Six Words I Can’t Take Back
Posted on October 2, 2009 at 2:50 am“Dude, take that header down. The knives are out. You’re too good.”
That was probably one of the more positive responses to a post I made yesterday which included a video of Steven Turner, the very promising young African-American challenger to State Rep. Mary Pruitt in the 58th house district, making an appeal for support and money.
There was very little text accompanying the video but I did compose this headline to top it: “Is That Jason Powell In Blackface?”
Many, many people have asked me the now obvious question “What were you thinking?”
The political answer, the pragmatic answer, the “smart” answer to that question would be “I don’t know. I wasn’t thinking. I apologize and I assure you it will never, ever happen again.”
Nine of ten people in my position would give that answer to save their skin, go along to get along and live to post another day. Fortunately or unfortunately, I’m that tenth guy.
I can’t say that I didn’t give the post title any thought — because I did. I give most of my post titles thought — the ones that provoke any kind of thought or response anyway.
As you may notice if you stop by here for any length of time, this is an aggregation site. I find things I think are interesting and informative at the local, state, and federal level and share them here. Sometimes I engage in a bit of news analysis or commentary and occasionally even some original reporting. But chiefly, this is an aggregation site.
As aggregation can be a bit boring, I like to spice up the titles a bit. Sometimes it is a movie reference, occasionally some interesting alliteration, sometimes a joke. Often irreverent and frequently disrespectful, they are designed to give a chuckle or make one think. Many times they are vague and ambiguous forcing the reader to ask “What does that mean?”
In fact, I often get emails asking that very thing about titles and I am loathe to explain. I like ambiguity. It would be silly to call blog post titles “art” — clearly they aren’t. But, to me, they are similar in that they frequently are better left unexplained.
Those that know, know. Those that misunderstand, misunderstand. And those that come away with something totally different than my intent share their impressions and make me think.
Suffice it to say, in the last 24 hours, I’ve had a lot to think about.
To those that I offended, I am truly sorry. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. My intent was to provoke a positive discussion. In that, I failed. Because, while I certainly incited something, it wasn’t the least bit constructive.
You see, I remember the race between Jason Powell and Mary Pruitt in 2006. Pruitt had, to this observer, clearly outstayed her welcome in public office. She had had legitimate ethics charges leveled against her. With a fresh progressive qualified challenger running against her, it seemed plausible (on paper anyway) that she would go down to defeat. Powell, by all accounts, ran an exemplary campaign that year. But, he ultimately fell short.
The reason was seldom said but clear as day. Jason Powell was white in a district that wasn’t.
Steven Turner is an outstanding individual who stands tall on his own merit but his brand of progressive politics, while different on the margins, are strikingly similar to Powell’s. Yet Turner has a chance at victory over the entrenched incumbent where Powell did not.
That was essentially the comment that I was trying to make. Was it clumsy? Was it insensitive? Was it reductive? Was it crass? The answer is yes to all four.
But at no time was I attempting to insult Steve Turner or Jason Powell. I admire both a great deal actually. Taking on Mary Pruitt is a difficult task and I admire anyone willing to make the necessary sacrifices to defeat her.
My point was not to say that Steven Turner is really white or anything of the sort. My point was to draw attention to that fact out that, while Jason Powell and Steven Turner were both similarly positive change agents, in our society, Steven Turner has a better chance at victory — and that is unfortunate.
That is the discussion I had hoped to encourage. So to those that I offended and for the failure of an ineptly executed post, I apologize.
SEE ALSO:
Freddie O’Connell
Tiny Cat Pants
Mack
Mike Byrd
Dan Lehr
Chris Wage
Christian Grantham
Rob Robinson
Comments
66 Responses to “Six Words I Can’t Take Back”
No need to apologize. Sad that liberals are using race to chip away at the 1st amendment through their organized protests. Can you “progressives” just go ahead and distribute a list of approved words?
[...] Six Words I Can’t Take Back : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes October 2nd, 2009 2:50 am [...]
Please. Just please. I missed this kerfuffle yesterday and I know why I missed it. Nothing, not the blog post title, caught my attention.
This blog is written for a pretty sophisticated crowd. That’s the target audience. A racist white redneck ain’t coming to Post Politics to get his fill every day. If you thought the post title “missed,” fine… comment and move on.
I’ll say this. We are encouraged to talk race, to engage the topic, to not ignore the elephant in the room. Then when someone has the initiative to engage and to provoke thought and discussion, he gets hammered. If Kleinheider has to “pay for this,” then we’ll be that much less willing to discuss things, like race, that are worthy of discussion.
“A racist white redneck ain’t coming to Post Politics to get his fill every day.”
That may be true, but I believe there are also those hypocrites who post here who claim that the people who say that some of Obama’s opponents are driven by racism or at least racially based concepts, are racist themselves.
Race has become an issue that needs to be talked about, but can only be talked about in certain ways by certain people, like Chris Rock.
It’s a little like war or disabilities. Combat veterans and the disabled can joke about things civilians and the healthy can’t or shouldn’t.
And while many believe that’s not fair, they seem to misunderstand the role of humor in stressful situations.
For combat veterans, minorities, the disabled and those fighting life style changing diseases, humor often times is a WAY of communicating, a WAY of dealing with what they have to deal with.
When those who don’t have to deal with what others do make jokes or make flippant sounding comments, it’s seen as insensitive and exploitive of something they really know nothing about.
That’s just the way I see it, and for better or worse, that’s the way it is.
Heh. Kleinheider, were you channeling Symantix? What are you gonna do if JC Christian from Jesus’ General brings in his shock troops?
Brittney Gilbert, move over! Kleinheider is San Francisco bound!
(If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read Say Uncle’s followup post here here.)
Good luck, AK.
At least you didn’t say tarbaby or some other such word. Because that would have really been bad. Lesson learned, only certain people can use satirical metaphors. We are a civilized politically correct society. Being in the South and all.
We all need to remember, this isn’t the New York Times. You have no license to write things which might cause people to think.
BTW, saw Chris Rock on cable last night, what a great social commentary.
Kleinheider -
You always provide interesting insight, and I find that reading your titles makes the story all the more interesting.
You wouldn’t want to upset the trolls on here, though.
You see? It’s not Kleinheider who’s being racist. It’s the voters of the 58th House District for not electing a white dude. I’m glad we could clear that up.
“The reason was seldom said but clear as day. Jason Powell was white in a district that wasn’t.”
So let me get this right. It’s ok for a black to vote based on skin color, but if a white man/woman does it they are, “A racist white redneck (who) ain’t coming to Post Politics to get his fill every day”.
I love the logic in here.
As a “progressive” let me apologize on behalf of all progressives for the response to yesterday’s title. I’ve had a chance to read the comments to this post, and realize we are all just a bunch of over-sensitive PC cops who don’t understand art/social commentary/whatever…
You see, I’ve been reading Kleinheider almost everyday for about 4 years now. From back when Volunteer Voters first started up and he was much more free to post his quasi-Buchananite viewpoints, to his more recent work with the Nashville Post. Despite the years of readership, I still didn’t quite know what the hell the purpose of that title was yesterday.
There is provocative to provoke thought, and there is provocative to shock and provoke a visceral action…seemed to me the title was the latter variety, and while I didn’t and wouldn’t call for his firing or other such measures, as a longtime reader and I like to think friend, I was disappointed both in the title, and the subsequent responses in the comments.
Suffice to say, we now know what Adam meant by the title. Still don’t think it was quite necessary to say it in the way it was said, but at least now we have a little more context.
Sad day, Kleinheider, sad day.
These ankle high ignoratti are the primary reason we can’t realistically discuss issues involving race. Intelligent folks suddenly become stuttering fools when race is even peripherally involved.
Was your title crass? Possibly. But it was also well crafted. A true writer delivers more than just words. That short title delivered an encyclopedia worth of southern racial history. Having followed the Powell/Pruitt race, I knew instantly what you were attempting to convey.
Sadly, ignorance rules the day.
Gandolf,
That is exactly one of the things that the title suggested.
“It’s ok for a black to vote based on skin color”
And we can’t talk about it.
One of ACK’s trademarks is his post titles, and, let’s face it, we’ve all read posts on this blog that we otherwise would have bypassed altogether had it not been for one of his quirky titles. It’s very much a net positive.
But this one pretty obviously missed the mark. When I saw the word “blackface” I cringed and had to ask a couple of folks if they understood what he was getting at (I assumed he was trying to to make some kind of point with it…I just couldn’t figure out what it was). They didn’t know either.
Finally, someone alerted me to the fact that “Jason Powell” was Mary Pruitt’s opponent back in ‘06 and then it (mostly) made sense. My ultimate interpretation was incorrect, though: I thought ACK was saying that Steven Turner was the same as Jason Powell–only black–and thus doomed to meet the same electoral fate as Powell. Apparently, ACK was saying that Turner had a better chance than Powell based on the fact that he is black, and that that fact is, as he puts it, “unfortunate.”
For the record, I think that’s a valid point. “Black president” (which, by the way, was one of the best post titles ACK has ever written) notwithstanding, the race of a political candidate still matters. Not as much as is once did, thankfully, but it’s still there. After all, isn’t race the whole raison d’etre for Willie Herenton’s campaign against Steve Cohen? Does anyone really believe that absolutely no Tennesseans who voted for John McCain last year did so primarily because he was the white guy, as opposed to Barack Obama, who wasn’t?
But “blackface” wasn’t the way to make this point; in fact, it backfired badly, especially in reference to a person who is, in fact, black.
ACK is a pop culture aficionado (pop references color many of his titles) and one has to wonder whether the recent spate of blackface references in the quality cable TV world (see here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/tags/Mad+Men/default.aspx) gave the term a patina of rhetorical legitimacy it may not have had otherwise. That doesn’t excuse this, but it may help to explain it.
In any case, I’m sure that ACK has gotten horsewhipped by his corporate masters–or, if he hasn’t, he will. In the meantime, his apology was more than proper.
Don’t apologize for me, Sean. I’ll take care of that myself when I feel it is necessary, and I don’t.
Kleinheider make his apology, so let’s move on past his painfully white gaffes (you really need to visit Memphis, dude) and go back to talking about politics.
OK, I’ve got to ask: Why in the world would visiting Memphis be helpful?
Damn, No Beer Summit in Nashville? What have we learned from all this?
Sadly, nothing.
Somehow I missed the “productive discussion on race” which ensued from an otherwise innocuous blog title. In fact, I missed the argument altogether only to find myself this morning reading blog comments in lieu of my usual articles of substance (i.e. online comic books).
When I did first read the title, I wondered if I missed a movie reference with the term “blackface.” Perhaps I did.
I can’t draw from a title and video where Kleinheider insults Steven Turner or the black community. I can’t see how journalistic standards apply to blogs, or to be more accurate, blog aggregators. I can see how sensitive many of us on here can be about the issue of race without wanting to discuss race. In a post-’08 election cycle where staff members were discouraged from mentioning their candidate or their opposition’s race, there is a dogma race should never be discussed. However in Nashville, where the Lawson Affair and many other landmark civil rights stands took place, eschewing acknowledgment of race has never stifled “productive discussions about race.” So, are we to move forward talking about whether or not we acknowledge race? Or do we move forward discussing the intricacies of race relations in our fair city?
“Sad that liberals are using race to chip away at the 1st amendment through their organized protests.”
And it’s sad that hacks have to hide behind the 1st amendment to avoid having much-needed difficult discussions about deeply-rooted societal problems.
Oh, I don’t know, Gotta Wonder. I know I’ve learned how fleeting those darn “teachable moments” can be.
ACK, I’m glad to see the apology. Was the shit-storm worth it?
Wade,
I agree.
Pissst Mack,
It’s all about the beer with me and also the fact that this whole race thing is really stupid just like the beer summit was.
Don’t tell anyone I said that. It might hurt the online persona I’m trying deperately to foster.
That title was pretty tame compared to the one about kent williams paying good money to see that. Which, unfortunately, i cannot find.
Glad someone finally mentioned free speech.
Because it isn’t free in a politically correct society.
Any of you ever seen “Get on the Bus” by Spike Lee? You should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_on_the_Bus
Why was Wendell kicked off the bus?
There is no such thing as free speech if one person can use a word and another cannot. So many people want a world of differential rights. It is a sick part of progressiveism. Freedom means for all people. Not just a certain few.
It was a satirical metaphor. Grow up.
“I can’t draw from a title and video where Kleinheider insults Steven Turner or the black community.”
Well, I’m not black but I’ll give it a shot (black readers or empathetic non-blacks feel free to correct me):
“Blackface” generally refers to theatrical makeup of white performers who painted up their faces to play black characters. Not sympathetic black characters either (I doubt there were any “blackfaced” white performers portraying, say, Booker T. Washington), but, rather, stereotypes such as plantation workers or the like. They were more or less mocking, making fun of or other wise exploiting for comedic purposes black people in general.
ACK’s post title was “Is that Jason Powell in Blackface?” The post itself is a link to a video of Steven Turner, a black man. This was not at all ACK’s intent, but the thrust of the post title in this context was “Hey, look here at the black politician video-slash-minstrel show.” Again, not his intent at all, but there it is.
If you would like an analogy, well, I honestly can’t think of one offhand. One of the difficult things about the black experience in America is that there really is nothing exactly like it in human history. Which is why this stuff gets so sticky.
I hereby reserve you my first pardon. Never thought it would be you, but that’s why I get this power, isn’t it? I’m feeling more like Pappy O’Daniel every day.
It’s not issue of free speech or even “political correctness.” It’s an issue of what is appropriate for a respected outlet of professional journalism, which Post Politics is, thanks, it should be said, to ACK’s hard work.
Ain’t it great that Dave Letterman stepped up to take the spotlight off you.
I read the headline. I got the joke. Clearly lots of people didn’t. I’m writing to say I think you’re a good guy and you don’t deserve the abuse you took yesterday.
In retrospect it was probably a bad choice, but anyone who writes for a living and tries to make their work interesting is going to cross some sort of line now and again. It’s easy to write bland, boring, safe stuff. Being creative takes work and the willingness to come up to the line. Sometimes we cross it and don’t realize it until later…. Read More
What was depressing is that your citics failed to take into account your work in total. They took one headline and slapped a totally undeserved label on you. I won’t pretend to say I know you, but I’ve never seen anything in your work to remotely suggest racism. None of us should be judged by any one act. It’s a test everyone would fail.
Hang in there. Don’t let it get you down and when people bitch at you about it, ask them how they’d like to have the missteps they make on their job aired in public for all the world to see. Maybe they’d be more forgiving.
#9,
Freedom of speech is a legal concept whereby the Government, originally just Federal but extended to states thanks to #14, cannot unreasonably censor or punish you for your speech. Now, there are obvious caveats to this, threats of violence, inciting riots, divulging government secrets, etc…are not covered.
Free speech does not mean, “you can say whatever you like without consequences”. For instance, if you come into work and call your boss an asshole, you may not get arrested, but you will probably get fired.
Now, you and Kleinheider can use the word “blackface”. Its not, in an of itself, a taboo word. The context, in this situation, provoked a negative response, and people exercised their “right to free speech” in telling him as much.
All of this aside, I’d like to highlight this quote of Roger’s:
… and give it 5 stars.
Oh. The 10th man. So edgy. I guess if you were a dentist you’d be the 5th on 4 out of 5 dentists recommend chewing Trident.
Chris Wage, yep. I smiled when I read that.
Could we(the collective “we” of the enlightened blogs) have this conversation?
The important parts start around 2.30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3gGxkvLh1I
Doubtful.
Even Spike Lee couldn’t have the “conversation.” When he started to stray into uncomfortable territory, he was forced to turn Wendell into a caricature so as not to offend his target demographic.
Even Spike Lee couldn’t have the “conversation.” When he started to stray into uncomfortable territory, he was forced to turn Wendell into a caricature so as not to offend his target demographic.
Exactly.
People all over the state of TN rely on ACK to keep them informed about the goings on in the political world. How many of us set at our computers and hit the refresh button with the hope that a new post will be waiting for us. Now that a small few got worked up over a headline (not even the controversial in my opinion) the only post is this appology. What if they fire ACK or worse tame him down? Most of you reading this love to read ACK’s work and the idea that he may be fired for this sucks. Are you happy now?
Its not, in an of itself, a taboo word.
Really? It certainly seems to be judging from above.
Doubtless, some folks may see it as taboo and that is the primary reason for the reaction. But others have not. Sean doesn’t. Freddie O’Connell didn’t either.
On what issues do Turner and Powell disagree. i.e. if they were in a primary vs. each other, on what matters would they have disagreement? Or, is it a matter of their “private” employment backgrounds, is one clearly better or different that the other. I wouldn’t know either of them if they knocked on my door. But for those who hold both in the highest esteem, what is the difference betweeen the two that would give Turner a better shot at knocking off Pruitt than Powell?
#9,
Alright, assuming the pretext of your argument is true…if ACK were black, and he said the exact same thing, would it be kosher? No.
The charge of saying that a black person is “acting wife” is just as hurtful, if not more so, coming from a black person as it is a white guy. Now, I don’t think that is what ACK intended by his comment, but we really didn’t know until this morning what he meant because he wouldn’t say.
Yes, much to the chagrin of a lot of conservatives, there are some words that are OK for black people to say and not white people (ie, the “n-word”). “Blackface” is a pretty benign term by itself, wondering if a black candidate is a white guy with blackface is not a benign use of the term.
meant to say “acting white”
Now can you explain today’s headline about Dire Straits?
In other news, the International Olympic Committee hates black people: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/8283061.stm
By the way, it always struck me as a bit strange that a United States city would be picked for an Olympics immediately following one taking place in the U.K.
Eh, on the scale of 1-10 of outrageousness in Kleinheider Kerfuffles, 1 being a non-issue and 10 being go and get the pitchfork, I give it a 6. Raised eyebrows and really bad choice of words, really should have thought that out better, but not proof of racism. But maybe now you have a better understanding of what it’s like to have what you said distorted into something you didn’t mean just for the purpose of getting a reaction.
Roger, I don’t understand how Rio can get it if they’re already hosting the World Cup in 2014.
What’s the World Cup? Is that some kind of jai alai thing?
(I just did that for Mark Mays’ benefit. I realize that the World Cup is the international hockey tournament.)
Heh, well, if Brazil gets the gig they have a lot of black folks down there too…but, its great to see Conservatives @ Drudge and elsewhere celebrating American failure.
Fair point, though I would say that the Olympics are a boondoggle for any city, so I’m kind of glad we didn’t get them. Actually, I’m much more interested in the prospect of Nashville getting some World Cup games (seriously).
Actually, I’m much more interested in the prospect of Nashville getting some World Cup games (seriously).
Hrmm, I wonder if Drudge and others will trump crime reports in our city, like the woman who was stabbed and had her baby abducted, like they did with black kids in Chicago.
Actually, I’m much more interested in the prospect of Nashville getting some World Cup games (seriously).
We should absolutely be in top contention to be one of the host cities if the U.S. gets it. LP Field has already held several successful qualifier matches.
Sean –
Chicago giveth; Chicago taketh away.
In all seriousness, Obama, unfortunately for him, does look pretty silly with Chicago being ousted in the first round.
“We should absolutely be in top contention to be one of the host cities if the U.S. gets it. LP Field has already held several successful qualifier matches.”
Were those successful? As I recall, they only filled the lower bowl.
[...] question to me isn’t could Adam Kleinheider take his words from yesterday back. It’s would he? Adam is right that the main opportunity he has to make aggregation of local [...]
I find it it interesting that no one has bothered to point out that, whatever his intentions, that title did not AT ALL convey the meaning Kleinheider says he was trying to get across.
ACK says this was about the idea that in certain districts, you can be smart and good for the job but not get the job unless you’re black. But what that title actually said was the opposite-you can’t be smart and good for the job unless you’re white. If you seem to be all those things at once, then obviously you must be a white guy in disguise.
The title could be construed a number of different ways, which is one reason it’s problematic.
Having been born with a black face, thank you for elaborating. Since I am a “serial” underdog sympathizer, I sincerely hope that your explanation puts the entire matter to rest. I also have to admit that the “bigger” person in me found your post amusing, which is why I posted the offer for a 12 step program and the video in jest. I “got it” in where you were going with the post title. I also “got” how it could be perceived. Again, thanks for the elaboration. I respect you for it.
“Kleinheider is San Francisco bound!”
Ohhh, don’t I wish.
I’ve been reading this blog for years (spending good work time to catch up if I miss a day or two). It has become one of my main sources for the news/info that I find most relevant to me; it is a great balance of local, state, and national issues and I know that Kleinheider puts a great deal of effort into getting people (who may not otherwise hear about it) access and exposure to the critical, timely, and quirky events of our Nashville and Tennessee worlds
Of course, there have been posts or headlines that raise controversy, but then to me, that is what blogging is for. And I applaud SouthComm for understanding that (when so much of traditional journalism is missing the boat) and for keeping someone like AC doing this job (in my opinion he is the only who can), as he has proven time and again that he can play the part of aggregator and of newshound/investigative reporter to get SouthComm readers fully engaged and enlightened.
Was this headline beyond the bounds of good taste? Perhaps, and to many it was indeed. But I can’t imagine any serious publication has gone without a blip forever. If they have, then they are not trying hard enough to engage their readers. That said, given the kind of stereotype the image conjures up, this headline may have been best left in the “shouldn’t go there” file. But, he’s explained himself and issued his mea culpa. I think it should end there.
Honestly, I would like to get back to reading all of the good stuff on this blog; and I am sure that’s what we all want.
Dang, I get called out AGAIN on this topic! WTH???
Looks like I missed all the fun.
Here are six words for ya . . . KLEINHEIDER CLEARLY STILL DOESN’T GET IT.
This wasn’t a noble use of free speech . . .this was a reckless, careless abuse of it . . . for cheap blog hits. Even reading this forced (non) apology benefits him.
Worse, still, this self-aggrandizing post does nothing to solve the basic problem of how seriously ignorant Kleinheider is on race and gender issues . . . indeed, it highlights just how far he still has to go to ever make an intelligent contribution to that discussion.
What would have been far more useful here would be for him to explain WHY this reference is so offensive – particularly to the African-American community - but alas, he does not. And that’s probably because he himself doesn’t know or understand why . . . surely if he did, he never would have done this.
pomopsyche writes, “What would have been far more useful here would be for him to explain WHY this reference is so offensive – particularly to the African-American community - but alas, he does not. And that’s probably because he himself doesn’t know or understand why . . . surely if he did, he never would have done this.”
If this is so wretched, then why do people accept it when blacks do it? How does that make sense?
If the n-word and others like it are the pariah of words, then why would anyone use it?
Counter point:
http://thescoop1.livejournal.com/1999.html
My challenge today is this: If use of the n-word has no effect on the condition of the African-American community and psyche, to prove this truth, all African Americans should stop using the word this very second. If no change occurs from elimination of the word, all are free to return to using the word, and I will honorably admit my fault and begin scouting out the true root to ailments in our black community.
No offense to Sean Braisted, who is very thoughtful, but when he says it is okay for blacks to use the n-word, that makes no sense.
If only some people can use a word, then that word can be a weapon. Many blacks in America point out that it is worse when blacks use the n-word causally.
It is enabling to say it is fine for blacks to use a word that is forbidden for others. It actually hurts the very people that so many are claiming to protect.
Again, it the movie “Get on the Bus”, why was Wendell kicked off the bus?
#9,
I can’t say that I remember that scene as vividly as you do, as it obviously didn’t leave quite the indelible impression as it apparently has on you. From what I can remember, and what I can tell from a synopsis of the film, Wendell was a dick, and got kicked off because he was annoying the other passengers.
Now, I’d love nothing more than to argue linguistics and why some combinations are more offensive than others. Why is it OK for mommy and daddy to say fuck and for their 6 year old not to? As my dad used to say, “because I said so,” or in this instance, “because society says so.”
There are a lot of social taboos and mores that don’t quite make sense when scrutinized (see: nearly all of organized religion) but we do it because that is what is done. You wanna fight the system, be my guest, but it’ll never be socially acceptable in your lifetime for a white dude to blurt out the N bomb in a public setting…ever.
You wanna fight the system, be my guest, but it’ll never be socially acceptable in your lifetime for a white dude to blurt out the N bomb in a public setting…ever.
Sean, you are not listening to black people who say it is not acceptable for ANYONE to say the n-word.
Telling black people it is okay for them to use the n-word is wrong.
As far as Spike Lee’s movie, “Get on the Bus”, the reason I have such good recall about it is that I saw it last Sunday for the first time.
Do you want to know why they kicked Wendell off the bus?
You see? It’s not Kleinheider who’s being racist. It’s the voters of the 58th House District for not electing a white dude. I’m glad we could clear that up.
Um, yup. Because a white guy with virtually no experience, other than Party insider, automatically ought to beat a black woman whose issues are on the right side of a lot of folks in progressive community (Pruitt was one of the reliable votes to keep SJ127 in committee and off the House floor for years, for example.)
Ya know…generally I admire ACK. For being a Republican he’s not terribly knee-jerk or reactive. But honestly, when I hear his statements of admiration for various Democratic candidates, it reminds me why my distaste for their GOP-lite positions is continuing to leave a bitter pall in the back of my throat.
ACK, BFD.
Braisted…
No, America didn’t fail; America saved a ton of cash. Most of these Olympic venue-cities go in debt for decades, and of all the majorly corrupt American cities, Chicago needs to keep it’s money. Any city where honor students get whaled with railroad ties needs much more than a date with Olympians. Maybe a non-Progressive-run school system for starters?
Oh, if you want to speak of ‘fail’, well, speak of the Obamas. They both went out of their ways to apologize for America (as is their wont, every chance they get) and for their pomposity they got biatch-slapped by the IOC.
I’d say they certainly failed. But it couldn’t have happened to a nicer couple.
I thought the title was pretty funny.