I initially decided to simply ignore the ongoing contretemps over the Coretta King funeral. It isn't exactly news that Democrats hijack any and all occasions to blather their political attack rhetoric. What prompted me to rethink completely ignoring the matter was commentary from my wife when she saw a news report about the funeral. Paraphrasing, her comment was, "What is wrong with these Democrats? Why can't they just go to a funeral, say some nice things about the dead person, and behave with a little dignity? Why do they always have to attack?"
We've tossed those sorts of questions around here at Flares Into Darkness and on other sites we frequent. I don't know if there is an answer or multiple answers or if it is just some inherent characteristic of "liberals" that they cannot get through a day, regardless of the venue they find themselves in, without letting everyone know how angry they are. No sense of decorum.
Other than the rhetorical questions and the fact that people are noticing, however, there isn't a whole lot that is particularly interesting about the matter. Capt Ed (Captains Quarters) does take a look at one of the interesting facets of this - the matter of reaching out by President Bush.
The short article is worth reading but to summarize, the point he makes is that the claim that Bush hasn't "reached out" to blacks and, in particular, to black leadership (the NAACP) is demonstrably false. What has happened, and yesterdays funeral is yet another example, is that NAACP leadership has responded to Bush's outreach with bad behavior and virulent rhetoric. None of us, not even a President (or perhaps especially not a President) is likely to continue to reach out to "leadership" that demonstrates nothing beyond the desire to vent their anger. (The Islamic world seems to miss this point as much as the Democrats do.)
There really is little point trying to talk to people who want nothing more than an opportunity to scream.
12 comments:
I expect Sharpton and Carter to do what they do. What is interesting is that too many Democrats simply say nothing about that, even if they would not behave in that way. The rebuke comes from outside the party instead of from within the party (where it would do a whole lot more good). Another curious thing is that too many of the Democrats are oblivious to how that comes across to much of "middle America". The moral vanity of the speakers is so strong, they only see their reflections.
What does Bush have to offer the NAACP race pimps that can be comverted to cash? Until and unless he can come up with cash for them he won't be acceptable. The faith based initiatives were aimed directly at black pastors and churches - bypassing the race pimps - and they haven't forgotten.
Given that the balcks are primarily moat dwellers around the Blue Castles the politics of the outstretched hand are a little difficult to understand. When they aren't jammed in a moat they're crowded into a gerrymandered black district and the Democratically designed aggregations reduce them to electoral castoffs. They simply don't have any political weight.
So, we're left with the possibility that Bush is actually just doing the right thing without political calculation being involved.
What a horrible thought.
"Is there any real hope that the black voting block will fragment any time soon?"
Sure, the fault lines are there and the faith based initiative put a chisel point on one of them and smacked it good. Another is the Dem's warm embrace of gay marriage. People of faith within the black community (and especially those of the Baptist persuasion) look at that embrace with, let's say more than moderate, distaste.
Watch the Steele race in Maryland. He's being targeted for attack precisely because he is their worst nightmare. A black man with actual moral principles is a fearsome sight to the Dems - and to the race pimps with a Rev. before their names and child support payments for their little "oops" offspring due.
It's a bit like watching the progress of a glacier, though. Better not be in a hurry.
Knuck,
If we could figure out a unifying theme for Dems we could probably pocket a tidy sum bu selling it to them. There are undoubtedly a very large number of moderate Dems. In fact, I would not hesitate to place money on the affirmative side of a wager stipulating that moderated Dems constitute the largest segment of Dem voters.
They don't put their money where their mouth is and they aren't aggregated tightly enough to be a worthwhile segment for local and (most) statewide elections. No money and no concentration mean no voice. If you study Hillary's fence straddling two faced hypocrisy you understand that she (because she wants a nationwide office) actually targets the moderates. Yet she is forced continually into incoherence by the feminists, the blacks and the 13%ers. Where Bill was a competent and genial liar, Hillary is very clumsy - you just know she's lying when there was always an outside chance that Bill might mistakenly tell the truth.
If you want a very nice example of the incoherence of the Dems a study of opposition to Casey's run against Santorum in PA is as good an example as any. Casey is pro-life, ergo, the pro-abortion feminist lobby is spending energy throwing mud at him. It doesn't matter that he's the only Dem with a chance against Santorum - he's just not the right kind of Dem, so it's better to sit in the ashes and wail. PA is a pretty expensive state and Casey has raised $4 mil, with $3mil on hand but Santorum has $7.75 mil on hand. Money is going to count in this one and the Dems just aren't going to raise enough for a pro-life candidate.
The rhetoric is all about money and the 13%ers are currently the only source of significant dough. It's just not going to change fast enough to warrant changing the rhetoric.
Think Carter was bad?
Well, the Senate race in PA is a little closer than you might think, If the state votes even close to what it did in the 2004 election.
HOWEVER, the Republicans have found their Gubenatorial candidate in Lynn Swann, the former star Pittsburgh Steeler football player. If Swann is at all articulate, he's probably going to beat Ed Rendell and Santorum will ride along on his coattails. Swann probably has Pittsburgh sewn up. He'll probably detach a good chunk of Philadelphia county from the Democrats, if he's smart about it.
It will be an interesting election this year in Pennsylvania.
If he wins, and is halfway decent as a Governor, look for him to run for president in 2012. (Like Corzine in New Jersey)
Eric,
Isn't Rendell a little too much of a "big tenter" for the lefties? I appreciate your remarks on where PA was in '04 but midterm turnouts are usually significantly lower than Presidential years and the "walk around" money that's used to buy votes in Philly is a bit low. Can Rendell and Casey buy enough votes in Philly to swing it - even if they had the dough?
The other factor is Philly coming in with more votes than voters again - was anything ever done about that?
I thought the behavior of a lot of those socalled civil rights leaders at the funeral was tacky as hell. It made them look dumb. I mean come on, after Wellstone one would think they would catch on to the fact that a funeral is not a political rally. And we do see more and more blacks running as Republicans. Guys like Swann will help the GOP a lot more than Carter will hurt it.
And David, if Republicans really do run on killing the New Deal it will help not hender Democrats.
The truth is most of those entitlements do not go to the poor, they go to the middle class and to think they go on living in the style to which they have become accsustomed without those programs is naive.
BTW the New Deal was not just about welfare it was the FDIC and SEC and a host of economic safety nets that brought a stability to the market which had never existed before.
In fact this kind of yearning for the good old days when happy go lucky orphans worked in sweat shops and poor old people without relatives were left to fend for themselves while black people had no rights to education etc is not exactly a step forward for the Republicans...it just plays into the moronic stereotypes that demagogues like Carter throw around all the time.
Rendell knows how to deliver the pork. That gets attention. He solved the SEPTA strike by buying off SEPTA with state funds, while at the same time getting the Union to pay a teensy-bit of its health care premiums. Both sides got something they could live with, so that was that. The current Mayor of Philadelphia, John Street, was no where to be seen, as he really couldn't take a stand, since he would have been vilified no matter what he did. So, Rendell is the default candidate, and there isn't anybody who's going to challenge him.
Yes, people may stay home, but I figure they'll stay home in the same proportions, such that it wouldn't change the vote.
Oh, about all the dead people voting in Philly? No, not a damn thing has been done about that. Nobody seems to care, not even the Republicans, really, although there is a bill in the PA legislature right now to require ID's to vote. The usual suspects are for and against it. It may pass though.
Certainly the local alternative weeklies (Philadelphia Weekly and The City Paper) are against it, because like, women and minorities will be hardest hit. There is daily free paper called "The Metro" (apparently some sort of franchise thing originally started in Sweden) that had a 'man on the street' question about it, and it really shows the generational divide. Two older black men said, yes, because ID's are required in everywhere else, why not voting too, while two 20 something white college kids basically parroted the Itsallanevilrethuglicanplotbykarlroveandchimpymcbushhitlerhalliburtonwhohatesblackpeopleandgaysandwomenandbushisapoopyheadtoo line.
Hmmm. Curious. There seems to be a character buffer limit on the size of character strings that do not have spaces in them.
Lynn Swann--from what I've seen, he is putting together an extremely high-quality, high-road, political brand. Back him with vigor!
buddy:
Yep the other Republican backed out and he has a shot at it.
Post a Comment