Does he go back to private life after two more years of embarrassment for the state and the party and the country as well as himself, or does he go now? That’s all it comes to for him.
Because he’s lost all support within his own party as well as from the public. He can technically serve as governor without the support of his party, but he can’t do jack shit. So he’s doing the Commonwealth no favors by staying.
And of course, if he stays, it’s gonna make it harder for the Dems to re-take the state legislature this fall, so he’s doing his party no favors by staying.
The only person who benefits from his staying is him. And only temporarily. The longer he stays, the more antipathy his own partisans will feel towards him. I suppose he could eke out a pathetic Liebermanesque post-officeholding career, but it would indeed be pathetic.
Addressed back in post #174-175. There is a pretty stark difference which seems obvious to me. You don’t see it?
So, if he is not in those pictures, you want him to resign anyway?
It was wrong then and it’s wrong now but let’s be honest nobody cared back then. I recall more than one particularly embarrassing incident where I was egged on by others to participate. Punishing him for it is ridiculous.
It was pretty moronic for him to admit it then deny it though.
I showed that to DrDeth a couple of pages ago. He doesn’t seem to want to admit that the Gov changed his story.
Yes, he did. But in the first he made unclear statements over what picture he was talking about. In the later statement, he was clear.
but again-So, if he is not in those pictures, you want him to resign anyway?
And I suppose someone foisted the ‘Coonman’ nickname on him at VMI without his knowledge as well, which AFAICT he has made no attempt to explain.
Finally, it’s fundamentally not about him. This is not a criminal proceeding; it’s the governorship of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Can he lead any more? No, he can’t. Then he needs to step out of the way.
And even if it was all about him, shouldn’t it be: “So, if he is not in those pictures, and someone else put them on his yearbook page either against his will or without his knowledge, you want him to resign anyway?”
Because I don’t care whether he’s in those pictures, if it was his choice that they be part of his yearbook page.
Not really, no. The fact is Tropic Thunder got laughs (an money) off black face. Don’t forget this is the movie that brought us the gem “Never go full retard”, so I don’t view this as a move whose primary purpose was to forward ploitically correct enlightened thinking. I really don’t think the POINT of the blackface in that movie was to enlighten people about how blackface is bad. The point of it was for edgy, low-brow humor. And I think the point of the blackface in that yearbook was for low-brow humor as well. Do we really think whoever was in that picture was in blackface the next day too? I mean, maybe, if the dancing contest was the next day.
There’s another thread around here who’s basic consensus is there’s basiscally no legitimate excuse for a white person to paint their skin brown. I don’t see how that movie is an exception.
I think we can agree that we’d never vote for Robert Downey Jr. for a position of public trust.
I think that you are wrong on this, and that at least one of the messages that one should come away from that movie si that blackface is something that needs to be handled with more care. Did he not get flak, in the very movie, for having it?
Sounds a sound lesson to me, though I could see how it would be missed by those focussing more on the color of the skin, rather than why the color of the skin.
Really, where is that thread? There is a thread where we talk about how it is very rare that such a thing is acceptable, and even list Tropic thunder as one of those, but I’ve not seen the one you refer to. Cite?
He actually did explain. And yes, nicknames are often foisted upon you without your knowledge or consent. Not to mention, there are other reasons for “coon” than the racist one, like say coon hunting.
So, even if he’s not guilty, you want him to resign?
What’s this “if” nonsense? Did he apologize for something or didn’t he?
Yes, he did. That doesnt mean he was in the pictures.
If he is not able to be an effective leader, then he should resign.
With what has come up and about this, I do not think he can be an effective leader anymore.
What does it mean, then?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/02/politics/northam-racist-yearbook-photo/index.html
"Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said he does not believe he is either person in the racist photo that appeared in his 1984 yearbook but that he did once darken his face to resemble Michael Jackson during a dance contest in 1984.
In a remarkable, hour-long news conference at the Governor’s Mansion in Richmond, Northam defended himself from the cacophony of calls for his resignation, but acknowledged that he had made mistakes on race in his past, like when he darkened his face for the dance contest.
“I believe now and then that I am not either of the people in this photo,” Northam said, denying that he had ever worn a KKK robe and hood or been drunk enough to forget a moment like this. “This was not me in that picture. That was not Ralph Northam.”
It means he was admitting he dressed as Jackson, but denies being in blackface or in the KKK costume in the other photo.
Dressing as Jackson, even when darkening your face, is possibly poor judgement, but not racist.
'Tis so. Especially considering that Michael was white.
If you think he should claim that it wasn’t him in blackface *that *time, but it was some *other *time, and possibly others, often enough and in situations that actually gave him a nickname for it, well, that isn’t the strongest defense possible, is it?