Dems and the Disgruntled Black Vote

Whoomp there it is! Tavis Smiley made this stunningly honest revelation on Democrats and their coveted black vote, on ABC while sitting next to Bill Kristol.

Let me call this one “the burnout of the turnout.”

Real Clear Politics

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.

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 [that] you turn out the vote this time.

Now I’ll catch hell for saying that…

See w/ video http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/19/tavis_smiley_no_good_reason_to_vote_if_youre_black_or_brown_other_than_helping_to_save_the_democrats_hide.html

So you smell what he’s cooking? It’s too much truth for prime time news or NYT though.

He was responding to a NYT piece: (discussing Clinton’s ad appealing to blacks)
Urging Blacks to Vote for Clinton for Obama’s Sake, and Their Own

THE AD The actor Morgan Freeman’s unmistakable voice poses a simple question: “What does showing up when it’s time to vote actually mean?” Images of President Obama — at his 2008 election-night rally, and leading thousands of people commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march in Selma — answer the question. “You care about protecting his legacy, and our progress.”

Get that handoff? You only “care” if you go support Hillary Clinton. So if you don’t vote, you don’t care and you are not preserving Obama’s legacy. The question is, or should be, why should blacks be interested in preserving the legacy of someone who didn’t care about them, and did nothing really for them?

You got that right… to protect Obama’s legacy not theirs. Then trust and hand off that support — and legacy — to Hillary. There are a lot of specious connections there.

The message: black voters need to propel Hillary to victory. But why?

For one thing, Hillary and her gal pal, AFT union president, Randi Weingartner, will do nothing for schools and education choice. And Clinton will do nothing for jobs or the economy either since the only one Hillary is concerned about is the pay to play, Washington-beltway economy.

But then does Obama — or blacks for that matter — actually believe Hillary is all that concerned with preserving and protecting his legacy? Believing a Clinton?

The Hope Block

From of all places, the Daily Beast is reporting the distrust within the black community in one of the most traditionally Democrat areas, Chicago’s O Block.

A pastor on the South Side is asking Republicans to talk to his flock after what he says are 50 years of disappointment from the other party.
CHICAGO — It is difficult to imagine a less likely GOP presidential campaign stop than O Block.

After all, it’s the most dangerous stretch of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Chicago and one of the toughest territories in the city.

But if Republicans stand a chance of chipping away at Democrats’ dominance over the black vote in this city and elsewhere, it might be something to consider. (More>)

And its hard to imagine this report coming from a more unexpected source. Their disenchantment can no longer be swept under the rug?

So far Rand Paul is the only one taking them up on the offer to Republican candidates to campaign there. What is interesting is the source. Maybe it is cause for hope in areas Democrats consider Republicans persona non gratae? Seems worth a shot to Rand Paul.

Could the community be finally getting tired of the same old meat-grinder politics that leave them wondering what they are supporting long after the elections? With the conditions of the city and the recent crime waves, it would make sense to look for different leadership.

Even more interesting than the message is the messenger, a pastor in the community. Is there a chance for some change? Some will call it wishful thinking but maybe political dysfunction and plantation politics do have limits after all?

Maybe they are really getting fed up with Democrats’ hit-and-run politics?

Skin Color is Paramount –skip the facts

 

In the Zimmerman trial the real action is not so much in the courtroom but in the coverage It reminded me: what do OJ, Obama and Trayvon Martin (Zimmerman trial) all have in common? Race of course, or explicit racism. Skin color … is the important thing in the end. Don’t think so?
*

On Monday night, coming into the home stretch for the trial, I listened to the punditry on CNN cover the day’s events. It was the usual pundits of legal eagles and defense attorneys. Famed defense attorney Mark Geragos called out a black female for her comments on the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s father. He told the frisky advocate that she was too “emotionally” attached to this case(compromised), and had referred to every prosecution witness as “elegant” in their testimony. Bingo! It was an excellent point, to which you can imagine her snorted denial. But it is a truth across the board. He also faulted her for claiming the jury was really “with Mr. Martin” — despite arguing against his own statement that it was not his son screaming. Even while denying he said it, this pundit said the jury was really “with him”. She supposedly speaks for the jury.

The irony that the jury is not allowed to decide a case until they deliberate was lost on her. What is clear is her bias, which she seems to wear on her sleeve. That is okay, as long as one acknowledges a bias and does not attempt to hide behind a phony wall of objectivity and deny it. (then it is just deceit) I admit to having a bias too, and don’t pretend otherwise — but not based on race. This, however, is only the beginning of the problems.

From the first media reports people had taken sides, namely that of the black-racist side. Yet how is it they lectured others about reaching a premature conclusion before hearing the facts? Now that the facts come out, not to Martin’s favor, they completely dismiss them. They posit how a jury relates to a witness is what matters. For instance, and Geragos pointed this out, they want to believe him credible and sympathize with anyone the prosecution uses — even if what he is saying is questionable. They postulate that the jury does too.

This is where Obama comes in

The irony is Obama commented on it at the time saying if he had a son he would look just like Trayvon. But that’s not the only similarity. From the beginning Obama ran a faith-based campaign, meaning it required a leap of faith to accept him at his word. His entire candidacy reeked of faith in him, with absolutely no record to base any of it on. Just “believe”and “yes we can”. Then came the messianic talk and halo photos.

People did believe in this unjustifiable candidate too. The reason they did, overwhelmingly among blacks, was his skin color — because he is black. The beauty was he didn’t have to say it; that was the obvious prevailing assumption. It is undeniable when you see the results. Over 93% of blacks voted for him. Since he had no record, it could not have been otherwise. He ran a faith-based campaign. Obama admitted as much in his theme “change you can believe in” — not that there was a lick of reason to believe in that change outside faith.(and a lot of it) But the point is, regardless of facts, they believed in whatever he said and there were some doosies. And suddenly it was fashionable to be so color conscious.

The narrative was that the election was historic because he would be the first black president, or the first black to get that close to becoming president. When the blacks were unified in such a degree, there can be no doubt the vote was based on race. A vote based on skin color was a justified vote. We had people proudly voting solely on race. Yet voting against him would have been racist — we all know that. The mantra was voting for him was not racism but voting against him was entirely racism. Thus, they could justify casting a racist vote because it was supposedly voting against racists.

If you can buy into the left’s rationale on this then you can buy practically anything. So a person wants to believe something true despite willingly ignoring the truth. And it was all about belief, but it was also all about race and racism. Plus it was projecting anyone else as a racist. He still employs that psychology via his organization, now a front group for him, that asks “are you in?” It persuades you to be “all in”. Never mind what “in” and “all in” means or involves; whatever strings are attached; whatever it requires you to believe.

All that psychology applied to OJ, and now applies to Trayvon Martin as well. (or against George Zimmerman) Because OJ was black and a star, they denied facts to the contrary. But in overwhelming evidence, they did not just dismiss the facts, they believed it wasn’t true anyway. The same way they would not believe things are true about Obama, facts be damned. And they won’t believe the negative about Trayvon either. Even showing he jumped and assaulted Zimmerman, they believe otherwise. Then they believe Martin is the victim at all costs, even if shown otherwise. Truth doesn’t matter, belief does. And they are determined that belief will carry it. It is surreal. It is as if they stepped into an alternative reality that is based entirely on their belief and perception of it.

They wanted to believe OJ’s defense at all costs. When they refused to accept the prosecution or facts, they demonized them (some of them are still victims of that) They denied evidence to the contrary. Given facts and truth, they just asserted he was innocent or framed. Anyone would have to willingly ignore that mountain of evidence, which is what they did. Then just keep repeating he is innocent and that he, not Nichole and Ron, was the real victim. They wanted to believe and they did. Once they believed, it became a matter of ignoring anything to the contrary. Sound familiar?

Along comes Trayvon Martin. From the beginning, the intent was create an image of a little boy with Skittles in one hand and ice tea in his other, skipping home from the candy store — potentially to do his homework. Turn Zimmerman into the villain who just had it in for him. Everything Trayvon did was justified while nothing Zimmerman did was. It would not matter anyway because Trayvon is an innocent little victim, even if he sat on Zimmerman beating on him, he was a poor victim. But also a victim of racism to boot. Interestingly enough, Trayvon called Zimmerman “a creepy ass cracker” on the phone. But who cares, they want to believe?

On OJ, we all know those circumstances. It was easier to believe the glove was planted along with the blood evidence than accept reality. The detective was a bigot and racist. Prosecution was out to get OJ. So they tried to alter reality. They could dismiss anything otherwise. Once you get to that level, you can deny any truth. Once you believe that, you can believe anything and will.

How many more events or circumstances do we have to see to validate the same scenario? Its seems we could keep doing this indefinitely and keep getting the same results.

Photo credit: Obama : Trayvon Martin ; OJ Simpson