A reader posed an intriguing and provocative question to syndicated columnist Larry Meeks, whose ETHNICALLY SPEAKING column appears in many newspapers across the nation. He was asked why any Democratic candidate should waste their resources campaigning in the African-American community because Blacks will vote for them anyway; implying that the issues don’t matter because either we don’t understand them or care, and only putting another Democrat in office is the only thing that really matters. The person goes on to state that Black support for Democrats is almost unanimous at around 90%. Mr. Meeks responded with some kind of rambling, incoherent written dribble that lacked any substance because he didn’t know how to answer the question.
It does however, cause one to consider seriously with some introspection why African-Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic in such large numbers. Have our leaders, who mostly have emerged from the Black Church, sold us out for thirty pieces of silver or a keg of rum? To think of any other political party is seen as treason and the term, “Black Republican” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms and for some, tantamount to having a mental disease. And yet, is it not prudent to consider every side of a political argument or policy issue and support any political party that has our BEST interests as their most important concern before we vote for them at the ballot boxes? Latinos have shown that they are not monolithic as is seen in the election of a Spanish-speaking Republican Governor of Nevada and New Mexico, but yet they also contributed significantly to re-elect Jerry Brown as the Democratic Governor of California after a forty year hiatus. It is time for Blacks to look at all our options and choose the BEST candidate and not just vote party anymore because as the old saying goes, “When you lay down with the devil, there’s hell to pay.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 7, 2010
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Does “race” affect the success of President Obama’s legislative agenda or is it something else?
Eugene Robinson: Washington Post (rebuttal)
You had an Op-Ed in the Tacoma News Tribune on November 2, 2010 in which it read that "Race" was the reason for so much animosity toward President Obama. This reality certainly cannot be ignored in America because of its past history and into modern times, but how do you explain Barack’s overwhelming election to the nation's highest office and despite the fact of the nation's woes, he still has a high approval rating as far as people liking him? Let me suggest another reason, which was mentioned during the 2008 presidential campaign by none other than Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Sarah Palin, among quite a few others, namely, "EXPERIENCE," or lack thereof. In the Nevada Democratic Primary exit polls of 2008, voters felt that Hillary Clinton would be better at dealing with the Economy (9 percentage points higher than Barack’s), Health care (13 percentage points over Barack), but interestingly, when it comes to bringing about the needed CHANGE to Washington D.C., respondents gave Barack a 60% confidence vote to Hillary's 29%.
Now the flip side of this is that pertaining to Experience, Hillary Clinton received a whopping 87% confidence vote compared to Barack's 7%, and herein is the main reason for President Obama getting so bogged down in the economic and domestic muck and mire, so to speak. Say what you will about former President George W. Bush and Tea Partyer, Sarah Palin, at least they had broader experience than Barack Obama, since both of them served as Governors of their respective states. Hillary Clinton's tenure as NY Senator as well as being married to former President Bill Clinton and as First Lady of Arkansas would certainly be assets for her serving as the President. The idea that a junior Senator from Chicago who hadn't fully served 2 years in the U.S. Senate and whose prior Community Organizer skills and Harvard Law degree could somehow manage to navigate through all the complex domestic and international issues; irregardless of his intellectual gifts, personality, oratory, and passion, it just might be a little bit too much to expect of him. It's not about AUDACITY but rather IRRATIONALITY to look for anything more.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 3, 2010
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
You had an Op-Ed in the Tacoma News Tribune on November 2, 2010 in which it read that "Race" was the reason for so much animosity toward President Obama. This reality certainly cannot be ignored in America because of its past history and into modern times, but how do you explain Barack’s overwhelming election to the nation's highest office and despite the fact of the nation's woes, he still has a high approval rating as far as people liking him? Let me suggest another reason, which was mentioned during the 2008 presidential campaign by none other than Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Sarah Palin, among quite a few others, namely, "EXPERIENCE," or lack thereof. In the Nevada Democratic Primary exit polls of 2008, voters felt that Hillary Clinton would be better at dealing with the Economy (9 percentage points higher than Barack’s), Health care (13 percentage points over Barack), but interestingly, when it comes to bringing about the needed CHANGE to Washington D.C., respondents gave Barack a 60% confidence vote to Hillary's 29%.
Now the flip side of this is that pertaining to Experience, Hillary Clinton received a whopping 87% confidence vote compared to Barack's 7%, and herein is the main reason for President Obama getting so bogged down in the economic and domestic muck and mire, so to speak. Say what you will about former President George W. Bush and Tea Partyer, Sarah Palin, at least they had broader experience than Barack Obama, since both of them served as Governors of their respective states. Hillary Clinton's tenure as NY Senator as well as being married to former President Bill Clinton and as First Lady of Arkansas would certainly be assets for her serving as the President. The idea that a junior Senator from Chicago who hadn't fully served 2 years in the U.S. Senate and whose prior Community Organizer skills and Harvard Law degree could somehow manage to navigate through all the complex domestic and international issues; irregardless of his intellectual gifts, personality, oratory, and passion, it just might be a little bit too much to expect of him. It's not about AUDACITY but rather IRRATIONALITY to look for anything more.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 3, 2010
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Democrats suffer heavy losses in mid-term election
This time the pollsters and pundits essentially had it right, namely, that the Democrats would get trounced at the polls; which they did. It is of course that the #1 issue among voters is the economy, and the other concerns are reducing the size of government, along with shrinking government debt, extending the Bush tax cuts, government bail out of the banks and automakers, the mortgage crisis, and Obama-Care. To a great extent, it is about President Obama not living up to his campaign promises and getting so caught up in trying to solve these unexpected financial crises all at once that he lost his focus. It is also about punishing incumbent Democratic members of Congress, some of whom are very good legislators, because of the obstructionist, abuse-of-power and partisan leanings of a few; namely, soon-to-be, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
What is uncertain at this early stage is how much of an influence that the Tea Party had in the outcome and whether Sarah Palin is a political ‘kingmaker’ or not. After all, Christine O’Donnell lost in Delaware, Sharon Angle lost Nevada, Carly Fiorina lost in California, Carl Paladino lost in New York, and Joe Miller is behind in Alaska. To be sure, several candidates backed by the ‘tea baggers’ won, but in roughly half of those contests, these were formerly or presently Red States or districts anyway. Not only that, but some of the Tea Party candidates are a little bit more to the right of the mainstream GOP ideology. What is not known is how Latinos voted, especially in regions of the country where they are the most populous, and did president Obama fail to reenergize the young, college-educated, predominately White FACEBOOK users who supported him earlier, and did African-Americans not go to the polls in heavy numbers as previously?
And what does the election say about Arizona, who reelected a Governor who introduced the controversial, albeit, discriminatory “Immigration Law,” and what about New Mexico’s ouster of a Democratic Governor to elect a Republican Spanish-speaking Governor and Senator; both of whom are female? Meanwhile, in California, of which one-third of the people are Latinos, voted for former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown to the office again after forty years. Does this mean that the Latino votes are not committed to any particular political party and are up for grabs by whoever is sympathetic to their particular cultural needs and concerns?
It is going to be interesting to see how John Boehner, as the upcoming House Majority leader is going to work with his own Republican Party, Tea Party-backed candidates, President Obama and angry Democrats to pass any significant legislation, since he doesn’t believe in compromise. As the old saying goes, “What Goes Around Comes Around,” and it just might be that in another couple of years, it will be the Republicans and their Tea Party surrogates who will be job hunting.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 3, 2010
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
What is uncertain at this early stage is how much of an influence that the Tea Party had in the outcome and whether Sarah Palin is a political ‘kingmaker’ or not. After all, Christine O’Donnell lost in Delaware, Sharon Angle lost Nevada, Carly Fiorina lost in California, Carl Paladino lost in New York, and Joe Miller is behind in Alaska. To be sure, several candidates backed by the ‘tea baggers’ won, but in roughly half of those contests, these were formerly or presently Red States or districts anyway. Not only that, but some of the Tea Party candidates are a little bit more to the right of the mainstream GOP ideology. What is not known is how Latinos voted, especially in regions of the country where they are the most populous, and did president Obama fail to reenergize the young, college-educated, predominately White FACEBOOK users who supported him earlier, and did African-Americans not go to the polls in heavy numbers as previously?
And what does the election say about Arizona, who reelected a Governor who introduced the controversial, albeit, discriminatory “Immigration Law,” and what about New Mexico’s ouster of a Democratic Governor to elect a Republican Spanish-speaking Governor and Senator; both of whom are female? Meanwhile, in California, of which one-third of the people are Latinos, voted for former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown to the office again after forty years. Does this mean that the Latino votes are not committed to any particular political party and are up for grabs by whoever is sympathetic to their particular cultural needs and concerns?
It is going to be interesting to see how John Boehner, as the upcoming House Majority leader is going to work with his own Republican Party, Tea Party-backed candidates, President Obama and angry Democrats to pass any significant legislation, since he doesn’t believe in compromise. As the old saying goes, “What Goes Around Comes Around,” and it just might be that in another couple of years, it will be the Republicans and their Tea Party surrogates who will be job hunting.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 3, 2010
Robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)