Two African American Senators For The First Time!

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.
Did'nt know that I was "thinking in the negative" since it was in the Republicans "Post Mortem" where THEY (Republicans,) not black people, stated their motivations:

"Priebus says GOP outreach to minority groups should occur along
two tracks: First, a "consistent commitment," approach that
entails "on-the-ground, granular, detailed, community-based"
relationship building, including "hundreds" of paid staffers.
Second, improved listening and communication, with the new
council acting as one important avenue for initiating and
sustaining conversations leaders from a wide array of
communities and groups. The report recommends highlighting
policy proposals and outcomes that align with the interests
of these communities . . ."


I should have known better.


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.

You were more interesting to read before your brand of cynicism caused you to paint ALL black people who don't share your brand of republican/libertarianism with the same distained coated brush.
 
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.

Sorry. I didn't answer your question.

YES.

I expected there to be many in the republican party, black and white, who were above your ideological assessment. I thought there were many in the republican party, black and white, who understand and respect from whence we've all come and who recognize and owe homage to those who gave so much, including their own lives, for so many -- black and white. But, I didn't know that those republicans were readers of this board or took their cues from your assessment of the black people you referred to above.
 
Did'nt know that I was "thinking in the negative" since it was in the Republicans "Post Mortem" where THEY (Republicans,) not black people, stated their motivations:

"Priebus says GOP outreach to minority groups should occur along
two tracks: First, a "consistent commitment," approach that
entails "on-the-ground, granular, detailed, community-based"
relationship building, including "hundreds" of paid staffers.
Second, improved listening and communication, with the new
council acting as one important avenue for initiating and
sustaining conversations leaders from a wide array of
communities and groups. The report recommends highlighting
policy proposals and outcomes that align with the interests
of these communities . . ."


I should have known better.
If we are being lazily broad, then yes, their motivation is to win elections. The quote you cited explains the method Republicans look to execute to shift a portion of the black vote away from Democrats.

If you want to refute what I said, then explain how making a show at the commemoration is consistent with the quoted portion. I would say its not because it wasn't consistent with "community-based," and once again, I don't see how it would have secured even a minuscule shift in the voting dynamic.

That's fine if you saw yourself as right on the cusp of voting Republican and if only they would have showed up to the commemoration. (Your thought trailing off in the end wistfully)

Republicans likely learned from other high-profile black Democratic establishment events that's it's unproductive to try and engage a 95% Democratic audience. So why would they show up to another event with the same characteristics.

You were more interesting to read before your brand of cynicism caused you to paint ALL black people who don't share your brand of republican/libertarianism with the same distained coated brush.
As an individualist I should give a healthy appreciation to the 3% of the black vote that doesn't think like BGOL, but I'm posting on BGOL so it is what it is. That's why, as you complain about my "ALL black people" painting, you just lump me into a "republican/libertarianism" brand.

Sorry. I didn't answer your question.

YES.

I expected there to be many in the republican party, black and white, who were above your ideological assessment. I thought there were many in the republican party, black and white, who understand and respect from whence we've all come and who recognize and owe homage to those who gave so much, including their own lives, for so many -- black and white. But, I didn't know that those republicans were readers of this board or took their cues from your assessment of the black people you referred to above.
I'm sure there are many Republicans that would like to commemorate their shared history with the Civil Rights movement. I don't see how the March Commemoration reflected an environment encouraging that.
 
Did'nt know that I was "thinking in the negative" since it was in the Republicans "Post Mortem" where THEY (Republicans,) not black people, stated their motivations:

"Priebus says GOP outreach to minority groups should occur along
two tracks: First, a "consistent commitment," approach that
entails "on-the-ground, granular, detailed, community-based"
relationship building, including "hundreds" of paid staffers.
Second, improved listening and communication, with the new
council acting as one important avenue for initiating and
sustaining conversations leaders from a wide array of
communities and groups. The report recommends highlighting
policy proposals and outcomes that align with the interests
of these communities . . ."


I should have known better.


If we are being lazily broad, then yes, their motivation is to win elections. The quote you cited explains the method Republicans look to execute to shift a portion of the black vote away from Democrats.

Isn't that what party politics is all about: winning? Is there something more that I'm not aware of???


If you want to refute what I said, then explain how making a show at the commemoration is consistent with the quoted portion.

Refute what you said? I wasn't attempting to refute anything. I simply gave you the benefit of my thinking, i.e., I couldn't understand why those who have expressed a willingness to "reach out" failed and refused to "reach out" at a time when they had nothing at all to lose. For some reason, you wrongfully concluded my comments to be negative.

If you don't see how republican attendance at the commemorative events would have been a good gesture consistent with "out reach" I don't think there is anything for me to add.



That's fine if you saw yourself as right on the cusp of voting Republican and if only they would have showed up to the commemoration. (Your thought trailing off in the end wistfully)

Where the fuck did I say I was on the "cusp of" anything ???

You should try more to understand what is being said or ask questions if you don't. But most of all, stop with the constant attempts to put words in other people's mouths.

But, FYI, as I have stated in the past, I have voted for republican candidates and will likely vote for others in the future. And, if other posters are truthful (and I have EVERY belief that they are) I am not the only poster on this board who has and probably will in the future.

Stop insulting people with your little ideo games.


Republicans likely learned from other high-profile black Democratic establishment events that's it's unproductive to try and engage a 95% Democratic audience. So why would they show up to another event with the same characteristics.

:smh: I may have overestimated you. I thought you more sophisticated that this.
 
Republicans likely learned from other high-profile black Democratic establishment events that's it's unproductive to try and engage a 95% Democratic audience. So why would they show up to another event with the same characteristics.


:smh:
You can't be anymore non-political than the March event. It would be an opportunity to show that all the talk about you being anti-Black/working class might not be the whole story. That some things are bigger than Rs vs Ds. That the Republican Party has a shared history in the Civil Rights Movement.



I'm sure there are many Republicans that would like to commemorate their shared history with the Civil Rights movement. I don't see how the March Commemoration reflected an environment encouraging that.

Then you don't want to.









Refute what you said? I wasn't attempting to refute anything. I simply gave you the benefit of my thinking, i.e., I couldn't understand why those who have expressed a willingness to "reach out" failed and refused to "reach out" at a time when they had nothing at all to lose. For some reason, you wrongfully concluded my comments to be negative.

:yes: Even if it doesn't gain much, it costs nothing.





You should try more to understand what is being said or ask questions if you don't. But most of all, stop with the constant attempts to put words in other people's mouths.

Why start now?

But, FYI, as I have stated in the past, I have voted for republican candidates and will likely vote for others in the future. And, if other posters are truthful (and I have EVERY belief that they are) I am not the only poster on this board who has and probably will in the future.

Stop insulting people with your little ideo games.

Raising my hand.




:smh: I may have overestimated you. I thought you more sophisticated that this.

I did too but at this point, he's not providing much evidence to back up my assertion.
 
Isn't that what party politics is all about: winning? Is there something more that I'm not aware of???
I guess you weren't aware that this exchange wasn't about Republicans wanting more votes in general but about why they would show up to the commemoration. You cited their "community-based" strategy and I pointed out that it wasn't consistent.

Showing up to the March Commemoration wouldn't have satisfied the Republicans own strategy and it wouldn't have got them votes. You've now made it obvious that you just wanted them to show up as a sign of respect. You should get over that.

Refute what you said? I wasn't attempting to refute anything. I simply gave you the benefit of my thinking, i.e., I couldn't understand why those who have expressed a willingness to "reach out" failed and refused to "reach out" at a time when they had nothing at all to lose. For some reason, you wrongfully concluded my comments to be negative.

If you don't see how republican attendance at the commemorative events would have been a good gesture consistent with "out reach" I don't think there is anything for me to add.
You might want to consider that your thinking isn't actually a benefit. Considering that you're in line with the black Democratic establishment.

If you're wondering why they didn't "reach out," then maybe it's because Republicans have defined what it means for them to "reach out" with that Postmortem quote and the March Commemoration doesn't qualify.

I see how you can perceive the consistency between the events and outreach, but you haven't learned how to put yourself in other people's shoes. Maybe you can do it sometimes, but it's obvious that if it's something you're personal about, then you're unable. Thinking in the negative with the "why wouldn't they" and the "why not" is a clear telltale sign of a lack of empathy. Republicans get 3% of the black vote. They rightly assess that what they were doing hasn't worked, and what they have been doing was going to hostile events. Its fine if you think it wasn't political with people like Sharpton as organizers, a 95% Democratic crowd, and Democratic/Leftist speakers citing current Republican policies as the fight for the next 50 years. Republicans disagreed with your "show up anyway." The March Commemoration wasn't a celebration of the past but a referendum on the present while blaming everyone but themselves for the state of the black community.

Where the fuck did I say I was on the "cusp of" anything ???

You should try more to understand what is being said or ask questions if you don't. But most of all, stop with the constant attempts to put words in other people's mouths.

But, FYI, as I have stated in the past, I have voted for republican candidates and will likely vote for others in the future. And, if other posters are truthful (and I have EVERY belief that they are) I am not the only poster on this board who has and probably will in the future.

Stop insulting people with your little ideo games.
Yes, we've been over these declarations before. If a Republican convinces you he can execute Democratic policies better than the Democrat then you'll vote for him. Very common on the local level like Bloomberg's first term. We get it for the umpteenth time. Such independence.

:smh: I may have overestimated you. I thought you more sophisticated that this.
You're likely overestimating yourself. No one is as complicated as they think they are. Some are just more aware of it than others.
 
Isn't that what party politics is all about: winning? Is there something more that I'm not aware of???

I guess you weren't aware that this exchange wasn't about Republicans wanting more votes in general but about why they would show up to the commemoration. You cited their "community-based" strategy and I pointed out that it wasn't consistent.

Hell, try to change the conversation as much as you like, but that's EXACTLY what its about: More Votes.

In order for political parties or politicians to WIN, i.e., put into place their POV's, policies, etc., they must get the support of enough people (voters when you need them; and other elected officials, when you need them) to make that happen.

Why does the republican party want to "reach-out" ??? To win over more people (in this case, more minorities). Winning-over more people = more votes at the polls. More votes at the polls, they hope, = winning on election day and ultimately installing its agenda.

Whether its democrats, republicans or Librarians its ALWAYS about WINNING. No matter how hard you try to distort it Greed, attending commemorations, kissing babies, showing your face in the place, pressing a little flesh, making those recall that you were there and fighting on their side when the going was tough, (this could go on, you know) -- is ALL ABOUT reaching out to gain support and, as the gentleman from North Carolina so aptly put it, in this instance:

:smh:

You can't be anymore non-political than the March event. It would be an opportunity to show that all the talk about you being anti-Black/working class might not be the whole story. That some things are bigger than Rs vs Ds. That the Republican Party has a shared history in the Civil Rights Movement.
 

Refute what you said?

I wasn't attempting to refute anything. I simply gave you the benefit of my thinking, i.e., I couldn't understand why those who have expressed a willingness to "reach out" failed and refused to "reach out" at a time when they had nothing at all to lose. For some reason, you wrongfully concluded my comments to be negative.

If you don't see how republican attendance at the commemorative events would have been a good gesture consistent with "out reach" I don't think there is anything for me to add.

You might want to consider that your thinking isn't actually a benefit. Considering that you're in line with the black Democratic establishment.

:smh: One of the Golden Rules (or should be one): "When you really don't have something intelligent or constructive to say, Just shut the fuck up."

 

Hell, try to change the conversation as much as you like, but that's EXACTLY what its about: More Votes.

In order for political parties or politicians to WIN, i.e., put into place their POV's, policies, etc., they must get the support of enough people (voters when you need them; and other elected officials, when you need them) to make that happen.

Why does the republican party want to "reach-out" ??? To win over more people (in this case, more minorities). Winning-over more people = more votes at the polls. More votes at the polls, they hope, = winning on election day and ultimately installing its agenda.

Whether its democrats, republicans or Librarians its ALWAYS about WINNING. No matter how hard you try to distort it Greed, attending commemorations, kissing babies, showing your face in the place, pressing a little flesh, making those recall that you were there and fighting on their side when the going was tough, (this could go on, you know) -- is ALL ABOUT reaching out to gain support and, as the gentleman from North Carolina so aptly put it, in this instance:

QueEx, it's futile. The republicans said it, Greed confirms it. They do not want Black votes!

Let them exist in their theoretical, ideological world and let them see if that gets them elected in the future. You have got to be in office to make policy. The Republicans use to be masters at saying one thing and doing another to get in office. Now they have dropped all pretenses of appalling to the masses. This is better, the contrast been two paths are much clear now to the typical voter.
 
Hell, try to change the conversation as much as you like, but that's EXACTLY what its about: More Votes.

In order for political parties or politicians to WIN, i.e., put into place their POV's, policies, etc., they must get the support of enough people (voters when you need them; and other elected officials, when you need them) to make that happen.

Why does the republican party want to "reach-out" ??? To win over more people (in this case, more minorities). Winning-over more people = more votes at the polls. More votes at the polls, they hope, = winning on election day and ultimately installing its agenda.

Whether its democrats, republicans or Librarians its ALWAYS about WINNING. No matter how hard you try to distort it Greed, attending commemorations, kissing babies, showing your face in the place, pressing a little flesh, making those recall that you were there and fighting on their side when the going was tough, (this could go on, you know) -- is ALL ABOUT reaching out to gain support and, as the gentleman from North Carolina so aptly put it, in this instance:
Change the conversation? thoughtone and I was talking about the March Commemoration, you butt in with "why didn't they peep their head in," I responded, then you come back with some broad topic about the Republican's overall outreach program. I regretfully took you at face value and point out how I don't see it as consistent. Now you're promoting that I'm avoiding the point.

I told thoughtone to stop dwelling on it, and I told you to get over it. Republicans are not looking to court the black vote. Black people vote 95% Democrat. Move on. Reality is firmly set. You feel Republicans are wrong? Fine. Like Dave said, let them fade away in the demographic shift.

:smh: One of the Golden Rules (or should be one): "When you really don't have something intelligent or constructive to say, Just shut the fuck up."
Does it apply to you too?
 
QueEx, it's futile. The republicans said it, Greed confirms it. They do not want Black votes!

Let them exist in their theoretical, ideological world and let them see if that gets them elected in the future. You have got to be in office to make policy. The Republicans use to be masters at saying one thing and doing another to get in office. Now they have dropped all pretenses of appalling to the masses. This is better, the contrast been two paths are much clear now to the typical voter.
See, thoughtone gets it.

Stop crying about how Republicans don't like you, but you still want them to come to your events. It makes perfect sense for Republicans not to show up. Now you just need to be sensible and stop wanting them there.

I can't figure out if you guys are sadist or masochist.
 
Change the conversation? thoughtone and I was talking about the March Commemoration, you butt in with "why didn't they peep their head in," I responded, then you come back with some broad topic about the Republican's overall outreach program. I regretfully took you at face value and point out how I don't see it as consistent. Now you're promoting that I'm avoiding the point.

Dude, you're all fucked up with this! I didn't butt-in to anything. I simply asserted (and I still maintain) that I fail to see why the republicans didn't participate in the Commemorative events of the 63' March on Washington -- because it would have been an excellent time for the them (individually and as a party) to exercise that outreach that they, THEMSELVES, had mentioned earlier in their post mortem following the drubbing Obama put on their azz in November, 2012.

YOU, Greed, retorted with:


"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."

AND from there, several posters have clearly demonstrated both the relevance of my comment; the utility in the republicans and their party in participating; and your gross error in failing to recognize either.


I told thoughtone to stop dwelling on it, and I told you to get over it. Republicans are not looking to court the black vote. Black people vote 95% Democrat. Move on. Reality is firmly set. You feel Republicans are wrong? Fine. Like Dave said, let them fade away in the demographic shift.

I think we've all moved-on a long damn time ago!!! But, that doesn't prevent us, like it doesn't prevent you, from expressing our opinions on that, or any other, subject.

Strangely though, when we comment or opine -- you leap to the defense.

:rolleyes:
 
See, thoughtone gets it.

Stop crying about how Republicans don't like you, but you still want them to come to your events. It makes perfect sense for Republicans not to show up. Now you just need to be sensible and stop wanting them there.

I can't figure out if you guys are sadist or masochist.

As should be clear to you by now, not one of us gives one shit about your republicans. :lol:

But, we are free to give our opinions, just as you are free to defend them :yes:
 
See, thoughtone gets it.

Stop crying about how Republicans don't like you, but you still want them to come to your events. It makes perfect sense for Republicans not to show up. Now you just need to be sensible and stop wanting them there.

I can't figure out if you guys are sadist or masochist.

I got it a long time ago, along with most Black folk.

Today's republicans have no interest in voting rights for Black folk. But you think a descendant of those that suffered at the hands of those in his party that celebrate those that did the disfranchising would get it.

Greed, please post the hypocrisy next time Dr. King is invoked.
 
Dude, you're all fucked up with this! I didn't butt-in to anything. I simply asserted...
That's fine if you want to promote you were just randomly expressing yourself while thoughtone and I was discussing it.

AND from there, several posters have clearly demonstrated both the relevance of my comment; the utility in the republicans and their party in participating; and your gross error in failing to recognize either.
The usual dynamic on this board is the three of you demonstrate to/for each other. Patting each other on the back isn't a demonstration of relevance on anything. It just means your priority is the choir.

I think we've all moved-on a long damn time ago!!! But, that doesn't prevent us, like it doesn't prevent you, from expressing our opinions on that, or any other, subject.

Strangely though, when we comment or opine -- you leap to the defense.

:rolleyes:
This particular topic has been brought up to me directly at least twice (I would say at least three times but you swear you were just talking to yourself). I don't care about this commemoration. The average black person didn't care about this commemoration. The only angle people are using to keep it relevant is to talk about the Republicans that weren't even there. That's how much substance was on display at that event. You want me to stop talking about? Tell thoughtone to stop bringing it up to me in unrelated threads. I made it a point to avoid the thread dedicated to it. It's boring.

You call it defense because I don't see the point of a solidly Democratic group focusing on Republicans and I don't see the point of Republicans showing up to a Democratic function, then so be. You'll deny that it was a Democratic event while ignoring my post about the organizers, the audience, the speech content, and the widespread criticism of people on the left that are outside of the establishment.

I've said don't dwell on it, get over it, move on. What phrase will help stop you people from bringing it up to me? I can't just ignore it because then you'll shift back to the childish logic that someone is running away or avoiding certain topics because they're scared.

Help me help you help me.

As should be clear to you by now, not one of us gives one shit about your republicans. :lol:

But, we are free to give our opinions, just as you are free to defend them :yes:
Talking about perceived slights at the hands of Republicans sure sound like giving a shit to me.

But you keep on with your thoughtone impression. I've stating that I don't vote Republican and never will, and no one else should either. Your problem is you see value in their mirror images and hold large rallies for them in Washington.
 
I got it a long time ago, along with most Black folk.

Today's republicans have no interest in voting rights for Black folk. But you think a descendant of those that suffered at the hands of those in his party that celebrate those that did the disfranchising would get it.

Greed, please post the hypocrisy next time Dr. King is invoked.
It already happen. There were multiple Democratic and Republican events outside of the main re-March. Both parties invited the faithful and both parties took full credit for everything.

Why dwell on it.
 
It already happen. There were multiple Democratic and Republican events outside of the main re-March. Both parties invited the faithful and both parties took full credit for everything.

Why dwell on it.


Why did the republicans have "events outside of the main re-March"?
 

<param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=52997510&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc88a12a" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=52997510&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>




<param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=52997516&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc92671f" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=52997516&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

Cruz: "We need a 100 more in the Senate, like Jesse Helms."




 
Former Newark Mayor Cory Booker sworn in as U.S. senator

Former Newark Mayor Cory Booker sworn in as U.S. senator
By Thomas Ferraro | Reuters
1 hr 23 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats welcomed a new colleague to the Senate on Thursday, newly elected Cory Booker, and the additional vote Booker gives them in the Senate.

Vice President Joe Biden administered the oath to Booker, 44, elected this month as the first black senator from New Jersey. He resigned this week as mayor of Newark, the state's largest city.

A Rhodes scholar and Yale Law School graduate who is widely seen as a rising political star, Booker fills the Senate seat vacated by the death in June of fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg, who was 89.
http://news.yahoo.com/former-newark-mayor-cory-booker-sworn-u-senator-170917767.html
 
Black senators diverge on joining Congressional Black Caucus

Black senators diverge on joining Congressional Black Caucus
by theGrio |
November 22, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J..) elected to the U.S. Senate last month, has decided to join the Congressional Black Caucus, but the other African-American senator, Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina, says he will remain out of the group for now.

The two men’s decisions are not surprising, considering that the CBC has long been dominated by black Democrats. Scott did not join the CBC when he entered the House of Representatives in 2011 and opted to continue that policy after his Senate appointment last December. He told Roland Martin in an interview this week he would not join the CBC because “we’re better together.” But Scott pledged to find issues to work with Booker on.

“There are a lot of things we can work together for, and we should work together on,” he said.

Booker meanwhile has not only formally joined the CBC, but last week attended a dinner House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi hosted for black caucus members where they discussed the Voting Rights Act and other key issues.

http://thegrio.com/2013/11/22/black-senators-diverge-on-joining-congressional-black-caucus/
 
Scott's GOP victory sets up historic SC election

Scott's GOP victory sets up historic SC election
By MEG KINNARD
10 hours ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Having handily beaten his GOP challenger, U.S. Sen. Tim Scott is now poised to focus on his general election campaign, one that will likely make history.

Should he win his November contest, as is expected, Scott would become the first black senator ever elected in South Carolina's history. He would also be the state's first black candidate elected in any statewide contest since Reconstruction.

Scott had just been elected to a second U.S. House term when Gov. Nikki Haley appointed him in 2012 after Jim DeMint resigned. When he took office in early 2013, Scott became the Senate's only black member and the first black senator ever from South Carolina. This November's election is for the two years that remain in DeMint's term.

Scott has repeatedly downplayed the significance, if any, of his race, a theme he reiterated at a victory rally Tuesday night in North Charleston.

"What voters are looking for today are people who represent their values and not their pigmentation and complexion," Scott said. "My goal is not to focus on my face or anyone's race, but focus on the issues that are going to resonate in my heart and with South Carolinians."

Scott has been vocal about reforming health care for veterans, traveling across the state last week to hear concerns in the wake of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki's resignation. He also advocates streamlining federal job-training programs and supports a Savannah River Site nuclear fuel facility that the Obama administration has says it wants to shutter.

Coming off a victory over six tea party challengers in his own primary, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that he saw Scott as the future of the Republican Party.

"Our party in South Carolina has decided to serve people rather than just be blind ideologues," Graham said during an appearance with Scott and Haley. "In Tim Scott we have the future of conservatives all over the country. ... Tim has made history in so many different ways."

Scott's singular candidacy aside, the November election itself has historic implications. Scott's Democratic challenger, Richland County Council member Joyce Dickerson, is also black. That means the general election will mark South Carolina's first-ever U.S. Senate contest between two black major-party candidates. They'll face American Party candidate Jill Bossi, who is white.

Gibbs Knotts, a political scientist at the College of Charleston, said Scott could be positioned to play a role in changing the way voters view the Republican Party.

"Tim Scott has an opportunity to try to change some of the dynamics in American politics and make the Republican Party a party that reaches out to African-Americans and potentially becomes more attractive to African-Americans," Knotts said.

Nationwide, Republicans looking to hang onto their majority in the House and reclaim a majority in the Senate are struggling to recruit non-white voters. It's a crucial priority for a party whose base is mostly white, given that racial and ethnic minorities are expected to make up a majority of Americans within about 30 years. Black voters, for example, have been a reliably Democratic voting bloc since the civil rights era.

About 28 percent of South Carolina voters are black, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and 68 percent are white. But, Knotts said, Scott will need to address issues that appeal to black voters if he wants to pick off those who traditionally choose Democratic candidates.

Some black voters may align with the GOP on social issues like gay rights and abortion rights, though they may lean Democratic on welfare programs and economic issues.

"Partisan identification is the strongest predictor of someone's vote," Knotts said. "It doesn't have to be all or nothing. There may be some areas where Tim Scott can reach across the aisle, a la Lindsey Graham, and form partnerships on some issues where he can help deal with some policy issues that would be beneficial to African-Americans but also keep his Republican base."

Still, Scott remains a favorite to win in this heavily Republican state.

Dickerson did not respond to messages Wednesday, but she has previously said she'd mount a serious campaign against Scott, although her fundraising ability has yet to be seen.

As of late May, federal filings showed the Democrat with less than $6,000 cash on hand. Scott had nearly $3.9 million on hand, and the incumbent has aired television ads in heavy rotation, focusing on his ability to connect with "everyday people."

http://news.yahoo.com/scotts-gop-victory-sets-historic-sc-election-163608962--election.html
 
Latest RealClear and FiveThirtyEight polling has Booker and Scott both with 20-point winning margins.

I haven't heard about any other black candidates for the senate.
 
Gotta possible Black Governor in Maryland. He would be only the fourth.

Anthony_Brown_and_Karmen_Walker.jpg


Lt. Governor Anthony G. Brown



(The Lt. Governor has very good taste!)
 
Sen. Scott vs. MSNBC's Thomas Roberts: I Got An "F" From NAACP Because I Believe Libe

Sen. Scott vs. MSNBC's Thomas Roberts: I Got An "F" From NAACP Because I Believe Liberal Policies Failed

THOMAS ROBERTS, MSNBC: Sir, you said you that are concerned. This is Thomas Roberts, by the way. You said you are concerned about kids that are growing up in the wrong zip code and like yourself that had a tough start on the way out. But if we look at agencies that are following some of your voting records, they have concern and the NAACP has given you an "F" on their annual scorecard. They also say you voted against the ACA. You voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. You oppose the Congressional Black Caucus' budget. Delayed funding on a settlement between the U.S. and black farmers who say that they were prejudiced against because of their race. So how do you respond to that, if your true concern is about lower income families and kids?

SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC): Well, let's just ask ourselves as we look back over history when the Congress was controlled by the Democrats for 40 consecutive years. If we look at the result of that control what has happened in black America. We saw greater poverty. If we take the statistics from 1970s to the 21st century, what we see very clearly is that poverty has gone from 11% to 15%. These are classic examples that the policies of the left have not worked.

I will tell you if I have an "F" on the NAACP scorecard it's because I believe that progress has to be made and the government is not the answer for progress. I was a kid growing up in poverty. I had a mentor who was a Chick-Fil-A operator who taught me that the brilliance of the American economy happens through business ownership and entrepreneurial spirit. So whether you own the business or not, success is possible if you, a, have a good education, b, have a strong work ethic. For the average person who can work, these two key components come together and form a foundation. That is the way that you eradicate poverty.

All the social programs that we've had -- we've had the largest government we've ever had in the history of the country. We have more nonprofit organizations working on the same issue and yet we have a higher percentage of people living in poverty. The key it seems like is individual freedom and economic opportunity, fusing those together in an agenda that focuses on education seems to lead forward. This is clearly the case in D.C. where the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship has produced higher percentage of kids going to college. It's produced 91% of the kids graduating from high school versus 56% for those who are simply in everyday schools in D.C. I want that to be the case for either child.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ecause_i_believe_liberal_policies_failed.html
 
Re: Sen. Scott vs. MSNBC's Thomas Roberts: I Got An "F" From NAACP Because I Believe

Sen. Scott vs. MSNBC's Thomas Roberts: I Got An "F" From NAACP Because I Believe Liberal Policies Failed

THOMAS ROBERTS, MSNBC: Sir, you said you that are concerned. This is Thomas Roberts, by the way. You said you are concerned about kids that are growing up in the wrong zip code and like yourself that had a tough start on the way out. But if we look at agencies that are following some of your voting records, they have concern and the NAACP has given you an "F" on their annual scorecard. They also say you voted against the ACA. You voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. You oppose the Congressional Black Caucus' budget. Delayed funding on a settlement between the U.S. and black farmers who say that they were prejudiced against because of their race. So how do you respond to that, if your true concern is about lower income families and kids?

SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC): Well, let's just ask ourselves as we look back over history when the Congress was controlled by the Democrats for 40 consecutive years. If we look at the result of that control what has happened in black America. We saw greater poverty. If we take the statistics from 1970s to the 21st century, what we see very clearly is that poverty has gone from 11% to 15%. These are classic examples that the policies of the left have not worked.

I will tell you if I have an "F" on the NAACP scorecard it's because I believe that progress has to be made and the government is not the answer for progress. I was a kid growing up in poverty. I had a mentor who was a Chick-Fil-A operator who taught me that the brilliance of the American economy happens through business ownership and entrepreneurial spirit. So whether you own the business or not, success is possible if you, a, have a good education, b, have a strong work ethic. For the average person who can work, these two key components come together and form a foundation. That is the way that you eradicate poverty.

All the social programs that we've had -- we've had the largest government we've ever had in the history of the country. We have more nonprofit organizations working on the same issue and yet we have a higher percentage of people living in poverty. The key it seems like is individual freedom and economic opportunity, fusing those together in an agenda that focuses on education seems to lead forward. This is clearly the case in D.C. where the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship has produced higher percentage of kids going to college. It's produced 91% of the kids graduating from high school versus 56% for those who are simply in everyday schools in D.C. I want that to be the case for either child.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ecause_i_believe_liberal_policies_failed.html


Has the lot of Black folk improved since Scott has been senator?

Will it improve while he is senator?
 
Edward Brooke, first black popularly elected to U.S. Senate, dies: Republican party s

Edward Brooke, first black popularly elected to U.S. Senate, dies: Republican party spokeswoman
Reuters
50 minutes ago

(Reuters) - Edward Brooke, the Massachusetts Republican who was the first African-American to be popularly elected to the U.S. Senate, died on Saturday, according to Massachusetts Republican Party spokeswoman Kirsten Hughes.

Brooke, 95, was elected to Congress in 1966 by voters in Massachusetts at a time when the nation was gripped in racial unrest.

He was serving as the Massachusetts attorney general when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

There had been two black senators shortly after the Civil War but until early in the 20th Century, senators were picked by state legislatures and not by popular vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/edward-brooke-first-black-popularly-elected-u-senate-212248146.html
 
Re: Edward Brooke, first black popularly elected to U.S. Senate, dies: Republican par

Edward Brooke, first black popularly elected to U.S. Senate, dies: Republican party spokeswoman
Reuters
50 minutes ago

(Reuters) - Edward Brooke, the Massachusetts Republican who was the first African-American to be popularly elected to the U.S. Senate, died on Saturday, according to Massachusetts Republican Party spokeswoman Kirsten Hughes.

Brooke, 95, was elected to Congress in 1966 by voters in Massachusetts at a time when the nation was gripped in racial unrest.

He was serving as the Massachusetts attorney general when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

There had been two black senators shortly after the Civil War but until early in the 20th Century, senators were picked by state legislatures and not by popular vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/edward-brooke-first-black-popularly-elected-u-senate-212248146.html

Edward_Brooke.jpg



Mr. Brooke served in the Senate from 1967-1979.
Elected attorney general in 1962 and reelected
two years later, he was the first African-American
to hold that office in any state.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...uction-dies/oRou5Pz1NyxIiX1ExZ9w6K/story.html
 
Last edited:
Edward Brooke, 1st black popularly elected senator, honored
Associated Press
March 10, 2015 7:33 PM

BOSTON (AP) — Political leaders from Massachusetts joined hundreds of others at a funeral service Tuesday in Washington, D.C., for Edward Brooke, the first African-American elected to the U.S. Senate by popular vote.

Brooke, a liberal Republican, represented the state in the U.S. Senate from 1967 to 1979. He died Jan. 3 at his home in Coral Gables, Florida, at the age of 95.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who held Brooke's former seat from 1985 to 2013, eulogized him at the National Cathedral service as "a man of consummate dignity" who stayed true to himself and his beliefs, The Boston Globe reports (http://bit.ly/1AeHeUj).

"Senator Brooke shunned the title of trailblazer, but that's what he was," Kerry said.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's delegate to Congress, also praised Brooke at the service, the newspaper reported.

"The Senate has always had its share of self-made men and women. Edward Brooke was a self-made senator," she said.

Brooke, the son of a Veterans Administration lawyer, was from Washington. He graduated from Howard University in 1941. After serving in the Army in World War II, he graduated from Boston University Law School and settled in Boston.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Sen. Edward Markey and former interim Sen. William "Mo" Cowan attended the funeral, along with South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the first African-American senator elected from the South since the Civil War.

Brooke was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

http://news.yahoo.com/edward-brooke-1st-black-popularly-elected-senator-honored-233303287.html
 
Cory Booker’s Mitt Romney Problem

Cory Booker’s Mitt Romney Problem
By Sean Braswell
9 hours ago

“Nauseating.” That’s what Cory Booker called the Obama campaign’s assaults on Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital while urging his fellow Democrats to “stop attacking private equity” during a May 2012 appearance on Meet the Press. The Newark mayor’s remarks turned stomachs in his own party, leaving the impression that he was, as his own campaign manager put it in The Atlantic, “some sort of Manchurian candidate for the right.”

Since becoming the junior U.S. senator from New Jersey in 2013, Booker has fortified his liberal credentials somewhat — see his work on criminal justice reform and a federal minimum wage hike — but the ambitious politico still has his own Mitt Romney problem that could derail his rapid rise.

All politicians are fueled by a combination of public duty and personal ambition. The best ones succeed by convincing us cynics that it’s more the former than the latter. Some, like 2012 presidential also-ran Mitt Romney, just can’t outrun the perception that they are some sort of alien android whose every move has been lab-tested to maximize political utility. Cory Booker, as Jason Horowitz of The Washington Post once put it, “seems to have been engineered in a political lab to walk the halls of Congress.” To be sure, the charismatic politician has a lot going for him, but if Booker, just 46, is going to reach his potential on the national stage, then he may have to convince us that doing so was never his intent. (The senator’s office did not respond to requests for comment.)

Booker has long enjoyed the limelight. A brawny, 6-foot-3 football player from Harrington, New Jersey, the shaven-headed All-American and honors student attended Stanford, Oxford (as a Rhodes scholar) and Yale Law School. Just one year out of law school, he won a seat on Newark’s city council in 1998. Four years later, he waged his first mayoral campaign, challenging, at age 33, incumbent Sharpe James, a machine politician who was later indicted on 33 counts of fraud. Booker lost, but the race ended up becoming the subject of an Oscar-nominated documentary film.

He eventually won the office in 2006, after spending the eight years prior living in one of Newark’s most crime-ridden housing projects. It was the kind of act that would endear him to some, and strike others as a calculated political stunt. There would be many more such acts: rescuing a neighbor from a fire, hunger strikes to raise awareness of drug dealing, living on the budget of a food stamp recipient. During a 2010 blizzard, he responded to distressed residents’ tweets for help, even showing up with his own shovel to help dig them out. “Residents knew if they tweeted me about a pothole it would be addressed,” Sen. Booker recently told Wired.

Today, politicos must be gifted orators and tweeters alike; Booker is blessed to be both. See his 1.56 million Twitter followers and counting. And, as an early adopter and evangelist, Booker believes the medium can be used to reach out to constituents in more efficient and cost-effective ways than, say, a typewritten letter from your congressman. He’s even trying to make the Senate itself more tech savvy, pressing the chamber’s Rules Committee to allow senators to track their social media statistics, use cloud-based storage and develop a website that allows citizens to track ongoing legislative action on the Senate floor.

Booker’s social media prowess, including trumpeting his own accomplishments, has not helped his reputation for grandstanding. But the resistance his political rise has engendered has other sources as well. Part of it stems from his outsider status. “He really upset the apple cart when he burst into the political scene in Newark,” Andra Gillespie, a professor of political science at Emory University, says of Booker’s assault on the city’s status quo. Booker’s middle-class background and narrative were also different from most other residents of Newark, a city with a history of persistent poverty and racial inequality, leaving him — like another black politician and outsider now in the White House — with a lot to prove.

But, as a big-city mayor rather than a community organizer, Booker has had, as Sarah Palin once quipped at the 2008 Republican National Convention, plenty of “actual responsibility” — not to mention an actual record. And it’s a mixed one. He balanced the city’s budget and, thanks partly to those Wall Street connections, he brought in more than $1 billion in new development, and more than $400 million in philanthropic investment, including a $100 million pledge from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, to Newark. But early crime reduction has proven ephemeral and Booker’s signature overhaul of the city’s school system, including replacing neighborhood schools with a citywide lottery, has been problematic. As a senator, Booker has taken on a lower profile, focusing largely on criminal justice reforms, including a recent bill that would require police departments to report officer shootings to the Justice Department. He has also reached out to colleagues across the aisle, teaming up with South Carolina Republican Tim Scott to co-sponsor a bill (the LEAP Act) that would provide tax credits to employers that offer apprenticeships to young employees.

Personally, Booker is an unmarried vegan, not something you come across everyday with a politician, and something that belies the view that he is merely a strategic one. “He’s engrossed in his professional life. He puts all of his energy into it,” says Jonathan Wharton, a political scientist at Southern Connecticut State University. If Booker’s path is to end at the White House, then he will need to sustain that energy: No mayor of a major American city, including his pal (and seven-figure donor) Michael Bloomberg, has every made the jump to the Oval Office. And to even have a chance, the young senator will need to re-take the narrative of his own life, something he will undoubtedly start in his upcoming memoirs (to be released in January). There, like Obama before him, Cory “Story” Booker, as his Newark critics once labeled him, is sure to luxuriate in crafting his own narrative — in more than 140 characters.

http://news.yahoo.com/cory-booker-mitt-romney-problem-080000808.html
 
Re: Cory Booker’s Mitt Romney Problem

Personally, Booker is an unmarried vegan, not something you come across everyday with a politician, and something that belies the view that he is merely a strategic one.

http://news.yahoo.com/cory-booker-mitt-romney-problem-080000808.html


graham.jpg


Lindsey Graham on bachelorhood: I'm not 'defective'

‘I don’t think there’s anything in the Constitution that says single people need not apply for president,’ he tells POLITICO in an interview.



 
Back
Top