An Exceedingly Odd Notion

One could almost be forgiven for thinking that, at least at the Washington Post, the notion is gaining ground that elections don’t settle anything and in fact are merely diversions from the polls. Such is the implication, at any rate, of the page A1 story two days ago whose head announced breathlessly that “Political Divisions Persist After Election.” Who’d a thunk?

The now to-be-expected announcement that “President Bush will begin his second term in office without a clear mandate to lead the nation” is no longer surprising. Did the Post and its pollsters make similar announcements after Clinton’s and Carter’s elections? I don’t recall, and am too lazy to search. What struck me as exceptionally odd, however, and an indication that presidential elections really amount to no more than unreliable polls was the following question

Do you think the country should go in the direction George W. Bush wants to lead it, go in the direction the Democrats in Congress want to lead it, or what?

Leave aside the mystifying “Or what?” (How is one supposed to answer that: “Whatever”?) 45% of the respondents wanted the country to go in the direction Bush wants to lead, 39% favor the Democrats’ direction, but the remarkable thing here is not the answers but the question. What is the point of asking this question, two months after a presidential election that left the Democrats not only out of the White House for four more years but with smaller minorities in the House and Senate? (But, as long as I’m here, query: how much more substantial would the preference for Bush’s direction have to be for the Post to conclude that he has at least the semblance of a mandate?)

Similarly, responding to the Democrats’ increasingly frustrated demands for some apologies from the administration, Pres. Bush told the Post last week that “Well, we had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 election.”

“Democrats,” the Post reported — reported? No, make that editorialized in its news story — “naturally are fuming.” Naturally! As in, well, of course any reasonable person would be fuming at such an answer.

In the same vein, in the second paragraph of his story today on Rice’s nomination hearing, Glenn Kessler reports that despite acknowledging some bad decisions Rice “still hewed closely to the administration’s policies….” Excuse me, but when did it become news that the National Security Advisor, now nominated to be Secretary of State, “hewed closely” to the policies of the administration she has served for the past four years?

But if there were a contest for the most ridiculous comment about election results, the cake taker would be newly minted Senator and media favorite Barack Obama.

Obama urged Rice to demonstrate independence from the White House line, much as Powell had during his troubled tenure, when he was often at odds with Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. “I think that people felt that he was speaking on behalf of the American people and not simply being a mouthpiece for the administration,” Obama said.

If, in other words, Rice were to stake out an independent position and not be simply a “mouthpiece for the administration,” she would then be “speaking for the American people,” presumably an entity different from the majority of voters in the last election.

It would be delightful to hear Obama’s theory of personal, party, and cabinet responsibility in a democratic republic.

Say What? (35)

  1. Nels Nelson January 20, 2005 at 3:01 pm | | Reply

    Yes, perhaps I’m naive, but while I see the value in second-opinions and checks against momentary lapses in judgement, I understood the presidential authority to appoint subordinates as practical: his job is too much work for one person to handle alone. I don’t much care if Rumsfeld supports late-term abortions, or Margaret Spellings (incoming Secretary of Education) thinks we should drill for oil in the ANWR, provided on the issues relevant to their positions they are in agreement with the president. And probably the Secretary of State should even more than others hew to the president’s principles and politics, as she serves as our unified face to the world.

  2. What Attitude Problem? January 20, 2005 at 9:59 pm | | Reply

    http://whatattitudeproblem.blogs.com/home/2005/01/_from_the_highl.html

    From the highly engaging Discriminations comes the forehead-slapping insight that the WaPo is still waging socio-politcal warfare with the red states:

  3. Cobra January 20, 2005 at 11:32 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>But if there were a contest for the most ridiculous comment about election results, the cake taker would be newly minted Senator and media favorite Barack Obama.

    Obama urged Rice to demonstrate independence from the White House line, much as Powell had during his troubled tenure, when he was often at odds with Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. “I think that people felt that he was speaking on behalf of the American people and not simply being a mouthpiece for the administration,” Obama said.

    If, in other words, Rice were to stake out an independent position and not be simply a “mouthpiece for the administration,” she would then be “speaking for the American people,” presumably an entity different from the majority of voters in the last election.

    It would be delightful to hear Obama’s theory of personal, party, and cabinet responsibility in a democratic republic.”

    The problem with this line of thinking is that winning an election means you received more votes than your opponent(s). It doesn’t neccessarily mean you command the voice of the American people. It could be simply a rejection of the opponent than an endorsement of the winner. As a matter of fact, since we’re talking about polls and voting, Bush has a 49% approval rating on inauguration day. Colin Powell left the office of Sec. of State with an 88% approval rating. Cheney and Rumsfeld’s approval ratings are lower than Dubya’s.

    The American people, at least via polls, sure seemed to AGREE with the Powell style of doing business, which would lend credence to Barack Obama’s request of Condi Rice to follow suit.

    FAR FROM A “ridiculous statement.”

    Now John, if you wish for me to run down a list of polls about Bush handling the economy, Iraq, immigration or a host of other topics, you’ll find some numbers that don’t seem to support your cannonization of Bushamerica.

    –Cobra

  4. Andrew P. Connors January 21, 2005 at 7:48 am | | Reply

    Last I read, Bush now has a 51% approval rating. Does that mean that, even under your interpretation, he is backed by the majority of Americans?

    Beyond this, isn’t it silly that Obama is pretty much calling for Dr. Rice to reject policies which she is the architect of. He claims she’s a “mouthpiece”, but I’d say the more appropriate metaphor is to say that Dr. Rice is one of the “brains” of the administration.

  5. notherbob2 January 21, 2005 at 10:49 am | | Reply

    Cobra, your comment amounts to suggesting that we run the country based on polls. Oh well, I suppose that is not the most asinine thing you have suggested. I don’t read Kos or DU; is THAT where you get this stuff? I am beginning to believe that you are a reified liberal.

  6. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 21, 2005 at 11:15 am | | Reply

    Andrew Connors has it right, Cobra. Dr. Rice has been criticized for the last four years for being one of the evil masterminds behind Bush’s foreign policy; it seems a little absurd (“ridiculous”?) then to criticize her for being a “mouthpiece” for it. Really, her critics can take their pick: Either she’s parroting a line she doesn’t believe, or else she’s advocating policies she designed in large part herself. You can call her wrongheaded or you can call her a stooge, but not both at once.

  7. Claire January 21, 2005 at 1:45 pm | | Reply

    In spite of the left’s popular idea that Bush wants nothing but ‘yes’ men, there is a great deal of evidence that he wants and encourages differing opinions among his cabinet and advisors.

    He also has an expectation that, whatever their discussions in private, that publicly, his people support him. None of that shameful behavior that was rampant during the Clinton administration, where anybody and everybody who disagreed with anyone else immediately ran to the press and launched a public attack in the media.

    Colin Powell’s biggest mistake, in my opinion, was not in disagreeing with the President. Rumsfield also disagreed with the President on many issues as well. But Colin went public with his disagreement, in an apparent attempt to make an end-run around the President and foce the issue in the public arena. Major mistake. He deserved to get thrown out on his butt for that. That he wasn’t was more a tribute to Bush’s high regard for his abilities to the point that Bush could forgive even that big of a mistake.

    I suspect that Condoleeza Rice is much more institutionally maze-bright on this topic, and will support the President publicly even when she personally disagrees with him. That’s called ‘professionalism’ and ‘honor’ – something that’s in very short supply in Washington and the world of politics.

  8. notherbob2 January 21, 2005 at 8:16 pm | | Reply

    [sarcasm/humor alert] “I can speak truth to power and I can call her wrongheaded or I can call her a stooge and both at once! Can’t nobody tell me what I can do…” Oh, sorry, I thought I was Cobra there for a minute.

    We all know that she is there only because Affirmative Action got her the job over more qualified white candidates. The left is right – she is less competent than a white man who defied the president would be.

    Gets a little confusing, doesn’t it? The left has to have a program to keep track of what they are complaining about.

    “Let’s see now…Bush is wrong because…hmmm, I KNOW I got that part right! Now, lessee….

    Ahhh, his cabinet appointee is .. not a minority..No, no, because he should be a she! No, wait!…she is…she doesn’t..uh..speak up, yeah, that’s it! And when she does she is just his mouthpiece…I think that’s right…ugh..

  9. Cobra January 21, 2005 at 9:44 pm | | Reply

    This is very interesting. John had suggested in his comments that because Bush had won the general election 51-49, he somehow now represents the “voice of the American People.” I countered by saying since his job approval rating is 49%, (some say 2% higher at 51%) and Colin Powell’s is at 88%, that the American people seem to favor Powell with all of his wont for voicing his disagreements with Bush in public. Obama suggested to Rice that she perform her tasks like Powell, which, by all indications, would ALSO be FAVORABLE by the vast majority of the American people.

    If Condi Rice was alligned with the nefarious neo-cons like Wolfowitz, Pearle, Woolsey, and Cheney in dreaming up this Iraqi DISASTER, then she deserves every rotten tomato of harsh criticism that can be hurled. If the Executive branch is choc’ full of war mongering, blood-thirsty lock step automatons with no moderate voices, or alternative viewpoints, I can’t begin to fathom the depths of attrocity this nation is sinking towards in the near future.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I actually GIVE A DAMN that thousands of lives and billions of dollars have been WASTED on an ill-planned strategy for greed and imperialism. I would hope that there are SOME voices inside the Executive Branch who could stand up to the hardliners on the right, and not just rubberstamp the next ludicrous quagmire the missile jockeys dream up.

    –Cobra

  10. notherbob2 January 21, 2005 at 10:57 pm | | Reply

    See what you can do when you focus?

  11. actus January 22, 2005 at 3:16 am | | Reply

    ‘ Dr. Rice has been criticized for the last four years for being one of the evil masterminds behind Bush’s foreign policy’

    More for being no mind at all. Whats a sovietologist got to give these times?

  12. Richard Nieporent January 22, 2005 at 10:20 am | | Reply

    More for being no mind at all.

    Careful now actus, your racism is showing. So according to you she is just another dumb black. I guess Stanford didn

  13. notherbob2 January 22, 2005 at 11:14 am | | Reply

    ACTUS, don

  14. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 22, 2005 at 2:09 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    No one, to my knowledge, conflates Colin Powell’s personal approval rating with any position on Iraq, for the obvious reason that there is no position on Iraq commanding 88% approval.

  15. leo cruz January 22, 2005 at 4:15 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Let us look at the curriculum vitae of Bushie and Condi. George Bush was the grandosn of a formaer Connecticut senator who was also the president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Condi came from a middle class family and the daughter of a minister. Bushie wanted to go to a St. John ‘s or St. marks’s Epicopal School in Dallas but could not get in because of his poor grades. That is why his parents used his Dad’s alumni legacy status to get him into Philips Andover, that pricey Establishment private boarding school in the East Coast. Bushie probably would not make the the top 10 gradautes of his local public high school. The same thing happened when he went to college, it was his name and his alumni legacy status that enabled him to get into yale. When ge graduated he tried to get into the University of TExas law school. His low LSAT scores and grades did not get him in, so his parents used their influence to get himinto the MBA program at Harvard. From acquiring the Texas Rangers to establishing the Arbusto Oil company ( “Arbusto ” is Bush in Spanish), it was his family connections that helped him get what he wanted. Condi , I don’t know if she pulled a few levers to get what she wanted, at least she knows how to play the piano, can Bushie even play the banjo fiddle?

  16. Richard Nieporent January 22, 2005 at 4:49 pm | | Reply

    When ge graduated he tried to get into the University of TExas law school. His low LSAT scores and grades did not get him in, so his parents used their influence to get him into the MBA program at Harvard.

    What a revelation. After all these years we finally know the truth. Harvard is a safe school!

  17. actus January 22, 2005 at 4:57 pm | | Reply

    ‘That is what a reasonable person does when he is wrong. You just go away. Or post a comment that is non-responsive.’

    Idon’t agree that the criticism is of being a mastermind. I think the criticism is for not thinking much about the problem. For not doing enough, not for doing too much.

  18. actus January 22, 2005 at 5:22 pm | | Reply

    ‘Careful now actus, your racism is showing. So according to you she is just another dumb black. I guess Stanford didn

  19. John Rosenberg January 22, 2005 at 7:44 pm | | Reply

    First, for better or worse, the president — the only official elected by nationwide vote — DOES speak for the American people. Second, obviously the people who voted against him disagree with him, but unless and until we change our form of govt. to a parliamentary system, the president’s cabinet is not intended to represent all the views in the country. It is intended to implement the policy of the administration that won the last election. I must say that I like this system much better than either a multi-party parliamentary system or one where the president picks his or her cabinet officers (and presumably policies as well) according to the latest polls. Again, the cobra/actus point here seems to be that elections are just blips to be endured between polls, which are much more significant.

  20. actus January 22, 2005 at 7:45 pm | | Reply

    ‘Again, the cobra/actus point here seems to be that elections are just blips to be endured between polls, which are much more significant.’

    Where did I make that point?

  21. Mingus January 22, 2005 at 9:08 pm | | Reply

    Actus and Cobra are both racists in their own way.

    That is human nature of course. Both are slaves to a human nature that they refuse to recognize.

    This is the problem of the left in general. Too much ideology and not enough biological realism.

  22. Cobra January 22, 2005 at 11:09 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>First, for better or worse, the president — the only official elected by nationwide vote — DOES speak for the American people. ”

    Where exactly is that point written in the US Constitution? I would agree with you that the words of the President, in international circles, are representative of the American agenda. Case in point, we’ve almost NEVER had such anti-American hatred throughout Europe and the Middle East since Bush took office. However, your point was to elevate the results of the Presidential election to meaning the majority of AMERICANS agree with what Bush says. That’s where specific polling data reveals that as a fallacy.

    Election results are also interesting to base this upon, since the majority of voters in 2000 DID NOT vote for Bush, so in effect, your theory would have been disproved from 2001 until now. I would shudder to think that if your blog was up in 2000, you would say that President Clinton speaks for the American people.

    Richard writes:

    >>>Careful now actus, your racism is showing. So according to you she is just another dumb black. I guess Stanford didn’t know what they were doing when they employed her all those years.”

    It’s amazing how just putting an “R” after an African American’s (or any minority) will automatically vault that person into untouchable, irreproachable sainthood in the eyes of

    conservatives and anti-affirmative action types.

    Actus’ point is extremely appropriate. Condi Rice is an expert on RUSSIA, and we are now 15 years beyond the Cold War. Of course she’s not the BEST QUALIFIED for the job of Secretary of State given the NEW challenges that face America. That’s not to say she’s “dumb.” I think she shows academic brilliance, but that’s not the only pre-requisite for the job.

    But, hey…isn’t this the great hue and cry of the anti-affirmative action types? That minorities are getting PREFERENCES for positions they aren’t qualified for? I know for SURE that there are qualified, capable, old white men that Bush could’ve picked for this position. I want to know how the anti-affirmative action types can justify their championing of Rice in this case.

    Michelle writes:

    >>>Cobra,

    No one, to my knowledge, conflates Colin Powell’s personal approval rating with any position on Iraq, for the obvious reason that there is no position on Iraq commanding 88% approval.”

    Well, to my understanding, Colin Powell represented an advisor who stood as a counter to Rumsfeld and Cheney, who would make absolutely RIDICULOUS statements leading up to this damnable war. Powell was seen as a moderate voice, one who already had a doctrine in place for carrying out millitary operations that was well known…”overwhelming force and a specific exit strategy.”

    This was almost in direct opposition to the Cheney/Rumsfeld junta. If you view the opinion polls on Powell, vs. Cheney and Rumsfeld, you will see what the American people think.

    Mingus writes:

    >>>Actus and Cobra are both racists in their own way.

    That is human nature of course. Both are slaves to a human nature that they refuse to recognize.

    This is the problem of the left in general. Too much ideology and not enough biological realism.”

    Mingus, if Actus and I are “slaves to a human nature that we refuse to recognize”, are you saying you’re not?

    If you aren’t subject to human nature, that would classify you as either “inhuman”, “subhuman”, or “superhuman.”

    Which one best describes you?

    Leo:

    My God, man….we actually agree on something! Bush DID receive PREFERENCES to get ahead in life. These anti-affirmative action types don’t seem to be upset about it. I don’t suppose Jennifer Gratz, Chetly Zarko or Ward Connerly will file a lawsuit over Bush surplanting a deserving, qualified, most likely WHITE student who applied to Yale that year. I guess in the minds of many AAA types, some whites are more “preferable” to others.

    –Cobra

  23. Richard Nieporent January 23, 2005 at 1:17 am | | Reply

    I think people take issue with condi for not being very good, not for being too good.

    Actus, in the words of a former President, there you go again.

    Is it really that difficult for Leftists to disagree with a conservative black without attacking his or her intelligence? For example, Senator Reid didn

  24. Cobra January 23, 2005 at 7:53 am | | Reply

    Richard writes:

    >>>The answer is quite simple. Leftists believe that blacks are inferior. They really don’t believe that blacks are capable of succeeding on their own. (Isn’t that why they are so supportive of affirmative action?) But, they are only willing to tolerate blacks who toe the party line. Thus, if these blacks have the audacity to think for themselves, then the underlying racism of the Left comes out in full force.”

    Richard, how do you explain me? I’m an African American liberal. I’m on the left. I certainly don’t consider myself “inferior” to you, or any other white person. There are millions of African Americans who feel the same way.

    As far as “succeeding on my own”, I’ve said repeatedly on this blog my opinions about the anti-minority racism that exists in American society. I know the game is fixed…rigged in the favor of the white majority, but I’m going to play the game with all the cards I have available to me. You, and the rest of the AAA-types want to constantly re-deal, (sometimes bottom deal) with your own deck of marked cards while spouting some flowery, nonsensical words about fairness, with no intention of giving up the advantage of House dealer.

    Of course conservatives love Condi Rice. Here’s an African Americans woman (a two-fer on the PR scale) who is academically brilliant, yet always yields to the authority of whatever white male corporate or government official in place. Loyalty and devotion of a minority to a white “father figure” has always been a popular theme in Western culture, from Gunga Din to Man Friday to Tonto to Butterfly McQueen in “Gone With the Wind.”

    This is OF COURSE not to imply Condi Rice is EXACTLY like these characters.

    –Cobra

  25. notherbob2 January 23, 2005 at 11:00 am | | Reply
  26. Richard Nieporent January 23, 2005 at 11:57 am | | Reply

    Cobra, I though it was understood that my comment pertained to white liberals. I would not expect blacks to be racist against other blacks. (Of course that doesn

  27. actus January 23, 2005 at 1:13 pm | | Reply

    ‘So the question remains, what causes this visceral reaction to a black conservative by a Leftist that is not in evidence when the person is white?’

    You’re still not getting it: the thing that makes condi a good sovietoligist is what makes her a bad planner for now. So you’re wrong on at least 2 counts.

    1. I don’t think she’s stupid, just that she’s not prepared for these times. Shes an expert in something else, in a past time and a past enemy.

    2. You want a visceral reaction to a white conservative? How many leftists paint bush as ‘dumb’? Many more than paint Condi that way.

    I think you’ve come too close to that which you have spent a lot time thinking about. You’ve come to the point when its easier to cry racism than to actually pay attention to what is being said. And you have fallen for the temptation.

    I don’t know much about Reid and thomas. I think Thomas is an unhinged radical who pretends to stand for some unyielding principle but who in the end will basically discard any history and experience if it doesn’t fit into his belief of what the constitution said 200 years ago. I think this is best exemplified by the difference in the scalia and thomas opinions in Lopez.

  28. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 23, 2005 at 8:12 pm | | Reply

    actus, Reid not only said that Thomas’s opinions were “embarrassingly” poorly written, in contrast to Scalia’s, but when asked to give an instance cited Thomas’s and Scalia’s dissents in Hillside Dairy, the former being “like an eighth-grade dissertation” (whatever that is) as compared with the latter, like the work of “a Harvard graduate.” The only problem is that Thomas’s dissent is two paragraphs long and impeccably clear, whereas Scalia didn’t even write in the case at all, but joined the majority opinion (i.e., not only didn’t he write in the case, but he didn’t dissent). If getting as much wrong possible in a small space were a spectator sport . . .

    The main difference between Scalia and Thomas (and they’ve differed much more often than have several other pairs of Justices on the Court, despite the persistent picture of Thomas as Scalia’s obedient servant/clone) seems to be that Thomas is more eager to overturn what he believes to be mistaken precedent than Scalia is. If that’s the beef, Reid ought to say so.

    Instead he pointed to the “eighth-grade-level” writing in a perfectly clear opinion, contrasting it with the scholarly prose in the co-dissent of another Justice, who as it happens joined the majority opinion and didn’t write in the case at all. There’s someone embarrassingly incompetent here, all right, and it isn’t Thomas.

  29. actus January 23, 2005 at 8:51 pm | | Reply

    ‘If that’s the beef, Reid ought to say so.’

    Thats my beef, I know others have other beefs.

    As to Thomas’ intellectual capacity, for me it was resolved by the fact that he was a law student at Harvard in the 70′s and never discussed Roe v. Wade. That seems to show a pretty poor intellectual curiousity. Of course, he could have been lying when he said he never discussed it.

  30. actus January 23, 2005 at 8:51 pm | | Reply

    ‘If that’s the beef, Reid ought to say so.’

    Thats my beef, I know others have other beefs.

    As to Thomas’ intellectual capacity, for me it was resolved by the fact that he was a law student at Harvard in the 70′s and never discussed Roe v. Wade. That seems to show a pretty poor intellectual curiousity. Of course, he could have been lying when he said he never discussed it.

  31. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 23, 2005 at 9:25 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Well, Thomas at least acknowledged that Roe was written. Reid extols an opinion that wasn’t written at all. And does it in the process of calling someone else an idiot. If he were a music critic, penning a review of a performance that didn’t actually take place, he would be out of a job. (I have seen this happen.) As he is a Senator, he’s still employed.

    And “not discussing” Roe isn’t the same thing as not having read it, or thought about it.

  32. leo cruz January 24, 2005 at 1:05 am | | Reply

    Richard Nieporent,

    that is right rich, now you know that harvard is a safety school for alumni legacies, just like Stanford or any other Ivy school or liberal arts private school( of the likes of Amherst, Williams and Bryn mawr).

    Cobra,

    What is so surprising that Bushie was a recipient of preferences throughout his life?. I had always said that preferences of any kind be it racial, alumni legacy, geogrphical are all vile and evil, sick , demented and depraved. They are a pestilence to manking, something that belongs to the Age of the Dinosaurs. they are all one and the same despite your claims that they are otherwise.No, I do not think that Gratz, Connerly or Chetly Zarko will file a lawsuit regarding the admission of many mediocre alumni legacies at Yale or Stanford. I oppposed Connerly’s 4 % geographical preference plan in California and had stated that position in other blogsites, although in fairness to Connerly , he had on occasion stated his opposition to alumni preferences. Geographical preferences just like any other preference imposes burdens on people which they not need and grants benefits to people to which they are not entitled to. I do not know much about Jenny Gratz and Chetly Zarko and r about their opinions on alumni legacy preferences at UM – Ann Arbor. I suggest that Gratz and Zarko should spend more time in campaigning against all kinds of preferences at UM – Ann Arbor. Don’t try to bait me Cobra, you are not that subtle enough.

  33. ThePrecinctChair January 24, 2005 at 12:26 pm | | Reply

    The simple point, leo, is that racial discrimination is against the law — and when practiced by a public entity is in violation of the Constitution.

    Other preferences, including legacy preferences, are not. Therefore legal challenge to them would be doomed to failure as a matter of law.

    Now, if you can get your state legislature to ban legacy preferences at your state’s public institutions, then so be it.

  34. ThePrecinctChair January 24, 2005 at 12:32 pm | | Reply

    Of course conservatives love Condi Rice. Here’s an African Americans woman (a two-fer on the PR scale) who is academically brilliant, yet always yields to the authority of whatever white male corporate or government official in place.

    You are assuming, of course, that she is so intellectually weak/dishonest that she is yielding to the views of thers. You seem to discount the possibility that she might actually be a proponent of these views of her own volition, based upon her own study and expertise. Apparantly you cannot conceive of the possibility that an intelligent ethnic minority moght draw a conclusion that differs with you — therefore you presume the person is assuming a subservient role.

    Is it truly your position that minorities must think in lockstep to be “authentic”?

  35. Cobra January 26, 2005 at 11:27 am | | Reply

    Precinct writes:

    >>>You are assuming, of course, that she is so intellectually weak/dishonest that she is yielding to the views of thers. ”

    Of course I am. There is MONEY to be made through “minority yielding.” Are you going to make me go through the rogues gallery of professional black conservatives and their riches yet again?

    –Cobra

Say What?