Now that the Super Bowl is over, there’s the usual selective outrage arguing that ‘this or that ad is racist.’ Last year, it was the Tibetans and GroupOn; this year, it is the Chinese and Pete Hoekstra’s bid for the U.S. Senate.The Democrats sense their opportunity to get the very unpopular Debbie Stabenow re-elected and turn Hoekstra’s ad into a Macaca moment.

Predictably the media is already in overdrive. “Ad Draws Protests for Portrayal of Asians,” was the headline for The New York Times article. Lawrence O’Donnell has even attacked the Asian-American girl who dared to appear in the ad, going so far as to compare her decision to play the part of a Chinese villager to a decision a friend of his made not to play Hitler’s daughter. Naturally, the squishy GOP consultants are upset, too, according to Politico. Talking Points Memo went into convulsions when discovering that the Asian girl wearing the yellow shirt was called “yellowgirl” in the html code on Hoekstra’s webs tie.

But Hoekstra is defending himself.

Only to have Rep. Judy Chu of California call the ad “violent and hateful” and blame Bush for the economic downturn on CNN.

(more…)

So if I understand how this works, we currently live in a media world where “Juan” is racist, where “food stamps” is racist, where pointing out that a president who enjoys basketball enjoys basketball is racist. But “cracker“? Why, that’s not improper in the least.

—–

Well, I guess it’s okay to use the slur “cracker” for the for the same reason it’s okay to use the N-word. Some in the black community use the N-word and some in Florida use the word “cracker.”

Oh, wait; it’s not okay to use the N-word.

Anyway, what does logic have to do with the mainstream media justifying and rationalizing anything they do? But justify and rationalize Jonathan Martin did when he called in to Newsbusters to justify and rationalize his use of the word “cracker.”

You can read the whole thing here, but this is my all-time favorite part:

Let’s face it, you were on MSNBC where virtually every criticism of Barack Obama they report as being somehow racist.”

“Totally agree that there is now a culture in the sort of political media universe on both sides where there is this sort of outrage industry that has been created where both sides monitor the other and try to find examples of offensive comments that can be seized upon and stirred up entirely for political gain where you have this, again, faux indignation, but it’s really just posing as indignation,” he said. “It’s all about political point scoring, and I think it absolutely takes place now on both sides.”

(more…)

Senator Marco Rubio is a bona fide political star able to communicate his ideas and vision with an eloquence few can match. He’s also Hispanic and a Republican, which freaks the left out — and by “left,” I of course mean the mainstream media.

The media’s biggest fear is Obama losing his upcoming reelection, and Rubio is the kind of VP candidate that keeps the corrupt MSM up at night. Not only could he help swing the all-important Hispanic vote into GOP territory; he also hails from the all-important swing state of Florida.

The nightmare scenario for Obama’s MSM Palace Guards is this attractive, articulate young man taking it to Obama on the campaign trail while wrapped in the mantle of history as the very first Hispanic nominated as vice president.

Unfortunately, the MSM is corrupt but not dumb, which is why over the last few months we’ve seen two major pushes from two major news outlets to discredit, toxify, and marginalize Rubio. Oh, and both of those stories were riddled with factual errors that we’re assured were nothing more than honest mistakes.

The first hit came from The Washington Post back in October. Their information was so blatantly wrong that early one Saturday morning I caught them red-handed quietly scrubbing away their mistakes from the hit piece. This is what I wrote at the time:

(more…)

Politico’s Jonathan Martin didn’t only malign residents of Florida’s Panhandle on MSNBC when he invoked the phrase “Cracker Counties” to refer to the region, he went on to equate the region with all of the Deep South, also mentioning Georgia and Alabama by name. We can also assume it would cover many of the military men and women residing in Florida’s Panhandle.

Jonathan Martin, right

Politico’s Jonathan Martin isn’t a big fan of everyday people, especially those who don’t vote for Obama. If you want to understand who this man really is, you need only click here. To protect then-candidate Barack Obama and get the heat off of him after making his infamous and revealing ”spread the wealth” comment, Martin needed to change the narrative quick, so he investigated and published dirt on a PRIVATE CITIZEN. What followed was a narrative-changing (to benefit Obama) MSM attack against a guy who was minding his own business when Obama approached him.

“Cracker” has a long pejorative history, much of it linked to slavery, as in he who “cracks” the whip, while other uses of the word always refer to the more lowly born.

Frederick Law Olmsted, a prominent landscape architect from Connecticut, visited the South as a journalist in the 1850s and wrote that “some crackers owned a good many Negroes, and were by no means so poor as their appearance indicated.”

Martin may just as well have slandered the people of the region by referring to them as “White Trash.” That is, in effect, how the word can be interpreted today. One can only imagine the outrage had a less than liberal outlet and journalist maligned an entire race or class, as Martin did. There’s also this from a letter to the Earl of Dartmouth. (more…)

Yesterday, Juan Williams of Fox News doubled down on his accusation that Republican presidential candidates are using “racial code words.”

Today, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has followed suit with an article rehashing the tired allegation that Republicans are using so-called “dog whistle” tactics–“the use of coded, ambiguous language to appeal to the prejudices of certain subsets of voters”–i.e. white voters (Democrats’ use of race to appeal to the prejudices and fears of black voters is rarely subject to scrutiny.)

Jeffrey Goldberg (Photo: Bloomberg News)

Goldberg says that the Obama’s Republican opponents have alleged the following (original links, including one to Media Matters–itself the subject of serious charges of antisemitism–included):

Black people have lost the desire to perform a day’s work. Black people rely on food stamps provided to them by white taxpayers. Black people, including Barack and Michelle Obama, believe that the U.S. owes them something because they are black. Black children should work as janitors in their high schools as a way to keep them from becoming pimps. And the pathologies afflicting black Americans are caused partly by the Democratic Party, which has created in them a dependency on government not dissimilar to the forced dependency of slaves on their owners.

I’ll go even further, and admit that I personally heard a presidential candidate give a speech–in a church, no less–in which he blasted the black community, and black men in particular, for the phenomenon of single-parent households; who noted that black children with absent fathers have a greater chance of becoming criminals; who scolded black parents, “don’t just sit in the house and watch ‘Sports Center’ all weekend long”; and who told blacks to “read a book once in awhile.”

That candidate was Barack Obama.

(more…)

For a few days last week, the leftist media (redundant, I know) tried really hard to make a “spirited” discussion between Governor Jan Brewer (R-Arizona) and President Obama (D-Chicago) into a “something.” Luckily, they’ve cried wolf (read: racist) so many times that most people just roll their eyes, pat the little media types on the head, and tell them to walk it off. There’s no crying in politics. Stop being wusses.

via The Media Research Council

After failing to fan the racial flames again, the lefty media and blogosphere (the echo-chamber) then went with the “it was disrespectful!” angle. Apparently, it is disrespectful to point your finger at the President. Now, assuming Brewer was pointing/wagging her finger at Obama, and she was doing so in a scolding manner – let’s go ahead and ignore that the infamous photo above shows Brewer pointing up at the sky, shall we? – how is it disrespectful?

This is the United States of America. Sure, winning office grants you a certain level of respect, but are we really going to try and score political points when someone uses their hands in an expressive manner? She pointed/wagged her finger; she didn’t flip him the bird. What kind of politically correct nonsense is the media trying to pull here?

One could argue that on day one of his Presidency, Obama – or his sycophants in the media, to be more specific – commanded a certain level of respect. But there’s a history now, isn’t there? In Brewer’s case, Obama implied the now-infamous illegal immigration law she signed was racist. His Attorney General panned the law before he had ever read it. Isn’t that disrespectful to Brewer in her capacity as Governor? Where was the media’s outrage over this disrespectful behavior? There was none. (more…)

Tablet magazine, the new online Jewish-themed publication that focuses on a broad range of current affairs topics, has taken Media Matters for America (MMfA) and the Center for American Progress (CAP) to task for using antisemitic language in criticizing Israel.

Illustration from Tablet: Daniel Hertzberg

In two separate articles, Tablet takes on the organizations that are the core of the Democrats’ media and policy strategy, joining a debate in which the defenders of MMfA and CAP have resorted to the worn-out fallacy that their critics are trying to silence debate on Israel.

One article by Spencer Ackerman–whose blog was once hosted by CAP–addresses “fellow progressives” and insists that while criticism of Israel is sometimes appropriate, those who use anti-Jewish tropes–like specious charges of dual loyalty and “Israel first”–undermine the case they are trying to make. He singles out Media Matters, CAP, and the radical pro-Palestinian lobby J Street, among others, for their rhetorical record of bigotry:

Some on the left have recently taken to using the term “Israel Firster” and similar rhetoric to suggest that some conservative American Jewish reporters, pundits, and policymakers are more concerned with the interests of the Jewish state than those of the United States….

“Israel Firster” has a nasty anti-Semitic pedigree, one that many Jews will intuitively understand without knowing its specific history. It turns out white supremacist Willis Carto was reportedly the first to use it, and David Duke popularized it through his propaganda network. And yet [Media Matters' M.J.] Rosenberg and others actually claim they’re using it to stimulate “debate,” rather than effectively mirroring the tactics of some of the people they criticize….

(more…)

Newt Gingrich

Charles M. Blow, over at The New York Times, loves to allege that Republicans are racist, racist, racist. James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, accused Gingrich of practicing the Southern Strategy. The NAACP piled on.

In Gingrich’s populist call and celebration of the nobility of work, they hear Nixon’s ominous “Southern Strategy.” The media alone seems acutely attuned to the racist dog whistles we conservatives are supposed to be hearing, but their dogged attempt to sully the Republican Party’s strategy in the South runs afoul of historical facts. Ironically, one commentator, Jim Sleeper, professor at Yale University, plays the race card in suggesting that Gingrich plays the race card.

In 2004, the masterly Claremont Review of Books debunked this growing media narrative in greater depth than I can venture here, but the left-wing argument rests on three key assumptions: that Republicans tailored their message to attract racists, that those of us who oppose racial preferences are somehow racist, and that, having won the South in ‘68, the Republican party continued to play to racism. This is what they believe, made clear by Dan T. Carter, author of From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution 1963-1994: “Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon’s subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan’s genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush’s use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich’s demonization of welfare mothers.”

The problem with each of these instances of supposed racism is that you have to believe that the issue is racism, not principle. To wit, plenty of non-racists doubt the wisdom of busing, racial preferences, furloughing criminals, and giving lavish government benefits. This is a subtle game the media plays and as tautological as it is stupid: views are deemed racist because they are defined as racist. It’s not really an argument because it already assumes its premise.

(more…)

Via The Huffington Post:

On Saturday Al Sharpton actually asked: “Are we dealing with someone who’s just racially insensitive or someone who’s cynical, who would use race to play and blacks as backboards to score a shot?”

Is the mainstream media trying to help Newt Gingrich win? Do they really think a fight on air between Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton would do anything but make Gingrich more powerful? Or are they that cynical that they want to drive ratings on the back of Gingrich’s surge?

But Gingrich can’t easily be tarred with the racist brush because he has a long history of supporting blacks as individuals against government largesse.

Here’s what he told ABC in 2008:

There are a lot of good cases to be made that the African- American community has been hurt more by the failures of government than any other community. Look at New Orleans, where the African- American community was devastated by the failure of the federal, state and local governments in Katrina.

Gingrich repeatedly supported outreach efforts toward blacks as Speaker of the House, especially J.C. Watts, who helped oust a younger John Boehner from a leadership position in the party. Gingrich even selected Watts to deliver the rebuttal to Bill Clinton’s State of the Union speech in 1997. Watts is now returning the favor, having endorsed Newt Gingrich in his presidential bid. (more…)

First it was Juan Williams. In the other South Carolina debate, Gingrich actually had the audacity and indecency to address Mr. Williams by the name Williams’ parents gave him.

Obviously, Gingrich’s insensitive remark towards Juan Williams showed signs of subtly racist language. Just ask former one term president, Jimma Carta.

Next is Chris Mathews. Sure he cackles like an old lady, come to think of it, kind of looks like one too, but when it comes to calling out conservatives for being evil and racists, well his ears and intuition are to Mathews as built in sonar is to bats.

You can read the entirety of the comment and judge for yourself:

Juan

Not convinced? OK. In case you missed last night’s debate,  Gingrich “subtly” struck again. This time it was with last night’s CNN debate moderator, John King.

(more…)

Ari Fleischer calls out Cornell Belcher with a smile.

BELCHER: “What Herman Cain said was a racist, bigoted statement and should be treated like a racist and bigoted person who makes racist and bigoted statements.”

FELSIECHER: “Questioning people’s motives who are trying to help is ionly going to divide people. And I think there’s too great a sensitivity about people who just say Republicans are evil, Republicans are racist, Republicans are wrong. That’s hurtful and that’s just as wrong.

BELCHER:  ”Well, you know, I, I , I, agree with my friend Ari, I wish I had the confidence, by the way, I never called Herman Cain a racist

[CROSSTALK]

FLEISCHER: “You sure did, you sure did.”

BELCHER: “No, I said his language was bigoted, I never called him actually a racist, but I understand the difference between racism and bigotry.”

(more…)

Well, she’s certainly making a case for the title.

In a piece titled, “When white people lack “bourgeois values,” the Salon Editor at Large manages a race and class-baiting exacta, covering an alleged economic disdain shown by Republicans towards African-Americans, and charging the GOP with promoting policies which “shackle women to the home.”

In attacking a Rick Santorum speech on family values, in which he correctly stated, “When the family breaks down, the economy breaks down,” Walsh had this to say, my emphasis:

It’s a fascinating worldview that colors the entire GOP primary campaign, in which actual policies to help workers and families are rejected in favor of those that cut government and shackle women to the home, and it needs to be better understood.

It’s also another reminder that the prejudice and disdain Republicans once reserved for African-Americans has spread like a toxic mist to stigmatize a lot of other people, including a lot of white folks.

In citing proof of these allegations of prejudice towards white people, Walsh embarrassingly references the 46 million Americans on food stamps, the vast majority of whom are “white people.”

Embarrassing why?  Because it was just last May that Walsh used the ‘food stamp’ argument to prove that Newt Gingrich had used the phrase as “coded racism” against “black people.” That was corrected here.

Calling the use of the term ‘food stamp,’ racist towards blacks, when a majority of those on food stamps are white, can only make sense in the mind of a bigot projecting their own true brand of racism.

(more…)

Martin Bashir has situational concern for race. His remarks from his program the other evening:

“It also showed how political leaders could be responsible for either encouraging better race relations or making matters a whole lot worse by using cheap and nasty slurs Now listen to some of the things being said by these republican candidates.”

He mentions only Republican candidates using two instances: the deconstructed false flag of race on Gingrich’s remarks, and the CBS story of Santorum’s remark.

Where, pray tell, was Martin Bashir when Democrats said all this?

Harry Reid:

… Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately.

Bill Clinton on Obama:

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

Joe Biden:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Or this Biden classic:

“You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

(more…)

Christopher Knight writes for the “Culture Monster” a column over at ”The Incredibly Shrinking L.A. Times,” and guess what our progressive friend sees when he looks at this innocuous and obvious political cartoon of First Lady Michelle Obama:

Believe it or not, Mr. Knight sees an “uppity Negro.” Those aren’t my words, those are his:

The caricature of Obama as a profligate queen relies on the racist stereotype of an “uppity Negro[.]“

Who other than someone with their own disturbing prejudices would look at that obvious piece of political satire hitting the First lady up for her excessive and lavish vacationing and think “uppity Negro”?

Naturally, though, like all bigoted leftists, Knight attempts to project his own troubling racial issues on others:

(more…)

On Sunday’s broadcast of NBC Nightly News, Andrea Mitchell hosted a segment on the upcoming GOP caucus in Iowa. Referring to the state itself, she stated:

The rap on Iowa? It doesn’t represent the rest of the country. Too white, too evangelical, too rural.

Yet literally the sentence before, she mentioned that Iowa “established that Barack Obama could attract white voters” in 2008.

(more…)

The Department of Justice released a statement about the uproar caused by Eric Holder using the race card.

“That is a complete distortion of the attorney general’s comment. His comments both in the article and elsewhere made clear that he believes much of the criticism is launched against him are unfortunately the typical Washington gotcha game. A simple reading of those comments show he was referring to how he is identified with the president given their close relationship and all they share in common including their ideology. The position of the attorney general has been a target for partisan attacks, and given the critical work that this attorney general he is doing at the Department of Justice, it’s no surprise that some are engaging in such tactics. His critics rightly view the attorney general is a progressive force, and given our current political environment, there will those who use any opportunity to score political points.”

Here’s what we supposedly confused [bold my emphasis]:

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

So exactly what did we distort? There’s a key word in Mr. Savage’s sentence: animus. This is Merriam-Webster’s definition:

1: basic attitude or governing spirit : disposition, intention

2: a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will

3: an inner masculine part of the female personality in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung — compare anima

I’m going with definition 2. Those of the “most extreme segment” which, let’s be honest here, include Sharyl Attkisson, Cam Edwards, Matthew Boyle, Katie Pavlich, and myself, have a spiteful or malevolent ill will towards President Obama and Mr. Holder because of their relationship and they’re African American. Could the DOJ please explain to us how that doesn’t mean he played the race card? Mr. Holder said we have a prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will against him and President Obama because of their skin color. That’s calling us a racist. RACIST. Yes Mr. Holder played the race card. He said we are attacking him because he is African American.

(more…)

Here we go with dog whistle again.

The Nation’s Lizzy Ratner surmises that it’s racist to acknowledge that a record number of Americans are on the government dole.

The deep racism at the heart of conservative food stamp critiques offers at least one clue as to why the Obama administration has been unable or unwilling to champion SNAP as a valuable recession antidote: as the nation’s first African-American president, Obama is vulnerable to racist innuendo, which his opponents are only too happy to exploit. Just two months after Gingrich made his “food stamp president” comment, another would-be president, Rick Santorum, picked up the theme, accusing Obama, absurdly, of “pushing more people on food stamps.”

Lloyd Marcus illustration

Is the below “deep racism?”

The CBO predicted that the US economy will be unsustainable by 2037 on its current path.

The IMF declared two weeks ago that the age of America will end in a decade.

One in six Americans now receive government help. USA Today says more Americans are receiving federal aid than ever. Investors’ Insight says more Americans than ever before are on the government dole.

Lastly, according to our own government statistics, more white Americans receive federal aid than blackAmericans, shattering the stereotype that led Walsh to immediately think “black people” when she heard the words “food stamps.”

Did Ratner bother to actually research welfare statistics before assuming that the critics were “racist” because she stereotypically believes that the majority of welfare recipients are black? Because the majority of welfare recipients are white.

So which is actually racist?

a) Criticizing dependance upon government for personal sustainability or;

b) assuming that all those who are dependent upon government are black?

This is a trend with progressives, this prejudiced association of welfare and black Americans.

(more…)

I see Black and Hispanic people.

Do you see Black and Hispanic people?

Photo editing, even for a failing newspaper nobody likes, is a painstaking and deliberate process. A whole lot of thought goes into each selection. So you have to ask yourself why a left-wing outlet like The Incredible Shrinking L.A. Times would use the photo above to accompany a story about an increase in violence along the boardwalk in Venice, California.

See if you can crack the code:

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved an ordinance to limit commercial selling on Venice Beach’s famed Ocean Front Walk.

The ordinance is the latest in a series of efforts to tame the popular but unruly attraction, which draws about 16 million visitors annually but has lately seen more than the usual number of transients and violent crimes.

[...]

But merchandise with more than “nominal utility” beyond protected speech would be prohibited. Banned items would include clothing, sunglasses, incense, perfume, lotions, candy, toys, housewares, auto parts, crystals and jewelry.

“This is a public safety issue,” said Los Angeles Police Capt. Jon F. Peters, commanding officer for the Pacific area. Since October 2010, he said, the area has experienced “a general sense of lawlessness,” with aggravated assaults up by 16%.

A cast of colorful characters, many of them longtime boardwalk denizens, testified for and against the measure in council chambers. A few speakers vowed to take the city to court, but Assistant City Atty. Valerie Flores said the ordinance incorporates definitions and standards that have held up against challenges.

To punctuate a story about an increase in violence along the Venice Beach boardwalk, L.A. Times’ readers are treated to the sight of a Mexican bandit and Black rapper in the foreground and, in the background, a menacing looking Black man in a hoodie who looks like he has murder on his mind. Behind him is another Black man.

Well, maybe the photo represents Ocean Front Walk.

Maybe it doesn’t.

Anecdotally, as someone who’s been there, I can tell you the photo is absurd. First off, Venice Beach is bright, sunny, and filled with people and families of all races and backgrounds out to enjoy the ocean, the sidewalk cafes, and, yes, the many street vendors. And the facts prove that my eyes don’t lie:

As of 2008, the population is estimated to be around 40,885. The median household income is $67,057, making it one the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city. The racial and ethnic composition in Venice is White (63.9%), Latino (22.2%), African American (5.6%), Asian (3.7%), and Other (4.6%).

What conclusion are we to make other than the left-wing L.A. Times consciously or unconsciously associates violent crime with Black and Hispanics.

Tis the season for buying books for your loved ones and as always the The New York Times Sunday Book Review is here to help. And as always the Sunday Book Review is there to help us understand that anything from the right side of the aisle, especially the tea party, is to be put in the worst possible light at all times.

So, what is it this time? Book reviewer Kevin Boyle lets us all know that he thinks that the folks of the tea partymovement are somehow just like the Ku Klux Klan. Nice, huh? That’ll get the holiday season started right!

In his Sunday book review Boyle reviews a pair of books actually on the KKK — meaning that for the first time bringing up the KKK in a New York Times article isn’t wholly gratuitous. So he has that going for him, which is nice.

But what was totally gratuitous was the way in which Boyle opened his review, slamming by inference the entire tea party and analogizing it to a modern day KKK:

Imagine a political movement created in a moment of terrible anxiety, its origins shrouded in a peculiar combination of manipulation and grass-roots mobilization, its ranks dominated by Christian conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots, its agenda driven by its members’ fervent embrace of nationalism, nativism and moral regeneration, with more than a whiff of racism wafting through it.

No, not that movement. The one from the 1920s, with the sheets and the flaming crosses and the ludicrous name meant to evoke a heroic past. The Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, they called it. And for a few years it burned across the nation, a fearsome thing to behold.

Yeah, because today’s era and the tea party are so dang similar to the KKK and the era of the 1920s, right? What is a more natural fit, anyway? What left-winger could doubt Boyle’s hatemongering?

(more…)

“We’re going to see how open the GOP is to this black—their ‘new black friend’ when they find out he is harassing blonde women as opposed to black women. That sort of thing of black sexuality—predatory black sexuality. Very frightening. So we’ll see how that plays out.”

– Touré on MSNBC

Touré, Milton Academy Class of ’89, is out there trying to sell his book, Who’s Afraid of Post-Blackness? What It Means to Be Black Now.  I’m not sure why Touré —and not Herman Cain and not Thomas Sowell and not Clarence Thomas—is qualified to write about blackness, but I was intrigued, so I bought it. “You have to learn to shape your voice and find the courage to say really honest things,” he told The Milton Measure, the high school newspaper I once edited. I wondered to myself, did this mean I would I finally get that “honest conversation on race”?

It was a tough sell. You see, Touré grew up pretty privileged. We both went to the far left prep school, Milton Academy (tuition $30k a year)—he starting in kindergarten, me as a scholarship winner in ninth grade.  He became something of a tennis star. Dropping out of Emory, he started writing about hip hop for Rolling Stone and became the go-to black writer for a lot of the media. “When I write about hip hop, I want to expand the complexity of the discussion about the brilliant creators. Many people look at rappers as dumb and I know they’re not,” he told his old high school newspaper in September.

Alas, when it comes to another black American—Herman Cain—Touré has nothing but contempt. “[Herman Cain]’s totally ridiculous! I mean like intellectually ridiculous,” he told Bill Maher. Cain, according to Touré, is “unctuous,” which is to say “oily” and “anxious to please”–what normal people would call “charming.” Touré, again speaking for all blacks, tells us that Cain won’t past muster with blacks. He might want to check the returns from Cain’s 2004 Republican bid.  Cain won only two counties during that bid. His largest vote totals came from suburban Cobb and Gwinnett counties. His second highest vote totals came from Chatham, the majority-black county seat of Savannah. Cain predicts he’ll get up to a third of the black vote should he get the nomination. (more…)