these competing views.
This is really sad. What does Nagin gain by these comments? What he loses is support from people who share Bush's 911 response, and those who prefer to view the world in general -- and the New Orleans calamity in particular -- non-racially. New Orleans is perhaps now, and for some time to come, white-majority. Those people would generally be happy to support a black mayor who they believed was productively leading a response to Katrina. What fraction of them now will be inclined to reject Nagin? And why not unify Bush -haters and -lovers in the Katrina response? People who would otherwise support Nagin are now hearing the sorts of rhetoric associated with the famous municipal tailspins of DC and Detroit. Hearing this talk may very will give pause to business leaders considering investing in, and potential residents considering moving to, NO. This goes for black as well as white: plenty of black folks are turned off by this talk, as the 100,000 Detroit fleers per month demonstrate.Apparently Nagin is trying the Kwame approach to reelection: inspire sophisticated people to leave (or stay away) and maximize the fraction of people people who are fixated on race-baiting rather than prosperity.PS: Vanilla is not white. Vanilla is the color of cinnomon. And neither does vanilla lack taste: it is one of the most admired and covetted tastes in the cullinary universe. It is also a required component of "chocolate". And among the ignorant statements of Nagin is his claim that "milk" is a component of chocolate. Milk -- which, unlike vanilla, is indeed white -- but it goes only into "milk chocolate", which is resoundly regarded as an inferrior bastardized rendition of chocolate, which by definition contains only: cocao, cocoa butter, sugar, and vanilla.
Though Paul's tirade is silly, I won't address it at all.For the same reason I won't address Nagin's comments. They were just plain stupid. On NPR's News & Notes this evening, Julianne Malveaux pointed out that Nagin is a first-term mayor who was not a politician before. Obviously he lacks political skills.
Why does it always seem that democrats make that most outragous and insane remarks? I forgot stupid and slightly retarded. If Nagin wants a "Chocolate City", he needs to move to Hershey Pennsylvania. He can have all the Chocolate he can handle.
I just read an article (below) stating that in Nagin's election, he won 90% of the white vote whle losing a majority of the black vote, and has suffered from black opponents calling him an uncle tom. So these comments may have been an attempt to win support from a crowd that he has trouble enthusing.http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/17/D8F6M8IG2.html
" Why does it always seem that democrats make that most outragous and insane remarks?"When did Pat Robertson, Trent Lott and George Bush become Democrats?
Ann Coulter is a Democrat now?
Nagin was a Republican who switched to Democrat just before he signed up to run as mayor. So he is a Democrat in name only.I would also classify DLC superstar Hillary as a Dem in name only.So it seems the insane comments are coming from the other side of the aisle, Brother Republican...
Repo Bro: I think that plenty of Repos make really stupid comments. So I have to agree with Nadir here. I think that our best strategy here is to simply lambaste the comment at hand. I don't know what to think about Nagin. I'm aware that he is a former Repo who changed parties at the last minute. That makes me inclined to think he has some good sense. But as soon as the flood hit NO, he started behaving like a democrat: blaming the fedl govt for failing to properly manage NO, etc. And now these comments. I just watched a new documentary about Abe Lincoln over the weekend. It reminded me of the slimey origins of the democratic party, and the high-minded origins of the republican party. In the election of 1860, the democratic party truly was the pro-slavery party. Meanwhile the Republican party was formed for the purpose of eradicating slavery; it was indeed the abolitionist party.Another relevent point: Ol' Abe faced many of the same charges that Bush does, from initiating a "war of choice rather than of neccessity", of his public growing disenchanted for lack of progress, of charges that he started the war for one purpose (to hold the union together) and then changed to another purpose (ending slavery), too many causulties, practicing torture and terrorism, and acting like a dictator at home in arresting disenters and spying on people. His critics were correct on many of these counts (terror, spying, arresting, lack of progrees) and wrong on others.But I am heartened that despite his faults, his war made a historical advance for freedom, and today we all enjoy its fruits.
Sorry Paul, I have to respond to Nadir on this.Trent Lott said some kind words about Strom Thurmond at his PRIVATE birthday party. I remember Senator Christopher Dodd saying on the Senate floor that Robert Byrd would have been great doing the Civil War. NextPat Robertson is not an elected offical. He is a private citizen, he represents his own views.Ann Coulter is another private citizen non elected NextNagin said God wants New Orleans to be an African American city. Quick question, wasn't New Orleans a majority African American city before Katrina. One would say that hurricanes are god's creation. So I don't think Nagin actually speaks for god on this. As for Nagin being a republican, thank god he is making an ass out of himself as a democrat. We don't need nor tolerate wacky lunatics as elected officals representing our party. He's the perfect fit in the democrat ranks. Next
Post a Comment