MAYOR JACKSON & 'WHAT IS IS' CAMPAIGN

Submitted by Roldo on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 12:55.

Could this be the dullest, most meaningless mayoral election of all time? Well, it is what it is, ain’t it?

 

If I were running against Jackson I’d say strongly and often, “What it IS should not BE.”

 

General election opponent Bill Patmon – who has no money and not enough name recognition city-wide – did attack Jackson for this anemic attitude of acceptance.

 

You’d think we have a monk, not a mayor.

 

“The message that the current administration does not care is clear. But the attitude, ‘it is what it is,’ is neither acceptable nor wise in a time when this city, and every other city for that matter, critically counts on its tax base for survival” Patmon told the Plain Dealer. He hit the right tone.

 

The problem also is that the news media have been turned off on the election. For Patmon that’s a disaster since he has no money to push any agenda into focus.

 

Patmon, of course, is correct. Mayor Jackson’s oath of acceptance is not good enough, not nearly good enough.

 

A city with no spirit isn’t going to be helped by some Buddhist-like mind-set. It’s not a brew that offers much hope.

 

Mayor Jackson seems to be in a go-along mode.

 

Two million bucks for an aquarium – which likely will be more like a fish tank - for Jeff Jacobs, okay. It is what it is. Hundreds of millions of dollars for a medical mart and convention center, alright. It is what it is.

 

Tens of millions of dollars for a diluted Wolstein project, why not? It is what it is.

 

A new port at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and one that negates other plans and studies? So? It is what it is.

Monopoly casino? Yes, why not. It is what it is.

 

That’s not leadership. That is what it is, of course. But it is not what it should be.

 

Cleveland better start looking for new leaders NOW for the future. It’s already much too late for the city. It needs a leader who will do more than see acceptance as a policy.

 

 

 

( categories: )

"that Black face should also represent Black interest"

I don't see Jackson's "as is is" policy as so harmless.

I'm reading up on black conservativism, considering viewpoints like "Multiculturalism\Diversity and Multicentrism; understanding the difference", and "Jesse Lee Peterson and the Black NeoCons", and reflecting on the actions I've seen taken by specific black leaders here, which seem only to benefit a VERY SMALL  community of black political insiders and rich, white owners of industry, and I feel these leaders have failed to address issues of diverse multicentrism in our economy and society here.

In the best of worlds, our leaders would have leveraged our diverse multicentric strengths for regional advancement - built upon the diversity of global centers reflected in our cultural gardens. Rather, the fact there are not Native American and African American cultural gardens speaks to the lack of respect for our native and black heritages here, at the highest level of our multicultural conservative leadership.

Regarding Multicentrism:

We must understand the difference and make sure a Black face is not being used as a pawn in a dirty game of chess wherein we do not need a Black face but a Black perspective. Know the difference it will help make a difference!

Regarding Black Conservatives:

They’re usually divided into three groups. The first group is comprised of intellectuals who operate in academic circles (think Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Glenn Loury and Shelby Steele). The second group consists of those who are on the front lines of the so-called “Culture Wars.” These individuals are a little more intellectually malnourished than those in the first group. They are mercenaries who primarily serve as go-to-guys whenever conservative clients (like Fox News and others) need a black person to speak badly about other black people (think Star Parker, Larry Elder and Armstrong Williams). Peterson falls squarely into this camp. The third group is the most politically shrewd. Members of this group are constantly jockeying for position and influence in the political sphere. They are usually the central players in conservative attempts to pass legislation curbing or completely eliminating civil rights advancements (think Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes and Condoleeza Rice).

Who are the multicentric leaders of real NEO, vs. the NEO CONS?

Disrupt IT