“After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President’s body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and bodysearched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke?” (Toni Morrison, Clinton As The First Black President)

I stand corrected – it was McDonalds, not barbecue.

Mambo and CS -

Point taken. Heh. But the black leadership is supposed to be non-partisan; last time I read up on the NAACP it is a tax-exempt non profit. If their focus is truly the advancement of blacks, then you’d think they could find one black conservative to support?

With regard to Democrats, there is a difference in being the loyal opposition and trying to win elections, versus purposefully trying to sabotage conservative minorities; the leaked Kennedy memo seemed to clearly indicated that Kennedy’s top priority was to make sure that a minority appointment (Miguel Estrada) was derailed simply because Democrats want as few minority conservatives as possible. Apparently senior Democrat policy is to force out all minorities who are Democrats. So much for true “diversity.”

No, not at all. Liberals denounce them because they’re assholes.

WHAT!

You mean to tell me Democrats are actively trying to prevent Republicans from winning elections. No! I don’t believe you.

Next you’ll be telling me sports teams try to avoid losing to their opponents.

I’ll be surprised if Chris Matthews asks any question that’s relevant. Just because he’s not on Fox doesn’t mean most of us don’t think he’s a tool.

That seems predictive of a pretty major shift in the next 20-40 years.

Unless there’s a huge shift in racial attitudes accompanying such a change, it may actually be quite difficult for a white male candidate to become president in, say, 2048.

I know that was meant to be provocative, but…zzzzzzzzzzzz:)

“there are numerous continuing examples of Democrats and black “leaders” working feverishly to defeat virtually every black Republican who runs for office…”

Wait, Democrats trying to defeat Republican candidates? YOU’RE FUCKING KIDDING! Call the New York Times! Alert CNN! Send a camera crew and helicopter or two to Mike’s place, this is huge!

My point is simply this: it is difficult (though someone probably can dredge up some obscure example somewhere) of Republicans actively working to destroy the political careers of blacks or other racial minorities who are members of their party.

On the other hand, there are numerous continuing examples of Democrats and black “leaders” working feverishly to defeat virtually every black Republican who runs for office, as well as working feverishly to hamper the nomination of minority conservatives (remember Ted Kennedy’s leaked “he is Hispanic” memo?) or to visciously castigate them with racial slurs once they assume their appointed offices.

I loudly applaud any minority who chooses to run for office as a Republican, simply because it takes a lot of courage to face destruction by your own people.

As far as “nutjobs” go, yes Alan Keyes is very far out on the paleoconservative/libertarian limb. But if you want to discuss nutjobs, then you should be willing to discuss the likes of Malik Zulu Shabazz, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, each of whom — if not given an outright position of authority and leadership within the Democratic party — has at least received its tacit approval.

The fact that you’d equivocate a candidate’s stance on abortion with race and sex is absolutely delicious. It shows what a complete imbecile you are.

Democrats belong to the party of abortion rights. If there’s no “pro-life” candidate, it’s only reflective of the party’s position on the issue. Unless you’re suggesting that it’s a matter of Republican policy that there are microscopically-few minority/female players with any kind of power. In which case you might be right…

My point is simply this: it is difficult (though someone probably can dredge up some obscure example somewhere) of Republicans actively working to destroy the political careers of blacks or other racial minorities who are members of their party.

On the other hand, there are numerous continuing examples of Democrats and black “leaders” working feverishly to defeat virtually every black Republican who runs for office, as well as working feverishly to hamper the nomination of minority conservatives (remember Ted Kennedy’s leaked “he is Hispanic” memo?) or to visciously castigate them with racial slurs once they assume their appointed offices.

I loudly applaud any minority who chooses to run for office as a Republican, simply because it takes a lot of courage to face destruction by your own people.

As far as “nutjobs” go, yes Alan Keyes is very far out on the paleoconservative/libertarian limb. But if you want to discuss nutjobs, then you should be willing to discuss the likes of Malik Zulu Shabazz, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, each of whom — if not given an outright position of authority and leadership within the Democratic party — has at least received its tacit approval. The fact that kooks like Milwaukee alderman Michael McGee regularly bring large numbers of black votes to elections is probably not lost on the Democrats.

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats end up handling Barak Obama, whose authenticity as a “black American” has already been questioned numerous times in the mainstream media.

Which I suppose goes back to SaveFarris’ comment that race is as much an ideology as a genetic factor; e. g. liberals and black leaders denouncing Clarence Thomas and Condolezza Rice etc. as not really being black, but praising Bill Clinton as our first black president (because he got a little booty on the side and liked barbecue).

Returning to original issue now.

If THAT still doesn’t work, it’s to Barbara Walter’s interviews with transgender kids from 2 weeks ago. Their contention is … Gender is an ideology.

Are you sure?

Pro-life is an ideology. Race and gender are not.

And how many black Republican leaders can you name to begin with? Are you seriously suggesting that the “black leadership” should have jumped full force behind a nutcase like Alan Keyes? Michael Steele?