Two African American Senators For The First Time!

[thoughtone]

source: Huffington Post


Mo Cowan Senate: Deval Patrick Names Former Chief Of Staff To Replace John Kerry

WASHINGTON -- Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) on Wednesday appointed William "Mo" Cowan to the Senate seat vacated by newly confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry. Cowan will hold the seat in an interim capacity until an election in June.

Cowan, 43, is a former chief of staff and former legal counsel to Patrick. Like Patrick, who grew up on the South Side of Chicago before attending Milton Academy, Harvard and Harvard Law, Cowan came from a poor background to Boston for education and made a career there. After growing up in poverty in rural North Carolina, Cowan went to Duke University and then Northeastern University School of Law. He never left, and became a prominent Boston lawyer.

Cowan's appointment means that there will be two black senators serving together for the first time in American history. Neither were elected -- Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) was appointed in December after former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) left the chamber in the middle of his term.

Patrick, the state's first African-American governor, said recently on local cable television that it was a priority for him to pick a woman or a person of color for the seat.

Patrick has consistently said that the pick to succeed Kerry should not run in the general election slated for June 25. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) requested in a letter written before his death that the interim pick to replace him not run in the general election, a principle that Patrick honored after Kennedy died by picking Kennedy's longtime chief of staff, Paul Kirk.

Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was the only person to publicly campaign for the interim appointment, announcing his desire to fill the seat on MSNBC and doing subsequent interviews about it. Frank promised that he would not run in the June election if appointed, and he endorsed Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) for Senate, though the two fought over the redistricting process that Frank blamed for his exit from the House of Representatives. Progressive groups lined up to rally support for Frank, but Patrick reportedly bristled at his public pursuit of the seat.

The only announced candidate for the general election is Markey, who has received a flood of endorsements from Democrats -- including Kerry -- and has a $3.1 million war chest. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) is expected to announce his bid Thursday for the seat. Lynch holds more conservative positions than Markey; he opposes abortion rights and voted against President Barack Obama's health care law.

Former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has not said what he will do, but the Associated Press reported Tuesday that he was "leaning strongly" towards a run and would likely announce his candidacy early next week. Brown has kept a low public profile since leaving the Senate in January, other than lashing out at his Twitter critics in a string of messages early Saturday morning.

 

[Greed]

This should be a wakeup call for black people. For the first time in two hundred+ years, black people constitute 2% of the senate at any one time. And the weren't elected. And it'll only be that high for a few months.

North and South, Democrats and Republicans, white people want their representation to be white, no matter how true to the cause you are.

40 million black people and a complete inability to secure any political power, but nonetheless still satisfied with the status quo.

 

[QueEx]

40 million black people and a complete inability to secure any political power, but nonetheless still satisfied with the status quo.

You were making a good point, until you presumptively over-exaggerated.



.

 

[thoughtone]

.

North and South, Democrats and Republicans, white people want their representation to be white, no matter how true to the cause you are.

Huh?

 

[Greed]

Huh?

Why did you stop there? Why not cite Brooke in the 70's as proof that white people see you as their equal? Don't just stop at a 20 year old election.

I've already talked about the oddity that is Illinois, where three of the six since Reconstruction have come from, all within a 10 year period:

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=708077

 

[Greed]

You were making a good point, until you presumptively over-exaggerated.



.

Maybe you should consider, with your pretend humility in the face of truth, that you consistently underestimate the severity of the black condition in America, and your detachment affects the proper level of urgency that should be applied.

Thanks in advance,
Greed

 

[QueEx]

Like I said, you were making a really great point, until you over-dramatized and completely overlooked the daily efforts of so many who toil and give unselfishly of themselves for a greater good. Unless, however, you really meant that the entire Black Nation is satisfied with the status quo, in which case, YOU "pretend [with] humility in the face of truth, [and] you underestimate the s<s>ev</s>[inc]erity of [all those who work hard trying to improve] the black condition in America, and your detachment affects the proper level of urgency that should be applied" to their efforts.

 

[QueEx]

Meet the Newest Black Senator
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick picks William "Mo" Cowan
to be interim U.S. senator, filling John Kerry's seat.

​

(The Root) -- William "Mo" Cowan has been appointed by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to replace newly confirmed Secretary of State Sen. John Kerry in the U.S. Senate. Cowan will fill the role in an interim capacity until his successor is chosen in a special election in June.

The selection of Cowan, Patrick's former chief of staff, has surprised political observers. Many of them assumed that the governor would do as he did after the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy and select an elder statesman of some sort -- perhaps former presidential candidate Michael Dukakis or retired Rep. Barney Frank. But according to Boston-based political consultant Michael Goldman, who has previously advised Patrick, Cowan makes sense.

"He was one of the governor's most respected advisers, and one thing this governor wants to do is make history and start to create the next generation of black leadership, and Mo Cowan is that," Goldman said during a brief phone interview with The Root. Calling Cowan a "terrific guy," Goldman added, "Gov. Patrick could have picked someone at the end of his career to fill this role, but instead he picked someone still near the beginning. Twenty-five years from now, Mo Cowan will still be making a difference in government and politics, and this governor will have played a role in that."

Cowan's appointment means that Massachusetts is now home to two of America's highest-profile African-American politicians. Thanks in part to his impressive speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Patrick, the state's first black governor, is widely touted by many as a possible successor to President Obama in the White House someday.

Here are some key facts about America's newest black senator:

• Cowan is 43 years old.

• Cowan was born and raised in North Carolina.

• He attended Duke University as an undergraduate.

• He graduated from Northeastern University Law School.

• He is married with two sons.

• He is a former general counsel and chief of staff -- and longtime friend -- to Gov. Deval Patrick.

• He is credited with helping Gov. Mitt Romney recruit diverse legal talent for government legal and judicial posts.

• He becomes the second black senator to serve in Massachusetts. The first was Ed Brooke back in 1963.

• He joins Tim Scott (R-S.C.) to become the second African American in the current Senate.

• He becomes the sixth elected or appointed black U.S. senator of the modern era.

Editor's note: This posting has been updated to reflect the fact that Cowan is the second black senator to serve in Massachusetts, not the second elected.

​

SOURCE

 

[Greed]

My comments were not meant for you. It was for anyone not satisfied with the results of the collective actions of the black community, regardless of any good intentions.

This thread should be a wake up call to anyone that can see the state of black wealth, income, health, their young sons not being allowed to work as they see fit, an inadequate education system (based on the results of college readiness), and yet black people are satisfied with their political leadership. For black people to think white democrats will value them more than a black republican, who has a black family, is the height of the self-hate and brainwashing. Where has that quality of judgment gotten black people and where has it gotten white people? I would bet white people made out alot better on that deal. That's the same "turning your back on your own" that they accuse the black republican of doing.

I would wonder if anyone in the 60's would look at the state of the modern black community compared to the rest of the country and believe how far from marching on anything black people are right now.

The status quo is self destructive personal behavior because it has the moral sanction of democrats and corrupt black leaders, people looking to achieve a political solution to economic problems, and demonizing any black person who doesn't think like the majority, i.e. the Scott thread you link.

2% of the senate for the first time, and it's unelected and temporary. What is it about that reality that should evoke pride in the collective effort of black people, sincere or not?

Black people need to admit they have wasted alot of time advocating the wrong policies and mentality amongst themselves and never put a white person over a black person ever again. That's the game white people never stop playing.

 

[QueEx]

My comments were not meant for you. It was for anyone not satisfied with the results of the collective actions of the black community, regardless of any good intentions.

Really? Isn't that why you quoted my comments and then added yours just below in Post No. 6 ??? If I'm mistaken, my apologies. But am I wrong ???



.

 

[Greed]

Really? Isn't that why you quoted by comments and then added yours just below in Post No. 6 ??? If I'm mistaken, my apologies. But am I wrong ???



.

Yes, the comments that were judged were from post 2. I was addressing that provocation.

 

[QueEx]

Yes, the comments that were judged were from post 2. I was addressing that provocation.

You quote my words in Post No. 6 -- but you were addressing YOUR OWN comments (which were the only ones) in Post No. 2 ???

Greed,




.

 

[Greed]

Both of your post made reference to the "great point but" in post 2.

Should I regret taking you at face value and responding?

 

[thoughtone]

 

[thoughtone]

I've already talked about the oddity that is Illinois, where three of the six since Reconstruction have come from, all within a 10 year period:



http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=708077

What's the oddity of Massachusetts. Black Governor, 2 Black senators?

 

[thoughtone]

 

[thoughtone]

 

[Greed]

thoughtone, what is it about my post that you don't like?

Massachusetts has the 1st black governor recently, a black senator that last was elected in '72, and one appointed 40 years later. Is this what you you submit as proof of progress?

Six senators in 120 years with only half being elected are outliers. Like Illinois with three (two elected) serving in the same Senate seat over 10 years. Waiting to be appointed and being elected three times in 120 years is not a productive political strategy.

 

[Greed]

As a side note, let me give you some positive reinforcement. I'm glad you're finally acknowledging Scott as black and as something to note positively when talking about a black achievement like total black senators at once.

Now if we could just get the word coon out your vocabulary...

 

[thoughtone]

thoughtone, what is it about my post that you don't like?

Massachusetts has the 1st black governor recently, a black senator that last was elected in '72, and one appointed 40 years later. Is this what you you submit as proof of progress?

Six senators in 120 years with only half being elected are outliers. Like Illinois with three (two elected) serving in the same Senate seat over 10 years. Waiting to be appointed and being elected three times in 120 years is not a productive political strategy.

No, electing a Black president, a Black Governor and having two black senators at one time is not progress. We are going backwards.


...Idiot!

 

[thoughtone]

As a side note, let me give you some positive reinforcement. I'm glad you're finally acknowledging Scott as black and as something to note positively when talking about a black achievement like total black senators at once.

I'm sorry, please post where I didn't say he wasn't Black. In fact I brought him to the attention to this board when you were saying Black folk weren't doing shit.

Now if we could just get the word coon out your vocabulary...

If coons stop acting like coons!

 

[QueEx]

I'm sorry, please post where I didn't say he wasn't Black. In fact I brought him to the attention to this board when you were saying Black folk weren't doing shit.



If coons stop acting like coons!

Okay T.O., if Senator Tim Scott logs on and complains that you're violating the Rules of the Board, you know you're going to have to cease or, desist.


Be warned.


.

 

[Greed]

No, electing a Black president, a Black Governor and having two black senators at one time is not progress. We are going backwards.


...Idiot!

Status quo validated. To many people this is progress, which is why black people can't advance.

 

[Greed]

I'm sorry, please post where I didn't say he wasn't Black. In fact I brought him to the attention to this board when you were saying Black folk weren't doing shit.



If coons stop acting like coons!

My bad, how did I get it wrong.

You posted in the Scott appointment thread to show what black people are capable of achieving when they work within the Republican Party. How could I have not notice from your comments in that thread that it was a celebration of black progress.

"Hi egg," said the face.

 

[Greed]

Thanks to thoughtone's reminding me, blacks are back to being 1% of the Senate as of July 16, 2013.

Assuming Cory Booker's election we'll be back to announcing a 2% status in October.

Brooke, last elected in 1972 - 90 years since the last elected black senator.
Moseley Braun, last elected in 1992 - 20 years since the last elected black senator
Obama, last elected in 2004 - 12 years years since the last elected black senator
Booker, elected in 2013 - 9 years since the last elected black senator (Pending)

 

[thoughtone]

Thanks to thoughtone's reminding me, blacks are back to being 1% of the Senate as of July 16, 2013.

Assuming Cory Booker's election we'll be back to announcing a 2% status in October.

Brooke, last elected in 1972 - 90 years since the last elected black senator.
Moseley Braun, last elected in 1992 - 20 years since the last elected black senator
Obama, last elected in 2004 - 12 years years since the last elected black senator
Booker, elected in 2013 - 9 years since the last elected black senator (Pending)

me, blacks are back to being 1% of the Senate as of July 16, 2013.

Back to, apposed to up from 0%? So much for Black folk acknowledging our accomplishments. (which I still doubt you are.)

Of course you will never see a Black elected republican senator in this life time. But to you that is a good thing, republicans giving a fuck about the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington

 

[Greed]

Back to, apposed to up from 0%? So much for Black folk acknowledging our accomplishments. (which I still doubt you are.)

I'm confused, you see the 1% (a black Republican) as a black accomplishment? Black Republicans are sell-outs right? Especially Scott. He turned down an invite to join the Congressional Black Caucus.

I must be misunderstanding your post. Help me out thoughtone.

Of course you will never see a Black elected republican senator in this life time. But to you that is a good thing, republicans giving a fuck about the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington

Well, Scott is running in the special election in Nov 2014 so he can finish DeMint's term. I'm sure he's looking forward to your support because the blacks in South Carolina won't help him.

 

[QueEx]

What I don't understand is why wouldn't some of them even peep their heads in the door last week? Are they just telling me they don't give a F - or - is it that they're too afraid that to do so might chase some of their remaining white support away ???

 

[Greed]

What I don't understand is why wouldn't some of them even peep their heads in the door last week? Are they just telling me they don't give a F - or - is it that they're too afraid that to do so might chase some of their remaining white support away ???

I can't relate to "why wouldn't" type of questions. I prefer to think in the positive and ask why would they. Personally, I can't think of one thing that would have accomplished for them. These posts usually revolve around what black people would get out of Republicans showing up or caring but seem to be oblivious to what would motivate a Republican.

I've asserted, in multiple threads over the years, that black people aren't going to vote Republicans and Republicans aren't going to court the black vote. It doesn't matter which came first. The only thing that matters is everyone is fine with it, so let's stop with the fake hurt when reality makes it plain.

I asked a question in another thread when this was brought up because it makes no sense to me, "This board taught me that Republicans want to reinstate Jim Crow and/or slavery and all black Republicans are self-hating house negroes, but you also want them to go to a March commemoration?" I don't get it.

 

[thoughtone]

I'm confused, you see the 1% (a black Republican) as a black accomplishment? Black Republicans are sell-outs right? Especially Scott. He turned down an invite to join the Congressional Black Caucus.

I must be misunderstanding your post. Help me out thoughtone.


Well, Scott is running in the special election in Nov 2014 so he can finish DeMint's term. I'm sure he's looking forward to your support because the blacks in South Carolina won't help him.

My assertion is that if Scott ran from scratch, going through the process of primaries and general election, in no way would he have been a senator, especially a republican "Black" senator from South Carolina. You know damn well this is true.

Yes, it is good to have Senators of African descent serving in the United States Senate, regardless of their party. However, sell out? (Your description.) Honestly, I don't know is voting record in detail. But if the way he disrespected his ancestors that got killed and beaten so he could vote by avoiding the the March on Washington tribute is in any way indicative of his true political policies, then sell out is a much too kind of a phrase to describe him.

 

[thoughtone]

I can't relate to "why wouldn't" type of questions. I prefer to think in the positive and ask why would they. Personally, I can't think of one thing that would have accomplished for them. These posts usually revolve around what black people would get out of Republicans showing up or caring but seem to be oblivious to what would motivate a Republican.

I've asserted, in multiple threads over the years, that black people aren't going to vote Republicans and Republicans aren't going to court the black vote. It doesn't matter which came first. The only thing that matters is everyone is fine with it, so let's stop with the fake hurt when reality makes it plain.

I asked a question in another thread when this was brought up because it makes no sense to me, "This board taught me that Republicans want to reinstate Jim Crow and/or slavery and all black Republicans are self-hating house negroes, but you also want them to go to a March commemoration?" I don't get it.

I can't think of one thing that would have accomplished for them.

Really? In 2006, the VRA in the form that you covet, was passed by a majority Republican House by a vote of 390-33, a majority Republican Senate by a vote of 98-0, and signed by a Republican President a week later.

Did you vote Republican that year since they must be your favorite people by your criteria?

My Republican Party has abandoned me​

Nothing accomplished!

 

[Greed]

My assertion is that if Scott ran from scratch, going through the process of primaries and general election, in no way would he have been a senator, especially a republican "Black" senator from South Carolina. You know damn well this is true.

Why do you keep specifically pointing out South Carolina as some special bastion of anti-black sentiment?

Only three senators of African descent have been elected in the last hundred years. Blacks, whites, hispanics, asians and others have shown an unwillingness to support non-white candidates for the Senate. So yes, the odds would be against Tim Scott if he ran from scratch.

Do you take it for granted that Cory Booker would have an easier time than Scott if he had to run over a full year or two instead of a special election? Who knows if that letter from the Lautenberg family would have been more effective over a longer timeframe or if other elements of the New Jersey Democratic establishment would have rejected Booker's candidacy too. Democrats wanted that seat, so they coalesced around the clear front runner to adapt to the shorter campaign. It's not a given they would have done the same under normal circumstances considering the terrible history of black senatorial candidates.

Yes, it is good to have Senators of African descent serving in the United States Senate, regardless of their party. However, sell out? (Your description.) Honestly, I don't know is voting record in detail. But if the way he disrespected his ancestors that got killed and beaten so he could vote by avoiding the the March on Washington tribute is in any way indicative of his true political policies, then sell out is a much too kind of a phrase to describe him.

People like Clarence Thomas and Tim Scott have a different idea of what it means to be black than Cory Booker and Barack Obama. That's fine. Wouldn't it be a good thing if 100 black senators were debating that dynamic? Would black people be better or worse off in that scenario?

Besides, black Republicans weren't the only ones "disrespecting" that commemoration. Many people criticized it for being corporate sponsored, preferential treatment given to the old guard at the expense of young activist, and Obama negatively citing welfare and black parents while not receiving any criticism himself. All black people don't think alike nor should they be encouraged to be monolithic. Tim Scott didn't think highly of the commemoration and he's in agreement with the New Black Panther Party, which is perfectly fine.

 

[Greed]

Nothing accomplished!

Are you making my point? Republicans furthered legislation, that black people were overwhelmingly in favor of, by doing their best impression of a Democratic Congressional majority. Somehow they even got senators of Jim Crow states to vote for reauthorization to make it 98-0. They've been doing worse with the black vote ever since. Granted 2006 was on the heels of Katrina, but in hindsight, should we attribute Katrina to, "George Bush doesn't care about black people," or to George Bush was an incompetent?

So what is a result from all that? Black people aren't going to vote Republicans and Republicans aren't going to court the black vote. Black people want Democrats and Republicans want Hispanics. Both think the other is the one that's wrong.

Why dwell on it.

 

[good_ole_boy]

People like Clarence Thomas and Tim Scott have a different idea of what it means to be black than Cory Booker and Barack Obama.

All black people don't think alike nor should they be encouraged to be monolithic.

I agree.

 

[thoughtone]

I agree.