What About Minority Groups?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

who are these "good choices among minorities"? The only statewide elected official who is a minority is Bill Richardson, who Kerry seriously considered, but he refused to take the position himself. This post is making me laugh.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Carol Mosley-Braun could have been a good VP candidate, as could Bill Richardson

Kerry did ask Richardson and showed interest. Richardson said no.

Mosley-Braun would've been a good VP candidate? How is a scandal-ridden former Senator who lost her reelection bid in a heavily Democratic state to a guy who was basically hated by his own party a good VP candidate?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

Why should Kerry pressure Richardson? He didn't want the job. End of story.

Democrats may not care much about minor sex scandals, but Braun had much more baggage.  And she doesn't help with any state. Besides, when's the last time someone who LOST their last election was picked for VP? I fail to see how someone who lost in a heavily Democratic state to a rather weak opponent is a good pick.

Ford is only 34. Ineligible.

Feinstein = Senator from state with Republican governor. Automatic disqualification in my view.

Kerry is a Catholic, but since when are Poles and Catholics minorities? Vilsack was seriously considered, but he was too unknown for the nation. Either way, he's still white.

But I thought everyone hates Rendell? Then wouldn't he not help at all with Pennsylvania? You kept talking about how he'd be such a bad choice.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

Why should Kerry pressure Richardson? He didn't want the job. End of story.

Democrats may not care much about minor sex scandals, but Braun had much more baggage.  And she doesn't help with any state. Besides, when's the last time someone who LOST their last election was picked for VP? I fail to see how someone who lost in a heavily Democratic state to a rather weak opponent is a good pick.

Ford is only 34. Ineligible.

Feinstein = Senator from state with Republican governor. Automatic disqualification in my view.

Kerry is a Catholic, but since when are Poles and Catholics minorities? Vilsack was seriously considered, but he was too unknown for the nation. Either way, he's still white.

But I thought everyone hates Rendell? Then wouldn't he not help at all with Pennsylvania? You kept talking about how he'd be such a bad choice.

Who cares?  Diversity for diversities sake is sooo important, right?  That's why we have AA, isn't it?  Isn't the Democrats' undying, heart-felt commitment to diversity one of the things that seperates you enlightened Liberals from us racist, troglodyte conservatives?

for the record I oppose race-based AA, but even when it's used, race is not the top priority. I think Richardson's consideration was mainly because of his race, so that was race based AA at work, but he was a decent candidate on his own merits, if it wasn't for the fact that HE DIDN'T WANT THE JOB. Someone like Braun was not, and a person as unqualified as Braun would never get a job in any case over someone as qualified as Edwards. Edwards was the best choice, and it's quite silly for the Democrats to either put pick someone who didn't want the job or was scandal-ridden over him.

And do you honestly think race was no factor at all in Powell and Rice's appointments? There's AA at work, and hence, hypocrisy.

whatever the case, it's obvious now that this thread wasn't actual political debate, but rather simply setting up a strawman.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?

Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish.

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.