How To Get Black People To Objectively And Critically Analyze The Democratic Party (Pro-Tip: Not Like This)

A friend of mine suggested to a Facebook group I'm in that we watch the video.  The video begins with Quannell X.  Quannell X is an "activist" that I was done with years ago, after watching him and Guardian Angels head Curtis Sliwa go head to head, and eventually making, of all things, Sean Hannity look like the voice of reason.  That's an almost unpardonable sin.  But, despite my own misgivings about Quannell, I powered through the video.  

The video is an attempt to get Black people to take a critical look at the Democratic Party, and to stop with the undying loyalty that Black people have towards the Democrats.  As an attempt to get Black people to look beyond the Democratic Party or consider the Republicans, this video fails.  And here's why.  I posted the following comments in the group.  And since I believe that sharing is caring, here are my comments for everybody.

The Quannell X segment was just half of the video. The other half featured the creator of the video attempting to make the case about Black people and loyalty to the Democratic Party. 

Unfortunately, his attempt fell short. For example, as I said earlier, he invoked "Democrat Plantation." Personally, that's a term that I can't stand, and yes, I coined the term "Pet Negro Apologist." But Black conservatives throw out the "Democrat Plantation" term to prove that THEY'VE escaped the "plantation" and left everyone else behind. And the people who invoke that term usually (and almost to a fault) ignore the racism that oozes and seeps from every pore of the current GOP.

Next, the Civil Rights leader says that while Trump is only "rumored" to be connected with the Klan, Hillary Clinton has legitimate ties. And as I mentioned before, the proof is the standard "ROBERT KKK BYRD" card. It doesn't work when it comes from Sean Hannity, and it doesn't work when Black people play that card. And whenever I talk to people and they play that card, I simply ask them why current white supremacists, like David Duke, Breitbart (the civil rights leader completely dismissed Breitbart's white supremacist ties, even though Bannon himself said that they're basically an alt-right clearing house) and others are flocking behind Trump and saying that he speaks THEIR language.

The Civil Rights leader then goes on to list the Republican accomplishments for Black people. He starts with the 13th and 14th Amendments, and ends with Civil Rights legislation. He, like everyone else, completely ignored the Southern Strategy and the ideological switch that took place between both parties.

Which brings us to where we are now. 

Does the Democratic Party take the Black vote for granted? Yes. Oui. Si. Are *SOME* of us loyal? Absolutely, to a fault. That loyalty is what wound up killing Clinton's 2008 run, because she took it for granted that Bill Clinton's Black Community "goodwill" would be automatically conferred upon her. When Bill showed his behind after the South Carolina primary, Hillary got her wake up call. But she was in the midst of a horrible campaign ran by (until now) the worst campaign manager in modern history, Mark Penn. No one forgets how she was in a Black church talkin' about how she "don't feel no ways tah'rd."

No one forgets how her Black surrogates at the time were her unofficial attack dogs, from Bob Johnson floating balloons about then-Senator Obama's drug use to John Lewis saying that Obama should wait his turn, to Jesse Jackson forever cutting himself off from the Obama Administration when he said, on Fox News, on a hot mic, that he wanted to "cut Obama's nuts off."

Where was I? Oh yeah. Today.

Is Hillary Clinton the perfect candidate? Not to me. Elizabeth Warren and Senator Sanders were my 1A and 1B choices. But when it comes to things that I support, like the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, the reversal of Citizens United (interesting that the HEAD of Citizens United is now an active part of the Trump campaign), support for unions, support for a living wage, an expansion of Obamacare into something like single-payer, a President Hillary Clinton is more likely to accomplish that. 

Doesn't mean that she will... after all, President Obama campaigned on universal health care, but wound up with the CONSERVATIVE compromise of the ACA. And President Obama has fallen short on several progressive issues. 

But dang it, I go rambling again. This is almost like my blog post. ANYWAY... 

(ed. note:  It is now a blog post... heh...)

YES, as informed Black voters, we have to hold the Democratic Party that we (those of us that vote Democratic) accountable. The accountability works up and down the ticket, at EVERY ELECTION. 

If Republicans want to woo Black voters, they have GOT to do better than the surrogates that they send out now. They have GOT to stop it with the "Black plantation" remarks, and assume that a light bulb will go off and they'll automatically switch parties. And while the Democrats aren't perfect regarding race, they are MILES ahead of the GOP. The GOP had a chance to nip the bigotry of their party in the bud with Michael Steele as head of the RNC. But when push came to shove, Steele kissed the ring of Boss Limbaugh and was nothing more than a figurehead. He was ousted and replaced with useless tub of goo Reince Priebus.

THIS is who the GOP/Donald Trump is sending out.  For God's sake, NO. 

Locally, the Republican platform stands for everything that I'm against, including things like "right to work" and the belief that tax cuts for big businesses will trickle down to the electorate. I'm against the privatization of essential government services. I'm a Christian, but I'm against my faith being used as a cudgel against anyone who doesn't pray and worship the way I pray and worship. And more often than not, the so-called Party of Family Values is nothing more than the Party of Rank Hypocrisy and Deflection.

Yes, we need to hold our elected officials accountable. And yes, changes need to be made. But as I said earlier, the changes that are needed are best implemented at the local level, and not attempted every four years. 

I've been doing a little research on Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and they're not much better. Despite Stein being an MD, she has cozied up to anti-vaxxers and has said some goofy things about wi-fi being dangerous. Anyone who is in favor of civil rights legislation, voting rights legislation, government agencies that protect the public, etc should be against the Libertarian party. Their solution is to leave everything alone and let the market figure it out. So, if the EpiPen obscene price hike offends you, and companies polluting water, and fracking offends you, and if openly-racist businesses and establishments offend you (separate-but-equal, anyone?), then the Libertarian Party isn't for you.

Completely dismissing the Tea Potty behavior, the casual and blatant racism from the party, and history is not an objective analysis as to why Black people should join the Republicans. If they want to start wooing Black people, they can actually FOLLOW the things listed in their GOP Autopsy.

Until then, I welcome the upcoming Republican Extinction Level Event and hopes that the party as it stands now gets wiped off the face of the earth. The survivors will have no choice but to reevaluate themselves or die from the fallout.

Additional Note:  My friend who runs the Primarily Politics Facebook Page covered Republican Outreach in a three-part video series.  Do yourself a favor and check them out.  He covers a lot of things that I mentioned here.

Part 1:  Say No To The Democrat Plantation

Part 2:  Stop Attacking The President

Part 3:  Don't Ever Send Black Republicans To Recruit Black People

Vice-President Elizabeth Warren? Not So Fast

Madame Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton Von DemocraticParty is the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Presidency of the United States.  Senator Bernie Sanders is out of contention, but has not conceded yet.  But Sanders has expressed that he will vote for Clinton.  We are now at the state where we get to speculate on the Vice-Presidential picks.  

One name has been coming up, time after time.

Progressive firebrand Senator Elizabeth Warren.

"Hm.  How many more ways can I get under Donald Trump's skin?"

I love Senator Warren.  She has been bringing the pain on progressive issues for a little while now.  She has been very vocal about such issues as reining in the payday loan industry.  Recently, she has been taking the fight straight to Republican nominee and ignorant f&%*muppet Donald Trump (thanks, Scots, for the beautifully obscene insults).  She has been consistent and relentless, and as Ice T put it back in 1987, Warren is "like a pit bull lockin' on a doberman's neck."

Senator Warren had a recent joint campaign event with Hillary Clinton, and continued to stick her thumb into Trump's eye.  And the bloviating fleshbag and clueless numpty's only response was to call Sen. Warren "Goofy Elizabeth" and "Pocahontas."  Warren has demonstrated that she runs circles around Trump by doing this:  POCAHONTAS.  <--- go ahead.  Click on the link.  Sheer genius.

Does that mean that she would make a great Vice President?  She's obviously a great surrogate.  And personally, I think that Hillary Clinton should be thanking sweet baby Jesus that Warren did not make a run for the Presidency.  She would have given Hillary more fits than then-Senator Obama did.  But she didn't, a slue of others including Bernie Sanders did, and now here we are.  But let's discuss Senator Warren as a Vice-Presidential candidate.

NO.

It's not due to qualifications, as she is imminently qualified.  Elizabeth Warren should not be Secretary Clinton's running mate for the following reasons.

1:  MAKE-UP OF THE U.S. SENATE

If Senator Warren becomes Vice President, that creates a vacancy in the Senate.  If we have learned nothing over the last eight years, we should have learned that a sitting President needs all the support in Congress he/she can get.  We have been dealing with partisan obstructionism for most of the past 8 years.  There are no guarantees in politics, including the type of Senator that would replace Vice-President Warren.  This segment from this ThinkProgress article pretty much sums it up.

// Massachusetts currently has a Republican governor, who would be able to name a temporary replacement to fill Warren’s senate seat if the Massachusetts lawmaker became vice president. And, even though this seat would eventually be filled by the winner of a special election, there’s no certainty that Massachusetts voters will choose another Democrat to fill Warren’s seat. Just ask former Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA). //

As crucial as this election is, and considering everything that's at state, we can't afford to have a Republican fill a seat vacated by Warren, no matter how temporary.  And as the segment lays out, there's no guarantee that a special election would seat a progressive.  After all, the late Liberal Lion of the Senate was replaced by Scott Brown.

2.  THE GOOD SOLDIER

One of the things that makes a good Vice-President is the ability to be a good soldier.  No one has proved that point better than President Obama's own personal enforcer, Vice President Joe Biden.

Throughout President Obama's two terms, Joe Biden has been loyal to a fault.  And like the best lieutenants, he did not outshine the man in charge.  Even with his so-called gaffes, he did not draw attention away from the President or steal the President's spotlight.  

Which brings us to Senator Warren.  As much of a surrogate that she is for Secretary Clinton, does this mean that she will take a back seat to President Clinton?  Hillary Clinton needs someone who wouldn't overshadow her, and Senator Warren's current status as a progressive firebrand could run the risk of stealing the spotlight from the always-pragmatic Clinton.  Whoever Clinton picks, it will be someone that won't have the crowd thinking "Why didn't THIS person win?"  And the LAST thing that she needs to pick is someone who will run the country from behind the dark curtain.

Yeah... "Vice" President... yeah, right.

3. KEEPING PRESIDENT CLINTON HONEST

I have a theory that President Obama governed as a center-right Republican and got a pass.  And to quote the great philosopher Herman Cain, I don't have the facts to back that up.  But I believe that overall, we were so focused on the obstruction that President Obama faced, and getting what seemed to be the most basic things done, that we didn't hold him accountable enough for such things as support for the TransPacific Partnership and not bringing criminal charges to the bankers and hedge fund managers that collapsed the economy.

Now, we are in a position to keep the White House Democratic, and we may be in a position to take back the Senate and the House of Representatives, and reshape the United States Supreme Court.  So, we will need to make sure that President Clinton has all of the Congressional support she needs, to pass her legislative ideas.

But remember, as much as Clinton campaigned about being a progressive, she's pretty much as center-right as President Obama is, and even moreso on issues such as national security.  We have to make sure that President Clinton is fulfilling her promises, and not giving away the store to Wall Street.  This is why Senator Warren is still needed in the Senate.  Senator Bernie Sanders has done a great job of pushing Secretary Clinton to the left on a lot of campaign issues, including things like a living wage.  Senators like Warren, Sanders, and others more to her ideological left will (hopefully) assure that Clinton's pendulum won't swing more towards the right.

4.  DE-FANGING SENATOR WARREN

This is probably the biggest reason why I don't feel that Warren should be Clinton's VP.  As mentioned earlier, Senator Warren is becoming a progressive firebrand, with the gravitas to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a loon.  A Vice-President Warren can't call out President Clinton if Clinton decides that fracking is cool, or that payday loan institutions have no pals in the White House.  A Warren Vice-Presidency pretty much silences Warren, and relegates her to the role of Clinton's lieutenant, Clinton's second-in-command.  

Senator Warren needs to continue to bring the pain from the Senate floor.  And there are plenty of other qualified people who will gladly fulfill the role of Clinton's Good Lieutenant.

Democrats, Progressives, We Gon' Be Alright...

...to quote Kendrick Lamar. Here's why.

During the 2008 campaign...

...P.U.M.A. was so much of a thing that people thought that it would split the Democratic Party...

...then-Senator Clinton invoked Rev. Jeremiah Wright, stating that he would not be HER pastor (side note: People who never listened to the sermon don't know that during that "infamous" sermon, the oh-so-terrible Rev. Dr. Wright praised President Clinton as "an intelligent friend in the White House", as opposed to the "dumb Dixiecrat" that succeeded him).

...then-Senator Clinton stated that she wished the primaries were run like the Republican primaries...

...Bill Clinton showed his behind in dismissing then-Senator Obama's South Carolina victory...

...I was so concerned about then-Senator Clinton's upcoming speech, thinking that she was going to send the Democratic Party into chaos and give in to P.U.M.A. acolytes...

...then-Senator Clinton used the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and hinted that an assassination is still plausible (much to everyone's horror) as a reason to stay in the race and not concede...

...then-Senator Clinton was caught lying about being under sniper fire, to the point that comedian Sinbad fact-checked her...

...her campaign was run by Mark Penn, who proved to be completely outclassed by the Obama campaign in every area...

...then-Senator Clinton went to a Black church, talking about "I don't feel no ways tah'r'd..."

...lastly, Clinton gave, at that time, the most dynamic speech of her campaign, her concession speech which included a full-throated, unequivocal endorsement of then-Senator Obama. And gave an equally dynamic speech at the DNC Convention.

At times, the 2008 campaign was very nasty. It was a clash of sexism vs. racism. Then-Senator Clinton campaigned as if the Presidency was a foregone conclusion, and that campaigning was a mere formality. She took the Black vote for granted, and she paid dearly for it. She campaigned as if the "goodwill" generated by Bill Clinton's presidency would automatically be conferred upon her.

Then-Senator Clinton erased a lot of rancor and built bridges with her speeches congratulating and endorsing then-Senator Obama.

Now, the roles are switched, with Secretary Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee and Senator Bernie Sanders as the underdog candidate. This race has had its moments, with the rise of "Bernie Bros" playing the role that P.U.M.A. played last time around. And, the Democratic National Committee has a patently awful chairman in the person of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who makes RNC chief and useless tub of goo Reince Priebus look competent by comparison. Her obvious bias towards Sec. Clinton was the LEAST of Wasserman-Schultz's sins, as she oversaw tremendous congressional and gubernatorial losses for the Democrats in previous years.

But despite Wasserman-Schultz, and despite allegations of a "rigged" contest, we now have Madame Secretary Hillary R. Clinton as the presumptive nominee for the Presidency of the United States. And, love it or hate it, we gon' be alright.

Why?

Because after all of the venom and bile of the 2008 campaign, both sides came together, only leaving outliers to kvetch and moan about the results.

We gon' be alright because the Republicans have put up, without hyperbole, the WORST candidate in their party's history. This candidate is so bad that two living Presidents in HIS party won't endorse him, and Republican politicians are trying to jump ship to disconnect themselves from their party's standard-bearer. But it won't work. I'm looking at YOU, Senator Mark Kirk.

We gon' be alright because we were alright in 2008, when the candidate that didn't win lent her full support to the winner.

We gon' be alright if Bernie Sanders makes an equally dynamic speech, offering a full-throated endorsement of Secretary Clinton while still being a (better) advocate for progressive issues. I'm optimistic that despite it all, Sanders will "do the job" (to use a pro-wrestling fan term) and endorse the party's nominee unequivocally. The onus is now on him to help bridge the gap between his supporters and hers. If Sanders is the man of character that I believe him to be, then his concession speech will be graceful, eloquent, and positive. 

Lastly, we gon' be alright because President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and others will all be unleashed (Sen. Warren has already been giving Trump the "Samsonite Luggage Test" treatment). Robert Reich said it best when he endorsed Senator Sanders: Secretary Clinton is the best candidate for the system we have now. And like it or not, we're here now. We gon' be alright if we coalesce behind Secretary Clinton while the GOP dumpster fire rages out of control.

We can do this. We can vote down-ballot, to get rid of the Tea Potty once and for all, relegating them to the dustbin of history. 

WE GON' BE ALRIGHT.

Why We, As Progressives, STAY Losing

Black Lives Matter vs. Bernie Sanders

This is why, as progressives, as liberals, as people trying to fight the good fight, we STAY losing.  We stay too busy trying to fight the small skirmishes, fight the little battles, fight the inconsequential wars and then stay home when it really matters.  

The latest example comes from some Black Lives Matter activists shutting down a campaign rally by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.  He was there to speak about some of his campaign issues, specifically, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare.  He was shut down by activists who refused to let him even speak.  I don't understand it, and it's counterproductive.  Then, I saw a Facebook post that seems to encapsulate the defense of these activists:

 #‎BernieSanders‬ needs to get with ghe program. While we as young black people understand what he has done in the past, and we are well aware of the Medicare and Medicaid system and its affects on our elderly family members of color. Bernie needs to understand that his speeches aren't addressing racism. Until he addresses racism and how the system he wants to change was built on that notion, ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ will continue to interrupt his rallies. He is the only one talking the talk and #BlackLivesMatter wants him to walk the walk. He can and we hope that he does because he could win the election with a landslide. We will see how this plays out...

Bernie Sanders needs to "get with the program"?  Maybe it's me, but if I recall correctly, Sanders was "with the program" before most of these activists were even born.  As for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, this response is the epitome of being short-sighted.  EVERYONE can be potentially affected by cuts in any of these programs.  A simple Google search can help explain the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.  While Medicare is a program that assists senior citizens, Medicaid assists poor families, period.  And these activists are shutting down one of the candidates who has always defended these programs.  Then, this person says that Senator Sanders' speeches don't address racism.  If they were serious about confronting Sanders' stance on racism, then they might want to visit his site to see where he stands on the issues.  And here is just a snippet:

• We must demilitarize our police forces so they don’t look and act like invading armies.
• We must invest in community policing. Only when we get officers into the communities, working within neighborhoods before trouble arises, do we develop the relationships necessary to make our communities safer together. Among other things, that means increasing civilian oversight of police departments.
• The fight for minority voting rights is a fight for justice. It is inseparable from the struggle for democracy itself.
  
  
  • We must work vigilantly to ensure that every American, regardless of skin color or national origin, is able to vote freely and easily.Congress must restore the Voting Rights Act’s “pre-clearance” provision, which extended protections to minority voters in states where they were clearly needed.
  • We must expand the Act’s scope so that every American, regardless of skin color or national origin, is able to vote freely.
  
  
  • We need to ban prisons for profit, which result in an over-incentive to arrest, jail and detain, in order to keep prison beds full.
  • We need to turn back from the failed “War on Drugs” and eliminate mandatory minimums which result in sentencing disparities between black and white people.
  • Knowing that black women earn 64 cents on the dollar compared to white men, we must pass federal legislation to establish pay equity for women.
  • We must prevent employers from discriminating against applicants based on criminal history.

Then, the writer admits that Bernie Sanders talks the talk, but the activists want to see him walk the walk.  Maybe it's me, but demanding that arguably one of the most progressive, left-leaning candidates "walk the walk" while admitting that he "talks the talk" is counterproductive.  You want him to address racism, but then you shut him down to the point that he can't even speak about ANY of the issues, let alone racism.  

The activists promise to interrupt the campaign rallies.  But here's what gets me.  They are shutting down someone that is arguably on their side, while letting the people vehemently OPPOSED to them off the hook.  We just had a Presidential debate that featured a Kid's Table debate and a prime-time debate.  Not one activist tried to shut them down.  One of my friends posited that it's because these kinds of activists wouldn't be let near a Republican campaign event.  But because Sen. Sanders grants them access, they will use that access to disrupt the event.  Again, this is counterproductive, because if Bernie Sanders starts restricting access, then what have we won?  Who have we convinced about the issues?

This kind of ideological purity is what kills us every time.  EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.  We saw it when some progressives stayed home from the 2010 midterm elections, and it allowed the Tea Potty to gain the control it has now.  Why?  Because President Obama had not walked on water as part of his first term.  We see it again when the President is heckled... BY PEOPLE HE INVITES TO THE PROGRAMS... because he's not... what... behaving like a benevolent emperor and eliminating problems with a wave of his hand?

Someone on Twitter replied to my question by saying that the BLM activists don't like Hillary Clinton, either.  To my knowledge, I haven't seen a Clinton event shut down by some of these activists.  And to a bigger point, if this were a matter of simply "not liking the candidate", then they should be chasing EVERY GOP CANDIDATE across the country with pitchforks and torches until these problems are erased.

So, who are we going to go after and shut down:  The guy(s) on our side that doesn't say EXACTLY what we want to hear, EXACTLY when we want to hear it, RIGHT THEN AND THERE, or the guy(s) that openly stand AGAINST the things that we stand for, and dare us to do something about it?

It should be a simple choice, but apparently, it's not.