Senator Bigot

[hermit22]

Well, he's resigning as Majority Leader, so it's all over anyway.

And as for affirmative action - I've been generally on the fence on the whole thing for the past few years, but when I read this study , I felt I had no choice but to move myself in favor of it. The authors of the study sent out resumes with "black sounding" names and "white sounding" names and found that the black names got significantly lower callbacks than the white ones. In addition, when the credentials on the resume were increased, this made little difference for the black candidates, but a significant impact on white ones.

Of course, it doesn't prove that the owners of the business were racist, but it does show that there is still an economic disparity.

I know this isn't necessarily on topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Thread hijacking, here we come!

[99 44/100% pure]

hermit, thanks for the update. Now that we won't have Trent to kick around anymore, it might be interesting to look at the many and varied ways folks reacted to this story.

I'm particularly amused by James Carville's forgiveness of Senator Lott. Now, I know Carville is an important talking head and all (and, my goodness, just look at the size of that melon, wouldja?) but, who, exactly, is entitled to 'forgive' a public figure who sticks his foot in his mouth?

Should I be sending my words of consolation to the Senator? Or how about the melanin-enhanced residents of the great state of South Carolina, who have endured the representation of Sen. Thurmond for 48 years? Do they get to 'forgive' Trent Lott?

[Undertoad]

Carville's move was calculated, despite what he said. I think it was a signal to his side to say this is a win-win situation and don't you dare get caught up in the lose-lose tornado. Step back and let it play out.

[warch]

Carville's move was calculated

Agree!
What about John Lewis? I believe he's sincere, yet savvy, managing to show the Dems the best play.

[Undertoad]

Oh yeah, he was also a winner in it, coming off gracious.

Now, dare one say "This nation's in for a good Fristing" or is that going too far?

[MaggieL]

<blockquote><i>
The momentum that ended in Trent Lott's resignation yesterday as the Senate majority leader did not, primarily, come from the traditional behemoths of the US media - the New York Times, the Washington Post and the main TV news networks.

Instead, the controversy has proved a defining moment for the vibrant online culture of weblogs - nimble, constantly updated, opinion-driven internet journals, freed from many of the constraints of the established media...
</blockquote></i>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...864036,00.html

[elSicomoro]

I watched Lott on BET the other night...

I want to believe that he really is sorry for what he said. That he has no ill will towards minorities. That he actually believes in affirmative action and feels bad about voting against the King holiday. Not to mention, to be fair, he never specifically said anything regarding race...I didn't hear anything like, "If Strom had been elected president, we wouldn't have to cater to these fucking niggers!"

In the end, I think he's an "accidental racist." As in, "Oh, I have no problem with black people, just those fucking niggers." His past speaks for itself to me. And I think he's sorry only b/c he blew off the whole deal initially. Any chance of the Republicans pulling more than 9% of the African-American vote are gone for probably a decade.

Fuck the Majority Leader b.s...he should have resigned his Senate seat...what a crackhead.

I think two other important issues came out of all this...

1--The black vote is not to be fucked with. Notice how quickly some Republicans denounced the remarks. The GOP wants the minority vote, and the black vote is probably the most organized of the minorities in this country, except for maybe the Jews (if you classify them as a minority).

2--Though we have made great strides since the days of Jim Crow, we still have a great distance to travel to achieve equality among all peoples.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Ah the Senate... home of the most serious career politicians in the world, for whom nothing is not political. What a lovely bunch.

We must have been on a similar wavelength the other day, UT...

Last week, I learned that Jim Talent (who defeated Jean Carnahan in Missouri's special Senate election) has already been sworn in...the last week of November, IIRC.

That guy must be jonesing to have a political position. He served as a Congressman in St. Louis County for several years before running for governor 2 years ago...he lost, obviously. Now he's a Senator. With examples like Kennedy, Byrd, Helms, and Thurmond, he'll never want to leave.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by sycamore
Any chance of the Republicans pulling more than 9% of the African-American vote are gone for probably a decade.

Heh. Like there was any chance of that even before the recent unpleasantness with Mr. Lott?

The black vote is not to be fucked with.

The black vote can be fucked with with impunity, Syc.

To the extent that there is a monolithic "black vote", that vote is firmly in the hip pockets of the Democrats. The Democrats know that, and so do the Republicans. And you know what? The Republicans don't care.

Let's face it: blacks are only, what... 11% to 12% of the total US population? And if current trends in immigration and in the birth rate among Hispanics remain constant, that percentage will decline.

Moreover, voter turnout among blacks is even lower than the already abysmal average for Americans who can't be bothered to drag their sorry asses to a polling place once every two years. For reasons I'm not sure anybody understands (and for our purpose here they really don't matter), blacks just don't vote in large numbers.

Do you know what the Republicans learned from the last two elections? They learned that they don't need the black vote to win.

The DNC-NAACP Axis of Evil came out swinging with everything they had back in 2000, and they still couldn't get the Gore Robot elected. Hell, he couldn't even carry his home state.

Last month, the local "black establishment" down here worked itself into a frenzy trying to get Bobby Kennedy's daughter elected governor of one of the most solidly Democratic states in the nation. And they couldn't crack the nut. Maryland has a shiny new Republican governor for the first time in over 30 years.

Those are just two examples, but I think you see where I'm going with this.

The black vote doesn't matter, Syc. I'm not sure it ever did. It's the Hispanic vote that causes pollsters and political strategists to wake up screaming and drenched in cold sweat.

Jesus! If those people ever figure out where the polling place is, we'll all be in trouble!

[Undertoad]

But they have to keep trying, because if they do it'll cause the biggest sea change since that southern shift. But what's strange about it all is how it probably won't shift off 50-50 even if it happens.

Both parties have to relentlessly poll and take positions based on what the electorate is thinking at any given moment so that they stay 50-50.

And y'know what: partly as a result, we have the same politics regarding race relations that we have had for decades. The problems shift faster than the politics.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

The DNC-NAACP Axis of Evil came out swinging with everything they had back in 2000, and they still couldn't get the Gore Robot elected. Hell, he couldn't even carry his home state.

Gore's gun prohibitionist policies did not help him at all in that election. And the Dem's "firmly in hip pocket" attitude about gay and lesbians was clearly illustrated when "don't ask don't tell" Clinton showed his true colors once in office.

[elSicomoro]

From what I saw, it looked like Townsend ran a crappy campaign to begin with. Add a budget deficit and Glendening's screw-arounds during his last years in office, and I'm not surprised a Republican will be chilling in Annapolis in January.

Blacks currently make up 12.3%, while those of Hispanic origin make up 12.5%. (Source)

I agree with you on the Hispanic factor to a point. Because of the various nationalities, I don't think they will ever be cohesive as a whole. I do see various groups pulling together regionally (e.g. Cubans in South Florida, Dominicans in NYC, etc.).

I disagree with you on the power of the black vote though. Let's use a short sketch...in this sketch, you are white and I am black:

HB: Syc, we need a 5th player for our basketball team.

Syc: Well, I'm not sure...I have some grievances from the last time we did this...

HB: There are no grievances to discuss...come on! Join the team!

Syc: Fuck you then...I ain't playing.

HB: But if you don't play, we can't form the team and join the league.

Syc: Too bad.

The black vote, IMO, is a swing factor for the Dems. And if the Census estimates are near target, the white population is shrinking, while the black population is staying steady, and the Hispanic population is growing quickly. And White males are the bread and butter of the GOP, it seems. Given that Dubya and the GOP want to be "conservatives that care," I would imagine that they would like nothing more than to roll up some more folks like J.C. Watts, Ward Connelly, and Alan Keyes.

22 years ago, then Rep. Trent Lott made a very similar comment about Thurmond when the two attended a rally for Reagan. Admittedly, I was only a 5-year old then, but can anyone here remember this comment being said back then? Was there as big of a furor over it as there was for the current controversy? I doubt it, which IMO reflects two things about the current shenanigans:

--The increased "power" of blacks in this country
--A stronger desire for the GOP to be an "all-inclusive" party

And even though blacks seem squarely behind the Dems right now, I'm not so sure that will be the case in the future. Based only on what I've seen in the past few years, there are more black conservatives out there than I would have expected. And that the GOP actually got 9% of the black vote is surprising to me (I don't know what the historical numbers are). I don't see them all running down to the Board of Election Commissioners to change their party affiliation, but I sense that the younger generation wishes to forge a new path...they won't go with the Republicans, but they're not happy with the Dems, either.

[99 44/100% pure]

I didn’t have time to reply to Hubris Boy before taking off for the weekend, but I was sure I’d see some refutation of some his more specious statements upon my return. I know that HB has a sterling reputation for having some solid data behind his points, but I’m afraid cognitive dissonance may have obscured some of the information which informed his most recent post re. black voter turnout and voting trends, insofar as they affect party politics, both nationally and in the state of Maryland.

Heh. Like there was any chance of that [Republicans getting more than 9% of the vote in a national election] even before the recent unpleasantness with Mr. Lott?

Well, as it happens, the Republican party has already received more than 9% of the vote in a presidential election, in fact, in every presidential election from Carter in ’76 through Clinton in ’96, 9% or more of voting blacks have voted for the Republican candidate.

Let's face it: blacks are only, what... 11% to 12% of the total US population? And if current trends in immigration and in the birth rate among Hispanics remain constant, that percentage will decline . . . . It's the Hispanic vote that causes pollsters and political strategists to wake up screaming and drenched in cold sweat.

In 2000, blacks made up 12.3% of population, but 12.9% of the eligible voters. But HB is right; the hispanic population is growing at a much faster rate. While they currently vote at a lesser rate than both blacks and whites, they vote Republican far more frequently than blacks, so Republicans ought to be able to capitalize on this demographic trend, rather than running scared.

For reasons I'm not sure anybody understands (and for our purpose here they really don't matter), blacks just don't vote in large numbers.

While the overall rate of voter participation (in presidential elections) is steadily declining, the rate for whites is declining at a much faster rate than that of blacks.

As to why blacks don’t vote at the same rate as whites, a concise chronology might help to illuminate:
Nearly universal inability to vote during slavery era;
General inability to vote during reconstruction era;
Extreme difficulty voting during Jim Crow era;
Post-segregation impediments such as grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests.

I would wager that had the majority of whites in this country been subjected to these conditions, they would currently be less politically organized and would vote at lesser rates, as well.

Last month, the local "black establishment" down here worked itself into a frenzy trying to get Bobby Kennedy's daughter elected governor of one of the most solidly Democratic states in the nation. And they couldn't crack the nut. Maryland has a shiny new Republican governor for the first time in over 30 years.

and

To the extent that there is a monolithic "black vote", that vote is firmly in the hip pockets of the Democrats. The Democrats know that, and so do the Republicans. And you know what? The Republicans don't care.

HB, you and I both know that Republican Ehrlich won the election because his opponent, Kennedy-Townsend, was an unparalleled doofus. What you fail to note is that the Republican party had the savvy to run the first ever black candidate for Maryland lieutenant governor on their ticket. As a result, the 3 majority black/Democratic jurisdictions in Maryland voted republican 29% in 2002, as opposed to 22.3% in 2000. In fact, Maryland will soon swear in its shiny new Republican governor precisely because they saw that the “black vote” was not guaranteed to the Democrats, and they did care. A lot. And, if they’re smart, they’ll continue to care; they’ve probably maximized their return on the white vote and get greater marginal utility out of campaign dollars by targeting blacks and hispanics.

Sorry to drone on, but voter demographics happens to be a hobby of mine.

Thanks for listening.

[Hubris Boy]

Well, well... a new playmate here in the sandbox! Welcome, welcome!

originally posted by 99 44/100% pure
I didn’t have time to reply to Hubris Boy before taking off for the weekend, but I was sure I’d see some refutation of some his more specious statements upon my return.

Hubris Boy doesn't make specious statements, as we shall soon see.

Well, as it happens, the Republican party has already received more than 9% of the vote in a presidential election, in fact, in every presidential election from Carter in ’76 through Clinton in ’96, 9% or more of voting blacks have voted for the Republican candidate.

I was thinking about the most recent presidential election, when the Republicans received only 8 percent of the black vote. I was also thinking about the future, and I stand by my prediction that fewer than 9% of black voters will vote Republican in 2004.

I didn't consider any elections earlier than the last one. You may be right, that more than 9% of black voters weren't stupid enough to vote for Carter or Mondale or Dukakis. I don't know. If you say it's true, I certainly believe you.

In 2000, blacks made up 12.3% of population, but 12.9% of the eligible voters.

Well, I was more worried about readability than I was about the digits to the right of the decimal point but, hey... if you have to dig that deep in search of something to refute in my post, it's cool with me. I'll let you have that other 3/10s of 1 percent, if it'll make you feel better.

But HB is right; the hispanic population is growing at a much faster rate. While they currently vote at a lesser rate than both blacks and whites, they vote Republican far more frequently than blacks, so Republicans ought to be able to capitalize on this demographic trend, rather than running scared.

I never said otherwise. Actually, I didn't say anything at all about voting trends among Hispanics. But since you mention it, yeah... everything I've read suggests that Republican strategists are beside themselves with delight over all those nice, conservative, Catholic, Hispanic potential voters who now make America their home. Voters whose strength and numbers will serve only to further marginalize the importance of the "black vote".

HB, you and I both know that Republican Ehrlich won the election because his opponent, Kennedy-Townsend, was an unparalleled doofus.

I know nothing of the sort, and neither do you. What I do know is that the Democrats, relying heavily on black majorities in Prince George's County and Baltimore City, failed to get their candidate elected in one of the most solidly Democratic states in the nation. That's what I know.

As a result, the 3 majority black/Democratic jurisdictions in Maryland voted republican 29% in 2002, as opposed to 22.3% in 2000.

I was only aware of two majority black jurisdictions in Maryland: Baltimore City and PG County. What's the third? More importantly, what's your point? Even PG County and Baltimore City have some Republicans and some white people living in them.

What you fail to note is that the Republican party had the savvy to run the first ever black candidate for Maryland lieutenant governor on their ticket.

Mr. Steele's race had nothing to do with his selection as Mr. Ehrlich's running mate for lieutenant governor. He was chosen solely on the basis of his qualifications. And if you dare to suggest otherwise, I'll brand you as a racist and demand that you immediately resign from any public office you may hold.

...they’ve probably maximized their return on the white vote and get greater marginal utility out of campaign dollars by targeting blacks and hispanics.

I think you're absolutely right about the Hispanics; I think you're dead wrong about the "black vote". Until the "black vote" gets tired of being the Stand-by Saturday Night Fuck Date for the DNC, they're going to stay right there in that nice, cozy hip pocket.

And so, Hubris Boy's sterling reputation remains untarnished... indeed, becomes shinier and more lustrous with every passing day.

By the way... I really dig your writing style, and the fact that you can spell and compose a coherent sentence. I also really liked the cookies you and the girls left out on the counter for me earlier. Glad you're here. Honey.

p.s.
I've known ever since you posted the lyrics to National Brotherhood Week

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by hermit22
Well, he's resigning as Majority Leader, so it's all over anyway.

And as for affirmative action - I've been generally on the fence on the whole thing for the past few years, but when I read this study , I felt I had no choice but to move myself in favor of it. The authors of the study sent out resumes with "black sounding" names and "white sounding" names and found that the black names got significantly lower callbacks than the white ones. In addition, when the credentials on the resume were increased, this made little difference for the black candidates, but a significant impact on white ones.

Of course, it doesn't prove that the owners of the business were racist, but it does show that there is still an economic disparity.

I know this isn't necessarily on topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Thread hijacking, here we come!

Also, there is the "profiling by addresses" on the resumes as well.

Heh, I'm sure that at some of the jobs that I've applied for in my lifetime, there were a couple where the interviewer was surprised to see my black face walk into the office (seeing as though my speaking voice on the phone doesn't sound typically "black").

No, I don't have definitive proof, but I just know how I feel about that issue.