For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that the "pro-life side" of the Schiavo mess is a result of "the religous right" being given their due because of their support of the Republican party.
Given that, what does it say about Black politicians who couldn't get Clinton to let the cocaine and crack sentencing disparity to sunset?
What does it say about Black politicians who couldn't get Clinton to pay more attention to the situation in Rwanda?
What does it say about Black politicians who tried, late in Clinton's last term, to address the slavery issue in Sudan and other countries?
What does it say about Black politicians tried but couldn't get Clinton to change the U.S. policy towards Haiti?
What does it say about the CBC?
What does it say about the Democratic party and it's core base?
So, if Republicans are trying to get 20% of the Black vote by going to Black preachers, good for them as long as Blacks get something out of it this time.
No, I don't mean to say he did "nothing" but I don't believe Blacks got a good deal. He screwed over a lot of people, I just think that he screwed Blacks the most.
Posted by: EBrown at March 27, 2005 09:11 PMInteresting, this idea of payback. Do you owe your sister/brother something when they support you, or is that support just part of the assumed deal? Is that the right way to look at it?
I wonder what Bushco will do to encourage more black folk to vote their way next time. Since blacks gave him numbers higher than tradition dictates, don't he owe we? But who in their right mind expects a payback anytime soon?
Posted by: memer at March 28, 2005 01:26 AMInteresting, this idea of payback. Do you owe your sister/brother something when they support you, or is that support just part of the assumed deal? Is that the right way to look at it?
Politics is not family. Politics is getting someone to vote for you because they believe in your leadership or because they believe you will do something in their favor. My family has family binds to me, as long as I uphold the values of the family.
Politicians want support. We, Blacks, should get something for our support. Other groups do.
don't he owe we
In theory, he owes us a lick of the soup bone.
Politics is not family.
This might be the thing, no? Is it about rooting for 'fams,' someone most like you to do the good lookin out (or at least not stab you in the back), or is it strictly a quid pro quo bidniz transaction? Frankly, considering our position, I think I might be more comfortable with a family approach as we don't have enough voting shares as it were to influence the board in any appreciable way.
As for Bushco, that might be the litmus test to see if things really do work in a qpq way. Not holding my breath is all.
Posted by: memer at March 29, 2005 01:50 AM
Powerful point, Ed. But for a more apt comparison, let's leave out foreign affairs (before we get into knots about how the religious right would prefer Bush handle China, etc). The cocaine law stuff is a strong charge if that's all there was to do for black folk. Do you mean to say that domestically, Clinton did nothing for blackfolk while in office?
Posted by: memer at March 27, 2005 06:03 PMp.s. The Religious Right is a newly exposed voting block. We'll see how much play the RR gets from Republicans in 10-20 years. Who else they gonna vote for? Democrats?! Puh-leeze.