No Neutrality

The GOP and the Black Vote

I posted the following in the comments section of a popular Conservative blog, Right Wing News. It more or less captures what I think about the issue so I'm re-posting here:

What I find is what Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele articulate so well: the current "definition" of what it means to "be black" (even that concept ITSELF) has now come to mean shorthand for the more backward and self-defeating pathologies that used to be--by-and-large--confined to Southern blacks before the Great Migration.
Nowadays, it's important to "be 'authentically' black" and the definition of "blackness" is eaten through with corrosive elements like: downplaying education to the point of ridicule; valuing style over any substance (e.g., having a "serious ride" but living in apartment, or having great clothes but a low-paying job, or looking cool at class, but failing, (or even being Republican!)); and always, as a knee-jerk first reaction, using racism to explain any difficult event that happens to include a white person. This and so many other negative things have come to define what it means to "be black." Anyone who seeks another way is making a de facto choice to cease being "authentic" and the ensuing emotional and cognitive pain that that thought brings keeps many black folks "on the plantation."
And even those black folks who don't succumb to the pathologies themselves are strongly influenced to "represent" in order to keep themselves in good with fellow blacks. As I've mentioned before, I'm a USAF Reservist, but I work at a software company full-time and in both arenas I've seen so many black folks who make Steve Urkel look "ghetto" still trying to "kick it like they in the hood" replete with the language and appearance. I've seen the most nerdy software developers turn on a dime and send e-mails so laden with slang I had to send to a fellow black conservative who was more hip than I to translate. That same developer lives in a MUCH different place than the folks in the Central District in Seattle, eats more cosmopolitan fare (Indian anyone?), and highly values education, but at the end of the day feels so concerned to maintain authentic blackness that he will "pretend" to himself and others that he's one of the homeys. It is an amazing thing to witness.
I can't tell you how often, when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, I was ridiculed for trying to get A's in class, or for changing from slang to business English when in school or interacting with the public at work. I know personally what it feels like to say, "I don't want to 'be black', I want to just be me and follow my own path."
And it's not like I don't see similar things in white or hispanic culture; the problem is that it's so disproportionately represented in the "black community."
So in a way, D-Vega is right--it really sucks when you get included in a generalization and you aren't even remotely like the people that gave rise to the generalization. I know from firsthand experience how frustrating it is. But the painful truth is that there are ENOUGH folks, too many folks, that give the generalization legs.
The GOP will not "get" more black votes until more black people themselves stop willingly remaining in the psychological chains of "being black."

Excerpt Of The Day: The GOP's Biggest Problem With Minority Voters - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

Quote of the Day:

Ann Coulter...

Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

Seriously, even with a company car, full medical benefits and six weeks' paid vacation thrown in, how do people live on that?

Ann Coulter : Are 'Hope' and 'Change' Still Tax-Deductible? - Townhall.com

Mark Penn Gives Away the Game

Does this mean that in the past, the media decided for the voters?

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.

CBS News

One of the First Lines of Attack Against Palin

Will be the fact that Sarah Palin was raised in a Pentecostal church in the "backwoods" of Alaska. (As if Wasilla really represents the "backwoods" for anyone that's lived in AK.) The same line of attack was used against John Ashcroft as well. "It's a theocracy! Voltaire, come quickly!"

Nancy Pelosi - Conservapedia

Next time someone starts the "Sarah Palin is an empty-headed wife! What business does she have being in leadership?" I will trot out Exhibit "A"--dear old Mrs. Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi - Conservapedia

Maliki's Demands

If he actually said this, Mr. Maliki should receive a prompt phone call from the President that results in a public apology for his arrogance:

Mr Maliki said the treaty will go to parliament for approval but alterations must be made to the draft to ensure its passage. “Unless there are changes, it will be difficult to have the agreement approved,” he said.

...

Mr. Maliki said one of the sticking points was over whether US troops and private contractors would be granted immunity from Iraqi law. “We will not jeopardise the blood of Iraq’s sons by giving open immunity,” he said.

He is no doubt a brave man and has taken incredible risks for his country but for him to talk about the "blood of Iraq's sons" when it was the "blood of America's sons" that even put him in the position to stand there and make that comment is beyond the pale. He deserves a swift and harsh rebuke for this statement.

 

 FT.com / World / Middle East - Maliki confirms deadline for US pull-out

Black Conservatives – More Black Than Conservative?

This frustrates me so much I can’t even comment. Has the entire conservative movement gone raving mad??

Breitbart.com

What Is The GOP Afraid Of?

So absolutely true and well said:

The Democrats deserve to hurt for the actions they take and the stances they embrace. (A simple way of doing that would be to nail both Democratic candidates on the ethanol question.) This year offers an excellent opportunity. The recent liberal record represents unusual failure, incompetence, and inhumanity, even by their customary standards. If the GOP can't make an impact with that kind of material, they'll never make an impact at all.

J.R. Dunn - American Thinker

It IS As Simple As It Looks!

An NPR article that I ran across today via Michelle Malkin. Sounds fair enough:

Well, not exactly Phil. Here what an Associated Press Fact Check has to say on the issue. It is true, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No one does - it's illegal. It's sort of like Obama saying "I don't rob banks to finance my campaign" - that would be illegal too. But he also does not take money from oil company political action committees (PACs) or lobbyists.

But boy, he sure does take money from people who work for oil companies. A lot of money. Not as much, however, as Clinton and Sen. John McCain do.

"As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals."

But then in the comments, one "Philip" added,

Tom, Please condsider two points in your further reporting on this subject.

1. The essential question is whether there is a meaningful difference between taking PAC money and taking individual contributions from people who work for a company. I would argue there is a significant difference. NPR might conclude they are not different and opt to blur the differences Obama is seeking to make. Whatever you conclude, perhaps NPR could explain its approach and not simply report it one way. A few days ago, a seperate story confused the subject by reporting on each candidates' contributions from "investment banks and their PACs" or something similar, when in fact, Sen. Obama does not take PAC money. To use that phraseology is to take a clear position on the question without clearly saying so.

2. On this specific story, taking money from a company PAC is much closer to taking money from a company than taking money from its individual employees is like taking money from the company. The WHOLE POINT of a PAC is to aggregate contributions so that they can be delivered with a "company message." Again, perhaps this could be explored in a NPR story. I would be interested to hear about how major US corporations handle contributions -- from PACs and individuals. My experience is that a company CEO or head of government relations schedules a lunch with the candidate or attends a small fundraiser and hands the candidate a check for $10,000 while asking the candidate to support some company-related project or request. When individuals give, they often do not deliver a company message but rather deliver a personal message.

Sent by Philip | 11:55 AM ET | 04-01-2008 [emph mine]

And what if that "personal message" is part and parcel of the company message? If the individual's financial interests are wholly wrapped up in the company's interests, what then is the "significant difference" that Philip mentions?

That is so completely disingenuous! You know good and well if McCain received money say, from some big wig at Haliburton, the Left would have IMMEDIATELY pounced on the association but Obama hyped followers cannot bring themselves to face the obvious: Obama is just a run-of-the-mill politician like EVERYONE HE DECRIES.

I Thought We Were Friends

Why are so many Western (read "free") nations so incredibly suicidal??

MK Effi Eitam (NU/NRP) slammed MK Ahmed Tibi (UAL-Ta'al) on Thursday for his Wednesday stopover in Lebanon, saying "Tibi is following in [former Balad MK Azmi] Bishara's footsteps." Bishara fled the country after an investigation was opened against him for suspected espionage and aiding Hizbullah during the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

...

"The continuous treacherous behavior of the Arab MKs brings closer the day that they will be removed from the Knesset and the state of Israel," he added.

Firstly, in such a tiny, vulnerable country like Israel, why would you even want members of a racial group so utterly historically devoted to your destruction in the top-levels of your government? What madness is this? And then to be shocked to see a pattern of Arab ministers spying for the enemy? HELLO! What did you THINK was going to happen??

Secondly, I would submit that "the day" has come and gone for them to be removed.