The Year of Black Republicans (Getting Their Asses Kicked)

The GOP's bad year keeps getting worse, doesn't it?*

A judge overturned the state auditor's election Thursday after a recount showed the Democratic challenger had actually beaten the Republican incumbent by 102 votes.

It was the first time in Vermont that a statewide election was overturned in a recount, the state archivist said.

That sounds incredibly minor, but fun fact: Randy Brock, the ousted auditor, was one of the few, proud black Republicans holding a statewide office. At the beginning of the election cycle, Republicans had six black officials, including Brock, holding some sort of job statewide. As I wrote for Radar, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman boasted that 2006 would be the "year of the African-American Republican," with two black candidates running for governor (Pennsylvania, Ohio) and two for Senate (Maryland, Michigan). It was a great, much-hyped story. And when all is said and done, Republicans have... two black officials holding office statewide. Take a bow, Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams and Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson!

*This doesn't mean I'm enjoying it, by the way. Defeating pro-war Republican senators who vote on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy? OK. Replacing Republican state officials with liberal Democratic ones? Less OK.

Comments

Evan! | December 21, 2006, 4:21pm | #

David, you're caving to John's incessant bitching about your supposed biases. You don't need that goddamned disclaimer at the bottom. Stand up, say "Fuck you, John", and realize that just because you don't lick the GOP's collective nutz, that doesn't mean you're a "democratic shill" like John claims.

John's Troll Doppelganger | December 21, 2006, 4:22pm | #

So, not only are you a democratic shill, now you're a racist too?

Sambo | December 21, 2006, 4:30pm | #

Why is race an issue here?

John's Troll Doppelganger | December 21, 2006, 4:42pm | #

"Why is race an issue here?"

Because race is an issue in this country. The GOP has been actively trying to "recruit" black candidates for a long time, to counter their image as the "grand old party" who sticks up for rich white moneybags, while the democrats care about the poor minority crack mother.

As long as this image remains in the national consciousness, the GOP is going to have a vote deficiency among minorities---especially blacks. It all comes down to votes, Sambo...sorry to be so cynical, but that's the reality.

So when the GOP loses one of its few token minority officeholders, it's an "issue", to be sure.

Sambo | December 21, 2006, 4:57pm | #

"So when the GOP loses one of its few token minority officeholders, it's an "issue", to be sure."

Oh how I love self-righteous hatred, to be sure! Bet it gives you quite the stiffy!

The Wine Commonsewer | December 21, 2006, 6:20pm | #

Defeating pro-war Republican senators who vote on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy

That's nice that we're rid of those jerks. Now we just have to contend with Rangel's plans to abridge a whole shitload of civil liberties by introducing a bill to reinstate the draft for everyone up to age 42. Since the Democrats now have a majority, it will be interesting to see how that plays.

Evan! | December 21, 2006, 6:46pm | #

"Oh how I love self-righteous hatred, to be sure! Bet it gives you quite the stiffy!"

Right, because recanting reality is "self-righteous hatred". You asked why race is an issue. I told you that it's because the GOP is vying for black votes by getting more black officeholders. I by no means endorse this practice, I'm just telling you how it is. Telling you what the reality of the situation is, not endorsing the situation.

Here's another one:

The Klu Klux Klan lynched black people.

Holy shit, lookit me, I'm a self-righteous hater!


Grow up, Sambo. Kneejerk reactions like yours---shooting the messenger, as it was---belong in grade-school race debates, not serious intellectual discussions of any kind.

Evan! | December 21, 2006, 6:48pm | #

TWC:

it won't play out. Rangel's unserious proposal is nothing but a PR move. In the real world, said proposal is DOA.

joe | December 21, 2006, 7:08pm | #

Dammit, Evan!, you're not being color-blind!

When something occurs, and somebody's race is involved, you're supposed to pretend not to notice. Or, if that's too much, to pretend not to notice the racial elements.

The Ku Klux Klan lynched people. Was that really so hard? Why do you have to go around stirring up trouble?

I know - it's because you're the REAL RACIST.

Look at Evan!, everyone! He's the REAL RACIST!

The Wine Commonsewer | December 21, 2006, 7:34pm | #

Evan!, I sincerely hope you're right. On both counts. That Rangel's proposal was pure theater and that if it isn't, it won't play out anyway.

Draft Beer, Not Weigal Regards, TWC

jf | December 21, 2006, 8:25pm | #

David, you're caving to John's incessant bitching about your supposed biases. You don't need that goddamned disclaimer at the bottom. Stand up, say "Fuck you, John", and realize that just because you don't lick the GOP's collective nutz, that doesn't mean you're a "democratic shill" like John claims.

Great post of why David doesn't need the disclaimer. However...

How many pro-war Democrat Congressman lost their seats in 2006, though? A look at the Democrat Senators who voted for the abominable Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 tells me that none of them were punished for their votes. The Republicans were rightly bitchslapped for their support of the war, but the Democrats got a free pass despite their support. I still expect better from a libertarian magazine.

joe | December 21, 2006, 8:56pm | #

Right-wing, Iraq hawk, pro-torture Democrats are indeed annoying, but they are a small fraction of the caucus, and will have little or no say about the agenda.

John | December 21, 2006, 11:45pm | #

"Replacing Republican state officials with liberal Democratic ones? Less OK."

Less okay, but still pretty ok, right Dave? Jesus Dave you can't even write a disclaimer wihout looking like a Democratic kiss ass. It is just a big train, you keep your lips firmly emplanted on the DNC's ass and Evan and joe will keep their lipps firmly emplanted on yours.

Evan! | December 22, 2006, 9:16am | #

John, you made me laugh early in the morning...so I guess you can't be all that bad, eh?

Happy motherfucking christmas, old man, and I wish you another great year of obsessively whining like a little child about some blogger's supposed partisan bias.

With you out on one ledge, and Dan T. out on the other...this place is always interesting.

just asking | December 22, 2006, 9:55am | #

There are actually black people living in Vermont? In the whitest state of the Union?

joe | December 22, 2006, 11:21am | #

Being accused of partisan bias by John is a pretty good indication you're getting the story right.

Rick Barton | December 22, 2006, 9:17pm | #

My position:

Defeating pro-war Republican senators who vote on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy? OK. (Unless it's defeat by folks who have zero redeeming qualities such as Lieberman) Replacing Republican state officials with liberal Democratic ones? Not OK.


Evan!,

I'm pretty sure that David is thinking for himself.

John:

Less okay, but still pretty ok, right Dave?

My guess is that's not what David meant. At least I hope not. Of course I'm in Colorado where the elected state office Republicans are (mostly) limited government types, and the Democrats are...well, you know how Democrats are. This might be a situation of John not missing a knit to pick.