Black Dem. Politicians Are Punks
DarkStar
In Maryland, Democrat state senator Clarence Mitchell, IV (C4) became
upset because the redistricting plan created by Democrat Gov. Parris
Glendening, cut the political power of Black politicians. The plan
created by Glendening would have caused Black politicians to go
against each other to represent new districts, or would have cause
Black politicians to go against white Democratic politicians, while
other Democratic white politicians were safe.
To force the redistricting plan to be re-drawn, C4 announced that he
was considering leaving the Democratic party to become a Republican or
an independent. He met with the Maryland Republican party (headed by a
Black man) to discuss his options.
In the end, the governor re-drew his plans and C4 decided to stay a
Democrat.
To me he punked out and, to me, again it shows that Black Democratic
politicians aren't really willing to seriously get respect from the
white Democratic bosses.
IMO, he should have left the party. There is no way that tactic will
work again in Maryland. If he had left, the tactic could have been
used by other Black Democratic politicians.
On Friday, a morning talk show on WOLB ( a Cathy Hughes owned talk
radio station), Larry Young stated that when Parris Glendening met
with the state Black caucus, Glendening took control and basically put
the Black politicians in their place.
Black Democratic politicians are being punked by the Democratic party.
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@toad.net
http://www.toad.net/~darkstar
PubKey http://www.toad.net/~darkstar/public_key.html
trudogg®
> Black Democratic politicians are being punked by the Democratic party.
...are you pissed because he didn't change, or are you pissed because he
thought of it first?
DarkStar
put forth:
I'm pissed that he didn't do it.
If he had done it, the results would have been the same: the
boundaries would have been slightly re-worked. But now, the threat of
any other Black Democrats leaving are worthless _because_ he stayed.
If the talk show host is correct, Gov. Glendening changed the
boundaries and then STILL smacked down the state Black caucus.
I hate to say this, but if Sharpton does run for the presidential
nomination, the only good that it may do is to force the Democratic
party's hand to either respect the Black base, or to put a more open
face of hositilty for all to see.
trudogg®
> I'm pissed that he didn't do it.
...duly noted.
> If he had done it, the results would have been the same: the
> boundaries would have been slightly re-worked. But now, the threat of
> any other Black Democrats leaving are worthless _because_ he stayed.
...you're talking about a "one shot" deal. If he had switched and the
next one to use the threat didn't, the net result would be the same.
> If the talk show host is correct, Gov. Glendening changed the
> boundaries and then STILL smacked down the state Black caucus.
...the reality of realigning districts can only be supported by a
census. If the "good" Gov. can't read the writing on the wall, then the
caucus needs to be completely clear on how things will be now and for
the next ten. If the party doesn't choose to listen, they do so at their
own risk.
> I hate to say this, but if Sharpton does run for the presidential
> nomination, the only good that it may do is to force the Democratic
> party's hand to either respect the Black base, or to put a more open
> face of hositilty for all to see.
...I would prefer that you not leave the issue of respect for the Black
base up to the possibility of Sharpton's inclusion. It is not
representative and would be another "bogus" issue at best...
DarkStar
put forth:
>DarkStar wrote...
>
>> I'm pissed that he didn't do it.
>
>...duly noted.
>
>> If he had done it, the results would have been the same: the
>> boundaries would have been slightly re-worked. But now, the threat of
>> any other Black Democrats leaving are worthless _because_ he stayed.
>
>...you're talking about a "one shot" deal. If he had switched and the
>next one to use the threat didn't, the net result would be the same.
If he had switched, I don't believe there would have been a "next one"
for a very long time.
>
>> If the talk show host is correct, Gov. Glendening changed the
>> boundaries and then STILL smacked down the state Black caucus.
>
>...the reality of realigning districts can only be supported by a
>census. If the "good" Gov. can't read the writing on the wall, then the
>caucus needs to be completely clear on how things will be now and for
>the next ten. If the party doesn't choose to listen, they do so at their
>own risk.
According to the talk show host, they didn't do as you suggest. That,
to me, says they punked out.
>> I hate to say this, but if Sharpton does run for the presidential
>> nomination, the only good that it may do is to force the Democratic
>> party's hand to either respect the Black base, or to put a more open
>> face of hositilty for all to see.
>
>...I would prefer that you not leave the issue of respect for the Black
>base up to the possibility of Sharpton's inclusion.
He's the only one on a "national" level saying it publicly.
And that's a damned shame.
trudogg®
>
> If he had switched, I don't believe there would have been a "next one"
> for a very long time.
...maybe there wouldn't have been the complete need for a next one. But
never say never in politics.
> According to the talk show host, they didn't do as you suggest. That,
> to me, says they punked out.
...ten years is a long time. A lot of ground can be covered in that
span. If this plays out as it appears it has, then it is a definite
opportunity lost. The pressure needs to be constant. When the party
looks around for votes on their pet projects the lesson has to be
restated each and every time. If the Caucus can't show a little ass from
time to time, they will be asking for the same sorry results next go-
round.
> He's the only one on a "national" level saying it publicly.
...and if the conduit is viewed as flawed the message gets lost. Not
only lost, but tainted, possibly precluding others from using it to a
greater advantage.
> And that's a damned shame.
...from your lips to God's ear.
Rich Thompson
any less punkish.
jmdrake
> I'm pissed that he didn't do it.
So are you equally as pissed at JC Watts for not leaving the
repugnatan (excuse me republican) party after Newt Gingrich
used him like a $5.00 hooker? You remember. When JC, like
a stupid cats paw, in the official repugnatan rebuttal to a
Clinton speech called civil rights leaders "race hustling
poverty pimps" and then Newt got on TV and "appologized to
African Americans on behalf of the repugnatan party" for the
remarks? How about being pissed at Colin Powell and Condie
Rice for sticking by George W. after the "Bob Jones
University" incident where he appologized to Catholics
for BJUs anti Catholic stance but he REFUSED to appologize
for BJUs racist stance? Or how they stood by him after his
brothers govenatorial administration actively disenfranchised
black voters in Florida? Or how they stood by him when he
appointed John "heil Hitler" Ashcroft as attorney general?
If the answer to those questions is no, then why not? If
the answer to those questions is yes, than what party do
you suggest African American politicians to join?
Christopher Morton
>I hate to say this, but if Sharpton does run for the presidential
>nomination, the only good that it may do is to force the Democratic
>party's hand to either respect the Black base, or to put a more open
>face of hositilty for all to see.
I'm still puzzled by the contrast (and correlation) between the
virtually SERVILE attitude of the Congressional Black Caucus toward
Clinton and the Democratic Party on the one hand, and the open
contempt of White Democrats for them, especially Senate Democrats.
The crowning example is the way Senate Democrats casually brushed off
the CBC protest of the presidential election. Not a SINGLE vote was
cast in favor by Democrats. If there really was the degree of
disenfranchisement of Black voters that was claimed, that makes Senate
Democrats accomplices after the fact.
During the impeachment, I expressed the hope that at least Black
representatives had gotten some kind of quid pro quo for their utterly
unswerving loyalty to Clinton and the party. What they got was a big
fat hocker in the eye.
It just baffles the hell out of me. It's like Jews voting for
Buchanan, over and over again.
I know we can't expect better from Republicans, but you'd at least
think that somebody'd have the self respect to try to exact a price
for such disdain.
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Justin Volpe has a gun.
Check out:
justinoix
>From: jmdra...@yahoo.com (jmdrake)
>Date: 1/23/2002 2:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <e20a4a47.02012...@posting.google.com>
>
>So are you equally as pissed at JC Watts for not leaving the
>repugnatan (excuse me republican) party after Newt Gingrich
>used him like a $5.00 hooker? You remember. When JC, like
>a stupid cats paw, in the official repugnatan rebuttal to a
>Clinton speech called civil rights leaders "race hustling
>poverty pimps" and then Newt got on TV and "appologized to
>African Americans on behalf of the repugnatan party" for the
>remarks?
When did he say that? If he said that, it means Watts is a yes man of the
lowest order.
>How about being pissed at Colin Powell and Condie
>Rice for sticking by George W. after the "Bob Jones
>University" incident where he appologized to Catholics
>for BJUs anti Catholic stance but he REFUSED to appologize
>for BJUs racist stance?
So should they have turned down opportunities to be in his administration?
Should we have no black people in government?
>Or how they stood by him after his
>brothers govenatorial administration actively disenfranchised
>black voters in Florida? Or how they stood by him when he
>appointed John "heil Hitler" Ashcroft as attorney general?
I fail to see why people attack Rice and Powell for doing thier jobs . Poweel
is a solider/military man. Rice is an academic and advisor. If Bush does
something horrible it is the job of the Congress, the courts and the public to
get on his case. Not members of his administration.
DarkStar
Blacks don't support Republicans in such numbers that Blacks can
expect favors in return for the votes.
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Dark...@flash.net -- Ed Brown
http://www.tnp.com/~darkstar
DarkStar
wrote:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<8hcm4ucf1k520cfia...@4ax.com>...
>
>> I'm pissed that he didn't do it.
>
>So are you equally as pissed at JC Watts for not leaving the
>repugnatan (excuse me republican) party after Newt Gingrich
>used him like a $5.00 hooker?
Do Blacks support Republicans around 90%? If yes, then yes. Otherwise
it doesn't really make a difference.
For the support that the Democratic party receives from Blacks, Blacks
shouldn't get spat on, to put it nicely, by the Democratic party.
Even Charles Rangel said that he wished there were more J.C. Watts so
that, maybe, he could get more concessions from his party.
Think about that one.
Black Democratic politicians should be using the power of Black
support, instead they are being punked out.
justinoix
>Date: 1/24/2002 5:58 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c4f8a72...@news.toad.net>
>
>
>Do Blacks support Republicans around 90%? If yes, then yes. Otherwise
>it doesn't really make a difference.
>
If everyone black voted republican, since blacks do not have a majority of
votes ,i seriously doubt much would change.
>Even Charles Rangel said that he wished there were more J.C. Watts so
>that, maybe, he could get more concessions from his party.
>
>Think about that one.
Or who says a creative black politician has to be a Republican or Democrat?
Independants have won elections, as have third parties . And let me remind you
that neither the democrat nor the republican party were orginally American
parties . They both were third parties ,and the pre existing parties fell out
of place.
Rich Thompson
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:40:20 CST, mice_el...@yahoo.com (Rich
> Thompson) wrote:
>
> >Probably true, but I don't see how Black Republican politicians are
> >any less punkish.
>
> Blacks don't support Republicans in such numbers that Blacks can
> expect favors in return for the votes.
True, which is why I said Black Republican *politicians*.
Christopher Morton
>Or who says a creative black politician has to be a Republican or Democrat?
I don't really support a lot of the Green Party platform (as I
remember it), but if we actually CARED enough to punish people for
treating us like crap, our biggest threat would probably be to vote
Green.
Hardcore Democratic Gore supporters were desparate enough during the
election to start a rumor that Gore is gay, and claim that that was a
reason NOT to vote for him.
If he scares Democrats THAT much, he could be a useful tool....
jmdrake
> When did he say that? If he said that, it means Watts is a yes man of the
> lowest order.
Here's a link:
http://www.e-z.net/wtv/v-jc1.htm
And my problem isn't as much as what he said (though I didn't like at) as
it was for the way he let Newt and company use him.
> >How about being pissed at Colin Powell and Condie
> >Rice for sticking by George W. after the "Bob Jones
> >University" incident where he appologized to Catholics
> >for BJUs anti Catholic stance but he REFUSED to appologize
> >for BJUs racist stance?
>
> So should they have turned down opportunities to be in his administration?
> Should we have no black people in government?
You missunderstand me. I'm not saying what they should or should
not have done. That's there business. I'm saying its unfair to
critisize black Democrats for staying with the party if such
criticism isn't being equally leveled at black Republicans.
> >Or how they stood by him after his
> >brothers govenatorial administration actively disenfranchised
> >black voters in Florida? Or how they stood by him when he
> >appointed John "heil Hitler" Ashcroft as attorney general?
>
> I fail to see why people attack Rice and Powell for doing thier jobs . Poweel
> is a solider/military man. Rice is an academic and advisor. If Bush does
> something horrible it is the job of the Congress, the courts and the public to
> get on his case. Not members of his administration.
While I have not criticized them for doing their jobs, I must point
out that you are wrong in your assumption that it is simply the job
of the Congress to keep the President in line. That's why cabinent
members are also called "political advisors". And if a President
consistently fails to follow an advisors sound council, it is proper
at some point for that advisor to distance himself from the
administration. That's why some of Nixon's advisor actually had
to go to jail. Instead of following their duty they went with the
"I'm just doing my job" mentallity. Anyway I think Powell has been
doing his job in the fact that he is willing to stand up to what
he thinks is potentially bad policy. Look at the whole "Taliban
POW issue". It's well known that Powell has voiced his own views
on the issue, (take it on a case by case basis), instead of walking
"goose step" with the administration. I'm a little less sure about
Condie Rice at this point. But time will tell.
jmdrake
> Hardcore Democratic Gore supporters were desparate enough during the
> election to start a rumor that Gore is gay, and claim that that was a
> reason NOT to vote for him.
Oh please. There is not an ounce of truth to that.
It even falls apart of simple logic grounds. If these
were truly "hardcore" gore supporters than they would
never have abandoned him, especially when the fact
is that Gore got more than 50% of the popular vote.
Perhaps some of Rush Limbaughs "ditto-heads" claimed
to be a Gore supporter and started such a rumour, but
I don't even think Rush listeners are THAT stupid.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Just for the record, I believe the rumor was about the Green Party
Candidate for president.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Oh please. There is not an ounce of truth to that.
>It even falls apart of simple logic grounds. If these
I typed "Gore" when I meant to type "Nader".
jmdrake
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:42:29 CST, jmdra...@yahoo.com (jmdrake)
> wrote:
>
> >DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<8hcm4ucf1k520cfia...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> I'm pissed that he didn't do it.
> >
> >So are you equally as pissed at JC Watts for not leaving the
> >repugnatan (excuse me republican) party after Newt Gingrich
> >used him like a $5.00 hooker?
>
> Do Blacks support Republicans around 90%? If yes, then yes. Otherwise
> it doesn't really make a difference.
>
> For the support that the Democratic party receives from Blacks, Blacks
> shouldn't get spat on, to put it nicely, by the Democratic party.
Oh give me a break! This is an example of the black conservative
hypocracy that Democrats are having to fight against. On the one
hand the Democrats are trashed by conservatives, black and white,
for supporting affirmative action. On the other hand they are
critisized by the same black conservatives for "not supporting
affirmative action." Democrats are trashed for giving into
"special interests". Then if a particular special interest group
doesn't get something that they want then these SAME critics
try to go to the special interest group and say "see, we told you
they weren't doing anything for you."
The bottom line is in the political game you win some and you
loose some. You pick your battles. At the end of the day you
count your wins against your loses and you decide what is the
best course of action. Thinking that "90% support" means that
you're going to get your way every time is silly.
> Even Charles Rangel said that he wished there were more J.C. Watts so
> that, maybe, he could get more concessions from his party.
>
> Think about that one.
Think about this. Since J.C. Watts has joined the Rebuplican
party, how has he actually HELPED black people? He hasn't! The
only use for him in the Republican party is that he's given them
cover for their racist policies. He and Ward Connerly. After
all if a black person is for something it can't be racist right?
> Black Democratic politicians should be using the power of Black
> support, instead they are being punked out.
Wrong. Instead their power is being leached out by black
conservatives who are attacking them any chance they get.
DarkStar
Thompson) put forth:
You missed my point.
Because Blacks support the Democratic party in such strong numbers, it
should be expected that Black Democratic politicians use the base to
force issues "important to Black people."
The fact that Black Republicans are small in number, means that they
have to be less combative.
DarkStar
forth:
>>Subject: Re: Black Dem. Politicians Are Punks
>>From: dark...@toad.net (DarkStar)
>>Date: 1/24/2002 5:58 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3c4f8a72...@news.toad.net>
>>
>
>>
>>Do Blacks support Republicans around 90%? If yes, then yes. Otherwise
>>it doesn't really make a difference.
>>
>
>If everyone black voted republican, since blacks do not have a majority of
>votes ,i seriously doubt much would change.
In areas where Blacks control the vote, they should. It should make a
difference in the House of Representatives.
>
>>Even Charles Rangel said that he wished there were more J.C. Watts so
>>that, maybe, he could get more concessions from his party.
>>
>>Think about that one.
>
>Or who says a creative black politician has to be a Republican or Democrat?
I'm not saying that at all.
Kirk
> Think about this. Since J.C. Watts has joined the Rebuplican
> party, how has he actually HELPED black people? He hasn't!
As a Congressman, Watts´ job is to serve the residents of his
District, no matter what their ethnicity might be.
Kirk
DarkStar
forth:
>dark...@toad.net (DarkStar) wrote in message news:<3c4f8a72...@news.toad.net>...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:42:29 CST, jmdra...@yahoo.com (jmdrake)
>> wrote:
....
>> Do Blacks support Republicans around 90%? If yes, then yes. Otherwise
>> it doesn't really make a difference.
>>
>> For the support that the Democratic party receives from Blacks, Blacks
>> shouldn't get spat on, to put it nicely, by the Democratic party.
>
>Oh give me a break! This is an example of the black conservative
>hypocracy that Democrats are having to fight against.
Tell that to CBC member Dengel. He's the one who said that he wished
there were more people like J.C. Watts in congress so he could get
more concessions from his party.
Tell that to CBC member Maxine Waters who was mad because Gore didn't
interview one Black person for the VP spot.
....
>The bottom line is in the political game you win some and you
>loose some. You pick your battles. At the end of the day you
>count your wins against your loses and you decide what is the
>best course of action. Thinking that "90% support" means that
>you're going to get your way every time is silly.
Meanwhile, the CBC was pissed when not one Democratic senator
supported their "demonstration" against Bush after the election mess.
Face it, you're supporting bullies kicking sand in the face of the
"weaker" Black voters.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>The fact that Black Republicans are small in number, means that they
>have to be less combative.
Actually, don't you have this backwards. Since reupblicans can't attract a
sizable percentage, don't they have to strive to attract African-American
voters. African-Americans aren't supposed to have to change their points of
view, or re-interpret their life experiences to become republicans. I
continually ask just what republicans presently offer the bulk of African
America besides scorn, and I get told that we should look to Ward Connerly,
Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and JC Watts as examples. Tokenism is supposed
to have died in the 50's, and the new flavor is no more usable than the old.
-art clemons-
Christopher Morton
>Tell that to CBC member Maxine Waters who was mad because Gore didn't
>interview one Black person for the VP spot.
Has any CBC member publicly commented on this slap in the face from
the Senate Democrats on the election protest?
If there WAS disenfranchisement in Florida, the Senate Democrats are
fullblown accomplices in it. If I was a Green Party candidate, I'd
swing THAT club like a Louisville slugger at election time.
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <qpte5ug3hikafu9jv...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>
>>The fact that Black Republicans are small in number, means that they
>>have to be less combative.
>
>Actually, don't you have this backwards.
Not at all.
We have power in a party. We should be using the power.
....
> I
>continually ask just what republicans presently offer the bulk of African
>America besides scorn, and I get told that we should look to Ward Connerly,
>Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and JC Watts as examples. Tokenism is supposed
>to have died in the 50's, and the new flavor is no more usable than the old.
What the Republicans have to offer doesn't matter. The fact is, the
Democratic party is not giving the Black base the respect that's been
earned.
>
>
>-art clemons-
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
ac:
>>Actually, don't you have this backwards.
>
>Not at all.
>
>We have power in a party. We should be using the power.
No, you have a party which tenuously controls one house of one branch of
government, and note that many of the nominally democratic or independent
Senators of said house come from states with low numbers of African heritage
voters. You also have a Senate election setup which gives those with funds to
donate a greater voice than voters. What for example will entice Jeffords to
vote in a manner which favors African-Americans. It's telling that the states
with the highest percentage of African heritage voters seem to mostly have
conservative Senators who didn't garner much African heritage support. If you
truly expect African-American voters to sway Senators, then there has to be
some hold over them, of course, suggesting that African heritage voters support
Trent Lott as a means of gaining power is the equivalent of suggesting gaining
power by threatening to pull the trigger of a loaded rifle whose barrel is
stuck in your mouth. It will be noisy and will gain attention, but it's
suicide nonetheless.
>....
>
>> I
>>continually ask just what republicans presently offer the bulk of African
>>America besides scorn, and I get told that we should look to Ward Connerly,
>>Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and JC Watts as examples. Tokenism is
>supposed
>>to have died in the 50's, and the new flavor is no more usable than the old.
>
>What the Republicans have to offer doesn't matter. The fact is, the
>Democratic party is not giving the Black base the respect that's been
>earned.
It unfortunately does matter. It makes no sense to take an action which
empowers folks who seem to be sworn enemies of the community all too often.
Republicans swung conservative, when conservatives began voting in primaries,
and politicians who appealed to said voters learned to pretend to be moderate.
It would make more sense to insist that African heritage voters vote heavily in
primaries to punish candidates in the house whose representation has been less
than stellar, a practice which would probably lead to more "respect". In
actual fact, voting at a 90% level in primaries would probably also force
Senators to pay a lot more attention to our concerns for at least the year and
a half before that Senator is up for election. This of course assumes that we
can stomach candidates who can compete on a statewide level and win (which is
another problem in Senatorial elections). As conservative republicans noticed,
not voting leaves you powerless, but voting in primaries moves candidates
towards you.
To suggest that African-Americans accept more republican control of both houses
in the name of punishing democrats is a bizarre concept. To vote for a 3rd
party candidate with no chance of winning also doesn't do much for you that
election year, or in the future, and sitting out an election, when folks known
to be opposed to the better interests of the community are likely to prevail if
you do sit out makes even less sense. In other words, if there are two large
stores in your neighborhood with items you need, one store has frostily polite
staff, and the other has staff which follows you around, insults you and then
has the security guard search you as you leave, do you really shop at the
second store because the other store isn't polite enough? Yeah, you might find
about one third of what you need at Joe's Corner Grocers, but what do you do
about the rest of the items you need?
You're suggesting either doing without or going to the 2nd store in effect.
-art clemons-
DaV...@webtv.net
Think about that one.
Think about this. Since J.C. Watts has joined the Rebuplican party, how
has he actually HELPED black people? He hasn't! The only use for him in
the Republican party is that he's given them cover for their racist
policies. He and Ward Connerly. After all if a black person is for
something it can't be racist right?
As a transplanted Okie who lives in J.C. Watts' district and as a
democrat, who has and will consistently vote for him, I must take a
stand in Mr. Watts defense concerning "What has he done for Black
people." First of all, I doubt that the democratic alternative here in
Oklahoma would do anymore for African-Americans than David Duke.
Secondly, I've had the priviledge of hearing Mr. Watts speak before a
predominantly white audience. Before hearing him, I was very critical,
and had labeled him as an "Uncle Tom" type Black politician. But when
he stood before whites and told them that they must insure that racist
attitudes and behavior stop at every level. I was duly impressed. He
told them, if you don't want Affirmative Action, you must be sure that
African-Americans are treated equally. He addressed the importance of
being fair and just to an audience that would not have convened to hear
those we classify as the "Black leaders" of today. Hearing him talk
very succinctly about the evils of racisms and the responsiblity white
america as to take upon itself to insure that it ceases, really made me
proud. He spoke the absolute truth and was unapologetic. When you get
away from all the media hyperboly, I know the average person will find
Mr. Watts a very congenial person, who is really trying to do what he
feels is right. I can even recall when some in the media falsely made
the statement that Mr. Watts was married to a white woman in an effort
to further paint hm as a "Clarence Thomas-nisk" type Uncle Tom. That
was as absolute lie. He has been married to the same "Black Woman" for
nearly 20 years I believe.
I'm not saying that I agree with all his policies, but I don't know of
too many people who agree whole-heartedly with any one person black or
white. I would definitely not put him in the same category as Ward C.,
after all, even Jeb Bush tried to distance himself from this man who
truly has an identity problem. Ward I believe hates every drop of
"Black" blood that is in him. If it were possible, he might very well
have made history by being the first black member of the KKK.
"Black Democratic politicians should be using the power of Black
support, instead they are being punked out."
"Wrong. Instead their power is being leached out by black conservatives
who are attacking them any chance they get."
Power can only be taken by those who give it.
Just to make the point of how we define
conservatism. My father was a strong supporter of the Democratic Party
during the Civil Rights era (which happened to be the same party of
people like George Wallace and other Dixiecrats.) And he like many of
our parents would not have supported many of things Democrats now
support. For example, he and most blacks then and now think that
abortion is murder. But my Dad would have still said he was liberal.
Gay rights? Most blacks I know (who happen to be Democrats) in no way
form or fashion equate Gay Rights to the struggle of rights for
African-Americans that were fought long and hard for in the 60's. My
dad, and many of his friends served admirably in the military during
WWII, and were able to get Veteran Benefits that helped their families
by giving them an opportunity to get a better education and buy
affordable homes. So, supporting the military (not to be confused with
political decisions on the use of the military) would have been the
Deomocratic thing to do.
Raymond Wood
"Art Clemons" <artcl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020201030850...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> To suggest that African-Americans accept more republican control of both
houses
> in the name of punishing democrats is a bizarre concept. To vote for a
3rd
> party candidate with no chance of winning also doesn't do much for you
that
> election year, or in the future, and sitting out an election, when folks
known
> to be opposed to the better interests of the community are likely to
prevail if
> you do sit out makes even less sense.
I was with you all the way until your comments about voting for
a 3rd party candidate.
Let's say that you are genuinely repulsed by both major party
candidates, as was the case with many of us last Presidential
election. Now, let's say that you find a 3rd party candidate who
holds 75% of the same beliefs you do.
Who do you vote for?
Let me put it another way. Let's surmise that Dr. King decided
to stay home with Coretta and the kids on April 4, 1968. Let's
further surmise that he was still alive back in the fall of 1999,
and in fact was the Green Party's candidate instead of Ralph
Nader.
Who would you vote for?
Now, let's step away from the hypotheticals and get real. 75%
of Enron's milllions of dollars of protection racket money went
to Republicans. As a matter of fact, the current Chairman of
the Republican Party, Marc Racicot, is a former lobbyist for
Enron.
25% of Enron's political contributions went to Democrats.
You probably know that Texans like Bush, Cheney, Phil
Gramm, Phil Gramm's wife (what a piece of work that
one is), and Tom DeLay have taken Enron money. What
you may not know is that another prominent Texas politician,
Sheila Jackson Lee, has also taken Enron money. Gore, to
my knowledge, has never accepted money _directly_
from Enron, but then Occidental Petroleum was always
Gore's energy company of choice :
http://www.colombiareport.org/colombia35.htm
Now contrast all this to Ralph Nader, whose last presidential
campaign accepted neither soft money or PAC money.
Furthermore, his Public Citizen web site has published
what is, to date, the most detailed investigative reporting
of Enron's raping on our political system :
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Blind_Faith.pdf
Knowing all this, if you could go back in time and live Nov 7,
1999 all over again,
who would you vote for?
Ray W.
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <nm2k5uch9nli7limp...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
....
>>We have power in a party. We should be using the power.
In my opinion, Art's reply is why the Democratic party believes it can
continue to sh*t on Black voters.
>No, you have a party which tenuously controls one house of one branch of
>government, and note that many of the nominally democratic or independent
>Senators of said house come from states with low numbers of African heritage
>voters.
Fritz Hollings, the senator who told racist jokes, got members of the
CBC to campaign for him. I would have told Hollings to kiss my a**.
Further more, political Black Democrats should be willing to stir
things up and challenge those already in office, to make sure Black
voters' support is not taken for granted.
....
>To suggest that African-Americans accept more republican control of both houses
>in the name of punishing democrats is a bizarre concept.
I'm "suggesting" that Black Democrat politicians have no spine. They
are willing to stand up and scream about Republicans, but they won't
do anything where members of their own party do something against the
interests of the core supporters of the party.
....
>You're suggesting either doing without or going to the 2nd store in effect.
If it means boycotting, then boycott.
If it means switching parties, then switch.
But respect *MUST* be gained.
trudogg®
> Let me put it another way. Let's surmise that Dr. King decided
> to stay home with Coretta and the kids on April 4, 1968. Let's
> further surmise that he was still alive back in the fall of 1999,
> and in fact was the Green Party's candidate instead of Ralph
> Nader.
> Who would you vote for?
...aside from the fact that he wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance
in hell of winning, I would have voted for him in the last election.
Your vote is your conscience. How you use it says everything about you.
In the last election I didn't want either George Bush or Al Gore
defining me. And this seems to be happening all too often...
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>I'm "suggesting" that Black Democrat politicians have no spine. They
>are willing to stand up and scream about Republicans, but they won't
>do anything where members of their own party do something against the
>interests of the core supporters of the party.
Let's see now, African-Americans who stand above the fray or attack
unmercifully get dismissed as outsiders and folks with no political base. You
should note that the three African-Americans most able to draw popular support
in this country are being marginalized (Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al
Sharpton). Which of the three would you support for public office?
>....
>
>>You're suggesting either doing without or going to the 2nd store in effect.
>
>
>If it means boycotting, then boycott.
>If it means switching parties, then switch.
>But respect *MUST* be gained.
In a comment to Ray, I noted that switching parties to vote republican in
states like Mississipi and Florida in primaries would do wonders for the
African-American community even if we had to return to vote democratic in the
fall. At the very least such a course of events would force republicans to
expend much of their political financial capital in primaries, giving less
money to run on in the fall. If we can't elect our friends, we can at least
punish enemies like Trent Lott. I don't see you suggesting things like this
either. Until African-Americans are willing to punish, all we can do is vote
democratic because republicans are strictly unacceptable.
Let me note that boycotts have side effects especially politically. No matter
how much folks want to pretend, the last three democratic presidents have
better for African-Americans than republican presidents. I'm still waiting to
see or read about some plan implemented by conservative congress members that
actually has benefitted the community in the long run, and try as you might,
you can't point to one either. Until that happens, boycotting leaves folks who
can only be described as enemies in power and an enemy in power is a futile
gesture.
-art clemons-
Andrew McMichael
>
> Raymond Wood wrote...
>
> > Let me put it another way. Let's surmise that Dr. King decided
> > to stay home with Coretta and the kids on April 4, 1968. Let's
> > further surmise that he was still alive back in the fall of 1999,
> > and in fact was the Green Party's candidate instead of Ralph
> > Nader.
> > Who would you vote for?
>
> ...aside from the fact that he wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance
> in hell of winning, I would have voted for him in the last election.
> Your vote is your conscience. How you use it says everything about you.
Agreed, 100%. I would have voted for most any candidate the Greens could
have put up, as long as I agreed with his/her stand on things.
--
Andrew McMichael, Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Princeton University
http://www.princeton.edu/~amcmicha/cv.html
"Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg"-- A Dutch Proverb.
Kirk
> Let's see now, African-Americans who stand above the fray or attack
> unmercifully get dismissed as outsiders and folks with no political base. You
> should note that the three African-Americans most able to draw popular support
> in this country are being marginalized (Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al
> Sharpton). Which of the three would you support for public office?
The African-American "most able to draw popular support in this
country" is Colin Powell, by a longshot over the three you mentioned.
The three you mentioned will never gain significant support from
non-African-Americans on a national level. Better to develop a new
left-leaning AfAm candidate who doesn´t have all their baggage. There
are a multitude at state
and local levels, but it seems the community, in general, is reticent
to stray from the old guard.
Kirk
Art Clemons
Wood" <rayw...@earthlink.net> writes:
>I was with you all the way until your comments about voting for
>a 3rd party candidate.
Third parties in the US usually get coopted one way or another, unless one of
the old parties is splitting, and being reformed. In this country supporting
a 3rd party gives almost nothing in the way of results, political influence or
even satisfaction.
>Let's say that you are genuinely repulsed by both major party
>candidates, as was the case with many of us last Presidential
>election. Now, let's say that you find a 3rd party candidate who
>holds 75% of the same beliefs you do.
>
>Who do you vote for?
It's an interesting concept, but be honest in the last election most of the
people for example voting for Nader probably also agreed at least 60% with
Gore, and at best 10% with Bush. There are several different ways of
influencing elections, and one of the mistakes that African-Americans have been
consistently making is ignoring primary elections, especially in states like
Mississipi. While Ed (DarkStar) probably would hate this idea, it would make
more sense for African-American voters to register republican in MS, vote
against Trent Lott, and remove Lott from office. 30% of the voting populace
opposed to one candidate in a primary is usually the deathknell for that
candidate in a primary with most voters staying at home. African-Americans
probably do have to be willing to switch parties, but we as a group also have
to recognize how to use switching parties properly. Just supporting
republicans won't do much, it's in fact likely to do even less than supporting
demoncrats consistently. One should make gestures only when there are no
other choices or when gestures might actually influence things. I for example
refuse to watch Fox TV, or read publications owned by Rupert Murdoch, no matter
how long I go on boycotting Murdoch, it's only a futile gesture. Politics is
different, gestures cost you in the long and short run if your gestures elect
someone like dumbya.
>Let me put it another way. Let's surmise that Dr. King decided
>to stay home with Coretta and the kids on April 4, 1968. Let's
>further surmise that he was still alive back in the fall of 1999,
>and in fact was the Green Party's candidate instead of Ralph
>Nader.
>Who would you vote for?
I probably would not vote for King, I didn't always agree with him while he was
alive, why should I pretend that I would agree with him later. Yes, I probably
agree more with him than any of the candidates, but I also have to be rational
and ask just what chance King has of being elected. One of the problems the
African-American community faces right now is that one party puts up candidates
whom we find absolutely unacceptable, meaning that the other party can offer
candidates who aren't really beholden to us. King's candidacy might get us out
to vote, but what would it do for us? We have to make the party with
unacceptable candidates begin to suffer, then we'll begin to see results. I
would in fact suggest that African-Americans begin registering republican in
Florida in time for the republican primary and try to knock out Jeb Bush in
retaliation rather than waiting to see if some democratic candidate worth
seeing will arise and then being stuck with Janet Reno or the rest of the
present Forida candidates. The two party system can work, but we also have to
recognize when voting most counts, namely in the primaries.
>Now, let's step away from the hypotheticals and get real. 75%
>of Enron's milllions of dollars of protection racket money went
>to Republicans. As a matter of fact, the current Chairman of
>the Republican Party, Marc Racicot, is a former lobbyist for
>Enron.
>
>25% of Enron's political contributions went to Democrats.
>You probably know that Texans like Bush, Cheney, Phil
>Gramm, Phil Gramm's wife (what a piece of work that
>one is), and Tom DeLay have taken Enron money. What
>you may not know is that another prominent Texas politician,
>Sheila Jackson Lee, has also taken Enron money. Gore, to
>my knowledge, has never accepted money _directly_
>from Enron, but then Occidental Petroleum was always
>Gore's energy company of choice :
>
>http://www.colombiareport.org/colombia35.htm
>
>Now contrast all this to Ralph Nader, whose last presidential
>campaign accepted neither soft money or PAC money.
>Furthermore, his Public Citizen web site has published
>what is, to date, the most detailed investigative reporting
>of Enron's raping on our political system :
>
>http://www.citizen.org/documents/Blind_Faith.pdf
>
>Knowing all this, if you could go back in time and live Nov 7,
>1999 all over again,
>
>who would you vote for?
I still would not vote for Nader, he stands and stood no chance of being
elected in 2000 (it was 2000, not 1999). Gestures are for when you can't win
anyway. Nader was and remains unlikely to ever garner much corporate support,
he's also unlikely ever to even get 10% of the vote in a national election.
Only candidates in office do much for folk. We have to become a force that
both parties fear before we'll get much from either party. Knocking out
republicans right now would garner us fear, have no doubt and with little to
lose if we fail and have to again vote for a democratic candidate in the fall.
-art clemons-
trudogg®
> Let's see now, African-Americans who stand above the fray or attack
> unmercifully get dismissed as outsiders and folks with no political base. You
> should note that the three African-Americans most able to draw popular support
> in this country are being marginalized (Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al
> Sharpton). Which of the three would you support for public office?
...are you being serious? I've been caught by your sneaky brand of humor
before. Of that three, Jackson is the only one who comes close to being
a viable candidate. Sharpton plays right into the hands of the nay-
sayers like he was reading their playbook and Farrakhan...well what can
I say? The man has wrapped up too much of his personna in negative
messages to expect any kind of majority support.
> In a comment to Ray, I noted that switching parties to vote republican in
> states like Mississipi and Florida in primaries would do wonders for the
> African-American community even if we had to return to vote democratic in the
> fall. At the very least such a course of events would force republicans to
> expend much of their political financial capital in primaries, giving less
> money to run on in the fall. If we can't elect our friends, we can at least
> punish enemies like Trent Lott. I don't see you suggesting things like this
> either. Until African-Americans are willing to punish, all we can do is vote
> democratic because republicans are strictly unacceptable.
...this one sounds good on paper, but might allow for the entry of
unacceptable candidates in the primaries. Mississippi is famous for
fielding corncobs and Florida, where I'm from, elected Jeb Bush. And the
Democratic party seems like it is going to give Shrub the junior a walk
in the next election by nominating Janet Reno. Janet Reno for gawd's
sake. All you have to do is look at that poor woman and you can assess
her chances for victory in a heartbeat.
> Let me note that boycotts have side effects especially politically. No matter
> how much folks want to pretend, the last three democratic presidents have
> better for African-Americans than republican presidents. I'm still waiting to
> see or read about some plan implemented by conservative congress members that
> actually has benefitted the community in the long run, and try as you might,
> you can't point to one either. Until that happens, boycotting leaves folks who
> can only be described as enemies in power and an enemy in power is a futile
> gesture.
...it ain't exactly presidential, but I have four words for the
Republicans and their interest in African-Americans...Jeb
Bush/Affirmative Action. 'Nuff said.
Andrew McMichael
>
> I still would not vote for Nader, he stands and stood no chance of being
> elected in 2000 (it was 2000, not 1999). Gestures are for when you can't win
> anyway.
I agree. I felt that out of Bush or Gore, I was in a no-win situation. I
voted Nader.
Art Clemons
kirkl...@hotmail.com (Kirk) writes:
>The African-American "most able to draw popular support in this
>country" is Colin Powell, by a longshot over the three you mentioned.
The point I was making and still insist on making is that African-Americans
don't support the same candidates that the general populace does.
>The three you mentioned will never gain significant support from
>non-African-Americans on a national level. Better to develop a new
>left-leaning AfAm candidate who doesn´t have all their baggage. There
>are a multitude at state
>and local levels, but it seems the community, in general, is reticent
>to stray from the old guard.
As a side note, Colin Powell while popular, probably could never draw
sufficient conservative or racist votes to win primaries in the republican
party absent no other candidate really stepping forth ala 1992's election where
Clinton in effect won by default. I really can't see the republican party of
Mississipi for example stepping forth to draw out the vote, or the Christian
voting block running forth to support the man. We also really don't know how
well Powell would really do as a candidate in the African heritage community.
The only situations remotely comparable are statewide candidates in places like
Ohio, Massachusetts and the like, and the jury is really still out.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <u54r5ug6ob65qo4ff...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>>I'm "suggesting" that Black Democrat politicians have no spine. They
>>are willing to stand up and scream about Republicans, but they won't
>>do anything where members of their own party do something against the
>>interests of the core supporters of the party.
>
>Let's see now, African-Americans who stand above the fray or attack
>unmercifully get dismissed as outsiders and folks with no political base.
They get dismissed by the politicians themselves.
> You
>should note that the three African-Americans most able to draw popular support
>in this country are being marginalized (Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al
>Sharpton). Which of the three would you support for public office?
That's funny. Farrakhan, nor any NOI member, could gain office.
Sharpton is only an NYC issue and he lost there. Jesse Jackson, Sr.
has issues. He's done serious damage to his multi-racial base.
.....
>>>You're suggesting either doing without or going to the 2nd store in effect.
>>
>>
>>If it means boycotting, then boycott.
>>If it means switching parties, then switch.
>>But respect *MUST* be gained.
>
>In a comment to Ray, I noted that switching parties to vote republican in
>states like Mississipi and Florida in primaries would do wonders for the
>African-American community even if we had to return to vote democratic in the
>fall. At the very least such a course of events would force republicans to
>expend much of their political financial capital in primaries, giving less
>money to run on in the fall. If we can't elect our friends, we can at least
>punish enemies like Trent Lott. I don't see you suggesting things like this
>either.
Uhhhh....
Geee.....
Actually, I thought that was one of the options I did suggest.
>Until African-Americans are willing to punish, all we can do is vote
>democratic because republicans are strictly unacceptable.
No.
Blacks must punish and punish now.
Kirk
> The point I was making and still insist on making is that African-Americans
> don't support the same candidates that the general populace does.
Agreed.
> As a side note, Colin Powell while popular, probably could never draw
> sufficient conservative or racist votes to win primaries in the republican
> party absent no other candidate really stepping forth ala 1992's election
> where Clinton in effect won by default. I really can't see the republican
> party of
> Mississipi for example stepping forth to draw out the vote, or the Christian
> voting block running forth to support the man.
Agreed, he would have to run as an Independent a la Perot. I don't
know where the money would come from however.
> We also really don't know how
> well Powell would really do as a candidate in the African heritage community.
I think he would do well with the community in the general election,
if it appeared that he had a good chance to win. The possibility of
having an AfAm in the highest office in the land would a great
incentive, even if he is somewhat conservative. And as conservatives
go, he is far from the most execrable.
Kirk