Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    You can call me a dirty son of a $@%&! but if you ever call me "Daddy" again...

    By Nick, Section News
    Posted on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:00:21 PM EST
    Tags: (all tags)

    When a man looks at an individual and makes a blanket judgment or assumption based on an unrelated physical characteristic, that man has engaged in bigotry.

    Bigotry is ugly.  It is destructive.  It is a nasty business and there should be no place for it in campaigns, elections, the mainstream media or the Michigan blogosphere.  But if we've learned anything from the regressisphere the last few years, they're masters of the despicable.  

    Last week a journalist named Keith Boykin and Michigan Liberal front-man Eric Baerren made a few political calculations, sloppily scribbled some thoughts across a keyboard and disappointingly injected race into the debate over Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his relationship with Senator Barack Obama.  They chose a united front, attacking me personally and firing slings and arrows loaded to the brim with aspersions of racism.

    Let me make this very clear.  You, gentlemen, not I, brought up race and I. Will. Not. Be. Labeled. A. Racist.


    Every neighborhood has a different way of doing things.  A different set of behavioral norms, different expectations, different attitudes... and different "go" words.  You might get away with saying something on one block that you won't get away with on another.  Where I'm from, calling someone a racist means it's time to roll up the sleeves, crack the knuckles and throw.   But "this" isn't the Garfield Park Neighborhood.  This is RightMichigan.com and we fashion ourselves the civilized sort.  The beauty of the blogosphere is that we can take a look at the accusations of bigots and dissect their arguments.  It might be less cathartic but it's guaranteed to produce fewer bruises on the back of my hand.

    Let's start chronologically.  

    Please read on...

    Boykin applied the "racist" label first and is, apparently, entirely blind to the concept of irony.  His charge:

    Barack Obama is not Jeremiah Wright and he's certainly not Kwame Kilpatrick. This fact seems so obvious that it hardly merits a response. But the one thing these three have in common is that they are all black men, and Republicans run the risk of racism charges if they try to make the case that they all somehow "the Three Musketeers."

    But then again, this is the party that launched a presidential campaign with an appeal to white racists in Mississippi in 1980, that tried to scare white voters with threats of a menacing black rapist named Willie Horton in 1988, and that used a set of white hands holding an employment rejection letter in a television ad to convince angry white voters in North Carolina that "minorities"  were getting ahead through "racial quota laws."

    The fact that Obama is not Wright and is not Kilpatrick is indeed obvious.  I would argue it merits NO response.  Specifically because no one has made that charge.  Boykin sets up a straw man with that simple sentence, stating as a matter of assumed fact that Republicans, including yours truly, have claimed the men are the same.  He accuses me of a charge and offense I plainly did not commit and then uses that non-offense to label me a villain on par with perceived racists dating back to an election that took place hundreds of miles to the south when I was thirteen months old.  

    Of course a quick gander at that masthead tells an even more frustrating story.

    The Daily Voice bills itself as "Black America's Daily News Source" (and is sponsored by Black Entertainment Television).  His column can also be found on BlackPoliticsontheWeb.com.  But RightMichigan is the one hung up on race.

    Now, I don't take any particular offense at the "black" labels.  While a newspaper billing itself as "White America's Daily News Source" would almost certainly cater to deep-seeded hatreds, traditionally "black" publications are much more often segregated out of a sense of pride and affirmation than they are predicated on ugliness.

    For Eric Baerren I make no similar allowances.  Last Friday the Midland Daily News stringer, in a post titled "When you can't debate, race bait," tagged me a racist for linking Obama with Kilpatrick.

    Let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that the African American population in my family is larger than that of Baerren's home town and take a hard look at the sewage still dripping from the walls of his blog's host server.

    "...why link the two. (sic)  On the surface, both have things in common -- both come from urban areas, both are Democrats, and both are African Americans.

    Because there is otherwise no reason (sic) to link the two, other than the existence (sic) of a video in which one Democrat said nice things about another Democrat publicly (sic), there is no reason to assume that because both are Democrats likewise has any meaning (sic). To tar the one with the alleged sins of the other requires an exercise in guilt by association so strained that it threatens to snap and cover the land with concentrated stupid.

    The same could be said of the issue of race.  On the surface, it is a meaningless relationship, unless you actually subscribe to the notion that all African Americans know each other and provide cover for each other in times of trouble.

    But, it is those underlying assumptions that make the connection of Kilpatrick and (sic) Obama where one doesn't exist so vile. Whether intended -- and there is no evidence to suggest that anyone has conciously (sic) made that connection -- that connection pokes at bigotries and prejudices burbling just below the surface, suggesting that you can find common ground between the two if you just think about it -- they're all brothers, don'tcha know (sic), and brothers stick together.

    (Aside: Yes, this guy moonlights as a "journalist."  I just assume he's got impossibly patient editors.)

    The blogger's subtle-as-a-sledge-hammer implication is that any writer who dares broach the Kwame / Obama connection in any capacity is a closeted (at best) bigot and a racist.  Sure, the connection has been addressed endlessly over the last week by prominent newspaper men and women across the state but earlier in his manifesto he singles me out by name.  Kathy Barks Hoffman, Kathleen Gray, Joel Millman, Gordon Trowbridge, Mark Hornbeck and Ed Brayton at the hyper-liberal, Stryker-backed "Michigan Messenger" escape explicit labeling but are easily caught in his giant net.  

    But see, I'm a white conservative.  I'm not one of his "colleagues" in the journalism game and Lord knows I'm not a white liberal.  Thus, I'm a racist.  Clearly.  (This would be a good time to re-read the definition with which I intro'd this column.)

    The lie at the black (as in pitch, devoid of light) heart of Baerren's bigotry is that the only bonds between Kilpatrick and Obama are their urban roots (itself code language in the racial lexicon, though I sincerely doubt the MichLibber correctly identified his own biases when he was writing that tripe), that they're Democrats and that they're black.  Note, by the way, that it is the Obama supporter who introduces race.  Nowhere on any blog, forum, message board, public or private conversation did myself or anyone in any way associated with RightMichigan ever mention it.  It is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.  The Obama / Kilpatrick connection is much more than skin deep.

    Let's take a look at a few of the bonds that reach well beyond race, Party ID and `urban roots.'

    Why not start with the obvious.  The scandal-plagued mayor of Detroit is a Barack Obama super-delegate.  The Associated Press quoted Kilpatrick on June 3, 2008:

    "I enthusiastically pledge my support to Senator Barack Obama, who will bring much needed hope, change and leadership to take our country in a new direction. I will work hard to ensure he will be victorious in November."

    This wasn't a surprising decision.  The relationship between the men began well before June of this year.

    According to this speech in May of 2007, Kwame Kilpatrick and Barack Obama first met "years ago" in Chicago.  According to these remarks, Kilpatrick traveled to Chicago to host several fundraisers for pre-POTUS candidate Obama, including at least one during his bid for a seat in the Illinois state Senate.  In the interest of a clean timeline... Obama ended his tenure in the Illinois state Senate in 2004.  His last state Senate Campaign concluded in 2002.  For Kilpatrick's part, he first assumed the top spot in Detroit in January of 2002.  

    In other words, the relationship goes back the better part of a decade (at least) and predates both Hizzoner's time as the mayor of the city of Detroit and Barack Obama's Presidential aspirations.

    These connections only add weight to Obama's own words; a personal and public claim that Kwame Kilpatrick is his "good friend."  And if we've learned anything from Senator Obama it is that his words matter.

    Kwame Kilpatrick could be a lily white second generation English American named Geeves Montgomery and that connective resume would draw every bit the attention it draws today.  Not that Baerren needs any measure of a personal relationship to connect one man to another when HE disagrees with their politics.  We're talking, after all, about the same blogger who spent an entire week earlier this summer attempting to connect John McCain with a never-indicted foreclosure attorney named David Trott because one of the Arizona Senator's regional campaign offices is using space leased in a building owned, in part, by Mr. Trott.

    If Mr. Trott and Senator McCain have ever even met, we're not aware of it.  Mr. Trott is not a John McCain super-delegate.  Senator McCain has never given a public speech praising Mr. Trott and calling him a friend.  Mr. Trott, as far as I know, has never traveled to Arizona to host fundraisers for Senator McCain.  Neither has Mr. Trott been indicted for any alleged wrong-doing.  But his profession is politically unpopular and if you play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon you might be able to link him to John McCain.

    Nic Cage kissed Eva Mendes in Ghost Rider.  Eva Mendes kissed Will Smith in Hitch.  Will Smith (lucky bum) kissed Vivica Fox in Independence Day.  Vivica Fox kissed Jean Claude Van Damme in Hard Corps (luckier bum).  Jean Claude Van Damme kissed Natasha Henstridge in Maximum Risk.  Natasha Henstridge kissed Alfred Molina in Species.  So I guess Doctor Octopus and Ghost Rider make out on the weekends?

    That sort of argument is preposterous.  What would be even more ridiculous is if I accused Eric of trying to link John McCain to Dave Trott because they "both come from (sub)urban areas, both are (Republicans), and both are (Caucasian) Americans."

    But with significantly less connective material that's exactly the track Baerren takes in labeling me a racist.

    If The Bigot had a shred of decency he'd post a full retraction and a personal apology.  Then he'd email the text and the hyperlink to every newspaper in the state that's carried a single Obama / Kilpatrick story.  But he won't.  Because if bigotry illustrates anything it's a gaping hole where the human heart is usually located and a dark void in the soul.  

    Not that I'm asking for an apology.  Attempting to silence his political opponents with false charges, smears and name calling is both a form of intellectual fascism and par for the MichganLiberal course.  Ultimately I couldn't care less whether or not the kid feels remorse for irresponsibly tossing around bigoted, base, vitriolic labels.  Just so long as he and the rest of the regressisphere understand there are some things you don't get away with on my block.

    I get that nuance is a lost art with most of the lefty set but that's OK.  There are a couple of ways you can interpret this clip from the John Wayne v. Richard Boone classic "Big Jake."  One is nuanced, one's pretty straightforward.  Take your pick.  Works for me either way.

    < Monday in the Sphere, August 18 | RGMN - Getting the Message Right (Part 3) >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Encouragement (none / 0) (#1)
    by Republican2679 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    Michigan citizens are up against the Iron Triangle.  On the top point you have the union mafia and the Detroit political machine destroying lives and ruling all of Michigan.  Then on the bottom left point is a fringe Ku Klux Klan that's going after everyone regardless of race, faith or status.  This is a very unforgiving group that hates anything that is good.  And then on the bottom right and corner are the nazi environmentalists who shout the color green but really have no care for our planet at all.  The only thing they want is socialism.   Since the Iron Triangle is very reactionary and cannot win on the issues, they lie and try to get rid of any new ideas by doing away with discussion and trying to discredit conservatives by attacking our integrity and our ethics.
    I don't think anybody is taking the Iron Triangle seriously when they attack this blog so I wouldn't worry about it.  Everybody knows that the Iron Triangle is corrupt that way.                    

    Identiy politics (none / 0) (#3)
    by Rougman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    This sort of baseless charge is the cornerstone of identity politics--designed to discredit the carriers of alternative viewpoints so that the christened narrative is never challenged.  

    It is only used by people who have no solid argument on their side.  They know this, so rather than engage in debate, they attack the messenger.  

    I'm not hung up (none / 0) (#4)
    by Nick on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:24:07 PM EST
    on me at all.  But I do and WILL refuse to yield the right to discuss Kwame Kilpatrick's personal associates.  

    These guys have called me plenty of names and taken countless personal shots in the past and I've never addressed them.  It's their M.O.  Expected.

    This one's over the line.

    BTW... the man is not a Muslim.  Period.

    No Apoligies (none / 0) (#5)
    by wctaxpayer on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:36:58 PM EST
     All I can say is WOW. I would not get so upset over one guys rant. You did a great job of putting him in his place but people who think like him will find fault about something anyway. Why? because it is always about him.

    I find it difficult to talk about race because I do not think in those terms unless someone else brings it to my attention. Making a determination about anyone or thing based on a pigment in there skin does not make much sense to me and that goes both ways.

    Until we can lighten up there may be nothing we can do.
    Rose Bogaert, Chair Wayne County Taxpayers Association, Inc.

    Nick (none / 0) (#6)
    by apackof2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    I know this upsetting but its typical of the left and it will continue to happen

    For those who want to believe,
    nothing you say will make any difference.
    For those who know you and
    have knowledge of your posts, no defense is necessary

    Nick.. (none / 0) (#7)
    by rdww on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:03:34 PM EST
    Having a small-town, ignored liberal like Eric Baerren snarking at you is surely no cause for alarm.  Hey, he has to get SOMEONE to read his column.

    But I'd suggest that you not get in such a tizzy about being labeled "racist."  The proper response is "so what?"  Sorry, but race is a legitimate factor to be considered in making voting decisions, along with the other factors known about a candidate, no better nor worse than saying you won't vote for this guy because he's from Chicago.  Otherwise, someone must pretend with a straight face that Senator Barack Hussein rolled up 80% and 90% black votes in various primaries because the black population found his stand on global warming so resonant.

    Boykin Spreads More Liberal Lies (none / 0) (#9)
    by RightMacomb on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    Since Liberals rely on revisionist history in order to convince othes, I must point out another liberal lie that he uses.  He mentions how Republicans used Willie Horton as a racist attack against Dukakis.  The problem is that Al Gore was the one who discovered Willie Horton and it was Al Gore that used it first against Dukasis.

    That glass house thing kinda of stinks, doesnt it.

    Bravo Nick. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jep on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:04:10 PM EST
        I have to admit though, I am kind of amazed that you seem so surprised and offended by this.  Race baiting has been a staple of Wayne County politics since the riots and explains why racial attitudes throughout the Detroit Area have progressed very little over the course of the last four decades.  It has remained a tried and true tactic of corrupt politicians since the administration of Coleman Young and remains in use today.  In the eyes of Kilpatrick's supporters, you can not criticize an African-American leader without being a racist and huge swaths of Detroit's population, surely products of their public school system, buy this.  The aspect of this that I find particularly amusing is that the bigot-labeling is not only confined to Kwame's Caucasian critics, but to the mayor's black opponents as well.  To listen to the gibberish coming out of City Hall these days, one would think that Kim Worthy had recently been elected as Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan mere minutes before taking office and filed all those felony charges against Kilpatrick as some sort of white supremacist fraternity prank.

        Fortunately however, the mayor's blatant disregard for the law (and more damning, his betrayal of a constituency in the throes of a debilitating financial crisis) was caught on videotape and the images of him spewing so much vitriol in denying the affair with his chief-of-staff cut a very powerful picture.  I often wonder if this scandal would have broken the way it did if Kilpatrick had answered the prosecution's question during the whistleblower trial with a simple "no".  Being so cornered after getting caught in that lie, his race baiting just seemed to ring of hollow desperation and sounded scripted and unconvincing. Even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, ever so vigilant of any suggestion of white conspiracy, put so much distance between themselves and Tricky Dick Kilpatrick that one might think that he was infected with some sort of airborne strain of venereal Ebola.  

        As for the liberal media targeting you, well it just goes with the territory.  At this point Kilpatrick is not just soiling Detroit, he is leaving more streak marks over McNamara's scions than he could have if he was battling an accidental overdose of bad Gouda and Ex Lax.  Anyone highlighting this mushrooming situation is also exposing Granholm's spectacular lack of leadership as well in not dealing with this situation before it caused irreparable damage to the rest of the state, kicking the region repeatedly when it was already down.  I have a feeling that this will have a significant impact on the moderate and independent voting public come November.

        In my personal case, there is no way that I can be convinced to cast a ballot for John McCain in November and Barak Obama was set to receive the first vote I ever cast for a Democratic presidential candidate.  The more I see of the DNC modus operendi of wagon-circling around a particularly heinous cohort however, the more convinced I am that the best course of action for me is to camp out on the couch this November 4th in my underwear, drink Mojitos and watch the second season of Dexter on DVD.  I don't blame Obama personally for any of this mess and I would certainly not link him to Kilpatrick any more than I would link George Bush to Nancy Pelosi just because he once said a kind word about her, but if Detroit is an example of what a Democratic monopoly can do to a city, I certainly do not want to have any part of putting them closer to a monopoly of power in regards to the nation.  Granted, they're all deserting the sinking ship now but it is far too late.  They could have had one more vote had they taken some action before the damage done was irreversible.

    JEP http://jepreport.blogspot.com/

    • history by NoviDemocrat, 08/20/2008 02:04:12 AM EST (none / 0)
    me thinks thou... (none / 0) (#12)
    by whatever on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:36:23 AM EST
    me thinks thou protests too much.

    right-wingers want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to obama. they want to raise subtle questions about obama's faith, tie him individuals of his race who do bad things, but then claim the high road.

    enough already. stick to the friggin issues and stay out of the mud and you won't be blogged about in such ways.

    whatever... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jep on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:32:05 AM EST
    tie him individuals of his race who do bad things

    Once again, it is usually the Obama supporters who bring up race whenever Obama is criticized.As I said in my previous post, I will agree that Obama's involvement with Kilpatrick is minimal at most, but the party machine that has been circling the wagons around Kilpatrick is the same party machine that wants us in Michigan to put Obama in the White House.  Believe me, I trust Obama far more than I do McCain but if there is anything that is keeping me from voting for him, it will be the apparatus behind the candidate.
    JEP http://jepreport.blogspot.com/

    "Daddy" (none / 0) (#15)
    by live dangerously on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:41:17 AM EST
    Hey Nick.
    Funny the diference a generation makes.  Today John Wayne would be up on charges of one sort or another.

    I've picked up in a lot of the comments the feeling that it is wrong to talk back when assailed.  They seem to think that it will drag you down to their level.  Preposterous..!!

    To state facts and argue issues is what Democracy is all about.  It is what Freedom is all about.  To label people by race to avoid the facts and issues is what dictatorships and slavery are all about. Leaders of all stripes like Stalin Mao and Hitler use blatant racism to sustain their stranglehold on their people.

    To point that out when it happens in this country is not a crime.  When it subverts the rule of law is laudable.

    Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

    Sorry Nick... (none / 0) (#16)
    by rdww on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:58:32 AM EST
    ... but it's far too late to keep race out of election decisionmaking.  Gerry Ferraro was right way back last winter... Barry is our first affirmative action baby candidate, and "racism" is exactly why he's where he is today.  Getting upset because people who are very likely Obama delegates call you a "racist" (with a straight face, no less) suggests that you're just playing their game by their rules.

    Overly partisan, not racist (none / 0) (#18)
    by Brady on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    I don't believe Nick was purposefully engaging in race baiting.  It appears he was unwittingly engaging in race baiting.  The distinction, which Eric recognizes, is important.  But just because Nick wasn't deliberately engaging in race baiting, doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for it.  Nick's fault isn't in being a racist, it's in being so overly partisan that he didn't even recognize that to many people his linking Obama to Kilpatrick appears to be race baiting.

    Looking over the recent articles and comments on Right Michigan, one thing is obvious.  Michigan conservatives and Michigan Republicans have almost nothing to say, good or bad, about John McCain's agenda for America.  The focus on Right Michigan seems to be RMGN, Kilpatrick, RMGN, Obama, RMGN, dissing Grahholm, RMGN, overstating ties between Kilpatrick and any other Democrat, RMGN.  But there's very little about McCain other than how he might pick a pro-choice VP.  It's rather odd, considering that he's the top Republican candidate this year.  I'd expect someone like Nick to beat up on Obama, especially on his proposed policies.  But if it's not balanced out with how John McCain offers a much better choice for America, I think we can pretty much guess the end result.  Liberals talking about Obama and conservatives talking about Obama, means Obama becomes the next President.


    • You're right... by Nick, 08/19/2008 10:19:03 AM EST (none / 0)
    • Why is it by tenex22, 08/19/2008 10:27:04 AM EST (none / 0)
      • Because by Brady, 08/19/2008 10:49:43 AM EST (none / 0)
        • I know by tenex22, 08/19/2008 11:15:11 AM EST (none / 0)
    • Well, yea.... by rdww, 08/19/2008 10:45:47 AM EST (none / 0)
    Not right (none / 0) (#22)
    by Brady on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    Nick, I'm not right, or left.  Just correct.

    I was a Kwame fan.  A few years back, Kwame was breathing new life into downtown Detroit.  I felt safe visiting Detroit again, to walk down Woodward at night, to visit the Eastern Market, to enjoy Greektown.  Kwame was actually a decent mayor.  He got caught up in the ego trap that haunts politicians, the temptation to feel one deserves personal indulgances above the common man and the use of position to cover them up.  

    Kilpatrick  and Obama were both rising young politicians from large Great Lakes cities supporting each other politically on a level likely overstated by you and understated by Eric.  But Obama has no blame for Kwame's fall from grace.  And to attempt to create a connection, to make Kwame's problems rub off on Obama is either deliberate partisan overreach or deliberate race-baiting.  And I've read enough of you to believe you would not in deliberate race-baiting.

    The lesson to be learned here is that both Right Michigan and Michigan Liberal need to lighten up on the smears and personal attacks.  Focus on what their policy proposals mean for Michigan, not just those of Obama but also of John McCain -the forgotten candidate.

    Right's interest in McCain? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Brady on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    Are you saying that Michigan conservatives have less interest in supporting and promoting John McCain than Michigan liberals do with Obama?  Because it certainly seems that way.

    • I don't know that by Nick, 08/19/2008 11:05:33 AM EST (none / 0)
      • McSame by NoviDemocrat, 08/20/2008 02:09:26 AM EST (none / 0)
    Trott (none / 0) (#27)
    by Brady on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:22:37 AM EST
    I have no idea who Trott is or even what the issue is.  Is this the guy that supposedly owned McCain's Michigan headquarters?  If so, when I read the beginning of the story I didn't read on because it looked to be weak.  By the way, Eric does not consider himself a Democrat.  In fact, given his recent voting pattern, he's more of a very liberal Ron Paul style Republican.

    Nick - not wanting to beat... (none / 0) (#33)
    by rdww on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:54:47 AM EST
    ... a limping horse here, but your response on the "racist" name-calling IS a problem for all conservatives, and IMHO your reaction only makes it more effective for the abusers.  
    They have found that if they yell "racist," they can throw a conservative off his stride, and subtly push the limits of discussion on race back toward their own interests.  You find the term offensive -- would that not also mean that, if some OTHER conservative is called "racist," you'd be a bit more likely to distance yourself from him and disown his views?  
    Your stand not only distracts you from the good work you're doing, but makes it more likely you'll take the divisive approach of saying "No, I'm no racist -- but them over there, THEY are!"  The far wiser and more effective tact is to say "So what?" and keep right on doing what you're doing.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search