Friday, June 29: Ego-related update — An attractive black reporter for Newsweek introduced himself to me last night, having recognized me from the bio page photo. It’s good to be reminded that not every black liberal hates me. 
Have a restful weekend.
———————————————
6/28 & 12:39 a.m.: Just a couple of notes before I crash. Pam Spaulding and I couldn’t be more different on social issues. For example, she’s a liberal lesbian who believes in same sex “marriage.” I’m a straight conservative who wants to protect traditional marriage. And that’s just a starting point. What we disagree about could fill volumes. (But we’ve agreed to do an annual photo together and post it on our blogs to freak people out.) When meeting people you disagree with face to face, there’s only one thing you should agree on: being civil.
All the liberal bloggers I talked to tonight were civil. Dare I say nice? Yes, they were nice people. We’re worlds apart on most issues, but hey, you can’t have everything. I had a civil conversation with Oliver Willis (we talked about religion, evolution v. Intelligent Design - amazing) and I enjoyed talking to him. Go figure!
And I’m so glad I met Faye Anderson (a conservative). She’s a doll. See what other bloggers had to say about the debate at the MBA page. I met Professor Kim and Liza Sabater, who is a liberal and a feminist, but she’s “crazy,” funny, and has a great laugh. And a cool video camera. Check her site tomorrow for videos.
I sidled up to Tavis Smiley, as I said I would, but forgot to ask about being on his show. Instead, I asked why PBS hadn’t invited conservative and/or libertarian journalists to ask candidates questions. Why all liberals? I didn’t care about the answer. I wanted to get close enough to him so my blogging pal from way back, NewsBusters’ Matt Sheffield (pictured with Smiley), could take a photo. 
Smiley seemed amused by the question. In response, he said something about being limited to only three journalists, and no matter which three you pick, you’d never satisfy everyone…you do what you can and make your selections. As he drifted away to another questioner, he looked back at me and said something like, “That’s all you can ask of anybody, right?”
I’ve got a brilliant idea for PBS. They can kill three diversity birds with one stone by selecting me to lob questions at the Republicans in September: I’m black, a woman, and a conservative!
There were a couple of funny moments during the debate that I didn’t catch. Dodd went over his time, Smiley said something to him about Paris Hilton, and then Hillary said something about Hilton. Unfortunately, I can’t recall the essence of it for you, but it was funny.
The fun part of the night began when the “debate” was over and we were free to walk around, introduce ourselves to people, take photos, make fun of the candidates, etc. As I said earlier, the place was filled with people: print journalists and bloggers on one side of a very large room, broadcast media on the other. There was one large screen in the middle and two smaller ones on the sides for us to watch the event.
Lots of VIPS in the auditorium (?) with the candidates. Well, VIPS to some people: Cornel West, writer Terry McMillan, actress Victoria Rowell, Harry Belafonte, various black congress people, and many others I can’t recall right now. A few of the VIPS came to the media room to do interviews, answer questions, and pose for photos. No Hillary or Obama, though.
One more item: When Hillary mentioned today’s Supreme Court ruling (schools cannot use race to assign students), I clapped. Out loud. I was the only one. And it felt good. 
No one mentioned illegal immigration. Not one journalist asked candidates about the defeated amnesty bill.
It’s almost 2 a.m. Time to crash. Thanks for reading.
——————————————————————————-
8:38 p.m.: I can’t imagine why conservatives are actually interested in this “debate,” but I was invited to cover it, and I accepted the invitation. Get ready for high comedy!
This place is packed with bloggers, print and broadcast media…I naively thought it would be a medium-sized gathering. It’s a hall of people. Check the event page at Media Bloggers Association for updates from other bloggers.
I got here too late for the food, though. Or the ice. Just a warm bottle of water.
Liza Sabater’s got a chat room set up. Check it out.
9:04 p.m.: The event has begun. Tom Joyner is say something about “African Americans” and “black America” and the “struggle.” Now Tavis Smiley is on. Is he married? He’s saying something I’m not listening to, and introduced a couple of teenagers. Who are they? I don’t know. Smiley just introduced Mass. gov Deval Patrick. Why is he speaking? Hey, he’s not a bad looking guy…OK, focus on the issues.
Patrick is introducing the liberals. (Senator Joe Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator John Edwards, Senator Mike Gravel, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Senator Barack Obama, and Governor Bill Richardson)
The audience in the “debate” center is going crazy. Somebody in the audience yelled, “Obama!” Was it Cornel West? Lots of VIPS in the debate center. Someone asked if race is still the most intractable issue in the 21st century? Hillary Clinton is answering the question, very loudly. She cited Brown and said race is still front and center, or some such. I guess she doesn’t realize that Brown outlawed government’s use of race in assigning students.
Biden answered the question. Not worth blogging. Bill Richardson is saying that race is not just passing new laws; race is dealing with bigotry “that still exists in this country.” He’s rambling about affirmative action. That’s race preferences to you and me.
9:19 p.m.: John Edwards is rambling about “two school systems” in the U.S.: rich and poor, blah, blah, blah. Universal health care… Obama’s up. He’s invoking Thurgood Marshall. Applause, applause.
Somebody asked about AIDS. Disproportionately higher rates in the “black community.”
9:26 p.m.: Tavis is introducing the moderators. Journalist DeWayne Wickham asked what candidates have to say about the academic achievement gap between blacks and everybody else. Biden is giving “read to your kids” advice. So glad he didn’t mention “government programs.” Broken record, Dems are. Richardson says we should pay teachers more. At-risk program. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT. Knock me off my seat!
Edwards says we should start kids in school much earlier than Kindergarten. Obama says we need to put more money into after school programs. No mention - no mention - of private solutions to the problem. Kunich said “stop funding war, start funding education!”
Chris Dodd, who praised former KKK member Robert Byrd on the Senate floor (taxpayers’ time) and didn’t get in trouble like Trent Lott did for praising Thurmond at a PRIVATE party, is rambling about early childhood ed. Hillary pulled out the “it takes a village” line. Applause!
9:43 p.m.: Sorry. I didn’t catch much of the AIDS stuff. Just “sex education,” more money, more money. Nothing about “stop screwing around,” be chaste, be responsible, accept responsibility. AIDS doesn’t just fall down from the sky, you know.
Hillary said that if white women were getting AIDS the way black women are, there’d be an outrage. She got a standing ovation for that. This whole thing is just a useless exercise in slogan throwing, one-liners, preening, preaching…
More taxes for the rich. Broken record.
What? An hour into the debate, somebody finally mentions Hurricane Katrina. Obama made the reference, but it didn’t make sense in the context of whether “we” should raise taxes on the rich.
10:00 p.m.: Bathroom break…
10:07 p.m.: I come back to some babble about Hurricane Katrina and returning displaced people to New Orleans. Obama’s talking about how the people of NO were neglected before the hurricane. Neglected by whom? The GOVERNMENT, who else?
10:15 p.m.: The topic is outsourcing. You can read the soundbites tomorrow. The bloggers are falling asleep. Clarence Page is at the next table. He’s yawning.
10:23 p.m.: Something about Africa…And the debate ended abruptly. It’s over! Did you have fun?
——————————————————————————————–
Sort-of-breaking news (3:11 p.m.): King George’s amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill returns to the trash heap from whence it came…
Supreme Decision
Though the decision is being spun as a rejection of “diversity,” the Supreme Court ruled today that schools in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington, cannot use race as a deciding factor in school assignments. (More here)
Some of you may be too young or too apathetic to recall, but the whole point of the assault on legal segregation beginning some 45 years ago — an era otherwise known as the “Civil Rights Movement” — was to get government out of the skin color business. Forty-five years after that turbulent period, the government still is in the skin color business. Somewhere along the way, in the name of skin deep-only diversity, the government decided that treating citizens differently based on race wasn’t so bad after all.
The SCOTUS blog is covering the race cases and the rest. I’ve written about the school assignment and other preferences cases here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.
I’ll have much more to say about the decision later.
Just for Laughs
As I mentioned yesterday, I’m live-blogging the Democratic presidential “debate” tonight at Howard University. I will join a group of credentialed bloggers to watch and listen to the debate from a different location (in other words, the media and the candidates won’t be in the same room). I’m told we’ll have an opportunity to ask these characters some questions afterward. I don’t trust politicians — Democrats or Republicans — and I don’t know what asking questions will accomplish. Other than more frustration for me. They’ll tell you whatever they think you want to hear. And in front of a group of mostly liberal bloggers “of color,” you can easily guess how they’ll answer.
Democrats scheduled to attend are: Senator Joe Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator John Edwards, Senator Mike Gravel, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Senator Barack Obama, and Governor Bill Richardson. I don’t want to meet any of them or take pictures of or with them. All I plan to do is mock their non-answers and obfuscations and contradictions, as well as the race-focused questions moderators will throw at them, and sidle up to Tavis Smiley, introduce myself, and offer to be a token conservative guest on his PBS show.
But in the interest of public discourse and all that, I’m opening up the floor to take your questions. Should I get the opportunity, what questions do you want me to ask the liberals?
(Photo credit: Reuters)
Update: Ha! I like this question from commenter Bill: “Please ask them: ‘Who do you say Jesus is?’”
That’s a good one for Republican candidates, too, especially Romney.
Heliotrope says: “Please ask the candidates to delineate what criteria are used to make the determination that a person is black and therefore qualified for the benefits of affirmative action. Also, at what scientific point is a person not black enough for special government benefits?”
Update II: FYI, the media will not be in the “debate” area. We’re in a separate location. Three moderators — no bloggers — will ask questions during the show. I’ve been told that the candidates will (maybe?) venture over to where we are afterward. I’ll try to get in a couple of questions, especially the one about race. Depending how many media people show up, I might have to settle for one. Or zero.
Filed under: Judiciary, MBAPBSAllAmericaDem, Pictures, Race Preferences
Why are we to respect Obama’s father Muslim background, and any statements about all Democrats faith, when Romney’s grandfather’s polygamy(or great grandfather’s polygamy) is brought into play by the Left?
I am not in favor of Romney, I just am sick and tired of the Left and the bashing of religion, except when they put on their badge of faith.
Comment by jennifer — 06.28.07 @ 2:39 pm
I guess questioning the marital status of their parents would be off limits huh??
I really don’t know what you’d want to ask a libber, you know the answer is going to be some libber BS, so honestly, why waste your valuable time??
And honestly, can you think of anything a Dem candidate could possibly say that would influence you to switch sides??
I can’t…
Comment by TexasFred — 06.28.07 @ 2:51 pm
Please ask them: “Who do you say Jesus is?”
Comment by Bill — 06.28.07 @ 2:54 pm
I wish you well, La Shawn-you might ask Obama and Clinton if they are conflicted at all by their “Christianity” being at odds with their “Politics”.
That covers many subjects-the Sovereignty of God, human life being precious as we are made in His image, whether God sees Abortion as the murder of innocents, whether they accept the Bible as inerrant in the original languages.
If you get a steady stream of “No’s” and doubletalk about a loving God not sending anyone to Hell, ask them if, as they reject the basic tenets of Christianity, why should they be trusted?
La Shawn, thanks for opening this post up for questions.
Comment by Doug — 06.28.07 @ 2:57 pm
“Enjoy” the debate La Shawn. As a former liberal who is African-American, I would like to know why/how they reconcile their support for continuing AFDC programs while supporting illegal immigration which makes it harder for low-income African-Americans to enter the workforce and state employed when they have to compete against employer bias in favor of low wage immigrants. Wouldn’t it be better to support more employment opportunities for low-income African Americans rather than illegal immigrants who compete unfairly in this labor market?
This is the issue which has pushed me out of the Democratic party this year. I just re-registered as an independent, and support Fred Thompson.
Comment by md94117 — 06.28.07 @ 3:07 pm
La Shawn, killing two birds with one stone, ask the liberals to specifically address Justice Thomas’ opinion on the race-based education case, particularly his pointed slap at Justice Breyer’s agenda of expanded legislation via judicial decree. I’d be interested to see if any liberal can articulate an opposition to Justice Thomas’ opinion on any sort of factual basis. Ok, I realize that last sentence was almost an oxymoron…. LOL
Here is a distillation of some of the more salient points in the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas, as compiled by a contributor on another blog:
Regardless of what JUSTICE BREYER’s goals might be, this Court does not sit to “create a society that includes all Americans or to solve the problems of troubled inner city schoolingâ€. Ibid. We are not social engineers. The United States Constitution dictates that local governments cannot make decisions on the basis of race. Consequently, regardless of the perceived negative effects of racial imbalance, I will not defer to legislative majorities where the Constitution forbids it.
It should escape no one that behind JUSTICE BREYER’s veil of judicial modesty hides an inflated role for the Federal Judiciary. The dissent’s approach confers on judges the power to say what sorts of discrimination are benign and which are invidious. Having made that determination (based on no objective measure that I can detect), a judge following the dissents approach will set the level of scrutiny to achieve the desired result. Only then must the judge defer to a democratic majority.
- JUSTICE BREYER’s good intentions, which I do not doubt, have the shelf life of JUSTICE BREYER’s tenure. Unlike the dissenters, I am unwilling to delegate my constitutional responsibilities to local school boards and allow them to experiment with race-based decisionmaking on the assumption that their intentions will forever remain as good as JUSTICE BREYERâ€s. See The Federalist No. 51, p. 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (â€If men were angels, no government would be necessaryâ€). Indeed, the racial theories endorsed by the Seattle school board should cause the dissenters to question whether local school boards should be entrusted with the power to make decisions on the basis of race.
The Seattle school district’s Website formerly contained the following definition of “cultural racismâ€: “Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other,†differet, less than, or render them invisible.
Examples of these norms included defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard . . . See Harrell, School Web Site Removed: Examples of Racism Sparked Controversy, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 2, 2006, p. B1. After the site was removed, the district offered the comforting clarification that the site was not intended “to hold onto unsuccessful concepts such as melting potâ€
Comment by RedBeard — 06.28.07 @ 3:15 pm
La Shawn,
I don’t like any of those candidates, or their stance on the issues, but I’ll say one thing; what an opportunity!!! Congratulations!
Jim C
Comment by Jim C — 06.28.07 @ 3:25 pm
What is your criteria for appointing a Supreme Court justice?
What is your position on Israel? Should there be a Palestinian state within the borders of Israel(despite the fact that God said in His Word that Israel belongs to the Jews)?
What is your plan in dealing with Iraq (keeping in mind that God made specific statements about the judgement of Iraq in the Bible)?
Ok, so you don’t have to include what’s in parenthesis, but since the Big 3 (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) all claim faith in God, they should know what He said.
Comment by Philip — 06.28.07 @ 3:33 pm
Looking forward to viewing your participation in the live blogging, and also to reading your take on the recent SCOTUS ruling. Kudos!
Comment by lucy — 06.28.07 @ 3:36 pm
I would sidle up to Tavis Smiley as well, as I think he’s quite handsome.
I think it’s a coup to be invited despite your opposition of their viewpoints. I think that by deciding to go and hear an opposing view, in my eyes, it builds your credibility overall as a political commentator/pundit.
Looking forward to your comments of the Supreme Court decision and hope you open comments on the post.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 06.28.07 @ 3:40 pm
LaShawn,
As a resident of the state of Illinois who has been phoning, faxing, and visiting Senator Obama’s Chicago office (twice including today) the past month, I would loooooooove for you to ask why he voted in favor of amnesty today (voted “yes” for cloture to end debate) when many citizens and LEGAL immigrants in Illinois have lost their jobs or have stagnant wages due to the influx of illegal aliens?
I’ve been asking him for the past month who he works for; American citizens and LEGAL immigrants, or illegal aliens and their supporters? I would pay to see the look on his face as he skates around this.
You are so lucky!
Comment by Cedjan — 06.28.07 @ 3:54 pm
Please ask the candidates to delineate what criteria are used to make the determination that a person is black and therefore qualified for the benefits of affirmative action. Also, at what scientific point is a person not black enough for special government benefits?
Another good one! - Admin
Comment by heliotrope — 06.28.07 @ 3:57 pm
Twice this week I have seen Hispanic supporters of the Senate amnesty bill comparing illegal aliens’ fight for amnesty with African-Americans’ struggle for civil rights. I find the comparison deeply offensive. AA’s are citizens of this country, and most AA’s have roots here that go back hundreds of years. AA’s fought in all our wars, including the American Revolutionary War.
It makes my blood boil to hear Hispanic leaders suggesting that the millions of foreigners who have snuck illegally across our borders in the past 20 years (chasing not freedom but dollars, in most cases) are somehow comparable to American citizens whose work and sacrifices — for many generations — helped build this country.
I would like to see you ask the candidates if they agree with the comparison, and if so, why they agree.
Comment by J.B. — 06.28.07 @ 4:24 pm
I am an American of Mexican heritage, my wife German-Scottish. Does our son qualify for afirmative action? Oh yeah, our annual income exceeds $150K.
Comment by Dave Chavez — 06.28.07 @ 4:26 pm
Do you think it’s okay to shove scissors in the back of a baby’s skull and suck out her brains, or to rip off her arms and legs, as long as she has not been born yet?
Insist on a yes or no answer.
And if they think that’s okay, why do we need to know anything else? They would obviously be sociopaths unfit for position of governmental authority.
Comment by ycw — 06.28.07 @ 4:27 pm
You can ask Senators Clinton, Dood and Obama their reason for supporing the Immigration bill. A little insight on this hot topic won’t hurt.
However, if you are limited to just one question then I defer to Heliotrope.
Make sure you have a camera handy, cause the look on their faces when you ask that one will be too much to pass up.
Great work.
Comment by gecko — 06.28.07 @ 4:48 pm
Since KIPP is doing such a good job, would you support the expansion of charter schools like KIPP?
Comment by jerome — 06.28.07 @ 4:53 pm
“Please ask the candidates to delineate what criteria are used to make the determination that a person is black and therefore qualified for the benefits of affirmative action. Also, at what scientific point is a person not black enough for special government benefits?â€
that gotta leave a mark. now you got the perfect question to ask
Comment by jimmytheclaw — 06.28.07 @ 5:19 pm
Lashawn, I’m a newbie even though i’ve read your blog for a year or more. I would love for you to ask this group of rich politicans (is there any other kind) if they think the house members and senators deserve the COLA increase they just gave themselves (without voting for I might add). In my opinion, they should be giving back refunds for their disgusting lack of progress on any bill of major importance. Thanks and good luck.
Comment by Michael Kelly — 06.28.07 @ 5:36 pm
I can’t think of anything that hasn’t already been proposed, but I look forward to looking for you at the debate.
Comment by Radish — 06.28.07 @ 5:57 pm
Not as good as some of the above, but
“What five books do you think every student should have read before leaving High School?”
(some picks : Gospel of Matthew; Sandberg’s “Lincoln: the War Years”; Flexner’s “Washington, the Indispensable Man”; Dickens’ “Tale of Two Cities”; Bios of Patrick Henry, John Adams, etc.)
(If any of the above questions get asked, I think the candidates are going to SQUIRM!!)
Comment by Seahawk — 06.28.07 @ 6:25 pm
“All I plan to do is mock their non-answers and obfuscations and contradictions…”
La Shawn, I have been a lurker of your blog for a short while now, initially excited to read Christian political commentary. However, with all due respect and love, you seem to a bit more harsh that I would expect a Christian to be. Moreover, the above remark bothered me enough to post for the first time. Here’s my request: if all you really plan on doing is mocking Democrats, then don’t go. You’ll merely widen the gap that exists in our ‘Us vs. Them’ minded country. Paul didn’t go to the synagogues to mock those with whom he disagreed, but instead “destroy[ed] arguments and every lofty opinion” (2 Cor: 10:5) with sound judgment and wisdom. Don’t go as the token Republican or conservative. (if a liberal came to a Republican “debate” and mocked them, conservatives would piss all over him or her for being snide) Drop the labels and instead go as someone known for her rock-solid arguments. When you speak they ought to fear the depth and precision of your questions, not cringe at the tone of your voice. Salt and light, sister.
With love & respect,
Brian
The mocking “tone” will be used for live-blogging. That should be clear in context. I do know how to comport myself, and if I get a chance to ask a question, that will be evident to all. And I seriously doubt whatever I say or write tonight or any other night would widen any gap. You’re obviously a new reader and haven’t seen me on TV or heard me on radio or read more than a handful of posts. But thanks for the advice. I love when fellow Christians “preach” at LBC. - Admin
Comment by Brian Sachs — 06.28.07 @ 6:31 pm
As a resident of the Chicagoland area and an educator in Chicago, please ask Mr. (walk on water) obama why he does not believe in supporting charter schools as a viable alternative?
Ask him about the UCC church he attends and his pal Tony Rezko.
That’s just a warm up!
You are great!! I love reading your blog.
Comment by Meg — 06.28.07 @ 6:33 pm
Tavis’s sole mission tonight will be to address the Governemnt failures in Katrina or Black America issues…. Ask the candidates how would they address the woes in education across the board, specificly for K-12 requiring national uniformed curriculum, including using English as the standard.
Comment by Tony — 06.28.07 @ 6:37 pm
Heliotrope and Bill basically asked what I wanted to say.
Comment by Marie — 06.28.07 @ 8:50 pm
Ask them which trait they share with John F Kennedy; cutting taxes, using our intelligence services against our enemies, standing boldly against the enemies of the U.S. or getting us deeper into Vietnam?
Ask Hilary what traits she shares with Bill that will hel her be a good President?
Ask Hilary and Obama why they couldn’t make any of the latest votes in the Senate. Did you support the “Immigration Bill” Yes or no, then explain…
Why after 40 years of liberal policies in education the achievement gaps still exists? And don’t say money because D.C. spends money likle water and is not getting any results.
Did you know that illegal immigraion effects Blacks disproportionately? Why does your party support illegal immigrants? You campaign co-chair Antonio Villaregosa absolutely supports illegal aliens…
Comment by Rodney — 06.28.07 @ 9:38 pm
Another Democrat yakfest…
I had forgotten about the Democrat presidential debate tonight at Howard University. Thanks to LaShawn Barber for reminding me. She is one of the few credentialed conservative bloggers at the event tonight reporting on the scene. I doubt anything real…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 06.28.07 @ 9:59 pm
Did any of our tax dollars support this gathering of oxygen-thievery?
Comment by Renee — 06.28.07 @ 10:31 pm
LaShawn:
Here is what I hope is a good, Christian question. Dt 19:16-21. It discusses the punishments to be meted out for those who accuse others falsely. Since about half of these accusations seem to center around race, and the other half on sex, it should make for some interesting answers.
BTW, the Bible specifies that a malicious witness shall suffer the same penalty that his victim would have received. It also states that “.. Your eye shall not pity..”.
Just a thought.
Dick
Comment by Dick — 06.28.07 @ 11:29 pm
La Shawn,
If only you could have asked them one question…What would you do if US intellengence had 100% CONFIRMATION that Iran was just 6 months to 1 year from getting nukes? Would love to hear them answer that question. That’s what we face with the next President!!!!!
Comment by Sparky — 06.28.07 @ 11:58 pm
LaShawn Barber live blogged this thing. Her real time reactions are worth a..
Pingback by Axis of Right — 06.29.07 @ 12:06 am
I watched the debate and took notes, and it seemed to me that some of Sen. Biden’s comments smacked of the smugly superior philosophy of the “white man’s burden” …I don’t remember verbatim what he said or when he said it, but I thought Sen. Biden’s comments about blacks and minorities kids already being “behind” even before they step foot into a classroom, or his statement alluding to the need of white people to educate the “black community” concerning health problems such as HIV and diabetes demonstrated the latent racism that exists within many of the opinions of people within the Democratic party…. Or maybe it is just me ;(
Comment by Ahnivah — 06.29.07 @ 1:07 am
LaShawn please ask John Edwards: In what America do you live?
Comment by Rodney — 06.29.07 @ 2:30 am
The United States Supreme Court made a highly controversial decision yesterday:
Pingback by Michael P.F. van der Galiën — 06.29.07 @ 7:01 am
Lashawn, it was fun chatting with you at that chat room yesterday. I hadn’t had as much fun in a long time as I did with the watching and talking at the same time.
I used to do that in high school with my friends, but on the phone, we would be watching TV and commenting at the same time. It was fun.
I think the republican party needs a makeover, I was just on Michelle Malkin’s blog about how younger voters are inclined to Obama and Clinton.
Many repulican strategists think that if Republicans start focusing too much on minorities like Democrats, it won’t work. I was hearing a guy years ago at the 2004 election that was saying that republicans should stop trying to heavily focus on getting the minorities votes.
I know many people, minorities who are more inclined to vote for republicans but get the feeling that they aren’t welcome, represented, or targeted at. Just watch all the republican gatherings on television, it stereotypically looks like “An All White Party”. Even when you watch the debates and candidates, “old white men”
Democrats are smart, they work on their style and image to attract minorities.
Republicans should do the same, to attract, minorities, youths who share the same ideals but don’t necessarily feel welcome or part of the club.
As a black person, it can be uncomfortable to be the only black person in the room or in class. and it’s just not black.
A white person won’t always feel at ease in a room full of black people. He may not be racist or against them, but because he’s different, he feels left out or uncomfortable.
It’s totally human reaction and normal.
I’m not saying that republicans start spoon feeding blacks the way we saw last night, but they just need to bring out the minority and youth voices of their parties at events, gatherings, debates ect…
Even though, Hollywood is liberal, there are a lot of people in Hollywood that are not, so let’s bring them out to reach to the hip, youth crowd.
That guy was right that republicans shouldn’t be targeting democrats.
ex: Bring in the likes of Kirk Cameron to attract the Christian youth.
Basically, they should tailor their image to people who already share the same views but don’t necessarily associate themselves to the party.
The republican party needs a makeover if they want to win in 2008.
Why is Obama getting popular, people want a new direction and freshness, life is about changes, evolution (not referring to Darwin), I’m not doing age discrimination, but we should be looking at late baby boomers (early 60’s) or early gen xers (late 60’s, ) to take over as our political leaders, not people who are out of touch with the current phase of the world, but those who are experiencing it. That’s why Obama is winning people, that’s one of the many many factors that both Kennedy and Clinton won.
Democrats are experts when it comes to style and republicans need to revamp their image, Angela McGlowan was saying the something along those lines on Oreilly months ago.
Comment by Kevin — 06.29.07 @ 7:34 am
Dear Lordy LaShawn, how did you manage to sit though all that? You should call up Hillary and Edwards and tell them it was TORTURE watching their debate, which appeared to be focused on who could give the most empty platitudes to the black community while simultaneously spewing overt racism and promoting Big Brother as the only solution for all of society’s ails.
Comment by BKennedy — 06.29.07 @ 7:52 am
La Shawn, I’m sure you sent chills up a lot of these liberals spines when you clapped for the Supreme Court ruling.
Comment by Bob — 06.29.07 @ 9:07 am
Faye Anderson?
A conservative?
Faye Anderson? The same Black woman who blasted Republicans on their outreach efforts? The same Faye Anderson who wrote an “open letter” to Republicans telling them they were wrong in their approach to getting Black voters? The same Faye Anderson who was a member of Project 21 and now clowns them?
That Faye Anderson? The same Faye Anderson I’ve used to point out Black Republicans (she was a Republican at one time) who say the GOP has a problem?
That Faye Anderson? The same Faye Anderson that many Black GOP partisans now call a liberal?
Go. Figure.
I oppose “black” outreach efforts by the GOP, but I’m in a minority. It seems that many black Republicans think the party should court blacks. Obviously, if what you say is true, Faye falls into that category. Thanks for the “revelation.” And I was once a member of Project 21, although I don’t “clown” them. If you want to add a substantive comment, I won’t hold my breath waiting. - Admin
Comment by DarkStar — 06.29.07 @ 9:16 am
Wandering Around Among Democrats …
After the debate ended, I took off to “spin alley” where the various candidates had little cattle areas underneath those vertical political convention signs. The three top candidates did not show, although Clinton and Obama managed to get pretty good…
Trackback by Ace of Spades — 06.29.07 @ 11:41 am
That supreme court decision made my day yesterday. I loved it!
I have to say though, I’m still waiting on the GOP to really get behind a black christian conservative candidate sometime in the near future for a major office run somewhere. If they did that they would get my vote. In fact, I would switch to the GOP.
One question I’d ask the GOP chairmn, why do you guys refuse to support a black conservative?
Comment by lukeNC — 06.29.07 @ 12:44 pm
No, race is the first thing they would see. Money then faith. Then again, how did Lynn Swann lose?
Comment by Tony — 06.29.07 @ 12:53 pm
How did Lynn Swann lose?
He didn’t vote in 6 state elections and then made a lame excuse that he was out of town. I guess Swannie never head of absentee ballots.
He was ignorant about abortion rulings.
His plan for aiding business growth in PA was lacking in basic details.
He played the race card at the last minute.
Lynn Swann was unprepared
Comment by jerome — 06.29.07 @ 1:02 pm
Question folks: I watched the debate. Nearly all of them said they would do something to change the laws between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. I assume there must be a difference in the prison time or something. Could someone enlighten me?
Comment by dianne — 06.29.07 @ 2:33 pm
Federal law penalizes crack cocain offenses on a 100-to-1 ratio compared to powdered cocain. Thus, a if person is caught dealing 5 grams of crack cocain, they receive the same punishment as someone dealing 500 grams of powder cocain.
The justification for this was that crack gives a more intense high being that it is smoked instead of snorted (which allegedly makes it more addictive), but crack is apparently less expensive than powder and more readily available. This makes crack more predominant in poor areas.
Another argument against the difference in sentencing is that crack is made from powder cocain.
Comment by Shade — 06.29.07 @ 3:37 pm
Shade, thanks for the explanation. I had no idea. I’m going to have to think about this one for a while.
Comment by dianne — 06.29.07 @ 4:06 pm
Having been robbed YET again, I have decided that I prefer drug abusers who pay for their own habit to the thugs in my area who break into folks homes/cars/ and snatch purses and terrorize them to get money for their drug habits.
Comment by jan b — 06.29.07 @ 4:29 pm
Ask Ms. Clinton why she believe Congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of the Gallup poll. (14% I believe!)
Comment by dexybet — 06.29.07 @ 5:43 pm
Wandering Among Democrats, Part Deux [DemPBS]…
After my talk with Tavis, I saw Barack Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod. Considering that his brother, Jim Axelrod, is a liberally biased political reporter at CBS News, I wasn’t sure what to expect. Turns out he’s a nice, soft-spoken……
Trackback by Ace of Spades HQ — 06.29.07 @ 5:45 pm
I’m still waiting on the GOP to really get behind a black christian conservative candidate sometime in the near future for a major office run somewhere.
I hope J.C. Watts comes back to national politics when he gets his ministry up and running to where it doesn’t need him every day. But I understand his priorities have shifted.
Comment by Radish — 06.29.07 @ 6:50 pm
About the crack cocaine & powder cocaine..
The first thing the far left points out is the discrepancy in the punishments for possession. I agree, there is one. However, whether it’s right or not is irrelevant.
I care nothing if someone gets 5 years or 30 years based on possessing that garbarge. Especially with intent to distribute.
Why do you have crack? Do you not know its an illegal drug? Don’t you know it leads to either death or prison? These people are selling death and destruction.
Instead of lowering the mandated sentencing for crack cocaine as the far left wants, we should instead raise the sentencing level for powder cocaine to the same level as crack cocaine.
Comment by lukeNC — 06.29.07 @ 8:55 pm
If you want to add a substantive comment, I won’t hold my breath waiting. - Admin
*ROTFL*
I find it funny that you call her conservative, but other Black conservatives are calling her liberal. It’s just another data point in my thought that people use “conservative” and “liberal” and really don’t know the definition.
But that’s just me.
I hope J.C. Watts comes back to national politics when he gets his ministry up and running to where it doesn’t need him every day. But I understand his priorities have shifted.
I hope that means he has patched things up with his oldest child.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.29.07 @ 9:56 pm
“I hope that means he has patched things up with his oldest child.”
Sometimes a heart-felt prayer takes on the appearance of a political stinkbomb thrown into the crowd by a mudslinging hit-and-run opportunist.
Comment by heliotrope — 06.30.07 @ 10:55 am
Sometimes a heart-felt prayer takes on the appearance of a political stinkbomb thrown into the crowd by a mudslinging hit-and-run opportunist.
OH, what a comment!
Tip-o-the-hat to you heliotrope!
I am a father of a son and a daughter. I’ve had my “some what grown” daughter really mad at me because of the consequences of her not meeting my standard, nor her standard, her first year of college.
The situation with his oldest is, IMO, much worse. And, frankly, I thought it spoke to his character.
I’m serious, I hope he patched things up with his child. Family is important.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.30.07 @ 2:44 pm
Helio;
Your comment reminds me of a story written by Hannah Hurnard about an ugly ephiphany she once experienced. It involved a dawning recognition that the group prayers for others that she was indulging in were nothing more than group gossip sessions gussied up in holy clothes….kinda like a heartfelt prayer undergirded with meanness.
Comment by jan b — 06.30.07 @ 2:51 pm
kinda like a heartfelt prayer undergirded with meanness
Interesting commentary…
Very telling…
Comment by DarkStar — 06.30.07 @ 3:10 pm
My apologies, DarkStar. I am gratified that your comments are sincere.
It just seemed to read something like the praise John Edwards heaped on Dick Cheney for dealing so well with his lesbian daughter. There was no context for bringing up the topic, but it did serve to get the subject out there.
Again, my apologies for having misread your pure intent.
Comment by heliotrope — 06.30.07 @ 3:27 pm
Helio, thank you.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.30.07 @ 3:32 pm
A dynamic that I have often observed: Person A makes a comment. Person B conjectures about the motivations of person A. Person A clarifies. Person B refuses to accept the clarification, certain that he/she knows more about person A’s mind/motives that Person A does. Person B holds his/her mindreading skills in very high esteem. Person B, while continually applying this unfair dynamic to others, universally rejects this dynamic [often angrily] when applied to himself/herself, however.
Helio, thanks for a lesson in elegance. True humility is a refreshing thing indeed and utterly rare.
Comment by jan b — 06.30.07 @ 4:07 pm