Racist tool Bob Robb puts his foot in his “mau-mau”.

10 Jul 2009 05:23 pm
Posted by: Donna

He starts off innocuously enough, playing the false equivalence game:

The budget choices wouldn’t be any easier or more pleasant if Democrats were in charge, and their solutions would be just as unpopular. Sometimes, however, it’s enough just to be the other guy when voters are in a mood to change directions. And while the political landscape in Arizona still tilts against Democrats, 2010 is shaping up to be a year in which unusual electoral outcomes are quite possible.

Give me a break. It was the Republican legislature and Republican Governor who dithered with the budget (still unresolved as we speak) for six full months and then rushed all the other bills through at the last minute without a bare minimum of debate or public discussion.

He thinks that three ballot propositions they passed will save the GOP from a much-deserved trouncing at the polls.

Republicans, however, are not defenseless. Almost lost in the budget debacle was the extent to which Republican legislators sought to more favorably shape the 2010 electoral environment. Republicans put three propositions on the ballot, all incorporating core conservative principles which voters are highly likely to agree with.

I’m not so sure about that, though I do agree with him that all 3 measures will pass. However, while it’s true that initiatives can have a profound contingent effect on both turnout and candidate performance, not all of them have the pull of gay marriage bans. Voters (unfortunately) agreed by up to 70% with the spate of anti-immigrant measures on the ballot in 2006, but that didn’t help Len Munsil much.

Robb isn’t too enthusiastic about the one on “individual choice” in health care, but the anti-union and affirmative action ones allow Bob to nurture hope in his dark little heart.

The other two, however, are probably solid political winners in Arizona. The racial preferences ban was defeated last electoral go-round in Colorado, but it has passed comfortably in most other states in which it has been on the ballot. And Arizonans are likely to be strongly supportive of secret voting in union elections.

I predict that social conservatives are going to wish they hadn’t spent their ammo on gay marriage in 2008, when they didn’t have a chance in hell of getting John McCain elected. While the three 2010 initiatives will probably pass easily, none has the juice to secure the Republican majority in the lege, nor put Jeff Flake (or whomever) in the Governor’s office. Moreover I doubt that the LDS Church, whose support and resources were pivotal for Prop 102, is going to touch an anti-affirmative action amendment with a ten foot pole, given their sordid history with race.

Now, speaking of sordid racism. WTF, Bob?

And while outlawing racial and sexual preferences is an important fundamental principle deserving enshrinement in the state Constitution, in reality Arizona has remarkably little racial mau-mauing given our large Latino population. The entitlement mentality hasn’t really taken root here.

Seriously, WTF? I wasn’t the only one curious about the phrase “racial mau-mauing”. A couple of the azcentral commenters were as well.

I am unfamiliar with the turn of phrase “racial mau-mauing.” Please elaborate and explain.

“The Mau Mau Uprising of 1952 to 1960 was an insurgency by Kenyan peasants against the British colonialist rule.” Wiki

Interesting choice of words.

Interesting is an understatement. I think the AZ Republic better make Mr. Mau Mau issue an apology.

UPDATE: Here’s the freedictionary.com entry on “mau mau”:

mau-mau (moumou)
tr.v. mau-maued, mau-mau·ing, mau-maus Informal
To attack or denounce vociferously, especially so as to intimidate: “In years past, [the civil rights leadership] … would mau-mau the government or the corporate sector or the white community” (Joseph Perkins).

[After the Mau Mau, a secret society of Kikuyu terrorists that led a rebellion against the ruling Europeans in Kenya in the 1950s, from Kikuyu mau-mau, sound of the voracious gobbling of a hyena.]

Figures.

5 Comments

  1. Comment by Greg Brownell on July 11, 2009 9:50 am

    Right on and write on.

  2. Comment by Zelph on July 11, 2009 1:19 pm

    Yow!

  3. Comment by Eli_Blake on July 12, 2009 3:33 pm

    No, zelph:

    yow-yow.

  4. Comment by Eli_Blake on July 12, 2009 3:51 pm

    Though I will add as a member of the LDS church, I disagree with virtually every political position taken by the church, and do so quite openly, but have never had any problems (even in a very red little town) doing so.

    Though the day I felt due to some misinformation that was being taught that I had to speak up in a Sunday school class against discrimination against gay people was a very intense, very long morning– but on the other hand I’m sure it got at least a few people thinking.

  5. Comment by Republitard on July 14, 2009 6:42 am

    Your attack on Robert Robb is uncalled for! He is not a racist, as his denunciations of bigots like Sonia Stottlemayer attest.

    The true racists are the liberals who oppose civil rights leaders like Ward Connerly and Clarence Thomas. Martin Luther King would be appalled.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment