Howard Dean Was Right (Again)
Tweet
The GOP’s diversity problem pops up again, highlighted by a scene at the RNC’s summer meeting:
The challenges ahead for the GOP are plain to see by looking at the nearly all-white crowd of party activists. Just five blacks were visible among the 300 people dining in the ornate board room atop a Pittsburgh hotel where Santorum talked about appealing to African American voters, and three were waiting on tables as part of the hotel’s kitchen staff.
Not one of the 231 Republicans in the House or 55 members in the Senate is black. And while leaders touted an impressive-sounding 70 percent increase in black GOP votes, the figures reflect Bush receiving only 1 in 9 votes in 2004, up from about 1 in 14 in 2000.
(via DFA)
51 Responses to “Howard Dean Was Right (Again)”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Jeez, those numbers are almost as lily-white as Dean’s staff during his primary campaign.
What is the name of that right-wing African-American advancement council that has mostly whites sitting on its board?
PSU94, I’m sure you’re going to give us an account of the racial makeup of Dean’s campaign, right? Or are you just blowing shit again?
Nice strawman, btw.
I wonder how many times the two actual black Republicans in attendance were asked to refill somebody s drink.
Yeah, a lot of black people in Vermont. Tons of ‘em.
Yeah, there were no minorities in any important position. It has to be true, even Al Sharpton said so.
And it’s not a strawman. A guy like Howard Dean, who has always surrounded himself with as many white faces as possible and thinks all hotel workers are minorites, has no fucking business lecturing anyone on diversity.
Somebody get the Secretary of State right on this!
I knew it would happen. Someone mentions race and Dugger drags out Byrd. I knew it.
As President Bush has shown, merely having minorities in positions of power shows nothing. Incessantly pointing it out only achieves the appearance of racism. My favorite line to point this out is a joke by Chris Rock: “If you know how many black people have been in your house, you’re probably racist.”
When Republicans mention race, they parade out the five or six black Republicans they can scrounge up and repeat the same old tired tripe that the Democrats don’t really share the values of blacks.
Attacking Dean for not having any blacks in power in Vermont is like attacking Vicente Fox for not having any Germans in power in Mexico.
Vermont is 0.5% black, according to Wikipedia. There are more Asians and Hispanics, but those are still only 0.9%, 1.8% combined. It has the third-lowest proportion of blacks in the nation.
Vermont has a black population of just over 3100. That’s not that big a pool to draw from.
Meanwhile, Bush was Governor of Texas, which it was revealed today has more minorities than whites. In 2000, the last year of Bush’s governorship, Texas was 11.5% black and 32% hispanic. By your logic, Bush’s government should be about the same makeup. Yet, it probably wasn’t. It’s not really all Bush’s fault, it’s just a sad fact that there are disproporitionately more whites in power in our country than minorities.
That being said, Dems have never had to feel like they had to parade blacks around to say they’re diverse when they really aren’t. To say you are when you’re not is lying. Props to Mehlman for what he said to NAACP, but a single speech does not erase the fact that the GOP is crawling with racist bigots.
5 out of 300. Then that would be INFINITELY higher than the percentage of blacks in key Democratic Party leadership postions. Lets see: Dean, Edwards, Clinton, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin. Pick some more? Gore, Kerry. Whats wrong with those Democrats? Its 2005 for goodness sakes. Don’t they believe in an inclusive society?
Wait a minute. Maybe its not so bad after all. Lets go to the party elder statesman. Sen Byrd could we….
No. No. Never mind.
Dugger
Same goes for Apologist Extraordinare, Dugger.
PSU94,
So you apparently think that a lack of ethnicities is shameful enough that you’d point out “Dean’s dilemma”, yet, nothing out of your pie-hole about the actual topic at hand?? (ie: Honky-Fest 2005/ RNC Summer meeting)
You’re a blowhard. If the RNC isn’t paying you, you’re wasting your time.
Five out of 300? Read it again, Dugger. Three of those five were waiting on tables. The remaining two were, presumably, actual Republicans.
Now explain to me again why one should draw comparisons between a meeting of members of one party and the Congressional leaders of the other?
The RNC wouldn’t pay me to post comments on a blog that has about four daily readers, run by a guy who works for a proven and pathological liar.
And I’m just pointing out that Dean is a hypocrite, it has nothing to do with the RNC meeting.
Had Bill Clinton made the remarks instead of Dean, they’d have some merit (even though the two most important blacks in his administration were the secretary that shuffled the whores in and out, and the lawyer who got the whores jobs.)
I know a guy who works at Zanzibar Blue (a Philly restaurant and jazz club where anyone who is anyone in Philly’s black community goes on a fairly regular basis) and he said when Dean was in there meeting with prominent black Philly Democrats (the ones that haven’t been indicted because of John Street, anyway) that Dean was as uncomfortable as anyone he’s ever seen. totally out of his element.
He didn’t even know that Chaka Fattah likes Remy Martin, not Hennessy.
The problem isn’t that only a few appointments in the Bush administration are African American, the real problem is that Republicans won’t VOTE for African-Americans.
In the Congress, there was JC Watts, and….. (crickets)
In the House, there was Ed Brooke a million years ago, nope, that’s about it.
Mayors of major cities? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Governors?
This story reminds me of something I saw walking through a posh Cleveland hotel to work a few months ago. As I wrote then:
Pionar,
Pionar,
“As President Bush has shown, merely having minorities in positions of power shows nothing.”
Interesting liittle equation you have set up here. The Republican party power structure has appointed blacks to positions of power, yet, per you, it means nothing – they are evidently still “racists”. The Democratic Party has no blacks, none, in positions of power, something that would NOT require elections to accomplish, merely the DECISION to appoint, and yet they do NOT have a racism problem – per your logic. So if you consciously decide to put minorities in position of power you are a racist, if you consciously shut them out of the power you are not racist. Pretty tough to meet your standards if you are an R.
And Quaker, if it were 2 out of 300, it would still be infinitely more than the Democrats have decided to trust in positions of power.
Mr Curmudgeon, The RNC does pay me. Thats old news: $10 a post, but my understanding was that the RNC was also paying you for your posts here – bang for the buck kinda thing for them. Gee, I don’t understand that. Wonder why.
Dugger
Really?
Perhaps you should investigate the fortunes of a Sen. Obama, Rep. Melvin Watt, Rep. Butterfield, Rep. Brown, Rep. Cleaver, Rep. Conyers, Rep. Davis, Rep. Fattah, Rep. Green, Rep. Jackson, Rep. Jefferson, Rep. Tubbs-Jones, Rep. Lee…I’m not done, but I’m tired. I’ll leave it to you to find the others who “Democrats have decided to trust in positions of power.”
Quaker,
Key democratic leadership positions.
Yes the Democrats have elected more blacks – something the Republicans perceive as a problem (they have) and have been trying to improve on. Still requires an election to improve on the numbers you are talking about with the Rs. However, as to the lack of diversity in the Democratic party power structure, they could decide to fix that tonight – if they wanted to. If they cared.
Dugger, Sometimes Slightly Polemical
Why, Dugger, do you suppose the R’s have appointed any black members to leadership positions? I’ll tell you why: to try to win the seats held by those members of Congress I listed above. The goal of the GOP is not diversity for its own sake, but just enough diversity to dilute the voting power of black Democrats.
“I ll tell you why”
And thats that. You evidently can read minds. Despite not being a Republican, you are able to read their minds and understand their/our unspoken reasons and goals. And the outcome of your mind reading? Why Rs are evil racists and Democrats are not. It must be so much easier to live in an uncomplex world.
Dugger
I’m surprised that after this many posts, no one has yet tackled the real reason why black Republicans are such a rarity.
Here it is. Ready?
If you are young and black and want to pursue a career in politics, you have two choices.
1) Join the Democrats
Drink the Democrat party Kool-aid, march lock-step with the Congressional Black Caucus, and when Jesse Jackson says ‘Jump,’ you answer “How high?” Probably the best you’ll get is a token “representative for life” position with no real chance for advancement, but at least you’ll be a celebrity in your own community and eventually you’ll get committee tenure/charimanship if there is a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives.
Quaker, every person on your list, save for the Democrats’ new Golden Boy, Barak Obama, exactly fits the description that I have above.
Still think I’m off base? How many black Democrat state governors have there been in the last 20 years? Governorship is a true party power position. It usually leads directly to the Senate, the White House (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43 were all governors) or national party chairmanship.
Or, 2) Join the Republicans
Join a historically white party that is the scourge of the NAACP and be pilloried by the leaders of your own people as a sellout, an Uncle Tom, an Aunt Jemima, or a race traitor. Have Julianne Malveaux write a column about you, hoping that you die young. Have Harry Belafonte call you a house slave or a tyrant. Have your party leaders and fellow conservatives routinely smeared by black “leaders” as racists, Nazis, and Klansmen. Have the NAACP support any Democrat, even a white redneck with a criminal record, that runs against you. Or worse, have an NAACP-annointed liberal black candidate run against you and accuse you of no longer being black.
Which option would you choose?
How many black Republicans have the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Urban League, or any other minority social organization, supported when they ran against white candidates? How many black Republican appointees have these organizations used as role models for black youth?
Face it. Black liberals hate black conservatives. Absolutely hate their guts. Among black liberals, there is more hatred for black conservatives than for the KKK. Liberal, so-called “civil rights” groups have done nothing but smear and tear down black conservatives for the past 35 years.
If Democrats want to know why the Republican party looks white, they shouldn’t have to look any farther than their own mirrors.
The alternative, Dugger, is that they invite black members into “leadership positions” to lose elections. It doesn’t take a mind reader, y’know.
BTW, these two (2) black Republicans in prominent leadership positions: any idea who they might be?
I can only think of one. Doug Wilder.
However, there have been some black gubernatorial candidates. Roland Burris in Illinois, Jim Hill in Oregon, Carl McCall in New York, Daryl Jones in Florida, Gary George in Wisconsin, Alma Wheeler Smith in Michigan, and John Jenkins in Maine.
They’re all Democrats except Jenkins. He’s an independent.
And that’s only going up through 2002.
I’m glad you mentioned Senator Obama. He is, as a matter of fact, the second black Democratic senator. The first, of course was Sen. Moseley Braun. There was once a black Republican senator, Sen. Brooke. However, he was part of the now-forgotten liberal wing of the Republican party.
Now, where are all the black Republican governors?
And this is just too good:
Do I understand that correctly? When the Democrats get black candidates elected to Congress they’re actually discriminating against them?
Haw.
BTW Mikey, Lyndon Larouche was never endorsed by the Democratic party for any office. Alan Keyes was. Big difference.
So if I understand your diatribe, white Republicans won’t vote for black Republicans because black Democrats tell them not to. Got it.
Quaker,
Sorry about the misfire. You may be getting a little confused here. “BTW, these two (2) black Republicans in prominent leadership positions: any idea who they might be?” Are you saying that these two are in prominent positions, because I do not say that and have not said that and do not know..
My belief is that the positions/numbers of blacks vis a vis either party does not itself reflect any racist attitudes: either in the Republican rank and file or Democratic power postions. It seems fair to me to point out racial disparities on the Democratic side if we do the same on the Repub side and draw harsh conclusions therefrom.
Dugger
From Yesterday’s study of which cities were the most liberal (conducted by those notable “right wingers” at Berkely, an interesting nugget:
Sweet Vindication!
Where did that come from Ferris, another liberal anti-smoking site?
Link here. (Word Doc)
Quaker,
You may be geting alittle confused here.
I have an idea.
Blacks support the Democratic party en mass because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result, the Democratic party became slightly more sensitive to the needs of black voters in an attempt to keep black voters.
However, in the past decade or so, it has become obvious that the Democrats just can’t rely on the past to keep voters of the present.
As a result, some blacks have gone to the Republican party, feeling that the Republicans will “appreciate” them more, which is to some extent true. Though I generally disagree with Dugger, I will have to say that he is right. A black will just be a tool in the Democratic party, and slightly less of a tool in the Republican party.
The problem is that many blacks (and whites) have mistaken the “enthusiasm” for blacks in the Republican party for an honest want for diversity. Republicans want to have a permanent majority, and the only way to do this is to court black voters. As a result they place blacks in high profile positions and go to black churches and what not. They DO NOT field black canidiates because of a simple fact. The Republican base, and most Republican voters in general either do not like blacks, have a general antipathy towards blacks, or try to isolate themselves from blacks.
As such, it is much easier to just appoint blacks than to actually field black canidiates.
With both the Democrats and Republicans it is a matter of political fortunes. With the Dems, it is learning to appreciate and actively support blacks, and with the Republicans, it is trying to shed the (deservedly) racist image.
Well, y’see, that’s where I’m confused. Because a little ways back up this thread, you wrote:
I pointed out that Democrats–the ones who go to the polls and choose leaders–had selected a whole long list of black office holders.
To which you replied:
So if we’re not talking about elected officials and we’re not talking about key party leaders, what are we talking about?
Quaker, when cornered, cons move the goalposts. Pretty soon, the question is going to be “When did the Democrats appoint a female African-American Secretary of state that worked for Chevron and was provost of Stanford and had an oil tanker named after her? Ha! The Democrats are racist”. Don’t bother playing the game with them.
And if we’re taking a wider view of “diversity” than just African-Americans, perhaps the opinions of Linda Chavez-Thompson and Mike Honda would be helpful.
Quaker,
Acually if you read carefully, you shouldn’t be confused. There is only one question involved: Does the undercount of minorities in any one area of a political organization indicate racism. This thread started out thinly alledging that this is the case re the RNC get together. I responded to the effect that that “5 out of 300″ would be INFINITELY higher than the percentage of blacks in key Democratic Party leadership postions.” One principal (under-representation of minorities), two manifestations (Repub rank and file, Dem upper key leadership. Taken logically, your argument back seems to suggest that the Democratic rank and file is not racist, but the leadership is (and vice versa with the Republicans).
My basic argument is and remains that statistical disproportionality does not necessarily equal racism for Repubs or Dems. But if you do make that argument, I don’t understand how you can exempt the Democratic leadership. Aren’t they racists per your standards?
Dugger
Perhaps we could defer this question to Lottie Shackelford then?
“The Republican base, and most Republican voters in general either do not like blacks, have a general antipathy towards blacks, or try to isolate themselves from blacks.”
Do you realize just how insulting that statement is? How in the name of all that is good can you make a generalization like that? I don’t know what else to call it because its not racism, but you guys have this cartoon version of republicans that does not border on but crosses the line of bigotry.
As I said, let’s ask Ms. Shackelford. If she says so, that works for me.
Quaker
“My math is terrible.”
Your math is fine, but I’m not so sure about your ingoing assumptions. Who’s the “1″? My aforementioned list of key Dem party leaders over recent years indicates no blacks. I guess you can eventually get down to the levels where the party power brokers relented, but how far did you have to go? Deputy Asst. Whip or something? Wouldn’t it just be easier to acknowledge the Dems have a problem at the top? I mean if I were as loyal to the Dem party as blacks have been, I would think they could find at least ONE major leadership positon for their most loyal constituents.
Dugger (now Researching Lottie S, since you hammered the point))
Oh, and I need a favor.
Is 5 (or is it 2?) out of 300 an “infinitely larger percentage” than 1 out of 9?
My math is terrible.
Well, this has been an entertaining diversion and all, but let’s get back to the original point, shall we?
Waaaaay back up there in the original post, OW points us to an article about a gathering of 300 top Republicans, addressed by Rick Santorum on the importance of attracting more black voters.
Within that crowd, one finds five black faces. Three of those are part of the kitchen staff!
Now just a short while back, conservative bloggers were all in an uproar when Howard Dean suggested that a GOP gathering would be all white if they failed to call in the kitchen staff. With a bit of sarcasm, OW points out that Dean was right.
Let’s review:
Dugger: “5 out of 300. Then that would be INFINITELY higher than the percentage of blacks in key Democratic Party leadership postions. “
and:
“And Quaker, if it were 2 out of 300, it would still be infinitely more than the Democrats have decided to trust in positions of power.”
and then:
“However, as to the lack of diversity in the Democratic party power structure, they could decide to fix that tonight – if they wanted to.”
Now your loyal pal Quaker shows you that of five (not six) vice chairs for the DNC, we have one black woman, one Hispanic woman, one Asian man, one white woman, and one white man.
And your “infinity” point still stands?
Hell, I can’t even see the goal posts from here.
And when you find her, you’ll have the answer to your earlier question: Who’s the “1″? While you’re there, you might also check on the others I mentioned: Linda Chavez-Thompson (no, not the columnist) and Mike Honda.
We have a winner!
Sorry, but I did kind of qualify the statement by saying “in general.” But then again, it may be kind of skewed. You know, experiences and everything. But again, sorry.
Quaker,
Days later. Yes my point stands. Zero blacks in key Democratic party leadership positions. Better than them ol Democrats.
Dugger
OK, so Vice Chair isn’t a key leadership position?
Let’s see how small the boundaries on this discussion has become. Elected leaders don’t count. Party apparatus leaders don’t count if…well, for some reason.
What kind of “party leaders” are we talking about here?
I miss the edit function.
“…how small the boundaries…have become.”
Quaker,
Key leaders? Maybe a buck-stops-here leader of a major power entity and/or a major elective figure highly visible in the media. Vice chair is not. How often have we seen vice chairs of either party speaking nationally in the media for the party. Almost never. But we see Durbin, Frist, Pelosi, Delay, Dean, Mehlman. etc. Coleman (Oh) has been seen and heard much more than any D Vice Chair. I’m not saying that this is racist – merely that the same standard under-representation=racism- should be applied across the board – if you are going to apply it at all. And, honestly, if Bush were not Pres, we could not point to very many black Rs at all in positions of power.
[...] e sort of homogenous world where black people are just some folks you see on television or cleaning up your table. The idea that a black person would point out that you [...]