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

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!"

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.

All You Need To Know

 This is it in a nutshell:

WASHINGTON - It's a Senate showdown that could pit the three presidential candidates against each other in a fight for dominance.

Sens. John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all pushing for the perfect sound bite; for that singular moment that will define their campaigns' stance on the Iraq war.

And it happens on Tuesday. That's when General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will report to Congress in two Senate hearings. They’ll give progress reports on the war and offer strategy going forward.

Does it strike you as the least bit odd or uncouth that the link to this article on the main MSN web site is "Candidates set to grill Petraeus on Iraq"? Call me crazy, but my understanding was that the good general was to give a report on the status of the war effort in Iraq, particularly since the "surge" has been implemented. Since when are war time military leaders "grilled" for their testimony, much less by presidential candidates? Is the assumption now that the general is a liar and must be cross-examined like a slippery witness on the stand?

It's nothing but pure madness to use the testimony of a man engaged in trying to fight a war as theater for your presidential campaign.

Things have come to a pretty pass indeed.

How Does McCain Explain This?

Wow. Can you say "unwanted"? How does John McCain square his call for support from the base with bitter disparagement of members of that same base?

"I understand the frustrations a lot of Republicans feel," McCain says. "We're not representing their hopes and dreams and aspirations. We worry about Ms. Schiavo before we worry about balancing the budget. We're going to take up this Family Marriage Amendment again. Why? The Republicans will vote one way, and the Democrats will vote another, and everybody knows it! It's pointless. I've never seen Washington as polarized as it is today."

Which reminds him...

"I would never say this publicly, but some of these talk-show hosts -- and I'm not saying they should be taken off the air; they have the right to do what they want to do -- I don't think they're good for America."

Which brings him to...

"I urge my friends who complain about the influence of the religious Right, get out there and get busy. That's what they do! Now, if we believe in the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the big-tent party, then we have to get out there and show that. The fact is, some of us have sat idly by while those very active people have basically set the agenda for our party. I get attacked every day because I'm working with Ted Kennedy. How can I work with Kennedy? Because I want to get something done!"

HT Free Republic

Republic Unfazed

I figured this would be the outcome. The average American seems to have a forgetfulness about current events and so as long as Obama rides this one out, he should be OK. Most people will have forgotten by the 4th of July.

A new Wall Street Journal-NBC poll shows that Barack Obama has escaped serious damage as a result of his association with racist preacher Jeremiah Wright.

HT - American Thinker Blog

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Oops!

WASHINGTON – While Sen. Barack Obama said he couldn't throw over his friend and pastor of 20 years for racially charged and divisive hate speech, he had no trouble calling for the head of Sen. Trent Lott, the Republican Senate majority leader, for embracing a colleague with a segregationist past on his 100th birthday.

On Dec. 12, 2002, Obama, then serving as an Illinois state senator and filling in as host of the Cliff Kelley radio show on WVON, challenged the Republican Party to demand Lott's resignation.

"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do," said Obama.

He added: "The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."

World Net Daily

HT John Hawkins