The NAACP had its annual convention yesterday, and three Democratic presidential candidates could not make it. The reaction of the head of the NAACP, Kweisi Mfume had this to say about the situation:
NAACP President Kweisi Mfume described the absent candidates — Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and Reps. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) — as "persona non grata" whose "political capital is now the equivalent of Confederate dollars."
"When candidates choose to ignore the NAACP, they have no legitimacy when they go into our communities later asking for our votes," Mfume said.
So, according to Mr. Mfume, if you’re not bowing before him and the NAACP, you can’t represent African-Americans. What were the candidates actually doing?
Spokesmen for the candidates said Gephardt had a previous family commitment and that Kucinich did not attend because he has vowed not to miss any votes. Lieberman’s spokesman, Jano Cabrera, said the senator had private meetings in New York and a television interview.
"No one should question Senator Lieberman’s commitment to racial equality and equal opportunity," Cabrera said. "His record, dating back to the 1960s when he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., . . . is as strong as anyone’s."
As much as it pains me to defend the Democrats, Mfume is out of line. He does not have a monopoly on the black vote in this country. African-Americans don’t need the NAACP telling them who to vote for, or telling them what candidate is legitimate or not. It is the height of arrogance for Mr. Mfume to assume that he has any right to be the representative for all African-Americans. If President Bush said that "you cannot be a good Christian if you’re not a Republican" there would be a mob outside the White House – and rightly so. However, when it comes from a member of a liberal interest group, it gets a free pass.
Despite the NAACP’s former leadership of the struggle for real civil rights in America, they have now gone far out of line. The three Democrats should stand on the side of African-American voters and their ability to make their own choices and harshly rebuke Mr. Mfume for his racial pandering and disgusting arrogance.
I have no sympathy for the Donk candidates. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Amazingly, I agree with you. Mfume is way out of line for disparaging candidates who missed his forum for whatever reason. Many of the candidates scheduled to speak at a forum my dad attended in Minnesota couldn’t make it, and attendees were mature enough not to publicly dismiss their absence as a personal attack. On the other hand, Bush’s fourth straight year of absence at the forum speaks volumes of what he really thinks of African-Americans and the issues important to them, despite his often-used example of having Condoleeza Rice on his payroll. To be fair to Bush though, I don’t believe that he or most elected Republicans seriously hate people of color. Instead, they hate people of poverty, and people of color just happen to disproportionately represent that demographic.
Bush’s fourth straight year of absence at the forum speaks volumes of what he really thinks of Democrats and the issues important to them…
Given that NAACP is a DNC’s mouthpiece, I thought the above correction would be appropriate.
I don’t believe that he or most elected Republicans seriously hate people of color. Instead, they hate people of poverty…
Lovely. Not only do Republicans hate blacks but they hate the poor! LOL!
A new study by the Center for Responsive Politics found that in the last election cycle, people who gave less than $200 to politicians or parties gave 64 percent of their money to Republicans. Just 35 percent went to Democrats. On the other hand, the Center found that people who gave $1 million or more gave 92 percent to Democrats — and a whopping 8 percent to Republicans
Enjoy!
Hmmm…seems to me Bush is the guy who raised $34 million in three weeks last month at fundraising events that set its participants back six figures worth of greenbacks. Unless the limited footage we got of these fundraisers were hiding hundreds of construction workers who were nickel-and-diming Bush’s fundraising total to $34 million in six weeks, I’d say your math is a tad fuzzy.
Again, fallacy of composition. Those fundraisers are only the most visible segment of GOP fundraising. Speaking from personal experience working on campaigns, I can vouch that most contributors to the GOP gave less than $200.
Mark, what exactly are you disputing? Are you saying that my source is lying?
Jay, I wrote for exactly $200 last year. Will probably be the same this year.
Having campaign experience myself, I can attest to the same situation among Democrats. The GOP wants it both ways. It wants to accuse the Democrats of “being the party of the unproductive” and representing nothing but “indolent welfare mamas” and “lowly uncooth blue-collar workers”, but at the same time want us to believe that 92 percent of Democratic party contributors are donating a million bucks per shot. Which is it, guys?
Monkey, to put it bluntly, YES. I am saying your information is wrong…and not only wrong, but transparently wrong.
Mark: I’m calling you on this one. The Center for Responsive Politics is the group that runs the OpenSecrets database that contains information from candidate FEC filings.
The Washington Post backs up the Mr. York’s story. The actual data tables can be found here.
In other words, you’re the one who is wrong – and transparently so as it turns out. I suggest being more careful before you start making claims you can’t back up.
Mark. Now you are just making stuff up.
You said but at the same time want us to believe that 92 percent of Democratic party contributors are donating a million bucks per shot. in response to the quote that says
On the other hand, the Center found that people who gave $1 million or more gave 92 percent to Democrats — and a whopping 8 percent to Republicans
Come on Mark. Either you have a proble comprehending or you are just straight out lying hoping that no one will notice? Which is it?
There’s a swindle here somewhere. Even if those numbers are correct, which I’m not conceeding to because the presence of numbers does not necessarily constitute fact as bankrupt former Enron and WorldCom employees can attest to, there has to be a distinction between hard money and soft money.
The electorate is pretty much evenly split, and there are actually more registered Democrats in the country than registered Republicans. And the only time I’ve ever seen a Republican come in second-place in fundraising in any election that’s even moderately contested is when the Democratic candidate’s campaign in self-financed (like Mark Dayton). Other than that, Republicans always have a financial advantage and your numbers would always have us believe that the party with either minority or very limited majority status in voter registration (and who represents the wealthy) is generating all these small donations while the party with the most registered voters (who represents the poor and working class) is dependent on a few massive donations from millionaires. This does not add up.
The anti-smoking zealots who are collecting $60 million per day off of cigarette taxes then have the gall to profess on national TV that smoking costs the government the equivalent of $7 a pack in societal costs. Clearly, figures can be weaved to support any theory. Someone’s gonna have to breakdown the dynamics of this “millionaires are paying the Democrats bills, while the Average Joes are filling Republican party coffers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each election cycle” premise before I buy it. If we’re talking about soft money, the only fundraising method prior to McCain-Feingold where a million dollars could legally be contributed, corporate dollars flowed far more generously to the GOP than the Dems. These figures are wrong one way or another.
Let’s recap for a second.
1) You claim that Republicans hate the poor.
2) When I point out the statistical data you claim that my source is lying. What’s more you proceed to pretend that the quoted material says something that it doesn’t and proceed to attack it.
3) You finally concede that the numbers might not be lying, BUT it doesn’t matter anyway because:
4) You present your opinion as a fact:
(Democrats) who represents the poor and working class
So in the end, the numbers are lying because you already came to a conclusion. Given that the facts do not support your view you refuse to accept them. Weak.
Okay- I want to take a stab at this because I find it an interesting problem that needs to be untangled. Perhaps it is possible that Republicans had more small donors- but donations to a political party are not necessarily exactly proportional to income. I love the Democratic party, but I am very poor and cannot afford to donate even a measly $200. That’s almost half my rent money. The “lowly” folks that you guys are arguing about, indigent mothers and the like, probably don’t vote, much less actually donate money to one party or the other. Ditto for blue collar workers who, in addition, probably feel that their union dues are enough UNLESS they happen to be Republicans, in which case they may decide to donate to the party, since unions are obviously not going to represent their personal interests on that one. Taking it one step further, those who will donate $200 are probably more along the lines of upper-middle class people- politically interested and engaged- and, in Minnesota anyway, most likely suburban, wouldn’t you say?
This argument seems pointless- poor people like US, no they like US! And I also do not understand the stigma against larger donors to the Democratic party. Demographics obviously can be seen to correlate with political affiliation (sort of where this argument started, but not really). Obviously there are people of all political views across all spectrums, however, and for all kind of different reasons- religion, abortion, guns, welfare, the environment, animal rights, property rights, you name it. I think it’s great that there are people who have “made it” in the US, economically, who still believe in the Democratic ideals of a more equitable society. Being appreciative of the help you had getting where you are and believing that others should have that same chance is not hypocritical, as Republicans like to charge, and it is also nothing Democrats ought to be ashamed of. Simply because someone decides to, politically, get under the same “tent” and give money to the same party that you do does not mean they are the same kind of Republican or Democrat that you are.
"Taking it one step further, those who will donate $200 are probably more along the lines of upper-middle class people- politically interested and engaged- and, in Minnesota anyway, most likely suburban, wouldn’t you say?"
In general, this is true, although in Greater Minnesota a lot of political contributions tend to come from farmers (who tend to be surprisingly wealthy) and from small-business owners. In general, however, you’re absolutely correct, political donations tend to come from the middle class and up.
I believe the reason that more of the super-rich tend to vote Democratic is because they can afford to. Rich people have tax shelters and tax help that the middle class doesn’t. Furthermore, many of them do believe that giving people government handouts is a form of noblesse oblige. After all, if you’re a rich Hollywood celebrity, you’ve every interest in appearing "compassionate" and looking like a "brave activist".
The thing is, I don’t give a pair of fetid dingo’s kidneys about intentions. I’m a policy guy. In the end, it doesn’t matter how noble a program is if the program doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter how good welfare makes people feel if the effect of that welfare is a class of people who are virtual slaves to the government. At some point people need to realize that the only way to improve one’s life is through hard work, responsibility, and the freedom to make choices – even if they’re bad ones. My primary beef with the Democrats isn’t that they care enough – it’s that their liberal means can never reach the liberal ends they seek. Welfare states don’t make things better, they encourage exactly the kind of behavior that keeps people poor and oppressed. As long as the government deems it necessary to make people’s choices for them, people won’t develop the necessary skills to survive in an increasingly competitive world.
No doubt that the typical Democratic voter is motivated out of some sense of compassion. However, even compassion can be taken too far.
Kerri,
…but I am very poor and cannot afford to donate even a measly $200.
You have misread what it says. It says …people who gave less than $200 to politicians or parties gave 64 percent of their money to Republicans
…I think it’s great that there are people who have “made it” in the US, economically, who still believe in the Democratic ideals…
That’s pure spin. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be claiming it as proof that Republicans are the party of the rich.
Jay,
I don’t give a pair of fetid dingo’s kidneys about intentions. I’m a policy guy.
Ditto. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
First of all, I love the phrase “fetid dingo’s kidneys”. Ha!
Farmers are surprisingly wealthy, usually in property as well as through subsidies and tax breaks. I come from a very long line of Iowa farmers, but I have a beef with our subsidy system, if you will forgive the pun. I confess that I don’t really know enough about it to make a really thorough examination and if my dad ever knew I said anything like that, he would disown me, so I won’t go there. I also think that policy is the answer, Jay- but like I said quite a while ago, we would disagree on equations. Whose idea of justice is correct? How do you measure “success”? Is it the pure number of people on the welfare rolls at any given moment or is it how long people stay on welfare and how successful they are at staying off welfare long-term? In this past session’s debate on changing MFIP in Minnesota, folks working with those people on welfare lauded the current system while Pawlenty and his fellow Republicans called for change. Minnesota was a model of welfare reform- our TANF programs were a model for many other states and had been formulated on a bi-partisan basis. I was hard-pressed to find justification for changing a system that seemed to work so well other than making a gesture to the “those lazy bastards need to get a job” type Republicans. Not one single non-profit group thought the changes were a good idea. I guess you could argue they have a vetted interest in keeping people on welfare, but that kind of cynicism makes me want to crawl back into bed and never leave.
I think that long-term success is more important than simple moment-to-moment measurements. Job training and child care help, for example, work better than throwing someone out into the work force when they cannot speak English and telling them to get a job when there is no one to watch their children while they’re away. Being a slave to the government…why should life have to be like a race to the finish where survival of the fittest is the only real rule? Isn’t it the point of evolution that humans have become much more than means of production? The economy exists to serve people and not the other way around. We are beyond the point in our history where clawing at each other for food is necessary. There is enough for everybody and unequal distribution of resources is just a fact. I’m not advocating widespread resource distribution, I’m just saying that we are highly intelligent beings and can, and have, thought of ways to increase our quality of life collectively.
These changes don’t necessarily have to be harmful, they don’t have to enslave people. Childcare subsidies for working women and families- do they hurt or ultimately help the economy? You don’t like government beauracracy (who does?) but does it help the economy when thousands of gov’t workers lose their income? Welfare is a surprisingly tiny piece of government budgets for how much play it gets.
I also am uncomfortable with using celebrities as your example of rich Democrats. They don’t represent rank and file Dems, even rich ones, any more than the Republicans would use Toby Keith as your spokesman.
Monkey- Yes, I did misread. I also did not donate one dime to the party and it does not change my argument one iota. Poor people do not vote and they do not donate money to political parties. Your spin accusation made me think. Do rich Democrats and rich Republicans basically cancel themselves and each other out completely? If they both equally take advantage of tax shelters and both are ultimately driven by selfish intentions then who cares what party they belong to. Maybe their wealth should make them ineligible to vote since their interest is so vested. Or maybe people who have a lot of money are still people.
The economy exists to serve people and not the other way around
Hm. I have a problem with the above statement. I am not sure what it is, but I definately detect a problem.
Do rich Democrats and rich Republicans basically cancel themselves and each other out completely?
Well, my whole issue is with Democrats (see Mark’s post for a prime example) claiming to be the party of the poor and working.
Democrats do claim to be the party of the poor and working- but I do not think they claim that all their members are blue-collar workers. If that was the case, they would never win an election. It’s the same with the Republicans- if only “rich” people voted for Republicans or supported the party, they wouldn’t get very far. Politics happens, more than some of us would like, at the level of the common person and common people just don’t care that much about politics. Apparently you are offended by Democrats staking this claim (to helping the poor) since it implies (or is said, more directly) that Republicans don’t give a fetid dingo’s kidney about the poor. Do they care? I confess that I have thought, more than once, that they don’t. I don’t mean that personally or offensively- I am just baffled by some policy and funding decisions that seem counterproductive.
I just decided I really hate talking about a group of people as “the poor”. That is so lame. They’re just people. They’re individuals- a Republican word, right? And they all have their stories. Freedom of choice is definitely one thing but absence of choice due to a faulted society- because no society is perfect- is another.
I wrote a long-winded retort to Monkey’s comments that never made it on here for some reason…and the discussion has drifted way too far to waste 20 minutes retyping it. I would like to know, however, if these “carved on stone tablet” figures he gives us represent both soft money and hard money contributions, or one of the two. Republican candidates always have the financial advantage in an even moderately contested race unless the Democratic candidate is self-financed like Mark Dayton. They also are able to boast preposterously high fundraising totals after every round of pricey fundraisers filled with the nation’s wealthiest corporate executives, the ones we are led to believe are pouring all their fortune into Democratic coffers. THere’s some information being left out of your figures here because they clearly do not add up.
If your figures are accurate, however, the two parties understanding of constituent service is absolutely perverse. Here we have the Democratic party who wants to avoid the tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of Americans who are apparently their constituency…and Republicans are fighting tooth-and-nail to score tax cuts for the very wealthy who then apparently use the tax cuts to give million-dollar donations to the opposition party. Meanwhile, Democrats are fighting to keep Bush from eliminating a tax cut for lower-income people, a group that Republicans are branding as the “lucky duckies who don’t pay taxes”. The Republicans apparently don’t want to see this group, their alleged constituency according to your figures, receive any tax cuts, even though the indications of your study would indicate they’d be most likely to return this money to Republican party coffers with donations of $200 or less. Could the parties really be this blind to the demographics of their constituency…or could it be your figures that are erroneous?
Mark: did you ever even remotely consider that your simplistic ideological view is completely wrong? That maybe the super rich get benefits from Democratic policies and the middle class wants the government out of their lives?
Wait, of course you didn’t, that would require thinking outside your carefully crafted partisan blinders.
Republicans and hating the poor and working class….
Well, the Republican party is able to achieve tremendous mileage by inspiring rage among the “productive” against the “unproductive.” In the past, the latter group represented only those who received government checks. Now, with welfare rolls diminished and the GOP desperate to create a new enemy, anybody who makes $26,000 or less and thus “doesn’t pay taxes” has become the new face of the “indolent” in Republican eyes. In the rural area where I live, about 90% of the people make less than $26,000, myself included, are all viewed as the “welfare mamas” of the 21st century by subarban-centric GOPers with higher incomes who “fill the trough that the rest of us feed out of”. Given the high percentage of people who bust their butt 40 hours a week or more and earn less than $26,000 a year, I’m not sure if expanding the number of “freeloading parasites” to include all of this group is gonna be as effective as spewing vitriol towards the welfare mamas of yesteryear was.
To be fair, there are plenty of Republicans who honestly do not hate poor people and blue-collar workers, but serve society just as poorly with their shameless apathy towards them. Jay fits this category, as evidenced by nearly all of his past statements. In the eyes of many conservatives, the guy on the other side of the tracks from them is not really human. He is merely a robot…a warm body on the factory floor…a set of hands at the cash register…a vessel whose sole purpose on this Earth is to deliver an increased bottom line for the “real human beings” who wear a tie to work every morning. Jay has publicly grieved on this blog for families who earn more than $100,000 a year who are having a difficult time paying their house payments and their kids’ college tuition….as if it never occurred to him that people earning under $100,000 have the same problems with less resources to do so. In the increasingly “us versus them” attitudes among rank-and-file Republicans, the affliction of not accepting their subordinates’ humanity is a clear representation that where the Republican party is headed is even less conducive to the maintenance of civilized society than where the party stands now.
Here we have the Democratic party who wants to avoid the tax cuts to the wealthiest…
Mark, please explain the above. Given that we have a progressive tax system, why should the tax cuts be anything but progressive?
In the eyes of many conservatives, the guy on the other side of the tracks from them is not really human. He is merely a robot…a warm body on the factory floor…
I’ve long wondered as to how “many conservatives” view the world. Thanks for clearing all that up, I shall wonder no more.
In the increasingly “us versus them” attitudes among rank-and-file Republicans…
No. us versus them is a play out of the DNC play book. Black vs White. Women vs Men. Poor vs Rich. DNC is truly the party of doom and gloom.
…In the rural area where I live, about 90% of the people make less than $26,000, myself included… ….Given the high percentage of people who bust their butt 40 hours a week or more and earn less than $26,000 a year…
*yawn*
No, really. *yawn*
Let’s see. We have a person who makes $26k a year in a rural area. Let’s take, for example… Me. My family came to the states with *nothing* (under $1k for the 4 of us). I attended public schools in Brooklyn. So, basically, I wouldn’t say that i was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Anyway, I make twice the $26k figure you quoted.
Let’s see. I commute an hour to work (each way). The “normal” working hours are 9-6. So at best, I leave at 8 and come home at 7. Given that I work in IT, I often have to stay 2-3 hours late (no, I don’t get over time). Meaning that I leave for work at 8 and come home 9-10.
So right there the difference between $26k and $52k is diminished given that my hours are not 9-5 (plus my commute). My monthly rent is $800. My car insurance is over $2k. Etc,etc,etc,. The cost of life in NYC is pretty high.
So, as you see everything is not as black and white as you think. I would be curious to know what your car insurance is, what your working hours are, and what your commute is like. How much is your rent? Probably not much in a rural area? You could probably pay mortgage on a house with $800 a month.
Wait a minute here buddy. Just two weeks ago, you claimed that teachers in New York were making a suitable income at $30,000 a year…a salary that you say they should have absolutely no problem with. Yet here you are, making $52,000 in the same state and crying poverty because of the same cost-of-living costs I mentioned, but you dismissed, in reference to teacher salaries. Advice for the future–if you’re gonna be a mindless hypocrite, at least wait more than two weeks before jumping the fence and arguing the other side of an issue out of ideological convenience. 😉
Just two weeks ago, you claimed that teachers in New York were making a suitable income at $30,000 a year…a salary that you say they should have absolutely no problem with…
Selective memory? Its $30k-$60k. You should also recall that they only work 3/4th of the year. And even then they get all kinds of days off including 2 weeks in the winter and a week in the spring. As for me, no where am I crying poverty. I am putting thing into perspective. A dollar in a rural area goes much further then a dollar in the city.
Advice for the future–if you’re gonna be a mindless hypocrite
Name calling? That just shows that you have a weak argument. How am I a hypocrite?