Shannon running for U.S. Senate-2

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I like him a lot. He's got a bright future. While he seems to be a career politician, I certainly think he's more conservative than Lankford.

Even more conservative?? I never thought it's possible. Even in Oklahoma...

Ideology is not one dimensional nor a linear plane, you know. If anything it is a infinite, three dimensional object. Infinite because there are numerous issues that arise and change over time.

That is how people who supported the Civil Rights Movement in the 1940's ended up its enemies by the 1970's. The issues of focus were no longer anti-lynching legislation, but equal housing an so forth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Think of it like this. If Conservatism is the by word to be attached to. Isn't it in your best interests to seek to label social conservatives as insufficiently so overall by emphasizing their lapses elsewhere? Essentially move the definition to something more accomodating, basically?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since when is it a crime for people to vote their best interest? African Americans vote Democratic because many of them are on the outside of soceity and thus a party built around ostensibly uplifting the disconnected are a natural target and thus even if racism were eliminated as a factor as were its resulting partially media driven, partially self imposed taint, is 75%-25% or maybe even a 67%-33% not an unreasonable split between a Liberal and a Conservative party amongst African Americans? Certainly the embrace of the Democrats to the turn of 75%-25% in the New Deal Era based largely around this concept, even in spite of the rather disgusting segregationists both Conservative and Progressive still tolerated within the party and paid lip service to by FDR, shows such is the case to some extent. That said perhaps what the left fears is that the mere perception of inclusivness will reduce that 95% to 90% or 85%, which begins to make things a bit more difficult in Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

When you win 50-50 and you depend upon a monolithic voting block as a piece of that, you will go to any lengths to prevent it from becoming less monolithic. 12% of the electorate means that every five percent lost amonst African Americans translates into .6% being slice from your nationwide PV and thus going down to 85% would take 51% and make it 49.8% and likewise 47% becomes 48.2%. OH is even worse where 51-47 becomes 49.5% to 48.5% 1.7% nationwide and 1.0% in OH as opposed 4 and 4. That is a big shift!). Not that you have any reason to be afraid since the GOP is doing your work for you as it is, but that is the point isn't it. The Democrats have not "settled" when it comes to efforts to ensure unanimity amongst African American's, even when such is totally unnecessary. 

I think it is rather fitting that states with bad histories of racial injustice are finally willing to elect minorities. It shows that such people now prioritize their principles and positions over color. Isn't that progress in and off itself, even if rather slow? Is it racist for them not vote for a liberal African American when most would also have not vote for John Kerry or Howard Dean? Granted you have the trends in LA, AR and KY and WV to be considered, just shows there is more work to do. You are talking single digit shifts between swing adjusted Kerry and Obama numbers, maybe teens at best.

One of the big problems with the left in general is that it has turned injustice, of all kinds, into being the product of an alien culture that is to be ostracized or irradicated. Racism is the product of fear and ignorance and the potential is there in all humans who lack universal understanding and knowledge (which is just about 100% of the species I would reckon). Arrogance produces its own form of ignorance and misunderstanding and surely the former action is in and of itself such, for if not, I know not what is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Think of it like this, if whoever OK elects is going to be insane on issues you care about (and really probably the only difference between these two candidates is who is closer to whose circle of friends), at least with one you get to add some diversity and make some history in a state blighted with racial strife in the past.

As for "qualified", he was a state legislator and a Speaker albeit for a short time. And it is not like Lankford is a long term incumbent member of the House either.

I can understand if one was electing Alvin Greene or that guy who Obama trounced but whose names escapes at the moment, simply because of their color, but that isn't the case here.