Again, Black folks's interests are something to be traded to soothe the feelings of the mainstream.

And yes, I take particular note of the CBC and DLC's part in this. 

I think this is more an example of how black folks interests or political capital can be traded to accommodate the covert racists in the Republican and Democratic Congressional Caucuses.

That's why I take particular note of who was involved. I'm close to classifying the DLC as an active enemy instead of being just greedy and ignorant.

Black folks need to get more involved in the primary process. DLC vs. Republican is no choice at all for Black folks.

I forgot to add that if the DLC truly believes that its agenda and program is the greatest thing since sliced bread why doesn't it form its own political party rather than trying to browbeat millions of Democratic voters into foregoing their political principles and belief and adopting the Republican lite policies of the DLC?

The DLC shouldn't find it too difficult to attract willing buyers for its program of Democratic Party Recovery because bullshit is still a bargain even these days.  

It's not clear to me how being removed from the sponsor list makes an impact. Isn't the sponsorship of bills how Congresspersons establish their track record? I would imagine that most of the 20 come from communities where their personal sponsorship of the bill means little. It seems to me that the CBC should have been looking for white sponsors of the bill.

Is the sponsor list secondary to the actual language of the bill? Did the CBC ensure that the bill is adequate for future concerns or not? This I don't know. As for other issues like farm subsidies and trade with Africa, it would seem the CBC has been as ineffective as tits on a bull. This is one of the single biggest issues that they should be addressing - but have been wholly ineffective here.

I'm not trying to dismiss what Pelosi did. I just don't get the import of it - given the way I understand the CBC and the bill-making process to work. Holla back y'all.

The Voting Rights Act IS a racial issue. The fact that Republicans need to add their names gratuitously and remove the names of Black legislators is proof. If it wasn't a racial issue, the Republicans could have simply added their names to the list.

This lets Republicans off the hook for their efforts to undermine the act (like Georgia's poll tax disguised as an ID card). It undermines every legitimate claim of racism.

The problem is Pelosi et al have traded this truth to show the people who are the fucking heart of the problem that they're a-okay.  

But if you want to stick to politics, how about this:

Black Republicans run against CBC members, and their campaign is like, "This guy didn't even co-sponsor the renewal of the Voting Rights Act! You know how important that act is for our political future. Pelosi and Hasturt co-sponsored, why not him?

What a Black Democrat going to say to that?

I signed up to sponsor the bill immediately, of course. Democratic party leaders, including the head of the CBC, took my name off the list of co-sponsors against my wishes. I'm not even saying they kept me off...I was on it, and they removed me.

I should put that shit in a post so folks who don't read comments can see it.  

The DLC is demonstrating they are still working with the assumption that Black folks have no choice. But we do...we can vote against the DLC candidates in the primaries. Black people are a large enough voting block to make them lose.

It's not clear to me how being removed from the sponsor list makes an impact.

This move has an effect on the very ability of black elected officials to demonstrate in a public way their support for issues that matter a great deal to the overwhelming majority of their constituents. In addition, by removing the names of black sponsors and substituting the names of white Republicans this move gives this group of Republicans the kind of cover among black voters that they haven't earned and don't deserve. This gang of mountebanks and bounders will use their sponsorship of this legislation to falsely assert, for example, that there is an unbroken line of commitment to civil rights on the part of the GOP stretching back to 1965 when a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate did for the Voting Rights Act to the present day when they proudly added their names sponsors to this legislation.

This will allow them to ignore and hope that we will forget how this same political party consciously and intentionally adopted a strategy in 1968 to woo, placate and cater to so-called disaffected southern white Democrats angry about the end of state enforced racial segregation and the restoration of black people's civil rights. The GOP will link their sponsorship of this bill with their votes in 1965 and use this false linkage to change the subject about their behavior during the past 40 years with respect to black people's issues.

If Rep. Watts can't see the back door move being put on him then how in the world did this kneegrow become the leader of the CBC? 

I just checked out HR 9 at the Thomas web site. Here's the list of people who introduced the bill:

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. HASTERT, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. NADLER, Mr. WATT, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. OWENS, Mr. CLYBURN, Ms. LEE, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. NORTON, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. WATERS, Mr. HONDA, Mr. GONZALEZ, and Mrs. NAPOLITANO)

And here is the list of cosponsers. The number is 112.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00009:@@@P

So, something isn't right.

It seems simplistic to argue that Black folk will be unduly influenced by a Republican campaign based on the Voting Rights Act.

Republicans DO NOT need "cover" among white folks on any issue relating to race. I don't think that's the point at all. Moreover, they don't need "cover" to elicit votes from Democrats - that's how the "Southern Strategy" worked.

You're on the slippery slope to taking up Shelby Steele's argument about white guilt - and I know you don't wanna end up there.  Democrats, from what I'm reading of the issue, stand to gain in two ways...they are getting Republicans to vote for something they would typically oppose (and granting the opportunity to enlist another concession).  I could be wrong about that - but I think there is a PART II to this.

Otherwise, it simply seems silly.  If the old guard CBC goes along with this - and that's the only "piece" of the deal, it's a waste of time and effort.  I'm waiting on Part II.

Steele was wrong in saying White Guilt is the reason we're so merciful in our wars, not least because we're not all that merciful.

But white people have a race problem too...it just isn't the one WE have .

I won't deny a fact because an idiot used it in a twisted way.

how does that race problem translate into Republicans needing cover (proactive - in this case) to get white votes.

Centrist white folks do not want to vote for open racists. They DO want to vote for people that "protect their interests." 

This is the form that compromise takes. 

Who fits the classification of an "open racist" that has failed to get centrist white votes in America in the past 20 years.

Pat Robertson. That's off the top of my head.

George Bush is not openly racist, as white folks see things.

Republicans can come up with millions of arguments (couched in race neutral language) for opposing VRA - and still secure the "centrist white vote." Don't you think?

Sure, but your parenthetical is key. Why couch things in race neutral language?

Because most white people will not vote for openly racist candidates. At least, that's been the case since the late 1960's. Things are getting hot now, thanks to the immigration debate.

Still, Robertson electability has to do with much more than his "open racism."

You asked...

I think Black folk may be the last people still casting votes for preachers.

The upcoming third party will shock the shit out of you. No joke.

My point was that scripting would be sufficient

My point is that scripting is necessary. I was responding to this:

Republicans DO NOT need "cover" among white folks on any issue relating to race. I don't think that's the point at all. Moreover, they don't need "cover" to elicit votes from Democrats - that's how the "Southern Strategy" worked.

You're on the slippery slope to taking up Shelby Steele's argument about white guilt - and I know you don't wanna end up there.

[this to visually seperate quotes]

Given that it goes beyond what is required, I wanted to see the second act of this political play. Moreover, since sponsoring goes beyond what's needed, it would seem silly for Black Democrats to allow it without nary a whimper of opposition IF there was no second act. Feel me now?

On this point, I always did. Hence the outrage because if they had actually been scrubbed there is no second act other than a massive cash payment to personal Swiss accounts that would make it worthwhile for the CBC members.