What have you done for me lately...Republicans v Democrats

Re: Rand Paul to speak at Howard University

As for Republican outreach to minorities, Gingrich stressed that there’s a marked difference between “outreach” and “inclusion:”

And just for our audience, there’s a difference between outreach and inclusion. Outreach is when five white guys have a meeting and call you. Inclusion is when you’re in the meeting, which inherently changes the whole tenor of the meeting. This will be a big challenge for the House Republicans. They’re a very comfortable majority; with a Democratic president they’re likely to stay a majority for a long time. The question is do they want to, in a disciplined way, create a schedule and a program and include people who are not traditionally Republican order to grow a party that in 2016 is competitive.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gingrich...hen-5-white-guys-have-a-meeting-and-call-you/
 
Rand Paul's Play to Win Over Black Voters at Howard University

Considering the press, he better say something worthwhile.

Rand Paul's Play to Win Over Black Voters at Howard University
By Elahe Izadi | Monday, April 8, 2013 | 10:04 p.m.

The GOP minority outreach efforts continue: This time, it’s Sen. Rand Paul taking the message to a historically black university.

Paul will be delivering a speech at Howard University on Wednesday, where he’ll talk about “the importance of outreach to younger voters, as well as minority groups,” according to his office. He also plans to address school choice and civil liberties.

The Kentucky Republican’s appearance echoes the recommendations made in the Republican National Committee’s autopsy report, detailing why the party lost the 2012 election and urging the party to court minority and young voters. Paul’s positions on foreign policy, Internet freedom, and reforming drug laws appeal to younger voters on college campuses. He also has targeted mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes, which disproportionately affects African-Americans.

But Paul makes for an unusual GOP emissary to black voters. His libertarian, small-government bent is a tough sell in the African-American community, which has long viewed federal government intervention as necessary for securing equal rights. Blacks also make up a disproportionate share of the federal workforce.

While running for Senate in 2010, Paul’s comments that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in forcing private businesses not to racially discriminate created a firestorm. He had to scramble to clarify that he supports the Civil Rights Act and is against segregation in public spaces, and by the next day, he seemed to reverse his position on discrimination by private entities.

The choice of venue for Paul’s speech is also notable. Howard University rarely draws prominent Republican speakers to campus: Colin Powell gave Howard’s commencement speech in 1994, and in 1981, then-Vice President Bush received an honorary degree and delivered the commencement speech. But George W. Bush declined the invitation to speak at Howard during his 2000 campaign, and Al Gore spoke instead. The younger Bush’s name was floated to deliver the 2002 commencement speech, which was met with wide protest.

Republicans haven’t completely ignored major black communities or organizations. Mitt Romney spoke to the NAACP convention in 2012—but he was met with boos when he said he wanted to repeal President Obama’s health care law.

The party’s tactics appear to be shifting after Romney lost the 2012 election while only pulling 6 percent of the black vote. National Republicans are increasingly acknowledging that the party can no longer ignore minority groups if it wants to remain relevant in the future. RNC chairman Reince Priebus met with black leaders in Brooklyn for a “listening session” as part of GOP outreach efforts. The political impetus for Republicans to embrace immigration reform is tied to how badly they lost the Hispanic vote in 2012. Republicans like Jeb Bush have pushed school reform as an issue that could help the GOP make inroads with urban, minority voters.

It appears Paul has gotten the message. He’s already delivered a major speech to an important Hispanic group on immigration reform—even peppering it with some Spanish, for good measure. His plans to address school choice during his Howard speech also underscore an effort to speak on issues that resonate within the black community. That kind of approach, while not likely to win over many African-Americans, could at least make them think twice about the Republican Party. That alone could do wonders for the party’s outreach efforts.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...er-black-voters-at-howard-university-20130408
 
Re: Rand Paul's Play to Win Over Black Voters at Howard University

Considering the press, he better say something worthwhile.

Rand Paul's Play to Win Over Black Voters at Howard University
By Elahe Izadi | Monday, April 8, 2013 | 10:04 p.m.

The GOP minority outreach efforts continue: This time, it’s Sen. Rand Paul taking the message to a historically black university.

Paul will be delivering a speech at Howard University on Wednesday, where he’ll talk about “the importance of outreach to younger voters, as well as minority groups,” according to his office. He also plans to address school choice and civil liberties.

The Kentucky Republican’s appearance echoes the recommendations made in the Republican National Committee’s autopsy report, detailing why the party lost the 2012 election and urging the party to court minority and young voters. Paul’s positions on foreign policy, Internet freedom, and reforming drug laws appeal to younger voters on college campuses. He also has targeted mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes, which disproportionately affects African-Americans.

But Paul makes for an unusual GOP emissary to black voters. His libertarian, small-government bent is a tough sell in the African-American community, which has long viewed federal government intervention as necessary for securing equal rights. Blacks also make up a disproportionate share of the federal workforce.

While running for Senate in 2010, Paul’s comments that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in forcing private businesses not to racially discriminate created a firestorm. He had to scramble to clarify that he supports the Civil Rights Act and is against segregation in public spaces, and by the next day, he seemed to reverse his position on discrimination by private entities.

The choice of venue for Paul’s speech is also notable. Howard University rarely draws prominent Republican speakers to campus: Colin Powell gave Howard’s commencement speech in 1994, and in 1981, then-Vice President Bush received an honorary degree and delivered the commencement speech. But George W. Bush declined the invitation to speak at Howard during his 2000 campaign, and Al Gore spoke instead. The younger Bush’s name was floated to deliver the 2002 commencement speech, which was met with wide protest.

Republicans haven’t completely ignored major black communities or organizations. Mitt Romney spoke to the NAACP convention in 2012—but he was met with boos when he said he wanted to repeal President Obama’s health care law.

The party’s tactics appear to be shifting after Romney lost the 2012 election while only pulling 6 percent of the black vote. National Republicans are increasingly acknowledging that the party can no longer ignore minority groups if it wants to remain relevant in the future. RNC chairman Reince Priebus met with black leaders in Brooklyn for a “listening session” as part of GOP outreach efforts. The political impetus for Republicans to embrace immigration reform is tied to how badly they lost the Hispanic vote in 2012. Republicans like Jeb Bush have pushed school reform as an issue that could help the GOP make inroads with urban, minority voters.

It appears Paul has gotten the message. He’s already delivered a major speech to an important Hispanic group on immigration reform—even peppering it with some Spanish, for good measure. His plans to address school choice during his Howard speech also underscore an effort to speak on issues that resonate within the black community. That kind of approach, while not likely to win over many African-Americans, could at least make them think twice about the Republican Party. That alone could do wonders for the party’s outreach efforts.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...er-black-voters-at-howard-university-20130408

:lol::lol::lol:

What do you expect from a guy that believes liberty and justice are not equivalent.


source: Huffington Post

Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.

"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."

Paul's comments on how to improve race relations come at an interesting time, following the recent revelation of a series of racist and homophobic newsletters that were published under his name in the 1980s and 1990s. Paul has denounced the newsletters, and he says that although he was the publisher, he didn't write or review any of the offensive comments in them -- only the "economic parts."

"I'm the true civil libertarian when it comes to [race relations], and I think that people ought to, you know, look at my position there, rather than dwelling on eight sentences that I didn't write and didn't authorize and have been, you know, apologetic about," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on Sunday. "Because it shouldn't have been there, and it was terrible stuff."
 
Minority Voters and the GOP: Rand Paul’s Third Way

Minority Voters and the GOP: Rand Paul’s Third Way
Seth Mandel
04.11.2013 - 12:05 PM

When confronted with the Republican Party’s poor standing among minority communities, GOP politicians have usually taken one of two approaches: claim these communities constitute “natural conservative constituencies” or advocate a broad change in policy or ideology to attract minority voters. Neither one of these tactics has been effective, for various reasons–chief among those reasons is that the communities under consideration are usually not “natural conservative constituencies.”

Take Hispanics, for example. It is often noted by GOP politicians that Hispanic immigrants are hard-working, family-oriented strivers who tend to be religious. That may be true, but polls showed that while Mitt Romney was generally trusted on the economy more than Barack Obama, Hispanics overwhelmingly trusted Obama on the economy. Whether or not Hispanics share a cultural or social conservatism with the GOP, then, becomes basically irrelevant. I wrote about one poll here that showed 73 percent of Hispanics preferred Obama to Romney on the economy, and 73 percent planned to vote for Obama. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

Conservatives also tried to convince themselves that since black voters were generally disapproving toward gay marriage, they would gravitate toward the GOP. But when it came to national elections, black voters weren’t basing their choices on gay marriage, and now African-American opposition to gay marriage is dropping anyway.

But there is a third way, in fact, to try to appeal to minority voters, and it was typified in Rand Paul’s speech to the predominantly black Howard University yesterday. This strategy may not work either, but it is certainly worth trying. Paul’s third way had two elements. The first, and obvious, one is to show up in the first place. Conservatives cannot expect minority voters to come to them; if you want someone’s vote, you have to prove it–and earn it.

In the Washington Post’s wrap-up of the 2012 presidential election, the paper noted that Paul Ryan, on the ticket as the vice presidential nominee, apparently “had wanted to talk about poverty, traveling to inner cities and giving speeches that laid out the Republican vision for individual empowerment.” The Romney campaign, according to the Post’s sources, was unconvinced. But Ryan had the right idea. (Rand Paul’s speech at Howard raises the question of why Ryan isn’t giving those speeches now that he’s no longer restrained by the top of a presidential ticket.)

As Romney’s disastrous “47 percent” remarks showed, if you appear utterly uninterested in someone’s vote, you’re probably not going to get it. But the second part of Paul’s approach at Howard, and the identifying element of his third way, has to do with policy. When Republicans address the issue of minority voters, they often come off as condescending. They tend to hold that minority voters simply don’t know that they should obviously be voting Republican, or that if they repeat the same message enough it’ll get through–both of which suggest ignorance on the part of the voter being addressed.

But as Rand Paul found out yesterday, these voters quite often do follow the policy fights in Washington and know exactly where they stand on the issues. Luckily, Paul came prepared. Though the students were skeptical of much of what Paul had to say, he did receive cheers for his advocacy of reforming mandatory minimum sentences for some drug offenders. Mandatory minimums take sentencing discretion out of the hands of judges and often result in wildly disproportionate sentences that have a disparate impact on the black community.

About three weeks ago, Paul and Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy introduced a bill that would provide a “safety valve” for drug sentencing, allowing the judge in some cases to levy far less jail time when the circumstances call for leniency. Additionally, while Paul doesn’t favor full legalization of marijuana, he is stridently opposed to the way those who use the drug are prosecuted. In a recent appearance on Fox News Sunday, Paul said:

Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and I really think, you know, look what would have happened, it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don’t get lucky. They don’t have good attorneys, and they go to jail for these things and I think it’s a big mistake.

When California proposed legalizing marijuana in 2010, polling showed it had the support of two-thirds of the state’s black voters, and an NAACP official called it “a civil rights issue.” Paul also supports school choice, which tends to attract support from the black community in both red and blue states.

Paul was far from embraced by the students at Howard yesterday. But Republicans have to start by showing up. It’s a low-risk proposition anyway, since it’s unlikely Paul’s third way will fare any worse than its predecessors.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/04/11/minority-voters-and-the-gop-rand-pauls-third-way/
 
Why some black voters say they're listening to Rand Paul

Why some black voters say they're listening to Rand Paul
BY SAM YOUNGMAN
Herald-Leader political writerDecember 9, 2013

Going by conventional wisdom and modern political party tendencies, it's hard to imagine a more unlikely setting.

But there was U.S. Sen. Rand Paul last Thursday, sitting in a leather wingback chair, a large collection of African ceremonial masks on the wall to his left, as he discussed the contributions of Malcolm X to the civil rights movement.

It was a cold, gray morning at Simmons College in Louisville's West End. Paul had a full day of events scheduled around the commonwealth as he pushed for "Economic Freedom Zones" and attempted to shore up his support in Kentucky before possibly embarking on a run for the White House. But his morning was set aside for Rev. Kevin Cosby, a well-respected leader within Louisville's black community, and a man who calls Paul a friend.

After the Republican Party's shameful showing with minority groups in the 2012 election, Paul has been far from subtle about trying to take the lead in reaching out to black voters.

So he gave a speech at Howard University in April, and last week followed up with a speech to the Detroit Economic Club. The scoffs from national black leaders and the Democratic Party weren't subtle, either.

What in the world is a man who questioned the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and reluctantly accepted the resignation of a staffer who once called himself the Southern Avenger doing leading the GOP's efforts to reach black voters?

Pundits and national Democrats — and probably an overwhelming majority of black voters — have all but doubled over laughing at the sometimes clumsy efforts of the GOP's unlikely director of minority outreach.

Cosby isn't laughing.

The reverend started at St. Stephen Church 34 years ago with 250 people in his congregation. Today, he has more than 14,000 and is president of Simmons College.

Cosby, who was praised by Democrats and Republicans contacted for this column, said he was surprised when he saw Paul at St. Stephen three years ago for a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day celebration. Since then, the two men have talked often.

The reverend is a registered Democrat, and he is adamant that he is not endorsing Paul politically. (Cosby said he hasn't decided if he would vote for Paul for president in 2016.) But Cosby and a handful of other black community leaders are helping to shepherd Paul's outreach effort.

For example, Cosby noted that Paul often talked about the Republican staple of states' rights without realizing that many black voters view it as a loaded term.

"Anytime you start using terms like 'states' rights,' that conjures up a lot of emotions for the African-American community because that's what the Dixiecrats used," Cosby said. "I say, 'man, it's not what you say, it's what people hear.' I know he gets it."

In an interview Monday, Paul acknowledged that he is learning that comments he makes are being dissected like never before and that his thoughts on the Civil Rights Act require a lengthy, nuanced explanation, making it easy for his critics to paint him as out of touch, or worse, a racist.

"I think you have to realize that everything you say is seen through filters," Paul said. "Everything you do is trapped into a partisan vortex. Really some people are never going to give me credit for trying to do anything right or trying to fix anything."

To both the media and Paul's allies, the senator has a maddening stubborn streak, as evidenced by the way he dug in with his support of Jack Hunter, the staffer who resigned in July after past instances of Confederate sympathies came to light.

Paul said Monday that he and Hunter were late to realize the perception that came from his defense of the staffer, lamenting what he says is a partisan double-standard when it comes to forgiveness of past misdeeds.

"Everybody has forgiven Robert Byrd for saying things that frankly I find unforgivable or activities that I found unforgivable," Paul said, referring to the late West Virginia Democratic senator who was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan. "So I think that it comes down to partisan politics."

Was Cosby offended by that defense or Paul's remarks on the sweeping 1964 legislation? Absolutely, he said. But he also was offended when then-Sen. Joe Biden called Barack Obama "bright and articulate and clean" and when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Obama could win because he was light-skinned and doesn't speak with a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

"We have to be consistent," Cosby said. "I don't agree with what Biden said. I don't agree with what Harry Reid said. We give them a pass."

To the larger point though, Cosby said he and most black voters don't spend any time talking about the 1964 legislation. Things they do talk about — jobs, school choice and racial inequality in the criminal justice system, specifically when it comes to mandatory minimum sentencing laws and ex-felons not being able to vote — are the same things Paul is talking about, no matter the audience.

That, Cosby said, is why he's listening to Paul.

"I think he is a man of conviction," Cosby said. "And whether you agree with him or disagree with him, he has his core beliefs. And some of those core beliefs are important to the black community."

While the national media tends to limit Paul's outreach to the speeches he gave at Howard and in Detroit, people like Marcum French, executive director of the Plymouth Community Renewal Center in Louisville, see Paul's actions at play more than any politician they can remember.

French described Paul standing up recently at a massive fundraiser held on his behalf at a swanky Louisville country club. French was stunned, he said, when Paul, instead of using his remarks to ask for money for his Political Action Committee, asked the crowd to donate to Plymouth.

"What he's doing is very gutsy," French said, noting that Paul's office has donated clothing to the center and, with his permission, run mobile office hours from there to offer constituent services to one of the poorest zip codes in the country.

French also wouldn't say whether he would back Paul for president, and he was quick to acknowledge what appears to be political common sense: Rand Paul is not going to carry the black vote in 2016.

"I've heard people say he's using you. For what?" French said. "The fact that he's not likely to get a huge African-American voter turnout for the Republican Party in 2016 shows that what he's doing is not a selfish act. Because he's not going to get anything out of it in the short-run."

Obviously, Paul has more critics than fans in his endeavor, most of whom see it as nothing more than stereotypical political pandering. State Sen. Gerald Neal, D-Louisville, is chief among them, saying there is nothing "mystical" about a man who wants to be president showing up in poor, black communities.

"There's nothing exciting about this to me," Neal said. "He's never going to get the vast majority or significant amount of African-American votes because of his statements and policies. That's not going to happen."

Neal, who is a member of Cosby's congregation, said Paul is using the black community to try to "soften his image" nationally and this not a matter of "something saintly or there's an epiphany."

"This guy is pandering," Neal said. "Which is not uncommon for a politician to do."

Paul is pretty candid about his reasons for going to places like Detroit, telling the audience last week that he took an interest in the city because "I'm a politician, I am a Republican and I want votes."

http://www.kentucky.com/2013/12/09/2979825/political-paddock-why-some-black.html
 
Re: Why some black voters say they're listening to Rand Paul

Why some black voters say they're listening to Rand Paul

BY SAM YOUNGMAN

Herald-Leader political writer December 9, 2013

But his morning was set aside for Rev. Kevin Cosby, a well-respected leader within Louisville's black community, and a man who calls Paul a friend.

Cosby, who was . . .

Cosby said . . .

But Cosby and a handful

For example, Cosby noted that . . .

"We have to be consistent," Cosby said . . .

To the larger point though, Cosby said . . .

That, Cosby said, is why he's listening . . .

"I think he is a man of conviction," Cosby said . . .


Some is an indefinite term, to be sure; but it in terms of an entire race or ethnicity of people, to imply that some is significant, one would think it means more than one or even an un-named or un-identified handful . . .



:lol:
 
Tavis Smiley: No Good Reason To Vote "If You're Black Or Brown, Other Than Helping To

Tavis Smiley: No Good Reason To Vote "If You're Black Or Brown, Other Than Helping To Save The Democrats' Hide"
Posted on October 19, 2014

TAVIS SMILEY: That's a good point. And I think that issue would probably play better. And a lot of the reasons it might not be the top of the agenda is that Democrats respectfully know that they haven't even done everything they could have done on this issue.

The slogan that it could have been worse is not a winning slogan. And I think the economy is certainly better now that we expected it would have been a couple years ago. I think the president gets some credit for helping put what policies that have turned this economy around slowly.

Having said that, there's been no real fight even by Democrats for increasing the minimum wage to a living wage in this country. That measure can only go so far if you don't have the record to back that up.

There's a front-page story, George, as you know, in "The New York Times" today. They talk about the black vote is what the Democratic Party is relying upon now to save the Senate. News flash: if you're relying on the black vote, in a midterm election -- and I'm not suggesting that black voters don't care about this -- but if you're relying on that vote, then I think it's uninspired because we have double- and triple-digit unemployment in the African American community.

And again, if the message is something other than employment and what we're going to do for you, then what's the reason to go vote?

###

SMILEY: But if you're black or brown, let's be frank about this. If you're black or brown, other than helping to save the Democrats' hide, give me three good reasons and you turn out the vote this time.

Now I'll catch hell for saying that...

No, I am not suggesting -- I'm not suggesting that people ought to stay home and sit on their hands. What I'm suggesting is that neither party has focused clearly enough on the issues of black and brown voters to inspire them and motivate them to turn out in 2014. And we may see the same thing in 2016.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._than_helping_to_save_the_democrats_hide.html
 
Malcolm x: "you're a political chump!"

Why would Republicans want the black vote if they can win without it?

Actually looking at what I wrote, it makes it implicit that Democrats want the black vote because they can't win without it.

So why are black people so passive in their support and don't demand anything of substance and don't receive anything of substance.

MALCOLM X: "YOU'RE A POLITICAL CHUMP!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9AmuYqjRyg&feature=youtu.be&t=1h18m42s

"The government itself has failed us, and the White Liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us. Once we see that all these other sources to which we have turned have failed, we stop turning to them and start turning to ourselves.

You are the one who sent Kennedy to Washington. You’re the one who put the present Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. The Whites were evenly divided. It was the fact that you threw 80% of your votes behind the Democrats that put the Democrats in the White House. When you see this, you can see that the Negro vote is the key factor. And despite the fact that you are in a position to be the determining factor, what do you get out of it?

Democrats have been in Washington, D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They’ve been down there 4 years and all the legislation they wanted to bring up they brought up and got it out of the way, and now they bring up you. You put them first and they put you last, cause you are a chump (huge applause). A political chump.

In Washington, D.C. in the House of Representatives there are 257 who are Democrats. Only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats, only 33 are Republicans. The Party that you backed, controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate and still they can’t keep their promise to you, ’cause you’re a chump.

Anytime you throw your political weight behind a political Party that controls two-thirds of the government and that Party can’t keep the promises it made to you during election time, and you are dumb enough to walk around and identify yourself with that Party, you are not only a chump but you are a traitor to your race."
 
source: The Guardian

Loretta Lynch nomination vote stalled as Republicans announce new delay

Attorney general confirmation held up by vote on sex-trafficking legislation, the topic of some of her most distinguished work as a US attorney


1000.jpg

Loretta Lynch waits to be introduced during a confirmation hearing before the Senate in January.


Four months ago, Senator John McCain called Loretta Lynch, who is 55, “a very outstanding young woman” and said he “would imagine” that she would win Senate approval to replace Eric Holder as US attorney general.

That was then. On Friday, McCain announced he would not support Lynch. On Sunday, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell announced a new delay in a vote on Lynch’s confirmation, after what had already been, by some measures, a historic delay in bringing her nomination to the Senate floor.

It has been four months since Barack Obama first named Lynch as his preferred successor to Holder, but only about half that long since her nomination was re-submitted at the start of the new Congress, under its new Republican leadership, this past January.

With four Republicans openly supporting her, it appears Lynch has enough votes to be confirmed. But first the Republicans, who, as the majority, control the Senate schedule, must agree that the vote be held.

McConnell’s announcement on Sunday was an about-face from Friday, when he said the Senate would likely vote on Lynch this week. A new complication – or bad-faith delay, from the Democrats’ perspective – arose in the form of partisan disagreement about an abortion-related plank in a bill to combat human trafficking.

McConnell held the disagreement out as a reason to further suspend the Lynch vote.

“This will have an impact on the timing of considering a new attorney general,” he told CNN. “I had hoped to turn to her next week, but if we can’t finish the trafficking bill, she will be put off again.”

Should Lynch, a nominee whose qualifications as a prosecutor none in Congress have openly challenged, succumb to sideline partisan disagreements, the episode would set an early high standard for gridlock in the 114th Congress and seem competitive across an even longer term for laurels for legislative dysfunction.

Lynch still has a clear path to the top of the Justice Department. As long as none of the four Republicans who have said they will support her do not change their minds, and safely assuming the support of all 44 Senate Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them, Lynch would procure 50 “aye” votes, enough for a tie-breaker vote by the vice-president to push her over the top.

That’s much closer than the tally was originally expected to be. Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former Republican staff director of the House rules committee, said the Lynch nomination had suffered from continuing disenchantment in Congress with Holder, and from the timing of executive actions on immigration taken by Obama.

Lynch was nominated on 9 November; the president’s latest announcement of unilateral immigration reform was on 20 November.

“Her nomination has been sort of the victim of circumstances not directly related to her qualifications,” Wolfensberger said. “The Republicans’ attitude toward Holder, there’s some residual bitterness there. The other piece is the whole immigration issue … there is that whole well-poisoning that is the result of the president’s November immigration order that has impacted her.”

On Sunday, McConnell revealed yet another piece: Republican-sponsored legislation that would set up a fund to compensate victims of sex trafficking. The bill was considered a shoo-in until Democrats discovered it contained language that would ban funds being used for abortions. Such language in other legislation, likely in this case as in others to apply to very few real-world instances, has triggered automatic Democratic dissent. It was not immediately clear how the two sides could “finish” the bill, as McConnell put it, and move on to Lynch.

That Lynch’s nomination would be held up by legislation meant to protect sex-trafficking victims could be seen as ironic, given that some of Lynch’s most distinguished work as a US attorney has been in prosecuting international sex trafficking cases, including a major case in 2012 with a Mexico nexus in which 52 defendants were indicted and 100 victims were rescued.

It might also seem ironic that Republicans would hold up the Lynch nomination over their continuing objections to Holder. Holder has said he will stay in the job until he is replaced.

Republican objections to Lynch, however, have explicitly never been as much about Lynch as about the president and his policies. The new Republican majority assumed control of the Senate in January, vowing to find a way to block Obama’s executive actions on immigration. An effort to do that by putting homeland security funding on the line failed miserably earlier this month. The Lynch nomination was originally seen as insulated from that fight, but now it clearly is not.

“She’s had an outstanding record as a US attorney and I think everybody recognizes that, that she’s a top-caliber person from the standpoint of professionalism and character and so on,” Wolfensberger said.

Supporters of Lynch portray her nomination as urgent, saying her role as lead prosecutor in a case of unusually vicious police brutality, the 1997 Abner Louima case, showed her to be capable of handling policing reform in Ferguson, Missouri, and elsewhere.

“Loretta is going to be, I think, someone who can help strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and the community,” said Kenneth P Thompson, who worked on the Louima case with Lynch and now is the Brooklyn district attorney. “She is going to be fair to the police, she is going to be fair to the community.”

There is a historic resonance to the Lynch nomination as well. She was among the first wave of black students to enter public schools in Durham, North Carolina, in the mid-1960s, after desegregation. She would be the first African American woman to serve as attorney general.

“At every stage in her career, Loretta has followed the principles of fairness, equality, and justice that she absorbed as a young girl,” Obama said in a statement at her nomination ceremony. “She was born in Greensboro, North Carolina, the year before black students there sat down at a whites-only lunch counter, helping to spark a movement that would change the course of this country.”

At her confirmation hearing in January, Texas senator Ted Cruz asked Lynch whether she agreed with analysis by the White House office of legal counsel that backed the president’s deferral of deportation for an estimated 5 million undocumented migrants.

“I did find the analysis to be reasonable,” Lynch said.

McCain, who represents the border state of Arizona, is one of 24 Republican senators up for re-election in 2016 for whom perceived softness on immigration could invite a primary challenge from the right. On Friday, McCain tied his “nay” vote on Lynch to the immigration issue.

“No, he’s not voting for her,” a McCain spokesman said in a statement first obtained by Breitbart News, “because she called the Obama executive action on immigration ‘reasonable’.”
 
_83835828_83835827.jpg



Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) quietly ordered the removal of the Confederate flag from the state Capitol grounds this morning, his office confirmed to local press.

Republican Governor Nikki Haley called Monday for the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouse grounds but defended the right of private citizens to fly it.

Governor (R) Nathan Deal says the state will redesign a car licence plate that features the flag.

Mississippi - State House Speaker Philip Gunn (R) has called for the state to remove a smaller version of the rebel flag that is inset in the state's official flag.

Kentucky - US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has called for the removal of Confederate President Jefferson Davis' statue from the state Capitol's rotunda.

as far as I can see these are all republican officials. If anything this is actualy a decent gesture from the GOP in the last 40 years after they accepted all those racist dixiecrats into their party in the late 60s and allowed them to hold sway from then on.

Should or How should the Black Community acknowledge this action??
 

Should or How should the Black Community acknowledge this action??



Good question.

While I do not believe or suggest that you did it intentionally, but you moved to the question (if and/or how should we acknowledge: one actual removal; and a couple of proposed removals of the flag) without noting that it took the deaths of nine (9) Black souls just to get these peoples' attention. I make that point because it seems to me the response could easily be, did not the Black Community pay or give gesture, in advance?

 

Should or How should the Black Community acknowledge this action??


Assuming, arguendo, that some acknowledgement is due, who do you propose the Black Community acknowledge?

A political party?

A governor?

A legislature?

Confederates?

White people in general?

Black people who have died/sacrificed in the struggle?

 
Back
Top