Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman told an NAACP chapter this week that the “party of Lincoln and the African-American people have an incredible history together.” Maybe so, but it’s the present that’s the problem: The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 2 percent of African-Americans approve of the job President Bush is doing, compared with 39 percent of Americans overall. That barely perceptible support among blacks is down from 19 percent six months ago and 51 percent after the Sept. 11 attacks. More evidence, sadly, that Kanye West spoke for millions in saying on national TV that Bush doesn’t care about black people.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
33 Comments
Ken Mehlman, the self-loathing closet gay.
Some spokesman for minorities . . . he can’t even admit he IS one.
kanye west speaking for blacks in the united states?rhonda holman is an idiot.jesus woman,get a real job.
Who should it be, captain pointdexter–Condi? Ken Blackwell? Clarence Thomas? One of the other 2%-ers? Are those the ‘real’ African-Americans?
But don’t believe me. Listen to Steve Gilliard, who, by the way, IS African-American:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/
Is the time right for a Clinton/Powell type ticket?
No, Tracy,
It’s the right time for a Russ Feingold / Barak Obama type ticket.
Hillary in 08 is my worst nightmare . . .
Rhonda is so liberal she gives all liberals a bad name.
OK sir G, I was just throwing a minority ticket out there to get some reactions.Kind of on point, but just fishing.
Why on earth would any black person support the GOP? For republicans to “reach out” to blacks is the most hypocritical thing I ever heard. Don’t bother telling me about the administration’s token blacks…it doesn’t fool anybody, least of all, the black community. unlike most Kansans, blacks aren’t stupid enough to vote against their own interests.
Using the Consolidated Federal Funds Report’s latest data, Johnson found that, “Across all federal programs, Orleans Parish received $12,645 per capita in fiscal year 2003. At the same time, the national average was $7,089 per capita. Put another way, New Orleans received 78.4 percent more funding per person than the national average.”
Well dr, obviously bush should declare war on Orleans Parish. Any good republican would draw the obvious conclusion that they’re using all that money to produce WMD.
Right on XXX and it is an oil rich area also. Let’s invade…oops FEMA and the National Guard beat us to it.lol
dr–
how much do Wichita residents get–or western Kansas residents?
They get a lot more than they pay in . . .
BTW, Bush has given major speeches, announced a new Supreme, etc. and his approval continues to FALL.
Down to 40 and 39 percent in three new polls, including FOX. Looks like all Americans are just waking up to what the African-Americans have already figured out–this man is not good for our country.
Good news is that African Americans get it.
Bad news is that so many white Americans, particularly males don’t get it.
African Americans know oppression. They have lived it. Women of all races have lived it too.
But most white male Americans can’t believe they are living it. They buy the lie. “I’ll get rich too if I just work hard enough!” “Hard work is it’s own reward.” “I never got a job from a poor man” “the boss is the brightest! That’s wyy they put headlights on the front of the car!”
The bush “outreach” to African Americans is no more than an attempt to get them to buy the lie sold for so many years. I suggest an African American outreach that encourages whites to get a bit of dignity and pride, question the “boss”and tell him where to get off.
Folks, here’s a piece from my favorite African-American commentator, Steve Gilliard. I know I shouldn’t paste it in here, but he has an awfully shrewd and far-sighted take on things.
*******************************
“The problem starts with Florida 2000 and the widespread disenfranchisement of black voters. Jeb’s antics there also alienated people as well. But the simple problem is this: Republican racism.
I don’t think Ken Mehlman is insincere about getting black votes, I think it’s critical for the GOP’s success in an increasingly multiracial America. It isn’t just about keeping the soccer moms happy. If he can start to elect black Congressmembers, then other minorities will feel comfortable in joining the GOP. And the GOP can survive.
But without black elected officials, the GOP faces a declining membership base. You can’t have one party as the racist party in a country which will be 50 percent non-white in a couple of decades. The shift of blacks from the GOP to the Democrats to nearly 40 years. Mehlman is starting a long term process.
Only problem is that his bosses and the local parties could care less. Many think the 15 percent of the hard right is a majority, when it isn’t anything close. Many also could care less about black voters, if not openly disdaining them.
The story of blacks working with the GOP is a sad one. Candidates abandoned, workers disrepected, consultants ignored.
The first thing the GOP would have to realize is that anyone who would be a black Republican is someone most black people will regard with the deepest suspicion. Once you cross that line, well, your soul is in limbo, if not hell.
The problem is that most black people disdain black Republicans without hesitation. So when Mehlman does outreach, it’s to people with no credibility. Jesse Lee Peterson is a joke. I mean the man needs help. But the GOP expects him to be taken seriously by black people. Which is pathetic. Then you have the apologists like Bob George, who can never accept he’s been insulted by his patrons. Neither can speak to the aspirations of black people.
Is two percent the real number? Well, he was polling around 9 percent when he started his first term and it’s never really climbed. So given the belief that the response to Katrina was genocidal, yes, it could be real.
And talk of keeping poor blacks out of New Orleans, hasn’t helped matters. So two percent is possible.”
stevegilliard.blogspot.com
The Bush reign is coming apart at the seams.
What are the Democrats doing? Are they getting comfortable being a non-winning party?
There are 3 registered Republicans for every 2 Democrats. People now vote party/ideology to a greater degree than ever before. For Democrats to win they must attract at least 60% of moderate undecided voters. The last Democrat to do this in a long time was Clinton.
Getting out the base is not enough. Howard Dean and his ideas are the worst thing that could have happened to the Democratic party if they are interested in winning again.
For a tough-minded analysis see:”The Politics of Polarization” by William A. Galston & Elaine C. Kamarck at -www.third-way.com/news/pop.htm -these folks were creators of Clinton’s winning strategies.
Steven,
Oh, not that Third-Way triangulation nonsense! Please. It’s been SO successful the last three elections, wouldn’t you say, Steven E?
I totally agree that the Democrats are complacent and punch-drunk as hell. But the third way isn’t the solution–it’s the problem. It’s interesting that all Galston and Kamarck can do is plot game-theory type triangulation scenarios that would enable the Democratic party to pick up undecided voters. When it comes to presenting a real vision of how to make America work for everyone, that is different from the GOP’s privatization schemes, middle-class squeeze, and wedge politics, they’re silent. \
They don’t speak for me. And their losing record in the last three elections speaks for itself.
CF,
I am not sure if you mean the last 3 presidential elections, if so, they did well in ‘96 – they kicked Dole’s ass. Clinton helped undo the public perception that Democrats were bad for the economy. Gore distanced himself from Clinton and his strategies because of the scandals in the 2nd term. He might have won to a greater extent, if he had not. I can’t believe anyone, much less Galston & Kamarck, were strategizing the Kerry campaign – that whole thing was a mess.
The most important political war right now is what is happening inside the Democratic party. From what I read the two camps are: 1) let’s return to our liberal base and 2) we need to be more moderate. I believe that these authors are in the 2nd camp.
Republicans are attracting married women and Catholics and are taking them from the Democrats. This is a problem.
When the economy gets better, people do not vote their pocket books. Unless they can figure out some strategies to attract middle voters, Democrats can look forward to being the minority (in numbers, not race) party. If they don’t do the foregoing, the Dems only hope is that Bush will so completely foul up the economy that Dems will be elected because they are not Repubs. Even if this happens, the Dems are going to have to find some messages – I don’t think that the voters now know what the Dems about. A problem the united Repub party doesn’t have – well, at least they were united until very recently.
Edwards was surging when he talked about the “two Americas.” Kerry racked up his highest approval ratings when he excoriated “Benedict Arnold” corporations who benefit from American economies but flee its responsibilities with off-shore tax havens.
After the primaries–even at the convention–you didn’t hear them talking that way anymore. Now it was all moderation and fuzziness to “appeal to the swing voter.”
I don’t give a damn about the “swing voter.” Anybody too stupid not to be able to make up their mind is somebody we don’t need.
The Republicans haven’t gotten where they are by pulling punches and running to the middle. They play dirty (swift boat liars), they play to their base (Dems want to outlaw the Bible and legalize homosexuality), and they play to win.
The Dems need to stand up and say the people that are hitting you over the head are not “welfare queens,” they’re rich corporations getting richer by making YOU poorer.
Exhibit A is big oil that not only receives huge direct subsidies, but also huge INdirect subsidies in the form of military action in Iraq to secure oil supplies and road building contracts so that people have an incentive to drive more.
BushCo. CUT THEIR TAXES at a time when they are making stratospheric profits. Dick Cheney alone saw his Halliburton stock holdings go up by 1300 percent since he’s been VP.
Galahad,Thank you for your views. The simple truth is that Democrats start out behind – in term of raw numbers. So, I disagree that swing voters are people that we don’t need. The electorate is, and has been for some time, split along these percentages: 20% – liberal; 33% conservative, 47% moderate – and to quote my friends (Galston & Kamarck, 2005) “National campaigns will be won or lost in the independent and moderate center of the electorate.”
These demographics are not going to change in the near future.
The reason we need those “stupid people in the middle” is that those people elect the winners. Where we have failed, and it’s a source of frustration for me too, is that those middle people don’t know that they need us/Democrats/progressives.
Those center people need to be convinced that we govern better. Democrats have governed over the best economic period in my life-time. In the late 90’s if you weren’t working, it was because you could not, or did not want to.
Democrats are generally better at governing due to a basic belief in the value of government. I know you know this.
New Democrats like Clinton know how steal ideas (the reasonable ones) from Republicans and effectively implement them into workable policy. That, I am convinced, is why Repubs hate Clinton so terribly much. He had the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, too – which is how he was able to rack up surpluses instead of deficits.
I want to remind you that we are on the same side. Clinton said in his first campaign that America “did not have a single person to waste” – Repubs seem to have plenty of people to waste. To update that Clinton’s slogan, I don’t think we have a potential Democratic voter to waste.
I would urge you to read the thoughts in “The Politics of Polarization” before making up your mind about what they say. The cost of some ink, paper, and a little time is all we’re talking about here.Regards.
Galahad,As a preview of the _Politics of Polarization_ – the authors state (p.9) “Republicans allowed high-profile pro-choice figures like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudolph Giuliani, and George Pataki to address their 2004 convention; many Catholics still remember the Democrats’ refusal to allow the pro-life governor of Pennsylvania to address theirs in 1992.”
I seem to remember you saying something about the abortion albatross for the Dems. I am pro-choice. I am just telling you this work is criticism that might be useful for us to look at.
Hey Galahad,
Good call, you want a jew and an affirmative action half-breed for the ticket in ‘08? Good luck with that, coconut! rotflmaosao
Hey Galahad,
Good call, you want a jew and an affirmative action half-breed for the ticket in ‘08? Good luck with that, coconut! rotflmaosao
Hey Galahad,
Good call, you want a jew and an affirmative action half-breed for the ticket in ‘08? Good luck with that, coconut! rotflmaosao
Hey Galahad,
Good call, you want a jew and an affirmative action half-breed for the ticket in ‘08? Good luck with that, coconut! rotflmaosao
Ian, I want two patriotic Americans to lead the ticket, the ones who believe the “all men are created equal” part of the Declaration of Independence.
But if you don’t want to believe in American values, why do you continue to live here?
Ian, I want two patriotic Americans to lead the ticket, the ones who believe the “all men are created equal” part of the Declaration of Independence.
But if you don’t want to believe in American values, why do you continue to live here?
Ah, good old Ian.
Why does Ian Santiago hate America? Could it be because he’s a faux-catholic fascist who despises black men because they want to have intercourse with his wife rather than with him?
I’m just sayin’.
Ouch, CF, that’s got to hurt. But you’re assuming that some woman would want to marry Ian.
I think he’s more “Real Doll” material myself (see Salon.com’s recent article).
Steven E., thanks for your thoughtful analysis.
Upon further reflection, I think it’s not so much moving to the middle that I hate about Dems, it’s that they can’t seem to articulate what they believe in or stand for.
I keep telling Kerry backers this–quick, what did Kerry believe in? What did he stand for? In twenty-five words or less.
And they tell me to go to his website.
That’s the problem.
Steve E,
The best response I’ve seen to the ‘Third Way’ position paper, and the one that’s influenced my own responses here to the greatest extent, is Jonathan Schell’s piece on Tom Dispatch. The link is here:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=28519
Frankly, I believe it is a Red Herring for the authors to claim that Democrats like me–and, yes, notably Howard Dean– are acting as if we “don’t need swing voters.” I see this as a false problem, and as an attempt to saddle us with a claim we aren’t making.
All this triangulation / demographic strategizing, frankly, gives me a big ‘ol headache because it asserts that the future is going to mirror the present. If the problem is that more folks identify as Republicans than Democrats, the answer is not to concede this. The answer is to CHANGE it. But by focusing on triangulation strategies designed to capture some bare majority of the demographic ‘middle,’ the effect of the authors’ strategy will be to concede more and more conventional wisdom to right-wing Republican policy.
You can’t win fighting on someone else’s ground. You have to shift ground. But that can’t happen with the defensive strategy outlined by the authors of the ‘Third Way’ piece. So, read Schell’s piece and let me know what you think.
CF,Thanks I will. I’m tied up this weekend, so will do it on Monday.
CF,
Thanks for the link to the Jonathan Schell article. I think he raises some valid criticisms of the “Third-way approach” – chief among these is that if Democrats are going to only stand for what some pollster thinks the middle voters want – we are likely doomed – and justifiably so.
Let’s take an area, where I think the Democrats have failed miserably and consider if what our friends Galston & Kamarck are recommending might be useful. Remember that under Bush’s “culture of life”, abortion is now more frequent than before he came into office.
Clinton adopted the position that actually reflects what most Americans want – “Abortion should be available, but rare.” A very supportable position it seems to me. One reason cited for why abortion is on the rise is the tanking U.S. economy – ergo, Democrats want to improve the economy and job prospects for any number of reasons including promoting a real culture of life for both the born and unborn — thank you very much.
If the Democrats were to take some radical NARAL position such as “We want to see every abortion that could possibly happen, actually happen” – I think we would be on the wrong track; not just in terms of what the middle voters want, but what a Majority of Democrats want. I think we can look at what the Middle wants, see where, and if, we can fit into that and tailor the message accordingly. If Galston and Kararck are calling for a return of the Democratic majority – then I am with them. I, like you, am not with them, if the only objective is to string together a bunch of unrelated positions that might appeal to middle voters – that strategy will lose every time. “Give a voter two Republican candidates and he will vote Republican every time” – Harry S. Truman.
I would add one more thing to the above. It seems to me that the Republican party is also going through an identity crisis – are they Bush/spendthrift/religious extremists, or are they moderate fiscally responsible conservatives? It’s probably happened before, and maybe it happens all the time, that both parties would be engaged in this self-defining process to this degree. Perhaps a by-product of the “Politics of Polarization”?