Custom Search
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts

Monday, August 27, 2018

JOHN MCCAIN IS DEAD - POLITICAL BATTLE FOR HIS SEAT BEGINS BEFORE HE IS BURIED












JOHN MCCAIN IS DEAD - POLITICAL BATTLE FOR HIS SEAT BEGINS BEFORE HE IS EVEN BURIED:

AUGUST 29, 1936 - AUGUST 25, 2018

MCCAIN LEFT BEHIND MIXED POLITICAL LEGACY, HOWEVER HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REST IN PEACE AND STILL HONORED FOR HIS U.S. MILITARY SERVICE.

I SEND MY PRAYERS AND CONDOLENCES TO HIS FAMILY.


Post Sources: ABC News, BBC News, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Youtube


****** John McCain's death means potential legal battle to fill his Senate seat


With the news that Arizona Senator John McCainhas passed away due to complications from brain cancer, the speculation over who will succeed him in the position he has held since 1987 has begun in earnest.

The timing of McCain’s death results in a complicated process that could end up in a court battle in a state that will be key to determining the balance of power in the U.S. Senate this midterm cycle.

According to Arizona state law, the governor appoints a replacement for any vacancy in a U.S. Senate seat who will hold it until the "next eligible general election."

That person must belong to the same political party of the person who held the seat.

That means Doug Ducey, Arizona's Republican governor, would appoint a Republican to fill McCain's seat until the next general election or until the governor decided to call a special election.

However, the most relevant piece of election code in this situation is that the candidate filing deadline for the election cannot be fewer than 90 days before a primary for that special election.

The State of Arizona Election Procedures Manualstipulates that the vacancy "must occur sufficiently before" that deadline to gather signatures to get on the primary ballot.

Since the Arizona primaries will be held this Tuesday, the filing deadline for candidates would have had to have been May 30 for a special election to comply with state law.

So even though the next general election in Arizona is in November, the timing of McCain’s passing likely ensures that whomever Ducey appoints to replace him will serve until 2020, the next general election year.

Matt Roberts, the communications director for the Arizona Secretary of State, confirmed to ABC News that under state election regulations, Ducey can appoint a replacement that will serve in McCain’s seat until 2020.

Democrats could challenge that relevant portion of state election guidance to try and force a special election in 2018, which would put both of the state's Senate seats up this cycle since retiring Sen. Jeff Flake's seat is also up.

When asked about potential plans to pursue legal action to force a special election in 2018, a spokesperson for the Arizona Democratic Party declined to comment on the subject, instead telling ABC News, "John McCain is an American hero and our thoughts are with him and his family at this difficult time."

A special election this year would force Republicans to defend two Senate seats this cycle in a state Donald Trump won by just four percentage points in the 2016 presidential election.

Friday, July 21, 2017

JOHN MCCAIN'S RECOVERY & RETURN TO US SENATE REQUIRES LONG SHOT MIRACLE (ARIZONA SPECIAL ELECTION?)







JOHN MCCAIN'S RECOVERY & RETURN TO US SENATE REQUIRES LONG SHOT MIRACLE:

MCCAIN IS NOW BEING COMPARED TO THE LATE US SENATOR TED KENNEDY WHO DIED OF BRAIN CANCER IN 2009.

WILL A SPECIAL ELECTION BE HELD IN ARIZONA TO REPLACE MCCAIN?

WHEN??


Sources: ABC News, Fox News, NY Times, State of the Nation, Youtube


***** Despite cancer diagnosis, McCain says, 'I'll be back soon'


Battling brain cancer, John McCain on Thursday vowed to return to the Senate, leveling fresh criticism at the Trump administration and aiming a good-natured dig at Republican and Democratic colleagues shaken by news of his diagnosis.

"I greatly appreciate the outpouring of support — unfortunately for my sparring partners in Congress, I'll be back soon, so stand-by!" McCain said in a tweet. Showing no signs of stepping back from political and national security battles, he issued a statement slamming the Trump administration over its Syria policy.

The 80-year-old McCain, the GOP's presidential nominee in 2008 and a six-term Arizona lawmaker, was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive type of brain cancer, according to doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who had removed a blood clot above his left eye last Friday.

They also managed to remove all of the tumor that was visible on brain scans.

The senator and his family are considering further treatment, including chemotherapy and radiation, as he recuperates at his home in Arizona. President Donald Trump called the senator on Thursday, said a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.

In a blistering statement through his office, McCain criticized the administration over reports that it was ending a program to assist Syrian opposition forces fighting the government of Bashar Assad.

"If these reports are true, the administration is playing right into the hands of Vladimir Putin," said McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Making any concession to Russia, absent a broader strategy for Syria, is irresponsible and short-sighted."

Battling brain cancer, John McCain on Thursday vowed to return to the Senate, leveling fresh criticism at the Trump administration and aiming a good-natured dig at Republican and Democratic colleagues shaken by news of his diagnosis.

"I greatly appreciate the outpouring of support — unfortunately for my sparring partners in Congress, I'll be back soon, so stand-by!" McCain said in a tweet. Showing no signs of stepping back from political and national security battles, he issued a statement slamming the Trump administration over its Syria policy.

The 80-year-old McCain, the GOP's presidential nominee in 2008 and a six-term Arizona lawmaker, was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive type of brain cancer, according to doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who had removed a blood clot above his left eye last Friday. They also managed to remove all of the tumor that was visible on brain scans.

The senator and his family are considering further treatment, including chemotherapy and radiation, as he recuperates at his home in Arizona. President Donald Trump called the senator on Thursday, said a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.

In a blistering statement through his office, McCain criticized the administration over reports that it was ending a program to assist Syrian opposition forces fighting the government of Bashar Assad.

"If these reports are true, the administration is playing right into the hands of Vladimir Putin," said McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Making any concession to Russia, absent a broader strategy for Syria, is irresponsible and short-sighted."

More significantly, McCain's absence complicated Republican leader Mitch McConnell's plans for a Senate vote on a GOP health care bill to erase much of Barack Obama's law. A vote is possible as early as Tuesday, but Republican defections plus McCain's likely absence could sink any chance even to get started.

McCain's closest friend in the Senate, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said that they had spoken by telephone Wednesday night and that the diagnosis had been a shock to McCain. But Graham said "woe is me" is not in McCain's DNA. "One thing John has never been afraid of is death," said Graham, who said he expects McCain to be back at the Capitol.

Prior to a Thursday news conference on immigration legislation, Graham said McCain called him three times.

"He is yelling at me to buck up, I'm so going to buck up," Graham said.

It was unclear how long McCain might be out. Earlier this year, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., missed several weeks after undergoing back surgery. Former Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., was out for nearly a year after suffering a stroke in 2012.

Meantime, prayers and words of encouragement flowed in Thursday from presidents and Senate colleagues past and present.

"I called Senator John McCain this morning to wish him well and encourage him in his fight.

Instead, he encouraged me," said former President George W. Bush, who prevailed over McCain for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000. "I was impressed by his spirit and determination."

Former Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas said: "Having known John for many decades, I am certain that he is as tough as they come — if anyone can defeat this, it's him. John is a true American hero."

According to the American Brain Tumor Association, more than 12,000 people a year are diagnosed with glioblastoma, the same type of tumor that struck McCain's Democratic colleague in legislative battles, the late Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The American Cancer Society puts the five-year survival rate for patients over 55 at about 4 percent.

McCain, a former combat pilot, has a lifetime of near-death experiences — surviving a July 1967 fire and explosion on the USS Forrestal that killed 134 sailors, flying into power lines in Spain, being shot down in October 1967 and falling into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi, and going through 5 1/2 years in a North Vietnamese prison.

"The Hanoi Hilton couldn't break John McCain's spirit many years ago, so Barbara and I know — with confidence — he and his family will meet this latest battle in his singular life of service with courage and determination," said former President George H.W. Bush.

Commenting on both McCain and the response, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, "The outpouring of bipartisan respect and love for John McCain as he faces this cancer battle reminds us that after all the meanness there is a human side to politicians. Count this Democrat in John McCain's corner."

In the past, McCain had been treated for melanoma, but this primary tumor is unrelated. Doctors said McCain is recovering from his surgery "amazingly well" and his underlying health is excellent.

Monday, January 25, 2016

HILLARY CLINTON'S FICTITIOUS BLACK VOTER FIREWALL (CHARLES BLOW'S COLUMN)



@hillaryclinton

~ HILLARY CLINTON'S FICTITIOUS BLACK VOTER FIREWALL (CHARLES BLOW'S COLUMN):

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S 2016 "BLACK VOTER FIREWALL" IS A POLITICAL MYTH.

2016 BLACK VOTERS ARE NOT ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN.


Respected BLACK Journalist Charles Blow recently authored an article in the NY Times about how 2016 BLACK voters have created a "Firewall" around Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign to insulate her politically.

I beg to differ with Mr Blow in that no such "BLACK voter firewall" exist for Hillary as it once did for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

In fact due to the legislative actions of Bill Clinton & Barack Obama against the BLACK American community, many BLACK voters today no longer trust Hillary and are strongly considering supporting a GOP presidential candidate in Nov 2016.

Thus Charles Blow's "BLACK voter firewall" relative to Hillary Clinton's 2nd bid for U.S. President is actually just a Political Myth.




*** Hillary Clinton Stumbles

In October, when Hillary Clinton made a spectacle of the congressional Benghazi committee during a marathon interrogation that seemed designed to make a spectacle of her, she emerged stronger than ever. Her polls numbers surged.

That performance had come on the heels of a strong debate performance the week before in the first Democratic presidential debate.

She had bolstered the image she wanted to project: strong, smart, capable and battle-tested.

But now, on the verge of Monday night’s Democratic town hall in Iowa — the last time the candidates will face off before the caucuses in that state — and with Bernie Sanders’s poll numbers climbing not only in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign seems increasingly desperate and reckless.

I noticed the turn in the last debate as Clinton seemed to me to go too far in her attacks on Sanders, while simultaneously painting herself into a box that will be very hard to escape.

She wrapped herself in President Obama’s legacy so tightly that she could hardly breathe, and then built an image of herself as a practical politician who could build on Obama’s accomplishments by taking small steps and negotiating tough deals.

But practicality and incrementalism, as reasonable as that strategy and persona may be, are simply no match for what animates the Sanders campaign — a kind of kinetic, even if sometimes overblown, idealism. His is a passionate exposition of liberalism — and yes, democratic socialism — in its most positive light.

But, let me be clear and unequivocal: I find his earnest philosophic positions to be clear and often laudable, but also somewhat quixotic.

I think that he is promising far more than even he knows he can deliver, and the electability question is still a real one, even though polls now show him matching up well against possible Republican opponents.

For instance, Sanders’s plan for universal health care is an admirable ambition of any true liberal, but as presented seems to me unworkable, and the prospect of getting it passed through this Congress or any Congress that vaguely resembles it is nil.

Congress has voted to repeal Obamacare, which is far shy of Sanders’s proposal, more than 60 times. Suggesting that it would pass something even more expansive is mere fantasy.

When Sanders is pressed on how he will accomplish his ambitious goals, he often responds with the nebulous answer that it will require a “political revolution,” which seems to mean energizing and engaging an unprecedented number of new voters who would not only ensure his election but flip control of the Senate and possibly the House.

Interesting, but also unlikely. Go talk to all the Blue Dog Democrats who lost their seats in the wake of Obamacare passage. Go talk to all the voters who are being disenfranchised by new voter suppression laws.

Go talk to all the poor people who live in states where conservative voters ensure Republican leadership, and therefore prevent Medicaid from being expanded in their states.

There are political realities that exist in America that can be changed sometimes, and often are, but that are not often subject to sea changes.

Furthermore, Sanders likes to tout that he doesn’t have a “super PAC” and doesn’t want one.

That is a principled position. But the Republican candidate will have the support of many super PACs, awash in hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money, and the Republican nominee himself might even be a billionaire.

They are going to beat Sanders like he is a nail with the “socialist” label and his proposal on new taxation. Middle of the spectrum Middle America is likely to be very susceptible to this negative messaging.

But instead of Clinton finding a way to express that her plans are more tangible than Sanders’s, and her chances in the general election are stronger than his, she and her campaign have made some incredulous inferences about Sanders’s honor.

The swipes at him as being soft on the gun industry as some way of cozying up to it, or of being anti-Obama because he wanted Obama to be stronger in pursuing a liberal agenda, or that he wants to scrap Obamacare, simply do not connect.

Sanders may be a dreamer, but he’s not dishonorable. Trying to sully him in this way only sullies her.

There are a tremendous number of echoes starting to be heard between the way Clinton ran against Obama, and the way she is running against Sanders.

Clinton has what political insiders call the “firewall”: Overwhelming support among black and Hispanic voters in Southern and some Western states. But a win by Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire could supply a boost of momentum that could greatly erode the Clinton firewall.

If Clinton can’t find a positive, energetic message to project, and soon, she is going to be swept away by Sanders.

Some part of Sanders’s proposals and even his vision for this country may indeed be a fairy tale.

But in the 2008 race, Bill Clinton criticized Obama and his position on the Iraq war as a “fairy tale.”

Well fairy tales sometimes come true, particularly when Hillary Clinton stumbles.


Sources: NY Times, Youtube

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

2016 GOP CIVIL WAR MAY COST THEM THE WHITE HOUSE - HATING TRUMP (HILLARY WINS)




2016 GOP CIVIL WAR MAY COST THEM THE WHITE HOUSE - HATING TRUMP:

GOP CIVIL WAR MEANS HILLARY CLINTON WINS BY DEFAULT.

As the Nov 2016 Presidential election approaches, it's quite obvious to the naked voter eye that a Civil War is brewing among GOP Establishment leaders.

Voters want DONALD TRUMP but GOP Establishment leaders want JEB BUSH or MARCO RUBIO.
There are rumors floating of a possible Coup at the RNC Convention in CLEVELAND if TRUMP is the party Nominee.
This divisive Civil War may indeed cost the GOP to lose the White House again.
Due to this brewing GOP Civil War HILLARY CLINTON Won't have to campaign as hard and she just might capture the White House by default.

Without UNITY no organization will stand successfully.

Without UNITY no Family or Marriage will survive.

Without UNITY no Political party will Win general Elections.

Will GOP Establishment leaders wake up before it's too late??


A free-for-all between Christie, Rubio, Cruz and others, while Trump hovers above it all.

What everyone’s waiting for is the winnowing. New Hampshire and Iowa will force some Republican candidates out. When we know who’s still in we’ll have a surer sense of the contours of the race.

It is still true that the party has never had a year like this, with the ground shifting beneath its feet. It’s hard to see this clearly because on the surface the things you expect to see happening are happening.

The candidates are starting to throw hard punches. They’re all trying to show they can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee—a necessary talent if you make it to the general election. No point in hand-wringing or telling them to stop on the grounds that what they’re doing will produce, for the Democrats, a badly bloodied GOP nominee.

Best and worst have come from Chris Christie, who has a way of keeping things lively. 

Earlier he counseled his fellow contenders not to savage each other—don’t waste your ammo, keep your eyes on the prize. Good advice. This week Marco Rubio’s PAC unloaded a spot slamming Mr. Christie on the old charge he embraced President Obama during Hurricane Sandy.

The governor answered Wednesday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. He called Mr. Rubio “a first-term United States senator who has never had a tough race.” He continued: “This guy’s been spoon-fed every victory he’s ever had in his life. That’s the kind of person that we want to put on stage against Hillary Clinton?

I don’t think so. She’ll pat him on the head and then cut his heart out.” It was wonderfully colorful and malicious and reminded me of Sen. Bob Kerrey, who said of Bill Clinton in 1992 that he wouldn’t win in November because he hadn’t served in Vietnam: “He’s going to get opened up like a soft peanut.”

Democratic presidential primaries in those days were fierce. They’re not anymore, because the new Democratic Party, the one of the progressive left, has only a single unifying principle: winning. Hillary Clinton’s opponents haven’t laid a glove on her, and won’t.

Mr. Rubio has turned stern and indignant, as if he’s decided the base is angry so he’ll enact anger too. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, he darkly alleges, are “isolationist candidates” whose intent is “weakening our military and intelligence capabilities.” Mr. Paul responded by comparing Mr. Rubio to Rahm Emanuel.

More touchingly, Jeb Bush again warned the base about Donald Trump. “It’s very fun to talk about the theatrics,” he said on “Morning Joe.” Mr. Trump has tapped into “angst and anger,” but “his views are not the views of a conservative.”
Mr. Trump’s supporters don’t care if he’s classically conservative. Doctrinal purity is not the story this year. The GOP base is a big jumble.

Democrats are likely less unified than they think. On the rightward and leftward edges of both parties they hate political correctness, illegal immigration, Wall Street.
A new playbook is emerging while some contenders seem to be reading from the old playbook and wondering why the plays they’re calling aren’t working.

And the GOP is struggling. In Virginia the state Republican Party wants a so-called loyalty oath in the March 1 presidential primary.

Virginia is an open-primary state—any registered voter can vote in either primary—but the GOP apparently wants to discourage independents and Democrats from voting for Mr. Trump. So they’ve decided voters should sign a statement of affiliation with the GOP before they get to cast a ballot. 

This is so idiotic it’s almost unbelievable.

When Democrats and independents want to vote in your primary you should be happy.

 Politics is a game of addition! You want headlines that say “Massive GOP Turnout.” You don’t greet first-time voters with an oath but with cookies, ginger ale and balloons. Ronald Reagan reached out to Democrats in 1984: “Come too, come walk with me.” We still speak of Reagan Democrats.


I do not understand the inability or refusal of Republican leaders to take Mr. Trump seriously.

 They take his numbers seriously—they can read a poll—but they think, as Mr. Bush said, that his support is all about anger, angst and theatrics. That’s part of the story, but the other, more consequential part has to do with real policy issues.

The establishment refuses to see that, because to admit it is to implicate themselves and their leadership. Political consultants can’t see it because they don’t think issues matter—not to them and certainly not to the dumb voters.

But issues do matter, and Mr. Trump has functioned this year not as a great communicator or great compromiser but as the great disrupter. He brags that he has brought up great questions and forced other candidates to face them and sometimes change their stands—and he has.

He changed the debate on illegal immigration. He said he’d build a wall and close the border and as the months passed and his competitors saw his surge, they too were suddenly, clearly, aggressively for ending illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump touched an important nerve in opposing the political correctness that has angered the American people for a quarter century. He changed the debate when he asked for a pause in Muslim immigration until America “can figure out what’s going on.” In the age of terror, that looked suspiciously like common sense.

Americans do not want America to become what Europe is becoming.

You only have to look at what is reported to have happened in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve to get a sense that Europe’s establishment, with its politically correct thinking, is losing control.

Angela Merkel is a great lady and most of her leadership has been sound as a drum, but she will probably lose her job eventually because of her epic miscalculation in accepting more than a million Middle Eastern refugees.

Her decision was no doubt driven by heart and sympathy, but it reminds me of the fall of Margaret Thatcher. In 1989 Thatcher moved to impose a change in the British tax system. This caused resentment and then unrest. She wouldn’t back down, and the next year she fell. Years later she told me what she’d learned.

People are afraid, she said; they live closer to the margins than we understand. When you propose a big change you can leave people feeling as if the rug is being pulled from under them. That’s a big thing to learn, and she spoke of it with humility.

She lost her job by being too tough. Ms. Merkel has imperiled hers by being too soft. But the lesson is the same: know how close to the edge people feel, how powerless, and respect their anxiety. Don’t look down on it, and them.

Back to the Republicans. It reflects badly on the party that Donald Trump—whom one journalist this week characterized as a guy running around with his hair on fire—had to become the party’s 2016 thought leader.

Bernie Sanders has, in a way, had the wit to see this, which is why he said he is reaching out to Trump supporters.

Reaching out. What a concept.


Sources: Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Youtube

Monday, January 11, 2016

21st CENTURY OLDER BLACK DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CHANGE - 2016 ELECTION (INSANITY POLITICS)




21st CENTURY OLDER BLACK DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CHANGE - 2016 ELECTION:

THOMAS SOWELL SAYS "INSANITY POLITICS" EQUALS NO CHANGE, NO RESULTS.

The late Scientist Albert Einstein once defined the word "INSANITY" as doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting DIFFERENT results.
The word "CHANGE" is defined as Being DIFFERENT.

However for most BLACK Democrat voters the word "CHANGE" is a dirty word especially as it relates to Politics.
Most older BLACK Democrats appear to be resistant to CHANGE and lack Objectivity in their thinking.

Perhaps this explains why Pres OBAMA targeted Younger voters in 2008 and 2012.

In fact most Older BLACK Democrats would rather DIE from a terrible disease then to consider supporting a REPUBLICAN candidate, even if voting for that GOP candidate is in the best interest of BLACK voters.

Will Older BLACK Democrat voters open their minds to CHANGE?
Or will they allow their Stubbornness to Silence and Devalue the voices of future BLACK Democrat voters?

In the article below Mr THOMAS SOWELL, a BLACK Social Theorist and Political Philosopher from North Carolina explains in detail why BLACK voters continue to foolishly cast their ballots for DEMOCRAT candidates.


Thomas Sowell discusses Black voters’ allegiance to the Democratic party and the failure of the GOP to make a robust case for Black votes.

Blacks have been the Democrats’ most reliable voting bloc for the last 50 years.

And let’s face it, with Barack Obama in the White House, that’s not going to change in the near future.
On the national level, Democrats typically get around 90 percent of the Black vote, even when a Black man isn’t running for president as a Democrat.
Al Gore got 92 percent of the Black vote in 2000; John Kerry got 88 percent in 2004.
These percentages aren’t just impressive; for Democrats, they’re imperative.

Since 1980, the percentage of White votes received by the Democrats’ candidate for president has usually hovered around 39 percent.
Unless Democrats maintain a vise grip on at least 90 percent of the Black vote, the party’s presidential prospects usually fade to oblivion. Both parties know this.
If the GOP peeled off just 5 or 10 percent of the Black vote, Democrats would be in perpetual electoral jeopardy, and not just at the presidential level.

Dr. Sowell discusses a few of the reasons why Blacks who support Democrats are voting against self- interest (and makes a more persuasive case than Thomas Frank did in What’s the Matter with Kansas? regarding Kansans’ support of the Republican party).
There are many more reasons. Consider just the following:

* Large, Arbitrary Minimum Wage Increases.

Milton Friedman once said that “We regard the minimum wage as one of the most, if not the most, anti-Black laws on the statute books.”

(A good argument can be made that the minimum wage vies for this title with the Davis-Bacon Act — uniformly supported by Democrats — mandating that prevailing wages be paid on government construction projects and passed for the express purpose of preventing blacks from competing with whites on public-works jobs.)

Sharp increases in the minimum wage price unskilled workers out of the labor market, a dislocation that falls most heavily on young black males.
Such increases impair the ability of unskilled workers to get the entry-level jobs that are the first rungs on the ladder of upward job mobility.
As someone once said, a wage, minimum or otherwise, presumes a job. Public Education and School Choice.
Millions of black kids are trapped in medieval public schools that are insulated from competition and suffocated by union rules.

Yet Democrats resist meaningful choice, insisting instead on that infallible remedy, “full funding.” ‪#‎more‬#They’re encouraged, apparently, by how well that solution has worked in places like Newark, which spends $18,000 per student — among the most of any major public school system — but where only 30 percent of 8th graders can pass the annual proficiency test in math.

Or perhaps they’re brightened by the example of the D.C. public-school system, which also has among the highest per-pupil expenditures in the nation yet perennially returns among the lowest test scores.
Less than 25 percent of black 17-year-olds can read as well as the average white 17-year-old. Nearly 90 percent of black 17-year-olds score below the average white 17-year-old in math.
More than 90 percent of black 17-year-olds score below the average white 17-year-old in science.
The average black 17-year-old has the academic proficiency of the average white 8th grader.
These figures have proven impervious to increased spending.
In fact, in some cases the gap has widened as public school spending — in constant dollars — has increased.
But Democrats, beholden to unions, continue to oppose school choice and meaningful reform, thereby consigning another generation of blacks to educational purgatory. Affirmative Action.
Democrats are champions of racial preferences (see Eric Holder’s directive to the Dayton Police Department).
Since racial preferences in, e.g., college admissions most heavily favor blacks, it would appear, at first blush, that Black votes for Democrats are indeed self-interested.
But evidence continues to accumulate that affirmative action may be one of the greatest scams perpetrated on Blacks.

Studies by, for example, the Center for Equal Opportunity show that the racial preferences employed by some college admissions offices boost a Black applicant’s odds of admission over a similarly-situated white comparative by a factor of 200, often much more.

This results in what UCLA law professor Richard Sander calls the “mismatch effect” — i.e., Black students being admitted at schools in which they’re poorly qualified to compete.
Consequently, Black students are more likely to perform poorly and flunk out.

For example, Prof. Sander found that 50 percent of Black law students settle in the bottom 10 percent of their respective classes.
Black law students are two and a half times more likely than whites not to graduate, four times more likely not to pass the bar exam. Welfare and the War on Poverty.

Were this a shooting war, the Democrats would have surrendered in 1965.

As it stands, after 45 years and several trillion dollars, misguided if well-intended liberal policies have contributed to a toxic culture of grievance and dependency that, while not confined to a particular race, has been especially damaging to the Black underclass.

The list of issue conflicts between Democrats’ policy positions and the interests of black voters goes on and on: illegal immigration, abortion, Social Security reform, to name a few.
But don’t expect any noteworthy changes in Black voter allegiance in the near term.
A comment made by a Black law student after an affirmative-action debate in which I participated a few years ago illustrates just one of the many obstacles faced by Republicans.
The student acknowledged that affirmative action often harms its purported beneficiaries and that its proponents are, as he put it, “condescending and insulting.”

Even so, he asked. “How can we (blacks) support Republicans given the Republicans’ history toward blacks in this country?”

I pointed out that it wasn’t the GOP that had opposed Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.

Nor was it Republicans who opposed the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery or the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection or the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing voting rights.

It wasn’t Republicans who opposed Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-lynching legislation, or that filibustered or otherwise opposed more than a dozen anti-lynching bills in the last century.

Republicans didn’t institutionalize Jim Crow or implement school segregation, poll taxes, or literacy tests. Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, and George Wallace weren’t Republicans.

* A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act than did Democrats.

The student and the other Black students gathered around looked surprised.

One confessed that she would’ve bet that “Democrats” should be substituted for “Republicans” in each of the examples.

The GOP’s record concerning Blacks is far from unassailable, but that doesn’t explain black allegiance to Democrats.

That allegiance won’t change — Allen West and Tim Scott notwithstanding — as long as President Obama is the Democrats’ standard bearer.

And as long as Republicans don’t make an effort for the vote.


Sources: National Review, Youtube

Sunday, December 27, 2015

THE ROLE OF BLACK MEDIA IN 2016 POLITICS (DIVERSITY & BLACK VOTERS)



THE ROLE OF BLACK MEDIA IN 2016 POLITICS:
WHERE ARE BLACK JOURNALISTS, BLOGGERS, VLOGGERS & COMMENTATORS?
IN 2008 OBAMA USED BLACK GRASSROOTS BLOGGERS TO HELP GARNER 97% OF THE BLACK VOTE.

As we approach the 2016 Presidential election I've noticed the lack of BLACK Journalists, BLACK Bloggers, BLACK Vloggers and BLACK Commentators in both Political parties.
Since it's not possible to be elected to the Oval Office minus the BLACK Majority vote, how do DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN Key Leaders expect to attract BLACK voters without utilizing BLACK Media Representatives?
In 2008 BARACK OBAMA utilized BLACK Grassroots Activists, BLACK Bloggers & BLACK Commentators to help garner 97% of the BLACK vote.
To help attract 2016 BLACK voters, there needs to be more Opportunities offered to BLACK Media Representatives from both major Political parties.


As an African-American female journalist shadowing Republican presidential candidates during the 2012 election cycle, Juana Summers was, at times, the only person of color in the room. But nothing crystallized her minority status more than when one of her white male press corps colleagues asked for an interview, assuming the 27-year-old Missouri native was simply a black voter captivated by a candidate’s stump speech.

“That’s what I get for not always wearing my press credentials,” she said of her time out on the campaign trail as a full-time embedded reporter for Politico. “It’s funny, but also a little sad, too.”

Summers is an example of strides that some U.S. news outlets have taken to elevate reporters of color and women to the highly coveted politics beat, which has for decades been predominantly white and male. But even with significantly more female journalists on the 2016 campaign trail, true racial diversity among journalists covering federal, state and local politics has not been achieved, advocates said. 

Some have said this is explained by the reality that not enough rookie reporters of color are being groomed to take on national political beats.
“I don’t think it’s acceptable, in 2015 or 2016, for news organizations to say that we can’t find people of color to fill these jobs,” said Summers, who recently became the politics editor for Mashable in Washington, D.C. “It’s your fault, in my opinion.”

For more than a decade, the racial makeup of traditional media organizations has been stagnant, despite fast-growing Hispanic and Asian populations and the federal government's projection that the U.S. will become a majority-minority nation within 30 years. 

Newer digital publications also have struggled with and been criticized for the lack of diversity in their ranks.

Advocates have said media diversity matters most when candidates make statements about mass incarceration, immigration reform, the Black Lives Matter social justice movement and other topics in which race, economics and politics intersect. A more diverse group of journalists can ensure stories have needed context and that minority communities are more fairly represented, especially as voters weigh issues that can decide who wins the White House, advocates said.

Newsrooms Still Largely White

The percentage of racial minorities and women at newspapers remained “relatively steady” at 12 percent in 2014, according to the latest newsroom census from the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), a professional association that tracks newsroom diversity. That breaks down to 4.74 percent black, 4.19 percent Latino, 2.8 percent Asian-American and less than half of a percent Native American. There were approximately 32,900 full-time journalists at about 1,400 daily U.S. newspapers in 2014. Similar data for broadcast outlets was not available.

That means newsrooms increasingly don't reflect the nation's diverse makeup. 

The U.S. Census Bureau has said the country will be majority-minority by 2043. 

The nation's Hispanic and Asian populations climbed above 54 million and 19.4 million, respectively, in 2013 and 2012, according to the Pew Research Center. Their growth rates among the nation's more than 300 million residents outpaced the estimated rates for whites and blacks in subsequent years.

Politico, whose editorial staff of nearly 200 is approximately 8 percent nonwhite, recently found a bright spot in media diversity regarding the reporters assigned to cover Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. At least 18 national print, online, radio and TV outlets have female reporters covering Clinton, a big leap for media gender diversity, according to a Politico survey released this week. Several local outlets in the early voting primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire also have female reporters with Clinton, Politico reported.

In its report, Politico published a “class photo” of 18 mostly white female reporters. Two appear to be Asian-American women. It’s unclear how many are Latinas. None are African-American. The reporters pictured represented outlets including CNN, CBS News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and BuzzFeed.

Cameron Barr, national editor for the Washington Post, told International Business Times that the newspaper has 37 reporters and editors who regularly cover the campaigns. Seventeen are women, and five of the women are racial minorities. A recent newsroom census showed that 31 percent of the editorial staff at the Post is nonwhite.

“When we assign reporters of diverse backgrounds and experiences to the trail, we do a better job of seeing the candidates the way America sees them,” Barr said Tuesday.

CNN, CBS News and BuzzFeed did not respond to requests for information and comment about the racial makeup of their political news teams. The most recent broadcast diversity census completed by the National Association of Black Journalists in 2012 showed the editorial staffs of CNN and CBS News were, respectively, 15 percent and 14 percent nonwhite.

BuzzFeed this week released updated diversity data showing its newsroom is less white this year than it was in 2014. Approximately 27 percent of its editorial staff is nonwhite, up from 23 percent last year, according to the outlet. The New York Times declined comment for this story Tuesday but pointed to the latest ASNE survey that shows its newsroom is 19 percent nonwhite.

Integrating The Press Corps

Sonya Ross, an African-American journalist in Washington with more than 25 years covering state and national politics, has helped “integrate the press corps” more times than she’d like to count. In 1996, she covered President Bill Clinton’s re-election as an embedded reporter on the campaign bus for the Associated Press. She was among a few black or female reporters on the trail.

One day leading up the 1996 Democratic National Convention, Ross rode the train with Clinton's press corps and stopped in the Detroit area for a campaign rally. All the other members of the mostly white and male press corps were so focused on getting the best vantage point for the rally, that few noticed civil rights icon Rosa Parks had attended the event, said Ross, who spoke with Parks and filed a story for the AP.

"It was my perspective of being a woman, black and growing up in the South that allowed me to pick up on a story that few others saw," she said. "That's potentially what you miss as a news organization without a diverse staff."

Ross, who became the first African-American woman to sit on the executive board of the White House Correspondents' Association and is chairwoman of a national political journalism task force for black reporters and editors, said she wants to ensure more reporters of color follow in her footsteps.

“My concern was that the doors were shut behind me,” said Ross, who has also been involved with several diversity initiatives for the AP and other national outlets. “We’ve got to get more reporters into the pipeline.”

Black journalists in particular have covered politics for decades, many of them for African-American-owned newspapers that pioneered the “race beat” during the civil rights movement in the 1940s through the 1960s. Jack E. White Jr., a retired African-American journalist who covered national politics for Time magazine and the Washington Post in the 1960s and '70s, said only a handful of black journalists had covered national politics in the mainstream press.

Their ranks were increased by three critical national news events in 1972 that interested the mainstream press, said Paul Delaney, a retired New York Times reporter and editor, who is black and covered U.S. politics for a decade beginning in the 1960s. 

Newspapers sent African-American reporters to the National Black Political Convention in Gary, Indiana, the NAACP Convention in Detroit and the Democratic National Convention in Miami, where an unprecedented number of black delegates had gathered.
"There were not that many of us to cover anything before then," said Delaney, adding that numbers increased again during the Rev. Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns in the 1980s.

More Enlightened Coverage

Before black and Latino journalists struggled to secure top positions in newsrooms, white women also faced challenges getting the best assignments from mostly white, male editors. 

Gender diversity on the campaign trail has been highlighted more than a few times, beginning with the 1972 book by Timothy Crouse, “The Boys on the Bus.” Beth Harpaz, a veteran former politics reporter for the AP, revisited the topic with her 2001 book, “The Girls in the Van,” after she covered Hillary Clinton’s race for the U.S. Senate in New York.

“It’s really hard to say definitively why gender diversity has increased on the campaign trail,” Harpaz said. Women made up about half of reporters on the trail with Clinton in 2000, but they seem slightly overrepresented in the former secretary of state’s 2016 campaign, Harpaz said.

“Diversity is something that most news organizations value,” she said. “In 2000, many thought they were making a choice that would lead to more enlightened coverage, simply because [Clinton] was a candidate putting an emphasis on issues that were important to women.”

But even after Barack Obama's historic election as the first black president in 2008 and with Latino candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz running for president this election season, newsrooms aren't assigning more blacks and Hispanics to cover the 2016 campaign.

Leaders of minority journalist organizations agree that white journalists are more than capable of accurately covering election issues relevant to nonwhite communities. 

But newsrooms still need to create opportunities for nonwhite journalists.

“There’s no reason for 100 percent of them to do the job 100 percent of the time,” said Russell Contreras, president of Unity: Journalists for Diversity, a national advocacy group for racial minority and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender reporters and editors.

“I believe right now the candidates are more diverse than the people that cover them,” he continued. 
“That, right there, needs to stop.” Part of the solution might be making sure rookie journalists of color are not pigeonholed to the crime and general assignment beats, which don’t always lead to national beats such as politics, he added.

Sarah Glover, president of the National Association of Black Journalists, said it would be “disappointing” if overall diversity on the trail reflected the status quo. “Newsrooms need to act quickly ... to encourage rich storytelling from various points of view,” Glover said.

Sources: International Business Times, NY Times, YouTube