Showing posts with label infighting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infighting. Show all posts

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Are Some Blacks Seeking to Alienate Gay Voters?

One thing about today's Republicans for good or for bad is that they are unified and focused on defeating those they deem "other." Sadly, Democrats seem more concerned about infighting amongst themselves and alienating those who, in my view, should be their natural allies. A case in point is the rift between some blacks and their apparent quest to dish Pete Buttigieg.  The irony is that both blacks and gays have been subject to centuries of discrimination, much of it based on selected Bible passages, yet what ought to be a unifying experience of being denigrated and diminished by white heterosexual society has some arguing that only they are true victims of discrimination.  Never mind that gays, unlike blacks, continue to lack statutory employment, housing and health care non-discrimination protections in the majority of the states. What prompts me to say this is the attacks Buttigieg is under for saying that as a gay man, he knows about living with discrimination and, therefore, can empathize with the discrimination that blacks face.  True, white gays can often "pass" in society in a way that blacks cannot, but we do know the harm of discrimination.  I was fired for being gay and my whiteness did nothing to protect me. I've been screamed at and call "faggot' - ironically, mostly by blacks - and find myself hated by some simply for who I am.  Both gays and blacks need to remember that we have a common enemy: Donald Trump and today's GOP.  Thus, the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend should apply. The Washington Post looks at what I see as Buttigieg's good faith remarks that have been grasp by some as a basis for attacking him.  Here are highlights:
Mayor Pete Buttigieg has delivered a provocative response in recent days to those who challenge his empathy with black Americans: His experience as a gay man helps him relate to the struggles of African Americans.
That has angered some African Americans, who view it as an attempt by a privileged white man to claim a type of victimhood that is distinct from the black experience in America, even while others take the comments more favorably.
Oliver Davis, a black council member in South Bend, Ind., where Buttigieg is mayor, said that African Americans, unlike gay people, don’t have the option of “coming out” at their chosen moment — as did Buttigieg, who disclosed his sexual orientation after he had been elected mayor.
LGBT activists see something different in Buttigieg — a barrier-breaker from a group that has long faced bigotry and violence, a face of the latest struggle for inclusion. And while some successfully conceal their difference, say leaders of the movement for gay equality, that decision can come with its own steep costs.
Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, which helped lead the fight for same-sex marriage, said Buttigieg’s message is not “an attempt to appropriate someone else’s experience.” Rather, he said, the mayor is saying that “because he, too, has had to deal with his own struggles, that has made him more aware of the need to connect with the struggles of others.”
That question — how to square Buttigieg’s privileges with the adversity that comes with anti-gay prejudice — is becoming sharper as the 37-year-old Afghan war veteran rises in the polls and scrambles for ways to connect with black voters. And it renews the issue of how Americans, of any background, will respond to the candidacy of an openly gay man, one who holds hands with his husband and publicly discusses his decision to come out.
Buttigieg has shot to the top of the polls in Iowa and is gaining strength in New Hampshire, two largely white states — but he trails badly in South Carolina, the first primary state with a sizable African American population. A recent poll gave him less than 1 percent support among black Democrats there.
The mayor’s current efforts to find common ground are prompting raw feelings, including his comments at the last Democratic debate when the question of race arose.
“While I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin, I do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate, and seeing my rights expanded by a coalition of people like me and people not at all like me,” Buttigieg said.
That drew a sharp response, including from Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), a presidential hopeful and the only black woman in the U.S. Senate.
“I think Kamala had a point, and I understood what she was saying,” the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist, said in an interview, though he added that Buttigieg had been misunderstood.
He said Buttigieg is doing his best to reach out. “He’s evolving,” Sharpton said. “Do I think he’s where he needs to be? No.”
The prospect of tension between the black and gay communities worries some people in both groups. “Can’t y’all stop this mess?” Alvin McEwen, a black LGBT activist from South Carolina, recalled thinking to himself amid the furor following Buttigieg’s comments.
“No group wants to have the autonomy of their narrative taken by another group,” McEwen said. “But it also typifies how both communities want to grab on to power and don’t want to listen to each other.”
Asked about the comments during his recent campaign swing in western Iowa, Buttigieg said he was not trying to compare the black and gay experiences, only to say that he is driven to fight for African Americans the way others have fought for him.
“Having seen that, having seen how that alliance can make an impact, makes me reflect on how I can turn around and make myself useful, not only to the LGBT community but to people whose life experiences are very different,” he added.
“Let’s not get caught up in who understands discrimination the most,” Barber said. “Let’s deal with the real issue, which is that the same entities that are against gay folks are the same entities who are against black folks, and that we ought to be united in fighting discrimination in any form it arises.”
Buttigieg from the outset of his campaign sought guidance in how to frame his gay identity when talking with black voters. Two weeks after announcing his run for president, he lunched with Sharpton at Sylvia’s, a famous restaurant in Harlem.
“He wanted to genuinely know how I felt the African American community would relate to an LGBT candidate,” Sharpton said. The activist told Buttigieg something other black leaders have also said — that the level of homophobia in the black community has been greatly overstated.




In Virginia's 2017 elections, Justin Fairfax, the black Lt. Governor, eked out victory by the narrowest margin of the three statewide candidates and was arguably put over the top by the LGBT vote. Had Virginia gays employed the mindset of Buttigieg's critics, perhaps Fairfax would have been defeated.   The focus needs to be on unity and fighting our common enemies.  

Sunday, August 14, 2016

RNC Considers Cutting Cash to Trump

Perhaps further disheartened by Donald Trump's rants that "he will not change" and that "he is who he is," the Republican National Committee is reportedly said to be considering cutting off cash support to Trump's campaign and shifting funding to down ticket races threatened by a Trump catastrophe on November 8th.  Along with the possible funding cut, an effort may be under way to set Trump up to take the blame for a GOP disaster.   On the later issue, Trump has certainly inflicted more than enough wounds to himself to give the meme traction.  A piece in Politico looks at the doom and gloom at the RNC despite efforts to put on a positive public face.  Here are excerpts:
Publicly, Republican Party officials continue to stand by Donald Trump. Privately, at the highest levels, party leaders have started talking about cutting off support to Trump in October and redirecting cash to save endangered congressional majorities.
Since the Cleveland convention, top party officials have been quietly making the case to political journalists, donors and GOP operatives that the Republican National Committee has done more to help Trump than it did to support its 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, and that therefore Trump has only himself and his campaign to blame for his precipitous slide in the polls, according to people who have spoken with Republican leadership.
In the words of one person in the room, the message was that the RNC has “all these staffers out there working and knocking on doors, with a data system they believe rivals what Obama build in 2012 — so it’s not their fault.”
Spicer emphasized that RNC chairman Reince Priebus has been working aggressively to coach Trump into being a more disciplined candidate, calling the nominee “five or six times a day,” according to another person present at last week’s closed-door meeting.
According to sources close to Priebus, the chairman has warned that if Trump does not better heed this persistent advice to avoid dustups driven by his rhetoric, the RNC might not be able to help him as much — suggesting that money and ground resources might be diverted.
“Early voting in Ohio starts in a few weeks, there’s a 45-day window for absentee voters, so mid-September would probably be the latest the RNC could redeploy assets and have any real impact,” said an RNC member privately. “The only thing you could change in mid-October would be to shift some TV ads, maybe try to prop up Senate candidates in tough races like [Rob] Portman, [Marco] Rubio and [Pat] Toomey.”
One high-level Republican strategist added: “The party committee has this same job every cycle, to employ limited resources to maximum effect at the ballot box. ... And that means not pouring precious resources into dysfunctional, noncooperative, losing campaigns.”
Within the Trump campaign, there has been suspicion for months that the RNC already has not been as supportive of its nominee as it could — and should — be, according to operatives in and around the campaign. . . . . Other Trump allies in and around the campaign fear that the RNC could use Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s widening lead in polls to justify pulling the plug on Trump before he has a chance to even the race. . . . . one fundraiser with knowledge of the party’s high-dollar fundraising efforts said earlier this summer that the message to leery donors was “people can give to the RNC and not to him.”
[T]he RNC’s frustration is at a boiling point after a week of deepening division between the organization’s political and communications staffs and their counterparts on the Trump campaign.
Beyond the candidate’s continued rhetorical carelessness on the stump, his campaign has confounded GOP officials with a travel schedule — more events have been announced in Colorado and Virginia, two swing states that appear to be out of reach, and even deep blue Connecticut — that many believe is a poor use of the candidate’s time.
“He has shown no interest in doing the tough demographic work that’s necessary in campaigns,” one RNC member said. . . . “The senior staff gets it,” that RNC member said, “but the true believers outnumber them.”
After four years spent working toward winning back the White House, the RNC’s shift toward an endgame it didn’t envision — essentially deciding when to concede the White House to focus on saving the Senate and saving face — is a sign of resignation setting in.

My question to the RNC is this: why are you at all surprised that you find yourselves at this point? You have always known that Trump is an undisciplined, lose canon.   All of this should have been seen coming long before the Republican National Convention.