Lash wrote:Dean steals a page from GOP playbook
The GOP has been treating blacks equally, consistently, and they're improving dramatically. They are power partners with our party.
The Dems use and excuse. I'm glad Howard is paying some attention to the group the Dems have treated so shabbily for so long....but I bet black Democrats are going to start demanding positions of real importance. They won't get them. Then, they'll see how the GOP elevates due to merit--and come on over.
Deans copying the GOP. He's got some kissing up to do.
This is simply bewildering. As nimh pointed out and as the piece you've linked points out, republicans gained 11% of the black vote. Perhaps the black community has a memory that speaks rather differently than your suggestions lash.
"Power partners"..."use and excuse"...I think you are borrowing rather promiscuously from an RNC document.
but Republicans want us to come and eat at the banquet," said Geraldine Sam of Lamarque, Texas, who is one of 20 black Republicans in the Texas delegation this year.
The Texans joined a throng of attendees Monday that included radio talk show host Armstrong Williams, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Democratic Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams at a soiree sponsored by the conservative Black America's Political Action Committee (search ).
But while blacks made up 12 percent of the electorate in 2000, they voted nine to one in favor of Democratic candidate Al Gore, and few indicators suggest this year's vote will be much different.
Democrats say they Bush has not only ignored African-American issues, but has actively hurt the advancements the community has made over the last three decades.
"Unemployment and poverty among African-Americans have increased for the first time in a decade; education and health care programs that benefit African-Americans are under attack," reads a recent statement by the Democratic National Committee. "The Bush administration has declared war on affirmative action (search) and Bush sees no problem with appointing federal judges that have defended cross burners and questioned voting rights."
Sam acknowledges that the number of black Republicans is quite slim in comparison to their Democratic counterparts. Minorities at this year's Republican convention make up 17 percent of total delegates, a 70 percent increase over the 2000 convention. Sam insists that one by one, African-Americans are realizing that they are being taken for granted as a monolithic voting group, and while it will take time, she and others are working actively to change minds.I'm looking at the Democratic Party and it has become more liberal,noting that they may be a small group, but the national Republican Party as well as the White House have gone out of their way to include African-Americans like herself in setting the agenda for their community, something she said Democrats have not done.
"Democrats don't want us to contribute to the platform, they just want us to vote," she said.
Alvin Williams, co-founder and president of BAMPAC, acknowledged that since the retirement of Oklahoma Republican Rep. J.C. Watts (search ) two years ago, Congress is lacking any Republican African-Americans. But, he added, a number of high-profile African-Americans represent the Bush administration, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Education Secretary Rod Paige.
"The Republican Party has to have a long-term strategy" for encouraging Republican blacks to run for office, he said. "That's what we're doing at BAMPAC."
Dan Williams, a candidate for state Senate in Minnesota, said he's been a Republican for years, but acknowledged that it is difficult for many to break out of what has become a decades-long tradition of Democratic Party loyalty in the African-American community.
"But," he said, "the number of [black] independent voters or Republicans who are willing to 'go public' is increasingly tremendous."
------------
Just the number of the delegates showing up at the convention, and the grassroots effort of the GOP members is a great improvement.
And you really should write your own stuff. Dragging nimh's around is unbecoming to a self-reliant woman.
The Republicans put blacks in prominent positions to create a false illusion of inclusion, but overall Republican policies don't fool most black Americans.
Heh! Nice narrowing of the focus. Black secretary of state or security advisor... OK.
Clinton appointed the first FEMALE secretary of state -- kudos to Bush for taking that a step further (as a concept, though I dislike Rice.)
I was gonna pick out some, but heck, here's the whole thing:
Quote:He said he wanted a Cabinet that "looks like America." The Cabinet appointees included women such as Attorney General Janet Reno, the first woman to hold that office; Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O'Leary; and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. Other appointees included African Americans such as Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy and Hispanics such as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros.
In addition, in his first two years in office, Clinton appointed two new justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. Stephen Breyer replaced Harry Andrew Blackmun, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the second woman on the Supreme Court when she replaced Byron Raymond White. The appointments strengthened the liberal faction on the Supreme Court.
At the beginning of his second term, Clinton reaffirmed his commitment to appointing women to Cabinet positions by nominating Madeleine Albright the first female secretary of state. In addition, he worked to make his Cabinet bipartisan, appointing Republican senator William Cohen secretary of defense.
Other second-term Clinton appointees included Secretary of Commerce William Daley, Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo, Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, and Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. Herman and Slater were the first African Americans to hold their respective positions.
State
Warren M. Christopher 1993-1997
Madeleine K. Albright 1997-2001
Treasury
Lloyd Bentsen 1993-1994
Robert E. Rubin 1995-1999
Lawrence H. Summers 1999-2001
Defense
Les Aspin 1993-1994
William J. Perry 1994-1997
William S. Cohen 1997-2001
Justice
Janet Reno 1993-2001
Interior
Bruce Babbitt 1993-2001
Agriculture
Mike Espy 1993-1994
Daniel R. Glickman 1994-2001
Commerce
Ronald H. Brown 1993-1996
Mickey Kantor 1996-1997
William M. Daley 1997-2000
Norman Y. Mineta 2000-2001
Labor
Robert B. Reich 1993-1997
Alexis M. Herman 1997-2001
HHS
Donna E. Shalala 1993-2001
Education Richard Riley 1993-2001
HUD
Henry G. Cisneros 1993-1997
Andrew Cuomo 1997-2001
Transportation
Federico F. Peña 1993-1997
Rodney E. Slater 1997-2001
Energy
Hazel O'Leary 1993-1997
Federico F. Peña 1997-1998
Bill Richardson 1998-2001
Veterans Affairs
Jesse Brown 1993-1997
Togo D. West, Jr. 1997-2000
Hershel W. Gober 2000-2001
http://www.politicalquest.org/index.php/cssID/114/csf/Bill_Clinton_Cabinet
So what are we left with?
Bill Clinton set the bar very high. Good for him. Good for Democrats.
Bush continued the trend. Good for him. Good for Republicans.
When the chips were down, though, Bush got only 11% of the African-American vote. That isn't good no matter how it's spun -- it most definitely doesn't represent a "dramatic improvement."
Of course the GOP wants black votes -- that's better than not wanting them, I guess, but still doesn't say much of anything about their ability to GET them.
I'm just playing my guitar while y'all are talking...hope I don't have to play any dueling tunes....hehehe.
I know I won't.
Soz--
Our beliefs and value systems are so different, I'll try to explain how I reach my conclusion that we have dramatically improved.
I don't measure results of in terms of votes. I measure effort. The effort is being made. That is all we can do.
If I were a campaign manager, interested in nothing more than how many votes we reaped, like the Dems, you're right. I would not see much improvement.
But, I look at the effort being made to join with the black community. To welcome them, and to let them know they are valued. That is the job at hand.
Looking at it in terms of how it tallied up seems very Machiavellian to me.
I've never seen the term "power partners" before.
I have heard "used and excused"...I think from a black stand up comedian.
Blatham. People other than you can think for themselves.
I don't listen to Political radio on anything resembling a regular basis--nor do I read any regular Talking Points type show. I read the news and come to conclusions.
Lash, you don't have to bring the silly "our belief systems are so different" stuff into it. I say silly because it's beside the point, no particular reason for it. All you have to do is say, "OK, bottom line, we didn't get the votes yet, but we're trying, and I believe we're putting in a good-faith effort."
Then I say, "OK. Dems are trying too. Those are both good things."
End of story.
I think you're mistaken. It's not silly at all.
I was focused on the work we were doing, and the improvements we were making in treatment of blacks--and the bottom line for you was how many votes it generated.
That is very telling. About the foundational differences in the treatment of blacks in both parties. Not meant as an insult--but just pointing out the difference in our outlooks.
Where am I mistaken?
Specifically?
Where are our outlooks different?
Dems are doing lots of things, too, and have been for a long time. If Dems are doing things, and Republicans are doing things, it certainly makes sense to see how those things are playing -- what black voters actually think. Who they will (or won't) actually vote for.
I am sincerely watching the relationship my party is developing with Black Americans. I was talking about dramatic improvements we've made in how we consider blacks. You immediately assumed I meant how many votes we could get.
One centers on what we can do for them--one, on what we can get from them.
The difference is easy to see.
It's not an insult. It was an observation.
I didn't take it as an insult... I took it as a cop-out.
The title of the article you linked to that started all of this was "'Party of Lincoln' wants blacks back" after all.
And says:
Quote:Mehlman is trying to build on the slight gains made among blacks in the 2004 election. Nationally, Bush got 11% of the black vote, compared with 9% in 2000. The extra votes have inspired Republicans to keep pushing their faith-based agenda. By doubling the national number, analysts agree, Republicans would be in a position to consistently have a lock on the White House.
That's where the "Republicans are trying to get black votes" idea was introduced.
A cop-out is evasion.
Point to what I was evading.
Meanwhile, what you have said qualifies as a legitimate cop-out.
The bottom line for you--you have defined for all to see. Votes. Its not earthshattering. Most people have that same bottom line.
sozobe wrote:Lash, you don't have to bring the silly "our belief systems are so different" stuff into it. I say silly because it's beside the point, no particular reason for it. All you have to do is say, "OK, bottom line, we didn't get the votes yet, but we're trying, and I believe we're putting in a good-faith effort."
Then I say, "OK. Dems are trying too. Those are both good things."
End of story.
Votes are a very nice by-product, though. Of a strong party.
It was the bottom line for your article, too. The one that started this discussion.
He's the best friend we Republicans ever had!!
Quote:Howard Dean's Raised Voice Isn't Raising Cash
One hundred days into his tenure as the high-energy, higher-decibel chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean is in trouble with party moneybags. The former Vermont governor seems to be doing a better job flaying the Republicans than bridging the cash chasm between the parties. Given Dean's 2004 run as a populist crusader, moderates were never wild about his takeover of the Democratic National Committee. So some big donors are sitting on their wallets.
Dean wowed the faithful in '04 with his Web-based fund-raising magic. But major business donors still count, and in his new role as party honcho, the feisty doctor seems to be struggling to connect. After achieving money parity with the GOP in 2004, Democrats have fallen far behind. According to the Federal Election Commission, the DNC raised $14.1 million in the first quarter of 2005, vs. the Republican National Committee's $32.3 million. Dean drew about 20,000 new donors, while his rivals picked up 68,200. The bottom line: Republicans have $26.2 million in the bank vs. $7.2 million for the Dems.
Why the yawning gap? For starters, Dean is not a natural fit for the "stroke and joke" style that traditional party chiefs use to extract cash from well-heeled contributors. "It appears that the chairman has come to the conclusion that he doesn't need major donors," sniffs one fat cat. "He hasn't made any effort to reach out."
Personality factors aside, Dean's business-bashing '04 campaign makes him a hard sell in corporate circles. "There's a wait-and-see attitude from business and major contributors," says Nathan Landow, a Maryland developer and big-time donor. "This guy has some work to do to get the comfort level up." William W. Batoff, a Philadelphia real estate developer and longtime Democratic fund-raiser who backed President Bush in 2000 and 2004, is less diplomatic. "Howard Dean is the wrong person to be chair," says Batoff, who claims he will help fund the Dems' congressional efforts but will boycott the national committee while Dean reigns.
"Kind of a Dustpan"
Recent evidence of big-donor discomfort: A DNC event scheduled for May 25 at Manhattan's cavernous Jacob K. Javits Convention Center was scaled back to a smaller venue at the Essex House hotel. Bridget Siegel, the DNC's New York finance chair, says the event was moved because the new room "just worked better."
According to his defenders, Dean is doing just fine in the money wars. Internet and direct-mail appeals have started pulling in $1 million a week, says party spokeswoman Karen Finney, and the chairman "is pleased overall with [the pace of] fund-raising." Former DNC Chair Steve Grossman, a close ally, says Dean "is becoming more comfortable with [asking for money] by the day." Dean may yet find ways to build bridges to reluctant donors, but few think he'll ever be another Terry McAuliffe, the human money machine whom he replaced. "McAuliffe was like a vacuum cleaner," says Rutgers University political scientist Ross K. Baker. "Dean is kind of a dustpan."
He may be no McAuliffe, but Dean defenders note that his predecessor's golden cash register was accompanied by stinging setbacks at the polls. The new boss represents the grassroots' desire to take the fight to the Republicans. That he's doing. Still, unless Dean narrows the huge cash disparity, he may not be able to build the political dynamo he promised.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_23/c3936057_mz013.htm
Before Dean's time but he'll have to address it on his watch.
Excerpt:
Black caucus retreats on 527s
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus are teaming up with conservative Republicans to push for the first major changes in the 2002 campaign-finance reform bill, most admitting that they made a mistake in voting for the bill three years ago.
"If I had the chance to vote again, I wouldn't vote the way I voted," said Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, New York Democrat, who along with most of the CBC supported the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act after they were promised by Democratic leaders that the bill would not harm their constituents or funding bases in order to garner their support.
Three years and a failed presidential election later, black politicians saw their political grass-roots organizations starved for funds under the new rules, as so-called "527s," private political groups so named for the Internal Revenue Service code provision under which they are organized were able to raise unlimited amounts of money for partisan purposes, subsequently siphoning off the cash.
Source
<Hmmm...Dean...fired...for stupidity....maybe, folks>
Democrats Criticize Dean Attacks on GOP 21 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
Democrats Joseph Biden and John Edwards are criticizing party chairman Howard Dean, saying his rhetorical attacks on Republicans have gone too far.
Dean has said Republicans never made an honest living in their lives and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.
DeLay has not been accused of any crime.
Dean
"doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric and I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats," Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
While discussing the hardship of working Americans standing in long lines to vote, Dean said Thursday, "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."
Edwards responded that Dean "is not the spokesman for the party."
Dean is "a voice. I don't agree with it," Edwards, a former senator and the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004, said Saturday at a party fundraising dinner in Nashville, Tenn.
Asked about Dean's remark about Republicans and honest living, GOP chairman Ken Mehlman told NBC's "Meet the Press": "I'm not sure the best way to win support in the red states is to insult the folks who live there. I think that a better approach might be to talk about the issues you're for."
------------
And, it begins....
Dean's just another red-faced, angry Northeastern liberal who fools no one.
I bet Hillary is livid, though. The more he plays to the left's fears, the harder it will be on her attempts to expand their party towards the political middle.
Just keeps getting narrower and narrower
