Should the GOP in 2010 and 2012 spend time and money trying to attract Black voters? If I were forced to give a one-word answer right now, it would be: No.
In 2008, Obama carried 95% of the Black vote. If I had a crystal ball, I'd predict (and be right) that Obama's share of the Black vote will be roughly . . . 95%.
In 2006, three outstanding Black candidates, Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, and Michael Steele in Maryland, ran for high offices (two for Gov. and one for the U.S. Senate). They ran against white candidates, none of whom was exactly Abraham Lincoln.
How did those fine Black candidates do with Black voters? Very poorly. In PA, Democrat Govenor Rendell paid top-dollar (half-a-million-dollars in Philly alone) to precinct "leaders." Rendell won the Black precincts in Philly by huge margins.
One of my Black friends suggested that the GOP should establish store-front operations in depressed areas, as the liberals have. My question about those store-front operations is this: what exactly have they accomplished for the Black communities?
When Ed Rendell first ran for Governor of Pennsylvania, he touted something known as "The Philadelphia Miracle." Apparently, the miracle was that Philly was still classified as a city.
Consider this: In Philly, the murder rate is off the charts, the schools are in disarray, and the unemployment rate is high. But the good Black folks of Philly go merrily along voting for the same people who put them in their current pickle. Philly is about one-fifth the size of New York, but in 2009 the number of murders in "the city of brotherly love" may top that of the Big Apple.
There are people out there (not enough, though) like Larry Elder, who are willing to speak some hard truths to Black voters. I hope they are successful, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Bill Cosby tried in the last generation, and all he got was a bunch of blank stares.
Yeah, I'm angry at most Black voters. They seem to have to lost touch with reality and essentially offered their votes to the highest bidder. That's bad for America and bad for the communities, because the handouts delay the actions that are necessary to bring about real . . . change.
Showing posts with label Lynn Swann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lynn Swann. Show all posts
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bogus Poll Shows White Prejudice
This is an exchange that occurred on the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo. The following is information from a poll supposedly showing that Blacks are less prejudiced than Whites. I vigorously refute the poll in the material below (in boldface).
Poll shows gap between blacks and whites over racial discrimination
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) — Since the nation's birth, Americans have discussed race and avoided it, organized neighborhoods and political movements around it, and used it to divide and hurt people even as relations have improved dramatically since the days of slavery, Reconstruction and legal segregation.
Now, in what could be a historic year for a black presidential candidate, a new Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, conducted with Stanford University, shows just how wide a gap remains between whites and blacks. It shows that a substantial portion of white Americans still harbor negative feelings toward blacks. It shows that blacks and whites disagree tremendously on how much racial prejudice exists, whose fault it is and how much influence blacks have in politics. One result is that Barack Obama's path to the presidency is steeper than it would be if he were white.
The following is my response to this highly suspect "poll"
This poll (by Stanford and the AP) is mainly bogus. What matters most is not racial attitudes, an extremely complex subject, but rather behavior. What people do is much more important than what they say in response to vague poll questions. The good people at Stanford and the AP ignore that important distinction.
For example, right now, it appears that as many as 90% of Blacks are going to vote for Barack Obama, at least partly because of the mistaken impression that Obama (who's 50% Caucasian and 40% Arab) is somehow a "Black man."
On the other hand, as perhaps 40% of white voters will also vote for Obama. And somehow this means that it's WHITE people who are deeply prejudiced -- while Blacks are less so?
That makes absolutely no sense, except perhaps to political elitists who start out with preposterous assumptions about our world. If prejudice is so deeply ingrained in white society, why are tens of millions of Caucasians ready to vote for the self-styled Black candidate? Why are so few "unprejudiced" Blacks ready to vote for a white war hero and man notable for his Independent thinking?
In the Stanford poll, somehow two plus two comes up six -- or seven -- and the Associated Press is okay with that.
Be very skeptical when you read polls. When the MSM or left-winger pollsters blow smoke at you, don't pretend it's lavender scent.
In my own state of PA in 2006, a Black man, Lynn Swann, ran for Governor as a Republican. He got nearly 50% of the white vote, but he lost badly in the Black community. Something similar happened to Black Republican Ken Blackwell in Ohio -- and Black Republican Michael Steele in Maryland
There may have been prejudices of various kinds in those elections, but it was not primarily demonstrated by Caucasians. I voted for Lynn Swann and so did my wife and daughter.
What's the difference between a Black thug and a White thug? Nothing.
Feel free to attribute this to me if you use it.
steve maloney
ambridge, pa
Poll shows gap between blacks and whites over racial discrimination
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) — Since the nation's birth, Americans have discussed race and avoided it, organized neighborhoods and political movements around it, and used it to divide and hurt people even as relations have improved dramatically since the days of slavery, Reconstruction and legal segregation.
Now, in what could be a historic year for a black presidential candidate, a new Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, conducted with Stanford University, shows just how wide a gap remains between whites and blacks. It shows that a substantial portion of white Americans still harbor negative feelings toward blacks. It shows that blacks and whites disagree tremendously on how much racial prejudice exists, whose fault it is and how much influence blacks have in politics. One result is that Barack Obama's path to the presidency is steeper than it would be if he were white.
The following is my response to this highly suspect "poll"
This poll (by Stanford and the AP) is mainly bogus. What matters most is not racial attitudes, an extremely complex subject, but rather behavior. What people do is much more important than what they say in response to vague poll questions. The good people at Stanford and the AP ignore that important distinction.
For example, right now, it appears that as many as 90% of Blacks are going to vote for Barack Obama, at least partly because of the mistaken impression that Obama (who's 50% Caucasian and 40% Arab) is somehow a "Black man."
On the other hand, as perhaps 40% of white voters will also vote for Obama. And somehow this means that it's WHITE people who are deeply prejudiced -- while Blacks are less so?
That makes absolutely no sense, except perhaps to political elitists who start out with preposterous assumptions about our world. If prejudice is so deeply ingrained in white society, why are tens of millions of Caucasians ready to vote for the self-styled Black candidate? Why are so few "unprejudiced" Blacks ready to vote for a white war hero and man notable for his Independent thinking?
In the Stanford poll, somehow two plus two comes up six -- or seven -- and the Associated Press is okay with that.
Be very skeptical when you read polls. When the MSM or left-winger pollsters blow smoke at you, don't pretend it's lavender scent.
In my own state of PA in 2006, a Black man, Lynn Swann, ran for Governor as a Republican. He got nearly 50% of the white vote, but he lost badly in the Black community. Something similar happened to Black Republican Ken Blackwell in Ohio -- and Black Republican Michael Steele in Maryland
There may have been prejudices of various kinds in those elections, but it was not primarily demonstrated by Caucasians. I voted for Lynn Swann and so did my wife and daughter.
What's the difference between a Black thug and a White thug? Nothing.
Feel free to attribute this to me if you use it.
steve maloney
ambridge, pa
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Racism, Vote-Buying in Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania Democratic politics, vote-buying and racism are "time-honored" traditions. In the 2006 gubernatorial race, Democrat Ed Rendell sent out $740,000 in so-called "walking around money," mainly to Black districts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (source: The Almanac of American Politics, p. 1378, 2008 edition). Was this money used to buy votes? I'm "shocked, shocked" to hear that you think so. In his campaign (against Republican Lynn Swann)., Rendell ran commercials against his African-American opponent. Some of the TV ads were in black-and-white and slow motion. They made Swann, an NFL-Hall-of-Fame football player and national sports reporter, look like a numbers runner in Harlem in the 1940s. For those of you who don't pay a lot of attention to Pennsylvania politics, this is probably the first time you're hearing these stories. It's par for the course in our state -- and so are the payoffs by the Obama Campaign for "services rendered" by Congressmen Patrick Murphy and Jason Altmire. In PA Democratic politics, money talks . . . a blue-state streak.
Exactly how much "walking around money" does Barack Obama intend to pour into Philadelphia, Pittsburgh (and don't forget Harrsiburg and Lancaster!)? Since Obama has gone back on his word to accept public financing, he will have perhaps a half-billion dollars (!!!) to play around with. That should make the vote-buyers and street corner "consultants" in urban Pennsylvania very happy. On the question of "how much?" perhaps one of our intrepid PA journalists might ask him? But that may be asking too much.
The rest of this column, about two Pennsylvania representatives who sold out to Barack Obama, Jason Altmire and Patrick Murphy, is on my Pennsylvania blog. I hope you'll visit. (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/)
Exactly how much "walking around money" does Barack Obama intend to pour into Philadelphia, Pittsburgh (and don't forget Harrsiburg and Lancaster!)? Since Obama has gone back on his word to accept public financing, he will have perhaps a half-billion dollars (!!!) to play around with. That should make the vote-buyers and street corner "consultants" in urban Pennsylvania very happy. On the question of "how much?" perhaps one of our intrepid PA journalists might ask him? But that may be asking too much.
The rest of this column, about two Pennsylvania representatives who sold out to Barack Obama, Jason Altmire and Patrick Murphy, is on my Pennsylvania blog. I hope you'll visit. (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/)
Friday, January 18, 2008
CONSERVATIVE BLACK REPUBLICANS: AMAZING GRACE
The National Black Republicans Association (NBRA) released today the following essay by Frances Rice:
Democrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power.
The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton's racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat. In the black community, people are outraged about how Democrat demagogues, including Billionaire Bob Johnson of BET, are treating Obama as an "uppity Negro" who dares to defy their white Democratic Party masters.
Prior to the Clinton-Obama hullabaloo over Senator Clinton's disparaging remark about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Clinton campaign was being given a pass for using racial slurs against Senator Obama.
When Democrats called Senator Obama a "Magic Negro," there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a "Simple Sambo" and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant "Mammy", reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of "Jim Crow."
Any Republican using such slanderous tactics against blacks would be castigated as a racist and destroyed politically.
If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton's remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it.
To fully appreciate the significance of this possible historical turning point, we must pause to examine briefly the Democratic Party's sordid racist history.
Click here to view the full article.
As many of you know, I'm a major advocate of getting more African-Americans to vote for conservative Republican candidates. The NBRA is a major force in making that happen. The following is my response to Frances Rice's piece:
Frances Rice's piece is outstanding, and it demonstrates why conservatives of any color need to fight the effort to keep Blacks in a state of political bondage. Hillary Clinton and her supporters, including Bob Johnston, have determined that now is the time to "go negative." You are seeing subtle efforts to portray Mrs. Clinton as not only the "female candidate," but also as the "white candidate."
But don't liberal Democrats "love Black people?" Not exactly. They love the votes more than they love the individuals who cast ballots. Four years later they show up, brag about a few short-term handouts, and ask (demand) the votes again.
Frances Rice mentions the slurs against Michael Steele, a great candidate and a wonderful man, and Condoleeza Rice. Similar slurs were made against Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Lynn Swann, candidate for governor in PA. In Swann's case, Gov. Ed Rendell (who supposed "loves" Black people) ran campaign ads -- in black-and-white -- that sought to portray Lynn as some sort of unsavory character out of an old Steppin Fetchitt movie. Gee, did anyone (besides me) call Rendell on this? Nope.
Yes, I am Caucasian, but I do understand how difficult it must be at time for Black conservatives to sustain their efforts. But it's absolutely essential to make sure that great candidates like Steele, Blackwell, and Swann ultimately prevail. Your peers might not thank you now, but your children and grandchildren surely will.God bless all of you who are doing the "heavy lifting." It will pay dividends.
I intend to reprint the short of version of Frances Rice's piece on my blog. I also urge people of all races to join conservative Black groups (such as the ones in Yahoo Groups) and do everything possible to support their efforts. If you can, please make financial contributions to Black conservatives. Thanks!
DEMOCRATS AND RACIAL POLITICS: FROM JIM CROW
TO BARACK OBAMA
By Frances RiceDemocrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power.
The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton's racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat. In the black community, people are outraged about how Democrat demagogues, including Billionaire Bob Johnson of BET, are treating Obama as an "uppity Negro" who dares to defy their white Democratic Party masters.
Prior to the Clinton-Obama hullabaloo over Senator Clinton's disparaging remark about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Clinton campaign was being given a pass for using racial slurs against Senator Obama.
When Democrats called Senator Obama a "Magic Negro," there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a "Simple Sambo" and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant "Mammy", reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of "Jim Crow."
Any Republican using such slanderous tactics against blacks would be castigated as a racist and destroyed politically.
If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton's remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it.
To fully appreciate the significance of this possible historical turning point, we must pause to examine briefly the Democratic Party's sordid racist history.
Click here to view the full article.
As many of you know, I'm a major advocate of getting more African-Americans to vote for conservative Republican candidates. The NBRA is a major force in making that happen. The following is my response to Frances Rice's piece:
Frances Rice's piece is outstanding, and it demonstrates why conservatives of any color need to fight the effort to keep Blacks in a state of political bondage. Hillary Clinton and her supporters, including Bob Johnston, have determined that now is the time to "go negative." You are seeing subtle efforts to portray Mrs. Clinton as not only the "female candidate," but also as the "white candidate."
But don't liberal Democrats "love Black people?" Not exactly. They love the votes more than they love the individuals who cast ballots. Four years later they show up, brag about a few short-term handouts, and ask (demand) the votes again.
Frances Rice mentions the slurs against Michael Steele, a great candidate and a wonderful man, and Condoleeza Rice. Similar slurs were made against Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Lynn Swann, candidate for governor in PA. In Swann's case, Gov. Ed Rendell (who supposed "loves" Black people) ran campaign ads -- in black-and-white -- that sought to portray Lynn as some sort of unsavory character out of an old Steppin Fetchitt movie. Gee, did anyone (besides me) call Rendell on this? Nope.
Yes, I am Caucasian, but I do understand how difficult it must be at time for Black conservatives to sustain their efforts. But it's absolutely essential to make sure that great candidates like Steele, Blackwell, and Swann ultimately prevail. Your peers might not thank you now, but your children and grandchildren surely will.God bless all of you who are doing the "heavy lifting." It will pay dividends.
I intend to reprint the short of version of Frances Rice's piece on my blog. I also urge people of all races to join conservative Black groups (such as the ones in Yahoo Groups) and do everything possible to support their efforts. If you can, please make financial contributions to Black conservatives. Thanks!
IS JOHN MCCAIN A (SHUDDER!) LIBERAL?
In response to Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK) endorsing John McCain, some of the dear folks on the "Conservative Americans" Group at Yahoo are proclaiming their latest mantra: that, in their "opinion," McCain is a liberal. As you'll see below, I begged to differ. (Note: Tom Coburn is in many ways the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate.)
The problem is that whether one is a conservative or not doesn't depend on some half-baked emotional response. There are rating systems, including the one from the American Conservative Union (and liberal counterparts such as the ADA and the ACLU) that indicate a person's conservatism. In the latest ACU ratings, Coburn got 100%, which is an "A" in conservatism. McCain's rating in a recent year was 80%, which is a good solid "B." Obama's ranking was zero, an "F," and Hillary Clinton's was also zero, again an "F." Yes, McCain who has always opposed abortion and opposes earmarks and opposes tax cuts without decreases in spending and supports a strong national defense is a staunch conservative. The good folks on conservative Americans can believe McCain is a liberal, just as they can believe two plus two equals five or that the moon consists of bagels and cream cheese. There are a fine old saying: "You have a right to your own opinions, but you don't have a right to your own facts." When people ignore the facts, we should smile -- and dismiss their silly "opinions."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
