Patterico's Pontifications


Is It Newt?

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:47 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Here we go. This is getting everyone worked up:

On Tuesday afternoon, a statement from the network said, “Fox News Channel has mutually agreed to suspend its contributor agreement with Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich effective immediately.”

“Due to the intense media speculation about Gingrich’s potential selection as Donald Trump’s vice presidential candidate, we felt it best to halt his contributor role on the network to avoid all conflicts of interest that may arise,” executive vice president for news Jay Wallace said.

And then there’s this:


So it might be Newt.

Or it might be Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who said on Sunday that abortion was a woman’s decision to make, and on Monday, said he was a “pro-life Democrat” and that the “law should be changed” on abortion.

Or it might be Gov. Mike Pence, who just attended a fundraiswer with the presumptive GOP nominee and introduced him at campaign rally today.

Oh. Yeah. There’s also Chris Christie, who is still auditioning for a VP slot on the ticket of the “law and order candidate”.


UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I continue to say it’s Newtie.

President Obama Pushes Politics At Memorial Service For Slain Officers

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:54 pm

[guest post by Dana]

I watched President Obama memorialize the five slain officers in Dallas today. Joined by Mrs. Obama, President Bush and Mrs. Bush, and Vice-President Biden and Dr. Jill Biden, it was, at times, a very heart-felt and eloquent speech. He spoke with obvious respect about each individual officer and their families, as well as recognized their invaluable contributions to their communities. I have no doubt that the slain officers’ families were deeply moved. And I hope, comforted.

And then, disappointingly expectedly, President Obama, who sought to console and reassure, began to push his particular brand of politics and propaganda before the captive audience:

When anyone, no matter how good their intentions may be, paints all police as biased, or bigoted, we undermine those officers that we depend on for our safety. And as for those who use rhetoric suggesting harm to police, even if they don’t act on it themselves, well, they not only make the jobs of police officers even more dangerous, but they do a disservice to the very cause of justice that they claim to promote.

We also know that centuries of racial discrimination, of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow; they didn’t simply vanish with the law against segregation. They didn’t necessarily stop when a Dr. King speech, or when the civil rights act or voting rights act were signed. Race relations have improved dramatically in my lifetime. Those who deny it are dishonoring the struggles that helped us achieve that progress. But we know…

But America, we know that bias remains. We know it, whether you are black, or white, or Hispanic, or Asian, or native American, or of Middle Eastern descent, we have all seen this bigotry in our own lives at some point. We’ve heard it at times in our own homes. If we’re honest, perhaps we’ve heard prejudice in our own heads and felt it in our own hearts. We know that. And while some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s stain. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune, and that includes our police departments. We know this.

And so when African-Americans from all walks of life, from different communities across the country, voice a growing despair over what they perceive to be unequal treatment, when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently. So that if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested; more likely to get longer sentences; more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime. When mothers and fathers raised their kids right, and have the talk about how to respond if stopped by a police officer — yes, sir; no, sir — but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door; still fear that kids being stupid and not quite doing things right might end in tragedy.

When all this takes place, more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.

We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members, again and again and again, it hurts. Surely we can see that, all of us.

We also know what Chief Brown has said is true, that so much of the tensions between police departments and minority communities that they serve is because we ask the police to do too much and we ask too little of ourselves.

As a society, we choose to under-invest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs.

We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.

And then we tell the police, “You’re a social worker; you’re the parent; you’re the teacher; you’re the drug counselor.” We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs and do so without causing any political blowback or inconvenience; don’t make a mistake that might disturb our own peace of mind. And then we feign surprise when periodically the tensions boil over.

We know those things to be true. They’ve been true for a long time. We know it. Police, you know it. Protesters, you know it. You know how dangerous some of the communities where these police officers serve are. And you pretend as if there’s no context. These things we know to be true. And if we cannot even talk about these things, if we cannot talk honestly and openly, not just in the comfort of our own circles, but with those who look different than us or bring a different perspective, then we will never break this dangerous cycle.

In the end, it’s not about finding policies that work. It’s about forging consensus and fighting cynicism and finding the will to make change.

I think if I was a family member of one of the slain officers, I would be rather disappointed that the president could not resist crassly using my loved one’s memorial service as a political soap box. While I think politics a necessary mechanism in life, I don’t believe a memorial service where five heroic men are being honored and remembered is the correct setting at which to push anyone’s agenda. (Except, cynically, unless there’s an upcoming election. Then it makes perfect sense.)

Anyway, I’ll point you to Ben Shapiro, who has taken the time to comment about several issues that were particularly objectionable in the president’s speech: Equating the murders of the Dallas police officers with the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile; suggesting that today’s police departments are rife with the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow; citing statistics meant to indict the police; defending the agenda of Black Lives Matter; and, pushing gun control.


New Black Panther Party To Be Armed At Cleveland Protests Next Week

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:15 am

[guest post by Dana]

In light of this, it’s certainly not a stretch to be concerned about this:

The chairman of the New Black Panther Party, a “black power” movement, said his group will carry arms for self-defense during protests at the Republican convention next week if allowed under Ohio law.

“If it is an open state to carry, we will exercise our Second Amendment rights because there are other groups threatening to be there that are threatening to do harm to us,” Hashim Nzinga, chairman of the New Black Panther Party, told Reuters in an interview.

“If that state allows us to bear arms, the Panthers and the others who can legally bear arms will bear arms.”

Nzinga condemned the killing of five police officers in Dallas last week as a “massacre” and said his group played no role in the attack.

Officials in Ohio have said it will be legal for protesters to carry weapons at demonstrations outside the convention under that state’s gun laws.

Nzinga did not identify which groups had threatened to do his group harm, nor whether he had reported this to law enforcement officials. Further, he said he expects several hundred members of the New Black Panther Party to be at the Republican National Convention next week to join in a “black unity protest”.

Also, according to the report:

Several other groups, including some supporters of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said they will carry weapons in protests as well, leading to concerns about rival groups being armed in close proximity.

What could possibly go wrong?


Anti-Trump Delegates In Virginia Win Lawsuit

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:54 am

[guest post by Dana]

I forgot to post this yesterday.

The state of Virginia holds that all GOP delegates are bound to cast their votes for the winner of the primary on the first ballot at the convention. Said winner being Donald Trump. Yesterday, anti-Trump delegate, Beau Correll, who had sued to allow delegates to vote their conscience, won his lawsuit.


This win is especially important as Virginia delegates no longer have to be fearful of being fined (up to $2,500) for voting their conscience. Also, it opens the door for other anti-Trump delegates in other states.

But, as Gabriel Malor also points out, “Delegates had three things binding them before: state law, state party rules, national party rules. One down, two to go.”


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0689 secs.