Pushback

No, YOU keep it coming!

As long as on race thinks it is superior and another inferior, there will be war. Bob Marley

I dont think the "is he black enough" is coming from the right guys. Its coming from the Sharptons, and media types....and the black community itself.

Seem to be asking is he one of the usual hoodies...

We thank you, Terry, for being that one in a hundred among TV news commentators who will humble himself to admit the mistakes to which we are all prone throughout our lives (at 72, I'm still making them @#$%^&*). You are truly the type of person who can learn from others and then return the favor by going on to bless them in a caring manner. We need many more like you in newsrooms all across the nation. Perhaps then the news business in general would be as respected as it should be and rarely has been. There is absolutely no substitute for humility and integrity in any of our endeavors. You deserve our appreciation and respect as do few others in your business with whom I'm familiar.

I was watching the show Monday night and was absolutely floored to see the story on Brian Smith's son.
I went to school with Brian. Spent more than a few afternoons at his house working on school projects where I got to know his Mother and Father.
I went into the Marine Corps after highschool and fell out of touch with Brian. I heard about his death in 2004. I had not heard this positive side of the story however.
Great story!!!!
I do wish there was away I could get the video without having to search through the muck involving Anna Nicole Smith or Brittney Spears. How can I get this story on video?
I am sure there are several of Brian's friends who would love to see this story, and while the transcript is nice, the piece (video) was well done.
You did good, Terry. You rarely rate this compliment, but I am glad you showed that you have the ability to report relevant "news" without putting your political snare center stage. I may very well keep watching ;o)

Keep up the good work. Although not the ratio I would prefer, one good story out of ten (and this number is generous)is a success.

Thanks Terry.

Respectfully,

"As Ken Mehlman and many other GOP leaders have acknowledged, the Republicans must attract more non-white voters in an increasingly diverse America in order to be successful."

Or they could cut back immigration and continue to win elections with the white vote they already get. One might prefer one or the other for various reasons, but from a purely vote-counting standpoint, Mehlman's view is not the only approach that could work.

Terry,

The real question about Obama is not race... it's his resume. How anyone with such a thin array of accomplishments thinks that he is fit to be the most powerful person on the planet is truly frightening. And that's the truth in black or white.

Guiliani is much more accomplished.

How is tough-mindedness, pragmatism, and palpable ease an "urban mixture"? This describes Ronald Reagan perfectly and he lived on a ranch.

It seems to me Giuliani has some of Reagan's characteristic guile and fortitude and "whiteness" has nothing to do with it.

Regarding:
"In 2000, George W. Bush won 62 percent of white males--and lost the popular vote. Bush won 60 percent of the white male vote in 2004--and just 50.7 percent of the overall vote. As any GOP strategist will tell you privately, the Republican Party has become too dependent on white male voters."

Any comments about this commenter's corrections:

"Terry,
You write that the the GOP in 2004 received "just" 50.7% of the popular vote, intimating that is a bad thing. Tell me, if you can, how many times has a Democratic candidate for president garnered more than 50.7% of the vote in the post-war era? Would you be surprised to know it has happened only once? Just LBJ's 60.7% in the 1964 election. Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton all failed to top 50% in their 4 combined electoral victories, and Jimmy Carter barely eked out a win in 1976 with "just" 50.1% of the vote.

In the 15 presidential elections since the end of WWII, the winning candidate has pulled less than 50% of the votes 6 times (in addition to Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton twice for the Dems, Nixon and Bush II both polled under 50 in their initial wins). A Republican winner has topped 50% seven times, a Democratic winner just twice.

In contemporary American politics, 50.7% of the popular vote in a presidential election is not something to dismiss.

Posted by: Moqui | Feb 20, 2007 7:01:18 PM"

Mr. Moran, I too read your post as being Satire--But with so many "errors" blasting Republicans and so many "PC" observations about Democratic Party members--I begin to wonder if these are mistakes or just a very poor education...

You go back 85 years to tar folks from Alabama but seem to forget the origins of the KKK (rabidly anti-black, anti-Jewish and most importantly, anti-Catholic--Democratic Party--remember Senator Robert Byrd circa 2007).

"In many ways the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party..." Ref: Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 by Eric Foner, Perennial (HarperCollins), March 1989, p. 426.

Do you remember the Jim Crow laws of the South? You do remember which party controlled virtually the entire South after the war between the states and the 1960's right? The Democratic Party.

Lastly--did you forget which party helped LBJ pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964--and which party had a higher percentage of members voting for the CRA of 1964? Republicans.

Do you remember at least one senator who filibustered the CRA of 1964? West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd...

No party, or person, is perfect... But can you at least try and provide some balance in your reporting?

-Bill

Don't forget Al Smith, the Republican candidate against FDR in 1936. He was Catholic.

re: Democrats past history versus present; I think we all must agree that, yes, in the past the Democrats were the party of the KKK/angry white male/south. For the longest time, the "solid south" was a bastion of the Democratic Party, growing out of Republican/Lincoln led Civil War against the south.

That legacy still remains in stuff like the fact I read the other day, that Alabama still has more registered Democrats than republicans (not sure I entirely believe that one, but it's plausible, older folks changed their voting habits, just without bothering to re-register under the GOP aegis).

But since Nixon's southern strategy, amplified through Reagan's opening campaign stop talking about 'states rights' in Philadelphia, Mississippi, it's the GOP who have taken over that particular segment of the electorate.

To that end, I'll give all credit to the GOP that helped LBJ pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unfortunately, that GOP NO LONGER EXISTS, and members who hang on to that tradition are roundly derided as RINOs (Lincoln Chafee, anyone?).

ghost says:

"To that end, I'll give all credit to the GOP that helped LBJ pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unfortunately, that GOP NO LONGER EXISTS, and members who hang on to that tradition are roundly derided as RINOs (Lincoln Chafee, anyone?)."

That does not even make sense...

Sen. Chafee did not even serve in the Senate until 1999--some 35 years after the CRA of 1964. And, if he leaves the GOP for the Democratic Party, he would be joining the still serving Sen. R. Byrd's party (and Byrd as the senior member--who did fight hard using the filibuster against the CRA of 1964).

Using current sensibilities to judge/guess what people would have done generations ago is terribly unfair to everyone involved.

God knows how Sen. Chafee (or any politician of the 21st century) would vote in 1964.

If the GOP of 1964 no longer exists--are you saying that the Jim Crow/Segregationist Democratic Party of 1964 still exists?

In reality, both parties have moved very far to the left of their 1964 shadows... The GOP of today is well to the left of the Democratic Party of 1964.

In any case--this was really more a comment about how Mr. Moran choose to frame his discussions of GOP/DC politics (which was chock a block full of errors that slammed the GOP and praised the Democratic Party).

For me, neither party represents (through their actions--as opposed to their rhetoric) anything close to my policy positions.

-Bill

Charles Curtis was not only nominated, but elected as Vice President in the 1928 election.

Does the Southern Democrat still exist as it did in years prior to around the 70s? Actually it does because I get to listen to them consistently spew their hate and degradation. It is nothing short of sickening. It is not an isolated incident. I get to hear it because they know I am not Republican.

I expect that Obama will not get the Democrat nod for presidential candidate.

Please remember that whatever the criticisms it is a Republican administration that recently chose Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice, both African-American, as Secretary of State.

Since the early 60's the Democrat Party has predominately controlled the politics of the United States. What empirical evidence is there that they have actually improved the overall state of the African-American populace since 1960?

Hello Terry,,I quess standing corrected is good enough..but the issue about the color of skin is a[type]that's used in the "embedded" sense..that language "in the air" from a more sensative position-alike-being to the mountain top..or having a dream,,then the meandering work of ethinicity has all the "trappings" for "corruptive" systems to evolve..I think that Rudy Giuliani would form the great Escape from such items in the "limelight"..Barack Obama seems to fall into the more level ambitions that "all is right with the world"..attempting to create a "smell" thats more difficult to shake..I quess most would agree that Abraham Lincoln the best in practice for socialbility-that "you can't fool all the people"..that to be top of the heap does have its truths/but the ambition of "all the time" seems the least likely position to succeeed the arguement..so as skin color manages to fester its arguement..we either look deeply or not "so deeply"..at the truth of the platform..I seem to find the platform "tricky"..and the offers "lacking"..but most times just saying things that weird-out the audience..I quess when the point comes to that full circle/Fooling all the people-all the time..you'll only have that ability to "look deeply"..and in a simple estimation..the truth looks bleak.

MarkSM

A sign of intelligence is not the complexity of the communication, but rather the simplicity of the communication.

The proof/as it might be eaten/lasts longer w/Puddin'