Is there a double standard in which if the Democats nominate a woman or “person of color” its okay, but if the GOP does it, its " tokenism" ?
You look at the polls and electoral results to see if this is so. Are there any elections were the strategy was successful?
Why it seems to be tokensim for the GOP and not democrats? The women or “persons of color” that the GOP nominates do not seem to be interested in helping all people who are oppressed, they seem to be primarily self-interested. Their advancement seems to be coupled with policies that help only themselves. In fact, some think they are likely to be worse than the rest of the GOP since they have to “prove” to the rest of the GOP that they can be just as tough on minorities and women as the rest of the GOP. In addition, they don’t seem particularly qualified compared to their opponents; most people would agree that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than Sarah Palin, Barack Obama more qualified than Alan Keyes.
I brought up that McCain was winning until he made inaccurate statements about our economy; that is really where the focus should be to win the next election - the economy, not on racial spite.
But its always the liberal Democrats who are crying “racial discrimination” if a group or organization isn’t “diverse” enough. The Democrat party is the one that makes a big deal out of how many blacks are senators or congressmen, not the GOP. That should answer your above point - they pander all the time.
Since racism exists in this country that slowly transitioned away from chattel slavery, to legal segregation, there is nothing wrong in questioning to see if it is present. To say there is something wrong with checking to see if racism is there and then fighting against it if it is, is what is immoral. We have a saint, St. Katherine Drexel, who established Xavier University, a historically “black” Catholic university as well as founded an order to minister to Native Americans and blacks, as well as privately helped support fledgling black priests. Is she “pandering” because she cared about diversity?
Liberals are always focussed on what percentage is black in a certain group - they are the ones who make a big deal out of it.
I guess St. Katherine Drexel was a liberal then?
And the justice department under Obama has certainly been racially partisan rather than color blind. Have you noticed that Obama took a stand on the Augusta country club policy of not allowing women? That is a good example of what I’m talking about.
You need to prove your assertion on the justice department. As for the Augusta country club, so did Mitt Romney.
Historical support in the Democrat party for affirmative action and racial quotas is another example of their focus on race and gender in politics and society rather than qualifications.
Quotas are illegal. Mitt Romney and George Bush also support affirmative action if necessary. Focusing on race is no different from St. Katherine Drexel. If people are oppressed because of race, it is not immoral - in fact it is ethical - to focus on race, just like focusing on ending any other form of oppression. Many conservatives understand this. **That being said, the discrimination against the unborn and poverty are the most important forms of oppression to eliminate for the time being. ** But if this country had never instituted chattel slavery, it would never have paved the path for abortion, which was founded partly as a way to get rid of the formerly enslaved blacks without having to deport them.
As for qualifications, affirmative action was meant to increase focus on qualifications. People often automatically assume that white men are qualified while others aren’t even though those others may be qualified.
Until I posted on how McCain’s poll numbers fell when he said the “fundamentals of our economy are strong”, it was ignored that McCain did not appear qualified to most people because they didn’t trust him on the economy. It is important to check the qualifications of EVERYONE, not assume that some people - white men - are always more qualified. The GOP can win if they convince the rest of the public that they know what they are doing and it is in the best interest of all.
Who said that Herman Cain is more authentically “black” than Obama? Radicals may call Obama an Uncle Tom, but I think you’d be hard pressed to make the case that blacks who are Republicans don’t have to endure far worse criticism and much more frequently.
Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham said this…
The only election Obama lost was to Bobby Rush, a black panther. Artur Davis, a Democrat black, lost his governor’s election because he voted against Obama’s health care plan and was also called an Uncle Tom.
A lot of conservative blacks do not speak out against anti-black discrimination except when it hurts them “personally.” Herman Cain accused the harassment scandal of happening because he was black, and Jon Stewart of being racist. Yet he said that “racism doesn’t hold anyone back.” So did it hold HIM back? And if so, is he suggesting that all of America is not racist except against conservative blacks? Why would that be the case?
No, I don’t think conservative blacks have to endure far worse criticism. I think they have to endure far worse criticism from LIBERALS, but liberal blacks endure far worse criticism from CONSERVATIVES. This country focuses TOO MUCH on race, not out of a desire to help the oppressed but because of an unhealthy obsession. If you look at the top 3 newsgetters in 2011, they were Barack Obama, Herman Cain, and Muammar Gaddafi. There is only one thing that these 3 people have in common to make the American public focus on them over everyone else.
I’m not at all concerned though about a VP debate between Joe and Marco. And I doubt seriously their debate or any debate by Biden and the GOP VP pick would decide the election.
