GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Barack Obama & the Congressional Black Caucus

by

Barack Obama in his recent speech criticized his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, for controversial remarks, saying:

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

Very nice and I agree with his words here. Some on the Left have attempted to spin this entire affair and use this speech as a vehicle to bury it all. Yet even if we should overlook his 20 year association with Wright, how does the Left explain the Senator’s membership in a racially exclusive club like the Congressional Black Caucus? As with Wright, Obama has said nothing about the membership policies of the CBC nor did he utter one peep about the comments from fellow member Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo in response to the attempt by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, to join last year but was rebuffed because of his skin color.

From Wikipedia:

Over the years, the question has arisen, “Does the Caucus allow only black members?” Pete Stark, D-Ca., who is white, tried and failed to join in 1975. In January 2007, it was reported that white members of Congress were not welcome to join the CBC. Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituents, who were 60% black. It was reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the Caucus agreed that the group should remain “exclusively black.” Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, “Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He’s white and the Caucus is black. It’s time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood.” In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen stated, “It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in.”

Rep. Clay issued an official statement from his office in reply to Rep. Cohen’s complaint:

“Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept – there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it’s our turn to say who can join ‘the club.’ He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.”

On January 25, 2007, Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Co., spoke out against the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference saying, “It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses.”

For more see FactCheck.org.

If Senator Obama truly wants to “move beyond some of our old racial wounds”, why then, as a member of the CBC, does he not move for a more color-blind admission policy in this group?

— John (Average Gay Joe)

Comments

  1. Obama wants to “move beyond some of our old racial wounds”, when it means (1) Electing him, and/or (2) implementing radical Left socialism.

    Other than that, he’s not interested.

  2. My first inclination is to say no on similar grounds that I don’t think girls should be in Boy Scouts (totally different animals, I know). However, I don’t understand the point in the CBC. I understand even less, though, why whites would want to be a part of it.

  3. with all the problems facing the country we can thank the Democrats for this pointless diversion of non-stop obsession about racial issues.

    The only party capable of fielding a successful black or woman Presidential candidate who would be  a leader for everybody would be the Republicans.

    For a racist party like the Democrats to have their nominee’s entire qualification be that he is  black is a fucking  disaster.

    Our national politics are so warpped and utterly lacking any priorties.

    And the media… My God.. We should all be in dispair… to have the mass media gate keepers be in the hands of those morons… ugh.  It’s unthinkable the amount of damage being done to the country at a time when it can least be afforded.

  4. 3:  Yes, I did notice the quite diverse field of candidates as primary season began.  The field of Republican candidates for president was simply filled with a colorful rainbow of candidates representing both men and women….
    As much as certain people can’t stand it, there are many people in this nation who are thrilled that there are viable candidates this time around who aren’t white guys wearing dark business suits.  I’m pretty excited to see that there’s at least one race where the nomination isn’t completely sewn up and the people running actually have to work hard to secure the nomination they seek.

  5. The only true diversity that matters is the diversity of thought.. essentially the diversity of true individuals. Only a racist would view skin color as a meaningful attritube to base a measure of a person on.

    Obama and Hillary stand for the same exact policies and worldview. Interestingly enough they both have ties to gutter Chicago socialism and they both had mentors in Saul Alinsky.

    And you focus on race and costumes. how trivial.. how utterly irrelevent.

  6. Obama is an excellent orator and said many things in this speech that I liked, but the more I reflect on it the more I find to criticize.  I think perhaps this comes mostly from the fact that he has portrayed himself as above the racial fray, a biracial candidate who could bridge the gap yet what this mess has shown us is that he is not as pristine as once thought but instead is just another slick politician.  Easy for me to say I suppose since I wasn’t planning on voting for him but I have been pleased to see a black man make history in getting so close to winning the White House, let along taking down the Clinton machine. Â

    Obama is a blank slate, someone with little experience that many people have filled in what they wished – I think something his campaign has encouraged.  That’s cool, such is happens in politics.  Yet his 20 year silence and close association with Wright shows a fundamental lack of character.    If he wasn’t able to speak up to Wright during all that time, until forced politically to drop him from his campaign when he became a political liability, what are we to make of his stated intentions of speaking with the leaders of North Korea, Iran and other enemies of the USA?  A sucka is born every second?  Heck, we have a president now who made a fool of himself about what thought he saw in Putin’s soul, so how much worse will Obama be?

    As for the CBC, Obama should have said something last year when fellow Dem Cohen tried to join but was rudely turned down because he is white.  What leadership did Obama show us in this case?  None.  Where’s the desire for moving past racial concerns he spoke about in his speech?  Non-existent when it comes to the CBC.   I have a big problem when a group of US lawmakers form racially-exclusive clubs for whatever reason and then preach to us on race.  That’s pure BS and hypocrisy in the extreme.  Cohen wanted to join because he represents a district that’s 60% black and probably felt this group would give him connections he could us politically and also to help his constituents.  Yet he was turned down cold because he’s white.  Even the NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, and National Action Network do not have racially exclusive policies.  What makes the CBC, a group consisting of US lawmakers, different in this regard?  Why does it get a free pass?

    Â

  7. Sharpton is always quick to deny the "melting pot" theme and insist that the United States is a "mosaic." That is essential to the cause if you are in the "victim" business.

    The CBC is looking out for their exclusive piece of the action. They are the perfect example of "faction" as discussed by Madison in Federalist #10. They are Constitutionally  thwarted by our republican form of government.

    The Congressional Black Caucus is proof that within the Congressional system there is a faction that places race first. Sharpton would say that is necessary to protect the "mosaic." I would say that Sharpton and the Congressional Black Caucus are playing the dangerous and divisive game of Balkanizing our country.

    My grandkids attend an elementary school in Maryland in which over 60% of the kids have a white parent and a black or Hispanic or Asian parent. The largest group is black parent and white parent. A great many of these kids have a parent in the military. Times are changing quickly for the "mosaic" crowd. The melting pot is quietly doing its age old work.Â

    Obama chose to be black in his politics. Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas chose to be educated Americans. I have no quarrel with someone who looks out for "his people." But I do not put his politics ahead of my own. That is what "faction" is all about.Â

  10. ***If Senator Obama truly wants to “move beyond some of our old racial wounds”, why then, as a member of the CBC, does he not move for a more color-blind admission policy in this group?***
    That’s a rhetorical question, isn’t it?  Or, better yet, a trick one?