I told you guys I would start posting some of the ridiculous and ignorant emails I get from folks on a regular basis.

This is what came in my box today from James Edwards, james1134@aol.com, with http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org. I’ve debated this bigot on CNN, and he is a joke. Feel free to email him if you like.

This is the email he sent me under the headline, “I OWN You:”

“So, I am a “bigot,” am I? If you had a working understanding of the English language, you would realize that a bigot is just someone intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions or pre-judgement. So basically, if you won’t change your mind no matter what the evidence, this word applies to you.

“Well, it just so happens that this demographic trend we were discussing is almost entirely “Latino” driven, and “Latinos” are, of course, as I’m sure you know, themselves the descendants of mostly Latin peoples– who interbred with blacks and Amerindians in wide numbers. You are a light-skinned black, which is why you have a working grasp of the English language and don’t speak some “Ebonics” nonsense, but the average IQ of pure Sub-Saharan African blacks is 67. In Nigeria and Zimbabwe, the average IQ is 66, and in Equatorial Guinea, 59. In Haiti, 71. Whites in the U.S. are racially pure thanks to racial integrity laws during our formative years, which also left African-Americans with on average the equivalent of one white grandparent, boosting their average IQ somewhat. For “Latinos” in Mulatto nations like Cuba and Brazil, the average IQ is around 87, the midpoint one would expect. So, cross breeds are higher than the lower parent, but lower than the higher parent.

“And, it just so happens that all of our patents, our technology, our ph.d university curriculum, everything, is the result of the hopes and dreams and creativity of my people. Modern society is our culture. So, indeed, entire cultured civilizations have been lost just to defilement of the blood. Spain is a First World nation, with an average IQ of 99, whereas mestizo Mexico is a Third World nation, with an average IQ of 87. For Indians, 73. So, I am the ‘bigot,’ when entire cultured civilizations have been lost just to defilement of the blood?

“This is proof of horrifyingly vast mental and behavioral differences. Only 3 million nucleotide SNPs separate the races, but these SNPs are evenly distributed across the genome and affect nearly all genes tremendously. In only a couple of decades we will be able to map every SNP, and explain specifically where, how, and what these mutations affect, and how they specifically govern the mind. We can pinpoint the DNA that gives blacks such a remarkable talent for music, Asians a talent for math, and whites an incredible talent for creativity and inventiveness. If it wasn’t for whites, you would be practicing your own culture in Africa– just starving to death in a mud hut. At least, for the 60% or so of your genes that are African. African-Americans are really more like dark Latinos.

“Given this situation, I am really very moderate in my views, almost liberal. I just want segregation and an end to immigration, not the mass genocide that could easily be justified under even the simplest understanding of evolution. Life is supposed to be a struggle for survival; a survival of the fittest. I OWN you, nigger. Whites have invented technology making slavery obsolete– it’s now cheaper to just make everything with technology. So, chuk your spear, use your own culture to fight sniper rifles and helicopters with machine guns; replacing you wouldn’t even be much of a challenge. The economy is going to keep shrinking and shedding jobs from here on out, which will cause third parties to be successful due to the outrage of Americans at their country slipping into the Third World. We are already becoming a Third World nation, but we will be victorious and take this country back, and return it to the `50s, when we had moral and racial integrity. You will be put in your place, and whites will one again take their ruling place as the masters of their own cultural heritage.”

By Roland S. Martin
Editor-in-Chief
RolandMartinReports.com

Whenever there is an uprising among the people of this country in the form of protest and organized dissent — especially with a presidential election 13 months away — the discussion inevitably shifts to what will it all mean for one of the nation’s two political parties.

No matter how hard its representatives have tried to suggest that it isn’t partisan, the tea party is nothing more than a sub-group of the Republican Party. If there were a healthy number of tea-party Democrats, then it would be true that the faction is non-partisan. But there isn’t, so it’s nonsensical to waste time not calling the tea-party Republicans exactly what they are: tea-party Republicans. From day one, the tea party aligned itself with the GOP, and that remains true today.

Yet, the attempt by Fox News, conservative radio show hosts and the GOP presidential candidates to associate Occupy Wall Street protesters with the image of far-leftist radical hippies marching in lockstep with the Democratic Party is wrong, shameful and pure intellectual dishonesty.

Being concerned about the nation’s well-being and the depths to which big-money interests are driving the nation’s policies is not a partisan question; it is a moral one. GOP presidential candidates want to cheapen the discussion by suggesting that Occupy Wall Street protesters hate capitalism. I sense they despise a nation that has come to be one wherein Fortune 500 companies and big banks run ads about how great America is but work hard to destroy America by shipping jobs overseas and engaging in shameful business practices that require the taxpayer to bail them out.

It’s real simple — and insanely stupid — to examine the true anger of Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of young folks with nothing to do. If we recall March 2009, when the AIG bonuses came to light, folks in every corner of this nation were angry at what they heard. Political ideology didn’t matter. It was seen as a matter of right and wrong.

That’s why the various leaders of Occupy Wall Street, no matter how local and de-centralized, must look at their effort as not one whose aim is to galvanize and put one party into office. Instead, the movement should be about candidates of both political parties, as well as independents, speaking to the American people’s needs and desires.

This tea-party-versus-Occupy-Wall-Street construct is a ridiculous one. From a media perspective, it’s a cheap and easy narrative, but in the end, it doesn’t tell the full story.

As someone who is more enamored with studying the intricacies of the civil rights movement rather than memorizing key speeches of its leaders, what was clear to me was that the civil rights movement wasn’t about getting a Democrat or Republican elected; it was always about ensuring full freedom and equality for African Americans who were denied their rights as citizens.

At different points, Republicans and Democrats were allies of the civil rights movement, while at the same time, some Republicans and Democrats were virulent opponents.

It wasn’t about party for civil rights leaders; it was about principle.

And that’s exactly where we sit today. As I listen to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators and watch as their protests proliferate across the country just like the lunch-counter sit-ins that spread like wildfire across the south in 1960, I notice that the goals and ideals sound eerily familiar. While in the ’60s, it was about race, the civil rights battlefront today is about class. It’s about the widening gap between the rich and poor and how the middle class is being pushed down into poverty rather than being helped upwards.

This struggle is the moral dilemma the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. frequently discussed. If folks would stop focusing on the last part of his “I Have a Dream” speech and read all of what he said at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on Aug. 28, 1963, they would understand that.

So what if Russell Simmons, Kayne West and other celebrities have millions and are showing support for Occupy Wall Street? When Harry Belafonte; Dick Gregory; Sidney Poitier; Bob Dylan; Joan Baez; Peter, Paul and Mary; Charlton Heston; Mahalia Jackson and other celebrities attended the 1963 march, no one said, “How dare those individuals with big bank accounts stand in solidarity with those with no bank accounts?” When it comes to fairness, your values matter more than your tax bracket.

If labor unions and politicians want to stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, that’s a good thing. If individuals who work on or used to work on Wall Street want to show their support for the need for systemic changes to this system, more power to them. If self-identified Democrats and Republicans want to show their moral outrage, praise God.

Moral movements aren’t supposed to be poisoned by politics. When that happens, the legitimacy is lost. If politicians want to use their voices in support, they should. But at no time should Occupy Wall Street be about getting one party elected to local, county, state and national office.

The time has come for men and women of conscience in this nation to stand up. It’s vital that we select individuals, regardless of party, who choose not to form an incestuous relationship with the rich, who are only about fattening their bottom lines while ignoring the plight of others.

As Dr. King said, “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

While the media’s political high priests go gaga over Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s lying about the effects of the HPV vaccine and Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s cozy role with pharmaceutical giant Merck, the biggest issue to emerge from the CNN/Tea Party Express debate is virtually being ignored.

On Monday, a basic question about what the GOP should do to appeal to Latinos turned into a vicious discussion about building a wall along the Mexico-U.S. border, about how the DREAM Act is a horrible piece of legislation, and the typical Republican talking points about how awful illegal immigration is for the country.

Remember: The question had nothing to do with confronting illegal immigration. It was a softball question that any amateur politician could have answered in his or her sleep. About the only one who looked like a sane human being was Perry, who defended his efforts to provide state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants, a position that was met with resistance from the other candidates and the Tea Party audience.

Whether it was a foaming-at-the-mouth Rick Santorum or a pouncing Bachmann, what every candidate on that stage should have said is that Latinos should be attracted to the GOP for the same reason as white — or any other — voters. The common interests of good education, low crime and a chance to live the American Dream cut across every age, race, gender and sex.

But when the GOP hears the word “Latinos,” it’s as if something clicks that says, “Oh, yeah! Illegal immigrants!”

There’s no doubt that the ignoring of the original question showed the true intentions of Republicans on the stage; you’d think that Democrats would have seized on the moment, hitting Hispanic radio and TV over the next few days to drive home the idea of a Republican Party that is hostile to Latinos.

Instead, Democrats focused on the gaffes of Bachmann and Perry — and missed a chance to hone in on a group of voters that President Barack Obama desperately needs to win re-election, especially in the western states.

What this revealed is that when it comes to appealing to Latinos, the nation’s largest minority group, a lot of Republican minds revert to a default position of negativity. It reminds me of a group of black Republicans in Illinois that met with party leaders about appealing to African-American voters. When the black Republicans finished their strong presentation, the first statement they heard was, “We are not going to support welfare.”

The party leaders ignored the data on school choice, economic empowerment zones and religious issues, because for the largely white Republican leadership, black outreach was all about welfare.

To gain some perspective on the importance of the Latino vote, I reached out to Matt Barreto, a professor at the University of Washington and a partner with Latino Decisions, a polling firm that works with Pacific Market Research.

“In order to win the presidency in 2012,” Barreto told me, “the Republican challenger is going to need to carry 40 percent or more of the Latino vote nationally.

However, most candidates in the Republican field seem to be doing everything they can to run away from Latino voters as they court the conservative Tea Party crowd. As they currently stand, the Republican field has absolutely no strategy to connect, (reach out), or appeal to Latino voters, which polling numbers back up.
“In the Aug. 2011 ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll, 45 percent of Latinos said Republicans don’t care about the Latino community; 27 percent said Republicans were outright hostile to Latinos; and just 18 percent said Republicans were doing a good job connecting with Latino voters. Likewise, there doesn’t seem to be any movement in favor of voting Republican among Latinos in 2012.

“Back in Nov. 2010, Latino Decisions reported that 19 percent of Latino voters said they would vote Republican in 2012, and in our Aug. 2011 tracking poll, exactly 19 percent say they will vote Republican in 2012. The Republican candidates face a considerable gap of 20 points with the Latino electorate if they have any hope of winning states like Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, which all flipped red-to-blue in 2008.”

That would all sound like good news for Democrats, but Barreto said that they, too, have problems.

“If the Republicans have a weakness in reaching out to Latinos,” Barreto said, “the Democrats are currently not exploiting that. The DNC and the Obama re-election campaign have, so far, done very little public outreach on either Spanish- or English-language TV. While things may be happening behind the scenes, connecting with average voters takes targeted outreach, and so far that doesn’t seem to be happening.

“While the Democrats rate much higher than Republicans, just 43 percent of Latinos say the Dems are doing a good job of reaching out to their community, and when it comes to voting in 2012, just 38 percent of Latinos are certain to vote for Obama, with an additional 16 percent saying ‘maybe.’

Rather than waiting until Oct. 2012 to make a mad dash for the Latino vote, both parties need to start now by talking to Latino voters, and whoever takes this seriously in 2011 will reap the benefits in 2012.”

Obama is clearly in a better position to attract a sizeable share of the Latino vote, which will be a crucial cog in his re-election effort. If the GOP wants to actually win, it is going to have to become more than just a southern, white party. The Democrats clearly have a lock on the black vote, which the GOP won’t waste any resources trying to crack.

… Which leaves their opportunities for growth with Latino voters.

But after listening to Monday’s debate, the current crop of GOP candidates mostly showed that if the topic isn’t illegal immigration, they have no plans to appeal to Latino voters. And that’s a position they could come to regret the day after the elections in Nov. 2012.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

There are times when even I want to round up as many members of the media as possible, put them all in a Noah’s Ark-type boat and set them off to sail in the hopes of never seeing them again.

Watching, listening to and reading all of the media reports about the GOP nomination essentially being a two-man race between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry has set my blood to boiling. Here we sit, four months before the first ballot is cast, and, already, my comrades in the media have thrown everyone else overboard and declared that it’s really between these two.

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s win in the Ames Straw Poll, which is in fact a bought-and-paid-for contest, seems like it took place three years ago, rather than less than a month ago. The conventional wisdom says that Romney has been the frontrunner since he entered the race; he has an economics background and can raise a lot of money.

Then, guess who shows up with a Texas-sized swagger? Perry. He comes from a big state, has access to big bucks, has big-movie-star looks and talks a big game.

Uh-oh! That’s it! We now have our perfect match-up.

Really?

Look, I get the polls. And yes, it could come down to the two of them. But our actions are utterly shameful when we choose to negate every other candidate solely because we, the media, have determined that he or she can’t be elected.

Bachmann? Too crazy. Paul? A space cadet. Newt Gingrich? A retread. Jon Huntsman? Too moderate. Rick Santorum? Too preachy.

The problem with these pre-determined winners and losers is that our coverage is slanted toward those who we think stand the best chance at winning, thereby denying all other candidates the opportunity to put their messages forward.

The danger we face today is this: So many more sources are covering politics, and the echo chamber gets so loud that the voices of the folks who really matter — the voters — get drowned out by the all-knowing sages in Washington, D.C.

I’ve given one of the establishment folks I always see and hear the nickname “The Oracle.” I often say that we exist in his Matrix.

When he speaks, it’s as if God has appeared in the flesh.

Give me a break.

A lot can happen over a four-month period. All of the candidates will be put through the ringer, and it’s the voters who must sift through the madness to make an informed decision. I just don’t believe we’re helping this process along by narrowing the field, making our own calls and then continuing this ridiculous game of hype in an attempt to draft others into the race.

Seriously, why do we even bother asking former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani if he’s going to run? Folks, the man ran one of the worst campaigns in eons in 2008. If it weren’t for former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, Giuliani’s campaign would have earned the title “worst of the worst.”

We continue to chase Sarah Palin around the country, even if she’s just stopping by a museum. Our actions have become atrocious.

Too many of us in the media want to make our status more important than it is. And it’s clear that this decision to narrow the GOP field fits our agenda — not that of the people.

If there’s one thing 2008 taught us with the election of President Barack Obama, it was to throw conventional wisdom out the window. Maybe the only way we do that is by throwing out all of these professional, Washingtonian political reporters and commentators who make it more about them than the American voter.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Source: Rev. Al Sharpton / The Huffington Post

As much as President Obama worked to keep his jobs plan and Congressional address from being juxtaposed with the Republican debate, the last two evenings proved remarkable for anyone concerned about the state of the nation. On one side, you had a president outlining methods of kick starting job creation, while on the other, you had a flock of candidates who received the biggest applause after a comment regarding high numbers of executions in the state of Texas. The president once again urged his opposition to put petty differences aside and pass his bill quickly, meanwhile GOP presidential hopefuls were busy attacking Social Security and each other instead of providing us with solutions to our jobs crisis. To the voting public, these two nights portrayed everything we need to know about the next election: keep progressing forward, or revert backwards to a place where our intelligence is insulted and the rich keep rewarding themselves.

“The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working,” stated the president in his address in front of a joint session of Congress on Thursday evening. Calling for tax incentives for small businesses and $1500 tax cuts for working Americans, he pushed for job creation in many industries while providing additional tax credits for those companies that hire the long-term unemployed. But perhaps most noteworthy from his speech was the tone that this president set; it was firm, to the point, conciliatory and yet forceful all at the same time. It was, in effect, brilliant. Although the devil will be in the details that are scheduled to be released a week from this Monday, the president has literally checkmated John Boehner.

In this highly anticipated jobs speech, our commander-in-chief urged every member gathered in the room to put their differences aside and pass the plan immediately. Again rising above partisan politics, he appealed to a new level of patriotism thereby leaving his opponents as nothing but petty if they were to challenge his job creation ideas. Addressing workers’ rights and collective bargaining rights, the president acknowledged the importance and relevance of unions and labor in our society. Highlighting the need to have the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share in taxes, he stressed the importance of assisting those hurting the most by doing things like extending unemployment insurance for another year.

There will be those that will continue to criticize the president no matter what he says or does, but after Thursday night, nobody can deny that he has the nation’s best interest at heart. While he spoke of saving schools and encouraging future engineers, GOP candidates continued to pander to their base and avoid any real discussion of any real solutions the evening before. While some folks like Rick Perry and Mitt Romney appeared the clear frontrunners, none of the Republican candidates gave any substantive answers in terms of job creation. As they touted death penalties, attacks on Social Security and of course attacks on one another, they failed to address the real issues Americans lose sleep over. With unemployment remaining painfully stagnant, their non-existent ideas will keep them non-existent at the polls.

The depth of our current economic crisis is so complex that there are no easy answers. But if we are to maintain our strong standing in the world, we must begin to follow through on the president’s suggestions as quickly as possible. The work starts now, and it will take all of us to dig ourselves out of the trenches and push forward.

This week of debates and speeches has left one thing clear: we can either continue bickering with one another much like candidates did on Wednesday evening, or we can create and work towards sustainable resolutions as our president now calls each and every one of us to do.

Follow Rev. Al Sharpton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheRevAl

The White House loves to trumpet the idea that one of President Barack Obama’s greatest virtues is how he operates above the fray, choosing not to waste time with the political battles in the trenches.

“No-Drama Obama” is who we heard about during the 2008 presidential campaign, about how his cool, calm demeanor was his biggest asset. But look at how the GOP forced the president’s hand on extending the Bush tax cuts; how it created political hay out of the debt ceiling and led the nation to lose its triple-A credit rating; and now how it grossly disrespected him by rebuffing him while he spoke to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

And now, I think it’s fair to ask: When will Obama strike back and exert some presidential muscle?

No doubt Obama has taken an aggressive position in going after al-Qaeda. We have taken out far more of the terror group’s leaders than we did under President George W. Bush. We’ve killed Osama bin Laden and the group’s number-two leader in Pakistan. And even the most belligerent of hawks can’t complain about Obama’s decisions in Libya and Afghanistan.

But the 2012 election will not be decided on foreign policy. The economy will trump all of that. And on that note, Obama looks like a man who, despite all the trappings of the most powerful position in the world, refuses to assert any of his authority.

Obama’s unwillingness to flex his muscle was first seen when Democrats were ready to tar and feather Connecticut Sen. Joe Liebermann for his stern opposition to then-Sen. Barack Obama, who was battling against Sen. John McCain. Democrats wanted to strip Liebermann of his committee assignments, but Obama squashed that, saying it wasn’t necessary. How did Liebermann repay the president for his support? By being a thorn in his side during the health care debate.

I would say that when you save someone’s butt, it’s fair to think you can lean on him when you need to. Didn’t happen.

When the obscene AIG bonuses became public in early 2009, the American people reacted angrily, wanting to take off the heads of Wall Street executives. The White House, however, responded with delayed righteous indignation. Then it did nothing.

The president talks tough with banks one day and then extends the olive branch the next. At the same time, the banks put the screws to the American people, taking the homes of the taxpayers who lent the fat-cat bankers billions and kept them from losing their multiple-million-dollar mansions.

What did JP Morgan Chase leader Jamie Dimon do? He criticized Obama for picking on bankers, saying it was wrong to keep blaming them, despite the fact that their destructive plans of jacking up quarterly stock prices with foul schemes nearly destroyed the world financial system. So the president helped fatten their balance sheets and they still dumped on him? Has he jumped on their banks for refusing to modify loans? Nope. Their plan of action, according to HUD Secretary Shawn Donovan, is voluntary.

It is abundantly clear that Obama is unwilling to fire back at the critics who disrespect him and the office of the president.

He wants to take the high ground, while his critics are ripping the earth out from beneath him. Instead of taking charge of his agenda, he’s willing to let others blow him off to pursue their own.

When he took office, President Obama decried the ways of Washington, saying that voters didn’t want to see acrimony. But they sure as hell want to see a president fight for what he believes in — even if that means losing a battle or two.

The White House bowed to Republicans in the Senate in not appointing Elizabeth Warren as head of the Consumer Protection Bureau. The GOP considered Warren enemy number one. So by appointing Richard Cordray, the Obama Administration hoped that the Senate would take a break and make Cordray a recess appointment. Except for one tiny problem: the only thing the GOP hated more than Warren was the bureau itself. They didn’t recess, and now Cordray will be put through the ringer on Tuesday during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Has the president made a bigger stink about the GOP refusing to allow his appointees to move forward? Yes, every now and then, but it’s nothing close to the heat President George W. Bush and his supporters put on the U.S. Senate when his conservative judges and appointees were being held up.

Maybe White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe and campaign manager Jim Messina think that Obama’s tactic is appealing to independent voters. But the president’s unwillingness to go to the mat — on anything — has angered some of his ardent supporters, who feel as if the White House will leave them hanging in the wind when it’s time to fight.

After his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, Obama signaled that he was ready to do battle leading up to the 2012 election. But the bungling and eventual capitulation over when he would address a joint session of Congress to present a massive jobs bill shows that we have seen more of the same: Obama takes decisive action only to back down shortly thereafter and acquiesce to the GOP.

After buckling to Speaker John Boehner on the speech, a friend of mine — a hard-core Democrat who hates anything the GOP does and has never voted for a Republican for president — texted me the following: “Does the POTUS need back surgery? I think he does. He needs a spine transplant.”

President Obama’s feeble attempt to engage his foes is angering those who are ready to do battle and have his back. I’ve heard it from folks in the labor movement, civil rights leaders, women and young people. And don’t be surprised if polling shows that Independents want a president who will stick to his guns, even if they disagree with him on policy.

Americans respond to decisiveness. They respond to a leader who makes clear what he wants and will use the power of the presidency to lead his troops up the hill to take on those who oppose him.

Right now, it appears that President Obama is trying not to lose, as opposed to working to win. And that simply ain’t gonna cut it.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Source: Etan Thomas / CNN

I have the utmost respect for Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley. Their accomplishments are vast. Dr. West, an academic philosopher at Princeton University, has for decades spoken up for the poor.

Tavis Smiley, talk show host and author, has always used his platform to discuss the issues of the black community and the country as a whole.

President Obama said during the 2008 campaign that we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. That is a simple injunction that many in politics do not follow.

That said, I respectfully disagree with West and Smiley’s characterization of President Obama’s first term in office. West has simply described it as a failure, and referred to the president as “the black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs,” and the “head of the American killing machine.” Smiley has accused the president of ignoring the issues of the black community. The two held a 16-city “Poverty Tour” earlier this month, during which they aired their complaints about Obama.

To hear them tell it, one would think that Obama is in the back pocket of Wall Street and the banks and has turned his back on the working poor, impoverished and middle class in America.

I am not looking at President Obama’s first term through rose colored glasses. There is always room for criticism and improvement; our president’s decisions are far from perfect.

But the criticism from West and Smiley leave out a lot. They ignore the positive moves Obama has made to benefit — in real ways — the black community, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the country as a whole.

Let’s take Obama and health care reform.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which he shepherded and signed into law, insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny insurance to individuals because of pre-existing conditions. Children can now remain covered by their parents’ insurance until age 26. No longer will there be kids fresh out of college starting in entry level positions walking around with no health insurance.

The prescription drug cost for Medicare recipients was cut by 50%. More than 30 million people who did not have access to coverage will now have that access.

This legislation is not perfect — it lacks the public option many had hoped for — but it is the largest federal reform in a lifetime, a tremendous accomplishment.

Then there is the Children’s Health Insurance Re-authorization Act, signed into law by Obama, which provides health care to millions of kids .

Let’s talk Obama and education.

President Obama signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which invests $5 billion in early childhood programs like Head Start.

Studies show such programs help kids stay in school longer, earn more money in the long term and have lower involvement in crime.

President Obama also expanded Pell Grants, which help low income students pay for college.

He has done what no other president had done before by enacting the Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act, which makes college more affordable while ending federal subsidies to private lenders and replacing them with a Direct Loan program. This is a direct contradiction of West’s claims that the president has “sold out” to the big banks. The banks lost billions on this act; in taking them out of the equation, students are no longer held hostage to credit markets.

Somehow, these accomplishments, which have a direct impact on the poor are not mentioned in West’s and Smiley’s critique.

There’s more. Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination

Through the HIRE Act, signed in March, 2010, Obama gave $18 billion in tax breaks for small businesses. He signed a bill extending unemployment insurance.

To review, then: Putting money into community colleges, job readiness programs, putting actual checks into actual hands — these things don’t sound like the actions of someone who doesn’t care about the poor and impoverished.

There is a very real crisis in this country.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 45 million Americans live in poverty. Unemployment is 9.1 %. Such statistics are, as Rep. Maxine Waters has said, “unconscionable.”

President Obama has been demonstrating that he knows this. So why make someone like him your enemy when you are fighting on the same side?

If West and Smiley would like Obama to do more, that’s valid. If they feel, like Rep. Elijah Cummings, that “people need to know that the president feels their pain,” that too is understandable. But the facts simply don’t support the accusation that Obama holds a laissez-faire attitude toward economically marginalized Americans.

He has faced huge partisan resistance. His campaign adviser, David Axelrod, says Obama will soon announce a jobs plan that is expected to include an extension of payroll tax cuts, new revenue for transportation projects and an extension of emergency unemployment benefits. He notes that there’s nothing in the proposal “that reasonable people shouldn’t be able to agree on,” yet many Republicans are already preparing to reject whatever the president puts on the table.

Are they trying to stymie job creation initiatives, and then blame the president for high unemployment when the election rolls around?

I’m not saying that President Obama should be exempt from criticism, nor do I believe it is some act of racial treason for a black person to hold our president accountable for his actions. But West and Smiley have a responsibility to present a fair and complete picture, not a skewed version. Could their slanted criticism result in so many of the working poor and impoverished working class becoming so discouraged that they stay home on election day in 2012?

If they think they have issues with the president not doing enough for the poor now, wait and see what happens if the opposition takes office. Then they would really need a poverty tour.

We must not forget the mess that President Obama walked into. Obama said in his victory speech, “even as we celebrate tonight we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime. …The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even one term.”

To follow this topic visit CNN.

When President Barack Obama was a community organizer in Chicago and the powers that be were ignoring the voice of the people, he and others would lead the regular folks to the streets to show their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Now that House Speaker John Boehner has tried to trump the president in his request to speak before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, citing “security” concerns, Obama should ignore them and make his major jobs bill announcement before real Americans who, unlike Congress, don’t have regular jobs, don’t earn a taxpayer-funded six-figure check, didn’t take a five-week vacation, don’t have the best health care taxpayers can buy and can’t count on a wonderful taxpayer-provided pension.

Dispute erupts over timing of Obama address to Congress

If Obama is about showing a renewed toughness with Congress, this is where it starts. It’s time for him to use the power of the presidency and assert himself. Forget “No Drama Obama.” Chuck out the window the cool, cautious demeanor his staff loves to trumpet. Maybe going a little rogue will help revitalize his presidency, in which he’s increasingly seen as leading from behind.

The president’s staff members should pick a location in Washington, Maryland or Virginia, invite the public, set aside a space for members of Congress who choose to attend — and ignore Boehner. Obama should make a strong appeal for his plan and tell the American people to get behind it and make it clear that it is what he thinks is best for the country.

For months, we have heard Republicans and Democrats insist that there is no more important issue in this country. But Congress sure didn’t mind taking off five weeks as a sign that it cares about jobs. So who cares if there is a GOP presidential debate on Wednesday? On Thursday, the date Boehner has offered as an alternative, the NFL season starts. Every day of the week, we can come up with a conflict with some event that is significant to someone.

Boehner, there is no perfect day for such a speech. With unemployment hovering above 9% and homes continuing to be foreclosed on, you need to stop with the games. It’s time that a comprehensive jobs plan is put on the table, and it’s time for Congress to act.

And no, whining about regulations to protect the fat cats on Wall Street who screwed the nation with their fancy financial schemes doesn’t cut it, Boehner.

Mr. President, its time you show who is boss. If Boehner wants to reject the date you have presented, fine. But if this president is tired of being disrespected and forced to do things on the terms of his critics, he should take this speech to the streets.

Mr. President, don’t just quote the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Be willing to lead the people in mass resistance against do-nothing congressmen and -women more focused on keeping their own jobs than the condition of the poor, disenfranchised and destitute.

Source: Mary McNamara / The Los Angeles Times

The Oprah Winfrey Network’s fall schedule is overstocked with shows hammering home the same inspirational self-love formula, but here’s how to shake things up.

Dear Oprah Winfrey:

It’s been a month and a half since you announced that you would be forfeiting the much-deserved vacation you planned to take after the final episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show” to devote yourself to the struggling Oprah Winfrey Network. Now, I realize that is not a lot of time, but I’ve seen the description of the new fall lineup, and I’m a little concerned.

The new “Rosie O’Donnell Show” could be terrific, or not, as Rosie tends to be, but the three other new shows — a reality show about a St. Louis family-owned soul food restaurant (“Welcome to Sweetie Pie’s”), a wedding makeover show (“Don’t Tell the Bride”) and a series of interviews with famous people (“Visionaries: Inside the Creative Mind”) — seem simply more of the same. That is, reality TV designed to inspire us.

When you began your network, you said you did not want to contribute to the air of “meanness” you felt permeated much of television. Unfortunately, the folks at OWN appear to believe that the only alternative to “mean” is earnest. As in earnest documentaries, earnest reality shows or earnest, expert-driven self-help. All of which require, by their very nature, an endless succession of troubled individuals attempting to better their lives through selective revelation and the acceptance of the healing power of self-love. In “Finding Sarah,” which boiled the OWN narrative down to its essentials, the former duchess of York sought self-esteem as if she were on some psychological treasure hunt.

The few shows that tried to provide a little counterpoint — “Becoming Chaz,” “The O’Neals,” “Our America With Lisa Ling” — were overwhelmed by the insistent harmony of the choir singing to the preacher.

Here’s the thing. Too much “inspiration” is a drag, and too much advice is annoying. As on your iconic show, they need to be balanced with other flavors. Here are a few ingredients from your own recipe for success that you seem to have misplaced:

1. Fiction. Do you only choose uplifting nonfiction for your vaunted book club? No, you do not. So there had better be a scripted drama or two in the works, because reality, as a genre, is based on our need to judge our fellow humans no matter how much you tart it up with good works. An obvious choice would be to create the Oprah version of “Masterpiece Theatre,” in which your favorite modern novels could be dramatized, but there are plenty of series ideas out there that would work for OWN, just as female cop shows have worked for TNT and the oddball-driven procedurals have worked for USA.

2. Humor. For a woman who has used humor so effectively in the rest of her career, you have allowed it to be all but excised from your network. Things do not need to be mean to be funny. Rosie will no doubt add some sass, but don’t be afraid to go younger — I am sure there are hundreds of comedians, female and male, dying to come up with the OWN version of “The Daily Show.” Seriously, how great would that be? And TV could use a smart sitcom about women doing something other than coping with smart-mouth kids.

3. Dissent. What lifted “The View” from a.m. background noise was the fact that the women honestly did not agree with one another on many things. Just ask Rosie. Conflict provides both energy and integrity to television — if everyone agrees all the time, someone is lying a lot, and I’m not talking about scientists arguing with theologians about the nature of miracles (although that show would have worked better if every episode hadn’t ended with them agreeing to disagree or if it had been a scripted drama with a little romantic tension.)

4. Romantic tension. Are you telling us that love and sex aren’t parts of living your best life, Oprah? Because all we’ve gotten so far are a show about infidelity and Dr. Laura Berman dealing with a bunch of troubled marriages. Who needs to turn on the TV to see those? If we can’t smolder and make out, we don’t want any part of your revolution.

5. Contrast. Currently, OWN is so determined to be upbeat it’s become one-note. Watch it for a few hours and you feel like you’re going to church. If you think you’re reinventing television, you’re not — right now, you’re just making it a bit more self-righteous.

But give yourself a break, Oprah. You don’t have to reinvent it; there are plenty of terrific templates out there that you can tweak and twist and Oprahfy to your heart’s content. Just please try to have some fun while you’re doing it. For a woman who now runs her own network, you don’t seem to be enjoying yourself, and frankly, neither are we.

Sincerely,

Mary McNamara

It’s only fitting that during the week we were to dedicate the memorial in Washington, D.C., to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., an earthquake would hit the region and the entire east coast would be bracing itself for a hurricane. When we think about the enormity of Dr. King’s work — work for which he gave his life — as well as the efforts of the many folks involved in the Civil Rights Movement, it’s plain to see that their actions struck at this nation’s core with the ferocity of nature’s force.

At Thursday’s MLK Memorial Foundation luncheon, which honored the veterans of the movement, former Congressman Bill Gray said the Civil Rights Movement was America’s third revolution, following the American Revolution and the Civil War. But some critics of the King memorial claim that because he wasn’t a president, he doesn’t deserve such an honor on the National Mall. That isn’t so, and we should forever be thankful for Alpha Phi Alpha, Inc., King’s fraternity — and mine — for leading the effort over the last 25 years to making this memorial happen.

It’s important to understand that King is vital to this nation’s history, and thus he belongs on the National Mall. Across the tidal basin is the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, which honors the man who articulated the vision of America. To the left sits the monument of George Washington, who led the nation in the fight to establish America.

Behind the King monument is the Lincoln Monument, dedicated to the man who kept America from tearing itself apart.

But out of all of these men, it took a King to force America to live up to its ideals. Americans loved to recite the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, but for many, those were simply hollow words. Americans really didn’t understand what it meant to be an American, until King and many domestics, postal workers, day laborers, doctors and lawyers forced the nation to make it happen.

So when Americans now travel to the nation’s capital, they can pay homage to a great man who was serious about his work, serious about the plight of the poor and the disenfranchised and serious about making America a better — and freer — place.

The King Memorial, while it bears his name, really represents freedom fighters. What should inspire all who see it is that no matter your station in life, you can be a difference-maker. Dr. King was just 25 when he was drafted into the movement. If there is something in your community that needs to be addressed, do it. Don’t wait. Don’t whine. Don’t complain. Don’t pass the buck. Just be willing to serve and care — and do it out of love and compassion.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

When people send me outlandish, ridiculous, asinine or flat-out dumb tweets, I quickly give them a Stuck-on-Stupid Tweet-of-the-Day award. So when it comes to all of the folks who whine, complain and make hay about President Barack Obama taking a week off to go on vacation with his wife and children at Martha’s Vineyard, let me be clear: All of you fools have earned that award!

Every year, we can count on some nutcase from the right throwing a temper tantrum about Obama going on vacation. And when President George W. Bush was in office, there was a reliable crank on the left who would scream to high heaven, because Bush would spend a lot of time at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Let’s all say it in unison: Shut the hell up!

Folks, there is no such thing as an off day for the president of the United States. No matter what mood he — and one day, I hope, she — is in, the president will get the daily briefing, which breaks down the latest from the intelligence community regarding potential terrorist activity and other shenanigans taking place globally. The commander-in-chief must deal with meetings and phone calls and must make all sorts of decisions that impact America domestically and globally.

Yeah, I know that the president has a large staff. But leading the nation is one difficult job. And when we see how a president ages by the time he leaves office, it’s clear that it’s no walk in the park.

But this is the world in which we live. The stupid partisans love to go to their corners and lob rocks like little punks, wasting precious airtime taking potshots at the president for going on vacation.

Will it solve anything? Nope. Is the first family still going to go on vacation? Absolutely. So why do we waste time listening to these idiots?

Look, I voted for Obama. And I voted for President George H.W. Bush. I despise stuck-on-stupid partisans who can think only of trashing the sitting president in an attempt to make themselves feel better.

This is why I can’t stand the political boxes that everyone desires these days. There is such a thing as common sense and decency — but don’t tell that to a nutty partisan. I’m not a liberal or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican. I’m a voter who tries to make the right choice based on my values and beliefs. And I’ve got enough common sense to see that a one-week vacation is a good thing.

Unlike these idiots, I want a president to take some time off. I desire a president who chooses not to be a workaholic. Of course I love to see a president spend time with his wife and children (even though a visit to the ice cream shop is orchestrated like a movie production). It’s healthy for the president to de-stress so he can make vital decisions for this country.

It’s a joke to listen to radio loudmouths like Neal Boortz take shots at the president for going on vacation — when Boortz takes time off!

So please, the next time you hear family members, friends or some hacks in the media complaining about a U.S. president taking some time off for rest and relaxation, just tell them to stick a sock in it. It’s already sweltering outside. The last thing we need is more hot air.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Source: Jasmyne Cannick / JasmyneCannick.com

L.A.’s Congresswoman Maxine Waters has started a firestorm after her comments yesterday at Wayne State Community College in Detroit regarding President Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Blacks.

When asked why the Black members of Congress don’t pressure the president she replied, “We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man — first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us.”

I almost fell out of my chair. While what she said is absolutely true, I was just shocked to actually hear a Black member of congress say it publicly.

I don’t think it’s a secret that the majority of Black people are still celebrating the election of “the first Black president”—whether they voted for him or not. With us, because he’s Black, we feel some since of ownership and kinship when it comes to the President.

However, I can’t say that it’s a mutual adoration—in fact, these days I’d go as far as to say it feels like “the first Black president” might even be shuckin’ and jivin’ when it comes to us with no shows at the NAACP (2009), Urban League (2010), and National Action Network’s (2011) conferences—but time enough to speak to Latino’s with the DREAM Act and gays about DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Black people—well all we get is “a rising tide lifts all boats” speech, and tell your kids to stop eating Popeye’s for breakfast and to turn the TV off.

Me–I long fell out of love with the President. I don’t talk about it much because doing so can be a detriment to your well-being in certain company.

To be honest, I’m just not that impressed with his policies regarding poverty and more importantly on Black issues. And while the two issues are not synonymous, there are a lot of poor Black unemployed people.

I’ll admit, I expected more. I hate to think that a white woman would have done more for the poor and for Blacks than “the first Black president.” Or that a cheating philandering white man would have made sure that my grandmother’s other senior’s Social Security checks weren’t less $200 every month now.

But that’s me and just framing your mouth to say anything negative about “the first Black president” around the wrong people could result in exerting the kind of energy I really don’t have to waste in arguing with people—who while they love their “first Black president” haven’t voted since 2008, won’t vote again until November 2012, and couldn’t tell me who their councilmember, Assemblymember, or State Senator is to save their life—but will fight to the death over “the first Black president.”

And no—I am not a Republican, but at the same time, I’m not and haven’t been feeling the Democrats either–who have a tendency to be just as racist as their counterparts—they just hide it better.

In continuing her comments on the president and Black people Rep. Waters said, “all I’m saying to you is, we’re politicians. We’re elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.”

Now keep in mind that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are themselves member of Congress, i.e. politicians, who like any other politician are concerned with staying in office. Waters herself knows that as long as Black people continue in this love affair with “the first Black president,” while she might want to say something against the president’s policies, it might not be in her best interest if he wants to get re-elected. Although with Congresswoman Waters—if anyone is safe in doing so and retaining their seat in Congress, she is. Black people love her as much or more than the President himself.

So even while in Rep. Waters words, “ our people are hurting” and “the unemployment is unconscionable,” I truly believe that Black people’s love infatuation with “the first Black president” is what keeps them blind to all this or at least the president’s role in it. We like to rationalize all of the president’s actions or inaction with six simple words, “but he’s the first Black president.”

But the plot thickens.

Now, whenever challenged on what the president has or hasn’t done for Black people the message has been drilled into our heads to blindly and without much thought repeat something to the tune of “let’s just him re-elected. Once he’s safe and in office for another four years, he’s going to look out for Black people.”

As if.

If he hasn’t shown up for us now, I have little—make that no faith—that another four years will do the trick.

And no—I am not of the mindset that the Black president has to be the president for Black people. I’ve spent enough time working in politics to know that’s of the question. But what I did expect was that “the first Black president” would do more for Black people in this country than pay us lip service and that for the poor they’d show up in his agenda for America not just as an afterthought or third in line to middle class and corporate America.

To be fair, the president isn’t alone my disappointment—the whole of Congress can join him in that. My point is that, since he’s “the first Black president” and it is assumed that the majority of Black people are following blindly behind him like he’s the second coming of Jesus Christ himself here on Earth, I felt it my duty to say something for the few Blacks who don’t subscribe to that train of thought.

To follow this topic visit JasmineCannick.com

When talking to a friend who wanted to cheat on his wife, the Malik Yoba character in the movie “Why Did I Get Married?” talks about the 80-20 rule, which says that in relationships, you likely have 80 percent of what you need, and if you cheat, you’re chasing the 20 percent of what you want.

Please, can someone explain the 80-20 rule to the Texas A&M Board of Regents and the chorus of Aggies who are pining to join the Southeastern Conference?

As a Texas A&M graduate, and a major football fan – I have season tickets to the Houston Texans and often fly home to attend games – it is clear that Aggies are reacting with misplaced emotions and ego run amok that has nothing to do with logic.

Last year, it was the Pac-10’s aggressive pursuit of the University of Texas, and Colorado and Nebraska bolting to the Big 10. When the Big 12 made concessions to A&M and Texas in the form of a bigger payout, both schools re-affirmed their commitment to the Big 12. Now that Texas has signed a 20-year, $300 million deal with ESPN to launch the Longhorn Network, Aggies are raging mad, suggesting the partnership will give the t-sips (our nickname for Longhorns) an unfair recruiting advantage.

The anger of Big 12 schools at the Longhorn Network with regards to airing high school football games, as well as pulling games away from the Big 12 TV package, are more than legitimate. But there are some fundamental issues that Aggies need to accept in their belief that the SEC will mean greener pastures.

1. Go ask Arkansas. In 1990, Arkansas bolted the Southwest Conference for the big money of the SEC. A powerhouse in the SWC, Arkansas took the money and ran, but for years, it was a laughingstock in the SEC. How many BCS games has Arkansas played in? ONE. The 2011 Sugar Bowl was their first-ever BCS bowl game. Football national championships won as a member of the SEC? None. Men’s basketball? One. SEC football titles won in SEC? None. So Arkansas has banked a lot of dough, but has it translated to major bowl games and football titles? Not at all.
2. Three critical letters: B-C-S. Right now, the Big 12 is one of six conferences with automatic bids to the Bowl Championship Series. If Texas A&M left, that goes out of the window. Right now, the power teams in the Big 12 are Oklahoma, Texas, A&M and Oklahoma State. If you want a shot at a national title and the big money paydays, it’s smarter to stay put than add yourself to a SEC logjam. Fewer major conferences is not the answer.
3. Competing with Texas. Look, one of the reasons why Texas has dominated the football scene in the state the last decade is because the Aggies have sucked. Is that too strong of a word? Fine. We’ve been grossly mediocre. When Texas A&M was winning, we were dominant nationally, and in a number of years, overshadowed the University of Texas. The only thing that will turn that around is winning. Yes, winning cures everything. If A&M had maintained its success on the field, it would have a stronger hand to play. Right now, it doesn’t. Texas does.
4. Lose the Texas inferiority complex. Land grant universities have always fought this. Look at Alabama and Auburn. The Tide has always seen itself as the more urbane university while Auburn has been portrayed as the country hicks. In Kansas, K-State is treated as a second-class school compared to the more cultured Kansas. In the Lone Star State, A&M has always fought being second fiddle to UT. Texas is located in Austin, and governmental leaders have always seen it as the flagship school and for years, deposited the big money there and not in College Station. Fine, it is what it is. But use that as a chip on your shoulder. Running off to the SEC won’t solve that. Aggies need to have high self-esteem and not give a flip about the Longhorns. When I came out of Jack Yates Magnet School of Communications, I was told UT had the top journalism program. I didn’t care. Aggieland felt better, and I didn’t have to wear that hideous burnt orange. No doubt my career has turned out fine. This is about low self-esteem when Aggies say they are operating in the shadows of Texas. Running away doesn’t solve that. Taking it on head on is the only way to get over it.
5. In-state rivalries matter. The beauty of the SWC was that nearly every school was located in the Lone Star State. That is not the case with the Big 12, but it’s still great to see the amazing rivalries in the workplace. We won’t have the same intensity with Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State as we do with Baylor, Texas Tech and Texas. There will be nothing special about facing any school other than Texas on Thanksgiving. Rivalries have meaning, and go far beyond football. For goodness sakes, the entire Aggie War Hymn is aimed at the University of Texas! We hate one another whether it’s softball, soccer, swimming, golf, handball, lacrosse, equestrian or track and field. Going to the SEC means that amazing back-and-forth is gone. In essence, Texas A&M is willing to sell its soul for the big bucks of the SEC.

Texas A&M has a better shot of being a dominant school in sports by staying right where they are. That 20 percent may look good today, but there is no doubt that if the Texas A&M family walks away from the 80 percent, they will regret it for years to come.

While a lot of the focus after Thursday’s Republican debate was on Newt Gingrich snapping at Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace for asking “gotcha” and “Mickey Mouse” questions, what I found the most offensive one of the night was Byron York questioning Rep. Michelle Bachmann with regards to submission.

As someone who didn’t find the sexism in the Newsweek cover photo flap, I believe there is no doubt that the reason York only questioned Bachmann on submission had everything to do with her gender.

York’s question was: “In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, “But the Lord said, ‘Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’ ”

“As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

Bachmann answered, in part: “Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him. And both he and I — what submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect.

“I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife.”

Some of my Twitter and Facebook followers say the question was appropriate because Bachmann has touted her Christian faith throughout her presidential run, and has spoken publicly about submitting to her husband.

Yet former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum tried his best to imitate former GOP presidential candidate, the Rev. Pat Robertson, and no one questioned him specifically about whether he loves his wife like Christ loved the church (that’s in the same section of Ephesians 5 as Scripture discussing wives submitting to their husband).

Gov. Rick Perry just held a large prayer rally. Will he be questioned specifically about tenets of his faith? Will Herman Cain be asked whether he curses (the Bible speaks to that)?

When we look at many of the vital issues facing this country — a rough economy, massive unemployment, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a continuing battle against terrorism, a fierce climate change debate, and a battle to get the nation’s debt under control — who in their right mind would waste time during a nationally-televised debate asking the only female GOP candidate about whether she would submit to her husband in the White House?

From a religious standpoint, I understand and get submission, even writing about it in my book, “Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith.”

For me, submission begins with me as a husband. When my wife knows that I’m willing to seek God’s direction for my life, she knows that I’m not making crazy decisions. So she is willing to trust my judgment on various matters. And in doing so, I’m willing to trust that God has put me with the right woman, and I can trust her decisions, and that she will do what’s best for both of us. This has nothing to do with losing your own mind as a woman. It is about following what Ephesians 5:21 says: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

It really is an issue that has to be fully explained to people and not taken as, “I tell you what to do, and you follow what I say.”

That seems to be what York was trying to insinuate. The notion of submission can be seen in many different forms. Already, Bachmann is taking heat because she sees submission as respect. One of the best books I’ve read on the topic is P.B. Wilson’s “Liberated Through Submission: God’s Design for Freedom in All Relationships.” If you desire to learn more on the issue, by all means, read, study, and listen. But don’t think for a second you can fully address the issue in a presidential debate with others on the stage.

But the most important thing that folks must accept is that submission is a personal part of someone’s faith. If York was trying to get at whether Bachmann would follow the advice of her husband on all matters, he needs to understand that if she was president, that role is her job. And on her job, she has final say-so. The only oath that a president is sworn to uphold is the one in the U.S. Constitution.

I don’t think for a second that a woman questioner would ask such a question in a presidential debate.

What York and others must understand that if you’re unwilling to question a man about tenets of his faith, then don’t have a different standard for a female candidate.

Supporters of President Barack Obama believe that the nation isn’t ready for a far-right-wing, conservative president to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and they’re scrambling at the opportunity to face off against the likes of Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum or Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Forget ever seeing Bachmann or Santorum take the presidential oath of office. It would be dangerous and foolish, however, for anyone to suggest that Perry has no shot at winning the GOP nomination and beating Obama in November 2012.

There is little doubt that the last thing many Americans want to hear is about the possibility of a Texas governor again taking charge of the White House. After the giant mess President George W. Bush left when he exited after eight years — two wars, a huge deficit and a porous economy — it’s not even safe to tell many folks you’re from Texas!

But when times are so tough and the economy is reeling from lots of bad news every day, any incumbents will face an uphill climb in their bids to stay in office. And that opens the door for the opposition.

What makes Perry attractive as a candidate is that he doesn’t really appeal to just one base of the GOP. First, he aligns closely with Christian conservatives. After hearing plenty of top Republicans decry that base’s social agenda, many felt as though the party they had empowered for three decades was jilting them. Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping and John Huntsman’s too-moderate tone turns social conservatives off, and for them, a Perry candidacy would be a welcome development.

When Perry joins the race on Saturday, he will immediately become their number-one choice.

Santorum has done everything to sound like Rev. Pat Robertson, but even his most ardent supporters surely know he can’t win.

So, Perry will satisfy the desires of social conservatives, and then he can appeal to the economic wing of the party. Various reports have suggested that the Texas economy is not as vibrant as Perry would like, but with 500,000 folks moving to the state annually, expect him to sound like Michael Dukakis did in 1988, when he trumpeted the Massachusetts Miracle.

Perry’s entrance into the race will also show a tremendous contrast with Romney, who is even less appealing on the campaign trail than Vice President Al Gore. Perry will hit the stage in his Texas cowboy boots, flash the smile that suburban Republican women pine for, and succeed like a madman at retail politics. And while he’ll be vibrant and charismatic, Romney will look as if he’s stuck in place.

By no means does any of this guarantee that Perry will waltz into the nomination. Like every candidate, he has to run to win, and it will not be easy.

But for all the liberals who keep saying that Perry would be a godsend and for those who call him a phony and say he’s not as intelligent as Obama: Just remember what was said about then-Gov. George W. Bush in 2000. And remember how sick the left was to see him sworn in as the 43rd president of the United States.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

In all of my years covering politics on the local, state and national level, many stories have earned the “Are you serious?” look.

The newest one? The so-called sexist cover of Newsweek depicting Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Conservatives have been up in arms, slamming the “liberal” Tina Brown and Newsweek for choosing a photo that supposedly depicts Bachmann as the political equivalent of Jack Nicholson in “The Shining.”

To the angry conservatives, and delusional feminists, give it a rest. There is nothing sexist about the photo, nor does it reveal a flaming liberal bias. But this is the perfect cable news story. We are treated to fake outrage; condemnations from conservatives and feminist voices; nonsensical shouts of “They wouldn’t do this to a man.” And then it all goes away.

In fact, Newsweek should be ripped to shreds because the photo doesn’t even go with the headline, “Queen of Rage.”

I’ve run three weekly newspapers, and I can tell you that if I wanted to show a person full of rage, I wouldn’t pick the crummy photo Newsweek chose.

When I ran the Dallas Weekly, I wrote a cover story on Khallid Muhammad, former national spokesman for the Nation of Islam. I ran a photo of him preaching, and his face had a serious scowl; he was sweating like crazy — it was taken in Jasper, Texas, where James Byrd Jr. was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck — and he was wearing military fatigues.

Now that image went perfectly with the headline of someone full of rage.

But let’s not act like Rep. Bachmann hasn’t used anger at the political system to her advantage. She rails against one thing or another every day. She’s not a nut case like Glenn Beck, but she has no doubt employed anger against President Barack Obama and liberals to become a darling of the tea party, and a reliable provider of a quality soundbite.

Now when I see stories discussing her makeup and whether she is sexier than Sarah Palin, hell yes, that’s sexist. Even trying to suggest she will take Palin’s supporters implies that she can only compete for women voters.

Is that Newsweek cover any worse than any column by Maureen Dowd of The New York Times challenging the manhood of President Obama?

But folks, get a grip. If media writers can openly opine about whether President George H.W. Bush is a wimp; if Mitt Romney is soulless; if Tim Pawlenty is Mr. Boring; then surely we don’t have to lose our minds and come up with a faux sexist narrative about Newsweek’s Bachmann cover.

Maybe media types needed this story so they don’t have to cover something far more substantive. Say, like a falling economy while the idiots in Congress chill for a month.

Now that’s something to be angry about.

When congressional Republicans, egged on by the boisterous voices of the tea party, vigorously objected to President Barack Obama’s signing a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia in December, GOP stalwarts were called in to explain why it was necessary to support the effort.

By having the secretaries of state under Republican presidents weigh in, GOP critics couldn’t just lay the blame at the feet of Obama without having to trample the integrity of Henry Kissinger, George P. Shultz and James A. Baker III.

Once they publicly came out for the treaty and were photographed in the White House, the momentum shifted, and the treaty was approved.

No matter how principled someone may be when he comes to Washington, he is going to have to learn how to play along with others. That’s the rule in the sandbox, and it should be the same rule in Congress.

But we have become a nation in which the strong ideologies that the left and right clutch to for dear life don’t allow for middle ground. In fact, if you even broach the idea of compromising, activists on both sides will tear you to shreds and make it hard for you to even win a primary.

As a result, we have elected mercenaries to Congress who aren’t interested in the well-being of all Americans, just the sliver of the voting public that sent them to the nation’s capital. They play to the activists who raise money and turn out en masse at rallies.

The ongoing debate over the debt ceiling is a prime example of this unwillingness to consider an alternative viewpoint that could avert a crisis.

On one side, Democrats didn’t want the GOP — or even President Obama — going near entitlement programs as a part of deficit reduction. When the president put those on the table in his negotiations with Republicans, Democrats revolted in anger.

Social Security and Medicare have long been strong political rallying points for the Democrats, and they want to keep that edge.

President Obama made clear that revenues had to be a part of any plan. The Congressional Budget Office has been clear that the Bush tax cuts contributed $3.3 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Talk to conservative activists, TV pundits and members of Congress and they swear that it isn’t true. But it is. Facts simply aren’t debatable.

So instead of confronting cuts that adversely impact the national debt, House Republicans saw that as a non-starter, refusing to allow any revenues to be a part of any debt ceiling deal. As a result, Obama’s grand plan of a $4 trillion debt reduction was shot down, but House Speaker John Boehner’s plan came to slightly less than $1 trillion. And fiscal conservatives are happy?

The reality is that President Obama is a Democrat; Republicans control the House; and Democrats control the United States Senate. Both sides can push their perspectives as hard as possible, but unless we stop treating the word “compromise” as a dirty word, we will have endless partisan fights that make ideologues feel good but the nation in a worse state than it was before, and we will not move this country forward.

The House has passed Boehner’s plan. Now the Senate will take up Majority Leader Harry Reid’s debt plan. They are very different. Let’s pray that both parties don’t dig in their heels and learn to give a little. Otherwise, the nation’s credit is jeopardized, and those already hit by the recession will be plunged even further into the economic abyss.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

While President Barack Obama battles with Republicans and Democrats over raising the debt ceiling, Americans should be preparing themselves to take on the shady special interests and the members of Congress who carry their water in their effort to scuttle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Republicans already won phase one of their flat-out opposition to the CFPB by forcing the White House not to appoint Elizabeth Warren as the head of the agency. She came up with the idea for the bureau and was a natural to lead it. But the GOP, as well as a number of Democrats close to Wall Street, saw her as the devil incarnate and made clear that any effort to put her in the job would face stiff resistance.

White House officials can spin the appointment of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as the best move, but even they know Warren deserved the position. Her no-nonsense demeanor, as well as her willingness to call out the shenanigans in the financial sector, made her the absolute right choice.

I’ve interviewed her several times on my TV One show, “Washington Watch,” as well as on my daily segment on “The Tom Joyner Morning Show.” She’s the kind of official we need in Washington, someone who cares more about what is right than she does pleasing the folks with deep pockets.

The CFPB is all about simplifying the dizzying policies related to mortgages, investigating credit scoring and keeping an eye on the financial institutions that led the way in the near collapse of our economic system.

These fat cats, along with the congressional mouthpieces they liberally ply with campaign cash, don’t want to see the paperwork reduced, aren’t really happy with total transparency in financial dealings and surely aren’t excited about federal inspectors looking over their shoulder. So they have gotten their champions in the House and Senate — mostly Republican but also a few Democrats — to assert that the bureau will kill jobs, is too independent and should be watered down.

Hogwash.

For years, they have ripped off customers, and now they don’t want an agency to hold them accountable. We’ve seen and heard the stories of customers getting hit with ballooning interest rates, of exorbitant payday lender fees and of hidden fees on credit cards. This agency is all about the consumer, not the rip-off artists who look to fatten their coffers and boost their quarterly stock prices.

But the law says that without a confirmed director, the agency can’t regulate the non-bank financial institutions like payday lenders.

And trust me; they have spent a ton of dough to keep the prying eyes of government regulators away from them.

Even before Warren was passed over, 44 GOP senators signed a letter saying they would oppose any nominee unless the bureau is changed. I haven’t heard one logical reason for their request. It sounds as if the banking lobby wrote the letter and accompanying talking points.

For instance, they don’t want a single director. Instead, they want a bipartisan commission made up of five members. We know how that would end up. One party would appoint its members, and the other wouldn’t, and the commission wouldn’t be able to get any work done.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been signed into law, but the financial industry protectors in Congress don’t want to see it go into effect. Like typical politicians, they want to destroy what’s designed to help average Americans before it even gets off the ground.

Folks, this is where you come in. You need to raise your voice and tell Congress to get its hands off the one good thing to come out of the colossal collapse of our economy. The financial institutions in this country have raped consumers for years. They have stuck us with outlandish fees and, when busted, said they were sorry, but only after banking billions.

No more. Not now. Not today. If your Democratic or Republican representatives are backing a repeal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, then they stand with the banks and not you. Or your college student. Or your senior citizen parents. Tell them that if they don’t side with the consumers on this one, they will need to find new jobs after the next election.

As Americans, we’ve got to stop believing we have no power. This isn’t a partisan issue. This is about making sure the financial institutions are forced to do right.

Yes, they have tons of money and lobbyists. But we must be willing to organize ourselves to do battle with these financial leeches. Our collective voice can defeat them.

We must take this attitude expressed by Vertner Woodson Tandy — one of the founders of my fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha — when addressing an issue:

“We must fight till hell freezes over and then fight on the ice.”

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Watching Republicans and Democrats squabble over their ideological battle lines with regard to the debt ceiling is the same as looking at a bratty child fall out in the middle of the floor with a temper tantrum when he doesn’t get his way.

On one hand, Republicans are trying desperately to hold on to their purely insane ideological position of there being no revenue or tax increases. It is as if these idiots refuse to believe any data that make clear that the massive tax cuts put in place by President George W. Bush have increased the federal deficit. But they are afraid of running afoul of Grover Norquist and his Kool-Aid drinkers at Americans for Tax Reform, who are more than willing to protect the millionaires and billionaires in this country — with their jets and yachts — from having to pay taxes at previous levels.

Then there are the Democrats, who have this equally insane belief that we can reduce the deficit and not touch Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Those three areas, along with the billions we continue to spend on national defense, constitute most of the dollars we spend on the federal budget. And those costs are spiraling out of control. So of course, we must make some hard choices, and yes, that will mean making adjustments that might upset seniors.

At the end of the day, this ludicrous standoff is doing severe damage to America’s credibility in the financial markets, and even toying with not increasing the debt ceiling could have severe repercussions on all of us. But when clueless representatives, such as Michele Bachmann, suggest that nothing would happen if we were not to raise the debt ceiling, they just prove they would destroy this nation in order to preserve an ideological purity.

Right now, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, the world’s two leading credit rating agencies, have put the U.S. and our AAA credit rating on their watch lists, with S&P stating Thursday that “owing to the dynamics of the political debate on the debt ceiling, there is at least a one-in-two likelihood that we could lower the long-term rating on the U.S. within the next 90 days.”

No party can try to claim that the other is at fault for this perilous situation. Both have contributed to this mess with their unwillingness to make the tough choices. And yes, American taxpayers must absorb the burden, as well, because when a politician makes the tough choice to cut or not fund our every whim and desire, we toss him out of office.

This debate is all about politics. No matter that not raising the debt ceiling would impact every American in a negative way. Social Security and military checks would be in jeopardy; expect to see massive losses in our 401(k) accounts; and access to credit, already difficult, would become nearly impossible. But Democrats don’t want to touch Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, because those are a potent bat to bash Republicans with in every election.

We just saw the Dems win a congressional seat in a hard-core Republican district in New York based on Rep.

Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal. They know seniors vote in larger numbers than anyone else, and losing a potent political weapon is unthinkable for them. So that’s why they are angry with President Barack Obama for putting the options on the table.

Republicans are like a suicide bomber when it comes to the mantra of low taxes and smaller government; no matter how much damage is done, as long as they hold their ground, they think they are doing the right thing. Get angry all you want about my making the suicide bomber analogy, but even threatening to blow up the American economy is akin to committing suicide, all for an ideological purity. But by holding firm to their position, they know it appeals to their core voters.

That is precisely why I’ve despised the labels of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. Damn an ideology. At some point, you’ve got to analyze a situation and say, “This is the right thing to do.”

But all of these politicians are afraid of one thing: losing their jobs. Frankly, they really don’t care about the millions of jobs that we have seen lost in this economy over the past four years. It is about those 435 powerful jobs in the House of Representatives, the 100 in the Senate and the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

This is when the American public, especially the silent majority, must get off their collective butt and say, “Get this deal done. Now.” Enough with the tea partyers driving Republicans over a cliff with their insistence on no revenue increases. And enough with Democrats bowing down to the liberal left, which says “no mas” to any entitlement cuts.

All of you who sit passively by and watch as the ideological purists make all the noise and dominate the cable news shows must take a stand and say, “Enough!”

All Americans should be blowing up the phone lines and email inboxes of their representatives every day until a debt ceiling deal is brokered. Sure, you may not like a revenue increase or an entitlement cut, but thinking the other side must share the full burden is just dumb. “Shared pain” is not a negative statement. It’s real and necessary.

If the GOP gets its way, we lose. If the Democrats get their way, we lose. We simply cannot continue down this insane path of ideological purity driving our nation’s agenda. If President Ronald Reagan understood that he would have to accept revenue increases and President Bill Clinton saw that welfare needed to be changed, then Obama must be followed in brokering a deal in which all sides have skin in this game.

So, folks, it’s time for you to get in this game. Pick that phone up. Send that email. We aren’t in the room negotiating this deal, but I can guarantee you that if Congress and the White House hear from the millions of us with enough common sense to compromise, a deal will get done.

None of us wants to see the carnage that would ensue if we let the self-inflicted bomb to our economy go off.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds were long considered first ballot Hall of Famers, but the steroids scandal, which has dominated baseball since the ’90s, has destroyed their reputations and could very well keep them out of Cooperstown.

Right now, Clemens is spending his days in a federal court in Washington, D.C., accused of lying to Congress about his own steroid use. Bonds is appealing an April conviction of obstruction of justice for giving an evasive answer to a grand jury, but he was acquitted on the more serious charges.

What’s amazing is that federal prosecutors have spent years going after Bonds and Clemens. And at best, they are going after them for supposedly lying to a grand jury or Congress. Don’t get me wrong, we are supposed to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but looking at the amount of time and dollars spent by the feds on these two baseball players, you would think that they were drug kingpins.

Yet while this is going on, the biggest crooks in the world — almost single-handedly took down the United States economy with their shady banking practices — are kicking it in their private suites at the baseball park, enjoying the huge bonuses that continue to flow on Wall Street.

Lady Justice is not supposed to be blind. You screw millions of Americans out of billions of dollars and force the federal government to bail your firm out with billions of dollars, but then prosecutors won’t even bother to knock on your door. But lie to a grand jury about injecting yourself with steroids? Your world will be turned upside down!

This really shouldn’t be an either/or scenario. But with the nation’s unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, and the country still trying to dig itself out of a cataclysmic situation that culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, surely the American people should get some satisfaction out of seeing Wall Street fat cats walk the perp walk and answer to their activities in court.

But we don’t see any of that.

Instead, all we see today are federal prosecutors talking about baseball and syringes, and Casey Anthony’s attorneys gloating about getting their girl off.

It is unfathomable to think that Wall Street executives are getting off scot-free and continue to receive million-dollar bonuses. It’s shameful to listen to them whine about the clamps being put on them by federal regulations; it was lax oversight and the total relaxation of rules that allowed them to go haywire, all in a search for quarterly profits to boost their personal wealth and sink ours.

It’s degrading to watch Wall Street’s protectors in Washington, D.C. — Democrats and Republicans — cry mightily about onerous regulations and suggest that anything meant to protect consumers from these dastardly devils is a “jobs crusher.”

Sorry, folks, I really don’t care about Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds and steroids. Spend all day if you like arguing about the integrity of the game. What’s more important is the integrity of the legal system where there is supposed to be fairness in going after wrongdoing.

The feds have fulfilled their obligations with baseball. And they have struck out when it comes to holding Wall Street accountable.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

President Barack Obama was hailed as the best communicator since President Ronald Reagan when he came into office in 2009, but at this current pace, his White House, and by extension the Democrats, appear more like King George VI in “The King’s Speech.”

The stuttering and stammering when it comes to discussing this economy is making the president and his party look like some of the most confused individuals you have ever seen. When the May job numbers came out, they call it a bump in the road. If the economic news is not moving as fast as analysts and commentators like, they revert to blaming President George W. Bush’s porous stewardship of the economy in his final term. And when it is time to take ownership and accept the reality that it now boils down to them, they give that deer-in-headlights look.

Look, Mr. President, you wanted the job. Well, this comes with the job. If you do well, you get the praise, such as with the killing of Osama bin Laden (unless you bother to listen to a lot of your conservative media haters, who couldn’t even bring themselves to giving you credit). But when things aren’t going so well, such as our sluggish economy, you’re going to take the hit. So deal with it.

That’s why it was refreshing to see Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, make a forceful statement last week that her party owns this economy.

“We own the economy,” she said. “We own the beginning of the turnaround, and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery.”

Republicans reacted with glee to seeing a top Dem accept responsibility for the economy. They feel that it will be a yoke around the Democrats’ necks come the 2012 election.

That feeling is perfectly understandable, but not entirely a negative thing.

For anyone to suggest that today’s economy is worse than what we experienced in 2008 has to be nuts. It was stunning and debilitating to see a monthly jobs report that showed hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every month. By the end of the year, we had lost 2.6 million jobs. Yes, 2.6 million. My CNN buddy, Ali Velshi, was Mr. Doom with his daily reports on the stock market. Our nation was in a panic, and no one knew where to go and what to do.

Yet today, we have seen 25 consecutive months of private sector job growth. Have they been small? Of course! But I sure as hell would rather see the gaining of 30,000 and 50,000 or 100,000 jobs a month then to see us losing 584,000, like we did in December 2008. The issue is that economists say we need closer to 300,000 new jobs per month to get back to normal.

Well, it’s time for President Obama to stand up and say this is the new normal.

So, we better get used to it.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said repeatedly that it may be several years before unemployment falls below 7 percent. He said to expect slow growth. It’s time for our political leaders to stop lying to us, thinking we are going to return to the fast lane days. They need to make it clear that we’re driving in the school zone today.

Folks, we’ve been so used to riding high on the hog with our inflated economy that we don’t know what to do when it comes to reality. We lived through years of BS Internet companies, exploding off the pages with nonsensical valuations based on crack-like highs. And when the high wore off, we saw that we were in worse shape.

We’ve lived so far above our means with credit cards, a crazy homeownership market and outlandish spending habits that now we are paying the consequences for our actions.

So President Obama needs to make it clear: Our economy is slowly getting better, and we might as well accept the reality that we are not going to sprint our way out of this recovery. This will be a marathon.

Yes, no one wants to hear that. We want to present our usual American optimism that isn’t based on reality. Just be straight with the public and don’t present a fictitious perspective on where we should be. This isn’t 1984, so stop saying what President Reagan did. We didn’t face a near meltdown of our financial system, coupled with the massive job losses, and a housing disaster.

Dems should say, “Look, we came in with a mess, and we put the plan of action to work to get us out of the mess. Did some stuff work? Absolutely. Did some stuff not work? Sure did, and we’re fixing it.”

You say it with confidence and conviction, and you defend your policies, even when your critics are blasting you. Instead, we get a president and Democratic Party that twists and turns in the wind, hoping a voice of confusion will mollify the critics.

It won’t.

Yes, I’m grateful to have a job. But there is no guarantee I will keep it. So I’m saving my money, got all of my debts paid off, and hoping to ride this economy out like the three hurricanes I’ve lived through. It’s going to be a rough period for some time. I know it, we feel it, so let’s get used to it.

President Obama and the Democratic Party, no matter what you say or do, you’ll be judged on the economy. If you get thrown out of office in November 2012 because the American people think someone else can do better, fine. But there is nothing worse then getting booted from office when you weren’t even smart enough to go down fighting.

If President Obama and his administration, as well as his party, keep up their pitiful efforts in discussing this economy, go ahead and start drawing up plans for your library in Chicago. Because what they are doing now is embarrassing.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

It’s Father’s Day. I am NOT BBQ’ing. It’s MY day. But I will coach yo azz if you ain’t handling the grill right! #rolandsfatherdayrules

• If u bought me some socks, let me put them on & then kick yo azz out the house. Socks? Socks?! Some damn socks?! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If your kids are acting a fool at my house & their daddy don’t do anything, all the other men get to whip his azz for sorriness! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• Today is a day for MEN. Single mothers? We love you, but you got your day – Mother’s Day. This is FATHER’S DAY. #rolandsfatherdayrules
• Hear ye! Hear ye! If the hateful azz son-in-law puts on “Papa Was A Rolling Stone,” somebody better call an ambulance! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If hateful daughter-in-law says ONE nasty thing, I’m playing Natalie Cole’s I’m Catching Hell (Living Here Alone). TRY ME! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If bad azz grandkids come by screaming for their XBox/Wii/Nintendo, watch this house turn into the game Black Ops! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If I get a card & inside u write, “Here’s the $50 I borrowed from you,” I’m straight cussin’ you the hell out! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If I walk into the living room & y’all watching Living Well With Montel Williams, I’m cussin’ EVERYBODY out! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If y’all watching anything on OWN, Lifetime, Oxygen, E!, or We TV, furniture will be moving in the living room! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If y’all bought me a two-year subscription to O Magazine, People, or Us Weekly as a gift, I will cuss you out. Wrong day! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• I don’t care if I get out of the bed at 1 pm, I still want Father’s Day breakfast. You hear that wifey? Remember, my day! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• It’s Father’s Day ALL DAY. Don’t act like it ends when Sunday dinner is over & the table has been cleared! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• If y’all watching OWN, Lifetime, Oxygen, E!, Hallmark, or We TV on MY tv furniture will be moving in the living room! #rolandsfatherdayrules
• Today is Father’s Day. If I called my dad “pops,” y’all would be going to a funeral! #rolandsfatherdayrules

Sports and politics have always mixed. We’ve had former athletes hold elective office; mayors, members of Congress and governors are always making bets with one another when their teams play each other in big games; and it’s great to see the respective national champions or winners in pro sports visit the White House for a congratulatory pat on the back from the president of the United States.

But there are some moments that deserve to be called out, such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich issuing a resolution declaring the Dallas Mavericks honorary residents of the state of Ohio.

Is he stuck on stupid?

The only reason he issued the declaration is to take a swipe at LeBron James, an Ohio native who gave Cleveland seven solid years of play, but left on his own free will when his contract ended to go to Miami.

With the Dallas Mavericks beating LeBron and the Miami Heat, Kasich showed how petty Clevelanders and Ohio residents are who are still upset with LeBron.

He didn’t demand a trade. LeBron simply chose to leave Cleveland to go to Miami. This is a guy who never got into trouble, never got arrested, and did a ton of charitable work in the state. So you’re upset that he left?

Ohio, you’re still mad because of “The Decision”? It’s time to grow up and move on. Seriously. If not, y’all need to join Rep. Anthony Weiner and seek treatment.

A few months ago I was in Ohio and spoke at an event in the state capitol and Kasich was there. We got a chance to talk education and voter suppression. He’s a nice guy and I enjoyed our chat.

But on this one, he looks like an idiot. A governor is supposed to be above silly and petty stuff like this. Leave this kind of crap to the sports radio hosts, columnists and bloggers.

Lastly, I don’t believe a single Dallas Maverick is a taxpayer in Ohio. LeBron is. He still owns homes there, has family there, and continues to do charity work there, namely in his hometown of Akron.

So Gov. Kasich, good job. You managed to diss an Ohio athletic icon, but also a taxpayer and constituent. I bet you don’t mind LeBron cutting a check to pay his property tax bill, especially with your state facing a multi-billion dollar deficit.

It’s safe to say you just lost all votes in the James household.

Lastly, governor, as a native Texan, we have no desire to be honorary residents of Ohio.

We already live in God’s country.

Whoop!

Whenever there is an issue dealing with race, misogyny, sexual orientation or some other hot-button issue, we often hear the cry that we need to have a national discussion about it, whether in the media, in our homes or in our churches.

Yet what always seems to happen is that the discussion ends up being you take your side, I take my side, and we express our righteous indignation. Then what was supposed to have started as a conversation turns into a knockdown, drag-out fight, with folks cussing one another out, naturally causing others not to talk, to discuss or to think.

Case in point: Tracy Morgan’s graphic and violent anti-gay “rant” or “bit” or “comic routine” or “meltdown” during a standup act last week in Nashville.

We haven’t seen any video of the show or heard the audio, and are basing our judgments of what he said on the account of someone who was in the audience, was offended and wrote about it on Facebook.

I got wind of the issue when I read Morgan’s apology for what he had to say. When I saw the CNN.com story, my initial thought was, “Damn. Talk about hateful, nasty and crude.”

Yet as I followed the traffic of discussion on Facebook and Twitter, all of a sudden I began to see how folks were categorizing what he had to say and began to ask myself about the other implications of our reaction.

So I wrote a piece for my nationally syndicated column on that, and all hell broke loose.

“You hate gays.” “You’re homophobic.” “Why can’t you be on our side?” “Why are you defending Tracy Morgan?” “Comedians have a First Amendment right.” “It’s just jokes, folks!” We had a strong back and forth on Facebook, Twitter and e-mail, and it was easy to see the passions aroused by what Morgan said and what I wrote.

My goal wasn’t to defend Morgan, as some have said. What stirred me to comment was seeing someone say that, “Comedians should never joke about murder or bring harm and violence to children.” Someone else tweeted me, “Bigotry has no place in comedy.”‘

So I cited examples of jokes about the murder of O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife and her friend; a comedian joking he wished he showed up at home and his wife was dead; a ton of jokes about beating kids; hitting a 1-year-old in the throat or stomach; and many comedians who have used a gay slur incessantly in their acts, and presented stereotypes of how gays and lesbians talk and walk.

These aren’t the same as what Morgan said, but they could easily be seen as offensive to many.

Yes, all of these come from popular comedians who are loved and adored by millions.

To the people who rightfully condemned Morgan’s anti-gay comments, and to everyone else, I asked them to answer honestly: “Have you ever laughed at vile, nasty, offensive comics who told sexist, racist and homophobic jokes?”

The response? A resounding yes.

I can sit here and tell you with no uncertainty, that I have laughed hysterically at jokes based on sexist, racist, or homophobic stereotypes told by a litany of comedians. That’s right. LOL. LMAO. ROFL.

Take your pick. I’ve listened to Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Flip Wilson, Lisa Lampanelli, Bill Maher, Rick Ducommun, Bernie Mac, George Lopez, Martin Lawrence, Don Rickles, Carlos Mencia, Andrew Dice Clay, Kathy Griffin — and the list can go on and on and on.

I’ve watched Lampanelli, marketed as the Queen of Mean, call a guy in the audience a Hispanic slur; rip someone as “a skinny Jew;” cuss out a guy by telling him she uses the N-word and doesn’t care; and on and on and on. Is there anyone or any ethnic group that Don Rickles hasn’t insulted? And he’s a comic legend!

So, I think we should make an effort to have a real discussion and not just a knee-jerk reaction when some of us say that the comedy stage has no place for sexism, racism and homophobia. Are we really being hypocritical?

Are we saying that as a society, when we have major social epidemics, those are off limits to the comedy stage? Just the other day I watched comedian Patrice O’Neal’s stand-up act late one night on Comedy Central. He had a bit about how good sex felt for someone not wearing a condom. To a socially conscious person, that’s an abomination when you look at the HIV/AIDS rates in America, especially in the African-American community. (O’Neal is black.)

When a prominent HIV/AIDS activist took me to task on my Morgan column, I asked her about O’Neal’s bit, knowing the issue is her passion. I didn’t get a response. Child abuse is a major problem in America. But don’t let me pull out the video clips of comedians of all colors, genders and sexual orientations talking about beating a kid with anything they can get their hands on. Are we saying that because it’s a societal problem, no joking and no laughing are allowed?

When groups that have been oppressed begin to make sweeping pronouncements about what can or cannot be said, there are going to be the contradictions that have to be confronted.

I’ve had some long, running battles on Twitter, radio, TV and in person with African-Americans on the N-word. For me, I don’t like it and I don’t use it. On one hand, black folks will blow up when someone white uses the N-word. A lot of folks were offended when people who were not black used the N-word in “The Hangover II.” But if that was a movie with a predominantly black cast? Nothing.

The NAACP had a bury-the-N-word ceremony at its national convention in Detroit a few years ago, but the NAACP Image Awards, which were created to promote the positive images of African-Americans, has honored comedians and musical acts that have used the N-word in their work.

So society says it’s bad, but then for some it’s fine — so what’s the mixed message we’re sending?

Let’s look at the gay slur, the F-word. When Kobe Bryant directed the F-word at a referee and he was caught on camera, there was a huge uproar. He was hit with a $100,000 fine, and the largest gay and lesbian civil rights group, Human Rights Campaign, issued this statement: “Hopefully Mr. Bryant will recognize that as a person with such fame and influence, the use of such language not only offends millions of LGBT people around the world, but also perpetuates a culture of discrimination and hate that all of us, most notably Mr. Bryant, should be working to eradicate.”

Really? I had a gay Twitter follower who said that Lampanelli is his absolute favorite comedian and he sent me a YouTube link to one of her standup acts. In the clip, she used the F-word with impunity while thanking her gay and lesbian fans for showing up. She had to have used it more than a dozen times.

So I asked this guy how he could say the F-word was wrong, but his favorite comedian used it with ease. His reply? She’s a friend of the gay community and has donated money to gay causes.

So if the HRC says we’re to eradicate the F-word from our language, just as the NAACP says we’re to get rid of the N-word, then why do we allow the exceptions to the rule, and end up praising the offenders as friends of our communities?

In response to my Tracy Morgan piece, I had gays and lesbians write me saying that I didn’t say the same about Michael Richards or other examples of people who have used the N-word. Even Keith Boykin, whom I have known for some time, took me to task.

But I told them, and him, that I said repeatedly on CNN that Richards’ N-word blowup wasn’t a part of his stand-up act; it wasn’t a bit; it wasn’t a routine; he lashed out at a patron. Is there a difference? You bet.

Who remembers when Duane “Dog” Chapman was caught using the N-word on his son’s answering machine? I was on CNN and was asked if he should lose his A&E show. I said, not at all. He made these comments in private, was on his son’s answering machine, wasn’t in the workplace, and it didn’t rise to the level of him losing his show. Yep, the black guy who has called out racism said a white guy like Chapman shouldn’t lose his show.

One gay blogger tweeted me and said I had been wrong to call for Don Imus’ firing because he was a comedian like Morgan, and that I employed a double standard. I replied that Imus wasn’t a comedian; he had a respectable morning show that attracted presidential candidates, members of Congress, media titans, authors, academics, you name it. I said over and over that had Imus still been a shock jock, we would have placed him in that category because we’re used to having them make sexist, racist, homophobic comments.

Are people shocked by anything that Howard Stern says? No. Think about the kind of stuff he has said about any group. What happens when we hear it? Our response for the most part has been, “Well, he is a shock jock.” And we move on with our lives.

So if we’re honest, we are known to make exceptions to the rule. Our society will have a different standard for a shock jock then we would for a traditional morning show host. Our society will let comedians say things on stage that if someone else said them in the workplace, we would be filing lawsuits.

And what is so amazing is that this same society will pay to go be insulted, or laugh at a comedian insulting another group, and we will go home saying how great the show was. Then we turn around and say that bigotry has no place in our society. Really?

This isn’t an attempt to muddy the issue of dealing with Tracy Morgan. Let’s hold him accountable; let’s all agree that what he said was vile and despicable.

But if we leave it there, and do not become more introspective as a society and confront our own contradictions on race, sex, homophobia and violence, we will have allowed the moment to go to waste and failed.

If all expressions of bigotry are wrong, then it’s wrong on the comedy stage. If all sexism is wrong, then there isn’t an exemption on the stage. If racism is always bad, then let’s have zero tolerance. If all homophobia is unacceptable, then no one — friend or foe — gets a pass. If violence against women should never be joked about, then let’s hold even comedians accountable. If we say that no one should ever joke about violence committed against children, gay or not, from this day forth, it ends.

Don’t dismiss this. Think about what I’m saying. Think about what you accept and don’t accept. For God’s sake, don’t just offer a surface rebuke of Tracy Morgan, think about how profound sexism, racism and homophobia — and violent crime based on such bigotry — is in our society, and how you are willing to deal with it.

If anyone can qualify for the phrase “stuck on stupid,” it’s Rep. Anthony Weiner.

This story was a benign and silly one for me from the beginning. OK, the New York congressman said his Twitter account had been hacked, that he really wasn’t the one who sent that picture to the woman in Seattle. It has happened before.

But what was crazy was listening to him give a different explanation over and over. I was bugged with that, and it just wasn’t making any sense. It was driving me nuts!

First, he told reporters that it was all just a prank.“I was hacked,” he told CNN the day after the story broke. “It happens to people. You move on.”

Then he started tap dancing, saying he couldn’t be absolutely sure the photo of a man in his underwear wasn’t him. But he had an explanation. “Photos can be manipulated,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “Photos can be of one thing and changed to something else. We’re going to try to get to the bottom of what happened,” he said.

Initially, liberals didn’t want to hear any of the drama, suggesting it was really a conservative attack on an outspoken member of their own tribe. Conservatives, on the other hand, were giddy to see the loudmouth Weiner contorting in public like a pretzel. He’s never been shy about blasting his critics, and many saw this as payback.

But now, after an ashen Weiner stepped to the mic and finally told the truth, that he indeed sent the photo in question — and had online contact with six other women — we have the truth.

And you know what? That’s all we wanted. The truth.

Had Weiner just told the truth, at best, this would have been a 48-hour story. Instead, his repeated lies turned this into a weeklong discussion, and it was unnecessary.

He looked even more stupid trying to joke his way out of the lies. Looking back at his various interviews, man, does he look like a fool!

So guys, if you do something stupid and get busted, just own up to it. We call that being a stand-up guy.

But if you do something, get busted, and then try to lie your way out of it, all that happens is that you get attacked, your credibility is attacked, you look like a complete fool, and you draw others into your lie. And someone usually gets hurt.

Just ask those poor souls who spent thousands of dollars on lawyers after President Bill Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

Should Weiner resign? Nope.

I simply don’t think what we know right now is worthy of a resignation. But if Weiner has to be the butt of jokes on late night TV for the next year, if his name and images go down in the Political Sex Hall of Shame — joining the likes of Sen. David Vitter, Clinton, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and countless other politicians — then good.

Rep. Weiner, you earned your way onto this list, sir! You lied.

When Bishop Eddie L. Long stood before his congregation in Lithonia, Ga., May 29 to declare that he would be looking forward, not focused on the past, his supporters said that’s the right thing to do. He had just settled civil lawsuits that alleged he had coerced young male followers into sex.

Sorry, bishop, as a man of God who is the shepherd of an international ministry, we cannot simply let you off that easily.

From the moment Bishop Long was first accused eight months ago, he had the benefit of the doubt. He was innocent until proven guilty, and I wrote in a column that if he was innocent, he should defend his name and character with every fiber in his body.

And he said as much before his congregation.

Yet now he settles a lawsuit, keeps the details private, refuses to speak publicly about the accusations, and expects some form of forgiveness? It’s just not that simple.

To my legal friends, I get the whole issue of settling a lawsuit to risk further damage and put it behind you. But when you are a pastor who has preached against gay marriage and homosexuality, has openly talked about the covenant between a husband and wife, and has talked about the importance of men leading their families as strong men of faith, there is an expectation on you that is greater than the one on the average man.

Some have suggested that I and others who aren’t members of his church should shut up and that it’s up to them to accept him at his word. Again, I disagree.

I remember vividly hearing Bishop Long for the first time in June 1999 and loving the sermon, “A Fresh Anointing for Change,” quoting it on many occasions. When I worked on a television project in 2000, I attended Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church for three months, regularly attending services and tithing to his ministry. When I served as news editor at Savoy magazine, we did a photo spread of pastors and fashion and recommended he be a part of it. Last year, my wife and I spoke at a black marriage summit at Hampton University in Hampton, Va. We were the luncheon speakers, and Long was the evening speaker.

I’ve watched his worship services on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, bought and read several of his books, and purchased numerous videotapes and tapes of his sermons. Lastly, I’ve discussed his efforts to reach out specifically to black men to get them involved in the church, even writing about it in an essay in my book “Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith.”

So count me as one of the committed Christians who poured a seed into his ministry and who has a reasonable expectation for the pastor to be a stand-up man and speak honestly about what has happened.

He is someone whom thousands follow, and they should hear the truth and nothing but the truth from Bishop Long.

Not his lawyer, not his spokesman, not his wife — him! He should not have decided on a private mediation; he should have demanded that everything be discussed in public.

Again, count me as someone who believes that if you are truly innocent of such heinous allegations, you don’t go behind closed doors. You defend yourself publicly and shame those who try to muddy your name and derail your ministry.

Bishop Long has utterly failed even his own preaching. He has stood in the pulpit and demanded accountability of others but clearly believes that different rules apply to him.

With his refusal to address the issue publicly, openly and truthfully, I don’t see how any pastor could participate in a conference with Long on the rostrum. I don’t see how any gospel musician could go to his church and stand in the pulpit with him to sell CDs. As a churchgoing man, there is no way I could sit under the spiritual leadership of a pastor who was unwilling to stand before his congregation and address the issue head-on.

I know all about forgiveness. It is one of the tenets of being a Christian. But I am not to forgive foolishly. If Bishop Long wants forgiveness, he needs to be open in discussing what really happened — or didn’t happen — with those young men and allow all of us to decide for ourselves whether we are willing to grant it.

If his followers are angry with me for writing this, then so be it. But there is no way that I can sit here and talk about the righteousness of ministers of the Gospel (my wife is an ordained minister) and make excuses for Bishop Long or any other pastor in a similar situation.

As Christians, we are supposed to expose darkness with light. In this case, Bishop Long chose to keep the truth behind closed doors and say, “Trust me; it’s all good. Everything is fine.”

John 8:32 says Jesus told his disciples, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Bishop Long, I’m not saying you are Jesus, but to your followers, it’s time for YOU to reveal the truth so YOU can be set free.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

As a political analyst, I’m supposed to be one of those folks who are so into politics that every time a new poll comes out, they dissect the margin of error, the number of respondents and whether it was conducted via land line or cellphone.

Sorry, folks, when it comes to the drama each day about who will run for president on the Republican side, I feel like an actor in the movie “He’s Just Not That Into You.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am following the daily spectacle of who is up and who is down in the GOP presidential sweepstakes. But really, I care more about whether the Dallas Mavericks and Miami Heat will go seven games in the NBA finals and what spaceship captured Scottie Pippen and brainwashed him into actually saying that LeBron James may be a better player than Michael Jordan.

Let’s just shoot straight with all of you: Average voters really aren’t thinking right now about the leader on the Republican side. Seriously, they aren’t. The field is in constant motion, and not all of the candidates have gotten serious about this race. The one thing we have is a lot of time before any candidate has to hunker down and get involved.

What has been most interesting thus far is who has opted not to run: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and television clown Donald Trump.

We all know that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is in and is joined by former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former radio talk show host and Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.

Now we’re left to wonder whether former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, John Huntsman, ambassador to China and former governor of Utah, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas will make it official and join the field.

Traditionally, presidential campaigns don’t start until after Labor Day. But in 2007, we saw then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along with other challengers, announce early in the year their presidential ambitions, thus treating us to one of the longest campaigns in history.

Everyone assumed that we would see the GOP candidates announcing the day after Obama was sworn in to office, but a lot changes in politics, and this is no different.

The Iowa caucuses aren’t until Feb. 6, which means that if all the candidates are in by Labor Day, they have five months to make their case to the voters there. Plus, the old model of announcing early is over. With social media and the ability to raise funds online, it’s not that critical to announce early. In fact, the earlier you announce the more time the media and your opponents have to define and attack you.

So any poll right now really is meaningless and is just a snapshot of what someone feels today. A recent CNN poll shows that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the preferred candidate of Republicans and independents. Here is a guy who previously has said he would have to be talked into the race!

Giuliani ran one of the worst campaigns in history in 2008, and were it not for former Sen. Fred Thompson’s comatose campaign, Giuliani would have been the worst. But Giuliani is at the top of the heap, with 16 percent, and Cain, who has no political experience whatsoever, has 10 percent, ahead of a congresswoman, two former governors and a former U.S. senator.

Chalk all of this up to the shakeout and weed-out process. Republican voters are not ready to pay attention to any candidate until the candidates stop with the exploratory committee announcements and make clear whether they are in or out. Palin can go on a big bus tour and tout her new movie, but until she steps to the microphone and says “I’m a candidate for president of the United States,” it really doesn’t matter.

So kick back, fight the springtime allergies and enjoy the latest big-budget movie to hit the big screen this summer; I’ll be figuring out how to lower my golf handicap to less than 8. Then, after the summer hiatus, we all can get serious about who will end up opposing President Obama in the race to become the 45th president of the United States.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

To everyone, have a great Memorial Day weekend. And give thanks to the troops who have given their lives for this country. Now its time for Roland’s Cookout Rules, don’t get it twisted …

If you are having burgers & hot dogs, we are NOT showing up. That’s a cookout for kids; not grown folks! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are having portabella mushrooms on the grill, I’m cussing your azz out & leaving. That’s a fake cookout! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you still wear a jheri curl, you are not allowed anywhere near the BBQ pit. We don’t need your special sauce #Rolandscookoutrules

Unless you have a real job that can be proven with a time card or check stub, there will be NO take out orders #Rolandscookoutrules

If your child support payments are not up to date, your invite to the cookout has been revoked! #Rolandscookoutrules

Off brand beer or sodas will get you two smacks upside your head & an immediate ejection from the cookout! #Rolandscookoutrules

Wannabe rappers: we will not play your CD at the cookout. Only established acts who don’t cuss or shoot folks allowed #Rolandscookoutrules

You can play ball after we eat. No musty azz folks are allowed near the food. #Rolandscookoutrules

If you drop off your kids & leave, I’m calling Child Protective Services for abandonment. Watch your own bad azz kids! #Rolandscookoutrules

The drunk azz uncle we all have is not allowed to serve drinks. He will likely steal the liquor. #Rolandscookoutrules

I know folks on a health kick, but if I say get some bread, that’s WHITE bread! Brisket & multigrain don’t work! #Rolandscookoutrules

A grown azz man cookout means brisket, ribs, links, chicken. If you want turkey on the grill, stay ya azz at home! #Rolandscookoutrules

If u don’t eat beef or pork, you better enjoy the baked beans. That’s the only meat we have! #Rolandscookoutrules

If your stingy azz brought some meat, that don’t mean only you get to eat it. One pit, one family! #Rolandscookoutrules

Bruhs, if your new woman comes by & don’t speak to erbody in the house, take her azz back where you picked her up! #Rolandscookoutrules

Sisters, if your new man comes by & looks one of my nieces up & down, all the men are whuppin’ his azz. Got it? #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are a smoker, you better quit 3 days before the cookout. We don’t want to smell nicotine all in your clothes! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you have not previously been certified by my mama, your potato salad & cole slaw cannot be put in the rotation. #Rolandscookoutrules

To anybody who owes me money: hell no you are not welcome to the family cookout! #Rolandscookoutrules

We have an old school cookout. If it’s time to play Scrabble, we want the board game w/real tiles, not your iPad! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you have not been family-certified, you CANNOT play spades, dominoes or bid whist. Go practice & come back #Rolandscookoutrules

If u just started baking, you are not allowed to bring any desserts. Only approved pound cake/peach cobbler allowed. #Rolandscookoutrules

The recliner is for daddy, mama, big mama or paw paw. You sit in it as long as they aren’t there. 1 show up, you azz up! #Rolandscookoutrules

If we get 2 discussing politics & u say “Barack,” I’m bustin’ u in the head w/big mama’s cane. It’s Pres Obama #Rolandscookoutrules

If politics come up & you defend Rush, Donald Trump, Glenn Beck or Hannity, I’m bustin’ you in the head w/big mama’s cane. #Rolandscookoutrules

If u didn’t bring extra underwear for your kids, & u knew they aren’t potty trained, your sorry parenting azz can’t eat #Rolandscookoutrules

If u need a ride & u are just calling, I guess u having Popeye’s on Memorial Day #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are to boogie to do the Cupid Shuffle or the Electric Slide, you can leave my house now! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you don’t remove your hat in my house or your do rag, it WILL be removed. Ya feel me? #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are an ex-felon, don’t act like none are in your family! – you must remain outside at all times. No excuses. #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are divorced & we never liked you, your sister Pam can drop the kids off & pick them up. #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are in a multilevel marketing program, & you try to pull a brochure out, you will be forcibly removed by the ex-felon. #Rolandscookoutrules

If you are complaining about the heat, shut the hell up! We don’t do cookouts in the damn winter. #Rolandscookoutrules

When i say put some Ross on, I mean Diana Ross. NOT Rick Ross! #Rolandscookoutrules

When I say put the King on, I mean BB King, damn sure not Elvis! #Rolandscookoutrules

When I say put some soul on, I mean Stax/Atlantic/Chess Records, not neo-soul! #Rolandscookoutrules

When I say put some Motown on, I mean when Berry Gordy owned Motown! #Rolandscookoutrules

And when Big Al Carson’s “Take Your Drunk Ass Home” is played, I mean it. TAKE Y’ALL’S DRUNK ASSES HOME! BOOM! #Rolandscookoutrules

If you show up with your underwear showing, that ass we see will get whupped! #Rolandscookoutrules

Bruhs, if you show up Timbalands & jeans, I’m patting you down. No one legal wears those hot azz clothes to a cookout #Rolandscookoutrules

Ladies, if we can see your organs, your clothes R 2 tight. The ladies on the usher board will pull you aside & school you #Rolandscookoutrules

Fellas, no wife beaters. A sweaty man in a wife beater at a cookout is nothing great to look at #Rolandscookoutrules

If your kids are out there dancing like a pole dancer, I’m snatching them off the dance floor AND their mama & daddy! #Rolandscookoutrules

If u go use the restroom, we are doing a hand inspection before you get near any food. Wash up! #Rolandscookoutrules

Ladies, if your legs look like a Chia Pet, wear some pants. Lord, please, no hairy legs! #Rolandscookoutrules

Lastly, If you found a way here, find a way back. There will be no passing of the hat to call u a cab with ya broke azz! #Rolandscookoutrules

Roland Martin delivers Grambling State University’s commencement speech entitled “Don’t Say Toby.”

Source: Sara Patterson / The Commercial Appeal

The morning he was scheduled to cover the Democratic National Convention in 2000 for MBC Network, Roland Martin woke up with a sharp pain in his side.

He was a 29-year-old freelance producer who didn’t have health insurance, he told the audience of new graduates and their loved ones at LeMoyne-Owen College Saturday.

By the next morning, Martin had to call an ambulance to get to the hospital, where he learned he had appendicitis. He left five days later having lost an organ and gained $100,000 in debt from medical bills.

This was not the way he’d pictured his life back in 1991 when he received his bachelor’s degree in journalism from Texas A&M.

“Today is the end of one process and the beginning of another,” he said. “And all of the starts and stops are a part of that process. … I went up, down, sideways, to get where I am now.But the point of his story, Martin told the historically black college’s 141st graduating class, is that life’s path is a far cry from the linear structure one follows in school, climbing from one grade to another until it’s over.

“And if you’re just happy you graduated, you missed the point.”

After delivering his commencement speech, the CNN correspondent received a degree of his own from LeMoyne-Owen — an honorary doctorate.

LeMoyne-Owen then awarded 110 degrees to a new pool of Memphis graduates, though they weren’t alone in their accomplishment, as Rhodes College and the Memphis College of Art also held spring commencement services Saturday.

The LeMoyne-Owen ceremony was warm and lively, with each grad receiving cheers and applause as they crossed the pulpit in Mt. Vernon Baptist Church to receive diplomas.

Several students who graduated with distinction were lauded for their accomplishments and all received an uproarious standing ovation at the close.

“I fought back tears,” said Rosaland Lewis, 34. “I really feel like I’ve accomplished something.”

Lewis received her bachelor’s degree in business administration while raising two children, 8 and 12 years old, respectively.

“I’m the oldest of 12 brothers and sisters, and I wanted to set a pattern,” she said. “I wanted to finish what I started.”

Her sentiments were echoed by Aqua Bratcher, 41, who graduated Saturday at the same time as her 22-year-old cousin Jennifer.

“I have three kids, and I wanted to show them that I could do it,” she said.

Edward Bachus, 25, said he plans to go back to his job as a deputy jailer at 201 Poplar, though his ultimate goal is to become an ambassador or diplomat.

“I’ve been coming (to school) on and off,” the political science major said, taking a moment to gather his thoughts. “It’s a blessing to be able to finish.”

Any Christian will tell you that when an individual confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord and savior, they are considered saved. No if, ands or buts. That’s when the conversation should end.

Yet for some reason, the question as to whether President Barack Obama is a true Christian continues to be challenged by many, and one of those who should know better is the Rev. Franklin Graham.

As the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, Franklin Graham is often called upon by national media outlets to discuss matters of faith. But when it comes to the question of President Obama’s faith, Franklin Graham has gotten a free pass from far too many folks in the media. And to be honest, his back and forth answers help to muddy the waters.

Recently, in an interview with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour on her Sunday show, “This Week,” Franklin Graham was asked whether President Obama is a Christian. He replied, “He has told me that he is a Christian. But the debate comes, what is a Christian?

“For him, going to church means he’s a Christian. For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith, and we have trusted him as our Lord and savior. That’s the definition of a Christian. It’s not as to what church you are a member of. A membership doesn’t make you Christian.”

Instead of challenging Graham with President Obama’s own words about his salvation, Amanpour ignores Graham’s sleight of hand by asking if he actually believes the president.

“Well, when he says it, of course I can’t — I’m not going to say, “Well, no, you’re not.” I mean, God is the only one who knows his heart,” Graham said.

But that’s exactly what he did! In Graham’s own sly way, he managed to say that he believes President Obama is a Christian because he said so, and then question if he’s really a Christian by suggesting that he’s just a guy who thinks if you show up at church it makes you one.

This two-step is dangerous because all of a sudden Graham has become the arbiter of who is and who isn’t a Christian through the eyes of those in the media. By even asking him the question, we are affording Graham a level of respect that he doesn’t deserve.

In fact, if anyone wanted to truly challenge Graham, all he or she would have to do is actually read what Obama has written on the matter.

In his best-selling book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama wrote that he “felt God’s spirit beckoning me.” And as a result, “I submitted myself to His will and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.” And he was baptized at Trinity United Church of Christ in the 1990s.

Yet polling from last year showed that 1 in 4 Americans believe the president to be a Muslim.

There is no doubt that his name plays into that as well as the fact that his father was a Muslim. I wonder if Dr. Ergun Caner has to contend with that. He was actually a practicing Muslim who converted to Christianity. And today, Caner is the dean of the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

It is simply a stubborn fact that too many Christian conservatives like Franklin Graham refuse to accept, something that Bishop T.D. Jakes — one of the world’s most prominent pastors — finds “insulting.”

“We didn’t question the Christianity of President Bush when he said he accepted Christ, and I’m disappointed in Rev. Franklin Graham in that regard,” Jakes told me Friday for my Sunday morning news show, “Washington Watch,” on the TV One cable network, which airs at 11 a.m. EST. “I wish he had the diplomacy of his father, who brought the gospel to people without being nuanced by politics, because when you do those things you offend people that you are actually called to save and to serve.

“And I would hope that he would see the rationale in apologizing for such statements — because if the president’s faith is suspect then all of our faiths are suspect, because the Bible is quite clear about what it takes to be saved, and the president has been quite open about his accepting Christ and him openly confessing it before men. And if it’s good enough for the Bible, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us.”

While Jakes has the courage to take on the issue, far too many fellow Christians have refused to call out Graham for his shenanigans, which is clearly an attempt to cast doubt on the issue. Where are the likes of pastors Rick Warren, Rod Parsley, Robert H. Schuller, John Hagee, Richard Land, Dr. Julius Scruggs, Paige Patterson, Samuel Rodriguez or even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? Are they too afraid to offend their congregations by directly challenging the erroneous assumptions of Graham and speaking truthfully and prophetically?

When Graham has gone on CNN, ABC and other media outlets offering his contradictory statements, they should have the courage to come out and say even Billy Graham’s son is dead wrong.

This isn’t an ideological issue. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Methodist, Baptist or any other Christian denomination. It has everything to do with Christian values and standing up and defending a fellow follower of the faith.

But the reality is that these days, when the Rev. Franklin Graham speaks, he sounds more like a partisan politician rather than a prophetic pastor.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Did you miss the Twitter battle between @rolandsmartin (Alpha) and @jamalhbryant (Kappa)? Here is your chance to replay the battle as it happened.

America, as a nearly 20-year professional journalist, it is with the utmost sadness that I offer to you a heartfelt and sincere apology for my industry’s creation and spectacle of the individual we all know — some love and others despise — as Donald John Trump Sr.

For the last two decades, my beloved media industry has chronicled every crazy antic, sadistic statement, business announcement, marriage, divorce, birth announcement and the selling of multiple products. It’s as if our livelihood depends on showering gobs of ink and airtime on “The Trump.”

We have afforded him the kind of respect normally reserved for people who have truly made a major difference in this world. Instead, the builder of gaudy buildings — replete with the kind of extravagance that would make a Saudi oil titan blush — has demanded that he be referred to as Mr. Trump. When he walks into a room, head turns, women faint and men quickly realize they are mere mortals compared to the indomitable Mr. Donald Trump. He is truly the most interesting man in the world (tongue planted firmly in cheek).

Yet with his flirtation with running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States, we have finally pulled the curtain back from this Wizard of the Weird. And what has been revealed is a man so obsessed with the sound of his voice that even when he lies, he pretends that it is the absolute truth.

Fact? What fact? I will just dismiss that with the wave of the hand or just refer to the press as Obama lovers to settle that.

With his rampant lying about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, Trump dominated the airwaves, pushing aside any discussions about real issues of the day. With breathless promos, respected TV networks and their anchors, correspondents and reporters actually held interviews with Trump, seemingly giving him the benefit of the doubt as he continued to advance his lies.

Instead of starting every interview with the most important question, “Donald, why do you keep lying?” we fell for the okey doke as if his joining of the birther movement somehow gave their wild, outlandish and untruthful view a dose of credibility.

Magazines, newspapers and online sources also got in on the act by running a number of stories, taking his pronouncements of running for the presidency seriously and even commissioning polls that showed Republican voters held him in high regard. All based on the hyping of a lie?

All of this created a firestorm of media attention, which all culminated in the coverage of President Obama’s news conference actually releasing his long-form birth certificate.

In addition, on that day, what did we see? A split screen of President Obama and “The Trump,” who was beaming like a proud hunter who bagged his prey.
Folks, the lavish attention paid to Trump — not only over the last few months but also over the last two decades — has been pathetic and morbidly obese. And no one in the media wants to own up to the reason why respected journalists actually would ask Trump about his opinion on domestic policy and world affairs. Trump is an attention grabber and a ratings magnet. Or as Robert Traynham, host of Comcast’s “Roll Call TV,” said on my TV One show, “Washington Watch,” on Sunday: “He makes good copy.”

Folks, therein is the real issue. Ask any real journalist and he or she will laugh at the crazy things that Donald Trump says. They will admit that his only knowledge about foreign policy is the Miss Universe pageant, but because viewers and readers love to rubberneck at the scene of an accident, it is great to see the potential train wreck when he opens his mouth.

I have had producers tell me their show ratings go up when he’s on. Forget the fact that what he says is a joke, news operations nationwide have allowed themselves to be pimped into running his outlandish comments. None of the major news organizations in this country is immune from doing this. NONE.

So, why should any journalist be shocked that Trump would be so callous and ridiculous in joining the birther crowd? He knew we would eat it up, giving him tons of airtime to spew his garbage. But like crack addicts in need of a fix, Trump is willing to supply us that hit so we can achieve that high, no matter how devastating it is to our system.

The destruction he left in his wake didn’t matter. As long as got what we wanted — more ratings, newsstand sales and record page views — and he got the attention that he desired, everyone was happy.

America, for this, I am sorry. I am sorry that my media brothers and sisters failed in being honest with you. I’m sorry that even as we patted ourselves on the back for our tough interviews with him on the birther issue, it does not negate the many times that respected journalists actually interviewed the gossip page mainstay about serious matters.

We fed the beast for years, and none of us should be shocked to see the beast go on a rampage. Again, America, I’m sorry.

Let’s just hope that respectable news organizations will remember the last couple of months and leave Donald Trump and those like him in the celebrity news trash bin.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Source: Global Grind

Donald Trump isn’t a racist but he is a liar, according to Roland Martin. The American journalist, TV commentator and frequent CNN contributor has been on a rampage as of late when the conversation turns to “The Donald.”

Martin went on a Twitter rant about Trump calling the real estate mogul pathetic and a travesty. In a tweet this morning, Roland said “Do not support Trump’s #CelebrityApprentice. He’s a travesty. I refuse to stay at Trump hotels; will NOT watch #CelebrityApprentice or buy products that continue to advertise on his show. He’s pathetic.”

Trump answered the claims about being a racist and stated “I am the least racist person on the planet. I have a great record on that, especially in terms of my friendships. And I have never heard of Roland Martin.”

After all the back and forth, GlobalGrind decided to reach out to Martin to ask him his thoughts on the matter. Here’s part of the  conversation.

Global Grind: Do you think he will run for president?

Roland Martin: Hell no! Quote me as clear as day, Donald Trump does not have the guts to run for President. I’m a native of Texas and there is a saying we have in Texas, you’re all hat and no cattle, and when it comes to politics, Donald Trump is all hat and no cattle. Donald Trump does not have the guts to stand on that stage and debate against serious people who are running for office. He reminds of that scene from that movie “American President” when the Michael Douglas character says “your 15 minutes are up.” This is a man who is toying with the idea of presidency, pure and simple. I can guarantee you right now, Donald Trump will not be on the ballot in Iowa for the first doggone caucus. He will not be on the ballot in New Hampshire, he is not going to campaign in South Carolina, because he does not have the intentional fortitude to run for President of the United States.

To read the entire interview visit GlobalGrind.com.

INDIANAPOLIS — As the final seconds ticked off the clock Tuesday night at Conseco Fieldhouse, the Texas A&M fans were exhilarated at winning their first-ever NCAA women’s basketball national championship, while the thousands of Notre Dame fans went home saddened by coming so close to winning it all.

It was a fabulous championship battle, as the two teams went back and forth, slugging it out like a heavyweight bout. It was a major contrast to the debacle at the NCAA men’s championship game in Houston the night before as Butler put up enough bricks against Connecticut to build a massive home. It wasn’t a well-played game on both ends of the court, and the reaction from those in attendance as well as home viewers left much to be desired.

If you want to call me biased since I’m a 1991 graduate of Texas A&M, that’s fine. I’ve never hidden the fact that I am a major supporter of my alma mater, and I would have moved heaven and earth to be in the Hoosier state to witness the national title game in person. But if you are a basketball fan, there was little doubt that the women’s Final Four was far more entertaining, exhilarating and better overall than what the men produced.

That’s right. This man is willing to say publicly that he enjoyed watching Danielle Adams, Skylar Diggins, Sydney Colson and Maya Moore far more than any of the men from Virginia Commonwealth, Kentucky, Butler and Connecticut.

And don’t get it twisted; there have been many women’s games over the years that caught my attention. The epic battle between UConn and Tennessee rivals that of North Carolina and Duke. So much of that is due to the war of words between Geno Auriemma and Pat Summitt. I bet Don King and Bob Arum didn’t dislike one another as much as these two do.

It is sad to listen to men, and especially women, denigrate women’s basketball as being inferior and not up to snuff compared to men. It’s great to see high-flying dunks by the men, but when you watch true team ball played by women, you’re reminded about what the game is all about: T-E-A-M.

What a lot of this comes down to is pure sexism by men.

It was stunning to read some of the insensitive comments posted on my Facebook and Twitter pages. The sexuality of the women was questioned, and individuals who would be angered if someone denigrated their race were quick to do the same based on gender.

So essentially it’s fine and dandy to assail other women, but when it’s one of your own family members, that somehow changes it all? I’m sorry, folks, that’s just plain dumb to me.

Yet the same disregard for the women’s game was evident among the top male basketball sports analysts. I get many of their tweets, and my BlackBerry was buzzin’ on Monday night during the men’s final. But on Tuesday, these astute individuals, many former players, didn’t say a word about the women’s championship game. At least LeBron James had the courtesy to send out two tweets congratulating Texas A&M on winning the title.

There is no question that the ratings gap between the women’s and men’s game is evident. Americans vote with their remotes, and even with a horrible game, Butler-Connecticut garnered an 11.7 game rating on CBS. The Notre Dame-Texas A&M women’s final on ESPN pulled a 2.3 overnight rating, averaging 3.8 million viewers.

But as we know from TV shows we watch, a show like “Mad Men” on AMC doesn’t pull in the same ratings as Charlie Sheen’s “Two and A Half Men” on CBS, but the quality difference is unquestioned.

If someone says they simply prefer not to watch a particular sport, I’m fine with that. Hockey and soccer have never been at the top of my viewing list. And even though I played baseball growing up and in high school, it bores me to death these days. But it’s not based on gender, as I see with women’s basketball critics.

But for that person who says watching men and women play boils down to quality, I can guarantee you that watching the top women’s teams is just as enjoyable as the top men’s teams. Whether it’s your alma mater or not.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Every four years, the folks from the great states of Iowa and New Hampshire get on my nerves.

While voters nationwide want their say in choosing a candidate for the next U.S. president, folks from these two states have a holier-than-thou view of themselves. They assume they know what’s best for the country — only they have the innate ability to discern the imposters from the genuine candidates. As a result, we all have to sit back and watch as every politician runs to Iowa and New Hampshire. They kiss the butt of every no-name county official or precinct chair, calling them on the birthdays of their children and doing all kinds of silly stuff just to wrangle their precious endorsement.

Please, pass the bucket. I think I’m gonna be sick.

Now Iowa and New Hampshire, joined by the abrasive folks from South Carolina, are in a tizzy because Florida legislators are demanding that their state move up their primary in order to have a sizable say in who gets the Republican nomination.

Their dastardly behavior has ticked off the Republican National Committee, but especially politicians in Iowa and New Hampshire, who are desperate to hold onto their exalted status.

Now here is what’s hilarious: Iowa and New Hampshire are mad that Florida legislators are taking such action, yet those two states actually passed laws telling the rest of the nation that they come before all of us! Seriously.

In Iowa, they passed a law that says their first-in-the-nation caucus must be held eight days before New Hampshire holds their primary. And in New Hampshire, they, too, passed a state law saying their primary must be held seven days before any other states.

So if you live in the other 48 states, you don’t mean a darn when it comes to presidential politics because these two arrogant states have taken the position that they mean more than anyone else.

And what’s shameful is that the two major political parties, which are not bound by the laws of the two states, participate in this trifling game out of a sense of tradition as well as an unwillingness to offend officials from the two states.

When the jockeying went on in 2008, officials from both states made it clear that they would be willing to change the law to ensure they go before anyone else. If someone moved their primary or caucus to the first week in January, well, Iowa and New Hampshire pledged they would go in December.

Last time, Michigan and Florida ran afoul of Democratic Party rules and had their delegates stripped, so when their primaries rolled around, it had no bearing on the delegate count.

Despite the camp of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton trying everything to make them count, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean held firm and said they broke the rules.

Now the folks from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina want the RNC to remove the convention from Tampa, Fla., if the legislature goes through with changing their primary date. Good luck with that.

Frankly, this whole process is really stupid. Yes, stupid. The folks from Iowa and New Hampshire can say they come from small states and it’s easier to do retail politics there, but that’s just a bunch of nonsense. They should just admit that they love the millions and millions of dollars that only comes to their states in terms of TV, radio and print ads, housing, and the bringing in of hundreds of campaign workers.

To me, It has always made more sense to have regional caucuses and not let one state determine the fate of candidates. What’s wrong with having the first round of voting take place in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio? The second round can consist of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania. The third round can be Nevada, Utah, Arizona and Colorado. In the fourth round, we can have South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Kentucky and Tennessee. And then group the rest of the states according to regions. Round one can be the third week in January, round two can be the third week in February, round three can be the third week in March and so on.

This way, far more voters can have a say in who should be president; the candidates won’t have to tailor a message to fit the likes and dislikes of just one or two states. And all of the attention — and fundraising dollars — won’t be lavished on who finished first and second in Iowa and New Hampshire.

It is time for the RNC and DNC to tell Iowa and New Hampshire that they don’t control the path to the presidency. And I call on every other state to pass laws demanding when their primaries should be held. Let’s stop treating the rest of the nation like second-class citizens. This is the only way to force the hands of the parties and stop with the catering and bending over to satisfy the whims of officials in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

There’s nothing like causing a huge stir on Facebook and Twitter with 140 characters, and that’s certainly what I did Thursday when I took to social media to show my disdain for celebrating St. Patrick’s Day.

This is what caused some of my followers to get a little stir crazy: “Is today St. Patrick’s Day? That’s a holiday I care nothing about. Never have. Is there a point other than wear green & drink?”

It didn’t take long for the furious responses to come flying in, and I must say that I wasn’t bothered a bit.

Yes, I was aware of the historical significance of St. Patrick’s Day, which originally was designated as a religious holiday celebrating Christianity in Ireland. March 17 also has been designated as a day of spiritual renewal and for the offering of prayers for worldwide missionaries.

That may have been the initial purpose of the day, but be truthful; hasn’t the day been reduced to one of wearing green (pinching someone if he or she doesn’t have it on) and getting flat-out drunk to the point of not knowing your own name?

For as long as I can remember, St. Patrick’s Day has been all about wearing green and drinking. I was born Catholic, and trust me when I say that church and prayers never were associated with St. Patrick’s Day.

Maybe in the old country of Ireland St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated as originally intended, but not in this country. Public drunkenness is what the day has been reduced to.

That seems to be the problem with most holidays in this country. For some reason, Presidents Day means a plethora of mattress ads in the paper.

Are we suggesting America’s commander in chief is always sleeping on the job? Christmas is more about Santa and reindeer than the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Christians have called Easter Sunday “Resurrection Sunday” to celebrate the death, burial and revival of Jesus Christ, but many of you think of bunnies, hard-boiled eggs and chocolate. Memorial Day is supposed to be about honoring those in the U.S. military who have died in service, not what will be the big blockbuster movie to debut.

The problem could be that in a capitalistic society, the mixing of spiritual holidays with pagan rituals justifies them in the eyes of many. Our desire to spend, spend and spend could be at the heart of the issue. Do you want to tick off a family member? Tell him Christmas gifts won’t be under the tree this year.

As a result, if we slap a holiday logo on a sale sign, boom! The holiday celebration is now on!

Maybe it’s time for people of accountability to tell others that the commercialism needs to stop. St. Patrick’s Day should return to being about the spirit — and not the spirits sold at the bar.

Get angry all you want. Post comments saying I’m being unfair to the Irish. But I’m just as critical about folks who only see the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as an excuse for a barbecue rather than as a day of service.

The next time there is a holiday, especially a nationally recognized one, remind yourself and your family why it was created. Maybe that will change how you celebrate it.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Gas prices are skyrocketing nationwide, and Americans are angry that they have to spend more of their hard-earned money at the pump each week.

The crisis in Northern Africa, specifically in Libya, has led the dramatic rise in the cost of oil over the past month, which now tops $101. And with summer approaching, Americans are fretting over whether to hit the highway for vacation because of the price of gas. It’s averaging $3.54 nationwide and is expected to go even higher.

Our political leaders? Some Democrats and Republicans are leaning on President Barack Obama to open the strategic petroleum reserve and use some of the millions of oil barrels we have on tap to alleviate the price.

In his news conference on Friday, President Obama said he’ll release the oil if needed.

“All options are on the table when it comes to any supply disruption,” he said.

Is this Groundhog Day or what? Three years ago, this nation went through convulsions when gas prices skyrocketed. Folks were sharing rides, which pushed elected officials to broaden public transportation plans. Hybrids and electric cars started getting a second look from gas-conscious drivers. And all the talk was about alternative energy and not being dependent on Arab leaders in the Middle East.

And when those gas prices went back down? We yelled, screamed and cheered. Forgetting about all the pain we endured, we then pulled the SUVs out of the garage and filled them up with gasoline.

This is the American story: Alleviate us from our pain, so we can go back to business as usual. And when the crisis responds, we’ll fret, scream and go bonkers.

Please, stop the madness! When are we simply going to reach the conclusion that as long as this nation has a Charlie Sheen-like addiction to gas, our chains can be yanked at any time, which will send our economy into a tailspin?

The U.S. Energy Department predicts that with the dramatic rise in gas prices, the average American family will spend an additional $700 annually on gas. And with money already tight, that is a huge hit.

Unfortunately, our crack-like view on oil continues to lead us down the road of agony and despair. Our political leaders have no courage to own up to the special interests and gas lovin’ Americans.

They say, “Dammit, enough! We can’t move forward like this!”

Democrats and Republicans are now saying President Obama needs to allow for drilling off the U.S. shores. Really? So, that’s the only answer? Everyone knows there isn’t enough oil to satisfy America’s thirst. But oh, no, we keep this charade up.

America will never be able to transition our system from an oil-dependent economy to an alternative plan, unless we accept the courage to make the tough choices today and get the payoff later.

I don’t care what Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) says about the energy-efficient light bulbs. The old ones were cheaper, used more energy, and I had to buy a lot more. The government forcing a new light bulb standard caused some pain on the front end with my wallet, but over the long term, fewer bulbs are being bought, and I’m seeing the decrease in my light bill.

Until this nation accepts this reality, we will continue to be driven crazy by oil-possessing countries.

This alternative energy must be based on wind, natural gas, electric and solar. How can the United States create solar technology and then allow the Chinese to become the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels?

Embracing non-oil energy alternatives can absolutely create jobs in this country, and we should require Americans to make their home more energy efficient with products built by Americans. What’s wrong with that?

No one alternative energy source can replace oil. It has to be a comprehensive plan that addresses our long-term needs. And it is going to mean that we spend money. Yes, we will be impacted in the short term, but if someone told me we could spend $500 billion today, and that would create millions of jobs over the next several years and lead to an energy economic transition, I would ask where I should sign up.

But when we have no courage, we will lose every time.

So if the only thing you know is “drill, baby, drill,” and that gas is our only option, great. Have a great time. And every time gas skyrockets, just smack yourself upside the head with that gas pump, since you’re the reason we remain stuck on stupid when it comes to energy in this country.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

When then-Sen. Barack Obama gave the speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that thrust him into stardom, he made it clear that it’s time to shed the red state/blue state nonsense and embrace the concept that “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

So if we can stop with the ridiculous labels and categorizing of states politically, can we also do away with the nonsense of who hails from real America?

This insulting, degrading and separatist view came into full view this week with the nonsensical comments of Fox News host Mike Huckabee, who continued the false assertion that President Obama was raised in Kenya. It was such a blatant lie that Huckabee tried to clean it up later by saying he meant Indonesia.

But what was even more galling was the former Arkansas governor trying to advanced the fictitious notion that Obama has a worldview that’s essentially un-American and out of the norm.

“I have said many times, publicly, that I do think he has a different worldview and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience,” Huckabee said in a radio interview. “Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas. And I just do think that there is — again, I am not saying he’s not a citizen, I’ve never said that, I’ve said the opposite. I’ve never said he’s a Muslim.”

First, real reporting by a real news network like CNN proved that Obama didn’t grow up in madrassas, a Muslim religious school. Was part of his childhood in Indonesia? Yes. But part was also in Kansas and Hawaii? Yes. And just in case Huckabee skipped a geography class (similar to Minnesota GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann skipping American history), Hawaii and Kansas are two of the 50 U.S. states.

This divisive language does nothing to advance the different communities in which all of us were raised. Many still chafe at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin defining “small town” America as “real America.” Hell, I get offended as a native Texan when I meet a New Yorker who assumes I’m from the country and haven’t been to a civilized world. That kind of worldview is dumb and filled with stereotypes and bone-headed assumptions.

You would think Huckabee would be careful with such language. There is no doubt he doesn’t like folks making ridiculous comments of inbred families in Arkansas or a state full of hillbillies.

See, Huck, I wasn’t raised in Indonesia.

Both of my parents are black, and I can tell you that my neighborhood didn’t have a Rotary Club. And there is no indication that Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts were in full force in Houston’s Clinton Park. But that doesn’t mean I’m less of an American than you.

This is what happens when you have a view that doesn’t fully take in everyone. It sort of reminds me of Sen. Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign when he kept harking back to the days of Ozzie and Harriet when life was so much simpler. He never seemed to understand that if you were an African-American oppressed under Jim Crow or a woman without many rights, you wouldn’t look so fondly on the good old days.

When we began to define America only through our lenses, we fail on so many levels. What makes America truly great is that there is no one American way of life and no one culture; it is a combination of different flavors, blends, palettes and colors.

During an interview Friday from Los Angeles for my TV One Sunday morning show, “Washington Watch,” Gen. Colin Powell, a son of immigrants, dismissed Huckabee’s analysis as “just another way of attacking” President Obama politically and to “try and confuse people.”

“We’ve got to knock this nonsense off,” Powell said. “Barack Hussein Obama, as I have said before, was born an American. He is an American. He’s never been anything but an American.”

He agreed that trying to divide the nation is “coded” language that’s wrong and dangerous.

“I made the point that there is not a good America or a bad America. There is not small-town America is good and big-town America is bad. Don’t tell me that I lived in a bad America because I was born in Harlem and raised in the South Bronx,” said Powell, who was honored Friday with the NAACP’s President’s Award for his lifetime achievement.

“I had a great upbringing, and I had parents who believed in America with all their heart … but they were immigrants … I was a black kid living in a segregated country, and all that has now changed. And so any American is a good American if that American believes in the country; believes in himself; and is contributing to our society. We shouldn’t fractionate ourselves by north, south, east, west, rural or urban.”

Maybe Mike Huckabee ought to spend some time with an American hero like Gen. Powell. He could learn a thing or two about an America that doesn’t look like the one he grew up in.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) now says he was stunned after an elderly man at a town hall meeting said, “Who is going to shoot Obama?”

Broun was so stunned that it took him three days to finally issue his own statement on the comment, which was reported in the Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald. Broun now says the comment was so offensive that he didn’t want to even “dignify it with a response.”

“Therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question,” Broun said in his statement. “After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities. I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements — made in sincerity or jest — that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the president of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.”

I’m sorry, folks, this is simply utter BS, and Broun’s statement isn’t worth the paper it was released on.

You would think that a sitting member of the House of Representatives would not take kindly to anybody — young, middle age or elderly — making a joke about shooting an elected official after that body, and the nation, was stunned at the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on Jan. 8 as she met with her constituents.

In his statement, Broun said such comments “cannot and will not be tolerated.”

But he did tolerate it. Just imagine what the story would have been had Broun manned up and looked that elderly man in the eye and said, “Sir, how dare you? I don’t care if you disagree with the policies of President Obama. I don’t care if you are a Republican and he’s a Democrat; that man is the president of the United States, and you or anyone else should be ashamed of making light of shooting OUR president. This nation suffered greatly after the tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and we fervently prayed for the health of President Ronald Reagan when he was seriously wounded. Sir, I ask you to apologize right now to me, to the people in this room and to the president.”

If Broun had made that kind of tough statement, there is no doubt that he would have been applauded for showing some conviction and denouncing — on the spot — any hateful comments.

Instead, Broun stood there like a wimp. And according to blog commenter Mark Fermer, Broun laughed along with the audience to the question.

So, what did Broun say in response to the question?

“The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president,” according to the Athens Banner-Herald. “We’re going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president … who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

“There’s a lot of frustration?” Broun essentially tied shooting the president of the United States to those not happy with President Obama’s policies.

It’s this kind of hateful rhetoric that should anger the American people. And conservatives and Republicans should be outraged that one of their own would even utter such a comment. If this comment had been made at a town hall meeting of a democrat under President George W. Bush, and a House democrat responded with a similar meek response, the right wing would rightfully be up in arms for the lack of an immediate denunciation. It’s perplexing to me why folks are just unwilling to set an audience straight for nonsense.

In 2008, while speaking at an election forum in Houston, a fellow speaker made a comment about the work being done by President Bush in Africa, especially as it related to malaria and HIV/AIDS. The mostly black audience of 1,000 essentially said nothing.

I grabbed the microphone and scolded them for their silence. I said it was shameful that their dislike of President Bush would allow them to not be thankful for the billions he earmarked for the Motherland to eradicate the deadly diseases. Then, and only then, did the audience begin to clap in approval.

It would have been wrong for me to not say anything at that time. Giving credit to good deeds in Africa doesn’t even compare to a fool joking about shooting the president, but we can’t be so impotent in not challenging our supporters, friends or family for their ridiculous behavior.

Rep. Broun, shame on you for not setting that elderly man straight; shame on the others there who didn’t immediately stand up and chastise him for the comment. And shame on that man whose ignorance knows no bounds. Clearly, he has no respect for this nation and the office of the president of the United States.

Whether you voted for him or not, if you’re an American, President Barack Obama is OUR president. And he deserves the proper dignity and respect we expect of all those who have held that office.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

The feud between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and that state’s employees has all of a sudden become ground zero in the battle between efforts by the GOP to shut down unions as they exist and those same union workers desperate to hold on to long-fought wages and benefits.

This pitched battle is clearly a precursor to the 2012 elections, but it is also the latest shot across the bow of union purists who are relentless in waging a war against government and business for the benefit of their members.

My dad is a union man, working for nearly three decades for Amtrak. I strongly believe in unions and their right to exist, as well as to fight on behalf of the little man or woman who doesn’t stand a chance against big business and government officials who see them as the enemy.

However, with all of that said, the economic climate we live in today means that union activists will not be able to fend off the calls for their members to pay more for health benefits and accept other concessions in order to meet budget shortfalls on the local, state and national levels.

Walker wants public employees in Wisconsin to pay more for health care benefits and to contribute to their pension plans. Frankly, those are reasonable requests. Where he has largely run into trouble is in the effort to end the collective bargaining rights of the various public employees.

First, the need to pay more for health care and pensions. An increasing number of Americans who work in the private sector are paying 50 percent or more of their health care costs. Yet when you look at government employees, many local and state governments are paying upward of 80 percent to 90 percent of health care costs. I do not think unions will be able to win over the public when elected officials ask them to pay for an additional 5 percent to 10 percent of their health care costs.

Workers nationwide are being asked to pay for more, and it is unreasonable for public employees to think that taxpayers are not going to ask them to do the same. A few years ago, when I ran the Chicago Defender, workers with the City Colleges of Chicago went on strike because they were being asked to pay more for health care.

That was six years ago. Over that period, health care costs have skyrocketed, and that is putting even more pressure on public entities when it comes to budget shortfalls.

Anyone paying attention to the crisis at General Motors prior to the government bailout would have seen that the health care obligations for retired and current employees contributed to the massive debt the company built up. Yes, GM negotiated these concessions years ago, and employees went to work every day thinking the company would take care of them for life. Well, those days are long gone, and they will not return.

The same can be said of the massive pension obligations. For years, government officials and private companies told workers that once they retired, a gold watch and a pension for life would be waiting for them. But too many officials held off on putting the money into their pension funds, trying to pay for other things and not taking care of the workers they leaned on for years.

Today? Cities from Houston to Chicago are facing billions in pension shortfalls. And with no help coming from the state or federal governments, everyone is scrambling to solve the problems.

This comes down to basic economics. If no additional revenue is coming in due to a refusal to raise taxes, coupled with the dramatically falling property tax revenues, government officials have no recourse but to go to the negotiating table with unions.

No one likes to lose benefits. We all want what was promised years ago. However, it is simply not going to happen. As long as these budget deficits are staring taxpayers in the eye, unions are putting themselves in a difficult situation by thinking they will not have to give something back.

Otherwise, union workers will end up like the police and firefighters in Camden, N.J.: playing hardball, only to see a mayor slash their jobs and leave half of the cops unemployed with no health care and limited choices for the future.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

It’s always interesting talking to American youth, especially African-Americans, who are quick to suggest that the “old ways of doing things” — like marches, rallies, protests and boycotts — have no effect on changing public policy today.

Maybe someone should tell that to the people in Egypt, who brought the 30-year regime of Hosni Mubarak to its knees and forced him to resign over the course of 18 days.

While Mubarak tried desperately to hold onto his powers, the millions of Egyptians, led by the nation’s disgruntled young, made it clear that waiting for him to not seek re-election in September wasn’t enough; they wanted him gone. Today.

Their ability to remain unified reminded me of “the fierce urgency of now,” often proclaimed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. When the people want freedom, asking them to wait is a waste of time. What did Dr. King title his letters from a Birmingham, Ala., jail? “Why We Can’t Wait.”

As the developments in Egypt were covered each day, it was eerily similar to that of the Civil Rights Movement. The spark in North Africa began with a Tunisian farmer setting himself on fire to protest police trying to extort money from him. In 1955, the fire burning inside African-Americans was lit by the brutal murder of Emmett Till.

In Egypt, the nation’s youth used Facebook, Twitter and Flickr to get their message out and to show the world that they were unwilling to continue to live in a state of oppression. During the Civil Rights Movement, long before Time, Newsweek and The New York Times showed up, the Chicago Defender, Memphis Tri-State Defender and a host of other black newspapers were the outlet used by leaders to get their message to the masses — as chronicled by Gene Roberts and Hank Kilbanoff in “The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation.”

One of the galvanizing forces in Egypt was 30-year-old Wael Ghonim, a Google marketing executive. His arrest, and subsequent release, rallied the people even more.

We can’t forget the arrests of a 26-year-old preacher in Montgomery, Ala., and other cities that put the attention on the oppressive nature of Jim Crow all across the South, galvanizing his supporters. That man was Martin Luther King Jr.

His insistence of following a nonviolent path to changing America was seen and felt all across Egypt. Knowing full well that they would not have the sympathy of the world if they chose to take up arms against their oppressors, the Egyptian protestors maintained their commitment to civil disobedience. And just like when Bull Connor and angry mobs showed their violent ways against fellow Americans, the world seethed with anger as pro-Mubarak supporters killed protestors and the secret police were unleashed with fury. The people in Egypt were just as brave and fearless as the people in Selma, Ala., and Little Rock, Ark.

During the Egyptian crisis, even the reaction from today’s American political leaders was similar to the lack of forthrightness during the Civil Right Movement. Instead of being unequivocal in standing for full freedom for all Egyptians, political leaders hedged their bets, trying to protect their interests and not those of the people demanding a change.

While many feared for what America would look like when Jim Crow was crushed, too many fear what will happen in Egypt in a post-Mubarak world. It is abundantly clear that those demanding freedom will not accept anything less. They want free and fair elections; they want the government to care more about the poor and disenfranchised, not just the well-to-do.

Martin Luther King Jr., Ella Baker, Whitney Young, Roy Wilkins, Dorothy Height, A. Philip Randolph, Fannie Lou Hamer, Fred Shuttlesworth and countless others didn’t settle for some freedom; they demanded full access to democracy.

And I have no doubt that the people of Egypt will not stop protesting and rallying and mobilizing and organizing until their dreams of democracy become a reality.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

OK. Here we go! It’s time for Roland’s Valentine’s Day Rules!

If your woman is already asking you what is planned for Feb. 14, tell ‘em, “Nothing!” But March 14 will be jumpin!

Ladies, if your man spends $150 on some roses that were $40 a month ago, smack his azz for being a bad steward!

If you have been putting off that dental visit, schedule it for Feb. 14. Nothing says I love you like a root canal!

If your mate says you get that “special attention” in bed on Feb. 14, ask them why the other days aren’t special!

Who gets the best Valentine’s Day gift? RETAILERS! Why? Because Feb. 14 is really THEIR day!

If your woman comes out of the bathroom in a flannel gown after you took her to a 5-star French restaurant, there is NO love in your house!

If your man comes out of the bathroom scratching and his knees and ankles look like he’s been kicking floor, put on BB King: the thrill is gone!

If Valentine’s Day is the day to say I love you, doesn’t that mean I Hate You the other 364 days? So say it!

Why are you mad I wrote “I Love YOU” on a post-it note & didn’t buy a Hallmark card? What happened to it’s the thought that counts?

Ladies, stop the peer pressure on Valentine’s. No, I didn’t buy her flowers. Yes, your man is a cheating on you. Mind yours, I mind mine!

If you ask me what I’m getting my wife for Valentine’s Day, say a new friend for her because you are too damn nosey!

If your woman says u cheap because her Valentine’s Day gifts weren’t expensive enough, take ‘em back. Might as well be cussed out and save money!

On Feb. 14, rent Precious & For Colored Girls. Nothing says “I Love You” like those 2 movies!

On Feb. 14, sit down with your mate & watch the TV marathon of Oz. Nothing says “I Love You” like a prison drama!

Feb. 14 is the best day to babysit your ignant nieces and nephews. Tell your mate: “I just love the kids! Wanna come?”

Feb. 14 is the best day to work late. If she gets mad, tell her she motivated you to put in the extra work on the job!

Unless you are a Kappa, Delta or Santa Claus, you have no business wearing those red “I Love You” socks from last year!

Wanna surprise your lover on Feb. 14. Book a weekend getaway to Egypt. Lots of love for Mubarak to go around!

Ladies, ain’t NO difference between flower shop roses and convenience store roses. NONE!

Breakfast in bed on Feb. 14: a microwaved honey bun & an apple. SAME as toast and sliced fruit. The thought counts!

In my mind, baby, I got you a new house & car on Feb. 14 to say I Love You. Remember, it’s the THOUGHT that counts!

Why do I go in on Valentine’s Day? Because it’s not about love; it’s about commercialism. Gifts, flowers, meals, cards, candy and stuff.

Feb. 14 should be called “Makeup Day.” It’s the day folks focus on their lover to make up for the other 364 days of ignoring them.

Feb. 14 is a day of peer pressure. Women put pressure on men; men put pressure on men. Folks have ridiculous stress levels. Why?

I’m a romantic. I like pleasing my wife. Going out. Buying gifts. Showing love & affection. But why do it on one day and not the other days?

McDonald’s launched 365Black to focus on Black History 365 days a year. So why not focus on 365Love? Show your love DAILY, not for one day.

I would think your lover wouldn’t mind “just because” flowers on Oct. 14, Nov. 14 – my birthday! – May 14 or June 14.

I think your spouse would love a card from you on a day other than Valentine’s Day. Or a gift. Or a donation to their favorite charity.

I think your lover wouldn’t mind a spa treatment on a weekend in July or October or May. Is that less significant than Valentine’s Day?

Our silly infatuation with Valentine’s Day has cheapened love. It has made it about the pocketbook & not the heart. The motive is the problem.

If Valentine’s Day is your thing, no problem. But don’t pressure your lover to do things on this day. If all the focus is on Feb. 14, YOU have a problem!

In 6 or 7 hours, the crib will be packed with crazy sports fans ready for the Super Bowl party. Here are Roland’s Rules for today!

Rule 1
It’s Pitt vs GB. I don’t want to hear a damn thing about how your team COULD have made it. They didn’t. Shut up.

Rule 2
The SB party begins after 1 pm. If u don’t go to church, don’t come early. It’s Jesus THEN football u heathen!

Rule 3
Chips are an important pre-game meal. If u bring ANY off brand chips, u will be refused service & thrown out.

Rule 4
If u don’t like football, DO NOT bring your hatin’ azz to the Super Bowl party! I’m not listening to your BS today!

Rule 5
NONE of my 4 HDTV’s are for non-Super Bowl viewing today. U want to watch something else, bring your own damn TV.

Rule 6
Unike the party poopers at the White House, team gear is allowed. But no MLB, NHL, NBA stuff. This is the NFL’s day!

Rule 7
No, we will not set aside you a plate because u are running late again. Bring your azz to the Super Bowl party on time!

Rule 8
Non-football discussion is not allowed during the game. Take that ish outside. I’m not having it!

Rule 9
Fellas, if your woman knows more about football than you, don’t start none. I’m taking her side, ya punk azz!

Rule 10
The TV DOES NOT turn to any other coverage. At haltime, we’re watching the Black Eyed Peas. No turning!

Rule 11
HEAR YE! HEAR YE! DAMN THE COMMERCIALS! WE WILL NOT BE REWINDING OR PAUSING TO SEE THE DAMN COMMERCIAL AGAIN!

Rule 12
I have a Bose system. If u choose to question every play call, i’m turning it on full blast & bust yo ear drums!

Rule 13
Your playing days in Pee Wee, high school & college doesn’t measure up today. It’s NOT the same, so SHUT UP!

Rule 14
Today is FOOTBALL food. If you grill portabella mushrooms, I’m whippin your azz, going to Popeyes & going home!

Rule 15
EVERYONE watches the Super Bowl. There will be no kids room. Yours have ADD, keep their azzes at home.

Rule 16
If there is a great play, don’t call/text asking, did you see that play? Dumb azz, it’s the Super Bowl. We watchin!

Rule 17
If you bring your Franklin Covey & are planning the rest of your work week, I’m throwing you the hell out!

Rule 18
If you are working in a multi-level marketing scheme, I’m smackin’ yo azz today. I don’t wanna hear it. NOT today!

Rule 19
If you come to my party passing out business cards, I’m revoking your party privileges. No business today!

Rule 20
If you are coming to my party & selling your kids candy & candles for a BS school fundraiser, I’m cussin’ your azz out!

One last rule: if u want to watch Bill O’Reilly interview President Barack Obama, I’m throwing your azz out!

If Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler isn’t as accommodating the next time a fan walks up to him for an autograph, don’t blame him. When you suffer a knee injury in the NFC championship game and you’re treated like you cheated on your wife or turned over top secret military documents to Osama bin Laden, then you might be a bit hesitant, as well.

Like many Americans, sports are a part of my life. I follow football (Houston Texans), basketball (Houston Rockets), baseball (Houston Astros), high school (Jack Yates in Houston) and college sports (Texas A&M) with a passion like any other. One closet in my home is nothing but athletic gear of my favorite teams.

If there was a choice between all of the premium movie channels on DIRECTV and catching all of the NFL and NBA games, sorry, the movies lose out. That’s just the way it has always been growing up in my family. It wasn’t about playing sports, although I did spend two years on the baseball diamond in high school and the basketball court in junior high. Athletics provide a bond between folks who otherwise have nothing in common.

Yet with the passion for sports, not once have I ever felt it gave me the right to demand that athletes go out on the field and perform, no matter the cost to their health and livelihood.

It’s shocking, stunning and sad when listening to sports talk radio, reading blogs and watching folks on TV, whether they are fans or former athletes, act like nothing matters more on earth than seeing a player risk it all for a game.

There is no doubt that the stories of athletes fighting through pain are legendary.

Willis Reed of the New York Knicks is still brought up as a warrior willing to give it all. He essentially played on one leg in game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals, inspiring his team to victory and the title over the Los Angeles Lakers.

Kirk Gibson’s body was wracked with pain in game 1 of the 1988 World Series as his Los Angeles Dodgers faced off with the Oakland A’s. The gritty player could barely walk. But when manager Tommy Lasorda put his beaten-down slugger in as a pinch hitter, Gibson slammed a walk-off homerun. The Dodgers eventually won in five games.

The stories can go on and on, and these remarkable athletes showed tremendous courage.

But when the cameras disappear and there are no more plays of the day or ESPN’s SportsCenter highlights, the fans aren’t privy to our conquering heroes being unable to get out of bed, pick their children up, cuddle with their wives or even remember basic facts about their lives.

Some studies suggest the life span of football players is considerably shortened due to the frequent hits they endure.

It’s shameful that for the sports fan today, we have become like the Romans at the Colosseum, cheering and cheering our gladiators to where only the strongest remain standing after they have vanquished and killed the opposition.

Their lives are unimportant to us. All that matters is seeing them bring us the gratification of winning, so we can talk trash to our family and friends, collect on the bets we placed (or likely pay up big when we lost), and buy more and more gear to say “we” won.

Like any other fan, it’s great to see our favorite sports teams raise a championship trophy and banner. Skipping work to attend a victory parade is often justified. But no sports fan has the right to be indignant when athletes choose to remove themselves from a game due to injury.

We have become so arrogant to suggest that if athletes are getting paid millions of dollars, an injury should be ignored and they should be carried off the field. It is as if the tickets and gear we buy means athletes should ignore all common sense and keep performing.

“Leave it all on the field” is a familiar refrain of athletes, but does that mean their actually lives?

For all of the fans cheering around the world on Sunday as they watch the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers play in the Super Bowl: not one of them will take a crushing hit, risk a devastating injury on any given play, or possibly be carried off the field strapped to a stretcher.

Athletes are human. They are individuals with a job to do and are compensated to do it, like all of us. So in all of our earnest desire for them to bring us satisfaction, let’s remember we are watching someone’s son, brother, uncle, husband, cousin or friend.

Once the crowd has stopped cheering, athletes have a lot more life to live. At the end of the day, it is only a game.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

If you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood where your home has been broken into a dozen times and your children’s school is considered low performing, wouldn’t you take drastic measures to ensure they get a quality education?

That’s exactly what Kelley Williams-Bolar did, pulling her 12-year-old and 16-year-old daughters out of the decrepit school they attended in Akron, Ohio, and enrolling them in a suburban district where her father lived.

Williams-Bolar used her father’s address, where she alleges she lived part time. Yet the Copley-Fairlawn school district felt she was lying about being a resident. The district hired a private eye to follow her, videotaping Williams-Bolar leaving her public housing home and dropping her children off at the suburban school.

They confronted Williams-Bolar and demanded that she repay the district $30,000, saying she didn’t have the right to have her daughters in the district since she wasn’t a taxpayer.

When she refused, Williams-Bolar was indicted on two felony charges, found guilty and sentenced to 10 days in prison. As a result, the aspiring schoolteacher will never be able to enter the classroom due to the felonies on her record.

Once the story hit the national media, it led to significant coverage and angered folks nationwide. Some see this as an issue of race: the mother and her children are black; the district is largely white.

But that really isn’t the fundamental issue. What this problem should highlight for anyone is the clear disparities in urban and suburban school districts and how we have an education system that is unequal and unfair.

Too many Americans are delusional in thinking we have a national education system that is fair. It isn’t. We all know that you can go from community to community and see some elementary, middle and high school campuses that look like college campuses, while others look like prisons. Those districts with money hire teachers with master’s degrees and Ph.D.s; districts with little money rely on those with just teacher certificates. Those with money can invest in iPads and laptops; those without money are thankful just to have enough chalk, erasers and pencils.

It’s so bad that teachers nationwide often dip into their own pockets just to purchase school supplies for many of their students.

Yet well-to-do schools might have athletic complexes that rival universities in top athletic conferences.

Did Williams-Bolar break the law? Yes. Was her sentence fair? Of course not. When faced with a school system that will put our children further and further behind the learning curve, I dare say that many of us would have a “by any means necessary” focus to ensure they had the best chance to succeed.

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama presented his bold vision to transform our nation’s education system, but when the bulk of dollars come locally due to property taxes, there isn’t much the federal government can do. And that means if you live in a well-off neighborhood, you’re likely to see thousands more dollars being spent on education in that district, as opposed to districts where the property values are much lower.

The jailing of Williams-Bolar also raises the controversial issue of school choice. The Obama administration says it fully supports school choice, but that is limited to charter and magnet schools. I’ve long contended that all choices should be presented to parents, including vouchers, allowing those from the worst performing schools to be able to take the dollars allocated for their child and enroll in a private or parochial school.

If we are going to truly confront the education crisis in this country, nothing should be off the table. Whether we like it or not, there’s not one way to educate a child. Take your pick: public school, private school, home school, charter schools, technical schools, college preps, ROTC academies, magnet programs, all-male, all-female, even online-only schools. You name it, I’m for it.

All Williams-Bolar wanted was for her kids to have a shot. And at the end of the day, that’s what we all should want. But it is going to require men and women of conscience to stop with our attitude of protecting what we see as ours. We must be willing to create an education that is truly one this nation could be proud of.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Malcolm X once said that the one man you should be most afraid of is a man who is willing to die for what he believes.

When it comes to tackling the enormous deficits that are affecting our cities, counties, states and this country, we need politicians who are willing to lose their jobs at the ballot box in order to emphasize what he or she believes is right.

Case in point: Mayor Dana Redd of Camden, N.J. Camden is routinely ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in America. Yet due to a $26 million budget shortfall, Redd made it clear that unless city workers, especially police and firefighters, accepted a pay freeze and paid more for their health care, she would have to slash jobs.

Knowing full well that the last thing Camden residents could stomach would be fewer cops on the streets, the unions said no to the mayor’s request, essentially daring her to make the threatened cuts.

She dropped the ax, and it wasn’t pretty. Nearly half of the police force was fired, and one-sixth of all city workers — 335 in all — got pink slips. The workers were understandably angry about the firings, but Redd made it clear that the city had to have a balanced budget, and unless concessions were made, she had to do what she had to do.

Yes, her actions were drastic, but it is also a reality that municipalities are facing. Property values have plummeted; meaning those depending on property taxes must do so with less revenue. And with folks pinching pennies due to the economy, raising taxes is considered political suicide. Couple that with state governments facing their own deficits, and cities and counties can’t look for a bailout; they are on their own and must do more with less and make the necessary cuts.

These moves have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. This is all about living within your means — something every family has to contend with these days.

Surely, Redd knows that her actions could result in anger at the ballot box, but she’s on the money. And frankly, it’s time that voters — yes, voters — get serious about the nation’s financial problem and accept their role in this debacle.

When I hosted a morning show on WVON in Chicago, callers would often say they wanted this and that.

When I asked how it would be paid for, none would have an answer. When asked if they wanted taxes raised, they said no. Well, what about cuts? Nope. It is as if folks think there is a rainbow in the sky with a pot of gold at the end, which no one else has tapped into.

This is the message that Gov. Jerry Brown is trying to preach in California. Universities are angry about the massive cuts he’s proposed, but he’s making it clear that everyone has to share the burden of fixing the state’s $25 billion budget deficit.

In New York, former Gov. David Paterson kept sounding the alarm, but state officials from both parties, and all of the liberal and conservative interest groups, ignored him. Andrew Cuomo is now sitting in the governor’s mansion, and he’s threatening to shut the state down unless they face the music.

The only way this nation will get its fiscal house in order, local or national, is if we have politicians give us the news, regardless of how the pain is administered. Nationally, Democrats can’t be protective of Social Security and Medicaid, and Republicans can’t hold onto every defense dollar.

This week, the Republican Study Committee in Congress offered a thick packet of cuts totaling $2.5 trillion. Missing from it? Anything dealing with defense. On my One Cable Network TV show, “Washington Watch,” Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), chairman of the committee, said that everything should be on the table.

Frankly, their proposal should be thrown right in the trash. It’s clear that our elected officials are afraid of ticking off the particular needs of voters, so they kick the can down the road, hoping someone else takes on the tough stuff. That means voters must be strong enough to back up the hard choices that our elected officials must make.

Look, we all want parks, roads, care for the needy, protection by police and fire, potholes fixed in a timely manner, fresh flowers along our roads and highways, and all of our entitlements, but as a nation, we simply can’t afford it.

Instead of folks slamming Mayor Dana Redd for taking draconian measures, she should be celebrated. At least, she had the guts to do what so many others were afraid to actually do: lead.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

In the wake of the emotional and impressive memorial service to honor the six killed and 13 wounded in Tucson at the hands of a deranged gunman, the conventional wisdom is that despite pleas for civility, we will return to the pre-shooting days of yelling, screaming and highly charged partisanship.

In his speech to the nation, President Barack Obama, acting as the healer in chief, called on all Americans to rise above the nonsense of making politics a rhetorical blood sport and instead have a civil debate on the issues.

“I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here — they help me believe,” said President Obama. “We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.”

The knee-jerk reaction from many in the call for civility is to say that the First Amendment gives them the right to say what they want and when they want. But the right to freedom of speech also gives all of us the right to say “no” and “you’re not going to talk to me that way.” We can probe and debate yet we can do so without all the rancor and bitterness.

I found it laughable to listen to my media colleagues talk about this need for civility, yet many of us fan those flames by booking, promoting and giving more airtime to those who rant and scream at the top of their lungs. In the world of TV and radio, you’ll hear someone say, “Now that was a hot discussion! Can you come back tomorrow night?” Forget that the discussion ended up as being nothing but an attack on the other person, savagely ripping into “those liberals” or “those conservatives.” What often happens is the issue at hand is ignored, and folks walk away from a fight where no one benefits.

I’ve never been one who has shied away from being passionate about an issue, but as a responsible individual, I always accept the reality that what I say matters. People do listen. Folks form opinions based on what is said. And we can ramp up their blood pressure higher and higher or we can say, “That was a spirited debate.

Now let’s go and get a drink.”

If we want to embrace the notion of civility and humility in our discourse, it means not falling into our old habits. I was impressed that Roger Ailes, head of Fox News Channel, relayed to Russell Simmons’ GlobalGrind.com what he told his staff after the Tucson shootings: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.”

Who knows if this edict will be photocopied and posted in the office of every Fox talk show host — and throughout its newsroom — to serve as a reminder to everyone when the nation moves further away from the shooting.

And Ailes is correct that those who vehemently oppose the views of Fox News and conservative radio hosts must also adhere to the president’s call for civility. Maybe we should all make “Remember Gabby and the Tucson 6″ buttons, T-shirts and bumper stickers, as a way to stop someone in their tracks that chooses to become out of control.

It was the attempted political assassination of the moderate Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that ended up costing six people their lives and leaving another 12 wounded.

In an e-mail a day before the shooting, it was Giffords herself who openly discussed the toxic political dialogue that resulted in death threats against her.

“After you get settled, I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. I am one of only 12 Dems left in a GOP district (the only woman) and think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down,” Giffords wrote to Republican Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson to congratulate him on being named director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

Yes, we know the actions of the mentally ill shooter weren’t tied to the heated political rhetoric played out on radio, TV and online, but it still isn’t a healthy environment.

But as she heads for a long recovery from being shot in the head, “Remember Gabby and the Tucson 6″ should constantly ring in our ears.

Let’s have vigorous debates over the issues. But let’s do so as adults, not as petulant and out-of-control children.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

As a huge fan of college football, I’ve waited all year for this day: the crowning of a national champion.

So whatcha think? Will it be Delaware or Eastern Washington?

Yes, those two teams will square off in Frisco, Texas, Friday night to crown the national champion in the Football Championship Subdivision the right way: at the conclusion of a playoff.

No, I’m not talking about that joke of a game Monday night in Glendale, Ariz., for the national championship, where the only folks smiling will be the Arizona tourism commission and the supporters of the Bowl Championship Series.

The idea behind the BCS was to be able to use a variety of polls, factoring in all sorts of mathematical models, in order to determine which teams should square off for the national title.

After they show up armed with all of their highfalutin computers spitting out reams of data to show that Auburn and Oregon are without a doubt the nation’s top two teams, dare I say the BCS supporters are still full of crap.

There is no bias on my part against Auburn and Oregon, two fine football teams. But it is nonsense to suggest that this is the best way to crown a national champion. Not only is it undemocratic, but there is no doubt that determining who should play for the title of the best major college football team in America based on a poll is also un-American.

And that’s exactly how the brains behind the BCS want to keep it.

Folks, this is nothing more than a cartel. This current system is designed to keep out the upstarts that are not in the major conferences. This supposedly fair system makes it clear that only automatic qualifiers get a shot at playing for the big money and the big trophy. SEC? Yep. Big 12? No doubt. Big East? Thanks a bunch. Big 10? Hello, baby! ACC? Yes, sir! Pac-10? Sweet.

Yet if you’re from the “Little Sisters of the Poor” conferences — those are the words of Ohio State University President Gordon Gee when he derided TCU and Boise State for even being considered for a national championship game — you have to hope and pray the pollsters don’t screw you. That means the Mountain West, Sun Belt, Conference USA, the Mid-American and Western Athletic Conference all must rank in the top 12 of the BCS poll in order to get the automatic bid.

In the world of the BCS, this is all fair and above board.

Sorry, it stinks to high heaven.

There are a lot of folks to blame for this nonsense, but a lot of it lies at the feet of the presidents of the schools in the major conferences.

In fact, lying is a good word because they do an excellent job of it in trying to get us to believe academics is at the heart of their opposition to a playoff.

We’ve heard for years the ridiculous argument that the presidents put the student first in student-athletes and that a playoff would take too much time and keep them from their final exams.

Yet not a single college president opposing football playoffs can explain why in the Division 1-A — now known as the Football Bowl Subdivision — playoffs are used in basketball, baseball, golf, lacrosse, soccer, softball, tennis and volleyball.

For years, football teams in Division 1-AA, sorry, the Football Championship Subdivision, have had a playoff. That means teams earn the title the right way: on the field.

If there wasn’t a playoff in college basketball, Butler would have never been able to advance to the finals last year. Every year, the notion of a Cinderella team advancing into the Sweet 16, Elite Eight or Final Four would be moot because we could just pencil in the power conferences.

In the arrogance of the presidents, coaches and, yes, the media, these are the so-called best and toughest conferences in the nation. Forget those little schools that don’t have the big budgets and TV contracts; the big boys decide who is good enough.

Sorry, not buying.

A playoff is fair and just. Win on the field and keep winning, and you play for the title. Lose? You go home. Simple. Clean. Concise.

Like many fans, I’ll watch Auburn and Oregon because I love football. But don’t think that whichever team wins, they’ll be national champions. They will simply be the best team to win a supposed national title because they hail from one of the cartel conferences.

I’d rather raise a toast to Delaware or Eastern Washington.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

As a strong proponent of parental responsibility, it both amuses and angers me to see some parents lining up behind an initiative to sue McDonald’s over the inclusion of toys in their Happy Meals.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is leading the charge in this case by pushing the state of California to ban the toys. The group suggests that the toys in Happy Meals are inducing children to eat the burger and fries, thus contributing to the obesity epidemic in America.

As I asserted in my past column that supported first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative, I fully back efforts to end obesity among our children. But at what point do some folks use common sense?

For example, in a Chicago Tribune story, parent Monet Parham said her 6-year-old daughter was so enamored with toys offered in partnership with the movie, “Shrek Forever After,” that she pestered her mom to collect every toy. That would mean going to McDonald’s every week, since the promotion was a weekly giveaway. And that’s not something Parham wanted.

So instead of being a parent and telling her child, “no,” Parham decided to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Instead of being the grown-up and not giving in to the demands of a bratty 6-year-old, Parham thought it made more sense to sue McDonald’s to make her job as a parent easier.

I’ve long maintained that the problem today isn’t children or the world changing. Instead, the problem is punk parents changing. Yes, I know that’s a strong phrase, but when a parent can’t control a 6-year-old, we have some issues.

Do I have any biological children? Nope. But my wife and I have raised six of my nieces at different times. And when they lived in our home, we would take them to McDonald’s for a Happy Meal. And when we went, we would order them apples instead of fries. Instead of a soda, we would get apple juice or milk. Yes, it was that simple. All we did was order the healthier options on the menu, and the girls were happy with their Happy Meals.

Why is this so hard? There is a fundamental role that government can play when it comes to nutrition. Going after the cigarette makers who enticed children with cartoon characters to smoke? Good. Limiting trans fats in cooking? No problem here if it makes us healthier. But the McDonald’s lawsuit is ridiculous.

What we desperately need today are real parents. Parents should understand that it’s not their job to be friends with their children; they need to be parents.

It’s not a bad thing to have a disappointed child who doesn’t get his or her way all the time. Parents need to give their child the right look when the child begins to act like a fool and throw a tantrum.

I am not one of these adults who subscribe to the notion that no one can tell them what to do and they can do it all. For instance, I support sex education in schools and don’t believe that we should leave that up to the parents. It’s called education for a reason! Count me as a major supporter of schools changing their menus to have healthier-eating options. And I’m also down with school uniforms. The heck with the peer pressure of the haves and have-nots based on designer clothes. None of these prevent parents from doing what they want to do with their children. It’s all about focusing on the broader needs of the child.

What has to be understood is that a lawsuit isn’t the answer to everything. And if we want our children to be healthier, banning a toy will do nothing to make that happen. Push McDonald’s to make it more visible as to what healthy options are on the menu. I love the idea of having calorie counts on foods — it has changed my mind on many occasions as to what I was going to buy in a fast-food restaurant. Push fast-food joints to have a healther menu option by adding a salad, fruit and/or water instead of fries and a fountain drink. All of these make sense.

Trying to ban a toy because a parent can’t say “no” to their child is ludicrous.

My nieces and nephews know full well that when it comes to who is on control, Uncle Ro Ro doesn’t play around. I’m not their friend or buddy; I’m their uncle. What I say goes. I don’t negotiate. I don’t consult. I don’t give in. I make it clear: my money, my rules. As my dad told me, “When you’re grown enough to pay all of your bills, you can make the call.” __If a niece or nephew wants to go to McDonald’s every week for a month just to get a toy, but the deal is we only go once a month, here is the option: “We go once a month or not at all. Your call.”

Trust me, even the biggest child pest has enough sense to figure out that once a month is the better option.

Parents, buck up and become the adult in the family. Stop blaming everything on an outside agency or corporation. Maybe McDonald’s should think of suing sorry parents for not doing their jobs. Now that’s a lawsuit I’m willing to support.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

One of the reasons Defense Secretary Robert Gates commissioned a study on how the military feels about gays serving openly in the military was because it was ridiculous to listen to politicians rambling on and on, and not listen to those who have to do the heavy lifting.

And when the results were released showing more than two-thirds believed that the work wouldn’t be harmed by changing the 17-year-old law, it was clear evidence to many that the law needed to be overturned.

But when massive flip-floppers like Republican Sen. John McCain ignores the advice of the defense secretary and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — and continues to come up with more reasons why the rule needs to be kept in place — it’s no surprise that the measure failed to get enough votes this week to get beyond a GOP filibuster.

It was largely Republicans who blocked the measure from being repealed in the 57-40. The only Democrat to go along with them was Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Supporters of the repeal say they have the votes to overturn the law, but who knows if moderate Republicans will come up with more reasons why they can’t support the legislation. But it’s absolutely clear that it’s now time for this law to be revoked.

In an interview on my TV One Cable Network’s Sunday morning news show, “Washington Watch,” I talked with the top enlisted officer serving in Afghanistan, Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill. He made it clear that soldiers serving in the battlefield can be led to implement the changes if Congress will act.

“I’m thinking that the troops are ready for something like this,” the Memphis, Tenn., native said. “They are well led. We know that if there is a change, that change will have to be led, and it’s going to have to be led by senior leaders such as myself — and others across the battlefield.

“Senior leaders are the ones [that are] going to set the tone in the unit and enable the unit to move forward.”

When Sen. McCain was behaving like a reasonable politician whose word could be trusted, he said that if the top brass in the military supported repealing DADT, the former POW would follow their lead.

That was when more folks were against the measure. Now that the winds have shifted, so has McCain, who has promised to filibuster any effort to change the law.

As for members of the military who are as dead set against repealing the law as McCain, Command Sgt. Maj. Hill says it might be time for them to find another line of work.

“If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward — if that’s the way that we have to go,” said Hill, now serving in Afghanistan after three tours of duty in Iraq.

See, that’s what we call leadership. No flip-flops. No double talk, just straight talk. You know, the stuff Sen. McCain used to be known for.

When we have members of our military shedding the same blood on the battlefield, nonsensical that we would be discharging able-bodied men and women willing to serve their country because of their sexual orientation. I’ll bet $1,000 that if someone was on the front lines and mired in a fierce firefight, they wouldn’t give a flip if the person coming to their aid were homosexual. All that matters is that a fellow soldier wasn’t leaving his or her comrade on the battlefield to fend for himself or herself.

Our soldiers are showing tremendous courage on the battlefield fighting terrorists. It would be nice if our political leaders in Washington, D.C., had an ounce of their courage and commitment to get rid of a law that serves no usefulness in the 21st century.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

“Wait for it! Wait for it! Wait for it!”

That’s the famous line comedian Katt Williams uses in his stand-up act as a signal to his audience that the punch line to one of his jokes is coming.

That also could be the motto for Republicans these days when it comes to the Democrats eventually caving on the Bush tax cuts. For all of the bravado during the midterm elections coming from President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and countless other Democrats about not extending the cuts for millionaires and billionaires, it is becoming abundantly clear that Dems don’t have the intestinal fortitude to face down the GOP on this issue.

For several months, President Obama has said that he is willing to extend the Bush tax cuts for Americans making less than $250,000, which, over time, would have a $3 trillion effect on the U.S. deficit. Yet he has said that the nation’s richest Americans — those making more than $250,000 — don’t need the tax break and that the U.S. doesn’t need the additional $700 billion impact on the deficit.

The argument seems pretty simple, and the polling data back up the president. Poll after poll shows that most folks support extending the Bush tax cuts on the middle class but not on the top 2 percent of wage earners in America.

But the position of the Republicans is simple: We will acquiesce on tax cuts, but if all don’t get them, none will get them. That’s why the incoming speaker of the House, Ohio Republican John Boehner, labeled as “chicken crap” the bill that passed the House for extending the cuts for those making less than $250,000. In fact, congressional Republicans released a letter this week saying they will block any legislation Democrats offer up before dealing with the Bush tax cuts.

They have drawn a clear line in the sand and don’t care one bit about bipartisanship while demanding that President Obama compromise his position to come to their side of the room.

The calculus by the Obama administration is clear: If we can negotiate a deal that temporarily extends the cuts for all and we can get unemployment benefits extended, then that’s a win-win for the economy and all will be well.

But it won’t. Republicans will portray the move as forcing the president’s hand and making him bow down to their wishes, while the left will see this as the latest example of a party and a White House bending over backward to do what they say is right for America while the opposition makes clear that it wants to do what is right for its political base.

Frankly, the Republicans are going to play chicken with the Democrats and force them to blink, because they know Dems and President Obama don’t have the stomach to fight.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says his No. 1 goal is to make President Obama a one-termer, and the White House responds with smiles and “can-we-all-get-along” happy talk.

Whether you agree with them or not, Republicans always have been willing to use fear to their advantage, even if that means a burn-the-boats mentality. Like it or not, they are tougher than Democrats, and even the Democrats know it. While the Dems have to deal with a caucus mixed with Blue Dogs, doves, African-Americans, Hispanics and gays, the Republicans have mostly hard-chargin’ white conservatives who are in lock step with one another. The message: We ride and die together. The Dems’ message? Feel free to jump off if the road gets a little bumpy and your stomach goes squeamish.

If President Obama really believes that extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest of the rich would be bad, he should draw a line in the sand: It’s either a cut for those making less than $250,000 or else. Is it risky? Absolutely. Is the White House concerned that there could be a backlash if the GOP doesn’t blink and the Senate refuses to take up the House legislation? Of course it is.

But if your opposition always thinks you’re going to back down eventually, it’ll just wait you out until you give out. For the GOP, Dec. 31 is the drop-dead date for the cuts to expire. Republicans are going to hold out for all the cuts because they know the Dems will cave. The Democratic Party isn’t willing to flood the zone and truly paint the Republicans as standing in the way of giving the middle class a tax break. Democrats aren’t willing to go to the mats and fight for what is a so-called conviction.

Malcolm X once said the most dangerous man is one who isn’t afraid to die. Let me say now that the most susceptible man (or woman) is one who talks big but shrivels into a fetal position when push comes to shove. Democrats may be showing us they are unwilling to back up their talk with action.

And the Republicans are counting on that.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

The holidays are always a wonderful time to spend with family, enjoy some great food, and have an all around good time.

But we all know that there are times when things get a little crazy, and many of you have relatives that you flat out can’t stand.

So a few years ago I came with a list called “Roland’s Rules for the Holidays.” There is a Thanksgiving edition; one for Christmas; and another for a summer cookout.

Let me warn you in advance: I am frank and to the point (OK, there are a few curse words for the point of emphasis). Some are meant to be dead serious; others are meant to be light; and others are meant to be absolutely funny.

If you bother to take these at face value, you clearly have absolutely no laughter in your life. I do these to poke fun at the craziness and laughable things that happen when families get together. So sit back, read these, and enjoy. If you recognize your family here, keep it to yourself. They might not like you laughing at them!

1. You are not allowed to serve your own dessert. Some relatives are greedy as hell. So we will institute portion control for you greedy SOBs!
2. If you have a special ingredient that will set off a dish, keep it to yourself. We don’t need you screwing up the whole meal with experimentation.
3. If Thanksgiving dinner is at 1 p.m., don’t show up at 9 p.m. asking, ‘Where’s the food?’ Show your late ass up on time!
4. To-go plates are not MANDATORY. Don’t assume you can. Ask, dammit, and we will offer. No offer, go home the same way u came: empty handed. Don’t you dare bring your own Tupperware and foil ready to feed your household for the rest of the week!
5. If I tell you to pick up some ice, don’t grab one bag. All these folks can’t drink based on one lousy bag. A minimum of three bags is necessary, fool!
6. You have known Thanksgiving was coming for a year, don’t call my house for a ride to my house. Figure out your own damn transportation!
7. Once you have gotten to my house, no, you cannot borrow my car to pick up other relatives. They haven’t figured it out, it’s peanut butter and jelly for them!
8. If you haven’t paid your child support, your ass ain’t welcome at my house. I’m not playing with you. Don’t show up or furniture will be moving!
9. Look, if all we have is water and sweet tea, don’t be complaining about drinks. BYODD – bring your own damn drinks!
10. No cheap ass soda/pop. If I ask for Coke or Pepsi, bring it! No name, cheap ass soda/pop will get you cussed out in front of everyone, even your kids!
11. Look, if you don’t have your preacher papers, keep that Thanksgiving prayer short. We are not trying to go from dinner to breakfast. Got it?
12. If you bring that Paris Hilton dog in my house, I’m throwing your ass out. NO DOGS ARE WELCOME AT MY DINNER TABLE. Mutts stay outside.
13. Kids, no in and out. If you’re out, stay the hell out. I refuse to be vacuuming all day. Don’t mess up my carpet because you don’t know how to wipe your feet.
14. When grown folks are talking, kids, don’t interrupt. If you keep nagging your momma and daddy, #teamwhipdatass will be fully operational.
15. If your reading-challenged kid can’t read, we don’t to hear them reading their Thanksgiving poem. Rosetta Stone for English will be your Christmas gift.
16. My house, my 65-inch TV, my satellite. You touch that remote, you’re paying this month’s bill. Are we crystal clear?
17. Ladies, football is a Thanksgiving Day tradition. If you even bother to mention iceskating or gymnastics, I’m going to imitate comedian Kevin Hart on you. Comprende?
18. We are not having a “who has the best dressing” contest. Keep your signature dish to yourself. I’m not catching a case over some damn food.
19. STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE KITCHEN. No explanation needed.
20. If you’re one of these 21st century women – you know, allergic to the stove – don’t offer to help cook. You insult us.
21. If your kid gets out of line, check ‘em before I do. My house, my rules. Ass whippings are bountiful if they start disrespecting adults.
22. If your kid breaks a toy, a fine will be levied on the spot. We need those same toys for the Christmas get-together. You can’t pay, your kid can’t play!
23. Hey, the drunk uncle, you cannot play bartender. All liquor will be hidden until you depart the premises. Momma, I don’t care if he’s your brother. He’s a drunk!
24. Thanksgiving is reserved for real cooks and bakers. If you bring that store bought cake in this house, everyone, in unison, will CUSS YOU OUT!
25. If you have a picky ass eating kid, we will not fix chicken fingers for him/her. Their little ass will simply starve until y’all leave. I’m serious!
26. When it’s time to eat, we’re not playing 21 Questions. It don’t matter who fixed what. Just keep it moving before I pop you in the back of your head.
27. Nephew, if you bring your new woman over, and she doesn’t speak to EVERYONE in the house, I’m cussing her snooty ass out. Are we clear?
28. Niece, if you bring your new man over and he is hitting on my other relatives, I’m cussing his punk ass out. Are we clear?
29. If your broke uncle owes you money, man, don’t let him pull you aside for an “update.” No cash or cashier’s check, keep it moving.
30. My house is for family and fun. There will be no talent shows. I don’t want to see your kid dance, sing, recite or read. Shut up, go outside and play.
31. My house is NOT a daycare. If you drop your kids off, and you leave, I’m issuing an Amber Alert for your ass. Seriously, I’m not watching your kids.
32. To the chief cusser in the family, you can’t say the prayer. Your sailor mouth can’t be followed by “…In Jesus name, Amen.” No. Repent, you devil! LOL
33. Don’t bring up your bad childhood memories. Seriously, if we all came out right and u didn’t, don’t you blame momma or daddy or I’m throwing you out!
34. If your iPod is filled with Jay-Z, Nikki Minaj, Too Short, Tupac, Clarence Carter, Lil Kim, Foxy Brown, you WILL NOT be DJ’ing. Are we clear?
35. This is a family affair. The O’Jays, Spinners, Motown, Frankie Beverly and Maze, Marvin Gaye, Michael Jackson and Earth, Wind & Fire. All of those artists make the DJ list cut for the family get together.
36. Last Thanksgiving Roland’s Rules for the Holidays 2010: When I say the get-together is over, get the hell out! I’m tired of y’all crazy folk! LOL

Have a great Thanksgiving. And I can’t wait to share with you my Christmas Holiday Rules!

It’s clear that we can’t go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic, but leave it to the Kim Kardashian of Politics to find something wrong with First Lady Michelle Obama’s effort to curb obesity among America’s kids.

In a radio interview Wednesday with conservative talker Laura Ingraham, Palin takes dead aim at the First Lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative, which is all about getting our children active, involved in exercise and healthy eating.

In the Wacky World of Wasilla’s finest, Palin tries to cast the effort to fight obesity as part of Michelle Obama’s “different worldview.”

Here is a portion of the transcript from HuffingtonPost.com: “Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.”

Hmmm. “Let’s Move” is Obama’s “kick”? Maybe someone should kick Sarah Palin so she can understand how devastating obesity is to the future of the United States.

According to the First Lady’s Let’s Move website:

- Obesity rates among children have tripled in the last three decades, and one in three children are obese;

- One-third of all children born after 2000 will suffer from diabetes;

- Our children are less active today than any other time in American history, spending 7.5 hours a day watching TV, playing video games, or simply involved in efforts that don’t require movement;

- Obesity is contributing to the vast increase in hypertension among Americans.

Now, since Palin is always talking about our nation’s military and how we have to honor them and show them love and affection, what did a group of generals say a few months ago about obesity on America’s national defense?

In an study released in April by Mission: Readiness, a nonprofit group out of Washington, D.C. (missionreadiness.org), more than 150 retired generals and admirals concluded that 27 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds are too fat to join the military.

The culprit? Junk food and too much fat in school lunches.

“Today, otherwise excellent recruiting prospects, some of them with generations of sterling military service in their family history, are being turned away because they are just too overweight. Our standards are high because we clearly cannot have people in our command who are not up to the job. Too many lives depend on it,” the study stated.

During his testimony before Congress, the former head of the California Army National Guard, Retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Monroe said that “80 percent of children who were overweight between the ages of 10 to 15 were obese by age 25.”

He and other military leaders want Congress to enact a massive child nutrition bill to remove all junk food and high-calorie beverages out of schools; improve nutrition standards in schools and upgrade school menus; and “help develop new school-based strategies, based on research, that help parents and children adopt healthier life-long eating and exercise habits.

Monroe testified: “In 1946, Congress passed the National School Lunch Act as a matter of national security. In the past retired admirals and generals have stood up to make it clear that America is only as healthy as our nation’s children. Childhood obesity is now undermining our national security, and we need to start turning it around today.”

So, Sarah Palin, are you going to also rip into this decorated American and say that he and 150 other military leaders are dead wrong?

I recently sat down with Michelle Obama for a primetime special on TV One Cable Network dedicated to her Let’s Move initiative, and it was startling to listen to her talk about the horrible statistics and the shape we’ll be in in the future, figuratively and literally.

“The crisis that we’re facing around childhood obesity hits everything,” Obama said. “It’s about education, what our kids are learning about nutrition in the schools, the quality of the food in the schools. It’s about our neighborhood development. How are neighborhoods designed? Are our kids – do they have access to safe places to play? Are we structuring communities in a way that facilitate healthy living? Are there accessible and affordable healthy foods in our communities? And it’s about economic opportunity as well because if folks can’t afford to put food on the table, then they’re eating what they can.

“So this is one of those issues that requires us to talk about a little bit of everything. And it makes us look at ourselves a little more closely and it makes us look at the broader society. So we’re beginning to understand this is a threat.”

This latest broadside by Palin shows how reckless and ridiculous she is. Libertarians and far right conservative Republicans are always talking about government intrusion into our lives, but when we look at clean water, our air quality, and food supply, thank God for governmental standards.

Don’t think for a second I’m not paying attention. I’ve increased my health awareness, am changing my diet and working out more to lose weight, and am pushing family members to do the same. That’s really the whole point of Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move.”

Any Republican with common sense should see that Sarah Palin poses an immediate threat to the future of this country. She only proves that every time she opens her mouth.

Sarah, for the benefit of the nation, stick a fork in it.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.”

As a second-generation caterer, I would ordinarily be peacock proud and hyena happy about the prospects of anyone getting married. Yet when I saw the obese coverage around the wedding announcement of Britain’s Prince William and his fiancee, Kate Middleton, it was sickening to watch.

There was no one TV broadcast or cable network that was more egregious than the other. Frankly, all were shameful with the level of attention given to the announcement of next year’s nuptials. It’s wrong for anyone to suggest that Prince William isn’t a newsmaker, although this wedding is more entertainment than politics or hard news. Yet this was the lead story on NBC’s evening newscast? Really?

It was more perplexing considering the announcement was reported on the same day that President Barack Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to the first living soldier since Vietnam. With the United States engaged in two wars, and so much attention being put on our soldiers, it made perfect sense for the national media to turn everyone’s attention to one of our own, Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta of Iowa, who is the first living recipient to receive the award in 40 years.

How can today’s journalists seriously talk about the softening of news and more Americans caring about gossip rags and celebrities walking down the street to buy a cup of coffee rather than the news that truly affects their lives?

Look, I get the mammoth ratings from the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in 1981, but seriously, what we have seen on display this week has been ridiculous.

In the media, we often talk about news judgment.

It is all subjectively based on the person or persons who make the decisions in each respective newsroom. I can guarantee you that if I had my own TV show or was executive producing one, the royal wedding wouldn’t have made it into the first block. No doubt it would have been mentioned, but it would have been beyond me to put a wedding announcement of a royal couple from another country at the top of an American newscast.

Longtime journalist Ted Koppel recently blasted the opinion-driven TV shows on Fox and MSNBC, and Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia went as far as saying the two should be shut down. Frankly, I find the latter to be nonsensical, but it is important that we sometimes step back and say, “Are we contributing to dumbing down the public by virtue of some of our dumb news decisions?”

Let me be clear: There is a place for sports, entertainment and lifestyle-related stories. I disagree when someone suggests that such stories aren’t news; they are, just a different type of news. But there is a such thing as overkill, and when it came to the royal wedding announcement, my brothers and sisters in the media embarrassed themselves with the over-the-top coverage.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

The day after Republicans trounced Democrats in congressional, gubernatorial and statehouse races, one of my CNN colleagues asked “The Best Political Team on Television” about the first thing the president should focus on.

They said he should show contrition; immediately move to the center in order to attract independent voters; drastically scale back his “liberal” agenda; and make massive changes to his staff and bring in some new blood.

For me, the answer was simple: He must go to his base and make some serious amends for ignoring many of them over the last two years, as well as heal some seriously wounded souls.

My colleague Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist, immediately began to shake his head and said that wasn’t the most important thing. I stand by what I said that night: It doesn’t matter if you make an all-out attempt to go after independent voters. If Obama has a shaky base leading into 2012, he doesn’t stand a chance of winning a second term.

Prior to the election and in the last two weeks, I’ve traveled to Los Angeles, Norfolk, Va., Fort Valley, Ga., Cleveland, Jackson, Miss., as well as chatted with religious leaders from Chicago to New Jersey to Texas and Democratic (and Republican) donors and activists. And it is safe to say that there is considerable frustration, anger and resentment with the White House and the Democratic National Committee’s failure at Retail Politics 101.

In President Obama’s first few months in office, major donors to the Democratic Party grumbled that the usual perks weren’t coming their way and they were not happy. The response from White House officials was pretty much, “so what?” Sure, the average person trying to make ends meet really doesn’t care what a fat cat donor has to say, but when you look up and are desperate for them to fund, get out the vote initiatives and bolster candidates in need, then you care how they feel.

President Obama may frown upon such things as having to take White House Christmas party photos with donors, but it comes with the territory. And when donors close their checkbooks due to an inattentive White House, it has repercussions beyond the president’s own campaign.

One of the surprising aspects of the 2008 campaign was President Obama’s religious outreach. It was a robust effort that was shocking to Republicans and Democrats alike, who were not accustomed to seeing such an aggressive effort. But in the wake of the midterm election, religious leaders have been particularly upset with the president’s faith-based initiative. It has clearly not been as public as under President George W. Bush, and some say that played a role in Democrats losing significant portions of the Catholic vote this year. The White House responds with a litany of things they’ve done in the area, but are those visible and known to those pastors who talk to thousands of congregants each week?

Religious leaders often tried to get the White House to link the economic agenda and health care to a moral calling. They felt that by engaging church leaders, they would have been able to stem a lot of the misinformation that was running rampant. But when angry town hall meetings took place, they were largely led by congressional members rather than in places where a more civil discourse could be expected. Some believe religion and politics shouldn’t mix, but they go hand-in-hand.

Any advertiser will tell you that they covet the age 18-49 demographic because they are highly impressionable and will change their minds when it comes to what products to buy.
Older purchasers are set in their ways and are much harder to reach. The same goes for politics.

The hype surrounding Obama’s candidacy was palpable among young voters. The energy and excitement was stunning, and it even led folks like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill to admit that it was her children who leaned heavily on her to back Obama’s presidential bid. Yet the enthusiasm generated has been replaced by pessimism. These voters are not going to simply come out and vote every time on general principle. They must be cultivated over a longer period of time and kept engaged. Yet the White House has missed many opportunities to do so.

For instance, last year, when college students used social media to organize simultaneous protests in 31 states, I called the White House to see if the president was going to make some kind of comment about the protests to send a signal to them that he supported their efforts. That would seem right up the alley of a community organizer. But the response was no. I asked why, and the response was that the emphasis at the time was on health care.

You would think that aligning with students to protest a dramatic increase in college tuition would have been a perfect way to get them to back his financial aid changes. But that didn’t happen. The issue isn’t that the bill was eventually passed. The critical need was to reach out to young voters and tell them, “You were with me. I’m with you.” The White House missed a perfect moment. And holding a rally on a college campus two weeks from Election Day is too little, too late.

Lastly, Democrats collectively lost the white vote in the midterm election, but they drew a majority of minority voters. An Obama victory in 2012 will require a massive turnout among black and Hispanic voters, which will require more than a media outreach plan two months before Election Day.

In the first 21 months of his presidency, President Obama appeared on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show.” Heard on more than 100 stations and by 8 million listeners, Joyner is the most influential voice in urban radio. I’m a senior analyst on Joyner’s show, and I blasted the White House for the failure to make the president available to Joyner’s show as well as other minority media outlets. In the last three months of the campaign, Obama was on Joyner’s show three times and on other nationally syndicated shows. And Obama talked to minority columnists, bloggers and networks like Telemundo and Univision.

This massive outreach can’t be a one-time thing. It has to take place throughout 2011 and 2012 if the president expects to rebuild the coalition that put him in office in 2008. He spent a lot of time talking to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and Fox, but his team better be smart enough to put him on TV One, BET, Telemundo, Univision and other outlets.

There is no way a Republican president would ignore the power and reach of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. In fact, the Republicans would hold conservative radio day at the White House, inviting those hosts to do their shows from the White House. Are Dems not smart enough to do the same for progressives and urban radio?

Will the liberal/progressive base desert President Obama? No, but he needs them to be highly energized and not passively backing him. It’s not the percentage of young voters, women and minorities; it’s a huge turnout among each demographic.

Right now, President Obama has ticked off both his friends and his foes. We all know that his foes will never support him, but if he has a lackluster response from his friends, he will have a lot more time to spend with them at home in Chicago rather than at the White House in 2013.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book, “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Tuesday’s election results are a bitter pill for the president and his supporters to swallow. To be essentially routed by the Republican Party from top to bottom goes beyond humbling. It’s a wholesale rejection of the Democratic Party as well as many of the policies championed by President Obama.

So what world do we face now?

In many ways, I view the first half of President Obama’s term like the first half of a basketball game, the president’s favorite sport. Some things good, some bad. At times we were leading, but now we are clearly losing at the half. And like any smart team leader, his job is to now go into the locker room and make some pivotal half time adjustments.

Here are the four adjustments I think the president must make to regain his footing, get back in the game, and lead his team to victory:

One: Team communication is a must. When a team is defending against the pick and roll, each player must communicate to know what the other is doing. That’s basketball. Poor communication also hurts in politics. By your own admission, Mr. President, you and your team have done a poor job of communicating what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what it will mean for the American people. You said on Jon Stewart’s show that the American people don’t know a lot of the things you have done. Well, that’s not their problem, that’s your problem.

YOU have to make it clear. Frankly, your communications team has been weak. They have missed or flubbed opportunities to make your case. Sir, giving a great speech is one thing, but your communications team speaking persuasively to the American people on a daily basis is another. And that has to improve.

That leads me to the second issue, Mr. President. You have GOT to pass the ball. We often hear from your aides that no one is better at communicating the issues than you. That may very well be true. But just like in basketball, you CANNOT play all five positions. In order for a team to win, that means every player must play their role and do their job.

The business community has complained that your administration is anti-business. So where is Gary Locke, the commerce secretary? Jobs is issue No. 1, so where is Labor Secretary Hilda Solis? Her appearance on our show today is the first time. There’s a foreclosure epidemic, so where is Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan? We’ve said it on this show before that Attorney General Eric Holder has had a straightjacket placed on him. Discussions about energy policy? I never see Energy Secretary Stephen Chu. It seems that the only Cabinet members who have free reign to speak out are Arne Duncan at Education, Hillary Clinton at State, Bob Gates at Defense, and to some degree, Kathleen Sebelius at Health and Human Services.

Mr. President, those may be your starters, but you need to play the bench, too. Let them engage, take some fire, deliver some blows, and show folks that they are in this battle with you. There simply is no way one player can take on the opposing team all by himself.

Three: Go on the offensive. A running team knows when to push the ball up court, hoping to put the opponents on their heels and run them out of the gym. There has been a passive attitude emanating from your administration. Sir, when the other team continues to drive the lane and score on you, sometimes you have to deliver a few hard fouls to get their attention and send a signal. You must do the same.

Your opposition is emboldened by ripping you to shreds. Only rarely has your team engaged in the kind of fighting that can quickly get the attention of your opponents. This isn’t time to keep taking hits and act like they won’t stick. Mr. President, those body blows have stuck. Your White House is holding back the Democratic National Committee. It’s time to let it go. Let them foul hard and be aggressive. If you don’t, your opponents will do whatever they want with you, and you’ll be on the losing side in two years.

Four: You’ve got to be the true team leader like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Hakeem Olajuwon and Kobe Bryant. When times got tough, their teammates looked to them for inspiration, energy and guidance. Right now, your teammates — the broad coalition of millions who put you into office — are confused by the conflicting messages sent out by your administration. In many ways, this movement has been abandoned. Young folks, African-Americans, Hispanics and so many others are waiting to be engaged and to be put to work — to work with you to achieve victory.

But if you’re standoffish, don’t talk to them regularly and don’t inspire them, your agenda will never resonate with them, and you’ll have a team in disarray, not knowing what to do. You want be a transformational figure like Ronald Reagan, but that means leading your movement and keeping them involved.

For all sports fans — and President Obama knows this — no game is won in the first or second quarter. Yes, you can fall behind and look seemingly out of it. But until the clock reads zero, zero, zero, there is always time to rebound.

Mr. President, I get the question all the time as to whether you will win a second term. Frankly, we don’t know. But right now, I do know that you are behind and in desperate need of a second-half comeback to have any shot in 2012.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

So let me get this straight: Rep. Kendrick Meek was the first candidate to declare that he would run for the Senate in Florida and he faced down a billionaire to win the Democratic nomination. According to various polls, since he is in third place in a three-way race, it’s now his fault that Marco Rubio may win the six-year term.

Really? Are you serious?

This week, the Democratic Party’s Florida debacle became front page news when it was reported that former President Bill Clinton approached Meek about dropping out of the race in order to throw his support to Gov. Charlie Crist, who launched an independent bid for the Senate seat. Crist was losing badly in the polls to Rubio. Crist opted not to face him in the Republican primary, choosing to do battle in the general election.

It has always been Crist’s plan to win the Senate race by siphoning off Democratic voters, picking up some Republican votes and appealing to independents. But he has been unable to overtake Rubio in the polls, and clearly he saw his best shot at victory as hoping Meek would drop out.

A senior Democratic official told me Thursday night that Clinton believed he had secured Meek’s word that he wouldn’t run on two occasions. Clinton had already chartered a plane to Florida to appear at a unity rally with Meek and Crist.

Conventional Democratic wisdom says that Meek would look like the bigger man by putting aside his personal ambitions to take a bullet for the party and back Crist, all to keep the seat out of the hands of the Republican Rubio.

Except there is one problem: Crist is a Republican!

Yes, he has flipped positions more times than the chief cook at IHOP, but he reportedly promised to caucus with the Democrats, which was manna from heaven for a party that is facing the prospect of losing big in the House and the Senate. For Democratic Party officials, who cares if Meek’s voting record has been solidly behind the agenda of President Barack Obama? He must be the sacrificial lamb in order for them to hold onto the Senate.

But the reality is that the party and the White House have not gotten behind Meek in a huge way.

Early on, senior Democrats were mumbling that he wasn’t an exciting candidate and didn’t have what it took to win. Some of them were privately hoping that billionaire Jeff Greene — who had a sordid past of a party animal and made his money betting against the housing market — would beat Meek, so they could openly support Crist.

Meek advisers have constantly been at odds with Democrats. They complained that the White House was reluctant to send surrogates to Florida to back his campaign and that even President Obama has been lukewarm in his support, offering no effusive praise of him in rallies and conference calls. Obama has preferred to lavish more praise and attention on Alex Sink, the Democratic nominee for governor.

The backroom deals were so pervasive that the state’s teachers union offered a co-endorsement following Crist’s veto of a major bill they backed. That stunned Meek and his supporters because he has been a major education backer, even sponsoring the bill in the Florida legislature that limited classroom sizes.

So in steps Clinton, a close friend of Meek who has campaigned for him numerous times in Florida. I was told that Clinton was angered by Meek going against his word. Clinton opted to confirm the story of his involvement, hoping that voters will see a Meek victory as unlikely and switch to Crist.

But with Meek fighting back — shutting down any attempt to characterize him as a quitter — the Democratic Party looks like the Keystone Kops, unable to get their stories straight and offering conflicting accounts of what happened.

All of this drama is messy and portrays the Democratic Party as a group unwilling to back one of their own — Meek ran for the seat, won the nomination and is trying to win the general election. If Democrats thought he wasn’t strong, they should have recruited someone else.

The result is that backroom deals almost deprived voters of the right to choose their own representative, all because national Democrats were weak about Meek.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Sarah Palin thinks that if the Republican Party doesn’t totally embrace the Tea Party movement, it might as well consider itself “through” as an organizing entity.

What Palin and those who agree with her must recognize is that if the Tea Party doesn’t do a better job of rejecting candidates who can win a primary but not the general election, it will not be as big a force as it likes to think it is.

It’s nonsense when purists on the left or right say they would rather lose on principle in order to maintain their purity. That’s stupid. If your party is out of power, you can’t drive legislation. And when you’re in the minority, all you’re doing is shouting and not leading.

Democrats and Republicans are both studying the electoral map and trying to figure out what races to focus on, and how they can gain a critical edge in the final days leading up to the November 2 midterm elections. GOP prognosticators expect that they will end up with 48 or 49 added seats in the House, giving them control of that chamber.

If that’s the case, the GOP elites will probably look at the Tea Party faithful and say, “If you hadn’t given us Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Linda McMahon, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, we would have taken down the Democrats and taken over the U.S. Senate.”

Of course, this is presuming that those candidates can’t dispatch Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, Chris Coons in Delaware, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Jack Conway in Kentucky.

A study of the polls as of late reveals that every single one of those races, other than O’Donnell’s, is neck-and-neck, and they will all boil down to aggressive get-out-the vote drives on both sides.

Johnson has been a pretty moderate voice throughout the campaign and was embraced by the Tea Party faithful after he gave a stinging rebuke of the health-care bill passed by Congress and signed into law.

But when you look at some of the loopy and outlandish comments made by Angle, O’Donnell, McMahon and Paul, it is clear that in order to succeed, you must get beyond what it takes to win in a primary and appeal to a broader audience for the general election.

Just ask Ned Lamont. He won the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut in 2006 because the progressive/liberal community despised Sen. Joe Lieberman’s support for the war in Iraq and attacked him with everything they had. Lamont was unable to topple Lieberman in the general election even though he had the progressives’ endorsement and the Democratic party line on the ballot.

Angle, O’Donnell, McMahon and Paul have all been dogged by some pretty outrageous comments, angering Republican operatives while providing fodder for their liberal critics:

• If it weren’t for Reid’s porous approval rating in Nevada, he would be dusting Angle, with her constant running away from the media and her allusion to an armed revolt if the “tyrannical (federal) government” isn’t reined in.
• McMahon, who help build the World Wresting Entertainment behemoth with her husband, Vince, has had to battle criticism about the violence in the sport, rampant drug use and its portrayal of women. Although the millions she has poured into the campaign have made it easier for the GOP to stomach her involvement in the race, going back and forth on the minimum wage was a major rookie mistake. Now she’s trying to close the deal against a candidate who has major issues with telling the truth about his military record.
• Rand Paul and his chop-the-federal-government view is music to the ears of the Tea Party, but when he said he disagreed with key parts of the Civil Rights Act, he went from a potentially serious candidate to the absurd. He quickly backtracked after MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow used his own words to show him to be clueless, and he has continued to lead in the race, albeit it by a small margin. But such views are troubling for a party that has virtually no relationship with the African-American community.
• And what can we say about O’Donnell, who couldn’t get right where she graduated from and when; who has touted herself as a constitutional scholar after going on a seven-day fellowship organized by a conservative foundation; and who made flat-out weird statements on Bill Maher’s old show, “Politically Incorrect,” about evolution and witchcraft.

These candidates may have caught the fancy of the hard-core elements during the primaries, which are known to be all about the fringe, but that doesn’t mean they have what it takes to win over the voters in a general campaign.

Were it not for the widespread total disgust at the nation’s economic condition, it’s safe to say voters wouldn’t tolerate these candidates’ burn-the-barn-down rhetoric. But if the Tea Party wants to be a true movement, one with legs, it is going to have to think practically and with a goal in mind: winning.

Yes, it has provided a desperate emotional lift for the Republican Party and a grass-roots base to build from, but at the end of the day, if you can’t push the ball into the end zone and put the seat in the “R” column, all you’ve done is gotten close.

And in politics, close ain’t good enough. It’s about winning

If you think I’m one of those folks upset with James Jones — the Florida father who jumped on his daughter’s bus to confront the bullies who were terrorizing his daughter — you’ve got another thing coming. In fact, we should recommend Jones as Father of the Year.

Caught on tape, Jones angrily yelled at the children that were bullying his 13-year-old daughter, who has cerebral palsy. He later issued a tearful apology saying he was wrong. No, James, you weren’t wrong; the punk children who bullied your daughter were wrong. And the punk parents who didn’t discipline their own children are wrong, too.

I can sympathize with James because I witnessed my dad do the same exact thing when I was in middle school.

Some students on our bus were roughhousing one day and another kid pulled down the sweater of a girl, exposing her breasts for all to see. This kid’s name was “Roland.” Now I had nothing to do with it, and the two of us didn’t even look alike. Yet when friends and family of the girl heard about it, they assumed it was me. More than 40 kids were on the bus and they all knew that wasn’t the case, but her supporters didn’t care.

My brother and I were threatened repeatedly with physical harm, so we clearly didn’t want to ride the bus home. We made up a reason to not take the bus and begged my dad to pick us up. When he got to the school and demanded to know the truth, he got out of the car, jumped on the bus, and said, “Point out to me who keeps messing with you.”

Now I may have been scared of the school bullies, but I was more scared of my daddy! So I told him. My dad walked over to a kid and asked him, “Are you messing with my sons?” He made it clear we had nothing to do with it and said he didn’t want to hear about this one boy hurting us. So, this kid pulled out a knife on my dad and threatened him.

My dad laughed, snatched the knife from him, and said, “Don’t you ever do that again to me or anybody!” He then looked every kid in the eye and made it clear that he didn’t want to hear one more story of them bullying his sons or he would be back.

Suffice to say, no one messed with the Martin sons again.

But my dad wasn’t the kind of person who would protect his sons like that.

He was the kind of person who would travel around our Clinton Park neighborhood and break up kids fighting, even following some home to talk to their parents and grandparents. He was never afraid to go to another parent and hold them accountable for the actions of their child. And more often than not, the parent was stunned to hear about their children being bullies and disciplined them themselves.

Bullying has always been in schools, so that is nothing new. But it’s different today because kids are committing suicide due to the constant taunting. We can have all the town hall meetings about bullying, but what is going to change all of this is to have teachers, administrators and other parents get in the face of parents and guardians. They need to make it clear to parents that they must discipline their own children and teach them not to be bullies.

A child must understand that there will be repercussions for his or her actions. When I have witnessed one of my nieces hit and push around her sister or one of her cousins, I take immediate action and intervene. As the grown-up, I don’t even wait for their mother and father to say something. I’m their uncle, and as an adult, I won’t allow that behavior to set in.

Bullying does not have to go along with reading, writing and arithmetic in our schools. It can end immediately if we are willing to hold parents accountable for their children. And if the parents don’t want to step up, then other adults must be willing to stand up.

A child has enough on his or her mind in school than to have to deal with being bullied. None of us should pass this off as “what kids do” when it is resulting in the suicide of even one child.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Newt Gingrich has always been seen as a visionary when it comes to politics, whether from those on the right who love him and his critics on the left who loathe him.

The former speaker of the House of Representatives and the chief architect of the Contract with America — a document that helped usher a Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 — is a war buff always making battle plans.

Like any good general, he studies his opposition and looks for weaknesses, so he can declare victory and the opposition can be toppled. But Gingrich’s latest salvo in crafting a plan to attack Democrats is so shameless and pathetic that he should be embarrassed for even suggesting it.

In a 673-word open letter to Republican candidates, Gingrich implored GOP candidates to develop a closing message that is solely built around the economy. In it, he wrote the following: “It is an unassailable fact that in June, more food stamps were distributed by the government than ever before in American history. (It turns out that Barack Obama’s idea of spreading the wealth around was spreading more food stamps around.)”

He later added, “You can use this vivid contrast between the record of the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress and the last time the Republican Party took control of Congress to powerfully illustrate the difference for every American between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks.”

What is so amazing is that Gingrich offers an analysis between the state of the country when Republicans were in control of Congress in 1994 and the current condition when Democrats are running the show. Anyone with half a brain should be laughing at how Gingrich managed to skip over a budget surplus left by President Bill Clinton in 2000, which later became a deficit under President George W. Bush; outrageous spending by Republicans who ran Congress under Bush; the massive financial deregulation that was pushed by Democrats and Republicans alike; and the terrible state of the economy that precipitated bank bailouts under Bush and continued stimulus under Obama.

For guys like Gingrich, those are measly details that need not be mentioned. But we all know that you can’t discuss today’s economy with asking the most important question, “How in the hell did we get here?”

It is always in the interest of politicians to paint a wonderful picture of themselves while ignoring all of the devilish and horrible things they or their parties did, but this notion of painting Democrats as the party of food stamps is atrocious and flat-out wrong.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is right when she assails Gingrich as wanting to exploit class warfare in this country.
But the Democratic House leader shouldn’t be the only one who is speaking out against Gingrich. Republicans with many constituents in their districts who have had to ask for food stamps should also be saying, “Hey man, you’re talking about my people!”

I don’t know of anyone who really wants and desires to have to apply for food stamps. Liberals, conservatives, independents, Democrats and Republicans all want jobs. Wanting a paycheck isn’t a conservative value, nor is it the sole province of liberals. Everyone one of us would like to be paid for our services, and it cheapens the political dialogue to see a so-called smart man deploy such a childish game plan.

Maybe part of the problem is that while Gingrich complains about hard-working Americans having to apply for government food stamps, he spent 20 years at the federal government trough picking up his welfare — also known as a government check for his work — as a member of Congress. So while he assails those who have been forced to ask for food stamps, he happily collected his six-figure government check, which has paved the way for him to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in book deals, speeches and consulting gigs.

See, that’s how it’s done. A former government worker telling wannabe government workers what they need to do to begin picking up their own version of food stamps.

If this is the kind of vision Gingrich has for America, none of us should desire to see him on anyone’s ballot. He has the nerve to question President Obama’s values? Newt, anyone who is so crass to want to capitalize on the misfortune of Americans — in one of the most difficult economic times we’ve seen in generations — doesn’t deserve to represent those same individuals now or in the future.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the book, “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Source: Roland Martin / CNN

As President Obama travels to Illinois to lend a hand to the campaigns of U.S. Senate candidate Alexis Giannoulias and embattled Gov. Pat Quinn, he should stay focused on them and not his former chief of staff.

As Rahm Emanuel crisscrosses around Chicago, he is drawing lots of attention. But when the president comes to town, the attention needs to be lavished on the two races in November and not a local race in February.

Obama will likely avoid mentioning the Chicago race, but he is always likely to go off script. This is one time when the teleprompter is important. Quinn and Giannoulias are locked into tough races and need all the face time they can get.

To follow this topic visit CNN.

It’s laughable to watch political prognosticators on various TV shows as they weigh in on Rahm Emanuel’s chances of becoming the next Chicago mayor. If you trust any of them, you swear President Barack Obama’s outgoing chief of staff sees the position as a birthright that he is about to assume now that Richard M. Daley is stepping down.

Folks, don’t buy the national media hype. As they say, all politics is local, and in this case, Emanuel has a long way to go before he can even think of moving into the fifth-floor mayoral sweep.

Chicago has long been called a city of neighborhoods, and as a resident of the city for the last six years, I have witnessed the territorial views of its residents live and in full effect.

River North. Bronzeville. South Loop. Hyde Park. Beverly. Bridgeport. You name it, Chicago is a city that is all about its neighborhood boundaries. When you ask someone where he or she was born and raised, he or she is likely to give you the street address rather than just the South Side, North Side or West Side. And those boundaries are often defined by race.

With that being said, the issue of race will be a major obstacle for Emanuel, and not because he’s Jewish.

First, it’s assumed that because he was a Chicago congressman for six years, he’s well known in the city. Not true. Yes, he did represent a Northwest Chicago district, but there are political strongholds all across the city, and he’s going to have to navigate them.

The Chicago Sun-Times commissioned a poll shortly after Daley announced he wasn’t seeking re-election, and Emanuel placed fifth with 7 percent, within the margin of error. Those topping the poll: Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart (12 percent); state Sen. James Meeks (10 percent); Congressmen Luis Gutierrez and Jesse Jackson Jr. at 9 and 8 percent, respectively.

Chicago has never had an Hispanic mayor, and African-Americans are still chomping at the bit to revive the legacy of former Congressman Harold Washington, who stunned the nation with his election in 1983 when he bested a younger Richard M. Daley and Mayor Jane Byrne in the Democratic primary. No one thought he had a chance because race has loomed large in heavily Democratic Chicago; it was on full display when Washington eked out a victory that November against Bernard Epton, a white Republican that no one gave a shot and some say he subtlety stoked the fears of white residents about a black takeover.

Washington’s death in 1987 still resonates in the city, and with Daley reigning supreme for two decades — running everything from the schools to public housing to the rail system and the city college system — that enormous constituency sees this as an opportunity to finish what Washington started.

When you look at the city’s 50 wards, African-Americans dominate five out of the top 10. And of the top 23 wards with registered voters, African-Americans control a majority in 12 of those. Don’t assume that Emanuel, being a Democrat, can easily win those.

And if you’re one of those folks who think it’s wrong for me to focus on race, then you clearly don’t get Chicago politics.
It is an open secret in Washington, D.C., that the Congressional Black Caucus despises Emanuel. A longtime CBC member told me that normally when they meet with the president, the chief of staff attends the meetings. But in the time Obama has been in the White House, Emanuel hasn’t attended one meeting and he has always given a cold shoulder to black members of Congress. And if you ask black political operatives, pollsters and insiders, they all have a “why-I-can’t-stand-Emanuel” story.

If he wants to win the mayor’s race, just having the public support of Obama isn’t enough. He is going to have to deal with Congressmen Danny Davis and Bobby Rush as well as Jesse Jackson Jr. All three have massive ground troops, and if they are willing to rally around someone like the Rev. James Meeks — also a state senator (I attend his church, Salem Baptist Church of Chicago) who can also pull white social conservatives to his side — Emanuel can forget about getting a significant share of the black vote.

Then there is Chicago’s Hispanic community. The population is substantial, but to win, they need to be registered voters. And of the percentage making up a large portion of the 50 wards, the voters are more toward the bottom. Yet winning their votes is vital to building a winning constituency. With many blaming Emanuel for nothing when confronting immigration reform over the last 18 months as well as facing brutal scrutiny from Gutierrez, a major immigration reform proponent, he’s going to have to do a lot of politicking in order to win.

And of course, there are the city’s white voters. You have the Lakefront liberals and the city’s blue-collar workers, who are strong union supporters. Emanuel has been at odds with unions in his time as chief of staff, notably over health care and the primary bid of Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln. And the national labor leaders will be quick to remind their supporters in Chicago just how good of a friend Emanuel was or wasn’t.

Emanuel will also have to stare down Dar