Fighting Over Scraps

That's what the Democrat constituencies of blacks, Hispanics and white women are doing. With a black man and a white woman going down to the wire in the Donk contest, how can it be otherwise?

You have the black Democrats, most of whom will vote for Obama to see the "Dream realized," and who don't know about or choose to ignore the candidate's very real and very numerous deficiencies for the job in question in deference to that dream.

You have the Hispanic Democrats, mostly of Mexican descent and who vie with the blacks for turf, handouts, political ground--you name it--and, therefore, would never vote for a black person. They could never believe that a black person would have their best interests at heart. (In this case, they're correct, however.)

And you have the white female Democrats, who feel they are "next in line" behind the white man when it comes to taking the reins of power and who feel betrayed by both those men and the blacks--especially by the latter, for whom they've "done so much"--because the party appears to be coalescing behind Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton.

I've never been to a cockfight or a dogfight, but I bet that neither the amount of blood nor the entertainment value is nearly as high. As all conservatives have noted, it's fun to watch--that is, if one ignores that the people are fighting over crumbs while an enemy continues to go forward with plans to "solve" all of our problems, regarding of race, color or gender.

Soberingly, John McCain did not allow the public to ignore those stakes as he spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) this morning.

The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But even under President Khatami – a man by all accounts less radical than the current president – Iran rejected these overtures.

Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.

Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on.

I can't wait for Obama and/or his mouthpieces to start squawking about this again.

Read it all and try to remember this, Democrats: you can't reap the spoils of Identity Politics if you're dead.

Comments

[DarkStar]

I don't understand how you can write this: You have the Hispanic Democrats, mostly of Mexican descent and who vie with the blacks for turf, handouts, political ground--you name it--and, therefore, would never vote for a black person.

Given you're in L.A., I figured you know about the racial divide in Mexico concerning the lighter, European descendant Mexicans vs. the darker Incan descendant Mexicans. This isn't turf, this is straight up racism.

Read it all and try to remember this, Deomocrats: you can't reap the spoils of Identity Politics if you're dead.

Riddle me this: exactly WHY is it NOT Identity Politics to actively avoid seeking the Black vote, as Michael Steele, Ken Melhman (sp), Tony Snow, and others have mentioned the Republicans do?

[Phelps]

But this is all about Republicans. I was running through this exercise in my head the other day, as a question to black democrats: Who do you think Republicans hate more as a concept: Democrats or Black people?

If I knew the answer to that, I think I would understand them better. Then again, if they knew the answer, they might understand themselves better.

[baldilocks]

Dark Star:

I don't mean to be mean, but one of the reasons that I sometimes ignore you is that you have a knack for bringing issue into a conversation that have nothing to do with what's being discussed and/or assuming the unwarranted. Example: do turf wars preclude racism? Answer: no. The fact is that any racism between the two doesn't matter in this conversation.

[Phelps]

Riddle me this: exactly WHY is it NOT Identity Politics to actively avoid seeking the Black vote, as Michael Steele, Ken Melhman (sp), Tony Snow, and others have mentioned the Republicans do?

I don't understand why you mean by "actively avoid seeking." Do you mean affirmatively not expend energy on, or you mean attempt to repel? I dismiss patently that they are actively repelling blacks, so I will address the other.

If you mean not spend energy on, it is plain. Expending resources on trying to get black democrats to vote republican is not cost effective. Blacks are going to vote 90% democrat regardless of policy or anything else, because they have a preconceived notion that republicans are racist that doesn't change with argument. Doesn't even budge in my experience.

If black democrats start voting less than 75% democrat, then you will start to see efforts by the republicans to keep that trend going. Until then, that is 10% of the vote that isn't worth the money or time it would take to get it. Black democrats have priced themselves out of the vote market.

[Phelps]

That last paragraph should be, "if blacks start voting less than 75% democrat." That fine line between black and black democrat got me again.

[baldilocks]

I repudiate the notion that Republicans/conservatives should actively seek my vote due to my racial makeup. To do so would imply that I have values that are different from those with whom I do not share a racial group--the very definition of identity politics.

[baldilocks]

Addition: To do so would imply that I have values that are different from those with whom I do not share a racial group because of that racial difference--the very definition of identity politics.

[DarkStar]

But this is all about Republicans. I was running through this exercise in my head the other day, as a question to black democrats: Who do you think Republicans hate more as a concept: Democrats or Black people?

Hate is such a strong word and, honestly, in this context I think it's nonsensical, IMO. It's about power, nothing more, nothing less. And I think the Republicans know that getting power doesn't rest with treating Blacks, in general, with respect.

I don't mean to be mean, but one of the reasons that I sometimes ignore you is that you have a knack for bringing issue into a conversation that have nothing to do with what's being discussed and/or assuming the unwarranted. Example: do turf wars preclude racism? Answer: no. The fact is that any racism between the two doesn't matter in this conversation.

Ignoring me is no big deal, honestly. But, again, I'm responding to what you wrote. You wrote this: You have the Hispanic Democrats, mostly of Mexican descent and who vie with the blacks for turf, handouts, political ground--you name it--and, therefore, would never vote for a black person.

It isn't about going after the same crumbs, it's about race. Dominican and Puerto Rican Latinos and Blacks have no issues. Mexicans and El Salvadorins and Blacks are another issue. Does that explain it better? If so, why is my response not an issue to your post when I responded directly to what you wrote?

If you mean not spend energy on, it is plain. Expending resources on trying to get black democrats to vote republican is not cost effective.

Michael Steele has commented that when Republicans have been presented with opportunities to speak to Blacks, be it strong Dems or not, Republicans don't take the chance. There are instances of Republicans being offered a chance to speak to Black business groups and turning them down.

Here's where your argument fails:
If black democrats start voting less than 75% democrat, then you will start to see efforts by the republicans to keep that trend going.

Jewish voters for 80-85% for Dems.

I repudiate the notion that Republicans/conservatives should actively seek my vote due to my racial makeup.

Then why go after Jewish voters for their ethnic make up? Or go after Latino voters for their ethnic make up? Why reject speaking for Black business owners? Why reject speaking before a group who has given you the offer?

About 12 years ago, a Black church gave invitations to all politicians to speak at their political forum. It was in a church facility like a hall. Only 1 Republican showed up. When another Republican got whupped, he then filed charges against the Black church to get its non-profit status revoked. He said he was tired of the blatant link between Black churches and Democrats. He had to apologize the next day when another Republican said he addressed the people AND when the pastor showed an invitation addressed to, and sent to, the offended Republican. His staff trash canned it.

Addition: To do so would imply that I have values that are different from those with whom I do not share a racial group because of that racial difference--the very definition of identity politics.

And when Republicans actively seek the Latino vote, saying Latinos are more split, when it reality, only Florida seems to be competitive for Republicans to go after the Latino vote.

Politics, by it's very definition of "us" vs. "them" is all about Identity Politics.

Again, Michael Steele, Tony Snow, Ken Mehlman (sp), and other Republicans white and Black, have voiced what I have said. I state that to disabuse those who think I am Democrat/liberal or just plain contrarian of the idea that I'm not thinking based on facts.

[DarkStar]

I repudiate the notion that Republicans/conservatives should actively seek my vote due to my racial makeup.

Then why actively avoid it due to your racial makeup?

[T-Steel]

You have the black Democrats, most of whom will vote for Obama to see the "Dream realized," and who don't know about or choose to ignore the candidate's very real and very numerous deficiencies for the job in question in deference to that dream.

baldilocks, that is the whole "problem" with "firsts". Because it has never happened before (black man getting close to the presidency), a large majority of black people view Senator Obama has that last barrier buster. That is some powerful stuff. My grandparents (who marched down in Selma, Alabama with MLK Jr.) get teary eyed every time they see Senator Obama. They truly, deeply believe that Senator Obama is "blessed" and that MLK Jr. is smiling right now in Heaven.

Look, your right. Obama has numerous deficiencies (I feel he can still be a good president provided he surrounds himself with solid advisers). But "firsts" are powerful. And when perceived barriers seem to be crashing down, that wave is hard to deter in many black folks minds. If Senator Obama wins the nomination and loses to Senator McCain in the GE, I will support McCain's presidency and hope he can "change and fix thangs". But that little black boy in me wants Obama to win simply because he would be the first black POTUS. Irrational? Maybe. But damn it I'm human. :-)

[vvanderer]

Sorry I came here by mistake... was told there was some intelligent conservative writing here

[DarkStar]

Look, your right. Obama has numerous deficiencies (I feel he can still be a good president provided he surrounds himself with solid advisers). But "firsts" are powerful.

The problem, for me, is the same problem of ignoring deficiencies that is happening with Obama, happened with G. W. Bush and happened with Bill Clinton. They didn't seem to be ignored with G. H. W. Bush but their was resignation. Only, somehow, with Obama it's "different."

It's "cult like" even though with G. W. Bush I thought it was "cult like" only because he declared himself to be born again. "Compassionate conservativism" never made sense to me. It never made sense to me that his education "success" in Texas wasn't scrutinized further when there was evidence all over the place that it was not what he touted.And now we have NCLB which is having the same problems as in Texas, only on a national scale.

Meanwhile the peron who came aboard the Bush administration because of "compassionate conservativism" left and wrote a book saying it was a sham.

But, now, with a Black man, all of a sudden his "following" is an issue.

[DarkStar]

Given the choices, I'm using the stylus to tap Bob Barr on the voter computer screen.

[T-Steel]

Given the choices, I'm using the stylus to tap Bob Barr on the voter computer screen.

That's my thinking since I've never voted for a Democrat or Republican since I cast my first vote back in '91.

[Don]

Given you're in L.A., I figured you know about the racial divide in Mexico concerning the lighter, European descendant Mexicans vs. the darker Incan descendant Mexicans. This isn't turf, this is straight up racism.

Incan? The Incas were in Peru/Ecuador. The Mexicans see themselves as Aztecs, although there were a host of others indian nations in Mexico.

You are correct about hispanic racism, but turf is also an issue.

[Don]

The problem, for me, is the same problem of ignoring deficiencies that is happening with Obama, happened with G. W. Bush and happened with Bill Clinton. They didn't seem to be ignored with G. H. W. Bush but their was resignation. Only, somehow, with Obama it's "different."

Both Bush and Clinton had ample executive experience we could judge them by. Obama doesn't have anything like that.

But, now, with a Black man, all of a sudden his "following" is an issue.

It is more of a matter that we don't have anything else to judge him by. Besides which, Obama's associates and his own writing suggest he's an extreem leftist. See this for example:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDkyZTNiZDdkMTNiNzViZTYxNDU0MTY4MzMzMzNmZDU=

Obama has the makings of an absolute disaster.

[Don]

Baldilocks,

Blacks are one of the groups the Democrats can take for granted, effectively limiting black political clout.

The hispanic vote is more in play, hence the Republicans attempt to cater to it.

[DarkStar]

You're right. That should have been Aztecs.

Both Bush and Clinton had ample executive experience we could judge them by. Obama doesn't have anything like that.

Bush, the elder, didn't have the executive experience. Yes, he was V.P., but my standing comment on the presidency is, there is no job that gives you the experience needed to be president except but to be president.

Bush said his experience in dealing with both parties in Texas would help him in D.C., but it didn't. Bush had no foreign experience and was proud of it. When he chose Condi Rice, it was a good choice at the time. After 9/11, it turned out to be a mediocre choice, IMO.

Besides which, Obama's associates and his own writing suggest he's an extreem leftist.

He's definitely a leftist.

The hispanic vote is more in play, hence the Republicans attempt to cater to it.

By using ethnic politics (identity politics), but, again, it's not as much in play as most Republicans like to believe. The white nationalist Republicans make a good case on that point.

[Rick Ballard]

"If Senator Obama wins the nomination and loses to Senator McCain in the GE, I will support McCain's presidency and hope he can "change and fix thangs". But that little black boy in me wants Obama to win simply because he would be the first black POTUS. Irrational? Maybe. But damn it I'm human. :-)"

I kinda like that. I believe that the first black President has been born and I believe I'll be voting for him - I just don't believe that it will be Obama. It's the Red that will stop him though, not the black.

Al Smith was the first Irish Catholic to run for President (1928), Jack Kennedy was the first Irish Catholic President. I don't believe you're going to be waiting even half as long as the Irish Catholics did to get your wish. If Obama does pull it off I believe that I'll adopt the attitude that you have concerning McCain.

[Casey]

DarkStar, gotta disagree with you about the utility of previous executive experience. The position of governor of one of the United States is an excellent training program for president. True, there's a lesser need for foreign policy experience, but there are at least a few states who deal with foreign powers directly. Up here in Ohio, for example, the state and many companies are closely involved with Mexico and Canada, to name just two countries.

When you think about it, our Governors have tremendous autonomous power compared to the provinces or departments of other countries. Hell, just think about the military power that California, Nevada, or Massachusetts each individually control.

Agreed that the Texas version of NCLB was over-hyped and under-examined. Hideous waste of time and resources if you ask me.

Strongly, strongly disagree that conservatives/Republicans avoid courting black American voters, or disrespect them. Conservative/Republicans face a lose/lose situation in this respect. If they try to court black voters, they are harangued as to why they didn't "do more" (i.e. set-asides and special programs) for the black community, when (in theory) conservative/Republicans prefer to emphasize private effort and self-reliance.

If they don't court the black voters -whether they refuse to pander to special interests, or decide they can't win- they're accused of bigotry or downright hatred.

Like I said: lose/lose scenario.

An aside: one may be both black (although not -strictly speaking- african-american black) and latino. I cite as evidence Tony "Doggy" Perez, one of the greatest players to ever wear the Cincinnati Reds uniform.

[Phelps]

Look, your right. Obama has numerous deficiencies (I feel he can still be a good president provided he surrounds himself with solid advisers).

Then he won't be a good president. This is the guy that already surrounded himself with Wright, Pfleger, Farrakhan, Ayers and Rezko. He has no concept of what a solid advisor is, T.