Drudge reports this morning that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has refused to endorse Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.
There is, of course, nothing surprising about this. The Black Caucus did not support Clarence Thomas or, more recently, the nomination of California Supreme Court justice Janice Rogers Brown to a position on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
This now commonplace refusal of Hispanic groups to support Hispanics, black groups to support blacks, and women’s groups to support women is, I believe, a little noticed (or at least under-appreciated) GOOD THING. It shows that even they themselves don’t believe what say about the controlling relevance of race, ethnicity, gender.
It shows that even they themselves don’t believe what say about the controlling relevance of race, ethnicity, gender.
They never did. It is all about power for their respective organizations. They couldn’t care less what happens to their “constituents”.
John writes:
>>>This now commonplace refusal of Hispanic groups to support Hispanics, black groups to support blacks, and women’s groups to support women is, I believe, a little noticed (or at least under-appreciated) GOOD THING. It shows that even they themselves don’t believe what say about the controlling relevance of race, ethnicity, gender.”
The very fact that you and other AAA-types go out of your way to mention the gender, ethnicity or race of whatever conservative nominee you’re discussing speaks volumes about the hypocrisy coursing through the veins of your “color-blind nation” fantasy.
To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh during his ill-fated attempts at sports commentary:
“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL (blogosphere). The (conservative bloggers) media has been very desirous that a black quarterback (conservative nominee, republican) do well,” Limbaugh said on Sunday NFL Countdown. “There is a little hope invested in McNabb (Thomas, Rice, Janice Rogers Brown), and (they) he got a lot of credit for the performance of this(party, court, department) team that he (they) didn’t deserve. The defense (administration, policy, circumstances beyond their control) carried this team.”
In your post, you IMPLY that the natural order of things would see ethnic
political groups endorse whatever ethnically respective candidate/nominee
that comes along. You further IMPLY that because they don’t tend to follow the natural order with conservative candidates or nominees, the ethnic relevance is rendered moot.
I claim a different scenario is occuring, and have none other than Rush Limbaugh to explain it.
–Cobra
Cobra, I think that John’s comments were tongue-in-cheek.
And, yes, Limbaugh, as you’ve suggested, did speak the truth about the press and its obsession with black quarterbacks.
There are no “volumes spoken” here. Leftist blacks have claimed that only leftist black organizations speak for blacks. Feminists have claimed that only they speak for women. This was always an absurdity, which I believe is John’s point.
Your argument is, as always, that that which does not give the goods to blacks, gives to whites. In other words, opponents of racial quotas are just white guys trying to get for themselves. Why do you think that this is a criticism? You say you are a black guy and you lobby incessantly for yourself. Following your logic, the very fact that you constantly lobby for yourself invalidates everything you have to say. You can’t have it both ways.
So, if as you say, the opposition to racial quotas is white guys who want for themselves, then three cheers for them. I’m for it.
I was not hiried because of my gender.