ken
On 5/10/12 9:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
The goal line keeps shifting, and Obama's list of sins and Bangura's list of grouses keeps growing. During the Democratic primary in 2008, Bangura's complaint was that Obama had voted for a US post-war intervention in Sierra Leone that he didn't like. In the last one year or so, the complaint has been that, by helping to take out the murderous, racist dictator, Ghadafi, Obama was "butchering AfriKans." Now, Abdul appears to be angry at Obama because, as he put it, Obama hasn't done anything for black folk--whatever that means.
It reminds me of the silliness of Cornel West's growing hatred for Obama. At first his reason was that Obama didn't send him a special invitation to the inauguration! Now, he is complaining that Obama is not returning his calls or consulting him on the needs of the black community. The arrogance! The inflated sense of one's importance! The pettiness! It is pathetic to see grown black folks behaving like children because they want to make the point that they're important and should be taken seriously or consulted. Folks who complain that Obama is not doing stuff for black Americans lack the self-reflexivity of recognizing their own sin of imperiously appointing themselves representatives and spokesmen of the "black community." Simply appalling.
And let's not worry about blacks voting for Obama in November. They are not fools. It is indeed the case that Obama has not rolled out policies specifically targeting black Americans, nor should he. The Republicans are already branding him a "welfare president," so that would be suicidal politically. This will not hurt him with blacks. Clinton did more to harm blacks' interest with his welfare reforms and other entitlement rollbacks than Obama could ever do. Obama is doing no harm; he's just not doing anything specifically for blacks. In spite of the victims of Clinton's reforms being overwhelmingly black, the former president remained/remains a darling of the black community. Why? Blacks recognize and reward symbolic political gestures. Obama has made several such gestures. Black Americans know that in this interest group game called American politics, symbolism matters, and that the symbolism of a one-term black president may have a long term negative ramification for their interest in America. Blacks also know that a President Romney (or a President generic white guy or woman) is not exactly going to roll out a black marshall plan, approve reparations, or enact other race-based policies favoring blacks--no Democratic or Republican white president will do that. So, not only do blacks recognize the symbolic blessings of an Obama presidency; they know that the alternative is worse, far worse. That's why, come November, blacks will vote in overwhelming numbers, however reluctantly, for Obama. Count me among the reluctant voters, but even a reluctant voter's vote counts in equal measure to an enthusiastic voter's.
The other aspect of the symbolism registers with those of us who are raising young black children in America. The optical symbolism of a dignified black family in the white house carries an infinitely inspirational capital, one that supplements parental pep talks and motivational gestures in a racially difficult America. Black folks whose children are grown or who have no children may not appreciate this.
On Obama generally, the guy has governed timidly on several issues. On this I completely agree with Gloria and Ken. The Republicans have not been his only enemy. Sometimes he has been his own enemy, displaying timidity and inexplicable amenability on issues of concern to his progressive constituency. And it is also not true that Republicans have stood in the way of everything or prevented him from doing everything that progressives and even moderate conservatives cherish. There are things he could have done WITHOUT the Republicans, or by simply sidestepping them. Take housing and wall street. His approach to the two major sites of the economic meltdown has been disappointing in its spinelessness. He has rolled out one timid housing relief program after another, each one failing to heal the housing industry simply because he would not push lenders, regulators, and other actors in the industry who caused the problem and got bailed out by tax payer money, to participate. Participation in every program has been voluntary, thanks to Obama's excessive suck-up to wall street titans and former wall street people who populate his economic advisory team. Obama has allowed the bankers to simply write the terms of their participation in the programs and to protect their huge profits as homeowners suffer and homes lose value, dragging down the economy and slowing down the recovery. Given that these initiatives did not require legislation but executive action and pressure, Obama cannot blame the Republicans here. Obama's approach to wall street reform was even more disappointing. He did not fight for what he claimed he wanted in the bill. He was aloof and basically outsourced the process to congressional democrats and Republicans, who were then swamped by lobbyists for big banks--lobbyists who were ironically being paid by tax payer bailout money to lobby against banks being held accountable for their crimes and against regulations that would outlaw reckless, economy-wrecking risk taking. In the end, Obama signed a bill that was nothing more than a set of compromises favorable to the "too big to fail" banks. It's business as usual on wall street once again. Here too, he deserves poor marks.
My grouse with him here is not so much that I expect him to get everything he wants in these processes; given the political polarization, that's an unrealistic expectation. But as Ken said, I want to see him fight for the things that he campaigned on, the things that mean a lot to those who elected him--the majority of Americans. I want to see passion and an aggressive use of the bully pulpit to advocate for the interest of the middle class and the poor. I don't want to see him folding so quickly in the face of Republican opposition. If the Republicans block his efforts as they always do by default and routine, so be it. He'll get credit for trying his best and fighting for what he claims he believes.
That said, as Gloria stated, he also deserves good marks on the equal pay legislation; on healthcare reform, as limited as it was; on ending the Iraq war and winding down the one in Afghanistan; on holding credit card companies accountable; on the auto industry rescue; on increasing pell grants; getting Osama bin Laden; Ghadafi, etc.
Obama, for me is a mixed bag, as are most politicians. I will cast a pragmatic vote for him in November not because I agree with him on everything or I endorse his failures but because, a) the alternative is pure evil; 2) he has had some successes; 3) he deserves a second chance to show us that he is truly committed to the ideals he has been espousing.
--
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Abdul Bangura <theai@earthlink.net> wrote:
The Republicans say the same thing when they occupy the White House and have to deal with Democrats in Congress. Didn't Obama as freshman senator champion the cause in Congress to block George W. Bush's move to raise the debt ceiling? And what did Obama do when faced with the same issue as POTUS? Yes, it is a tough job, but no one is forced to take it. If you cannot stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen, we Americans say. So no more excuses, please! I am sick and tired of getting sick and tired of the same old excuses!We are told that "Obama cannot do anything for Black folks because he is President of all of America and will be hounded if he did." "So let us Black folks wait until he gets a second term." But Obama has no problem doing plenty for other ethnic groups. All he has done is bad mouth, bomb, and marginalize our people on the continent and in the Diaspora. Should Black folks always be an afterthought? When will Black folks stop waiting for left overs? For God's sake, our ancestors' blood and sweat built this country as enslaved labor. If he Obama has not done anything for Black folks in four years, he deserves to be booted out of the White House. We Black folks would have been better off with a white POTUS on whom we can apply pressure to serve our interests. Yes, America is a polyarchy; it is, indeed, an interest-group society.----- Original Message -----From: Anunoby, OguguaSent: 5/9/2012 7:21:34 PMSubject: FW: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Romney Widening His Lead Over Obama
Barack Obama is the constitutional president of the United States of America. He is not the absolute ruler of his country or indeed the world. He is not all powerful even though there are many who believe that he is or should be. Obama has to deal with, a determinedly hostile Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a constitutionally powerful Republican minority in the Senate. Obama's intentions and objectives as president are public information. His respective realization and implementation of them, because of Congress Republicans' opposition to anything and everything Obama proposes or stands for, has been more difficult than most people imagined. It is against this reality that the man should be evaluated and criticized if it the desire is to do so fairly and rightly.I should add that I neither speak for Obama, nor wish to make excuses for him. His is a tough and near impossible job given the implacable resolve of the opposition that he has faced and continues to face.oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kenneth harrow [harrow@msu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:17 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Romney Widening His Lead Over Obama
dear kwaku,
i suppose i can say obama is not my friend or enemy, but that i am not only disappointed in him, but regard his policies in human rights as little better than bush's. republicans are extreme-rightwingers to me, and politically my enemy, but obama shares too much with them for me to feel comfortable about any bland statements of support. of course i will vote for him, but he is a failure in protecting human rights. i won't take up the argument around whether he "has" to sustain policies like indefinite detention--these are abominable policies, and merely continuations of the war on terrorism. i really regard arguments about necessity in this context as ridiculous: the u.s. is the overwhelmingly greater military power on earth, and the notion that the state is somehow so threatened as to require us to abrogate basic rights is absurd, immoral, obscene.
the argument i wanted to share with this list comes from an amnesty international human rights lawyer who was responding to a question of where the obama administration stood on policies concerning human rights:
ken
Amnesty is definitely concerned with the human rights of detainees in US custody at Bagram: there's the issue with the Army Field Manual I mentioned, there's indefinite detention and lack of due process, and there's been virtually no accoutnability for abuses there--including for two deaths during interrogations that were ruled homicides by the Army--only low level soldiers were sanctioned in those cases. And we are also very concerned with what will become of the detainees if and when they are transferred to Afghan custody. It's a terrible situation for the people held there. Rendition is a big question mark: Obama has said that the US does not send detainees to other countries to be tortured and that we get diplomatic assurances that anyone transferred will not be tortured-- but that's what Bush said! We don't know and have sought clarity from the administration. Important to note that rendition in the counterterrorism context started with President Clinton (if not before). And yes, there are a number of other huge human rights problems with President Obama's current US counterterrorism policy: indefinite detention (both before and after the NDAA), military commissions that do not meet fair trial standards and targeted killings (drones for short hand). On indefinite detention: yes, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v Bush (2008) that Guantanamo detainees have a Constitutional right to habeas corpus--in other words, to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed. However, that's within a framework of indefinite detention that the government claims is lawful based on Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress right after 9/11. Some detainees have lost their habeas petitions, with the court ruling that they are, in fact, lawfully detained. Many detainees have won their habeas petitions, some have been released, but many remain detained while the government appeals. Some have won, and there has been no gov't appeal, but they remain held--with judges saying they can't force the adminsitration to release the detainees--begging the question, Is this really habeas? Lawyers are trying to get the SCOTUS to take up that question. The NDAA reaffirmed the AUMF, expanded who's covered by the AUMF from those involved in 9/11 to those who are part of or substantially support al Qaeda, the Taliban and affiliated groups (a big and vague expansion!), the NDAA raffirmed and further enshrined indefinite detention, and preserved the ambiguity that already existed in the AUMF about whether citizens are subject to indefinite detention (note that of course for AI the citizen/non-citizen distinction is immaterial). The NDAA also mandated military custody for terror suspects covered by the legislation, though Obama rejected that in his signing statement. The 2012 NDAA also reaffirmed the ban on transfer of GTMO detainees to the US, even for federal trial. The 2012 NDAA could have been even worse. Amnesty, ACLU and others help defeat an amendment by Senator Ayotte (R-NH, and possible Romney VP) that would have allowed the CIA to authorize its own interrogation techniques, in secret--clearly an attempt to bring back waterboarding and other forms of torture. Senator McCain also called on Ayotte to drop her amendment 9which probably had more impact on her than human rights groups!) So, the NDAA is bad, but it's only part of the wider problem of detention abuses launched by the AUMF, and the misapplication of a law of war framework to countering al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions were both misapplied and misinterpreted, at various times and in various ways, and the gov't failed to recognize that, regardless, regular human rights treaties (like ICCPR, UNCAT) still applied.
On 5/8/12 8:56 PM, Edward Mensah wrote:Of course, Bangura is in the same corner as Tavis Smiley, self-important people who love to listen to themselves. Like they say in Fella land, they love to yab. They look at Barack and say, I am just as smart as Barack. How come he is not following my advice? Granted the president has been timid in confronting the Republicans on many issues, but he is the best we have and we have to give him a chance. We must criticize him like you would criticize a friend, not an enemy. And there is a sea of difference. Bangura and Smiley sound just like enemies of Barack and they must be confronted, not ignored.
Kwaku Mensah
Chicago
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of basil ugochukwu
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Romney Widening His Lead Over Obama
It would have been understandable if Bangura's Obamaphobia started because Obama "took care of Ghadafi." On the contrary it goes way back; way, way back to when Obama and Hillary Clinton were contesting the Democratic nomination in 2008. I guess it's safe to say he's in the same corner as Tavis Smiley whose gripe with Obama you will have much difficulty placing a finger on.
From: D Foreal <forealng@yahoo.com>
To: "usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com" <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 6:21:03 PM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Romney Widening His Lead Over Obama
Bangura's problem stems from the fact Obama and others took care of Ghadafi, his hero and so called brother. When Obama wins in November, Bangura should go and join Ghadafi. He can also hold hands with Ted Nuggent on his way out.
Osa.
From: "Akurang-Parry, Kwabena" <KAParr@ship.edu>
To: "usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com" <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Romney Widening His Lead Over Obama
Oga Bangura:
There are other polls and reports out there that show that Obama leads Romney! When do you plan to post such polls? We need a plate of balanced diet from you, or stop feeding us!
Kwabena
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Abdul Bangura [theai@earthlink.net]
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Romney Widening His Lead Over ObamaTale of the Tape for Tuesday, May 08, 2012:
Romney widens his lead over Obama by 5%, and Obama is also -16% nationally.
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney earning 49% of the vote and President Obama attracting 44% support. Three percent (3%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english east lansing, mi 48824-1036 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english east lansing, mi 48824-1036 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment