By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 02/04 at 05:15 PM
(0)
Comments
I apologize in advance for linking you to anything by CNN contributor Roland Martin. But I think this piece is important in the context of the discussions about race that we’ve been having here over the past three weeks.
In this column that is just the latest example of how race-conscious policy runs directly counter to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Martin rails against the dearth of black and Hispanic staffers on President Obama’s communications office.
Here are a few excerpts:
But while we hold the media accountable for the need to diversify their ranks, it’s quite telling to see the lack of diversity in the White House’s press office.
Yes, because, you know, Obama’s administration is one of the whitest ever.
I got an e-mail Tuesday listing all of the various press folks and contact information, and it became clear that there were hardly any African-Americans or Hispanics on the staff.
Really? “It became clear”? You mean, you could tell their ethnicity by simply reading their names? No assumptions there.
Various reports have stated that Obama was bothered by the lack of diversity among his campaign team, yet he wasn’t moved to do anything about it.
Hmm. Could that be because Obama was pleased with the work of his campaign team and cared more about their production than—GASP!!—the color of their skin?
I’ve been told that not all hiring has been completed in the White House press office and in other areas. OK, fine. But the A-team has clearly been hired, and that means anyone else coming in the door is on the B-team. And that just won’t cut it.
... even if their abilities and experience don’t measure up to the “A-team,“ right, Roland?
I’ll tell you someone who could have easily measured up to the standards necessary to work in the White House Press Office: Jamal Simmons, a spokesman for the Obama campaign.
I saw him probably four dozen times over 12 months, and every time, Simmons was flawless on set. He delivered a steady message with unwavering focus. Even on nights when Obama didn’t do well (the night of the Texas and Ohio primaries, for example), Simmons exuded an easy calm, even when faced with the sharp and verbose attacks of Clinton apologistas like the ferocious Paul Begala and bagman Lanny Davis. (Here he is holding his own against the industry’s best: The incomparable James Carville.) Simmons’s professionalism and eloquence likely went a long way toward keeping Obama’s primary supporters from panicking as the contentious race with Hillary Clinton dragged on.
But Jamal Simmons, as qualified as he is, probably wouldn’t be interested in a job in the White House. You know why?
He’d take a tremendous pay cut. His outstanding ability is earning him much more in the private sector—working with politicians and corporate clients alike—than he could earn in the administration, where he’d probably work twice as many hours for a third of the pay—or less.
And you know what? Good for Jamal Simmons! He’s a gifted communicator, and he should capitalize on that.
You know, if I was one of the white staffers who had worked my way into a job in the White House Press Office, I’d really resent someone like Roland Martin saying that my hiring was inappropriate—not because of my inability or because there was necessarily someone who was better equipped to succeed, but because my job should have gone to someone who looked different.
You know what won’t cut it? Roland Martin’s attitude of putting race over and above all other hiring considerations—you know, those minor things like education, ability and experience.
Good grief.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 02/04 at 03:10 PM
(0)
Comments
Well, it may not actually be the longest U.S. Senate race in history. But it’s got to be coming close.
THREE MONTHS after Minnesotans went to the polls to put an end to the startlingly and disturbingly nasty race between GOP incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger and former Saturday Night Live comedian Al Franken, voters are still waiting for closure.
This race has featured a razor-thin margin of victory, a mandatory recount, a canvassing board, missing ballots, court challenges over excluded ballots, clowns, acrobats and a partridge in a pear tree.
OK, so I made those last three up. But if they really were involved, it wouldn’t strike anyone as strange in context.
Well, as of right now, Franken holds a 225-vote lead. But this race just refuses to die. From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
In a ruling that keeps alive Republican Norm Coleman’s chances of overturning Minnesota’s U.S. Senate recount, a three-judge panel on Tuesday allowed him to bring evidence to trial that as many as 4,800 absentee ballots were wrongly rejected and should now be counted.
The decision expands the evidence that can be considered in the recount trial, giving Coleman the opportunity to put more ballots into play in his effort to erase a 225-vote lead for DFLer Al Franken. The Franken campaign had tried to limit Coleman to bringing evidence on only 650 absentee ballots that he cited specifically when he filed his lawsuit challenging the recount results.
In the ruling, the judges said they will focus on rejected absentee ballots cast by voters who complied with the requirements of Minnesota election law or failed to comply because of mistakes by local elections officials.
Ugh. How sick must Minnesotans be of all this?
As this woman used to say, “STOP THE INSANITY!“
(P.S. That stop-the-insanity woman has a blog. After reading it, I felt like begging her to stop the insanity.)
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 02/04 at 01:15 PM
(0)
Comments
Speaking of George W. Bush, remember when we were being told five times a day and nine times on Sunday about his terrible job approval numbers?
Well, since pollsters don’t have W to kick around anymore, they’ve turned their attention to President Obama.
It’s still early, so instead of just asking general job approval questions, pollsters are able to question respondents about specific things Obama has done in the two weeks he’s been commander-in-chief. He’s gotten generally good marks: Of the seven initiatives Gallup pollsters covered with respondents, Obama’s actions drew majority support from Americans on five. (Full results and summary here.)
But the two items that Americans supported the least are the surprise.
One is Obama’s decision to close the terrorist holding facility at Guantanamo Bay. Just 44 percent of Americans—fewer than half—are behind that.
I have to say that I wouldn’t have expected this. For all the sound and fury about Guantanamo during the campaign, and for all Obama’s determination to hammer the Bush Administration on its Gitmo policies, and for his follow-through in making the closure announcement one of the first things he did after taking the oath of office, I would have thought that somewhere closer to two-thirds of Americans would be behind the move.
Not so.
It’s not clear how much Americans’ disapproval is rooted in the idea itself or in the apparent lack of a plan the Obama Administration has about what to do with Gitmo detainees. But I would think that at least part of the disapproval number has something to do with the latter.
But the biggest surprise of all was the decision that draws the least support among Americans: His reversal of the Mexico City Policy.
As Gallup explains, the Mexico City Policy “was an executive order that forbade federal government money from going to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling.“ It has been something of a tug-of-war between Republican and Democratic presidents; since President Reagan instituted it in 1984, Republican presidents George H.W. Bush maintained it, Democratic president Bill Clinton lifted it and GOP president George W. Bush reinstituted it.
Obama followed party suit and lifted it with an executive order around 5 p.m. Eastern time on the first Friday he was in office—typically the “dump time” for information that is damaging or embarrassing or information whose publication and coverage you want to otherwise minimize.
Everyone knew this move was coming from Obama, so why did the Administration seek to bury it in weekend news cycles?
Maybe it’s because, according to Gallup, 65 percent of Americans oppose it.
That would make this move the least-popular among all of Obama’s first steps as president.
I have to admit that I was more than a little surprised by this. I wasn’t a fan of lifting the policy; after all, I’m still trying to figure out how Obama, who insisted at every turn on the campaign trail that he wants to minimize the incidence of abortion, can minimize the incidence of abortion by publicizing it and funding organizations that perform it.
Furthermore, I think there is a case to be made here about providing taxpayer funds for a procedure to which so many Americans have moral objections. Perhaps now that the Mexico City Policy has been lifted and federal taxes on the gasoline you buy to drive to work and the paycheck and income you earn there are going to fund abortions that have nothing to do with your privacy and your body, someone will make that moral objection.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 02/04 at 11:15 AM
(0)
Comments
As an update to yesterday’s post about the controversy surrounding the “Buy American” clause in the federal economic stimulus package, I give you this from The London Times:
Last night Mr Obama gave a strong signal that he would remove the most provocative passages from the Bill.
“I agree that we can’t send a protectionist message,” he said in an interview with Fox TV. “I want to see what kind of language we can work on this issue. I think it would be a mistake, though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining, for us to start sending a message that somehow we’re just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade.”
So there you go.
The interesting thing about this is the phraseology that is employed here. Note that the paper says that Obama signaled “that he would remove the most provocative passages” from the stimulus package.
I thought Obama gave up his Senate seat.
That’s just a joke, of course. But this is yet another example (earlier examples being Obama’s directives to House leaders about expanding tax cuts and dropping contraception funding from the bill) of the not-so-tacit acknowledgement that Democrats who hold leadership posts in Congress have been reduced to basic placeholders under the new Democratic president.
You have to wonder whether Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are already secretly missing the White House leadership of George W. Bush. At least when he was president, they were still relevent.
