By the time he got on the Cosby show I doubt there was much of the pie left, if they gave him any at all.
I'm a little confused. Are you talking about the Black vote? The vote of those who make over 100K? (I do... does that mean I can't be a Democrat??) What, exactly? Here are some numbers from the Times about the Black vote in this election. You'll have to click on the link to see the figures. It won't let me post their graphs. This is the Black Democratic vote for '06: Blacks 18-29 years old: 91% Blacks 30-44 years old: 89% Blacks 45-59 years old: 88% Blacks 60 and older---: 90% The numbers are almost identical to the '04 election. I'm still searching for the point of the thread with regard to Blacks. Yes, as basso pointed out, Lott is a poor choice for a leadership position, unless you are planning a highly partisan attitude in Congress, with no regard for the Black vote. Byrd is what he is. A fixture of the Senate who will likely die on the podium, while getting some more pork for West Virginia. He has a history. Believe me, we have discussed him here before. If there is a point to this thread, besides the one basso originally made, before he went off on whatever tangent he's gone off to, I'd like to know what it is. Pelosi wants Murtha as Majority Leader. Murtha is anything but business as usual. Lott, however, is very much business as usual. I don't understand the babbling about Murtha, and I don't understand what Byrd has to do with anything. He's not running for a leadership position that I know of. He has seniority. He uses it. He also knows the rules backwards and forwards. He uses them as well. Lott knows the rules, too. However, Lott was just made minority whip. So? What's the point? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/u...tml?ex=1163739600&en=51ba64e97330bca4&ei=5070 By the way... the headline in the link is, "Republicans Draw Lowest Support Since 1982" That's referring to the House of Representatives. Seems like the People aren't too crazy about the GOP. Fancy that. D&D. Here We Are.
nah, the side not was just a look at people earning over $100K and how they voted in 2004... its not a correlation with the black vote. i was going to attempt to try and find out what percentage the 11% that voted for W in 2004 earned over $100K. my guess was that most of that 11% was in the higher wage earning brackets since that is where the majority of W's support came from.
I never have dinner with the president. I never have dinner with the president. And when I see your ass again, I'll be hesitant.
Bringing up Reconstruction-era Republican black public officials is just stupid. Back then the DEMOCRATS were the racist party, the one that had their base in the South, and sympathized with the Confederacy/were actually in the Confederacy. The Republicans were the Party of Lincoln, the party that saved the Union and freed the slaves. Back then the REPUBLICANS worked for black interests. Get your history straight.
he's very much business as usual, that's the point, and if you were at all serious about reform in congress, you'd be able to see that murth as majority leader is total ca-caca: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/16030-1.html [rquoter]Murtha Calls Ethics Bill ‘Total Crap’ By John Bresnahan Roll Call Staff Wednesday, Nov. 15; 1:18 pm Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told a group of Democratic moderates on Tuesday that an ethics and lobbying reform bill being pushed by party leaders was “total crap,” but said that he would work to enact the legislation because Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports it.[/rquoter]
Read the whole thread... the idea that the Republicans no longer represent that is exactly the point I was making.
