Which party is more successful in electing minority candidates from non-minority districts? Not Democrats. A small little embryo now, this has the potential to morph into a huge problem for Democrats down the road.
Where would the gop be without minority members to carry the water for them?
Congressman-elect Allen West (R-Fla.), who said he plans to become the only black Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus, accused the organization of failing the black community by promoting dependence on government welfare programs.
"The Congressional Black Caucus cannot continue to be a monolithic voice that promotes these liberal social welfare policies and programs that are failing in the Black community, that are preaching victimization and dependency, that's not the way that we should go," West said on Fox News Friday. "And those are not the types of principles that my mother and father raised me with in the inner city of Atlanta, Georgia."
The gop elects two a$$ clowns but the democrats have a diversity problem? I don't think so.
This means Democrats lack a bench of minority candidates who can run for statewide office, no less national office. Most Democratic minorities make a career in the House, accruing seniority and influence but lacking broad-based political support.
The prime culprit in preventing minorities from having broader appeal is the process of gerrymandering majority-minority seats. It has guaranteed blacks and Hispanics representation, but at the cost of creating seats where candidates would have to appeal to a broader constituency, white and non-white alike. For decades, such districts were judicially mandated; in the South, officials still need clearance from the Justice Department to decrease the proportion of blacks voters in a district.
So now we get to the real nitty gritty, it's them there gerrymandered majority-minority voting districts that's the problem for white folks. Newsflash! The majority-minority seats weren't created where candidates would have to appeal to a broader constituency i.e. white folks because they know the only way white folks will vote for a black candidate is if they share their political point of view. The majority-minority districts were created so black folks would have someone to represent their interest, and not let white folks decide who their leaders would be.
The logic behind gerrymandering stems from the Civil Rights era, when white voters were highly unlikely to vote for African-American candidates, so districts needed to be drawn so black voters could elect their own to Congress. It was effective—and necessary—to bring diversity to a homogeneous body. But now, the consequence of these contortions comes at great expense to Democrats and civil rights leaders alike.
It's not consequences of these contortions that come at a great expense to Democrats and civil rights leaders, it's the consequences of white folks who would rather lose than stand with black folks.
“It’s not in the best interests of Southern voters, it’s certainly not in the interest of people who want a non-racial politics focused on substance and identity, and the content of a candidate’s character, not the color of their skin,” said outgoing Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a centrist black congressman who lost his state’s gubernatorial primary this year.
I guess it depends on what the definition of a non-racial politics focused on substance and identity IS considering His 7th District gave Barack Obama nearly 73 percent of the vote in 2008.
Davis' majority black congressional district in Alabama is one of the poorest in the country, boasts the state's highest HIV/AIDS rates and is the epicenter of the state's syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia epidemic, "among the highest in the country", reports WKRG.
Says Davis of his vote against expanding health care to his district's poor and low income residents: "I just don't see this as a racial vote or a racial issue."
Of course it isn't. Priorities, priorities ...
Davis and his ilk are a scourge, they shortchange their constituents to be better accepted by white conservatives.
Apparently, history means nothing, disparities in education, housing, health, crime, economics in the black community are not significant enough to tackle for a politician whose campaign was "never about race".
Never about race my Donkey. It's all about race. It's always about race. Davis tried to ride Obama's coat tails to the governors mansion while stabbing him in the back. White Alabama democrats and conservatives saw his candidacy as symbolic, a way to make America forget about Alabama's shameful racial history. In other words they wanted to put a black face on the problem then claim they were moving forward on substance.
In one of the reddest of the red states, Sparks ran an issue-oriented campaign that offered solutions to the hopes and fears of voters threatened by further job loss and inadequate health care. Voters were enticed by Sparks advocacy of gambling as a job-creator and source of government funding. And, most recently, many feared the horror of the BP's oil drilling catastrophe.
Furthermore, significant segments of the Democratic base suspected Davis of making self-serving deals with their Republican enemies to help his own career.
Some white Alabama democrats and conservatives saw Davis's candidacy as symbolic, a way to make America forget about Alabama's shameful racial history. In other words they wanted to put a black face on the problem then claim they were moving forward on substance.
There is no nice way to say this, so I'm going to be blunt, Artur Davis was who the conservative wing of the democratic party wanted to be the defacto leader of African Americans instead of Joe Reed. In other words, they were so busy trying to screw Joe Reed they screwed themselves right out of the majority in Alabama State Legislature.
Artur Davis has to walk the fine line in this campaign: convince the big middle of the electorate to judge him on the issues -- he's a fairly moderate reformer with broad appeal -- without turning off voters who may have followed Joe Reed's advice in the past. He needs to convince those voters to judge him on the issues instead of listening to Reed's advice.
What's the problem with listening to Reed's advice you ask? Well for one thing, he's largely responsible for creating them there gerrymandered majority-minority voting districts in Alabama which gave black Alabama taxpayers representation in the legislature and the United States House of Representatives. Reed has spent his life fighting for black representation, Davis has spent his taking advantage of Reeds work. This was a move to replace Reed, who fights for the rights of black folks, teachers, unions, etc. with Davis who goes along to get along and is not threatening to the white power structure.
Long time, respected Alabama Civil Rights Attorney Jerome Grey breaks it down in relation to Bombinghams contested District 54 election between Patrica Todd and
Gaynell Hendricks.
In 2000, the district was drawn with a 63 percent black majority. In the years since, gentrification has shrunk that proportion, and some estimate the current black population at about 50 percent. In his letter endorsing Hendricks, [Joe] Reed warned black community leaders that if they elected a white candidate, the district could be redrawn without a black majority.
“If a district became a Republican district, Republicans would fight like the dickens to keep the district Republican,” said Jerome Gray, field Director for the ADC. “The same is true if a district is majority black. Black activists and black leaders are going to fight for the dickens to keep it majority black.”
While some have attacked the ADC’s stance as reverse racism, Gray said that white Democrats simply will not spearhead the same issues as their black counterparts. He gave the restoration of felony voting rights as an example.
And there you have it. Black activist and black leaders are going to fight for our rights. The question is will white democrats fight with us or fight against us?
