Politics: A new beginning

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'd say the leftiest of the left is the patronizing motherfuckers who insist that others should be offended. That others should be recompensed. That others should be avenged.

You mean like Bush talking about the middle class?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So, is this Dean/Confederate flag idiocy like Clinton's Sistah Souljah moment, but in reverse? Dean tries to show that he wants to move to the center, and the narrow-minded hard-core lefties drag him kicking and screaming back?

I think Dean is smart in concept on this, but gaffed in execution. He already has the far left (and perhaps the nomination) wrapped up. He needs to move center for the general. He has consistently been the pace car in this race and I bet you will see other candidates begin to move toward the center as well. The onces that continue to try to out "left" one another will be out by NH.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So, is this Dean/Confederate flag idiocy like Clinton's Sistah Souljah moment, but in reverse? Dean tries to show that he wants to move to the center, and the narrow-minded hard-core lefties drag him kicking and screaming back?

I think the point Dean made about being the only white candidate willing to talk about race with white people was pretty valid. The pattern in the Dem party re: race issues seems to be, "that is a subject to be discussed earnestly with minorities." And apparently only with minorities. Because it's only about what they perceive their situation to be, and about how they think it needs to be remedied. Well, in the world at large that doesn't really work, you have to include everyone in the conversation. And, yes, to do that risks that you will not like what a whole big whopping bunch of those people have to say. That, I think, is a risk the Dems aren't willing to take. That is the situation Dean was (awkwardly) challenging.

The Dems seem to me to be more limited in what they can say about racial issues than the Repubs because of the "PC" limitations they impose on themselves (that's not meant to be "PC" writ large with all jokes attached, it is meant to meant to be PC in a good way, indicating the fact that the Dems take being sensitive and progressive in all aspects of racial politics very seriously), which the Repubs don't fret about as much. The Repubs can and do sometimes get their gums flapping about race issues as they affect and are perceived by the majority, and they sometimes put their foot in it bigtime. Not, I think, because their views are necessarily more Neanderthalic, but just because they're actually talking about it: if you are going to open that conversation and kick ideas around, some of them are going to go wrong. Net effect: the Repubs are allowed to talk about race issues with more freedom and screw up or run afoul of them (even if they pay for it), while the Dems often won't even entertain some issues because they might go wrong.

Anyhow, the Repubs, therefore, seem to be the only party interested in talking with and to white people about what white people think about race issues. It frankly appears that only the Repubs seem to believe that what white people think matters (except as a potential obstacle to social justice that needs to be changed). A lot of people, particularly people who consider themselves liberal, don't like what they hear coming out of that Republican discussion. Maybe that's because they don't like what some of the Republican subsets of white people being asked think, or maybe it's because they don't like what many white people, generally, actually think. But unless the Dems start asking having that conversation with their own white constituents (or prospective constituents), we ain't ever gonna know. Dean is right to call them on that. I don't think it is a politically-savy move for a candidate for office, but I think he's dead right.

I am reminded of a south african friend who laughs his ass off at the US's idea of racial tolerance (he is "coloured," and looooves making me say it just so he can watch me squirm and tell me to get over myself). Not that SA is a wonderland of tolerance, obviously. It is that in the US most people can't even talk about race openly because they are so paranoid of screwing up and offending someone. When racial issues still affect most people's every day lives, as they do it SA, that inoffensive pussy-footing is not a luxury you can have.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
But unless the Dems start asking having that conversation with their own white constituents (or prospective constituents), we ain't ever gonna know. Dean is right to call them on that. I don't think it is a politically-savy move for a candidate for office, but I think he's dead right.

Dean was telling people that the Dems need to figure out how to reach people they aren't reaching right now. Some Dems -- let's just use Al Sharpton as the extreme example -- are more interested in ratifying their own clout within the party by demanding obeisance (Confederate flag = bad) than by thinking about how to reach the middle. Roger Cohen, writing in the WaPo today, says Sharpton is in the presidential primary race to displace Jesse Jackson (who just backed Dean) as the black leader, not to become President. I don't have time for that, and have more respect for Dean for thinking about how to reach more people.

And can we stop pretending that Dean is lefty? If you* look at his positions, he's more moderate than most of the Dems in the race. He's just a good politician, and figured out how to speak to hard-core Dems. He and Clark both have a good shot at making the move to the center (Clark since he's already there).

* None of this is directed at BRC specifically.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Roger Cohen, writing in the WaPo today, says Sharpton is in the presidential primary race to displace Jesse Jackson (who just backed Dean) as the black leader, not to become President.

Brief note (yeah right),

Yo, people I know in Chicago swear that Jesse Jackson is being displaced as Chicago's black leader by younger people. In fact, numerous of the times that we've heard his name spoken in the last year have been attempts by him to "reidentify" with blacks and the poor. Case in point, a threatened CTA strike that would harm the interests of his buddy Richie. Sounds like its already too late.

Smells like an opportunity for Republicans in there somewhere.

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Smells like an opportunity for Republicans in there somewhere.

Does the Illinois GOP headquarters have some kind of bat signal they can use to summon J.C. Watts from retirement? Mebbe project a giant Oreo cookie into the sky?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Does the Illinois GOP headquarters have some kind of bat signal they can use to summon J.C. Watts from retirement? Mebbe project a giant Oreo cookie into the sky?

J.C. Watts never won any National Championships for the Illini. He wouldn't stand a chance.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Does the Illinois GOP headquarters have some kind of bat signal they can use to summon J.C. Watts from retirement? Mebbe project a giant Oreo cookie into the sky?

Nicely done, G^3's hooded homie!

I mean, what about those that serve, are they all really just Uncle Tom's? I'm sure deys all much betta offs in da projects yous and da jacksons got fo em den deyd be wit summun whood tells em too quit begin.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Roger Cohen, writing in the WaPo today, says Sharpton is in the presidential primary race to displace Jesse Jackson (who just backed Dean) as the black leader, not to become President.

Hell, that's been the common wisdom in NYC for a couple years now. However, the process does seem to be smoothing some of Sharpton's edges. A stable Sharpton will be so much less entertaining. Better for him, but a sad thing for those who so enjoy watching him go totally whack-a-doo.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I mean, what about those that serve, are they all really just Uncle Tom's? I'm sure deys all much betta offs in da projects yous and da jacksons got fo em den deyd be wit summun whood tells em too quit begin.

You mistake patriotism for conservatism. Common error.

Plus, you could use some brushing-up on convincing wiggerese. I suggest daily doses of Herbert Kornfeld. Dawg.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You mistake patriotism for conservatism. Common error.

Plus, you could use some brushing-up on convincing wiggerese. I suggest daily doses of Herbert Kornfeld. Dawg.

Oh my. Conservatives = Uncle Toms, Soldiers = (don't mistake the two).

Convincing explanation there, Mr. Grinch.

Let's really boil this one down.

Do the interests of African Americans, as a group, coincide with the interests of Americans, as a group? If not, when not?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Do the interests of African Americans, as a group, coincide with the interests of Americans, as a group? If not, when not?

I believe your point was that republicans might have some opportunity to increase appeal to AA voters, and I'm not sure how this question relates to that point. But.....

if you consider all different peoples within a larger group (Americans) as seperate groups (AA., NativeA, Jewish, Swedish, etc.) then in a theoretically perfect world, it would only be an occasional coincidence when the "interests" of the larger group coincide with the interest of any of the smaller groups.
IRL, who determines the larger groups "interest" is a polical question and is decided based upon the political pull of the various groups, and typically would be more in at least some subgroups interest than others*.


*2 exceptions, in Independance Day it was in everyone's interest to blow up the alien spaceship, and no group was harmed when Halle Berry started doing nudity.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Oh my. Conservatives = Uncle Toms, Soldiers = (don't mistake the two).

Wha? Let's replay for those of you playing the home game.

Hello: Blacks in Chicago are no longer looking to Jessie. Republicans, ho!

Me: Good luck finding an individual black republican to lead, much less a critical mass to be led.

Hello: What about the blacks in the military? Are they Uncle Toms?

Me: No, they're just patriotic, not necessarily even conservatives. Not the same thing.

Hello: So you're saying conservative blacks are Uncle Toms?

I expressed no opinion on whether conservative blacks are Uncle Toms. I am, however, skeptical of the claim that blacks in the military have party memberships much different from their families back home.

I'm setting forth the dialog again here because I've read that repetition aids reading comprehension. Also, I believe any person who is able to conduct a conversation about the African American community without resorting to stereotypic dialect has the upper hand with an audience of either race.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Two points.

The points weren't related. The first was that a lapse in Jackson is a time for action. More than anything, now would be a really good time for Dubya to start meeting with a few inner-city leaders, even if they clearly are not of a coincident political ilk. I believe that the right choices in such an endeavour would help give credibility to people who are not_Jesse. Within reason, I wouldn't care how their personal politics played, or even if they campaigned against Dubya in the next election. As long as they are not corrupt, it would be a major improvement.

The second was bait for the patronizing flowerchildren who throw rocks at JC Watts and yell "There, there is your enemy... and his name is oreo".

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I expressed no opinion on whether conservative blacks are Uncle Toms. I am, however, skeptical of the claim that blacks in the military have party memberships much different from their families back home.

Yeah, I realized you are right. The term you used was "oreo". Mah bad.

The military? Dunno myself. Only asked to see how many patronizing attitudes are left in whats left of the left. One down and one to go der hoss.

Hello: Blacks in Chicago are no longer looking to Jessie. Republicans, ho!

Me: Good luck finding an individual black republican to lead, much less a critical mass to be led.

I realize you are just paraphrasing, so narrowing my point down to this distant and elusive goal is understood. Er, forgiven.

The larger point is that it would probably be a good idea to initiate a dialogue. Oops, see my last post on that one.

It would be great if they all turned into Republicans. If not, it would be great if they had leaders you could at least ask to visit the White House for an occasional conversation.

You know, the whole civil society thing?