The Associated Press and other media outlets on Friday were wringing their hands about Senator Roland Burris’ exit at the end of the year because it could potentially leave the Senate without a black member. In the Washington Post, Deanna Bellandi wrote that the “historically all-white club known as the U.S. Senate is likely to lose what little diversity it has after November’s elections.” The idea apparently is that, without a Black man or woman running to replace Burris, that the Senate’s “black seat” will be lost. This mentality is prevalent in Democrat politics. Burris was appointed to replace Barack Obama, another Black man.
Liberals were all in a tizzy in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired and the threat to the “Black seat” on the Supreme Court was palpable. They probably would have rather done away with the black seat, in retrospect, granted the fact that Clarence Thomas is the Justice that succeeded him. Likewise on the court, liberals were so upset by the fact that the “Jewish seat” on the court was filled by an gentile for twenty four years that President Clinton went ahead and nominated two Jewish Justices, Ginsberg and Breyer, to make sure such a travesty should never occur again. The question I have is, what’s with all the hate?
For a party that pretends to care so much about diversity, why is it that Democrats only care about what’s on the outside of a person, and not inside? To avoid sounding cliche, why is it that Democrats care so much about diversity of skin color and not about diversity of ideas? In 1965 the Voting Rights Act created safe “black seats” in the House of Representatives, all across America, and essentially amounted to affirmative action in Congress. Since that time, Congressional seats occupied by black Americans have gone from 10 to 40 and the mind set for liberals has become “once you go Black, you don’t go back.” Here in Tennessee, when Harold Ford vacated his Congressional seat near Memphis in 2006, Stephen I. Cohen (D-TN), who is White and Jewish encountered both militant and veiled racism in his pursuit of Ford’s “black seat.” Likewise, when David Yassky, a white Democrat from the 11th District of NY, ran for Major Owens (D-NY) open seat following the Congressman’s retirement, Owens called Yassky a “colonizer.”
In order to obtain these safe seats for a minority group which only makes up 12.2% of the population, districts are gerrymandered to a ridiculous degree. Additionally,16 of the nation’s 20 most gerrymandered districts in 2008 were held by Democrats. Democrats have been keeping score on matters of race for more than 40 years, but this behavior actually transcends matters of race. Democrats place a degree of ownership on positions of power that you don’t really see in conservative politics. Take, for instance, the “Kennedy seat” in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy, the longest serving of the Kennedy clan, was himself in fact merely a legacy appointment with little to no experience. After sixty years of rule by a Kennedy or a Kennedy surrogate, liberals were outraged when his seat was lost to an outsider, let alone a Republican, in 2010. To be certain, the “Kennedy seat” was not an aberrant phenomenon in Democrat politics. Joe Biden’s Senate seat in Delaware was widely considered a family heirloom, which Biden’s son, Beau was being groomed to take in 2010 when his father left office. The public had other ideas, much to the chagrin of liberals.
To be sure, there are political dynasties among Republicans. The Bush dynasty being the most famous. However, George H.W. Bush’s claim to fame was in Connecticut politics and World War II, and after subsequently becoming CIA Director and Vice President, he certainly earned his keep. His sons, Jeb and George W. Bush, both became the Chief Executive of huge states in Florida and Texas which had nothing to do with the peripheries of their father’s power. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul who is a Congressman from Texas, is leading in his Senate bid, but in Kentucky, not in Texas. In other words, Republicans seem to earn it, Democrats don’t seem to see a need to.
Mel Martinez (R-FL) is vacating the only seat in Congress held by a Hispanic. Conservative Republican Marco Rubio, who is an American of Cuban descent, will likely face Kendrick Meek, a Black Democrat in 2010. The winner will be the lone representative for their respective skin color in the Senate, but should that even matter? For Democrats, I am sure it only matters if the minority in question marches in ideological lock step with liberals. Hispanics make up 15.6 percent of the population in the United States. You would think that if it was truly important to represent races in Congress based upon their skin color, then liberals would support Rubio’s candidacy over Meek, since blacks only make up 12.2% of the U.S. population. Somehow, though, I don’t see that happening.
We should all strive to evaluate people, and candidates too, on the content of their character, and not on the color of their skin. When striving for true diversity, should we not look to obtain a diversity of views, not of ethnic food? When Democrats sink to assigning certain seats to certain races, it is demeaning, patronizing, paternalistic and racist. It stinks of segregated water fountains and plantations. When they do it for their favorite Whites, it shows that they don’t care so much about the people as they do about power.
David Teesdale, has a seat with his name on it. In front of the T.V. for Super Bowl Sunday