While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have agreed to tone down their rhetoric after this week's racially charged battle, one loyal follower of the Clinton camp, Charlie Rangel, had other ideas.
On a CNN interview, Rangel said that Barack Obama was "absolutely stupid" for his part in the conversation about the relative contributions of Martin Luther King and Lyndon B. Johnson.
"How race got into this thing is because Obama said 'race,'" Rangel said in an interview. "But there is nothing that Hillary Clinton has said that baffles me."
Clinton and Obama got into a dispute over the issue after Hillary Clinton implied in a speech that Martin Luther King's dream became reality primarily because he had a president willing to sign the legislation to make it into law.
"I would challenge anybody to belittle the contribution that Dr. King has made to the world, to our country, to civil rights, and the Voting Rights Act,” said Rangel. “But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid. It's absolutely dumb to infer that Doctor King, alone, passed the legislation and signed it into law."
Some have argued that Rangel is off base for his vicious attack on Barack Obama. Dr. Boyce Watkins, a Syracuse Professor and regular CNN guest, says that Rangel completely missed what the Obama camp was trying to say.
"Barack was communicating that politicians are bell weathers for public opinion, not much else," says Dr. Watkins. "If King had not engaged in the risk necessary to create the public sentiment needed for the Civil Rights Act to be passed, Johnson wouldn't have signed anything. King deeply cared about Civil Rights, Johnson only cared about doing whatever people told him to do. He would have signed a law reducing Civil Rights if the public had demanded it."
Charlie Rangel is a Congressman from the State of New York.
11 comments:
What a disgusting and divisive thing for Rangel to say! He has always been a shuck and jiver for the Clinton camp for as long as I can remember him. It's fun watching all these negro politicians scrambling to see who can protect the white woman the most.
Dr. Watkins, You are my friend. But, I disagree with you on this. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 was discussed during JFK's presidency. It would not have happened unless a President (and a Congress which was influenced by the President) would back it. It is similar to how FDR was able to get his New Deal programs through. He had to pack the Supreme Court who was giving strict opposition to it in 1935-1936 just get these folks to not overrule the plans to help soothe some of the economic turmoil of the Great Depression.
Do we not give credit to President Reagan because he was the one in office when the Cold War ended? Of course you do. Plus historians do note that when a white woman was killed in Texas for supporting the Civil Rights movement(don't have her name right now) was the momentum that finally had LBJ sign the legislation into law.
MLK could not have done it alone. Now, that is factually and I think people don't know there history before they speak on issues that they are ignorant about. Get the facts first and then you can understand that Clinton's statement were accurate.
I am glad you are my friend, but I didn't write this story. I don't agree with Rangel, but that has nothing to do with what the writer wrote. Sorry.
I am glad you are my friend, but I didn't write this story. I don't agree with Rangel, but that has nothing to do with what the writer wrote. Sorry.
Dr. Watkins,
I was referring to your quoted statements. "Barack was communicating that politicians are bell weathers for public opinion, not much else," says Dr. Watkins. "If King had not engaged in the risk necessary to create the public sentiment needed for the Civil Rights Act to be passed, Johnson wouldn't have signed anything. King deeply cared about Civil Rights, Johnson only cared about doing whatever people told him to do. He would have signed a law reducing Civil Rights if the public had demanded it."
That is what I was disagreeing with you on. Not the article but your quoted statements. Cold War was ended during President Reagan's term, therefore he gets the credit for it. President Kennedy attempted to get the legislation in (Civil Rights Act of 1964; Voting Rights Act of 1965) on June 11, 1963, but was unsuccessful due to large part of his assasination in November 1963. At the beginning of his tenure in 1961, he adamantly told MLK and other civil right leaders that he thought it was not the time to pass legislation to help Black America. But, JFK finally had a change of heart after the integration of University of Alabama by two black students through use of the Alabama National Guardsmen. So, we have to acknowledge that President Johnson (LBJ) did get the important legislation passed. We have to give him credit because he signed it and bullied the Dixiecrat version of Congress to get it done. MLK and other civil right leaders did influence the process as they were allowed to appear befor the signing by LBJ when it was passed. But, let us not forget that both Houses of Congress and President LBJ had to do their part to make these important legislations (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965) pass inorder to end "legal" racial segregation and allow Black America legal action to defend our rights.
First of all I am ready and willing to put the whole Hillary - Martin Luther King comment debate behind me. I have viewed the video that includes the Martin Luther King question itself and her entire response. It appeared that she was seeking voter’s support or trying to make inroads with the audience of Fox News Network.
The Clintons are causing serious division among black voters their core supporters. This incident is a good example of Hillary Clinton’s polarizing effect on people. The election of Hillary will ensure another 4 to 8 years of political spin, dirty, unproductive, and divisive politics that crippled this nation during the last 7 years.
Secondly, Anonymous
I agree with your entire explanation of what was required to pass the Civil Right Act of 1964. Your detailed argument plus Hillary's comments demonstrates the need to elect a president who has the ability and willingness to work with Congress to pass and sign legislation that is good for our nation as a whole.
Lastly, we must not forget the last time a Clinton was in office. The Republican majority not only refused to work with Bill Clinton, they also paralyzed the government during their unsuccessful attempt to impeach him for being unfaithful.
The approval rating of Congress is less that thirty percent. Therefore, we need a president who ON DAY ONE will be ready to lead this nation into greatness with his ability and willingness to work with everyone in Congress.
www.marvinthinks.blogspot.com
I am glad I ran across your blog. I recently wrote about Bob Johnson and Charlie Rangel on my blog at www.marvinthinks.blogspot.com
In short he and Johnson are the definition of Uncle Tom. YOu can read the rest of my commentary at www.marvinthinks.blogspot.com.
Marvo
To Vera Richardson:
With any politics, people are going to get bated into discussion that gets the blood boiling. It happens. I equate what Clinton said to what a press reporter in Ireland quoted Will Smith as saying "Hitler was a good guy." I think the mistake came with Obama camp and many blacks misconstruing what was she said as a SLAM on MLK. I was more shocked that Obama fell into the trap. I thought he did not want to make "race" an issue. It would have been better for him to just acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was right in that President LBJ did help the Civil Rights Movement by passing CRA of 1964, VRA of 1965 as well as "affirmative action" programs for contracting jobs, education, and employment, etc... He was the first and only president to make this initial step, besides FDR with New Deal programs in the 1930's.
The problem with Obama getting into that match is that he can't win the nomination with THE BLACK VOTE ONLY. So, it was just not a good move.
Clinton can probably counter it with the record of her husband from 1992 to 2000 especially in lowering the gap between black & whites, economic growth, peace in the middle east, health care plans, increase in housing sector, and appointment of significant blacks in key positions like the late Sec'y of Commerce Ron Brown, etc...
I think too many people make MLK into a mythical figure and forget that it was a Civil Rights MOVEMENT with many key figures like LBJ, JFK, Thurgood Marshall (who was appointed by LBJ to be our first Black Supreme Court Justice), Charles Hamiliton Houston, SCLC, NAACP, CORE, Freedom Fighters, Rosa Parks, and many others and in various time periods since 1865. Watch the Great Debaters and you will see how Melvin Tolson also had an impact during the 1930's in bringing forth discussion of black equality.
But, what I am happy about is that both Clinton and Obama made peace at the debate last night. Great move on all their parts. Making a mountain out of molehill is not going to get the Democrat party anywhere.
The focus should and always must be removing Bush and his Republican regime from office. Period.
Anonymous - I enjoyed reading your comments. I loved "The Great Debaters." Please check out my blog entries “Thank God for Dr. Martin Luther King and His Dream”, at yourblackgospel.com and “The Great Debaters” at yourblackwoman.com.
To Marvo - I will check out your blog marvinthinks.blogspot.com.
Charlie Rangel has always served this country and his state with honor and he still does. I thank him for not going crazy on Obama's behalf, once again he is indicatation that he does not run with the pack and can take heat when the fire is lit. Sharpton & Jackson are laying low on this one because whatever side they come up on that party will take heat - they do not want to bring Obama down - they want him to be prez solely because of his color.
Dr. Watkins is obviously a blatant racist.The civil rights record of Lyndon Johnson is immortalized in volumes, long before MLK came into prominence.
Ignorance on the part of a professor is ten times more dangerous than any other person.
Post a Comment