The Face of Racism

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I dare you to quote something from the article that can even remotely back up the bolded statement. Since 'he spends most of the space stating' that, it shouldn't be hard for you to produce one quote.
Did you read the article? It's almost the entire body of text:
I've been told countless times by folks on both sides that Obama can't be seen as favoring African-Americans over others, and his White House has been especially scared of touching anything dealing with race.
As a result, black civil rights leaders and prominent Democrats have largely bitten their tongues, unwilling to publicly take on the president and some of his decisions. Instead, they quietly fume, mumbling under their breath and offering their critiques in measured tones.
Yet I have gotten the sense that black civil rights and political leaders may stop the racial solidarity and stand up on the principles they have long fought for. I've been expressly told that some have no interest in working hard or raising money in the fall on behalf of Democrats to hold on to the House and Senate.
The nomination of Kagan has become a flash point in this uneasy relationship, because this is the second time in a year that President Obama has made a Supreme Court appointment and his administration didn't seriously consider an African-American woman for the job.
The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor certainly was historic in that she became the first Hispanic to sit on the high court, and it was embraced by civil rights groups. Yet this time, for highly qualified African-American female judges, such as Leah Ward Sears, the retired chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, to never make the cut for a face-to-face interview with the president has ticked off a number of leaders I've talked with over the last several days.
What's the big deal about including a black woman? A Democratic pollster told me that black women have a higher voter turnout than any other ethnic-gender demographic -- 65 percent -- and it's vital for Obama to appeal to them. When Obama was behind Sen. Hillary Clinton in the polls, it was because black women hadn't embraced him yet. When they did, the race changed.
The uneasiness with Kagan's appointment among civil rights groups has focused on the hiring record of minorities during her tenure at Harvard Law School, which was followed by the White House pushing back to insulate her from criticism by saying the Harvard faculty makes the recommendations about hiring for tenured positions.
They were quick to blast out blogs, columns and articles written by African-Americans at Harvard to make clear Kagan is a major advocate of diversity.
When a meeting with civil rights leaders and administration officials was held at the White House on Tuesday with senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, I was told "more listening than talking" was done by the administration.
Civil rights leaders made clear that they felt they were being taken for granted in the process, and were expected to rubber stamp the choice.
When Kagan's nomination was unveiled Monday, the only prominent African-Americans in attendance were Charles Ogletree, a Harvard professor who taught both Obamas, and Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. That's a stark contrast to Sotomayor's unveiling, when a number of civil rights leaders were there to back her bid.
That's why if you look at the public statements released this week by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Urban League and others, they are more neutral on Kagan's appointment, saying they look forward to hearing more about her views on a variety of issues as the nomination plays out.
Folks, that's lukewarm at best.
I've heard the previous complaints that congressional and civil rights leaders have been ignored by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, with one saying he has never attended a meeting with them ("Even Bush sent Andy Card to meet with us," one leader told me). And that extends to others surrounding the president in various parts of the White House.
"These problems are valid and BIG, and we cannot let them off the hook," I was told by one frustrated organizational head.
Yet this time is different.
White House officials would quickly suggest that they are on excellent terms with the Rev. Al Sharpton, but this goes beyond him. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is clearly on the outs with this administration, as seen in his banishment from the West Wing. But this contentious relationship is with civil rights, religious, economic and social justice officials. And it's getting worse.
One civil rights leader opined that President Obama is "losing his emotional connection with black leadership and black voters."
This has huge ramifications for the president and his agenda, because Democrats are facing a major battle to hold on to the House and Senate in November.
 

rjl

Member
May 14, 2010
27
0
0
F-you and your insults, to even suggest that someone would decline the nomination or even the interview is blatent retardation. Thank you for agreeing with my point in bold though. That is all the article claims. It does not claim that she deserved the nomination.

Gettin' a little testy there, eh? I notice you're not really reading. I never said the article claimed she deserved nomination. And do you honestly think is that crazy to decline a nomination or an interview? Harriet Myers was nominated to the SC by Bush and eventually asked him to withdraw her nomination? Blatant retardation!!


That is the problem with your argument, you don't see the difference between consideration and serious consideration. We don't know if they were handed a list with names for consideration and they immediately went down the list crossing off black candidates, which is what the author claims. He can't prove they did and you can't prove they didn't so you are wasting your time even arguing about it.

Move the goal posts much? Now we're going from deliberately ignored to considered to seriously considered. The added implication that I should somehow prove a negative is nice too. You say it yourself, Roland Martin can't prove the administration went down a list crossing off black names and I can't prove they didn't (not that I've tried to prove any such thing), therefore it is a fallacy by assumption to conclude that qualified black female candidates were not considered, er, seriously considered.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,187
32,635
136
Gettin' a little testy there, eh? I notice you're not really reading. I never said the article claimed she deserved nomination. And do you honestly think is that crazy to decline a nomination or an interview? Harriet Myers was nominated to the SC by Bush and eventually asked him to withdraw her nomination? Blatant retardation!!
And I didn't say you did, just thanked you for agreeing with the point I had against the OP. While it is possible that she declined, on a possibility scale of 1 to 150 billion with 1 being the least possible, I'd rate it at 0.01.


Move the goal posts much? Now we're going from deliberately ignored to considered to seriously considered. The added implication that I should somehow prove a negative is nice too. You say it yourself, Roland Martin can't prove the administration went down a list crossing off black names and I can't prove they didn't (not that I've tried to prove any such thing), therefore it is a fallacy by assumption to conclude that qualified black female candidates were not considered, er, seriously considered.
I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I said you can't prove it. Once again, I do not care if it is true or not. The author could claim that money falls from the sky and I would disagree with him, but I would still point out to Cyclo that the article doesn't claim that money 'should' fall from the sky. Do you get it now? Try to keep separate arguments separate.

Cyclo - The article doesn't state what you think it states.

rjl - Nobody here knows whether or not there was any discrimination, or if there were proper amounts of consideration. You might as well argue about whether or not God exists.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
480px-MichelleSteel2007.jpg


D:
That's the face of racism?

Dang, racism is hotter than I thought it would be!
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
rjl said:
You're actually making my point for me. We don't know. Maybe they contacted her and she declined. Now I'm not saying that happened, but it seems plausible as long as we're just gonna run around making assumptions about what happened and calling it awkward.

Other than that's a ridiculous assumption.

rjl said:
What does a bunch of hand-wringing by self-appointed "black leaders" have to do with the price of tea in China?

Your honer, while I may have been soaked in a man's blood, a knife in my hand, over man dead man's body I didn't like it doesn't mean I killed him!

rjl said:
Got it. The evidence that Obama is ignoring black candidates is the failure to grant Leah Ward Sears an interview and the histrionics of self-appointed, self-aggrandizing race profiteers.

If you believe they're race profiteers, that's your own prerogative. Nor, I am surprised you believe that's the case.

rjl said:
You have repeatedly claimed that the original article provides evidence (which you later said might be insufficient) that the Obama administration is ignoring black female candidates. I'm saying the article proves no such thing and nothing in it is evidence either way.

I've never claimed it was ever sufficient, I used the word a post before you even recognized it before that I even alluded to and said the evidence isn't necessarily good either.

rjl said:
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-poli...rt-456881.html

From the link:

"Sears' name now is among more than half a dozen candidates being considered by the president to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring this summer." emphasis added

Sears, as you'll recall, is the exact candidate in discussion. It appears she was not deliberately ignored, was considered, and didn't get an interview.

Other than the fact, we're discussing this article on the subject if there's evidence if Obama may have ignored black SC candidates. You're not bringing up something completely separate, obviously not related to the discussion of this article.
 

rjl

Member
May 14, 2010
27
0
0
Other than that's a ridiculous assumption.
What's ridiculous about the notion that someone would decline a nomination for the Supreme Court? I mentioned earlier a case of that very thing happening regarding Harriett Myers. But it's ridiculous? It happened just a few years ago.

Your honer, while I may have been soaked in a man's blood, a knife in my hand, over man dead man's body I didn't like it doesn't mean I killed him!
That's actually evidence related to the question at hand, in your example. In the case of the article there is none that is related in any way to the question of whether Obama considered black female candidates. In fact, he did consider the very judge, Leah Ward Sears, whose lack of an interview the writer laments. She was considered. She was not deliberately ignored.


I've never claimed it was ever sufficient, I used the word a post before you even recognized it before that I even alluded to and said the evidence isn't necessarily good either.



Other than the fact, we're discussing this article on the subject if there's evidence if Obama may have ignored black SC candidates. You're not bringing up something completely separate, obviously not related to the discussion of this article.
Not really sure what is being said here, but it seems you're saying that this article presents evidence that Obama may have ignored black SC candidates, which it does not. Maybe you could go to dictionary.com and look up ignore. Putting a black female judge on your short list of nominees for the Supreme Court is hardly ignoring them.
 

rjl

Member
May 14, 2010
27
0
0
And I didn't say you did, just thanked you for agreeing with the point I had against the OP. While it is possible that she declined, on a possibility scale of 1 to 150 billion with 1 being the least possible, I'd rate it at 0.01.

Really? You think the odds are that small? Even though that very thing happened not too long ago?


I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I said you can't prove it. Once again, I do not care if it is true or not. The author could claim that money falls from the sky and I would disagree with him, but I would still point out to Cyclo that the article doesn't claim that money 'should' fall from the sky. Do you get it now? Try to keep separate arguments separate.
You piped up and started arguing something I wasn't even talking about. I have been arguing with Tab about a very limited question. Whether the original article contains evidence that qualified black candidates were ignored by the Obama administration. That's it. I never mentioned Cyclo or anyone else.

rjl - Nobody here knows whether or not there was any discrimination, or if there were proper amounts of consideration. You might as well argue about whether or not God exists.
Nobody here knows, you're right. We do know however that Leah Ward Sears was on Obama's short list, which is to say she obviously was not deliberately ignored.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,187
32,635
136
Why didn't he call for an Asian? Or a Pacific-Islander? Native American? Surely they need to be represented in order for the SC to operate effectively and fairly?

What's really interesting are Obama's mushy criteria for a nominee to the Supreme Court:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criterion by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Sort of underscores what a crock of shit the SC really is.

You are missing the point. The point is that qualified black candidates were deliberately ignored.
When I said this, I was talking about the point of the article, which you missed. Your post above seems to be saying that the point of the article is that a black woman should be represented on the SC. I contended that the article merely states that black women were ignored. Once I again, I do not claim that black women were ignored, I only claim that it is the point of the article. But you took it as if I were saying that black women were ignored and responded:

Is there some kind of evidence that "qualified black candidates were deliberately ignored"?

The original article's suggestion that the Obama administration cannot or will not appoint an African-American candidate seems pretty flawed to me. Who is he afraid of offending? The so-called right who already despise him?

How specific are we going to get to insure equal representation as a realized concept? Midgets? Dwarves? People with attached earlobes?

As long as large segments of our society--black, white or whatever--organizes itself around race and identity politics, we are in trouble. People like Roland Martin make their living trading in this divisive currency.

You asked me for evidence to support someone elses point. I was merely clarifying the point being made.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
rjl said:
What's ridiculous about the notion that someone would decline a nomination for the Supreme Court? I mentioned earlier a case of that very thing happening regarding Harriett Myers. But it's ridiculous? It happened just a few years ago.

Yes, it happened once out how many times?

rjl said:
That's actually evidence related to the question at hand, in your example. In the case of the article there is none that is related in any way to the question of whether Obama considered black female candidates. In fact, he did consider the very judge, Leah Ward Sears, whose lack of an interview the writer laments. She was considered. She was not deliberately ignored.

So, that isn't but someone not meeting with a candidate for a job while another one who was the same or even less qualified had a meeting? Is the same?

rjl said:
Not really sure what is being said here, but it seems you're saying that this article presents evidence that Obama may have ignored black SC candidates, which it does not. Maybe you could go to dictionary.com and look up ignore. Putting a black female judge on your short list of nominees for the Supreme Court is hardly ignoring them.

This list is bullshit?

First, it's not even in the article we're discussing, even said it's a rumored list - giving it zero credibility. While, yes, Obama probably didn't ignore her it does, however look like this to members of the black community.

How would you feel if you help a guy get a promotion at a job (to ceo/cfo for example) and then, vote for someone for the board of directors only to have him give a face-to-face interview to someone who, in your eyes it as or even less qualified then your pick.

It's childish behavior and it seems, all that the black leaders want is simple, basic, common courtesy. I don't think that's asking a whole lot.

It looks like the thread has died, but least we all saw what idiot CycloWizard is.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Yes, it happened once out how many times?



So, that isn't but someone not meeting with a candidate for a job while another one who was the same or even less qualified had a meeting? Is the same?



This list is bullshit?

First, it's not even in the article we're discussing, even said it's a rumored list - giving it zero credibility. While, yes, Obama probably didn't ignore her it does, however look like this to members of the black community.

How would you feel if you help a guy get a promotion at a job (to ceo/cfo for example) and then, vote for someone for the board of directors only to have him give a face-to-face interview to someone who, in your eyes it as or even less qualified then your pick.

It's childish behavior and it seems, all that the black leaders want is simple, basic, common courtesy. I don't think that's asking a whole lot.

It looks like the thread has died, but least we all saw what idiot CycloWizard is.

There are many conservative picks that are more qualified than Kagan. I don't see Obama giving them their fair share do I?