Myth About Sarah Palin's "Real American" Family Values Debunked

The Right loves to promote the idea that their Conservative family values are superior. Sarah Palin does this in just about every speech, when she talks about her mythical "Real America". Of course for Palin, and many others, "Real America" is code for Southern values, rural, Conservative, and white.

But new research from the authors of the book "Red Families vs. Blue Families", shatters this Conservative myth into a thousand pieces. Hear story....

Why the Angry Right Can’t Be Dismissed So Easily

Check out this insightful blog post by Jeff Blodgett from the Wellstone Action website which details the rise of the conservative, populist Right. He makes several points which I will quote here:

The resurgence of organized conservative activity was written about in a recent New York Times piece about Dick Armey and his influential movement organization, FreedomWorks. There are three points that strike me about about the conservative movement now:

ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES ARE IN ASCENDANCE -- growing in influence and setting strategy for the right. The social religious wing, dominant in the Bush administration, has become less effective and relevant. Their message is angry, populist, and economic: FreedomWorks' slogan is: Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom. Government takeover is their bogeyman. In 2010, they will focus on exploiting the economic pain in the country, railing against spending and taxes, and blaming all government and certain incumbents.

CONSERVATIVES ARE BORROWING FROM THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT -- The NYT article quotes FreedomWorks staff saying that they are making close study of Saul Alinsky and other community organizers. Like progressives, the other side is increasing conservative candidate development (NY-23 and in GOP primaries all over the country), and improving their grassroots advocacy skills (like the impression made at August town halls).

THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT CONTINUES TO BE BETTER FUNDED -- FreedomWorks, just one of many groups, easily raised $7 million from donors in 2008, including single gifts of $1 million and $750,000. The Leadership Institute, the premier training center for the right, sustains an $8 million dollar annual budget--at least twice the budget of any of comparable groups (like Wellstone Action) on the progressive side. Americans for Prosperity, another key conservative economic group has 73 staff people nationally and in 20 states.

These People Are Not Joking

One thing in which conservatives have been successful -- and which I am still in a bit of a disbelief —- is to take on the mantle of economic populism and use that as a rallying cry against the Democratic administration. Who would have thought a few short years ago that the economic populists who would have the most political impact in hard economic times in the U.S. would be conservatives railing against Democrats?

I have always thought that in tough economic times, old-school Marxists, Socialists and Progressive populists would find a ready audience for their message and we’d have a working and middle class radicalized and mobilized en masse to fight for working peoples’ interests like in the 1930s. I have always thought that the Progressive Left had superior arguments in advocating for working peoples’ interests against free-market conservatives and that Progressive Populism will explode in popularity in times of economic crisis. After all, didn’t the economic policies which have caused this mess we are in based on radical, free-market ideology as espoused by economists like Milton Friedman and implemented as policy by his followers in government? And in finding someone to blame, that most people would naturally gravitate to its opposing viewpoint?

Boy was I wrong! Instead of resulting in an army of modern-day Eugene Debses, exploding into popular culture are the current heroes of conservative populism like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who have massive followings among ordinary, working people. Sarah Palin’s book just came out today and is a huge bestseller drawing crowds of hundreds of people at her book signings.

Something is going on in American culture in this time of economic crisis and for some reason, the Right is tapping into the psyche of ordinary working Americans in a big way that I have never seen Progressives do in recent memory. Those who oppose these conservative populists and who laugh at, ridicule and dismiss them as irrelevant do so at their own peril. It is very easy to dismiss Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and laugh them off as bad jokes. But these people and the movement they represent is no joke. They are organized, well-funded and, whether we like it or not, wildly popular and with a large constituency.

A New Approach for Progressives?

I have yet to see from Progressives wide discussion of innovative approaches in engaging this conservative populist movement. Jeff Blodgett frames the fight to be had along the lines of the 2010 Congressional Elections and that engagement would be defined as stopping the election of Republicans into Congressional seats—with the implication being electing Democrats into these seats or preventing Republican takeover of these Democratic seats will be the definition of victory.

For me that is not good enough. We’ve all seen this year how getting both a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President in the White House doesn’t necessarily translate into getting Progressive agenda enacted into public policy. Helping make Congress a solidly Democratic turf in 2010, therefore, doesn’t necessarily translate into a victory for Progressives.

The discussion among Progressives should be centered on how to harness this society-wide anger and frustration with the tough economic times and channel them towards ends that are unmistakably Progressive—but without resorting to electing Democrats as the default position. Can it be done? I don’t know. But I can’t see any other way.

Model Minorities Revisited

Here are two interesting articles on Indian Americans that I ran into recently. They illustrate the very old debate between those who would want to classify certain ethnic groups as the "model minority" and the burgeoning resistance by Asian-American communities in rejecting these ideologically-loaded ethnic stereotypes.

The author of the Forbes.com article, interestingly, is a fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. If this is the type of stupid propaganda that the AEI is coming up with these days in their effort to indoctrinate Americans they are gonna have to do better as Deepa Iyer deftly demolishes Richwine's condescending, racist argument. Despite this note which perspective got the wider and more prominent distribution in Forbes Magazine.

Indian Americans: The New Model Minority by Jason Richwine
From Forbes.com

The superior educational attainment, academic culture and likely high IQ of Indian Americans has already made them an economic force in the U.S., and that strength can only grow. Does this continuing success imply they will become a political force? Here, Gov. Jindal is actually a rarity. Indians are still underrepresented in politics, and they do not specialize in the kinds of fields (law and finance) most conducive to political careers. Time will tell if they are able to convert economic power into serious political influence, as a Jindal presidency could.

A much clearer implication of Indian-American success is that immigrants need not be unskilled, nor must their economic integration take generations to achieve. In sharp contrast to Indian Americans, most U.S. immigrants, especially Mexican, are much less wealthy and educated than U.S. natives, even after many years in the country.

Model Minority? No, Thanks by Deepa Iyer
From RaceWire: The Colorlines Blog

In reality, Indian Americans, much like other immigrants, have diverse experiences and backgrounds. Indian Americans are doctors, engineers and lawyers, as well as small business owners, domestic workers, taxi drivers and convenience store employees. Community members hold a range of immigration statuses and include naturalized citizens and H-1B visa holders, guest workers and students, undocumented workers and green card holders. Some have access to higher education while others struggle to learn English in a new country. As with all communities, Indian Americans do not come in the same shape and form, and cannot be treated as a monolith.

Another danger with the model minority label is that it creates divisions between Indian Americans and other immigrant communities. Beneath the seemingly positive use of the “model minority” label is a pernicious racist undertone: the purpose, after all, is to compare one set of people with another, and the result is to pit people of color against one another.

It's A Thin Line Between Love and H8

...At least that’s the case for Gays and Lesbians who overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for President. Here is a group who loved the former Senator and had hope that he would be an advocate for their rights, even though he was not an all out supporter of “marriage” as a title or as a matter of Government law.
The dustup over Pastor Rick Warren being chosen to participate in Obama’s inaugural ceremony is the latest sign of discontent among Obama’s base. Here is another segment of Progressives who feel betrayed.

Some believe that this was a good move for Obama, because it will pay off in the long run. By triangulating early to get more evangelical support, he will have more latitude to get the kind of legislation he wants from the House and especially the Senate. I’m not so sure that this was a good move. It’s another example of Obama overcompensating in order to widen his appeal. Does he believe that in 2012, he will be able to count on the support of all those he is betraying…. Progressives, Liberal Democrats, Gays & Lesbians, etc? Does he believe that he will be able to gain enough support from Conservatives and Red State Evangelicals by 2012 to make up for the loss of support from many within his own base? Or perhaps he believes that because of the current economic situation, no one is really paying attention to these other issues of “principle” and the fact that he is already going back on many of the campaign promises he made.

I’m not so sure that he can count on Evangelical Conservatives, and traditional Red State Republicans making up for the possible weakening of his own base. Obama runs the risk of having Gays and Lesbians, Liberal Democrats, and Progressives….even a few independents, staying home in 2012. This is especially the case if he doesn’t fix the economy. If he has a lot of failures over the next 4 years, one thing he could rely on would be the loyalty from his base… but he seems to be cashing those chips in early for a Centrist/Right of Center gamble.

I am no staunch supporter of Gay marriage….at least not as a title. Although I believe that there should be Domestic Partnership rights and Federal laws protecting Gays and Lesbians. Now if Gays & Lesbians want to have private ceremonies of their own…they can call it what they want. But I won’t argue that point here…whether Gay marriage is right or wrong. What I want to point out is that I am annoyed that a man could so easily abandon those who have given him so much support and could so easily & quickly abandon principles for the sake of political expediency. That’s bothersome to me.

Rick Warren is a man who was a strong supporter of Proposition 8, the referendum outlawing Gay marriage in California. But in addition to that, Warren has made troubling comments about the Gay and Lesbian community, likening those in that lifestyle to criminals, and child rapists. I understand Obama’s attempts to reach out….but it’s how far he is willing to reach, and how contorted he is willing to get, for his own political benefit that is so troublesome. Even a man who is willing to reach out should be anchored by at least some core principles. Abe Lincoln had them, and Obama is using (at least in part) Lincoln’s reaching out as a basis for his attempt to build a good Cabinet. Reagan also had these core Principles. As did Kennedy, MLK, Mandela, and FDR. All of the great leaders of the past Century were anchored by certain core values and these values typically weren’t for sale. Is this something that Obama is misunderstanding about great leaders and coalition builders…that there are certain values that you should try to avoid abandoning, as well as people you shouldn’t want to abandon?

From what I understand, there were many other Pastors who could have been considered for the inaugural invocation…. Moderate Conservative Pastors who could have accomplished what Obama wanted to accomplish by placating both of the Constituencies that Obama should have been concerned with. Instead, he offended one…and is perceived by some as abandoning one constituency for another.

Yes, this may help Obama in the long run politically… but at the risk of alienating entire segments of the American populace. He runs the risk of looking like a man who is almost too calculating and someone who few will want to trust. When he needs the Progressive vote in 2012 it may be a harder sell. I doubt that the new Republican voters he is campaigning for now will be willing to vote for him in 4 years.

It’s another Obama gamble… in what is becoming a long list of gambles. I have a hard time believing that all of these moves will turn out as he planned.

America's Most Adorable Cook, Now A Symbol of Terrorism

That's according to Neo-Conservative Bloggers. This is an example of the American sickness that I referred to several weeks ago. And the Country is probably in worse shape than I thought if Rachael Ray - an ultimate symbol of innocence....of the All-American girl next door - can turn into a Terrorist overnight. Hear a quick NPR Report.

Now I don't want to write ill of all Conservatives, because there is definitely a little Conservatism in my political DNA. But mainstream Conservatives should be embarrassed. American xenophobia has gone completely out of control. The ignorance is so great that I don't know if this Country will ever be able to dig out of this hole and return to some level of normalcy. 9/11 changed the Country forever...and not for the better. But in reality, 9/11 only exposed a deep seeded problem that existed long before those planes were flown into The World Trade Center & The Pentagon. The U.S. was so culture starved, and already had such a problem with its own domestic race issues that the Country was ripe for the kind of xenophobic hysteria that consumed it after 9/11. The gasoline had already been poured during decades of cultural isolationism. 9/11 only provided the spark.

Here's another story that I posted several months ago that I was reminded of when I heard about the Rachael Ray nonsense. (It is worth a listen, believe me).

Political Cartoon Roundup

Goldwater Republicrat Billary Clinton Can Count On Support From Ann Coulter

...If McCain Wins the Republican Nomination

Congressional Black Caucus getting more Toxic

More toxic political garbage from the Congressional (FOX) Caucus

I guess African American bloggers such as Mirror on America and others will be called "Liberal Activists" again as we continue to report and post on the stupidity of the Congressional FOX Caucus.


Let's go backwards a number of months when twenty-six members of the Congressional Black Caucus signed letters and sent them to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (DN.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (DN.C.) urging them to reconsider their decisions to skip the event.

The CBC also known as the Congressional FOX Caucus claimed the debates will be an opportunity to "help educate African Americans and others on key issues of national policy. Whatever!!

Hat Tip: Afro-netizen.com and dnA for the list of CBC members who signed the letter.

Well, the Congressional Black (Fox) Caucus leadership is dropping more (excuse the language) toxic political poop on America's black communities, and based on African American blogger comments we not feel'n good about it.

Unfortunately, Sen. Joseph Biden, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich have agreed to join in on the poop event. Many African American bloggers, thought it may be over, the CBC would give up.

It's not over as far as the Congressional Black Caucus is concerned. As reported by politico.com, prometheus6, Jack and Jill Politics and others, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick who seems to be acting like a FOX Network propaganda "stool pigeon" says, We're moving forward no matter what! We're definitely having a debate in Detroit in September," said CBC Chairwoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, who serves on the institute's board and represents Detroit in Congress.

"We may change the format. We might have more than just the presidential candidates," she said.

But she is not alone, there are more stool pigeons dropping poop on the black community. Check out Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), head of the CBC Institute, who said he still held out hope that he could convince the front-runners to attend. He preferred not to dwell on the idea of a lonely stage with Biden, Kucinich and Gravel lobbing bombs at their absentee rivals.



"We're still working to get the other people to reconsider," Thompson said. "Their decision to make Fox News the issue is not a good idea. Whether you agree or disagree with [Fox], they have a viewership."

AAPP: Ok, Let me be clear, this guy Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) may be powerful in the House of Representatives, but I'm with the American public regarding congress. This guy's statement about Fox, proves he is a moron.

This guy is still in denial that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are not attending the FOX/CBC debate, even though he and the other CBC Fox News supporters are "fair and stupid" regrading this redneck shindig. We can all expect Jesse Jackson, Sr., to be there smilin' for the cameras'.

"I Guess Bennie (yes-um FOX) Thompson has gotten very comfortable to those Mississippi rednecks like racially divisive Klan supporter Trent ( the United States would have avoided "all these problems" if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948) Lott.

As Jack and Jill Politics points out, "The CBC's defense of their partnership with conservative propaganda outlet Fox News Channel is becoming increasingly absurd."

Skeptical Brotha was so right back in May of this year about the majority of the CBC selling out to Fox Noise Channel.

African American bloggers such as The Reid Report and many, many others have been concerned for some time about the CBC's DUBIOUS FRIENDS.

We should all remember how and why Kucinich, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel attended the FOX debate when we get into that voting booth. I'm not saying vote for or against a person just because of one position or stand, but I don't think we should forget who stood with black folks, and who stood against and pooped on black folks all in the name of exposure, instead of integrity.



In the meantime, I'm getting some type of poop off (not and endorsement of the product) to fight against the Congressional Fox Caucus, and the candidates who support their efforts to poop on black communities. Because I don't like poop. I Don't l know anyone who does like poop, let alone "Toxic Political poop."

oops... there is one group that does. As a clear example: The Congressional FOX Caucus. But as they say poop happens! Can the CBC spread that toxic political poop around to some other group?

I'm tired of it. What about you?