Bredesen: Just say no to nepotism

There is such a point, IMO. I would suggest when minorities are represented in all levels of business at roughly the same percentages as their population.

What are there, 4 women CEOs in the Fortune 500?

 

I myself am for a gradual phaseout and redefinition of AA but I think the fact that a conservative like Stupid Moniker is willing to consider a candidate for the Republican party of the basis of race tells me that we're not yet at the time for ending it. If that were the case we wouldn't even care about Condi's race as a plus or minus and instead consider her experience and positions.

 

I think more telling than that is the fact that he would willingly exploit someone because of their race, and admits it. It happens all the time, though, from people all over the political spectrum.

 

I find it curious that the republicans would be 'exploiting' Condi's race. I suppose the Democrats would be exploiting Obama's if he chose to run?

I don't personally like Condi's views nor do I have a good feeling about her character. But the same could be said for my feelings about Georgie. Yet y'all elected him twice. So I'm not sure she's any less qualified than he was. The bar has been lowered.

I do think whoever said her nomination would cheese off the liberals was dead on. Seems to have worked here...

You can't seriously expect the Republicans to be blind to her race and gender when you aren't. Doesn't mean they have to embrace AA. They're not proposing quotas here...just one potential candidate. Should they exclude all minorities until they address their racial past to your satisfaction??? Crazy.

 

You can't seriously expect Republicans to ignore her race and sex. You can't seriously expect there to be a color blind society either - however that is the refrain that we hear from Republicans when they voice their opposition to affirmative action programs.

In fact, it is the foundation of the entire argument. The principle of the meritocratic color-blind society is the rationale.

However, for arguably the most important job in the country, if not the world, they are wiling to throw that consideration to the ground and base their choice on merit and color and gender. They can make exceptions on case by case bases (the case being self interest) without being called out for that? I don't think so. If you want to make bold pronouncements and bright line rules - be prepared to stick to them, through good and bad.

The difference between them and me is that I don't make unrealistic pronouncements about there being a color blind society either - race will be taken into account always, subconsciously or not. I don't see the problem in trying to remediate the negative consequences that occur from that - they take a stand against it based on "principle." However the rapidity with which they throw it aside when a race-based decision helps their cause leads me to doubt their conviction.

 

I guess my point is that this isn't affirmative action. There is no policy change stipulating the number of minorities that must be represented. No commitment to running people of a certain gender or race. They've merely considered one candidate and recognized that her race and gender may be an advantage in some circles. This is nothing new to politics or life, nor is it hypocritical. Should they exclude all women and minorities unless they're willing to formally endorse AA?

Those of us who see very few redeaming qualities in Condi conclude that the only reason she's considered is due to race and gender. Yet what the hell were they thinking when they went for ol' George??? Possibly they do like her character and vision? As a tree-hugging liberal i'm liking the idea of the Republicans running the weakest possible candidate.

On a side note....what's with this threat of running Jeb??? How did GBI become chairman of the board with the ability to appoint his sons? Could somebody find Billy Carter and resurect him now that Carter's been recast in a good light?

 

It's a principle behind the argument. The argument isn't that a color-blind society exists...but rather that it SHOULD exist. That we should not be using race or gender as a reason or barrier to advancement. And that affirmative action is a step in the wrong direction if a color-blind society is what you're hoping for.

 

And the principle of what SHOULD be is being discarded by the cons in this thread - openly and unabashedly - for reasons of personal preference, in the Rice example.

So I'm forced to interpret the principle according to their actions:

A color blind society SHOULD exist and we should not be using race or gender for advancement - unless my interests are served to do so, in which case a color sensitive society is acceptable.

Some principle...

 

It's the very definition of hypocrisy:

Statement: I oppose affirmative action, I believe in a color blind society and that race should not be considered for advancement, even for positive or remedial puposes.

Practice: I think so and so should be the president because she's great AND she's black and a woman . . . oh but I still believe in (Statement).

Based on Practice, I'm forced to conclude that the individual does not truly believe in the Statement or the principles behind it - to put it another way - that such individual is FALSELY ASSUMING or FEIGNING a belief that race should not be considered. I base this conclusion on the fact that such individual explicitly and unashamedly considers race in Practice

It might not be anything new, but it is definitely there, in black and white.

 

The appeal of the "See, we told you we like women and black people just fine so screw you NAACP & NOW!" factor of Ms. Rice is funny. I hope that something like that doesn't really affect the way people vote. That's sort of the ultimate form of tokenism, and would be really offensive, but it’s not going much further than the “New England Liberal” vibe in the last election, either Bush saying it 10,000,000,000 times, or by the possibility that John Edwards was selected specifically because he was a Southern counterpoint, to the crass way that "pundits" assumed and accepted that as a reason, and even applauded such a move.

You also can’t say that the Democratic Party hasn’t disingenuously used race as a club in the past, so maybe the Republicans should get their turn. In one sense I think it’d be good in that it might shake up the current Democrat paradigm of “work the unions, women & minorities” as I think that that has played a role in the confrontational polarization of American politics in the last 30 years. I think people too often arrive at a position on issues after consulting whether they view themselves as Democrats or Republicans, and then consult the party line.

I love the city elections because, although party affiliations always become know, they seem to not affect the debate, and voters don't approach the elections with a predetermined bias for their selection before they even know who it is.

Additionally, there is a segment of the baby-boomer/KPFT crowd that is a bit fixated in the narcissistic way in which every #%@#$ event on the planet has to be compared with their Vietnam War protest youth. I appreciate the importance of what happened in the 60’s but MOVE ON and evaluate situations on their own merits.

In my dream world, political parties would be outlawed as cartels, and for collusion & conspiratorial practices which affect the outcome of congressional votes. They subvert the "one man, one vote" concept by focusing loci of power around the "party good ol' boys", which swing votes using a system not unlike the one Don Corleone uses when handing out favors.

 

so then recognizing that gender or race might be an advantage in some circumstances means you must be in favour of AA?

And if you really insist on being cynical, i don't think the AA angle is your hook here. Afterall, they're hardly promoting her to address years of injustice, and encourage diversity. If you believe that race and gender are the primary reasons she's being considered (a tad condesending on your part given the GOPs stellar record on selecting candidates) then you'd have to allege that her selection was done because of her 'marketability.' Isn't that more in line with market theory than AA theory? They'd be choosing her because she's best for the party -- not unlike favouring someone from the south, or someone who's pappy was well connected. Self interest by the company is not AA.

I don't know why they'd want her as a candidate. I don't think she has much of a chance -- front runners this early rarely do. But i'm not willing to dismiss her from consideration simply because of gender or race. Nor am I willing to demean her other qualifications or potential capacity for the job simply because she might be the first female, or black candidate. Are you?

 

There is a slight difference in the positions. One is a mandated, government sponsored intuitional practice while the other is personal preference.

It's like saying that everybody who believes in separation of church and state is a godless atheist, or that the ACLU is a bunch of commies, terrorists, and Nazi's because they support the free speech of offensive and questionable groups.

Let’s change the variable from race to hair color. I can say that I voted for a candidate because they had brown hair, but that doesn’t mean that I have to support a system which requires a specific number of presidents to have brown hair.

I agree that there are a number of "right wing" types who use things like immigration enforcement and affirmative action as ways to express internal racism that they don't want to let out, and whose existence they may not even acknowledge.

I also agree that there is a racial & economic gap between races in this country that is the result of race related oppression. I can, reasonably argue however, that either:

• [The problem shouldn’t be under the scope of powers for the government. (I don’t believe this, btw)
  
  or
  
• That the solution in ineffective and has a number of feedback mechanisms that exacerbate the problem which it designed to fix.

 

Yes. Or at least of some form of it. The anti-AA folks inform us that using race as a factor at all, even if that factor is as a positive - like all AA programs - is wrong and should be illegal.

If you not only recognize that it "might" be an advantage - and actually take it into account as a positive - then yes, you are supporting affirmative action by practicing it, openly and explicitly.

This is really not difficult.

You're reading too much into it, here is the quote

"Just like Dubya, only well spoken, black, and a woman?"

I read this as chosing at least partially on the basis of race and gender - which is the only credible interpretation an english-speaking individual would make.

Improved "marketability" might be a consequence, a rationale, or a result -- but who cares? Anything can get through with that pretext....witnesseth:

....and public universities are acting in their own self-interest as well when they hire or admit minorities because it makes the student body more diverse, more attractive to other minorities, and the state a better place to live, etc etc etc- so that's not AA either. It's just marketing.

The "marketing" point is window dressing.

I think she's a liar and not that smart to begin with - and even if she weren't, a pro-choice (possibly lesbian) individual will never be the RNC nominee in 2008. Never ever ever.

But that's beside the point, none of that is implied or assumed when I point out that others are explicitly considering her race in selecting her despite the fact that they have often professed to be categorically opposed to such practices in the past.

I personally don't mind if race is used as a "plus factor". I have made this view known in the past. What I oppose is people saying it is impermissible when it suits their political or personal ends and then acting to the contrary when the tables turn.

 

Another misconception. AA is not a "mandated government sponsored [institutional?] practice." The AA act of 2004 does not exist. AA is strictly voluntary for those institutions, governmental and otherwise, that engage in it.

Second - that doesn't even make sense - I'm talking about how one's personal preferences tend to vary and don't show adherence to the previously expressed "preferences" - which are set forth as principles.

No, actually, it's not. Maybe if I said, "all republicans are racists" or something, this would be applicable. But this analogy makes no sense. In fact, the ACLU is the opposite of what we are discussing here - they support the rights of Nazi and KKK marches & other hate groups despite the fact that those groups tend to espouse goals that are not in the self-interest of various (jewish or liberal or whatever) ACLU members.

That is principled behavior.

No, but it disqualifies you from saying "hair color shouldn't be a factor, EVER, but anyway I'm picking so-and so because he's blonde."

This is the heart of the conservative case against AA: the color-blind society.

 

If whatever motive helps land the first black female president, so be it. We're long overdue from the chain of old rich white guys.

 

I myself am not dismissing her on the basis of gender or race I just don't think she would make a good president even if I was a conservative Republican.

I think what Sam and others are criticizing is something more basic than Affirmative Action. What we're really tarking about here is tokenism. No one can force the Republican party to nominate Condi to be there candidate but it does seem hypocritical that a party that preaches a color blind society wants to pick a candidate because of their race and gender.

They're not looking to redress previous wrongs but looking to put in a token black women to "cheese off the liberals." The reason for her being at the top of ticket has far more to do with her skin color and double X chromosome than with her capabilities or stands on issues.

 

A drug-free society should exist. Does that mean that we should end drug prevention programs because they just remind everyone about drugs? Lame, I know.

I am just pointing out that the pro-AA side has the same vision - of a color-blind society, but know that such a thing is impossible right now because there is a bunch of overt and institutional racism that remains.

 

we only had 1 unmarried President
alot of strange facts about presidents

I fon't think we had a president under 6 ft


Rocket River