Democrats compete for African-American vote

And the republicans fight for the rightious right vote. I wonder what the religious right has to say about a new survey out that shows 9 out of 10 young christians ages 18 to 29 are ashamed to call themselves christians due to the hate spewed at gays and the view that the religion is hypocritical? They are ashamed that they are no longer Christ like and have no tolerance towards others.
Let the spewing begin!

As a newly converted Republican, I am a bit disconcerted that there are very few upper-class white candidates running for the GOP who fit the doughy criteria. I need a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity type: faces that ooze high cholesterol, smugness, a certain "Je ne sais quoi" that lets this GOPer know that Here is a candidate who knows a pampered lifestyle!

Fred Thompson immediately draws my attention but where are the Spiro Agnews or the Nelson Rockefellers?

Is it too late to draft Newt Gingrich?

Can you imagine the outcry if there was an organization of the "White wing" of the Alabama Democratic Party? Would any of the Democratic candidates seek their endorsement? Yet the above article notes the "African-American" wing of the Alabama Democratic Party, and Clinton even welcomes its endorsement.

Can you imagine the outcry if "Sisters on Target" was a "Whites only" group, instead of "an African-American women's political organization"?

The "inconvenient truth" is that such race-based organizations, and the candidates that seek their support, foster racial separation, not racial integration.

I'm surprised the Democrats are going after just the African-American votes and not all blacks. Do they believe people from the Caribbean don't count? How about South America? How about dark-skinned Pacific Islanders? Talk about
being color insensitive.

Bruce, what do you like most about being dense? Huh? No one is stopping a whites only group from organizing and advocating a particular point of view. No one ever has stopped them. They exist, always have existed and probably always will. If the Ku Klux Klan wants to host a forum for political candidates nothing is preventing them. I don't know anything about sisters on target, but it seems that they are about participation in the electoral process and public dialogue to get a good look at candidates. What is wrong with that? Your incantations about a "whites only wing or African American wing of the democratic party" are so uninformed. There are many different constituents of the different parties many of which are related to demography or political perspective. For the record there was a "white wing" of the Democratic party which existed for years. They called themselves "dixiecrats" and were Southern segregationists who were absolutely opposed to anything that sought to end the oppression of African Americans among other abnormalities. Those people left and joined the Republican party. Today their vote is highly sought by conservative politicians with ideologies that have been morphed from some of the old segregations views.
The residual effect of segregation and oppression of African Americans have lingered for a long time and the challenge for all Americans Black and White is to try to end them.

LaShawn, descendants of Africans who are citizens of the United States, no matter whether they originated in the Caribbean or elsewhere are African Americans. This geographical region of the World is referred to as the Americas, not just the United States is America. Understand that. People in Central America, South America, the islands, and Canada are Americans. This country is the United States of America. Understand that. The Democratic Party has more elected officials from the other parts of America than do the Republicans, who spend all of their effort going after Euro-Amrican voters.

Right On Bruce!

I too was DENIED affiliation to membership in an organization because my ethnicity wasnt "right".

So you can imagine how disgusted I was (and am) when I heard that representatives of the ethnically exclusive "Order of the Sons of Italy" being welcomed into the White House in October 2001 by President George W Bu...

Er

It doesnt matter who the president is (or was), the valid point you raise is that those Loony Lefties are only encouraging ethnic diversification.

http://www.osia.org/public/newsroom/pr10_10_01.asp

GW,
You've completely missed Bruce's simple point: that is, if if there were a blatant Whites only movement today, the hue and cry would be (and SHOULD be) deafening. Racial exclusivity is a bad thing.

A side note: I think insulting to assume that African Americans will or should automatically support an African American candidate... en masse as if they aren't thinking individuals. And yet I've read remarks to that effect, here and elsewhere. Hillary Clinton's broad based support (which includes more Blacks than Obama can muster) debunks that.

"Can you imagine the outcry if there was an organization of the "White wing" of the Alabama Democratic Party? Would any of the Democratic candidates seek their endorsement? Yet the above article notes the "African-American" wing of the Alabama Democratic Party, and Clinton even welcomes its endorsement.

Can you imagine the outcry if "Sisters on Target" was a "Whites only" group, instead of "an African-American women's political organization"?

The "inconvenient truth" is that such race-based organizations, and the candidates that seek their support, foster racial separation, not racial integration."

There is no white wing of the Alabama Dem Party because, presumably, whites run the dem party there. Also, there's a difference between a group designed to address the specific needs of part of the population and a group designed to consolidate power in the hands of a few people.

And, I think Alabama has a long and inglorious history of "whites only" politics and groups, yeah?

STOP with your weepy feelings of persecution. STOP!

Do I care if there is a group in Uptown for "Pakistanis only"? No. Do I care if Polish women in Logan Square start a political organization? No. And am I somehow harmed if a bunch of Black women in Alabama organize themselves to deal with the mind-numbing statistics on education, poverty, health, housing and life expectancy for Blacks in that region?

No.

Get over yourself, will ya?

A side note: I think insulting to assume that African Americans will or should automatically support an African American candidate... en masse as if they aren't thinking individuals. And yet I've read remarks to that effect, here and elsewhere. Hillary Clinton's broad based support (which includes more Blacks than Obama can muster) debunks that.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 11:58 AM

You're not racist yet you take every chance you get to pound on the only black candidate running for President......right, I get it.

Neocon Rule #1

When the people whom you support (GOP) make a boneheaded decision start accusing others of doing it. Or maybe just expressing concern about others' doing it.

911 changed very little - but George W. Bush, his sycophants, enablers and handlers have changed way too much.

Goodluck to Senator Obama!

It's still early...this time next year they'll all be in black churches lip-syncing gospel songs they never heard before.

Paulo

So, GW, if you originated in the Caribbean, or in Peru, or in Brazil, you're really from Africa? New Guinea? How about Samoa? The Fiji Islands? Parts of India? Your knowledge of the origins of people are sorely lacking and if you will bother to look, you will find dark-skinned people in places of the world where the sun is the determining factor. And you will find further that they did not migrate from Africa. The Democrats still seem to be color insensitive to the varying backgrounds of people. Now, if they only want people of African heritage, that's a short road to oblivion as a political party.

Anonymous, I get Bruce's point completely. You know what? Bruce is selling wolf tickets in his utterances and his point is not simple. Simple minded, but not simple. Nothing having to do with race, human relations, and bigotry is ever simple in the United States. Bruce is implying that there is something nefarious or sinister in an African American organization participating in mainstream political activity. Which, if said organization were White there would be a protest. In other worlds your Bruce speaks nonsense. The Sisters on Target have a web site that I suggest you visit to understand what they are about. I also suggest that you read a little bit about African American history, something that help clear some of the mud from your thinking. I would not expect your Bruce to do so, because he is so full of himself and his warped views that facts mean nothing to him. When you do your painless reading into African American history you will be glad to note that there were many organizations which evolved in Black communities all over this country because they were excluded from White ones or the White ones did not concern themselves with Black issues. The AME Church, for example, came about as a result of blacks not being able to worship in white churches. Whites are not excluded from being members of that organization. There are Black fraternities and sororities on every campus in this country. They were formed because black students could not become members of White fraternities and sororities. There are some chapters in which there are white members. There is a history in what Bruce implies as Black exclusivity.

Who assumes that African Americans should automatically support an African-American candidate? There have been so few African-American candidates this is something that has not thoroughly been put to the test.
The insult is that someone claims an automatic lock on the Black vote because she feels they she is the political heiress to a legacy that purports to have done so much for the Black community. Nobody knows who has garnered the most Black vote, because unless I missed something, no one has voted yet.

There are white only groups they just tend to go by nationality, Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Polish Americans, etc.

Also, to add to the previous point I, as a women, am offended by people assuming that Hillary will get the women vote as if women do not have minds of their own. That said I think that it’s a problem that being the wife of someone famous is what counts as experience for women. Haven’t we gotten past the point where you have to marry what you want to be?

Posted by: LaShawn | October 14, 2007 12:46 PM

RNC Bruce, you're not fooling anyone.

Go back to playing pretend civil war games, Mr. Roboto.

GW,

Even though racist bigotry still exists, Jim Crow Laws don't. There is no longer an urgent need for exclusivley Black political organizations, churches, schools etc because Blacks are no longer systemically exluded -- even if some individuals don't welcome them.

We should be (especially in instutions like churches, political organizations, schools) a single, united people. In that vein fostering racial seperation is an inherently bad idea, IMO.

As for people assuming that African Americans will (and should) automaticaly support an African American candidate -- I have encountered that sort of nonthinking, sad to say. Happily though, less often than not.

PS to Lester,
Try to grow a brain.

GW said:

"No one is stopping a whites only group from organizing and advocating a particular point of view."

As a practical matter, this is not true. Such a group would immediately be vilified by the press. Members would be fired from their jobs. They would be the target of violence. And I'm not even sure there wouldn't be a legal impediment. The FBI would certainly take note and try to infiltrate.

The fact is that whites in America are forbidden from having a group identity at all, much less a political one. As they become the next minority, that might need to change.

There is only ONE race in America and it is the American Race. Hyphenated Americans had better become Americans or they will always be left out.

As for people assuming that African Americans will (and should) automaticaly support an African American candidate -- I have encountered that sort of nonthinking, sad to say. Happily though, less often than not.
PS to Lester,
Try to grow a brain.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 4:25 PM

burp...I aint' no racist...no siree'....fart...now where did my damn Confederate flag go?...racism don't exist I tell ya, just ask one of our old white guys whoze runnin' fer the Republican nomination...bark,bark..and I don't want one of them there women thinkin' they can be President either, ya'll hear me?

Goodluck to Senators Obama & Clinton, the Republicans are foaming at the mouth trying to make people believe them this time around because they've lost all credibility with the American people.

Hang in there!

Anonymous, read my lips. Black organizations never came about to foster racial separation and almost none exist today for that purpose. They came about as a result of legal segregation or separation due to population distribution or demography. The residual effects of legal separation are still in evidence as you point out in your statement that racist bigotry still exists. If huge numbers of Blacks continue to be on the short end of the stick there is an urgent need for organizations to address their needs so that the scales can be balanced a lot better than they have been. Why is it sad to think that African Americans should or will support an African American candidate. In the entire history of presidential elections in this country there is only one African American who has a viable candidacy which appeals to a cross section of the population. What is sad is that it took so long in to reach this point in history. Given the legacy of Black people in America, it is a major triumph for one to have gotten so far, and all of the reasons that have been given for Black people not to be 100% behind that candidate make no sense to me. After there has been one Black president then maybe we can get beyond some of the race issues.

I think Al Gore has plans to put Senator tough girl back into a huge hissy fit.

we can only hope.. Gore-Obama has a nice ring to it. New names in power and no baggage.

"Black organizations never came about to foster racial separation [I didn't say that they did] and almost none exist today for that purpose. [But that could be the net effect nevertheless] They came about as a result of legal segregation or separation due to population distribution or demography. [Of course, granted]

GW,

I stand by my earlier assertion that fostering racial separation is a bad idea. Also I repeat that it is insulting to Black people to assert that they will or should automatically vote for a Black Candidate. I don't understand what you don't get about that.

And first Bruce and then Dave make an excellent point -- there would indeed be enormous pressure against Whites from organizing BASED UPON RACE. As well there should be, in my opinion.

PS, sorry but it's hard to read your lips in a blog.

There is only ONE race in America and it is the American Race. Hyphenated Americans had better become Americans or they will always be left out.

Posted by: Dr Coles | October 14, 2007 5:48 PM

You are only half-right, Doc. The only race in the U.S.A. is the Human Race, not the "American Race."

But you are right about the hyphenated American part. Whoopi Goldberg made the point that hyphenated Americans are the ones singled out for discrimination and second class treatment. Hyphenation just makes them a target. So, let’s just call them Americans and learn to stop making divisive distinctions.

The "inconvenient truth" is that such race-based organizations, and the candidates that seek their support, foster racial separation, not racial integration.

Posted by: Bruce | October 14, 2007 9:30 AM

Think of them as a special interest group. They want the needs of the black community addressed. makes sense that if the republicans don't care enough about black issues democrats would court that constituency. I would disagree with Bruce that looking out for your own is racial seperation.

I mean if your a part of rich white corporate America you know which party is on your side. The republicans. Revolution brothers and sisters!

I just finished looking at a Brazil nut and noted what a tough nut it is to crack. It's just like the heads of some people. It is idiocy to assert that White people are forbidden to have a group identity. White people control this country. White people control this culture. They don't have to have anybody legitimize their actions. Of course any group that advocates hate, violence, insurrection, or adverse actions that harm people or institutions need to be stopped whatever their ethnicity. Black organizations like every other interest group are in the mix to get a piece of the pie that White people have taken for granted at the expense of other groups since the founding of this nation. Go to DC to the National Museum of American Presidents Gallery. There you will see portraits of an unbroken string of White Anglo-Saxon (one Roman Catholic) male presidents from George Washington to Bill/Hillary. The majority of White people don't have a problem with seeing members of their own race there, and most probably believe that's the way it should always be. Still more will give you every reason under the sun why a person of another ethnicity should not be there.

The problem is not hypenation. Next time you look at your birth certificate you will note that your race is on it. That is the distinction that society gives you when you are born. Depending on when you were born it says negroid, caucasoid, black, white, asian, hispanic, indian, native american, etc.

THIS IS ALL(NONSENSE) AFRICAN AMERICANS HAD TO DEAL WITH WHITE SUPREMACY FOR THEIR ENTIRE STAY IN THIS COUNTRY. COINTELPRO WILLIE LYNCH LETTERS JIM CROW THESE WERE NOT ORGANIZATIONS THESE WERE AND PROBABLY STILL ARE MOVEMENTS TO KEEP OTHERS IN THERE PLACE IN AMERICA. AND IF WE ARE ALL AMERICANS WHY LABELS AFRICAN AMERICAN LATIN/HISPANIC AMERICAN EVEN NATIVE AMERICANS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AMERICAN STOP IT.