Can't a Brother Catch a Break?

From BET.com Black voters won one and maybe lost one.

If you read Retha Hill's commentary on the results of the midterm election, you get the same old rhetoric about the Democratic party mistreats us, overlooks us and takes us for granted. Retha suggests that the democratic sweep in the midterms might just sweep some long-time members of the Congressional Black Caucus out with the post-celebration confetti. She goes on to posit that the Republican party had done well by its black constituents, giving them a "substantial toe-hold in the Republican Party. Since at least 1994, many African Americans have concluded that putting all our eggs in one basket no longer makes sense, and that true participation means having a seat at both tables."

As her commentary continues, she noted that, "Substantial numbers of African Americans sided with Republicans in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not just when the Republican candidate was Black." Retha? Honey? Were you watching the returns of the same elections I was?

For the record, Republicans put forward 8 black candidates in the 2006 election. Democrats, 41. Republican black candidates who won their races, zero. Democrats have elected the two black governors this country has seen (Doug Wilder and in this election cycle, Deval Patrick.)

If, as you note, black ministers endorsed George Allen because he supports a ban on same-sex marriage, they must have noticed that their man also likes to call black folk "nigger" and "Macaca (monkey -- even when the individual this remark was targeting was an Indian-American). If the Republican party is as welcoming to black voters as you suggest, just why didn't any, I mean not a single, f***ing black republican tell Ken Mehlman and the RNC that the ads against Harold Ford, Jr. had more than just a whiff of coded, racist, good ole southern strategy stink about them and they needed to be pulled. I've looked and I can't find one statement from black republicans on that count.

Michael Steele may have run a good race and picked up some key endorsements, too. But as you note, "in majority-Black Prince George’s County, 31 percent of the electorate voted for him, as did 21 percent of people in majority-Black Baltimore. Preliminary exit poll data show that Steele snagged 25 percent of the state’s Black vote." If Steele is such an appealing candidate, why didn't more blacks vote for him? [Author's note: I think you meant to write that 31 and 21 percents respectively of the black electorate voted for him. Regardless, it still ain't good news.]

Republican Party adviser Tara Wall. “It doesn’t benefit us as Black voters to give 90 percent of our vote to one party. We need to be able to come to the table and level the playing field and have a say in both parties.” Retha, Tara: the playing field isn't level, and y'all aren't welcome at the Republican table.

A little political history: there was a time when Yankee or New England moderates played a large role in the Republican party. They held fiscally conservative views, but were socially liberal. They were the antidote to the racist Dixiecrats of the old Democratic party. Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson changed that. Goldwater yanked the Republicans to the far right and the "southern strategy" (grab the votes of disaffected. southern, conservative, anti-integration, anti-civil rights whites for the Republican party) was born. Meanwhile, Lyndon Johnson's progressive -- damn, let's just call it what it was -- landmark Great Society, with its War on Poverty and Civil and Voting (ahem, let me repeat that, VOTING) rights acts empowered black America as never before. If blacks have been loyal to the Democrats, this is one hell of a reason.

And now the reason for the headline: After all their crowing over what a wonderful campaign Michael Steele ran, and how he is so good for the Republican party comes this: Ken Mehlman, current chair of the RNC announced he's stepping down in January. Republican after republican promoted their new "boy" Michael Steele for the job. Steele was not coy about his interest in the job when asked about it as he made the rounds on the post-election news talk shows. After all, he'd be out of a job in January and could step right in. And since most of the job is dealing with the media, he'd shown that he was articulate and engaging speaker. And as all of his supporters said, he'd put a new face on the Republican party.

Today comes word that the Republicans intend to tap Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida as the next party head. Martinez was just elected to the Senate in 2004. If he takes the job, Florida's governor will have to name a replacement. Martinez is a Cuban-American.

Can't a brother catch a break? Apparently not.

Rahm's Lullaby

Read the full story at The House That Rahm Built from the Chicago Tribune

Rahm Emanuel has supplanted Karl Rove as "the Architect" with the stunning Democratic sweep of House seats in the last week's election. But as the article by Naftali Bendavid in the Chicago Tribune makes clear, central to Emanuel's renovation of the party were a slash and burn, take no prisoners attitude that sometimes rubbed friends and foes the wrong way.

During the long sleepless nights of the campaign, Bendavid's chronicle shows us that Rahm's lullaby was not a tune you could easily sing and was likely to be laced with expletives, epithets and worse. But he got the job done.

Political junkies -- we know who we are -- will liken this up close and personal account to the documentary "War Room" about the Bill Clinton run for the White House in 1992. I hope Mr. Bendavid has enough information for a book. But his article will whet your appetite for now. A simply fascinating read.

Change is coming

The dust has almost settled and as it does, the Democrats have control of the House of Representatives, and will, in a few hours, reveal that the Democrats also won the Senate. As a Democrat -- and a liberal one at that -- there is great reason to celebrate. Change is coming.

Other pundits (and heck, I'd like to think I'm just as qualified at analysis as they are) will tell us that the reasons Dems won is because it was because they ran to the center, putting up a slate of conservative and moderate candidates, because it was a referendum on George Bush and Iraq, that the Democrats didn't "win," the Republicans lost -- and lost because voters weren't smart enough to understand the issues, or only voted on their pet issues (stem cell research).

Maybe it's because the Democrats put together a smart playbook, that allowed them to present the strength of party -- it's diversity, it's progressiveness -- showcased against the status quo. Republicans like to cast Democrats as raving lunatics who don't have family values, aren't religious ("Godless," if you believe Ann Coulter-geist), are weak on defense, pander to terrorists, and worse. This election proved them wrong. Democrats come in all colors, are liberal, moderate, conservative, and all points in between. Some of us are religious and some of us not so much. We serve in the military, we serve in the Peace Corps. We are in business, large and small, we are in labor unions. We are your neighbors.

Democrats did well in this election because they were able to make their vision of change clear and it resonated with voters.

Day of Reckoning is Here

Voters often use the phrase, "We'll remember in November." Well, this year it appears that the Democrats not only remembered, but they showed up en force to make their point.

Pundits say it's all about Vietnam -- er, I mean Iraq -- but in truth, it is about a number of issues that have been piling on since 2000. The Bush administration is about to receive a kick in the pants.

While the quagmire that is Iraq is one facet of the problem for Bush, the economy, corruption (read that as Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, DeLay, Foley, even Hastert), taxes, stem cell research, are others. But the real problem for Bush and Co. is that they have been smug and self-righteous throughout their tenure. The Compassionate Conservative never showed up. Uniter not a Divider did not unite, just divide. The Decider-in-Chief can't make a decision. That's why he's staying the course. But the rest of us are fed up and ready for a change.

While throwing out the Republicans from the House and the Senate will not solve all the problems, it does two things: one, send a message to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that We the People are not satisfied with his "my way or the highway" approach. Mr. Bush and his cronies are not the smartest folks in town. It is high time that they reach out to bigger brains for help in resolving the problems that face us. Two, supplant those who would be enablers -- Congressional Republicans -- with some new faces and ideas, people who are willing to build bridges, not burn them. Try new solutions, not just pooh-pooh them.

I don't expect magic, just change. A more reasonable solution to Iraq won't come instantly. But I do think the Democrats will be more open to vigorous discussion of how to fix that dreadful problem. And if it means that they have to threaten to cut off funding for Mr. Bush's caper in the Crescent, let them.

Mr. Bush mistook a majority for a mandate (and thought mandate meant ultimatum), and that was never case. Perhaps this election will remind Mr. Bush that he -- temporarily -- is the leader of all Americans and he is accountable to all of us, not just his Republican Christian Conservative right wing base. We have had enough. We want change and accountability. And we want it now.

Dear Election Fairy,

I have been a good Democrat all year (and last year, too!) I know that in 2004 I set my sights just a little too high -- but could you blame me? After we came so close in 2000, only to have the Florida's Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court dash our dreams. But anyway... I know that was in the past. This year, my wish list is more realistic. Please see what you can do to deliver on these modest requests, and I'll save any big ones for 2008.

First, I'd like to see the Democrats pick up enough seats to take control of the House of Representatives. I know that 16 is the "magic" number, but do you think you could manage maybe 30 seats? Okay, anything over 16 is just great. (And if you could do you think you manage a change in NM-01? Let challenger Patricia Madrid defeat Heather Wilson? I know it's a special request, but it would mean a lot to me.)

Second, I'd like the Democrats to win 6 or 7 new Senate seats. That way we could control the Senate too. And if I could ask for some specific winners -- folks who could use your special help -- could you work on Harold Ford in Tennessee, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jim Webb in Virginia? Could you send Conrad Burns packing?

And if it's not too much to ask, can we get a majority of governorships in the hands of Democrats?

And one last thing, before I forget... and this is a little tricky: do you think you could just check and make sure that folks who vote electronically have their votes accurately recorded and counted? I know you don't really handle the technical side of things, but if you could just make sure there's no hanky-panky, three-card Monte, Loosey Goosey, Hickory Dickory Dock, Rub-a-Dub-Dub, then I'll keep the huffin' and puffin' and blow their house down to a minimum.

Thank you, Election Fairy. I'll be leaving a delicious assortment of treats out for you. And if you don't mind, I'll stay up until the returns are in.

See you tomorrow night!