What is happening with Democrats and people of color?

[qanda]

They are about the only "groups" left on the Democrat's bandwagon and I don't think they are being taken seriously enough. I notice that the Republicans are putting the few black and Hispanic people in their camp out in the forefront. While the Democrats relegate them to the Congressional Black Caucus (the ignored wing of the Democratic Party). It took John Kerry months to understand that his campaign was not diverse enough. WHY?

I have told this story a number of times on DU, but you guys still don't seem to get it. When I worked the polls on Election Day, I had an extraordinary number of black men coming in as registered Republicans. I started thinking then that something is going on that somebody in the Democratic Party isn't quite getting.

The stand that the Democrats are taking on Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales looks terrible to many people of color (myself excluded). But, all of a sudden the Democrats are principled and oppositional when the nominees are black and Hispanic. You guys don't seem to get how this looks to some people and I know that many of you don't even care, but it's not a winning strategy.

Now, Obama is the target and I bid you all good luck in making him the figure of your derision. Not everyone is going to do every single thing that you want them to do. Obama has every right to vote how he wants and him being black doesn't mean he owes the Democratic Party lockstep support on every issue.

If the nominations are going through anyway, what is the benefit in making a point at the expense of the groups that are most solid in their support of Democrats?

[KurtNYC]

1. How many people of color has Condi sent to Iraq?

With her lies and BS. I don't give a crap what color her skin is. Standing up against the likes of Condi and Gonzales is the right to do for EVERYONE in this country.

[qanda]

4. How many Democratic Senators voted for the war?

They didn't stand up when they had the chance. They got what they allowed!

[KurtNYC]

12. There was no vote on the Iraq war

And this 'Dems against Condi are racist' thing is a RW talking point.

[qanda]

15. I NEVER said that "Dems against Condi are racist"

[KurtNYC]

21. True

You did not and I apologize for implying that. You talk about the way it "looks" to POC and I see and acknowledge the difference.

It is being spun that way by the right. That was my point. Hopefully people can see through that to their own self-interest. And hopefully we can help them see through that.

[DulceDecorum]

24. Condi HERSELF is racist

and she HATES black people.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/25/1537236

Remind me,
weren't there people just like that in Nazi Germany?

[KissMeKate]

65. you implied it.

"all of a sudden democrats are principled with black nominees."

what did you mean by all of a sudden?

What explaination are you implying for the democrats who oppose Rice, then?

Because it sounds to me you said they are opposing her becausde shes black.

Being black doesnt absolve her of her crimes.

Being Black doesnt give Obama a pass for not styanding up for truth and righteousness and me, one of his constituents.

[qanda]

74. Don't tell me what I'm implying!!!!

I know what I meant and if you want to make more out of it than is there then that's on you, not me.

Edit: grammar

[GiovanniC]

83. That's Actually Exactly What You Were Implying

As plainly as if you had said it word-for-word.

Condi Rice is an incompetent dipshit. If she was white, she'd still be an incompetent dipshit. Alberto Gonzales is a torturous bastard. If he was white, he'd still be a torturous bastard. This is not rocket science here.

This is a very transparent political strategy by Rove and company. Although apparently it's not transparent enough for SOME PEOPLE. Not that I'm implying anything.

Basically we get the dumbest fucking black woman and the most evil fucking hispanic man, and we run them through Congress and when they are opposed, we will use the Democrats' "racism" against them in future elections.

You want to know what's racist? I think it's tremendously racist to think that Condi Rice is the best black person they can come up with, or that Alberto Gonzales is the best hispanic person they can come up with. If I were black or hispanic, I'd be terribly offended, frankly.

[qanda]

87. Whatever!

I will allow you all to continue to think whatever you want. Your unwillingness to dialogue and instead just jump to conclusions based on what you want me to be saying is not very productive.

[GiovanniC]

90. Actually, That's Not What I WANT You To Be Saying

I would really prefer that weren't the case.

Rice and Gonzales deserve to be challenged, and they would deserve to be challenged whatever their race. I'm not judging them by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, which is exactly what MLK Jr. dreamed about.

[qanda]

93. Then why go through the exercise of TELLING me what I meant

Or what I was implying? As I have said about this in the AA group forum, it's very frustrasting trying to defend myself against opinions that I don't have. I have a bunch of people telling me what I meant and actually I'm getting pretty sick of it.

[GiovanniC]

94. I Went Into a Job Interview Today

I was interviewed by two men and a woman... one man and the woman were black. The other man was Asian.

I didn't get the job. Needless to say, I'm white. Can you believe it?

[KissMeKate]

102. "whatever"- "your unwillingness to dialogue" lol!

eom

[KissMeKate]

103. again- I quoted you!

eom

[qanda]

110. Just because you quoted one little piece of what I said

Doesn't mean you adequately represented what I meant.

[KissMeKate]

113. youve said that repeatedly, so, what did you mean when you said

"all of a sudden democrats...."

what did you mean?

what could that have possibly implied if it wasnt implying that the democrats who opposed Rice were racist?

[qanda]

127. This is what I said...

The stand that the Democrats are taking on Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales looks terrible to many people of color (myself excluded). But, all of a sudden the Democrats are principled and oppositional when the nominees are black and Hispanic. You guys don't seem to get how this looks to some people and I know that many of you don't even care, but it's not a winning strategy.

My point was that the Democrats have not taken many stands against the Bush administration and the appearance is that their only principled stands are against these people of color. If you get from that that I am calling Democrats racist then I really cannot help you.

[KissMeKate]

133. "the appearance is" to who, republicans? this is standard right wing meme

the appearance is that their only principled stands are against people of color.

Im quoting you again- and since you repeatedly state this and refuse to provide context, I say again- you are accusing the democrats who oppose Rice and Gonzales of racism.

[qanda]

135. I cannot make you understand what I meant

And so I will stop trying. Visit the AA Group Forum sometime and perhaps you will begin to understand.

[KissMeKate]

139. another refusal to provide an explaination for your second implication

that the democrats opposed rice and Gonzales because they are minorities.

Im asking you what you meant- if you continue to say "I didnt mean that" but dont actually say what you meant, how can someone help but misinterpret your implication?

Do you think the democrats opposed Rice and gonzales because of their race, or not?

[qanda]

140. Who are you that I have to explain until you get what I meant

If you want to read into what I said then I cannot prevent you from doing so. I'm sick of this back and forth with you because you refuse to acknowledge the context of my entire post and instead you choose bits and pieces to make it mean what you want. Well, I'm finished.

[KissMeKate]

143. the context of your post supports my interpretation.

this is the third time you have refused to explain your two implications that democrats opposed the rice and Gonzales nominations precipitously.

If you refuse to explain, you cant complain when people get the wrong idea. Its that simple.

(btw- who am I? just me- in a discussion you engaged me in by responding. nothing more, nothing less. You wanted dialogue, ok, here it is.)

[Hard_Work]

138. Not true...

What he/she is saying is that to other people of color, the "appearance" of racism is what people are seeing. The OP is not actually accusing anyone of anything.

Try letting go of the tunnel vision and seeing what you guys want to see...

[qanda]

141. Thank you

Perhaps *someone* can make them understand.

[KissMeKate]

144. sometimes despite the appearance of racism we must stand up for truth.

Condoleeza Rice LIED to sell the war to the american public.

Democrats shouldnt let fears of appearing racist keep them from holding her accountable for her misdeeds.

Opposing her nomination has nothing to do with her race, and everything to do with her lies.

[qanda]

146. So you *do* get it

That my post was about appearances and perception. I guess you were just trying to be difficult.

[KissMeKate]

148. actually, I wasnt. but yes, now I get it.

I needed that perspective Hard Work provided on your post to see it from a different light.

I apologise for misinterpreting your statement.

In thinking about it, perhaps one response to your original question would be that the democrats, in opposing Rice, must be clear that while they respect her acheivements, and the fact that she is a role model to many, they cannot support her because of her record.

[bowens43]

None. No republican Senators voted for the war either.

[blm]

34. They voted for a resolution that would have prevented war if Bush followed

it HONESTLY.

Bush did NOT allow the weapons inspectors to finish their job and, in fact, tried to hinder them.

Had the IWR been implemented as written, there would have been NO invasion of Iraq.

[me b zola]

42. And,

This corrupt & criminal administration lied to Congress AND the American people about the intelligence they had to go to war...these lies are crimes. When one man had the integrity to not go along with their lies, they outed his CIA operative wife in retaliation, another crime.

Ms. Rice was complicit in this fraud against the American people. This is why that sorry sack of %#$#^ was called to task by a few Senators who truly are concerned with the actions, criminal or otherwise, by this administration.

[KissMeKate]

117. I agree. the IWR was a vote to let Bush wage war.

they should have known better than to abdicate their constitutional responsibility to Bush.

[ComerPerro]

5. Exactly. Well said

Plus, the fact that the media and the administration keeps mentioning Bush appointing minorities ought to tell you how transparent this all is.

[Maddy McCall]

2. Obama is and always has been a Clintonesque moderate Democrat.

Why people on this website have attempted to mold him into some kind of liberal torch-bearer, I don't know.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. i dont think his liberal-ness has been glorified

as much as his future chance of winning the presidency etc (just like clinton)

[me b zola]

43. Respecting the Constitution does not make you liberal

Neither does making a stand against tyranny.

We can disagree about many things, but being afraid to speak against fascism is not one of them.

[htuttle]

3. Wow, I see there's a real full-court press going on

Should Rice and Gonzales be confirmed merely due to their race?

Precisely how black or hispanic does a nominee have to be in order to get an automatic nod, in your opinion? 80%? 50%? 25%?

Some guidelines for us clueless liberals who apparently spend too much time dwelling on nominees' records, and not enough time on nominees' heritage would be helpful.

[Bjornsdotter]

6. About Obama..

I agree, he has the right to vote they way he wants....so do I.

While I voted for Obama, I will keep a tally of how many times we agree and disagree on a topic.

I have 2 words for Obama...Alan Dixon.

Cheers,
Kim

[me b zola]

44. I would humbly suggest

That perhaps it is not the number of times that you disagree, but the subject matter of which you disagree.

Voting to accept someone who is complicit in lying to the American people resulting in OUR men & women dying is not on the same scale of a disagreement about health care or education.

Intentional lying to the American public about issues that result in many body bags & HUGE budget deficits are criminal offenses.

[Bjornsdotter]

58. Some issues may be...

....more personal to me than to someone else.

For example I have friends and family members who can't afford health care in this country...so that is an extremely hot topic for me.

As I tally, the number is not the only thing that sways me...there are other factors, the subject is always important to me.

However my comment about Alan Dixon is that 1 bad decision can really have some serious ramifications.

I do understand what you are saying, but I also want Obama to know how I feel on the issues...after all that is part of his job as Senator of Illinois.

Cheers,
Kim

[salin]

7. Two points:

I think that protest votes (ala opposition) are valuable - esp if/when awful things happen later under their watch (and given the track record of these two particular nominees, it seems pretty likely that they will - in their sycophant roles that they have already demonstrated that they play - preside over some pretty awful policy blunders.)

The news coverage (which is getting harder and harder to come by for those that criticize bushco) gets some of the issues/concerns out into thte public psyche NOW. No opposition - no story to cover.

However, I think that the pillorying of Obama or others over these votes - given the "likely pass" nature - is over the top. That is - I agree that your concerns per the derision heaped on those who don't oppose - esp Obama) is illconceived. But I don't agree that there is no value in the opposition votes on these two particular nominees.

[ultraist]

8. I agree, bashing a Dem like Obama is ill concieved

Democrats lost ground with African Americans and Hispanics this past election. Kerry did not mention racism even once and the new 10 point Dem agenda fails to mention racism while the Bush admin continues to appoint token minorities.

IT'S NO WONDER Democrats are losing ground with minorities. They see Bush appointing people of color to powerful positions while the Democrats are SILENT and PASSIVE.

[DulceDecorum]

13. The minorities have a HUGE problem

with the TYPE of person Bush appoints,
be they minority or otherwise.

Most people of ANY color
would rather see a Bobby Kennedy over a Clarence Thomas ANY DAY.

As a matter of fact, Clarence the cross-eyed lyin was panned by the blacks as a whole and the one small group that stood up for him as he was being confirmed later recanted, apologized, and begged forgiveness for that crime.

[noamnety]

16. What do you mean Kerry never mentioned racism?

That's incorrect.

[ultraist]

41. Perhaps I am

but I do not recall him speaking about racism during the campaign. Could you provide an example?

[Tigress DEM]

50. Topeka KS, May 2004

Kerry


"We should not delude ourselves into thinking for an instant that because Brown represents the law we have achieved our goal, that the work of Brown is done when there are those who still seek, in different ways, to see it undone - to roll back affirmative action, to restrict equal rights, to undermine the promise of our Constitution," Kerry said.

"Brown began to tear down the walls of inequality," Kerry said. "The next great challenge is to put up a ladder of opportunity for all."

[ultraist]

99. The speech on the anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Edu

Right. But Kerry did not stump about racism. IF he mentioned something during one of the debates, which I do not recall, it must have been in response to a question. The fact remains, he did NOT include racism and poverty in his stump speeches on the campaign trail. I listened to many of this speeches and read transcripts.

I think it was a mistake NOT to discuss issues that speak to the heart of our platform. Democrats are failing to hold up their core values by ignoring these issues. Traditional Democrat values, include lifting people up and removing barriers to equal opportunity for oppressed peoples, whether the oppression exists due to class, gender, sexual orientation or race.

[noamnety]

57. He talked about racism during the debates

I know it was talked about in the third debate.

[DulceDecorum]

9. Black men are NOT stupid.

If they went into the pollin station are registered Republicans
it was probably because they had figured out that
that was the ONLY way they were getting into that polling station
in the first place.
What they do once they get behind the curtain
is nobody's business but their own.

[me b zola]

45. All I have to say is, thank you.

eom

Okay, I lied. I can't resist the need to remind everyone <or some people> that it was registered Dems who faced all of he problems the repubs placed in their path to vote...can we all say poll tax??

One way to not have your voter resist ration purged, or questioned as being a felon, if you are Black, is to register as repub.

We've all heard the saying, guilty of driving while black. Well, we are simply speaking about the 'crime' of voting while Black.

[TeacherCreature]

10. It is hypocrisy to sugegst that Repuke minorities should automatically

Get Dem votes.

Would this apply to Clarence Thomas?

I think not.

The Bush Gang nominate these people to pander to minorites and drive a wedge into our voting base.

As we can see, it is working,

[ultraist]

14. EXACTLY!

It's called tokenism to attract minorities to their party. But what are the Democrats currently doing for minorities? NADA. Sad that Kerry NOT ONCE mentioned racism throughout his entire campaign.

At least Obama keeps this reality in the forefront, unlike many white politiicians who still consider it "taboo" to discuss.

[DulceDecorum]

20. It is NOT working.

Dave Chappelle had a skit wherein Colin Powell was given the opportunity to switch over to the white race. The black race swiftly agreed to this, but on the condition that the white race also take Condi away from the black race.

Much laughter was heard throughout the land and not a single bit of controversy was generated by this show.
The fact of the matter is that the woman has been effectively DISOWNED by the overwhelming majority of black people on this planet and she knows it.
(Incidentally, in the skit, after ridding themselves of Condi, the representative for the black race then asked for eminem. High praise indeed.)

The African Diaspora has not forgettn how she behaved when democratically-elected Aristide was bounced out of Haiti by US mercenaries.

Condi is fair game.
Fire at will.

[ultraist]

40. It is working, Kerry lost ground with African American voters

AA voters are a BIG portion of our base.

Democrats MUST break the glass ceiling and appoint women and minorities to high level positions. This is not to say, Condi is not fair game to oppose, but, it does matter that the doors are being opened to powerful positions to women and minorities.

Clinton knew this and made an effort to open those doors to such positions that have been held traditionally by only white males.

[MXMLLN]

69. I'm afraid that you are mistaken ...

I am african-american.

I have african-american relatives.

I go to an african-american church.

I am involved in organizations which, primarily, african-american.

My city of residence is 25% african-american.

The only context in which I am not surrounded by an african-american majority is at work.

The majority of african-americans, particularly african-american women, ... like and are proud of Condi.

This is, essentially because, in Condi, they see a black woman who has achieved a new height in position and prestige.

It matters much less what Condi's politics are.

It really doesn't even matter that Condi may not have been as completely candid as she could have been. African-americans understand that Condi is in the political arena ... and that the political arena is, often, less than candid.

Just the fact that Condi is in a position to influence the highest levels of our government is a source of great pride for most african-americans.

And african-americans will note that Bush is promoting Condi, while it is only Democratic party members who are opposing Condi.

Voting african-americans do not, for the most part, watch Dave Chapelle.

Voting african-americans are not crazy about Clarence Thomas ... but that's more due to the fact that he's married to a white woman ... and he has spoken out against Affirmative Action.

Most african-americans do not consider themselves to be a part of any African Diaspora. Most african-americans would not even recognize that terminology.

All most african-americans know about Haiti ... is that it has been consistently the policy of the U.S. to deny sanctuary to Haitian refugees (under both Democratic and Republican administrations).

Voting african-americans are proud of the achievements of both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

Continue to fire at Condi (barring some huge betrayal of hers to African-americans) ... and you risk losing some real level of african-american support.

[kwassa]

72. Many AfAms do admire Condi, regardless of her politics

Great post, by the way.

It is her professional stature that she has achieved, that most African-Americans admire. This is of greater symbolic meaning to them.

[CatWoman]

75. Like who, Armstrong Williams?

Gwen Ifill?

and other sell-outs?

[kwassa]

77. How in the world is Gwen Ifill a sellout? Not even political!

[CatWoman]

78. Gwen Ifill is full of shit

and is nothing more than a political whore.

She consistenly bashes the Clinton administration, and fawns over the Bush administration.

[kwassa]

79. and exactly where does she do this???

[CatWoman]

81. trying watching her some time

she does it consistently. She even did it during the debate she moderated.

Did you know that she and Condi are best buds? Think that doesn't influence her "positive" shilling and "reporting"?

I wouldn't be surprised if she were getting paid, too.

[Tomee450]

165. I agree

and Ifil is reportedly a close friend of Rice.

[MXMLLN]

80. Like millions of normal workaday African-American women ...

... that currently vote Democrat.

It affirms them to see the face of a black woman in such a rare position of authority.

It is also noted that Condi holds her own well ... "just like a black woman."

A typical comment is ... "I don't know that I agree with everything she's said or done, ... but she is definitely one strong commanding black woman."

[CatWoman]

82. again, I'm sorry but I don't hear this from those I discuss Rice with

She is a tool, a sellout, and an embarrassment.

Blacks have come a long way from being expected to vote for Jesse Jackson just because he's black.

[CatWoman]

76. I'm sorry, but you must live in Bizarro world

Voting african-americans are proud of the achievements of both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

Continue to fire at Condi (barring some huge betrayal of hers to African-americans) ... and you risk losing some real level of african-american support.

I live in Atlanta, Georgia. Blacks all around. I sure don't get this bullshit you are spouting from them.

I listen to black talk radio on my ride home from work.

Condi Rice is an embarrassment.

The only positive callers towards her are black republicans.

on edit: perhaps you should browse thru Black Commentator.



http://blackcommentator.com/

http://blackcommentator.com/123/123_cover_rice.html

[MXMLLN]

85. Atlanta, GA is a different animal ... practically an African-American city

I live in Indianapolis, Indiana ... where the city voted for Kerry BTW.

Black talk radio isn't as prevelant here ... and what there is is mostly religious in nature. The most controversial Black talk radio program we had here got canned about a year before the election.

All black folk don't live in Atlanta, GA ... though a whole lot of 'em do.

Most blacks aren't posting on Internet forums either.

Lots live in places like where I do.

Just working for the man ... trying to hold on till payday ... and dealing with a whole lot of stuff (political and otherwise).

[CatWoman]

86. I used to live in Indianapolis

I lived there 8 years while stationed in the military.

My impression upon my arrival there: "Have these people even heard about Martin Luther King?"

The police still shooting black motorists in front of their children while parked inside Monument Circle?

[MXMLLN]

89. Come on now ... we know about Martin Luther King.

Some of us have even found DU.

What years did you live in Indianapolis ?

[ultraist]

91. MXMLLN : THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WHITE PEOPLE FAIL TO SEE

Thank you! I wrote in another thread, that 'RACE DOES MATTER' in the sense that blacks like Condi Rice and Colin Powell are being appointed to powerful positions. Republicans may have a lot of racist policies, but the fact remains, they have opened some doors.

This is not to say, someone should be judged solely on the color of their skin but the reality is, it is harder for black women to climb the ladder than it is for white men and to deny that, is to deny that racism exists. THIS IS WHERE OUR COUNTRY IS PRESENTLY. We DO NOT HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

Condi has made exceptional strides for all black women in that she is well accomplished and the FIRST BLACK WOMAN to hold this position. She is extremely intelligent and a very loyal to her administration.

I do not support Condi Rice but I also do not disregard her accomplishments.

[CatWoman]

92. she can ram her accomplishments up her ass

lying to get us into an unprovoked war is no badge of merit OR honor.

and all this talk about "loyalty". are we talking about a dog here?

[ultraist]

98. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

To disregard Condi's accomplishments as a black women, just because you do not support her political positions is allowing your emotions to override seeing all of the implications.

Whether you think she is a liar or not, the fact remains she is highly accomplished and she IS THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN appointed to this position of HIGH POWER AND PRESTIGE. It is NOT EASY FOR BLACK WOMEN to attain the educational level that she has or work their way up to such a high level. THERE ARE MANY BARRIERS TO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY.

There are not just two sides to this: good and bad.

OF COURSE Bush would appoint someone that follows his company line BUT he could have appointed a white male, but he didn't. He opened that door, BROKE THAT GLASS CEILING (regardless of his motives) for a black woman. That is the fact.

Who gives a flying fuck what his real motives for doing so were or whether or not we support Condi politically, what is perceived and what will go down in the history books, is that BUSH appointed THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN to this position.

I am by no means saying that just because someone is black, we should not oppose them, but let's not evaluate this situation with blinders on.

People, such as myself, and others DO PERCEIVE some good in appointing Condi to this position. KNOWING that Bush would appoint someone that followed his company line, quite frankly, I'd rather it be a black woman than a white male. Condi is very well qualified and meets the Bush criteria.

It's EMBARRASSING THAT WHITE MALES PROPORTIONATELY HOLD THE VAST MAJORITY OF POWER POSITIONS IN OUR COUNTRY IN BOTH THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR. WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT US AS A SOCIETY?

[CatWoman]

104. Gee, too bad the Republicans opposed many of Clinton's

black female and male nominees.

I would think if that's the case, we wouldn't be having this absurb "first black woman" argument.

Does Strom's daughter meet the "first black woman" criteria as well?

[ultraist]

107. People are not thinking about Clinton's "firsts" at this moment

What they are seeing NOW are Bush's "firsts" and "firsts" ARE NOTED and DO GET WRITTEN IN THE HISTORY BOOKS.

The Bush propaganda machine may be creating a mirage, sweeping things like their racist policies, how people like Strom's daughter was treated, etc under the rug, but again, THESE FIRSTS FOR MINORITIES do get noted.

Clinton has been called the first "black" President. These type of appointments do matter.

I do not promote supporting someone based solely on gender or race and certainly would not allow race or gender stop me from opposing someone, but I do acknowledge the implications and/or the positive effects on our society as a whole, that appointing minorities to powerful positions has.

[CatWoman]

118. that's my point

Original Message
"People are not thinking about Clinton's "firsts" at this moment"


If the Republicans hadn't been so divisive, obstructionist and racist, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. The "firsts" would have already been deemed "firsts".

[ultraist]

119. Of course the Repukes are racist but...

THEY are making history with some OTHER FIRSTS just as Clinton did.

There is some gray area here when considering this issue. We do NOT live in society with a level playing field. If we did, it would be possible to be color blind, but we are not there yet.

[eyepaddle]

124. Let's get down to brass tacks here,

do these two deserve to be confirmed without comment or opposition because of their character, qualifications and impeccable record? If they don't (and I'll give you a hint--they don't) any of the rest of this claptrap is WINDOW DRESSING.

Welcome to the alternate Star Trek mirror image universe (the one where Spock was sporting a goatee) and now people of color can join poor whites in saying things like this about Bush; "I don't agree with the effects of a lot of his policies, but at least he's Christian." Go listen to the Mississippi logger who makes 8 dollars an hour and supports bush and his tax cuts because he too, is a Christian. This is the parallel to what we see here, they throw out prominent, and visible, bone to a constituency--so that they can continue with their true aganda.

I'd love to see Democrats take a more forceful and consistent stance on racial/gender/ethnic/sexual/.....equality. But at this point in time anybody who can look at Bush's nominee's and say anything like "well at least they're _________; is flat out being played for a chump.

Once we're on the receiving end of a world war brought about by an imperial power grab which utilized torture in the subject colonies, having had an African American woman SofS or a Hipanic AG will be small comfort indeed.

[CatWoman]

126. great post, tho I don't think the "Condi is great" crowd

will comprehend your cogent points.

[eyepaddle]

128. thank you,

As long as I don't come across as a purely belligerent asshole, maybe it'll move the debate forward.

[kwassa]

120. Great post, and you get right to the point n/t

[ChicanoPwr]

147. THANK YOU!!!!

FINALLY THE WORDS I HAVE BEEN DYING TO HEAR:

WE ARE NOT ON A EVEN LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AND APPOINTING RICE AND GONZALES BECAUSE OF SKIN COLOR WILL NOT ACHIEVE IT EITHER!!!!!

[ultraist]

152. But many people DO think these appointments help to level the playing ...

field. It DOES Matter that only WHITE MALES hold these high power positions (mostly white males).

WE KNOW that it is not the ONLY means and probably not the most effective means to level the playing field, but it does matter that the doors are opened to minorities.

The Repukes know exactly what they are doing. They are skilled strategists. We know that they are not doing this because they are good willed people or that they REALLY do want equality, they are doing it to steal some of our minority base so they can retain power.

To counter this, Democrats should continue to expose the racist Bush policies and make the point, that just because they have opened a few doors, does not mean they are broadly promoting equal opportunity. TRENT'S racist Strom for President comment and their anti-Affirmative Action position should work well here.

WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE CIVIL RIGHTS platform the Democrats promised a year ago? TIME TO PULL IT OUT!

[Tomee450]

164. Oh please

I am African American also and I know blacks who do not admire Condi Rice at all. There are many prominent blacks in all walks of life throughout this country. How many do you see expressing support for her? Many black people see her as a useful tool of the Republicans and a token. It is silly for blacks to support someone simply because he is accomplished and black. I have not heard any reports that she actively supported civil rights. In fact I read that she said the struggle was unnecessary since segregation would have eventually ended. Clarence Thomas taught many people a good lesson. A lot of people greatly regret their support of him.

[ChicanoPwr]

56. It is nothing but pander by BushCo

See my post I wrote further down this thread. In it is a letter of a Hispanic organization opposing Gonzales and saying the same thing you wrote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3009128&mesg_id=3013553&page=

[bowens43]

17. So just being a minority is enough?

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. A neo-con is a neo-con no matter the color of their skin. Condi and Gonzales are being opposed because they are right wing, neo-con nut jobs.

Winning isn't everything and I sure as hell won't comprimise my Democratic values just to win.

[qanda]

19. Yes, that's exactly what I said!

:eyes:

[bowens43]

23. Please clarify.

I may have missed the point of your post. To me it sounds like you are saying that we should not oppose their nominations because they are minorities. Is that what you are saying?

[qanda]

30. That wasn't what I was saying at all

I'm saying that the Democrats not being consistent in their opposition does not look good when what they decide to oppose are two people of color.

[bowens43]

36. When have they not been consistent?

And these two are the worst of the bunch. Anyone who believes that it has anything to do with race isn't being realistic.

[CatWoman]

59. this thread is so full of shit

I'm a black woman, and a veteran.

Am I to support a black woman simply because she is black?

What about her lies? What about her criminality? What about ethics and fair play?

Am I to hold that worthless bitch up as an example to my grandchildren?

All my life, it was drummed into me that blacks needed to work hard to succeed. Keep it on the up and up, and your nose to the grindstone?

Rice got where she is by being a lying, traitorous bitch, and keeping her lips locked around Bush's member.

That's not an example I want my grandchildren to follow.

And what of my nieces and nephews who are at risk should they join the military? Are they to die for lies this witch help perpetuate?

I listen to a local black talk radio station most days on my ride home from work. Whenever Rice comes up, people call in in droves. And they use language a lot harsher than mine.

[Hard_Work]

145. Wow...

"...and keeping her lips locked around Bush's member."

Haven't heard it referred to as a 'member' in quite a while. Thanks for elevating the level of discourse...

[progressoid]

18. Yep, we going to lose more and more over the next few years

just as we lost poor white people thanks to AM hate radio. And lost a lot of middle class workers when as unions were broken in the 80's, I think we will lose people of color in the next decade to complacency and the rise of religious fundamentalism.

While we still appeal to many Blacks and Latinos because of support for labor rights, civil rights, etc., I think we will lose many from the pull of religion to the right. It's no secret that the left doesn't embrace the God factor (and correctly so in my opinion). But the GOP has God in it's back pocket. And for many, being a Christian is more important than being a Democrat.

But ultimately, the lack of leadership and complacency of Dems in the last 20 years has done more damage.

[saracat]

22. I think it is equally "racist" to give someone a pass on their actions

because they are Black. I am emailing the thirty two Senators who voted yes on Condi and ripping them a new one.Are you suggesting I leave Obama out because he is Black? Please.

[Solly Mack]

25. It's fair to ask why now. I agree with that

and that's essentially what the question is within this comment.

"But, all of a sudden the Democrats are principled and oppositional when the nominees are black and Hispanic."

Why now? Why not before? Why not Ashcroft? Why not white nominees who are/were just as bad if not worse. Since "content of character" is an issue with Rice and Gonzales (why not with Ashcroft). I can see how it would cause people to wonder if race does play a role now.

I don't agree that just because a nomination is going to be confirmed regardless, that people should just overlook things like lies and torture simply not to offend others. But I do agree their motives for doing so matters. It matters a great deal.

It also matters for those who vote to confirm 2 people who are bad nominees. Who are bad for this country. Racism can be said to be in play for either way of voting. So racism could be directing a yes vote or a no vote. That point too must be examined.

I know some people will say the Democratic Party is without racism. I wouldn't agree with that statement. I do wonder why a stink wasn't put up against Ashcroft in much the same manner. He's every bit as bad as Bush and no different than Gonzales or Rice in regards to personal ethics. He is white, though. So warning bells did go off for me. I'd be lying if I said they didn't.


But people can't just disregard the corruption of either Rice or Gonzales in order to get "one of us" into a position of power.

Yes, it would break some historical ground but at what price?

So I can't be happy about either's confirmation. Because it's a loss for America. Not white America. Not black America. Not Latino...America.

But I can see how the vote of the Democrats in Congress regarding both give pause, and why it looks bad to some. It does look bad. No argument there from me. But the motives behind the Republican vote of "Yes" also give me pause, and I also wonder how much their racism plays into it. Are white people voting yes just to not look racist? If so, that is racist. Are Republicans voting yes just to make the Democrats look racist after years of enduring being called racist by Democrats? If so, that is racist. Are some Republicans racist? Yes.

If playing on the guilt of white people...and no matter what some may say, there's a heck of a lot of white guilt out there that's not built around a belief in true equality, but instead, built around the fear of being labeled racist,...but is playing on that guilt, that does exist, to advance minorities, the way to go? Is it a case of taking whatever we can get?

Do we use white people's racism against them to advance? And if we don't hold power, true power, can't they just discard us later...like Powell is being discarded? I don't like Powell but I know the look of getting discarded.

I think of the CBC while I type this as well. How many white congress members stand with them? Do you know how badly it marginalized the CBC to not have white members of Congress (congress has 2 houses) stand with them in 2000? The sad thing is, it should not have mattered...but it did...and it did because of racism. Because whites didn't stand up in numbers with the CBC, they were marginalized. I get so angry just thinking about it!!!!! People could just poo-poo the CBC because "those black folks are just agitating again"....we should not have needed a white person to make our voices heard....to give power to our voices. That's what pisses me off the most.

The problem is racism seeps into everything and you can't just pinpoint it down to any one thing without touching on everything.

And all too often it's hard to make some white people see just how deep the wound goes...how far the cancer spreads.

I think I've asked more questions than I can answer. Right now I'm very angry just pondering it all out.


Thank you for listening

[Dhalgren]

28. You hit the nail on the head, Solly.

It is entirely understandable why some people (black/white/red/brown) would ask of the Democrats, "why have you suddenly become so oppositional?" I suppose "better late than never", would serve, but not very well.

I think, that if any individual believes that his/her own best interests, or those of his/her people (whatever that might mean), are best served by the Republican Party then they should vote that way and join that party. So if a large number of African Americans join the Republican party, we must assume that they are doing so based on their own best interests. A party doesn't "lose" votes, a party fails to "earn" votes. The sooner everyone grasps this, the better.

Democrats have got to stop thinking that they as a party are entitled to certain votes and voter blocs; it isn't true...

[Solly Mack]

32. Yes, votes..support...loyalty....it's earned

because the earning of the vote shows the vote matters....with everything that vote represents.

[qanda]

29. I'm so glad that you took time to consider my thoughts

And respond accordingly. We may not all agree on the best course of action, but it does no one any good to have kneejerk reactions to people's serious thoughts and feelings.

You are right that my concerns have a lot to do with the Democrats standing up against people of color especially when they have been so docile in the recent past. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with them standing up against the corrupt Bush administration, I just wish there was a consistency that would enable people to see that it's not just people of color.

[Solly Mack]

31. You're right. Consistency would have helped greatly.

So I'm left to wonder why there has been none.

My heart is still so full and my anger only slightly abated.

I usually avoid such deep down soul searching discussion like this on race. It's hard to find honest talk. Because racism touches everything and so much has to be explained as background just to move to the topic at hand. If that makes sense.

I don't want to say people can't be sympatheic or even empathetic...because people can be both...but the feelings inside just aren't always easy to articulate...it's more a case of shared experiences that need no words or explanation. You recognise it in others and they see it in you...no words needed.

anyway...before I ramble on again....thank you for listening.

[Tomee450]

37. You

make some really good points.

[WillowTree]

46. Something Republicans get...

....and Democrats don't seem to is the old adage about actions speaking louder than words. Republicans seek out educated people of color who see the world as they do and make it a point to put them front-and-center in positions of visibility and power. If a Democrat was doing that, all here would be hailing it as diversity. How well have the Democrats done in that respect? How many high-profile cabinet and federal court nominees did Clinton put on the table in eight years so that people of color would SEE that we mean what we say and that our commitment to diversity isn't just words? Can anyone here name a single high-level judicial or cabinet appointment of a minority made by a Democrat that has been as vociferously opposed by the Republicans?

It should come as no great surprise that many people of color see the very vocal, very conspicuous opposition to Clarence Thomas and Dr. Rice and Alberto Gonzales and Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown and wonder how much of the liberal commitment to diversity is just lip service, even if the objections are completely legitimate. Where are the appointments on an equal level on the Democratic side of the coin that the Republicans have as opposed at a headline-getting volume? And now that Barak Obama is voting according to his own convictions, whatever they may be in this instance, is he going to be chastised for not 'getting with the program' or, in the view of some, being the house..........well..........you get the drift?

It's all about perceptions, folks. Obviously the Republicans understand that. They seek out and nominate people from the minority communities who actually do agree with them and whom they actually can wholeheartedly support who they also know the Democrats will have to object to strenuously and they let the chips of perception fall where they may. It's really a very smart strategy and it's how politics is done. When is the Democratic Party going to figure that out?

[Solly Mack]

49. Hi. In this paragraph below

"It's all about perceptions, folks. Obviously the Republicans understand that. They seek out and nominate people from the minority communities who actually do agree with them and whom they actually can wholeheartedly support who they also know the Democrats will have to object to strenuously and they let the chips of perception fall where they may. It's really a very smart strategy and it's how politics is done. When is the Democratic Party going to figure that out?"

Are you essentially saying using "racism as a strategy"? And that because of "preceptions", it's an effective strategy?

If republicans pick a minority they know is objectionable to democrats(due to that persons personal ethics), are they doing so simply because of the race of the objectionable person? Even if the nominee does buy the party line, hook, line, and sinker. Because if they are, that's using racism as a strategy and those who do that ARE racist. Cause I would define that as using racism and labeling it politics.

Either way, you're using a minority to gain a political advantage. Such an action implies (fairly shouts it) a great deal of disrespect for that minority. If you're being used to push an agenda, then you're not an equal...nor are you viewed as an equal.You're being viewed as a means to an end. Easily discarded later...easily ignored later. It's the "Ill pander to you and I'll use you, BUT I won't stand with you" thinking

Some would say that some Democrats and Republicans alike use minorities in this fashion. I would agree with those who said that.

Condi Rice is an objectionable candidate...regardless of her race. She's objectionable because she supports objectionable policy and tactics (and because she's a liar). Not supporting her can give the perception of racism. I can see that. So you're saying republicans use that perception to stifle dissent of such a candidate, and/or to convey the idea that "democrats must be racists" to not support her.

I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand what you are saying. Cause I do take what you say seriously.

As for Obama, I don't know enough about him to ascertain his motvies. So I can't really comment on the "whys" of his actions. He's still too new for me to form an opinion on what he believes. Once I do form an opinion, however, his race won't play a part in what I think. To me, he is first and foremost a politician, and as such,is a 'different breed", as it were, from the rest of us. I can say with all honesty and no hesitation, I don't hold any politician up as a standard bearer for how anyone should act.

[WillowTree]

51. No

I'm saying that the Republicans are seeking out persons of all ethnic backgrounds who are on the same page with them and putting them in high-visibility positions. The very fact that people like Thomas and Rice DO agree with them makes them perfect candidates for these positions because they are completely acceptable to them without regard to their race and they would have been opposed by the Democrats in Congress had they been white, but the Press wouldn't take as much notice. The Republicans aren't 'using' the blacks and Latinos that they appoint nearly so much as they're using the failure to make such appointments by the Democrats in the past against us and the propensity of the MSM to give lots of space to racial issues.

The problem that the congressional Democrats have is that we haven't done the same thing. Can you blame minorities for observing that there hasn't been a single black or Hispanic Democratic appointee that's been opposed as strenuously by the Other Side? Where were the high-level minority appointees opposed by the Republicans between January 1993 and January 2001? For that matter, where were the very high-level, very visible minority appointees during that time that weren't opposed by the Republicans? People believe what they see and what they see is Republicans appointing minorities and the Democrats rejecting them. They see minorities being given prized positions in a Republican administration and not in the previous Democratic administration. It doesn't obliterate all that liberalism has done for them over the years, but it is something that they see and consider. They notice, and that's the point.

These people are politicians by trade. Politics is their business, and all businesses need good, effective marketing strategies to reach the 'target market', in this case, VOTERS. In recent years, the Republican Party has found an effective way to reach a higher percentage of minority voters and make them question what the Democratic Party is all about at the same time and that's an area where our Party has dropped the ball. In the case of Condoleeza Rice, whose ultimate approval was a foregone conclusion from the get-go, I think they've played pathetically into the hands of the Republican strategy. Decry it all you like, but it's WORKING to the Repubs benefit to one degree or another, as the opening post on this thread points out. Idealism and pragmatism can, as a matter of fact, co-exist and we, as Democrats will ignore this aspect of political reality at our own peril. That's all I'm trying to say.

(Edited because I can't type worth spit)

[Solly Mack]

52. Thank you for taking the time to further explain

I appreciate it.

[qanda]

62. You said it the way I wish I had

Thank you for your post.

[kwassa]

71. great post and observations

[oasis]

95. Republicans seek out black puppets who do their bidding. If they

stray off of the reservation (like Colin Powell) they are descredited and dumped.

Black and hispanic Democrats are free to agree or disagree with Democratic leadership without fear of the guillotine.

[CatWoman]

121. spot on, Oasis

excellent post.

[Tomee450]

170. Exactly

It's not that they respect such individuals, but about using them. So far, most blacks have seen through this ploy.

[EC]

26. WTF are you talking about?

We have enough faith in "people of color" to get them elected to office, while the Republicans have no faith and haven't run a minority for office, yet, that I can recall, they have to appoint them and then ignore them...they appoint yes men (and women)minorities while we get them elected and use their brain power and prestige in office...I think we do a good job...Look at Obama, Sharpton, Young, Richardson, Cayetano, Chun, Kalani, Espero, Hanabusa, Hee, Ihara, Inouye, Kanno, Nishihara, Sakamato, Taniguchi, just to name a few. How many names like these are you going to find elected on the Republican rouster?


On edit: maybe it's time to educate the public to this...

[Blue Wally]

106. What has Al Sharpton ever been elected to??

[blm]

27. Those re-registered as Repubs were mostly responding to the GOP effort

in black churches to stir up anger against the "homosexual agenda" of the Democrats.

They also had RevMoon spreading LOTS of dollars around to black ministers to promote their spin.

Blackcommentator had an excellent article about that a couple years ago.

[okieinpain]

33. you guy's that are saying forget her race are forgetting who

the target audience is. it middle of the road white women, who will see condi, and albert in their two second screen time and go will bush isn't racist.

these ladies are not doing any in depth checking of condi's record, all they know is what they see on tv, and that's not much.

[sendero]

35. Hmmm....

>>> Obama has every right to vote how he wants and him being black doesn't mean he owes the Democratic Party lockstep support on every issue.

Nor does being black absolve him of criticism when his actions do not reflect the wishes of his constituents.

It's a racist idea that we have to let him have no accountability because he is black.

[Sgent]

38. Could we not have found a better

spokesman for the opposition than Byrd?

I know this is a repig talking point, but it really came accross as bad when Byrd was the opposition leader. Former KKK Grand Wizards tend to rightfully concern many blacks -- even if they have reformed.

[Dhalgren]

39. Robert Byrd was no "Grand Wizard". He has renounced his

former stupidity and he should be allowed to continue to "redeem" himself. David Brock is an example of someone who can see the error of their thinking and make a personal change for the better. Robert Byrd should be given the right to have changed. And the reason he appeared to be "leading" the opposition to Rice is because no one else did. I understand why an African American would have concerns about the "selectivity" of the Democratic opposition, but I still oppose Rice and Gonzalez, as I opposed Ashcroft and the whole bunch of lying assholes. "Moderate" Dems are always trying to "go along to get along" until things get so bad they are forced to make some kind of stand. Well, if the Dem party had been making stands all along things might not have gotten so out of hand. Now they are almost a "day late and a dollar short" and people are asking WTF! That is understandable, but at some point a line has to be drawn in the sand; it's just unfortunate that the Dems do things in such a half-assed way that the Repubs can make money on it! Sorry for the screed...

[CatWoman]

61. I get so fucking sick of the Byrd strawman

Robert Byrd apologized for his past. Actions speak louder than words.

Are you saying Blacks can't forgive? Can whites forgive?

Blacks forgave the biggest asshole in history: George Wallace.

He renounced his segregationist ways, and Blacks forgave and even voted for him.

Another thing in Byrd's corner: he didn't split from the Democrats in anger over civil rights legislation like the rest of those old bastards. Strom Thurmond instantly comes to mind.

The racists found a home in the Republican party.

[oasis]

105. "The racists found a home in the Republican party."

Well said, and so true.

[Tigress DEM]

47. I think the problem here on DU is not about race, but unity in general.

Du is a place where people can spout off and there is a lot to be mad about. But this anger should be mobilized in constructive and peaceful actions.

A new march on FOX news for example to protest Ann Coulter's attack on Canada. There is one white woman we could do without on the news. Maybe she should go back to doing nails or whatever other highminded pursuit she had before.

Instead we're punchy and worried about turncoats - it isn't the color of skin that is worrisome. It's the way people are Democrats one moment and up Bush's tailpipe the next.

The reason Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales are under attack is because they are being appointed to positions they are not suited for because of their deference to Bush's stupidy programs.

I think you need to look at Bush's administration setting people of color up to take the fall for his mis-deeds. It's calculated. He may say all the right things, let them succeed on their own, but once they get high enough up so everyone can see them fall he makes them his scapegoat while all the while defending them publicly.

Is this a whole lot different than the historical mistreatment of blacks by one of the "good ol' boys" down South or in most of Texas?
Bush has KKK written all over him. The only reason he'll put anyone of color in a position of prominence is to take a fall.

There might be an honorable repub president some day, but it isn't Bush. I wouldn't take a position he appointed me to because I wouldn't be able to afford the price. You know that man gives nothing for free. Even those who paid him millions still get the shaft. An honest black politician on the rise is just a target for him.

The Du has so much information that we should help people like Obama see the trap they are headed for and hopefully knowing they can learn from the seasoned DEMS how not to step in and get caught up and swept out.

[fujiyama]

48. Thanks for regurgitating

a bunch of bullshit RW talking points.

I'm so sick of these subtle "Opposing Condi and Gonzales" are racist posts.

Guess what?

I'm a minority and if a person of my ethnicity were appointed to some cabinet post with the qualities of either of these two, I'd be appauled and disgusted and I would hope those lilly white Dems would be opposing his/her nomination.

This whole issue shows how little this country has progressed in terms of race.

It's like that "King of the Hill" episode where Hank Hill asks (referring to Khan, his obnoxious next door neighbor), "Can't you just hate someone cuz they're a jerk?"

[ChicanoPwr]

54. THANK YOU MY BROTHER

It is a bunch of bullshit RW talking points.

I can not believe we are being asked to accept any fucking minority who just happens to come around. THAT IS NOTHING BUT LIBERAL RACISM.

I am telling anybody who is willing listen, Gonzales is NOTHING MORE BUT A VENDIDO (SELL OUT, COCONUT). THIS IS THE SAME BULLSHIT THE NATION COUNCIL OF LA RAZA DID. WELL THIS PROUD CHICANO (MEXICAN AMERICAN, AND YES I WAS BORN HERE AND SO WAS MY PARENTS) IS SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

So for all you progressives who are afraid to say anything about Gonzales because you might offend Hispanics here, I would like to assure you:
THIS IS NOT A HISPANIC ISSUE BUT A HUMAN ISSUE!!!!!

I will give you the 411 about organizations like NCLR, they are just another mouth piece for what ever political party that is in the White House. NCLR's mission is a global and a hope-and-pray Hispanic mission; meaning, they will support anybody who is Hispanic no matter if there are issues regarding their background and pray they will not scew us Hispanics. Trust me, this will not help our (Hispanic) cause.

WE REFUSE HAVING ANY LILLY WHITE DEMS LUMP US WITH THE LIKES OF CONDI AND GONZALES JUST BECAUSE WE ALL HAPPEN TO BE MINORITY. I think fujiyama would agree with me on this.

There are other Hispanic organizations who will disagree, but who will not be covered by the MSM. These National organizations would be the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC) the oldest civil rights organization, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), the Mexican American Political Organization (MAPO), and state and local Hispanic organizations.

PLEASE READ THIS LETTER OF ANOTHER HISPANIC NATIONAL ORGANIZATION.
National Latina/o Law Student Association
Media Advisory
For Immediate Release:
Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Greetings NLLSA Members and Supporters,

Our organization was asked to consider whether or not to support the appointment of Judge Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney general of the United States. We felt that it was important that we take a stand on this issue as there seems to be division amongst our community regarding Judge Gonzales' qualifications.

The National Latina/o Law Students Association cannot endorse the appointment of Judge Gonzales for the following reasons.

First and foremost, Judge Gonzales has not effectively shown us that he is an advocate for human and civil rights, immigrant rights, or affirmative action, all key issues that NLLSA promulgates and considers to be basic tenets of achieving equality in this country. Our mission statement was expressly written to include these and other important human rights concerns and as NLLSA¹s Chair, I am charged with a duty to advocate on behalf of my membership when these concerns are threatened. Today I am asking that other
national and local student organizations join us in opposing the appointment of Judge Gonzales.

Second, as law students and future legal advocates it is our duty to abide by the laws of this country and by the treaties that this country makes. We are taught how to interpret, analyze and follow the law in the best interests of not only our clients, but our communities as a whole. We do not have the freedom to say that the law will apply to some and not to others, or even that the law can be set aside under special circumstances or by certain people. In this respect, law students are taught to be ethical.

By choosing to stay silent or by choosing to support the appointment of Judge Gonzales our organization would be condoning unethical practices in order to achieve success. The fact that Judge Gonzales is a Mexican-American who has worked his way out of poverty deems much respect. However, these two facts alone, should not automatically garner the support of our community.

As Dr. King once said, we should all be judged by the content of our
character and not by the color of our skin. We are not opposing a brown man. We are opposing the ideology that would allow a human being to be tortured, detained without legal counsel if the situation was deemed fit, not given the opportunity to seek legal counsel from their home country, or sentenced to death without an adequate exercise of their rights.

With all due respect, the National Latina/o Law Students Association opposes the appointment of Judge Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States.

Sincerely,
Mercedes V. Castillo
Chair, NLLSA

ONCE AGAIN THIS NOT A HISPANIC OR A MINORITY ISSUE BUT A HUMAN ISSUE!!!!!

AND NO WE ARE NOT MAKING THE DEMS LOOK BAD, IT IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ANY LILLY WHITE DEMS WHO FEELS THEY NEED TO VOTE FOR ANY MINORITY THAT REPUKES APPOINT JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITY. YOU ARE NOT DOING US A FAVOR TO ADVANCE OUR CAUSE JUST A DISSERVICE!!!!

[Solly Mack]

55. I enjoyed your post greatly

Thank you

[GRLMGC]

68. Thank you!

As a Latina, I denounce Gonzales for being a piece of shit. I'm angry that the first Latino has to be such a reprehensible person. I say crucify him. I don't owe him any loyalty.

[CatWoman]

122. Thank all of you

for bringing much needed clarity and logic to this lunacy and stupidity that is this thread.

[G_j]

53. I see your point

though I would rather ask (some of them) why they didn't do the right thing in the past in opposing Bush policies etc., than slam them for finally doing the right thing. Your assessment may well be correct in asking: why now? But I do think opposing a war criminal and torturer is the only ethical thing to do. Where were those 'ethics' before?
Good question..

[txaslftist]

60. Why was Condi picked for the nomination?

Was Condi picked because she is black and therefore bulletproof? Or was she picked because she is "qualified"?

If she was picked because she is black, the republicans should acknowledge that she is an affirmative action hire, and we should debate the merits of affirmative action. If she was picked because of her race and the notion that a black female nominee would split the democratic base, we should not fall for it.

If she was picked because of her qualifications, then her qualifications and prior actions are fair game for debate, same as if she were white, hispanic or martian.

Or are senate dems supposed to just back off of anyone who is black because the higher goal of getting blacks into positions of prominence trumps any serious discussion of her merits?

She's getting hammered because she's a Bush appointment and the dems are finally growing a spine; also because she's a proven liar. Her race has nothing to do with it.

[Carni]

63. How insulting to decent people of color...

To even compare them to Rice!

Rice is a liar who lead the public to war based on fraudulent documents and lies about WMD and AQ/ period--end of story.

[qanda]

64. Who is comparing decent people of color to Rice?

I really don't understand your point.

[Carni]

84. Rice screwed up as NSA she isn't fit for the SOS post/period

This isn't a racial issue regardless of what the repuke talking points are today.

They insult the intelligence of African Americans thinking they'll take this bait.

[KissMeKate]

66. your anecdotal evidence belies the facts.

the fact is, 90% of african american voters support the democrats at thge polls.

You may have seen alot of black men voting republican, but it was not representative of reality in the bigger picture.

And why do you say that you know many ofn us "dont even care" about how opposing those nominations looks to black people?

If you *know* it, can you provide the facts to back up your assertion please?

If you dont have the facts, you owe those who do care (I would say most Democrats, IMO) an apology for implying we are racist.

[qanda]

73. Where did I ever even imply that Democrats are racist?

My evidence consists of some members of my own family, callers I've heard on C-SPAN and even some posters on DU. Where is you evidence that what I'm saying is completely unfounded?

Honestly, 11% of African-Americans supported Bush this election and that was up from 9% four years prior. These numbers are an average and in some keys places around the country, the African-Americans who voted for Bush made the difference in him winning. Please go back and actually read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth.

[w4rma]

96. If you think there is a problem, why don't you tell is precisely what you

think that problem is, instead of hemming and hawing and beating around bushes?

[qanda]

97. Because it's difficult to explain problems of perception

When you have people in back rooms strategizing how to get black voters away from the Democrats and put them squarely behind Republicans, how can I say precisely what the problem is? Perhaps it may help to recognize that there is a problem. I cannot put my finger on it and from the way this thread has gone neither can most people, but at least recognize that *something* is happening and like it or not the Republicans are slowly chipping away at the Democratic base.

[w4rma]

109. Go talk to some of these folks who you say are voting Repug and ask them

what they think the problem is then come back and tell us what you think the problem is.

[qanda]

111. Are you being smart?

[CatWoman]

112. LOL

He IS very smart!!!!!!!!!

[w4rma]

114. I'm straight-as-an-arrow serious. (nt)

[ChicanoPwr]

142. Right On!!!

TELL LIKE IT IS, MY FRIEND!!!

IT IS THAT KIND OF RW BULLSHIT THINKING WITH THE DEM PARTY THAT CREATING THE SPLIT.

[KissMeKate]

100. gee- I quoted you- wheres the confusion?

again- your personal anecdotal evidence is NOT backed up by the facts.

The fact is, 89% of african american voters support the democratic party at the polls.

[qanda]

108. Right!

There was absolutely no increase in the support Bush got from African-Americans. :eyes:

[KissMeKate]

115. huge canyon of truth between your anecdotes and the statistics.

eom.

[qanda]

125. You keep believing that

eom

[ChicanoPwr]

149. In Fact I Will

I don't know if you have forgotten but there this big issue of election fraud and manipulation, or are you one to believe there was no fraud regards of the evidence proving fraud existed?

We can not go by the poll numbers since they too have been revised or have you forgotten that too?

[kwassa]

129. The two sides of the issue that people here might not see

What whites don't get, in my opinion, is the symbolic importance to many black Americans of Condi Rice becoming the first black National Security Adviser, and the first black woman to become Secretary of State. She is a highly visible role model in a role no black person has ever had, regardless of her politics, and she is a professional, well-educated black woman at the center of Presidential power. There is no other black woman who have achieved this height.

The same goes for Colin Powell. Many blacks view him the same way, and credit him with being a relatively moderating force in the Administration.

Clearly, politically, 89% of black America voted for the other party. This still does not mean that they don't have high respect for what Rice and Powell have achieved. Thig might seem like an irreconcialible difference to white progressives, but it isn't to many black voters.

Much of the over-the-top language in these discussions can be seen by blacks as insensitive to them, and might alienate them from Democratic circles.

[KissMeKate]

137. understandable.

its true, the symbolic importance is VERY important. I think thats why more Democrats have not voted against Rice.

Everyone respects what Colin Powell has acheived, and Im sure everyone respects the fact that Condoleeza Rice has acheived such a position of respect and authority. I can see why that would be important. These acheivements are commendable. Colin Powell was imminently qualified. Condoleeza Rice was not.

I think there is a general uprising here - sort of a line in the sand- "this further and no more". Democrats usually dont object to cabinet appointments. true. I think people are paying more attention to what is going on now, because the democrats have repeatedly sold out the average voter's interest when confronted with a Bush policy proposal.

Highly visible role models are important. I as a feminist recognise that, and it is important to have diverse representation. But it is my opinion that this role model, (Rice) has the wrong policy, the wrong record, and the wrong loyalties (Bush, rather than the truth) to lead.

I hope the language wouldnt be seen as insensitive- alienating fellow democrats isnt my goal, and I dont think it is anyone else's goal either. At least I hope not.

[kwassa]

158. I actually believe Rice is qualified, but wrong

She has an extensive foreign policy background, but I think her world view is mistaken as can be. Rice is almost a throwback cold warrior misapplying Cold War concepts to Iraq.

It is ironic that Rice's foreign policy mentor was Madeline Albright's father, Josef Korbel, former Czech diplomat and professor at the University of Denver.

[KissMeKate]

67. Obama doesnt get a pass because hes black.

everyone who voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice, who lied to sell a terrible atrocity has made a mistake, including Barack Obama.

He should have stood up for the truth. He should have stood up for what was right. and so should have everyone else in the Senate, Democrat OR republican.

[Cheswick2.0]

70. you can't think of any white nominees they opposed strongly?

I disagree. They gave Ashcroft and several others a real good going over.

[KissMeKate]

101. selective memory- obviously.

clearly, only SOME anecdotal evidence applies to this argument.

[UdoKier]

88. I don't think Obama is being universally derided.

He's got his honeymoon period. A few people may be disappointed that he has started off in such a pro-Bush vein, but time will tell.

I must take issue with your falling for the republican use of token blacks as actually meaning something. Bush has put a lot of women and people of color in high positions, yes, but they are uniformly right-wing yes-men and women, and NOT representative of the communities they ostensibly "come from".

And as for overall hiring, Clinton did a much better job of hiring women and people of color than Bush has.

I do, however agree that the Democratic party is doing a pretty bad job of reaching out to the African-American community, and we should be thankful to George Bush for his extreme right-wing, kill-the-poor policies for the still 92% turnout for dems by African-Americans.

That having been said, the Democratic party has also done a horrible job in recent years off reaching out to white and other communities, and laying out issue that resonate with them.

They have lost touch with their populist roots, and at the same time, the GOP has learned how to mimic the style, while ramming through an actual agenda of pure plutocracy and imperialism.

[bobbyboucher]

116. You obviously took the bait.

Don't blame us.

[oasis]

123. Right wing propagandists would like minorities to believe that Bushco

his policies have their best interest at heart. The first four years didn't fool anyone who wasn't already solidly in the Bush Camp.

"You can't piss down my boot and tell me it's raining"

[Logansquare]

130. Affirmative action or Condi, take your pick.

Condi Rice is Secretary of State not because of her intellect (which I don't question--she's anything but stupid), but because she has learned to not contradict the powerful men she works for. This administration chooses its cabinet with utter cynicism; a black woman as a figurehead is useful to them. Condi provides a powerful symbolic innoculation to charges that the GOP supports policies that hurt minorities, and in fact seeks to dismantle affirmative action entirely.

Sure, Democratic administrations can do the same thing. Perhaps they should. Perhaps we should entirely discard King's dream of being judged "by the content of character" and just reduce it to a public relations game, like the Republicans have. The voters seems to love it.

[ultraist]

151. Condi was the PERFECT choice for Bush's administration

So WHAT if Bush has ulterior motives for chosing a black woman, she fits their criteria very well, much like Rove does. She is intelligent, loyal, well spoken, etc. She wasn't chosen ONLY because she is a black woman. She does her job for THEM, very well.

Democrats are strongly in favor of Affirmative Action (Condi supports AA also) BUT Republicans realized years ago, that the minority populations are GROWING and they need to dig into our base. They gained minority votes this election and are reaching out to minorities. Bush visited black churches, appointed "firsts" like Condi, Gonzalez, Powell, etc and it IS WORKING to some degree.

The Repukes OPPOSE Affirmative Action and have other racist policies but they are actively reaching out to minorities and if the Democrats allow this to continue, they will be screwed. Democrats cannot afford to lose any of their minority base.

The Repukes have devised a way to pander to their racist base while simultaneously appealing to some minorities. Isn't this just the type of thing they are very skilled at? Kinda like the "pro-life culture" that is supported by pro war voters?

Democrats NEED to take serious action to keep their minority base.

[Logansquare]

154. I won't disagree with you

I just think it's a little sad that surface appearances seem to do it for most Americans.

I'm a white woman and I'd definitely rather have a liberal minority male in power than a conservative white woman.

[McCamy Taylor]

131. I havent met a whole bunch of Republican african-americans

Where do you hang out? All the working class people I meet--white, black, brown, red, yellow, pink, green or whatever--are about 90% Democrat unless they are redneck racist dupes of the GOP.

I havent met any african-americans who think that Clarence Thomas is a great guy or that Condi Rice is a role model for their kids. I have met a few african-american guys who wouldnt mind dating her but that is a different story and has nothing to do with her qualifications to be SOS.

I say apply the exact same standards to any nominee regardless of their race or ethnicity. Condi Rice has the qualifications to be a corporate executive not a Secretary of State in line to be president. If ever anyone needed to get out of politics and go make some money in private enterprise it is she.

I agree that attacking Obama is stupid since he just become a Senator what---12 hours ago? My god, he is an infant ! Cut him some slack! At least he stood up on Jan. 6th and spoke. Impromptu no less! That is more than some veteran Dems dared to do.

[kwassa]

132. I disagree

McCamy Taylor:
"I havent met any african-americans who think that Clarence Thomas is a great guy or that Condi Rice is a role model for their kids."

I certainly have, particularly in regards to Rice.

"I have met a few african-american guys who wouldnt mind dating her but that is a different story and has nothing to do with her qualifications to be SOS."

If her politics were that repulsive to them, she would be, too.

[McCamy Taylor]

134. Maybe, but remember DIVIDE and CONQUER is a GOP Game

So whenever you see Dems involved in an internal flame war ask yourself "Is there any way Karl Rove could have set this up?" For instance, I have been convinced all along that Rove outed Armstrong Williams in order to create a smokescreen scandal that would keep the liberal press too occupied to focus on WMDgate, Torturegate and especially Electiongate in the days leading up to the Inauguration. And it served the purpose. These other stories got bumped on Countdown and similar shows for the Williams show. The liberals were glad to find a right winger on the administration dole. However, african-americans were probably not pleased that yet another wealthy african-american man was being hounded by the MSM---this time by the media they thought was supposed to be their friend.

So, instead of everyone here sitting around yelling at each other how about we have some

SOLIDARITY

and remember who the real enemy is and recall the real enemy likes nothing better than to set us arguing with each other.

[eyepaddle]

136. Now THAT

Is what I call one solid post. I hadn't even considered the Armstrong Williams bit, but. damn!

I'm with you!

[xultar]

150. Solidarity - Yeah, every time I ask for unity I get beat up...So much for

unity.

The Reich Wing PLAYED us like a priceless violin on this thing and these poor suckers here took the bait hook, line, sinker...boat, shore, pier, bouy, shark...every cotton pickin thing.

[McCamy Taylor]

161. Dont give up! Keep up the SOLIDARITY message! Its Democratic!

:dem:

[ultraist]

153. FACT: DEMOCRATS ARE LOSING GROUND WITH MINORITIES

ALL of the exit polls show this, CLEARLY.

SO, apparently, many minorities DO BELIEVE that opening doors to other minorities for high level positions is more than just window dressing. SO WHAT if the motives of the Repukes are evil and only to gain votes. IT IS WORKING.

[DrWeird]

155. 89 out of one hundred blacks voted for Kerry.

That's what, down from 90 out of one hundred?

More African Americans voted democratic then homosexuals. And that's saying a lot.

Now if you actually respected African Americans and didn't want them to abandon the democratic party, then shouldn't we ACTUALLY BE CHAMPIONING DEMOCRATIC CAUSES THEN SWALLOWING THE FOX BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA THAT PEOPLE WHO ATTACK CONDALEEZA RICE ARE RACISTS?!

[kwassa]

156. Some who attack Condi ARE racists. Most aren't.

It is not that attacking Condi that is the issue, it is HOW Condi is attacked that can be revealing. Can white liberals be racist? Yes, they can, though it is not usually the case.

Some of the attacks on her reveal merely the prejudices of the writer. who may have a generalized view of her in association with Bush, but know little or no specific history of Condi's professional career. Like it or not, there is a lot of accomplishment there. It might be wrong-headed accomplishment, but she has achieved a great deal.

[DrWeird]

162. People who defend Condaleeza Rice are racists.

She's a racist herself.

[kwassa]

167. this is the weakest thing I've read all day

It would appear that you are off your medication.

[Jack_DeLeon]

168. Thats all good and nice...

however ultraist's point still stands.

Hispanics are the largest minority in the US, while we may not vote in as large numbers as Blacks, that will change in the future, and we will one day be the Majority aswell.

About 40% of Hispanics voted for Bush, thats definately an increase over the previous election.

We all need to do more to keep earning the Hispanic vote.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack_DeLeon]

171. whatever

Just because I disagree that following Islam is in the best interests of Hispanics that is a completely seperate issue than the fact that the Democratic Party has to do more to get the Hispanic vote.

Unless you are the one being bigotted and you think that the Democratic party can do without the Hispanic vote?

[DrWeird]

172. I think the Democratic Party can do without bigots.

Regardless of race, creed, or color.

[Jack_DeLeon]

173. Thats good.

But that is not the topic of discussion in this thread.

This thread is about what we can do more to keep the Black and Hispanic vote.

BTW if you wish to call me names just come out and do so. Its okay, I have thick skin, I wont cry. :eyes:

[DrWeird]

174. Oh, I think it's very relevant to the discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3013440#3016594

[Jack_DeLeon]

175. think what you want...

I'm not going to get into an interweb argument with someone who disagrees with my opinion.

[ultraist]

176. I never said attacking Condi is racist

Not sure if you were replying to me, but I did not say opposing Condi is racist, it's not.

BUT, breaking the glass ceiling for minorities is one small way to level the playing field and most people know this. It matters not that Bush is doing it to gain voters, motives are irrelevant here, it's the final effects that people are seeing. They don't care why, but what it is doing in the grand scheme of things to promote minorities.

Democrats ARE losing ground with minorities and it IS a real problem for Democrats. They need to articulate their positions on Affirmative Action and other minority friendly policies as well as appoint minorities to high levels. What about DNC chair? ONLY WHITE MALES have ever held that position. That might be a good one to start with.

[CatWoman]

166. FACT: There are sell-outs in every race

and you regurgitating this putrid bullshit is as worthless as the polls you cite?

What fucking exit polls? The ones the media won't release?

We were once told that the polls favored Kerry. Then they didn't. Then they did. Then they didn't.

Those exit polls were manipulated to fit the GOP bullshit talking points -- which you keep parroting.

[ultraist]

177. So what if there are sell outs in every race

That has nothing to do with this discussion.

If you chose to believe that the Republicans are NOT gaining ground with minorities, that's your choice. They are gaining ground and they do have a plan to continue to gain the support of the ONLY GROWING voter base, minorities, especially hispanics.

Bush didn't visit black churches for no reason. They are pro actively reaching out to minorities and the Democrats do NEED the minority votes to win.

Didn't it make a difference for Clinton to appoint minorities to high level positions?

As demographics change, each wants to show its commitment to minorities
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/jangop.html
By Julie Hirschfeld
Davis Sun National Staff

January 22, 2003 WASHINGTON--From affirmative action to federal judges to tax policy, Democrats are painting President Bush as an opponent of minority causes, countering Republican efforts to attract black and Latino voters for the 2004 elections. A month after Mississippi Republican Trent Lott was forced to step down as Senate majority leader for making racially charged remarks, his party is working to mend its image among minority groups. But that effort coincides with the rollout of Bush's new agenda, which includes the nomination of conservatives to the federal judiciary and a tax cut most favorable to the wealthy that blacks and Latinos say threaten some of the gains they have made.

Bush appeared Monday at an African-American church in Landover with a similar appeal: "There are still people in society who hurt. There is still prejudice holding people back." The events were timely opportunities for top Republicans to try to repair their party's image among minority voters. "The president and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill are trying to send a message that the Republican Party wants to create a new paradigm when it comes to how it addresses the issue of race and how it reaches out," said Niger Innis, a spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality, the group Frist spoke to Monday.

That message could be crucial for Republicans, who hope to gain more of the growing black and Latino votes, and to retain support among whites sensitive to the treatment of minorities. "The black and the Hispanic populations are growing much more quickly than the white population, and in many individual states, they're now becoming a voting bloc that is going to make it very, very difficult for Republicans to win those states," said David Bositis, a political analyst at the liberal-leaning Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

"For 25 years, race was a plus for the Republicans - they used it to gain white votes," he said. "But there aren't any additional white votes for them to gain." Last week, Frist joined officials of the Republican National Committee and black and Latino Republicans from around the country to discuss ways to recruit minority candidates and build a record of achievement on issues of concern to them. "Our goal is to increase our base in the African-American community, and we know that black voters are ready to listen," said Pamela Mantis, an RNC spokeswoman. Matthew Dowd, the president's pollster, has reportedly calculated that if Bush won the same proportion of the white and minority votes next year that he did in 2000, he would lose the presidential election. In a rare weekend announcement made just days after Bush took his stance in the Michigan case, the administration said Sunday night that for 2004 it will request a 5 percent increase in funding for colleges and graduate schools that serve black and Latino students.

[Lexingtonian]

157. well, the partisan conflict is changing

Truth is, a lot of black and Latino people are conservatives/anti-Modern in many ways. And every major election is a bit different these days in its 'issues' and appeals and way it centers on being a second judgment on parts of the Past. The ground on which the Parties do battle shifts every election now.

The ethnic groups and economic classes each Party historically considers their own are breaking up- all of them. What that means isn't that the social strata and social pyramids involved are dissolving in fact, it's that some of the distinctions are dissolving in the minds of people and other ones are being made when they're thinking society-wide politics.

For a stupid example, it's the way a part of the country is starting to think of themselves as 'Christian-Americans' and starting to ignore the race aspect in their political alliances. You're not going to see a black church and a white church in e.g. Louisville holding a combined church picnic, but these days their 'deacons' will get together and combine their actions in demonstrations and petitions against gay marriage legalization.

The demographics of it amount to a shifting from ethnic and economic blocs to quasi-generational blocs. The politics of it amounts to a shift from almost purely colonial-racial/industrial socioeconomic stratum conflicts to a broad Modern/meritocratic vs anti-Modern/colonial Order conflict.

The anti-Modern/colonial socioeconomic Order side has three structural pillars derived from the colonial past: the ideologically Christian Capitalist and patriarchal(ist) raising of most Americans, the (racially privileged) white voter majority, and control/configuration of most of the wealth and structural power in a form that comprehensively oppresses and exploits the average member of society.

The Modern/meritocratic socioeconomic Order side reflects: that none of these things is really adequate to our situation, if it ever was, and can't endure much longer as a system.

So we're going to lose a lot of non-white voters in the next few elections, probably more so elderly and Christian and male. Christian here also meaning, as for white conservative Christians the European paganisms, the residual African and Latin American and Asian and other, generally agriculturalist, Nature paganisms and occultisms that mostly get buried under a Christian facade or get dealt with as superstitionism. (This is what Karl Rove means about inactive Latino voters behaving a lot like European immigrants at the ballot box, btw.)

We do roughly make up for it in younger people, though, more white ones than before, who find the denial of the present condition and their needs/desires/experience involved in anti-Modern politics intolerable and absurd.

[qanda]

159. Very thoughtful post

There are a lot of things to consider. Thanks for your response.

[sonicx]

160. People are looking way too much into the the AA vote from the last

election.

89% support for Kerry, while slightly down from Gore, is still massive. Where is the evidence that it has ANYTHING to do with Rice and Powell's appointments? Kerry did worse than Gore in just about EVERY demo except young people and gays.

[realFedUp]

163. Do you think that faith-based monies bought votes or pastor's silence

on what's really going on in this country?

[oasis]

178. Yes, some of the preachers sold out. Not much impact in Blue states,

but in red states those may have been crucial votes. But hey, Preacher will be sporting his new ride just in time for the Easter services. :bounce: