When Clinton was in office, I believed that the Republicans and conservatives who were crowing about the low moral of the war fighters, "because of Bill Clinton", was taking things too far. In the case of Clinton, it was another case of the "opposition" going too far.
Now, we have this statement by Rep. John Murtha:
Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) told a civic group.
I thought in the past, and I think now, that the enemies of the U.S. read and view our news media. Statements like that quoted, does nothing but give strength to our enemies as well has hurt the moral of our war fighters.
Murtha should know better.
This one has been swirling around in my mind for a bit. It's not formulated completely, but I just want to put it out there.
Michael Steele is getting support from the national Republican party because he is a Black Republican. He's getting help from Karl Rove, the president, and national conservative talk shows.
Michael Steele is the man.
Michael Steele is running his U.S. Senate for Maryland race, not as a Republican, but as an individual. His campaign is saying, forget the party labels and look at the man and the issues.
Now, he could be said that he is doing that so that Blacks "forget" he is a Republican and vote for him. But that is not the case.
Indeed, his campaign is looking at the Maryland demographics, 2:1 registered Democrats to Republicans, and see that in a state wide race, there is no other way to run.
His campaign, which has started, has already putting out that he should be considered independent of his party and the president.
Now it appears that Bush is "fighting back" against the people who say the Bush administration lied about the reason the U.S. went to war against Iraq.
President Bush on Friday shot back at critics claiming his administration misconstrued or lied about pre-war intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, saying "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
Frankly, I think it is the Bush administration that is deeply irresponsible.
The Bush administration said the reason for the action against Iraq was because of WMDs. They then said it was because of violations of U.N. sanctions. They then said it was because of Saadam's treatment of Iraq citizens. Then it was said the seed of Democracy in the country would be good for the Middle East.
At one point, the president was saying that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11/2001 attacks, but the vice-president was saying that Iraq was involved.
Did the Bush administration communicate a clear and consistent story for the action against Iraq?
No.
In fact, the most consistent and supportive reasons for action against Iraq came not from the Bush administration, but from commentators and pundits who backed the administration.
Men and women of our country were sent to fight in a foreign country, yet the President of the United States, seemingly, can't give a straight answer on why we are there.
In short, the Bush administration can't communicate worth jack!
So, when the opposition takes advantage of this lack of communication, the supporters of the president say the opposition is working against the interests of the U.S.
I have a question about working against the interests of the U.S.
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition called the sitting president "white trash"?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition said the president was guilty of having fathered the son of a Black prostitute?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition said the president was the cause of low morale in the service?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition pushed story after story of enlisted military people who wanted to leave the service?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition started writing articles of impeachment after the president was re-elected, but before any revelations of sexual misconduct and perjury?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition stated a military action was done to cover up a situation concerning sexual misconduct?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition stated agencies tasked with defending the U.S. are not supported by the administration in power?
In the end, it comes down to partisanship and power. People want their party to be in power so they will have some power to do what they want to do; health and security of the U.S. be damned.
The men and women in the military deserve better. The people of the U.S. deserve better.
Tom Delay is hittin' the pipe or maybe he's doing meth. Either way, he's on something GOOD to say this:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
The way President Bush detailed the programs to be used to help out the Katrina Hurricane victims were all the way Republicans have tried to address certain issues.
So, in one way I don't see why conservatives are not happy. Bush wants to use government to address ills in the way Republicans want to use government, not the way Democrats want to use the government.
Oh...
Wait....
The costs associated with the programs?
Who cares about the costs?
After all, look at the amount of pork in the current highway spending.
There is a new person getting into the primary Democratic race for the chance to run for in teh general election for the U.S. Senate.
The person is white. I heard him on a radio talk show today. When explaining why he should be the person to get the Democratic nomination, he mentioned the other white candidate, Ben Cardin, by name. But he NEVER mentioned Mfume, as if Mfume is a non-factor.
This is what some white Democratic pundits in Maryland feared. The reason being is that whites will split their vote and Mfume will get to run in the general election. But this is the situation that Republicans like because they believe that the Republican candidate, Michael Steele, will wipe up the floor with Mfume.
Stay tuned...
So, I'm home a little early from work, stretched out on the bed, with my headphones on, listening to sometimes talk radio. (The kid is asleep at the head of the bed, I'm at the foot of the bed).
I wake up from a catnap to hear Black people talking about the Republican vs. Democratic party thing.
One person gets his facts twisted and states "Republicans" when it should be "Democrats". The Republicans in the discussion jump on him.
Should I mention this was an all Black panel?
Anyway...
What got me is one person said that parties don't matter, it's the policies that matter.
That's where I'm at in this stage of my life.
To hell with the party labels, I'm going to support the PERSON who is saying things that most align with my views.
Alan Keyes and Michael Steele and Olympia Snowe are all in the same party. (Shouldn't Keyes be pissed about the GOP pushing Steele as a star?)
Mfume, Ford, Teddy Kennedy and Zell Miller are all in the same party.
Screw the labels, I'm staying independent and will support the person not the party.
Footnote: I find it a damn shame that some people can't handle a person being critical of a party but that not meaning that a person supports the opposition party. How many people realize that the U.S. political system is not a 2 party system, but a multi-party system with the 2 primary parties rigging the game against all other parties?
OK, this is just foul.
From the Drudge Report:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN
**Exclusive**
The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."
That. Is. Just. Wrong.
So we have the Republican Party chair saying this:
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman attended the NAACP convention in Milwaukee Thursday. He planned to express regrets for Republican attitudes toward blacks in the past.
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said in remarks prepared for delivery. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Now, I've been saying for some time that it isn't entirely "the fault" of Black voters that Blacks vote Dem in such high numbers, and that Repubs have to carry a lot of "the blame".
And I've said that if that was acknowledged and proceed from there, things would be different. That is the path that Michael Steele uses when he says his party was wrong to support strategies that divide and that it was wrong for Repubs to "turn away" from Blacks who used to support the party so strongly.
But coming from a non-Repub, which doesn't mean a Dem, I always catch a lot of heat for it. Even when I provided supporting information from white and Black Repubs.
Now I want to see how Republicans respond to Mehlman.
Next, is this from the same article:
Bush told the Indiana Black Expo that he believes in an America where all people, including blacks, have the chance to own homes and businesses and share in the country's prosperity.
In discussions I've had with a few Black Republicans who were trying to get me to become a Republican and/or during political conversations were they whined complained about lack of Black support, I've asked why they weren't at places "Black leaders" were. Why weren't they at "Black Expos"? I saw the local chapters of the Urban League, the NAACP, League of Negro Women, and the like, but not one "Black Republican" or "Black conservative" group.
OK, now THIS has been what I've been trying to get at with the "Black liberal" vs. "Black libera" madness. This is true for especially the last quote.
Joseph C. Phillips nails it!
And it is not just those on the left who are guilty. There is an old saying that when you point one finger at others, you point three fingers at yourself. Those of us on the right have engaged in our share of outrageous rhetoric. I have not cut off my Democratic friends, but I cannot claim innocence. The fact that I am now mourning the loss of a cherished friend has convinced me that we must turn down the fire. Political passions run deep but what do we accomplish by raising the temperature so high that we are unable to speak to one another, no longer able to recognize each other’s humanity?
...
What is clear is that none of us has a monopoly on morality, patriotism or good ideas. It also becomes increasingly clear that our republic and the citizens therein suffer when the exchange of ideas is sacrificed in favor of overblown political rhetoric.
On the basis of a new study, a team of political scientists is arguing that people's gut-level reaction to issues like the death penalty, taxes and abortion is strongly influenced by genetic inheritance. The new research builds on a series of studies that indicate that people's general approach to social issues - more conservative or more progressive - is influenced by genes.
Tammany Fall
When Tom DeLay became majority whip in January 1995, he and Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, initiated the K Street Project, a plan to force lobbyists to hire only Republicans and raise money only for Republican candidates. It was based on the assumption that, by monopolizing political contributions from business, Republicans could preserve the congressional majority they had just won. But DeLay had his own stake in the project. By controlling the flow of these contributions, he could enhance his own power within the party. That, after all, was how he had defeated Robert Walker, Speaker Newt Gingrich's candidate for whip--by raising and dispensing over $2 million during the fall election to Republican House candidates.
Inquiring minds want to know which if any members of the CBC attempted anything so audacious back in the day when democrats actually called some shots on capital hill?
As a first step in tightening ties between corporate America and the Republican Congress, DeLay convened a meeting of lobbyists in early 1995 to write legislation that would freeze new government regulations on business. DeLay's success that year in getting the House to adopt this legislation and in waylaying the Clinton administration's ergonomics regulations cemented his ties to a group of lobbyists who would become his "kitchen cabinet."
Then, in 1998, as he was assuming de facto control of the House from an embattled Gingrich, DeLay began to threaten firms and trade associations that refused to replace Democratic staffers with Republicans. When the Electronic Industries Association hired former Democratic Representative Dave McCurdy as its president, DeLay held up copyright legislation it had lobbied for. And, in the spring of 1999, after a court ruled against Microsoft in an antitrust suit, DeLay let Microsoft know that, if it wanted Republican support, it should hire Republican lobbyists and fund Republican candidates. Recalls one high-tech lobbyist, "The [GOP] leadership was pretty much saying that, if we are going to bail you out, what are you giving to those [Democratic] guys for?"
The pressure worked. Although the Electronic Industries Association retained McCurdy, it made him a figurehead and put the actual lobbying work into the hands of two conservative Republicans. Microsoft began hiring Republicans and giving the bulk of its contributions to Republicans, including DeLay. (During the 2004 election cycle, for instance, Microsoft gave DeLay's PAC the maximum of $10,000.) By the late '90s, lobbying firms and trade associations were coming to DeLay's office to have their new hires cleared.
That's when DeLay took the K Street Project one step further. He didn't just get lobbying firms to hire Republicans; he got them to hire his former staff. Through these staffers, DeLay created a network of lobbyists, political consultants, and conservative activists who did his bidding. The ex-staffers on K Street didn't act like conventional lobbyists, who represent the interests of their clients. When DeLay staffers left his office for K Street, they continued to represent his interests as well as those of their clients. They would tell businesses how to please DeLay--and that meant funding him and his political operations. And, in addition, they would aid and oversee the organizations that he was developing to enhance his power. The result was the rise of a political machine reminiscent of New York's Boss Tweed or Mississippi's Theodore Bilbo.
That machine is one reason DeLay, now the majority leader, has continued to amass power over the last decade. With its assistance, he has raised much more money than any other House member, ensuring loyalty and obedience from his fellow Republicans. But DeLay's relentless drive to power has created a continuing temptation to sell votes, exceed campaign funding limits, and cloak greed in the guise of charity or education. DeLay, like Tweed and Bilbo, has repeatedly succumbed to this temptation to bend the law. That's why, as clouds of scandal gather over DeLay's office, the same political machinations that contributed to his rise to power may finally lead to his downfall.
ince 1984, DeLay has employed about 300 people in his congressional and leadership offices and about 75 more on his campaigns and at his political and charitable organizations, including Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (armpac) and the DeLay Foundation for Kids. Working for DeLay was a plum assignment for ambitious conservatives, but many left after three or four years, with DeLay's blessing, to become lobbyists and political operatives.
Indeed, lobbying firms competed intensely for top DeLay staffers. Says one high-level Republican lobbyist for a trade association, "There is always a premium for people coming from [the congressional] leadership, and DeLay has run a tighter ship, so that has put a premium on contacts with people who serve in his office." After the lobbying firm Williams & Jensen landed former DeLay Chief of Staff Susan Hirschmann in 2002, National Journal termed it "the biggest hiring coup of the year."
Since the late '90s, 29 DeLay alumni have acquired major lobbying positions on K Street. (That dwarfs any other leadership office. Speaker Dennis Hastert, for instance, has six former staffers on K Street.) Together, they represent around 350 firms and institutions, including the bulk of the country's energy firms, the giants of the finance and technology sectors, the airlines, the auto manufacturers, the tobacco companies, and the country's largest health care and pharmaceutical companies. Former DeLay staffers also represent 13 of the biggest trade associations, including the American Petroleum Institute, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, and the Information Technology Industry Council. Microsoft, for instance, has retained a host of DeLay alumni, including nine lobbyists from the Alexander Strategy Group, which former DeLay Chief of Staff Ed Buckham founded in 1998 with a huge initial contract that DeLay secured from Enron. (The group also paid DeLay's wife a salary for several years.)
A few former staffers went to work for other House members or senators before leaving for K Street and are more clearly identified with them than DeLay. But most DeLay alumni trumpet their association with the majority leader. The Alexander Strategy Group's website sports a quotation from "Ed Buckham, partner, former chief of staff, Majority Leader Tom DeLay." The former staffers call themselves "Team DeLay," and, after DeLay's legislative director, Drew Maloney, quit to join the Federalist Group in 2002, he convened a meeting of ex-staffers every six weeks. One attendee, former Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Rudy, who is now with the Alexander Strategy Group, told National Journal, "There is a lot of discussion about how we can help Republican candidates and expand the majority." As for DeLay, Rudy added, "As long as he wants me, I'll be there for him." (DeLay, as well as Buckham and Rudy, did not respond to interview requests for this story, and former staffers who were interviewed insisted on not being quoted.)
DeLay's former staffers have also migrated to conservative Republican organizations. These include several high-powered communications firms. Former Press Secretary Michael Scanlon heads Capital Campaign Strategies, which is known as the partner of former lobbyist and DeLay crony Jack Abramoff in bilking American Indian tribes. Former DeLay Director of Communications Jonathan Baron's Red Sea LLC handles polling and media relations for armpac, Republican candidates, and the Club for Growth. DeLay alumni also occupy key positions in the Christian Coalition, the International Republican Institute, the National Right to Life Committee, the Home School Legal Defense Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Concerned Women for America.
DeLay has alumni throughout the Bush administration, including the White House and the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments, too. In January 2004, after reaching an antitrust agreement with Microsoft on its browser, Internet Explorer, the Justice Department appointed Patricia Brink, who had served for ten years as DeLay's press secretary, to oversee Microsoft's compliance. Asked whether the appointment could reflect DeLay's influence, one lobbyist commented, "I think that was a significant choice."
In the House, DeLay pushed Hastert, who had been his deputy whip, into becoming speaker in 1998 and nominated Missouri Representative Roy Blunt to succeed him as whip when he became majority leader in 2000. Many of their key staff are DeLay alumni, including Hastert's director of operations and Blunt's deputy chief of staff and director of floor operations. DeLay also has staffers in high positions in at least eight other House offices, including that of Republican John Boehner, who, along with Blunt, is often mentioned as a possible successor to DeLay.
These connections--and lobbying ties in particular--have allowed DeLay to dominate the relationship between K Street and the Republican Party. When pharmaceutical companies wanted a prescription-drug bill in 2003 that would not force them to bargain with the government over prices or to compete with imported drugs, they worked through a broad coalition organized by Hirschmann. The pharmaceutical companies also hired five other former DeLay staffers to lobby, including three from Buckham's Alexander Strategy Group. When energy firms wanted to pass a provision that would retroactively limit liability for manufacturers of mtbe, a toxic gasoline additive, they hired Maloney. And, when tobacco companies wanted to keep the Food and Drug Administration from regulating their industry, they looked to former DeLay staffer Karl Gallant at the Alexander Strategy Group.
DeLay almost invariably came through for these lobbyists and their clients, badgering and even allegedly attempting to bribe Republicans who didn't want to back the budget-busting prescription-drug bill, blocking the Bush administration's energy bill because the Senate version didn't limit mtbe liability, and killing a provision in a tobacco bill that would have permitted FDA regulation. His success redounded in fund-raising receipts. During the 2004 election cycle, two tobacco companies, R. J. Reynolds and Brown and Williamson, gave the maximum $10,000 contributions to DeLay's PAC. Energy companies contributed $143,425 and pharmaceutical companies $106,000 to DeLay's reelection campaign in the cycle.
ut DeLay's former staffers not only raised money for his campaigns--all lobbyists have their clients give money to politicians they want to influence--they also helped fund and staff his PACs and a succession of shadowy groups that intended to advance DeLay's personal agenda and preserve his power in the House. These efforts have proved enormously remunerative, but they have also contributed to the scandals and investigations that have dogged him.
The heart of DeLay's fund-raising has always been armpac, which he founded before the 1994 election to buy support from fellow Republicans. Initially overshadowed by Newt Gingrich's gopac, it became the leading House Republican PAC after Gingrich resigned. Its directors have played musical chairs between DeLay's offices and the Alexander Strategy Group, to which, at one point, armpac paid rent. After DeLay became majority whip, he recruited tobacco lobbyist Gallant to head it. Gallant was succeeded in late 1997 by Buckham, who also set up the Alexander Strategy Group, where Gallant went to work. In 1999, Jim Ellis, who worked for the Alexander Strategy Group, succeeded Buckham as armpac's director. Buckham and Ellis (along with Abramoff and later Hirschmann) became DeLay's principal political advisers.
ARMPAC was wildly successful. From 1998 to 2004, it raised $14.3 million, which it dispensed to the National Republican Congressional Committee (nrcc) and Republican House members. But DeLay was never satisfied with armpac, which had to disclose its contributors and limit the size of their hard money contributions. So, after the 1998 election, DeLay, Buckham, Ellis, and Gallant set up three dubious fund-raising vehicles: the U.S. Family Network (usfn), Americans for Economic Growth (AEG), and the Republican Majority Issues Committee (rmic). Usfn and AEG were registered as tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations that didn't have to report their contributors but did have to devote the bulk of their time to nonpolitical activities. The rmic could participate in politics but couldn't back specific candidates. All of these organizations were supposed to be independent of DeLay, but DeLay's lieutenants ran them on his behalf. Usfn, run by DeLay's former campaign manager, Robert Mills, seemed designed to subsidize DeLay's political operations and Buckham's lobbying. It raised over $1 million from five donors, which it used to purchase a Washington, D.C., townhouse for armpac and the Alexander Strategy Group and a 15-year lease on an MCI Center skybox (presumably to entertain clients and donors). In 1999, the nrcc--whose chairman, Representative Tom Davis, owed his position to DeLay's support, and which hired Buckham as a consultant--sent the usfn $500,000, most of which it funneled to AEG for ads in congressional races. The FEC later ruled that the nrcc was trying to avoid rules on the use of corporate money by laundering it through the two organizations and fined it $280,000.
DeLay shut down usfn and AEG after the 2000 election and rmic soon afterward. But he wasn't finished with questionable ventures. After the 2002 congressional election, when new campaign finance rules took effect barring members of Congress from raising soft money, DeLay's hand could be seen in the establishment of the Leadership Forum, chaired by Hirschmann and launched with a $1 million grant from the nrcc. And, on the eve of the Republican convention last August, DeLay established a "charity," Celebrations for Children, which planned to use the money it raised to entertain lobbyists and politicians at the convention.
But, of all DeLay's ventures, the one that has gotten him in the most trouble is Texans for a Republican Majority (trmpac). In September 2001, DeLay and Ellis established trmpac to help Republican candidates win control of Texas's House of Representatives in the 2002 elections, so that they could vote for a new congressional redistricting plan that was aimed at replacing seven Democratic incumbents with Republicans. Trmpac raised $1.6 million for Republican statehouse candidates, but at least $600,000 of trmpac's funds came from corporations. That's against Texas law, which forbids corporations and unions from funding state campaigns. Last September, a grand jury in Travis County indicted Ellis and two co-workers, John Colyandro and Warren Robold (who came from armpac).
DeLay denies that he had any knowledge of trmpac's fund-raising, but the entire operation was geared toward attracting his donors. Trmpac's fund-raisers went after not only Texas companies, but also firms like Kansas City- based Westar Energy Corporation, which didn't have any special business in Texas but wanted to buy favors from the majority leader. And DeLay's former staffers from K Street were brought in to involve DeLay in the fund-raising.
One of these ex-staffers was Drew Maloney of the Federalist Group. In June 2002, Maloney organized a joint armpac/trmpac golf fund-raiser featuring DeLay at the Homestead Resort in Virginia. It included several energy companies interested in limiting mtbe liability and Westar, which wanted a special exemption from public utility laws. In an e-mail to another former staffer, Chris Perkins, who was working for armpac, Maloney explained that Westar was giving $25,000 to trmpac on the understanding DeLay would champion its legislation. And, after reportedly asking Westar executives what they wanted, DeLay did so. DeLay later drew an admonishment from the House Ethics Committee for appearing to sell his vote to Westar.
As the Travis County case and a civil suit by former Democratic Representative Chris Bell, a victim of DeLay's gerrymandering, have proceeded, e-mails have surfaced linking DeLay directly to trmpac through his ex-staffers. In one e-mail, Maloney told Robold that he had two checks from Reliant Energy that he would give to DeLay to convey to trmpac. "Will deliver to T.D. next week probably," Maloney wrote. In another, Robold asked Colyandro to draw up a list of the top ten potential givers. "I would then decide from response who Tom DeLay others [sic] should call," Robold wrote. These and other e-mails could provide the basis for indicting DeLay. At the least, they add further detail to the picture of DeLay as an accessory to corruption.
eLay has, of course, been dodging investigators and civil suits since 1999 without any apparent reduction in his power. Up until this year, his notable successes--for instance, winning the Republicans six additional House seats from Texas--increased his clout. But DeLay's accumulation of misdeeds, most of which grew out of his attempt to create a political machine that would put lobbyists and their clients at his service, may have finally stalled his drive to power. Facing a panoply of ethics charges, DeLay's influence has begun to wane.
In the face of new charges against Delay, the House voted earlier this year to repeal the changes in ethics rules that were adopted last November at DeLay's behest--and which would have allowed him to keep his leadership position even if indicted in Texas. DeLay also failed to block a bill relaxing government rules on funding stem-cell research. Says one influential Republican lobbyist, "You would not think that, if he were at the height of his powers, the stem-cell bill would have passed." Only a handful of DeLay's colleagues showed up at a tribute that the American Conservative Union held for him in Washington on May 12. And Republicans, who once coveted DeLay's backing, are now worried about suffering from a "DeLay factor" in November 2006.
Social conservatives like Paul Weyrich and James Dobson of Focus on the Family have stood solidly behind him, but other conservatives have begun to waver. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has criticized DeLay for ethical lapses. And even his closest conservative allies are distancing themselves. Norquist, while insisting that DeLay has not been weakened by the scandal, tried to dissociate DeLay from the K Street Project. "Not to be critical of DeLay," Norquist says, "but this is an outside project where we have raised the importance of hiring people who understand economics." Norquist showed up briefly at the tribute to DeLay but left before the dinner and the speeches.
There has also been a sharp falloff in DeLay's fundraising. Contributions to his legal defense fund have plummeted, even as DeLay's legal expenses have mounted. In the last quarter of 2004, DeLay raised $254,250. In the first quarter of this year, he raised only $47,750. Contributions to armpac may also be falling off. In its FEC filing for the first months of this year, armpac listed $386,252 in contributions. In a comparable filing for the first four months of 2003 (also at the beginning of an election cycle), armpac listed $446,223 in contributions. (According to FEC records, DeLay also loaned his congressional campaign $100,000 this spring.)
DeLay could still rebound, or he could be forced out as Gingrich was, allowing Blunt, who is being groomed as his successor, to take up where he left off. But, in the growing public disquiet with congressional corruption--which is reminiscent of the early '90s--there are clear warning signs to DeLay and to Republicans. In trying to introduce the kind of political machine most commonly found in postbellum Mississippi or Tammany New York City, DeLay may have damaged not only his career, but also the Republicans' grip on Washington.
I don't understand why conservatives are whining about the "fillibuster compromise". Bush gets 3 nominees to get the up or down vote and he gets to nominate a lot more with limited reason to believe there will be a fillibuster.
I don't get the opposition unless members of the conservative media are doing a joint okie doke.
So, The Washington Post says that Mfume has women problems.
It's interesting that this has come out after Cardin has announced his candidancy.
It's also interesting that Cardin announced with many Black politicians supporting him, while Mfume has no Black politicians publically supporting him.
It's also interesting that this allegation is out there and now people are wondering if it was Cardin's camp, someone inside the NAACP who doesn't like Mfume, Jullian Bond supporters, the woman, or maybe even the Maryland Democratic party.
Today on a conservative talk radio program, Gov. Ehrlich called in and said Mfume was a nice guy, his friend, and that the source of the allegations have to be considered. Previously, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele has said that he and Mfume are friends.
Mfume has an opponent for the Democratic nomination to run for the Maryland senate seat.
At first I didn't care if Mfume had to fit for the nomination. After all, he has experience and these battles make sure that the best candidate to run a campaign, wins.
But now that I think about it, I've changed my mind. The Maryland Democratic party should be doing what the Maryland Republican party and the national Republican party are doing. They should have cleared the decks for one person.
The GOP is pushing Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to get into the race.
Right now, if it comes down to Mfume and Cardin, Cardin wins because of the "racial baggage" of the NAACP. Even if all Blacks who are registered as Democrats vote for Mfume in the primary election, without a sizable white vote, Mfume will not win.
I don't believe white Maryland Democrat voters will give Mfume their votes. Additionally, Cardin has already lined up Black politicians to support him.
It is noticable that not one Black politician has said that he will support Mfume, although Mfume announced a few weeks ago.
Black Democrats in Maryland are about to get shown how much Black support of Democrats really means.
"No permanent friends. No permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."
So I'm listening to the Fox talking head show and they are discussing the judicial nomination games.
If judges are being blocked because of their faith, as some are saying or are saying that "a pattern is emerging that judges of faith are being blocked", then shouldn't they be mad about the 124 appointees that have not been blocked?
What do I mean? Well, if Democrats have let 124 appointees go by, then they must not be people of faith. And if they are not people of faith, then shouldn't the people complaining be asking why Bush is nominating people who are not people of faith?
[ Update ]
Oh yes. Isn't it interesting that people are bringing up fillibusters that happened against the Civil Rights era to brow beat Black people who seem to support what's going on?
Race card anyone?
Of the Sunday talking head shows, Fox Sunday and Meet the Press are the cream of the crop. Meet the Press, in my opinion, towers above all. Russert really is non-partial in his questioning and does not let the politicians get away with much.
Today, I saw Fox Sunday but not Meet the Press. If you watched the show, and if you are not so much of a partisan that you just refuse to admit "your side" is ingenuous, then you have to admit that the Republican and Democratic senators discussing judges and the blockage of voting for judge appointees are a good reason why politicans are held in such low regard.
Fact: Republicans did not allow many of Clinton's appointees to get a vote by using secret holds or just refusing to allow appointees to get a vote in the conference committee. If Republicans want to discuss constitutional issues, then they have to admit that there is no constitutional support for conference committees in the Constitution.
Fact: Democrats are not allowing some appointees to get a vote by invoking the fillibuster tactics. Republicans have firm ground in saying that judge appointees, by tradition, have not been fillibustered, although there is one situation in the 1800s that it happened.
From my point of view, they both came off looking like snake-oil salesmen. They both are playing the American public for fools.
Whooops.
Counsel to GOP Senator Wrote Memo On Schiavo
Martinez Aide Who Cited Upside For Party Resigns
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A01
The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.
Brian H. Darling, 39, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said.
Martinez, the GOP's Senate point man on the issue, said he earlier had been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. "I never did an investigation, as such," he said. "I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue."
Martinez, a freshman who was secretary of housing and urban development for most of President Bush's first term, said he had not read the one-page memo. He said he inadvertently passed it to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who had worked with him on the issue. After that, officials gave the memo to reporters for ABC News and The Washington Post.
1. The power of blogs is over-rated.
2. Blogs have the same problem the "MSM" has when it comes to source verification and validation, fighting deliberate hoaxes, biases, etc.
This is a piece by a Maryland political commentator. He's "plugged into" Maryland Democratic politics and has a decent understanding of what goes on. However, he doesn't get the Black sde of Maryland politics very well, IMO.
But this piece about the senate race to replace Sarbanes is good for some thought:
Here’s the deal: The hypothetical match-up between Kwiesi Mfume and Lt. Gov. Michael Steele comes down to this: Voters will get to choose between a man in a dashiki with six illegitimate sons and an ex-seminarian who goes to mass every Sunday with his wife and kids.But Senate race 2006 is unlikely to produce such a contrast between the two black candidates. And the reason is that Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin will likely spoil the equation.
Assume that’s the case, and Mfume’s a loser either way – to Cardin in the primary election, or to Steele in the general. Assume further that in a Cardin-Steele face-off, Cardin will carry the election for the Democrats and retain the seat of Sen. Paul Sarbanes.And if Cardin tip-toes into the fray, as is his cogito, ergo sum approach to politics, he’s likely to squeeze out other Democrats as well.
The new paradigm in politics is the so-called 527 committee, i.e., Swift Boat Veterans, that operate as vigilante groups outside the margins of formal campaigns. Consider how the Swift Boat Vets bludgeoned John Kerry and think, for a moment, how a similar shadow group will decapitate Mfume.To be sure, Mfume packs a ton of baggage leftover from his incendiary past and his louche life as a wastrel youth, just the right stuff for slice-and-dice attack television ads. To his everlasting credit, though, Mfume picked himself up, dusted himself off and went on to become virtually the president of black America as head of the NAACP.
So says David Lambro:
At a well-attended "town hall" meeting in heavily black Prince George's County, Md., some 250 people turned out to hear Mr. Mehlman in a question-and-answer dialogue. It was a rare event in a party that has all too often ignored the black community. A chief adviser to Mr. Mehlman told me this week he plans to meet with and speak to a broad range of black groups in the coming weeks. A major speech is planned at predominantly black Howard University, and he plans to visit more black neighborhoods. "There will be a lot of community-type events within the African-American community," this adviser told me. Notably, Mr. Mehlman appeared last week on the nationally televised PBS talk show named after and hosted by Tavis Smiley, who sponsored the civil-rights meeting in Atlanta that alarmed Miss Brazile. An independent-minded black leader who wants a broader political dialogue in the black community, Mr. Smiley is being sounded out by the NAACP to become its next president, a sign that the venerable black organization may be ready to soften its often-harsh anti-GOP rhetoric.
This is funny.
Based on a ""conversation" I've gotten myself into on LaShawn's blog, I've noticed a continuing trend that I find fascinating.
"Liberals" call me "conservative".
"Conservatives" call me "liberal".
Define "liberal" or/and "conservative" and then define why I'm classified as such.
I can't, and don't, classify myself. I know most people won't even agree on the definitions of both labels when hard pressed.
As one who has been sick to death of hearing yang about the 'Southern Strategy' it is quite refreshing to use the internet as a real resource and find out exactly what they are doing today.
Here is a link to the hottest document in the blogosphere. Hosted at Vision Circle and available for posterity.
First is the Kos Scanned Version
This is a zipped file: luntz.zip that contains two PDFs of the scanned original document. I obtained this from The Daily Kos.
Download: luntz.zip
MD5: 50ec69dd29e8933c0a7a060f28842673
Second is the Ball Text Version
This is my PDF of a text transcription. It is not complete as of this posting but should be done by next week.
Big Props to P6 and Faye Anderson for both calling out the 800lb turd in the republican punchbowl - and in so doing - helping me to precisely articulate the cause of my discomfort with the GOP. For any who wonder why it's so difficult to extend the benefit of the doubt to the administration on any contentious issue, for me, I'd have to say it's circumspection regarding the climate of consciousness in a collective which not only embraced but has continued to evolve the infamous southern strategy.
Personally, until that cold day in political hell comes along when the party brain trust repudiates this insufferable element, count me as one conservative black man who'll feel about as warm and cozy for this administration and the contemporary GOP as Mrs. Bill O'Reilly must feel about Mr. Bill in the aftermath of his multimillion $$$ sexual harassment settlement.
Someone please tell me what friggin' sense it makes to be angry at Blacks for voting for Democrats when it was white Republicans who instituted the Southern Strategy?
In other words, why are Blacks castigated for voting against a party that shunned them?
Why is it that when the history of the party is mentioned, it always stops before the Southern Strategy?
From Tony Snow:
After years in the political hinterlands, Republicans finally have discovered they can't win elections without appealing to hearts and they can't woo undecided voters unless they put forward a face that looks like a cola commercial -- filled with men and women, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, you name it.In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run. Racial separatism may have enjoyed a quiet vogue as recently as the '70s, but no more -- and Powell was on the mark when he warned that Republicans have a long way to go before they assemble a credible and durable Rainbow Coalition of their own.
I asked that of a conservative radio show host. He disconnected me.
An additional quote by Tony Snow:
Consider two recent Republican analogues, Richard Nixon and Pete Wilson. Nixon earned two trips to the Inaugural Ball by adopting a "Southern Strategy" that exploited the enmity between black and white Southerners. He managed to turn the "solid South" from a Democratic into a Republican stronghold, but he also deepened the impression that the GOP was a whites- only party.As recently as 1952, 40 percent of blacks voted Republican. That number dwindled to 20 percent by Nixon's first election -- and since has fallen nearer to 10 percent. The decline in black support also has weakened the allegiance of white suburbanites, who like to consider themselves enlightened on the matter of racial comity.
A charter such as this should have been drawn up by and for black folks the minute Thomas Sowell first mentioned it.
The question posed by Rev. Jackson to the Baptist Convention, i.e., "how many of you have been requested to perform same sex marriages in your church?" is right on point here. Some of the individual liberty and social justice issues confabulated with "morality" by the GOP are deeply troubling. As with the War on Terrorism, black folk should not be predisposed to accept any old thing coming out from under the GOP big tent. The "big tent" comfortably plays host to many a troubling and funky assemblage, and should always be handled with extreme caution.
I'm afraid that because we have failed to circle our own wagons and construct our own charter for change, we're now being cajoled into signing onto a Faustian agreement.
The "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," to be unveiled today in Los Angeles, is designed to help African American churches gain influence in the Republican Party and promote socially conservative legislation. Highlights of the plan include:
Marriage: Focus on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
• Wealth creation: Private Social Security investment accounts and encouraging homeownership.
• Education: School vouchers, charter schools and boosting black enrollment in higher education.
• Prison reform: Including a "Second Chance Act," reentry programs and laws restoring the rights of felons.
• Africa: Intervention in Sudan and penalties against corporations that explore for oil in the region.
• Healthcare overhaul: Including programs to cover the poor.
Source: Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., Hope Christian Church, College Park, Md.
Los Angeles Times
I. AM. SHOCKED.
Republicans Reverse Course on Ethics Rules. (Reg. required)
By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 4, 2005; Page A01House Republican leaders last night abandoned proposals to loosen rules governing members' ethical conduct, as they yielded to pressure from rank and file lawmakers concerned that the party was sending the wrong message.
The proposals in question would have made it more difficult for lawmakes to discipline a colleague for unethical behavior and would have allowed Majority Leader Tom DeLay to keep his post in the event he is indicted by a Texas grand jury that is looking into his campaign finance practices.
The sudden reversal came amid growing indications of dissension within the GOP. Just before House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office announced that the controversial measures were being dropped, the outgoing chairman of the House ethics committee issued an unusual statement denouncing the leadership's plan.
Rep. Joel Hefley (Colo.), who appears on the verge of being forced out as chairman after his committee voted three times last year to admonish DeLay, issued a statement criticizing the proposed rules changes as highly partisan and not in the best interests of the House
"Ethics reform must be bipartisan and this package is not bipartisan," Hefley said after sending his Republican colleagues a letter outlining his objections.
I guess the lesson of Newt Gingrich killing Democrat House members over the check bouncing wasn't forgotten.
Last night, Michael Savage was on about his usual hindbrain ravings, when lo and behold he said, "we need to step up the racist propaganda and images of arabs so that we can better crystallize our hatred and more effectively kill these enemies of our freedom...just like during WWII"
So today, when I received the link to this strong article in my inbox, I was primed to pass it along for your consideration and comment. Primary payload excerpted below;
"Racism – at home and abroad – is a central element of the Republican "moral values" and strategy. And racism is conciliated if not actively promoted by the Democratic focus on winning more white voters by moving to the right while taking voters of color virtually for granted..........This is not just rhetoric. The future of our country and the well-being of the world depend on us. We cannot stop the right's incessant drive to dominate the world's resources and to steamroll all opposition to that program unless we pose a clear alternative. A powerful vision of peace, jobs and justice is our only chance to mobilize the democratic sentiments and courage of all the people of our country."
Let's be real for a moment.
No group has made the conscience decision to split their vote so that they will be a factor in both parties.
Groups of people have aligned themselves with a political party because that party was deemed to fit their values.
Dixiecrats left the Democratic party because of civil rights issues.
The "religious right" went to the Republican party because of "moral" issues.
Sure, the Black vote should not be in one basket, but stop acting as though others haven't heavily aligned themselves with one party.
Enough of the silliness.
Does anyone remember the House checking scandel?
The short version goes like this: Members of the House, controlled by Democrats, had the ability to write checks for whatever purpose they deemed fit. Many members of the House, bounced checks on a regular basis.
Newt Gingrich used this to beat ruling Democrats over the head. In short, he said it was proof that power corrupts.
Now, we have Tom Delay, facing indictment, being protected by the controlling party of the House; Republicans.
And this just in! Congress has raised the deficit ceiling by 800 billion dollars.
Sure, can't pay your bills because you are spending like a drunken sailor trying to lay a pretty woman, so raise your credit limit!
Sigh, I had a nice rant going and didn't save it, so this is take two.
The U.S. population has been duped by the ruling political elite. And the U.S. is worse off for it.
Some people at my job are making snide comments to each other because of opposing political views. While vacationing in Florida, "friends of the family" commented about the anger still residing over the previous Florida mess. And with respect to some people, the anger isn't generated by Democrats, it's generated by a real belief that their votes were not counted. And some for durn good reason.
Meanwhile, a "friend of the family" told us about people shouting at each other over the current political battle. Or, a boss a work saying that if Kerry is elected, all bonuses will stop right away. Hmmmmmm.....
Meanwhile the safe political elite are sitting back laughing their butts off. Those who are not safe are campaigning like their lives depend on it, which to an extent, it does. They want to stay a part of the political elite power grid. (Or is that greed?)
And the "K Street" lobby is laughing, safe in knowing that no matter who wins, they have enough contacts to still be at the political elite power grid control board.
The sad part is, Blacks have allowed themselves to be duped into being a part of this mess.
Look, here's something I found while surfing. BAMPAC is trying to be a player. Now look at this page from their annual expense report.
Administrative expenses are more than 6 times the amount that they have made in direct contributions. Before I give to charity, I check out their expense report to make sure it's being spent wisely. I wouldn't give BAMPAC a dime!
With the political elite Black pols calling other Black pols sellout, who benefits? With political elite Black pols calling other Black pols race hustlers or saying the Black population is on a plantation, who benefits?
The Patriot Act was passed without members of congress reading it. Look, that's not from Micheal Moore, members of congress said it at first. Now they are claiming otherwise.
Baah baah baah, American sheep.
Sigh, I had a nice rant going and didn't save it, so this is take two.
The U.S. population has been duped by the ruling political elite. And the U.S. is worse off for it.
Some people at my job are making snide comments to each other because of opposing political views. While vacationing in Florida, "friends of the family" commented about the anger still residing over the previous Florida mess. And with respect to some people, the anger isn't generated by Democrats, it's generated by a real belief that their votes were not counted. And some for durn good reason.
Meanwhile, a "friend of the family" told us about people shouting at each other over the current political battle. Or, a boss a work saying that if Kerry is elected, all bonuses will stop right away. Hmmmmmm.....
Meanwhile the safe political elite are sitting back laughing their butts off. Those who are not safe are campaigning like their lives depend on it, which to an extent, it does. They want to stay a part of the political elite power grid. (Or is that greed?)
And the "K Street" lobby is laughing, safe in knowing that no matter who wins, they have enough contacts to still be at the political elite power grid control board.
The sad part is, Blacks have allowed themselves to be duped into being a part of this mess.
Look, here's something I found while surfing. BAMPAC is trying to be a player. Now look at this page from their annual expense report.
Administrative expenses are more than 6 times the amount that they have made in direct contributions. Before I give to charity, I check out their expense report to make sure it's being spent wisely. I wouldn't give BAMPAC a dime!
With the political elite Black pols calling other Black pols sellout, who benefits? With political elite Black pols calling other Black pols race hustlers or saying the Black population is on a plantation, who benefits?
The Patriot Act was passed without members of congress reading it. Look, that's not from Micheal Moore, members of congress said it at first. Now they are claiming otherwise.
Baah baah baah, American sheep.
Here at Vision Circle, we're all about the kids. So today I thought I'd honor that.
My daughter was at school today...and was told that George W. Bush was going to visit. He ended up not showing up...but upon hearing about the visit one of my daughter's 5th grade classmates had this to say:
I hope if he comes and something horrible happens, he doesn't just sit there forever like he did in that classroom in Florida.
Turns out that an idiot working for the NAACP's voter registration program in Ohio paid a crackhead in crack to fill out registration forms. See here for the picture.
Now I had a friend who used to move people for a living. Whenever he needed extra help, he turned to people that just so HAPPENED to have addictions.
He found they were the best workers. Diligent, hard-working, and would follow directions readily.
I wouldn't do it...but like Chris Rock says, I can understand.
But this is a different enterprise I think. I wonder if she paid him before, or after?
....
I've been trying to get a handle on the belief that Democrats engage in more voter fraud than their Republican counterparts. To my knowledge we just don't have the same type of observable data on the Democratic end as we do from the Republican end. Folks ripping up Democratic registration forms. Folks punishing black voters for felons committed in 2010.
Now let's think a bit more about this story.
Homeboy is registering voters. Supposedly. He's on crack, and is paid in crack. What are the odds that the voters he supposedly registers are going to be real voters? What are the odds that the fake voters are even real people? The volunteer that hired him should not only be arrested, but should be slapped for incompetence.
This story is the type of spin I'm betting accompanies the crackhead story. Yep. The reason the DNC is going to steal the election is because they are paying crackheads to register imaginary voters who will then vote at the wrong polls...and have their votes counted anyway
Yep. That's the ticket.
I said a couple of years ago, and sometime this year that I thought that Bush would be lucky to get 9%. I don't think that anymore. I believe Bush should do better than he did last time out, better than his father, better than Reagan. In fact I don't recall Ford's numbers, but I would be surprised if he did worse than Ford.
In talking to my relatives I've found a lot more support than I expected to find...and this has changed my opinion. The root of their support is spiritual. I don't think they support his policy on Iraq. I don't think they support his ideas about the economy. But the idea that Bush is religious, strong in his convictions, and does not waver in the face of adversity, is very attractive to some black voters.
Of course this could all change if the Republicans use heavy handed tactics to suppress the black vote. But if they just use SOFT tactics, I'm thinking he's going to get more black votes than we've seen in some time. Very bad news for me...but hopefully the end result is more dialogue about these issues over time.
For example, I cannot overstate the fear and awe of the Third Triumverate – which is to say, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity – that pervades every conservative publishing house, because any one of these three men can make or break a book intended for a conservative audience. As I was told by one publisher: "You may not care about the consequences of taking on O'Reilly or Hannity, but we have to be careful." This is not moral cowardice on the part of the publishers, it is simply the market reality with which they must deal. It is also why most conservative commentators are eventually forced to decide if certain individuals are to be considered off-limits or not.
The Sinclair situation has me rolling my eyes and asking myself how stupid do the political elite think the U.S. is? Then I listen to talk radio and I think that they are still over-estimating the I.Q. of the general public.
Sinclair can do it's "documentary."
Fine.
The GOP says what the Dems wanted to do was censorship.
OK.
Now, look at what the GOP has said they want to do in Congress after the elections. They want to hold hearings over CBS and Dan Rather with the fake memo.
The difference is, what?
The political elite is playing us all for chumps. And it's a damn shame that Blacks are falling into the "right vs. left" garbage.
My name is "DarkStar" and I have approved of this message.
The Sinclair Broadcasting Group has recently decided to air a 42 minute long critique of Senator Kerry's service record. In response to questions about the propiety of such a move Michael Powell, (son of Colin Powell and Chairman of the FCC) had this to say:
"As a broadcaster, Sinclair does have a duty to the public interest," FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell told The Washington Post by e-mail. "We will, as always, review any complaints we receive that properly fall in our jurisdiction."
Today's version of The Black Slate deals with a question Gwen Ifill asked during the Vice-Presidential debate about rates of HIV/AIDS among African American women. I'd originally written something totally different, but I scrapped it. I'm not sure if I got the ending right but this version is much better.
I'll be reviewing Cornel West's DEMOCRACY MATTERS this Sunday in the Washington Post.
OK, this one really gets me.
The terrorists are more likely cheering for Kerry to win!
Folks, if the translation of bin Laden rantings is correct, he's trying to get the world into a fight. He's trying to pit his version of Islam against the U.S. and her allies. He wants to rid the world of the "U.S. perversion of world culture".
Well, if that is what bin Laden wants, hasn't he essentially received his wish?
Further more, if Kerry wins and the U.S. pulls out, then again he wins because he wanted the U.S. out of the region. The terrorists who are in Iraq would be able to declare victory.
So, if I'm not mistaken, it doesn't matter. Bin Laden will get his way either way.
Maybe this entry should be titled Responding to Fear Mongering.
Last night's debate was actually held on my yard. From the camera angles I saw afterwards it appears that a few of the pundits set up shop near my office. (Then again, because the yard is so small, it is ALL near my office.) Now I wasn't there, because I'm here in Baltimore.
But I bring all that up (along with the point that I saw a few of my students on tv) to address a strange comment Bush brought up regarding Dred Scott. Some were wondering why in the hell Bush would bring up Dred Scott as a way to talk about what type of judges he would appoint? Not only was his understanding of the case off (to say the least), the entire spiel didn't really fit.
It isn't that deep. Dred Scott was decided in Saint Louis. The building in which the case was heard still stands downtown. Washington University digitized the proceedings of that case and dozens of others (with some interesting results I might add). I believe this was Bush's attempt to bring the local context into the debate.
Whether he succceeded is another question entirely.
Collective thought, aka group think.
What a concept.
At a GOP convention, Colin Powell said he supported affirmative action and he was booed. No group think there.
Better yet, let a white person agree with Blacks on issues and sooner or later, someone will accuse that white person of being a "guilty white liberal."
So tell me why those who call people "guilty white liberals" are NOT taking part in group think. Aren't they assuming that all whites should think alike?
And if conservatives believe that Blacks don't need Black leaders, why are conservatives trying to pass off people like Jesse Lee Peterson as a Black leader?
Identifying as a "Black conservative". That's not "group think"?
Isn't it interesting that "Black conservatives" seem to have a scream of "victimology" when stating certain things? What's not "group thinking" on the misuse of such a silly phrase?
These are the questions about the debate:
1. Were you decided on who you were voting for before the debate?
2. Did the debate change your mind?
3. If the debate changed your mind, why?
4. Who is the best person to run the country?
#4 trumps 1-3.
Next.
I don't do politics at work. Work is not the place for it. When it's raised, I keep my mouth shut and listen to people go back and forth.
This silly season I've noticed a marked increase in the amount of political discussion in the workplace.
I've also noticed the increase in sarcastic comments as a result.