AFTER THE SMOKE CLEARS
Peace! So it's the day after the Elections and the Democrats have won ...at least in Pennsylvania. We have Ed Rendell for Governer, who was a shoe in, and Bob Casey won for U.S. Senate. Check this link for a brief summary of the candidates http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6199724,00.html. Time will show and prove whether these are candidates who will bring something beneficial to the table, or if they are "the lesser of 2 evils." But I'll share something with you.
As soon as I was of age to vote, my mother told me to vote Democrat. No matter who they were or what they said, vote Democrat. Although I never formally chose a party, I did vote Democrat a couple of times. Looking back, if I voted during Clinton's first run, I voted for him. With Bush's first election, I was one of those horrible people who voted my conscience and put in my bid for Ralph Nader. Second term, although I was not sold on John Kerry in any way shape or form, and knew that he and Bush had similarities and ties, I went with the lesser of two evils approach (anybody better than Bush). However with this election, I will admit that I did not vote. Casey didn't seem too different than Rick Santorum. Ed Rendell was surely going to beat Lynn Swann. I wasn't going to vote for Lynn Swann just because he was Black (and had no political experience mind you...too reminiscent of The Terminator, a former movie brute(Arnold Scwartzeneggar) as the governer of California). However, the real reason I couldn't vote for Ed Rendell was due to his history in the late 1970s to mid-eighties as a Philadelphia prosecuter during the bombing by police of a neighborhood and group of row houses of an organization (filled with men, women, and CHILDREN) called Move, a so-called radical group of black folks who really just believed in a natural way of life, and were uncompromising (http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/hougland_move_massacre.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE,
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm).
This is a big skeleton in Ed Rendell's closet that we cannot forget, just because he's a Democrat.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of voting, in addition to other activities, specifically when your vote will have some tangible effects, particularly on a local level. But I just couldn't vote for wolves in sheeps' clothing again. Too often, politicians on both sides will rally the troops to the battleground states, visit Black churchs around election time, show their faces at community events, never to be seen or heard from again after they've magnetized the audience with their rhetoric and snatched their votes with promises of a new and better day. And I may sound controversial with this one, and he seems like a nice enough guy, but can anyone give me five reasons (besides being young, Black and Democrat) why Black folks love Barack Obama and why we want him to run for the 2008 elections? I just haven't heard anything that makes me think he's going to change the world. Understandably, he has to speak to many audiences so he can't come off too controversial, however, he just reminds me of one of those brothers that you might see in an Abercrombie and Fitch add (not too threatening, digestible, safe). I know we want Black folks in positions of power, but we can't let that blind us (look at Clarence Thomas). We have to put the issues first, no matter who's doing the talking.
Speaking of talking, during this election, I heard some truly disturbing radio spots from both sides trying to get the Black and Latino vote (i.e. "Don't vote for Santorum because he is just like Bush, and doesn't understand what it means to struggle to pay the bills."), playing to our basic fears and needs. But that doesn't come anywhere close to the following radio spots I read about from a Republican group called America's Pac. Do the knowledge...
Republican Group Chides Democrats With Abortion Ads
Aim Is To Win Minority Voters, But Democrats Cry Foul
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 17, 2006
A little-known Republican group that claims to have swayed the 2004 presidential election with provocative radio advertising aimed at black and Hispanic audiences is spending nearly $1 million this year to boost the GOP's chances of holding on to a majority in Congress.
The group, America's Pac, began running ads last month in more than two dozen congressional districts.The campaign discusses issues ranging from warrantless wiretapping to school choice, but the most inflammatory spots pertain to abortion.
"Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies," a female announcer in one of the ads says, as rain, thunder, and a crying infant are heard in the background. "The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people, but the individual's right to life is protected in the Republican platform. Democrats say they want our vote.Why don't they want our lives?"
Another ad features a dialogue between two men.
"If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,' you'll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked," one of the men says.
"That's too cold. I don't snuff my own seed," the other replies.
"Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican," the first man says.
Read more at http://www.nysun.com/article/41648?page_no=1
Are you kidding me? But this shows the sophistication of their practices. Although offensive as hell, their aim and methodology was very simple. We have to remember that there are political think tanks that research how to market people and concepts to different segments of the population. So by using, or shall I say misusing what they deem as urban vernacular or slang ("snuff my own seed?!")and knowing that Black folks tend to lean toward the socially conservative side, they were actually able to convince some people to vote in their direction (based on the article). To me, these ads display 3 things: 1) what they think of our intelligence; 2)their ability to bamboozle us through the media; and 3)what they think our voting practices are based on.
On either side, Democrat or Republican, or any other party, we have to make them work a little harder for our endorsement and hold them accountable to whatever they say they will do and keep up the hard work where it can be seen...on the ground level.
Peace
I Medina Peaceful Earth
Peace! So it's the day after the Elections and the Democrats have won ...at least in Pennsylvania. We have Ed Rendell for Governer, who was a shoe in, and Bob Casey won for U.S. Senate. Check this link for a brief summary of the candidates http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6199724,00.html. Time will show and prove whether these are candidates who will bring something beneficial to the table, or if they are "the lesser of 2 evils." But I'll share something with you.
As soon as I was of age to vote, my mother told me to vote Democrat. No matter who they were or what they said, vote Democrat. Although I never formally chose a party, I did vote Democrat a couple of times. Looking back, if I voted during Clinton's first run, I voted for him. With Bush's first election, I was one of those horrible people who voted my conscience and put in my bid for Ralph Nader. Second term, although I was not sold on John Kerry in any way shape or form, and knew that he and Bush had similarities and ties, I went with the lesser of two evils approach (anybody better than Bush). However with this election, I will admit that I did not vote. Casey didn't seem too different than Rick Santorum. Ed Rendell was surely going to beat Lynn Swann. I wasn't going to vote for Lynn Swann just because he was Black (and had no political experience mind you...too reminiscent of The Terminator, a former movie brute(Arnold Scwartzeneggar) as the governer of California). However, the real reason I couldn't vote for Ed Rendell was due to his history in the late 1970s to mid-eighties as a Philadelphia prosecuter during the bombing by police of a neighborhood and group of row houses of an organization (filled with men, women, and CHILDREN) called Move, a so-called radical group of black folks who really just believed in a natural way of life, and were uncompromising (http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/hougland_move_massacre.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE,
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm).
This is a big skeleton in Ed Rendell's closet that we cannot forget, just because he's a Democrat.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of voting, in addition to other activities, specifically when your vote will have some tangible effects, particularly on a local level. But I just couldn't vote for wolves in sheeps' clothing again. Too often, politicians on both sides will rally the troops to the battleground states, visit Black churchs around election time, show their faces at community events, never to be seen or heard from again after they've magnetized the audience with their rhetoric and snatched their votes with promises of a new and better day. And I may sound controversial with this one, and he seems like a nice enough guy, but can anyone give me five reasons (besides being young, Black and Democrat) why Black folks love Barack Obama and why we want him to run for the 2008 elections? I just haven't heard anything that makes me think he's going to change the world. Understandably, he has to speak to many audiences so he can't come off too controversial, however, he just reminds me of one of those brothers that you might see in an Abercrombie and Fitch add (not too threatening, digestible, safe). I know we want Black folks in positions of power, but we can't let that blind us (look at Clarence Thomas). We have to put the issues first, no matter who's doing the talking.
Speaking of talking, during this election, I heard some truly disturbing radio spots from both sides trying to get the Black and Latino vote (i.e. "Don't vote for Santorum because he is just like Bush, and doesn't understand what it means to struggle to pay the bills."), playing to our basic fears and needs. But that doesn't come anywhere close to the following radio spots I read about from a Republican group called America's Pac. Do the knowledge...
Republican Group Chides Democrats With Abortion Ads
Aim Is To Win Minority Voters, But Democrats Cry Foul
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 17, 2006
A little-known Republican group that claims to have swayed the 2004 presidential election with provocative radio advertising aimed at black and Hispanic audiences is spending nearly $1 million this year to boost the GOP's chances of holding on to a majority in Congress.
The group, America's Pac, began running ads last month in more than two dozen congressional districts.The campaign discusses issues ranging from warrantless wiretapping to school choice, but the most inflammatory spots pertain to abortion.
"Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies," a female announcer in one of the ads says, as rain, thunder, and a crying infant are heard in the background. "The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people, but the individual's right to life is protected in the Republican platform. Democrats say they want our vote.Why don't they want our lives?"
Another ad features a dialogue between two men.
"If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,' you'll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked," one of the men says.
"That's too cold. I don't snuff my own seed," the other replies.
"Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican," the first man says.
Read more at http://www.nysun.com/article/41648?page_no=1
Are you kidding me? But this shows the sophistication of their practices. Although offensive as hell, their aim and methodology was very simple. We have to remember that there are political think tanks that research how to market people and concepts to different segments of the population. So by using, or shall I say misusing what they deem as urban vernacular or slang ("snuff my own seed?!")and knowing that Black folks tend to lean toward the socially conservative side, they were actually able to convince some people to vote in their direction (based on the article). To me, these ads display 3 things: 1) what they think of our intelligence; 2)their ability to bamboozle us through the media; and 3)what they think our voting practices are based on.
On either side, Democrat or Republican, or any other party, we have to make them work a little harder for our endorsement and hold them accountable to whatever they say they will do and keep up the hard work where it can be seen...on the ground level.
Peace
I Medina Peaceful Earth
posted by I Medina Peaceful Earth @ 3:51 PM
1 Comments:
At 3:50 PM,
DA said…
Interesting perspective. I feel similarly ambivalent about voting; I voted because right now Arizona (where I live) had several insane propositions on the ballet this year and I thought that as much as I despise the democrats, this election came down to whether we would check Bush's power or not. The problem with Arizona is most folks here are pretty reasonable, except in Phoenix which is super far to the right and forms a huge voting block, so I believe in voting oppositionally everywhere else in the state. I don't know how much your politics overlap with my own, but we have similar voting histories :-)
Peace,
Dave
Post a Comment
<< Home