One thing Bush has done right

[Used and Abused]

I really don't like Bush, and I believe he was unfairly placed back in the White House again... BUT...

He has appointed more blacks and minorities to high level cabinet positions than any American president. Sure, call them tokens or whatever, but at the end of the day they all are very highly qualified (sadly, they're on the wrong team, but they're still highly qualified individuals).

A racially diverse cabinet brings us closer to an America where color is not an issue. This is something, staged or not, that Bush has done RIGHT!

Agree or disagree?

Edited to Clarify: This is not a praise Bush post! I know he is not supportive of minorities in general. However, it is always a plus to have a racially diverse cabinet! In the past, these cabinets have been all white. I'm just glad that it is not anymore, whether I agree with their point of view or not.

[Joylaughter]

1. True.OUCH! eom

[aquart]

2. You have to be kidding.

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Used and Abused]

6. No... I'm not

I guess you'd have to be a minority to understand my point.

[MichiganVote]

3. So what? They follow a dumbass and have made dumbass decisions

[NV Whino]

4. Umm...

Let's see, we got Condi and Colon. Who am I missing? And I don't consider Condi qualified for much of anything... except maybe an oil tanker.

Those who have not yet been confirmed for the next term don't count.

[Used and Abused]

7. Paige

and another hispanic guy I think.

[seabeyond]

21. education dude from texas that called teachers terrorists n/t

[President Kerry]

5. this better be a joke..

it's a purely symbolic gesture of no significance...

Where do i begin... He made no effort to reach out to the Black Congressional Caucus, Powell was clearly a dissident, he completely lost the confidence of the minority inner city voter. He did much damage to civil rights and just about everything else

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Powell might be guilty of treason by the new definitions for dissent, he

said... "I'm not going to read this, this is bullshit" when asked to read some of the intel reports that they gave him to feed to the masses.

[Used and Abused]

9. Don't get me wrong

Bush is a failure in every sense of the word.

BUT, there IS something to be gained by having a non-all-white Cabinet. Or maybe that's just me...

[jasmeel]

10. He may appoint minorities but he is not supportive of minorities

outside of his cabinet/white house. That is what matters. Minorities have suffered the most under his leadership. I know that Condi is NOT qualified. Colin IS qualified but was silenced and didn't show integrity when it was most important. Alberto Gonzalez is a torture loving freak. Interesting choice of minorities to appoint. They certainly reflect *!

[annabanana]

11. appointing syncophantic minorities is not what was needed.......

An idiot is an idiot regardless of race, creed or color.

But for those who choose a 'role model' based on how much the idol "looks' like them, rather than how much he or she thinks like them I suppose it's enough.

[Used and Abused]

14. That's good old fashioned psychology

Whether you like it or not.

Psychologically speaking, it always helps to see someone who "looks like you" doing the same thing you would like to do one day. Why do you think white males have so much confidence when it comes to running for President?

[annabanana]

16. point taken....................n/t

(typo)

[goddess40]

30. Qualified is the key word

This is Goddess40's mom. It is a good thing to appoint qualified minorities and * did not do this. When unqualified minorities are appointed it leads to their failure and gives those opposed to minorities ammunition to say they can not handle the job. Cases in point: Powell: too cowed by * to tell the truth and save his own reputation; Rice: too cowed by * to keep him in DC to address security prior to 9/11; Paige: too cowed by * to stand up to him and demand funding for No Child Left Behind; Cho: too cowed by * and corporations to fight to save overtime pay for the work force. And so it goes.

[goddess40]

32. Forgot

Goddess40's mom again. Forgot Gonzalez: appointed to be Attorney General and never worked as a trial lawyer, worked as legal counsel for Enron (!) and thinks torture is "quaint." And what can one say about Clarence Thomas? He is the most unqualified person ever to serve on the Supreme Court.

[Vickers]

12. Doesn't alter the fact that he is flushing this country down the shitter

I suppose it also proves that minorities can be counted on to be complete fuckups when put in positions of power, too...hardly something to be proud of.

:shrug:

[almostallhere]

13. bush has appointed far fewer people of color to ground-level

positions than anyone in recent memory - for instance, he has appointed over 200 federal judges - and not a single african-american judge in the south.

these are the people who can actually make a difference on racial issues in their day-to-day actions. what can/has powell or rice done for people of color from the cabinet? i agree that it is a good thing for the cabinet to be racially diverse, but that can't outweigh 1) the atrocities that the bush cabinet has perpetrated/condoned and 2) the shocking lack of people of color in any position where bush wouldn't profit politically from making the appointment because it was not high-profile enough.

[Used and Abused]

15. True

I just wish the Dems would support Blacks, Hispanics in higher level positions.

[almostallhere]

17. me too.

[iamjoy]

19. As Al Sharpton Said

"Clarence Thomas may be my color, but he is not my kind."

Your original post made a good point, but, what should Dems support a nominee just because he/she is a minority?

Dubya is very diabolical this way, just like his father was in nominating Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. An Arch-Conservative but African-American so anyone rejecting him would look like a racist. Dubya searches for Conservative minorities so he can look good appointing them without sacrificing his agenda.

I never thought Dubya was racist.

[flresident]

18. Why Should It Matter?

Why should it matter what color, gender, etc. Bush's cabinet
members are?  Whether we agree with their political viewpoints
or not, obviously Bush picked those who he thought were BEST
FOR THE JOB.  Think about it - why would he settle for less
than the best people he could get (and thereby putting his
agenda at a disadvantage) just for the sake of appearing
diverse?
Bottom line, choosing people for jobs based on race or gender
is, in itself, racist and sexist - it effectively says,
"Because of your color, gender, etc., you're not good
enough, smart enough, etc. unless you're given special
treatment."  Doing so isn't fair to the minority or woman
chosen, because from then on, no matter how good they are,
people assume they got their job based on a physical
characteristic, not merit.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. That is flawed thinking...

Affirmative action just recognizes that minorities and women are at a distinct disadvantage. It is the recognition that if they have reached the level they have despite all of the negativity and obstacles they have faced, they certainly have the ability to succeed. If two people try out for one job and are the same, who should get it? Say one is a white male and one is a black female. Well inherently the white male has had all the advantages in life. Nobody has ever tried to tell a white male "you aren't good enough" because of the color of his skin. In classrooms, boys are given superior treatment over girls. Whites are far more likley to be in the upper income levels than blacks. Thus, they are more likely to have access to better educations. Given all of those opportunities, this white male candidate has had all of the advantages. Now, the black woman has what advantage? She has a high probability of being poorer than her white counterpart. Because she is african american, her relatives were not offered the jobs that could have made them climb the ranks until recently, if at all. THus, her family has remained poor. Because they are poor, they live in a poor district. Poor districts have less money and thus their schools tend to be poor. Because she is a woman on top of that, even in school, she is told that she is not good enough "because she's just a girl". She's been told that she should just quit because "that's for guys". If, despite all of these conditions, she is STILL is good as the white male, hasn't she acheived far more?

[flresident]

33. Here's Why It's Not Flawed Thinking

40, 30, maybe even 20 years ago I would agree that minorities
and women were at a distinct disadvantage and affirmative
action was necessary.  Not anymore. They playing field has
been more than leveled - in fact, it's tilted heavily in favor
of women and minorities.  For example, if a white male and
black female apply for a job, if the black female is at all
qualified (even if the male is more so), she will get the job
every single time.  Same goes for getting into colleges.
True, women and minorities have disadvantages in life, but
guess what - so do whites and males.  So does everyone -
regardless of their race, gender, or any physical
characteristics.  There are plenty of whites, Asians, etc. who
are poor too!  For example: A family of Vietnamese immigrants,
unable to speak a word of English, arrive in a handmade boat
to the US.  They literally have nothing, but within a
generation they're wealthy - not from getting something handed
to them or by receiving an unfair advantage because of their
race, but by working for it.  No matter how successful the US
is, there will always be rich and poor - that's a human
reality.  But the great thing about the US is, to a much
greater degree than any other country, people have the power
to improve their lot in life.  Giving one person an advantage
because of a physical characteristic (instead of their merit)
is wrong and affirmative action doesn't make it any more
equitable.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

41. Sorry, the "playing field" isn't level at all, no way, no how.

How can you say that when for the SAME JOB across all levels of education, women and minorities earn less than white men? How can you say that when women earn 70 cents on the dollar. Minorities still make up the poor class and are thus still at a disadvantage. I would guess that you are a white male since you seem to feel you are being abused by minorities and women. Sorry, but there is no way affirmative action working for 30 years has undone the damage which built up throughout the entire history of the United States.

[flresident]

46. They Don't Earn Less

Sorry, but your facts are plain wrong.  Women and minorities
do NOT earn less than white men when doing the same job.  The
Equal Pay Act of 1963 mandates that if men and women in the
same organization are doing equal work, they employer must pay
them equally.  The act defines "equal" in terms of
skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.  If the
pay differences result from differences in seniority, merit,
quantity, or quality of production, or for any factor other
than sex, (e.g., working the night shift), only then are pay
differences legal.  If you have exeperienced otherwise, I
recommend you see a lawyer because you're going to be a very
rich person.
For minorities who entered the job market before the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, you're right - they were at a totally
unfair disadvantage and deserved increased opportunities.  But
by applying affirmative action only to those of the
"right" color and gender, you leave out others who
may need it more - poor whites, poor Asians, etc.  Why would
you give a hiring advantage to a middle-class black female and
screw over a poor Asian male?  It's time for everyone to look
past physical characteristics (which shouldn't matter anyway)
and focus on merit.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

47. Yes they do because of the abuse of the system.

Notice how you said "at the same organizaation" http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html

[flresident]

48. Correct

Exactly. If they're working at the same organization, doing the same job, same seniority, same working conditions, etc., the employer can't pay differently because of sex. The article you cited failed to mention that the Equal Pay Act (EPA) applies to men and women working in the same organization.

There are many legitimate reasons why the federal government can't apply the same standards across all US companies. What would you have them do? Tell all US hospitals that a female doctor working in rural Kansas has to earn the same as a male doctor in New York City? Tell Microsoft that it's female programmers produce exactly the same software than the men at Apple? Geographical differences, inability to truly call the work at two different companies "the same", etc. make it impossible to apply equal standards outside of the same company.

You can't make the EPA any fairer than it already is - all things being equal, race and gender don't matter when it comes to pay. If a female feels underpaid at company X, at least she knows that her male counterpart doesn't make more just because of gender.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

49. So you think that the wage gap is acceptable?

[flresident]

51. "Wage Gap" Is an Artificial Term

If there is in fact a "wage gap," it is due to
factors that are fair and because of individual preferences. 
In other words, pay differences (whether it's the man or woman
who is paid more) are NOT based on someone's color or gender
(characteristics that can't be changed) - instead, pay is
based on things people CAN affect, if they so choose ...
attaining seniority, working jobs that require additional
skills or more physical effort, working the night shift,
working overtime, moving to a higher paying region of the
country, etc.

Claiming that a "wage gap" can't be overcome is just
plain misleading - it implies that women and minorities are
simply doomed to earn less, and it's insulting to those
determined to live up to their full potential.  That's the
TRUE wage gap - the difference between those who are convinced
that society will always hold them back (and thus never
achieve what they're capable of) and those who don't let
others dictate the limits of their potential ... again,
regardless of whether they're male, female, black, or white.

[cliss]

20. I'm going to disagree with you.

I'm going to say that Bush is an equal-oppourtunity user. To him, color or race doesn't matter. You sign up with him, you can be lavender if need be. As a matter of fact, being a person of color is a BENEFIT, because it makes Bush look like a real good guy.

However, the issue here is, how much influence does this person have? Any at all, other than passing out the Gourmet Burgers when they arrive at 12:10 pm.

Be honest, now. The Rot-publicans are the party of the White Supremacists. It's the party of mutual using. Anyone that signs up expects some payoffs, and the person dispensing the goodies expects nothing less.

[cidliz2004]

22. SMOKE AND MIRRORS

If you buy into the bullshit, then, yes, Wonderful News!!!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Actually I think his presidency is a giant leap backwards

The women and minorities who were placed in Bush's cabinet are not great thinkers or symbols of their respective groups. They got there solely by the color of their skin or their gender. They were tools. Further, there is more to being part of a minority community than just the skin color. The minorities in Bush' cabinet have turned their backs on their culture and their own people. They don't bring any new perspective to any issues, they just smile and nod and accept whatever Bush says. Minorities in higher positions is more than just having a non-white for photo ops. It's more than just allowing that one person the opportunity to get some prestige. It's about that person bringing their unique perspective to discussions. Bush's appointees don't do that. They act just like everyone else that was already there. They contribute nothing substantial. They are just rich white males at the end of the day.

[cattleman22]

34. RE: More to minority community than skin color

""Further, there is more to being part of a minority community than just the skin color. The minorities in Bush' cabinet have turned their backs on their culture and their own people""


This really bothers me. When I read this, it appears you are saying that a person of a certain skin color should think and act just like others with that same skin color.



""They are just rich white males at the end of the day.""



This is a abhorrent racist statement. Just because you disagree with a person's opinion does not mean you should make racist statements about them.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

42. Oh Brother, I AM a minority

Firstly, Im not saying that all people should act the same. However you cannot claim to be representing a community if you do NOTHING to help that community. Condi and Colin have done NOTHING to help their own people.

Secondly, it's not a racist statement. They act against the interest of the people they pretend to represent. They don't think on their own, they do what Bush tells them to do. They perpetuate stereotypes by doing this. So how do they bring ANY cultural influence to the discussion if they act just as a white person would act?

Also you took my comments out of context. If you had read them properly you would have got the point. Gonzalez is the best they can come up with to "represent" the hispanic community? Really? He doesn't represent me and he doesn't represent anyone I know. He's a torture loving psychopath. The RNC must not think much of me and MY culture if they think I'm going to switch parties because they have some crazy man that happens to be hispanic.

[GingerSnaps]

26. When's the last time that Condi & Colin were

Members of the black community?

I don't think that (public hair) Clarence Thomas is someone that any race would be proud of.

[lildreamer316]

27. Which points to the fact...

...that someone in his group is very very smart. (Gee, I wonder who) They picked people who were FIRSTLY 1) Going to fall in line with what the agenda was, and 2) look good doing it. Get it? You don't think * really did all that appointing by himself, right? Sneaky, sneaky!

[bklyncowgirl]

28. The symbolism is good--Dems take note

I've gotta agree with you here.

I'm not saying that Colin and Condi are great leaders or anything like that but they are there and in more than token positions. One of my criticisms of the Kerry campeign was that he didn't have many African-Americans as part of his inner circle and that was a problem.

The Democrats are the inclusive party and there are people of all races at the lower levels. The Republicans practice affirmative action--though they'd never admit it. A halfway presentable Black person is going to to very far in the GOP--simply because there ain't much competition there.

[Used and Abused]

29. Thanks

You said it better than I could... It's the "symbolism" that matters, and it could begin to affect the way blacks view the Republican party.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. Please give the black community a LITTLE credit here.

They have voted for the issues consistantly, this election just proved that again. Colin Powell didn't make them vote for Bush.

[mad_hatter]

35. As a fellow minority

I totally disagree with you. Uncle Tom's and Tio Taco's don't count. In my opinion, any minority who turns their back on the party that fought to ensure their civil rights are still slaves of the white man.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

40. YES eom

[spanone]

36. It just proves that minorities can be bigoted assholes too.

[mad_hatter]

39. Very true.

They can be just as hateful and narrow minded.

Just to follow up on my last post. I hope I didn't offend any of my non minority brothers and sisters here. If I did, I apologize. It wasn't my intention.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

37. None of them are culturally ethnic

"It's okay if you have dark skin as long as you act whiter than me" does not equal integration. Likewise "It's okay if you have a vagina as long as you have a bigger dick than me."

How about a black black man instead of Colon Powell, who in Jamaica (where his family comes from) would be considered red people, not black?

And who about an actual woman instead of the sexless Cunty Rice?

Clinton was the only black president (read Toni Morrison on this) and the only one since Johnson who truly worked to help blacks and other minorities in America.

[Lerkfish]

38. tokenism is NOT progress: its condescending and belittling

[Kinkistyle]

43. Would it have made a difference if Hitler was black?

...and Goebbels Native American? No. I'd rather have an all-white Cabinet that worked for the betterment of the people and the world than a Cabinet full of Colins, Clarences, Condis and Keyes.

[ventvon]

44. Window dressing doesn't impress me

Gold platting (appointments) isn't worth nearly as much as real gold (policies that work for the people).

So, you hire a lot of minorities who are already well-off, and the ones who aren't who are out in the real world fall further and further behind because of your policies.

No, I'm not impressed.

But I take it that this is in relation to Condi Rice becoming Sec. of State.

Well, I'm sure she's going to get a lot of respect if she is sent to the Middle East.

That's just what we need to talk to those guys, knowing how they are. Let's send them an "UNCOVERED" woman, who they have already labeled a few years ago, along with Colin Powell as "Dark-skinned people from the Third World."

But Madeline Albright did it. I can't say that I'm not curious to see how this'll go, but I don't think it will go well. Rice doesn't have thick-skin like most recent Secretaries of State have had. Baker, Albright, Kissenger, Christopher, Powell.

These were all people with stature who weren't easily rattled. Rice appears rattled sometimes on Meet the Press, etc. She can't go to someone's country and appear weak.

[drscm]

45. "The UNTOUCHABLES": The name Rove gives these people

of color who carry and promote the far right wing agenda.

Is that cynical enough for ya?

[prayin4rain]

50. The problem is all of these people are doing terrible things.

Colin Powell lying about WMD, Condi Sleazy terrible job, a liar and 9-11 happened while she was in charge of homeland security. And don't even get me started on torture Gonzalez. Dubya is having minorities do his dirty work for him.

[mtnsnake]

52. He'll do anything to cover up the disservice he does to minorities

It's all a smoke screen so people won't notice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. C'mon. You know it's bait & switch.

Put Powell in charge of State, then don't listen to anything he says. He's just window dressing, to make them look good -- the worst kind of pandering. Put Rice up to replace Powell, and nobody can argue against her because if we say she's incompetant, they'll say we have a problem with black women. The very threat of being called predjudiced keeps us from strongly opposing minority nominees -- look at Thomas, claiming racism when the debate should have been about his absolute lack of qualifications for the Supremes.

Racial diversity is far less important than ideological diversity. To assume that a person's race will automatically modify that person's ideology is, in itself, a predjudiced judgement.

I'm astonished that anyone would buy that.