The Presidential election of 2012 will be held on Tuesday, November 6th, ninety weeks from now. Result of the mid-term election held just two and a half weeks ago brought with it a mix of indicators or “leads” for what to expect in 2012.


Looking back to 2008 election, Black people projected that we were anti-Bush and, in concordance with the rest of the nation, needed change. So we supported the candidate who in our judgment was most competent, given his credentials, to make change happen. The result showed that Obama’s victory rode piggy back on massive turnout of Black voters. It was lost on everyone however that up until Iowa primary Blacks nationwide had dismissed him as illegitimate and it was White majority who embraced him early on and validated his candidacy and legitimacy for the rest of us to turn around. So in retrospect, our acceptance and support for Obama was conditionally sentimental and not at all a logical impulse in respect of his competency or credentials. Now, it is reasonable and convincing to believe Whites may have responded to him solely on that one account though.


I am yet to see Blacks, in any recent election in this country, vote along logical inputs. Instead, we vote with our emotions. Our approach to grievance is to “boycott”. So it is, after just two years of record turnout and passionate support for Obama that we are boycotting elections to register our displeasure with national events. We failed to reason at the prospects of a winning sweep by Republicans and what it would translate to in our future, nationally and locally.


Just this week in the Dancing With The Stars (DWTS) competition Brandy, our choice and favorite, was voted off the show and to share our displeasure at the irregularities we flooded media channels with our determination, to do what. . . . . . boycott the finals! I know what the other side would do it had been Bristol booted off like that. They would rally support to increase the number of viewers at the finals and instruct that Brandy must not win, period.
This raises a question. Is competition really about merits? We have seen the performances and there is no doubt Bristol is off-tune in all the categories and should never have made it even to top five, but here we are one step away from it all and she could be crowned the winner. Black America, instead of pondering what that win would translate to politically for her mother and her party and devising a quick way to prevent it, we decided that the best way to present this grievance is to boycott. But back to my question, is competition in America anymore about the merits? Did the elected official win because he/she has true and proven leadership skills or is there a political arsenal pushing from behind the scene to tip the balance favorably and in disregard of earned merits?


I forgot who but I think it is Bawomolo who correctly observed, shortly before the mid-terms, that even with their majority and legislative successes peaked against Republican liabilities, the Democrats were having a difficult time getting support in the political town’s squares. Republicans dominate the square because they have a grounded understanding of how to operate a political machine from behind the curtains and away from sight. Democrats on the other hand continue to think that an elected official is necessarily a politician. No, wrong! A politician will succeed in elected office but an elected official on the other hand cannot operate political machines successfully. The two roles require two distinct temperaments. To highlight what I mean here consider the following politicians –

Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan for the Republicans. Bill Clinton, James Carville, John F Kennedy and Richard Daley for the Democrats.

Now, consider the following non-politicians but elected officials and relate their temperaments with those above and you will instantly understand my point. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George Bush junior for Republicans. Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Barack Obama for the Democrats.

President Obama should have been reinforced with Clinton, Carville and Daley running the air waves and the town squares against Palin, Rove, Cheney.


Anyway, we have 90 weeks to 2012 election and if we are interested in re-electing this man then we must not allow our displeasure of national events - and there will be plenty of those – to divert our focus or rouse us to any boycott of any kind. We can still deny Bristol the crown. . . . all Black vote for her rival. This will do more than defeat her, it will deflate Tea Party and their Republican sponsors.

But this is just Negro's view. . . das all!

I usually don't get snide on this forum. But are you sniffing glue? What the fvck with does DWTS have to do with all the ridiculous political jargon you just wrote? Its a bleeping TV show, yet you are talking about political victories, 2012 elections and sides  . I didn't know DWTS had political considerations as well as party factions  . Then you also needlessly drag race into it. Come back to earth and stop being ridiculous. Is it not enough to obsess about politicians, that some are now going after their kids. Does everything have to be about race and politics. Christ help us

I didnt expect your mind to be that deep or to have the vision to contemplate possibilities. Republicans love voters like you - people rooted in the now. . . .not to be bothered how a proposed legislation could impact their interests.

More power to you my friend! You stay in your now and let me prowl in my future. Do you mind?

Mr man if you want to analyse politics and legislation please do so. My point is how does DWTS (an incredibly corny TV show) help achieve your aims. How does it really affect all the stuff you wrote. There is really no link between them, and even if there is. Isn't there more important stuff to tell your fellow black people to focus on than voting against a politician's daughter cause you don't like her momma politics.

Well, I'm glad you clarified your point of dissent.  First let me say it is advisable to be familiar with a poster's issue and point of view before you critic his/her opinion here.  I see now that you are asking for reasons after you already disposed it as nonsense.

I said earlier in another post that I dont watch DWTS and I only did so because it has a political significance since Palin is there.  To illustrate for you the political tie I will use an example.

Suppose you and a couple of other people have a social event, drinking and eating suya, and Seun walks in there. . . .it is still a social event.  Few minutes later, I walk in there. . . . . it is a social event.  About 30mins afterward, Palin walks in there. . . . . . .  you no longer have a social event, you are now in a political event. 

It is the way American politics go.  This post is an analysis and interpretation of American politics in the sense that if this was not Bristol Palin, Brandy would still be in the competition for finals.  True, DWTS is a joke. . . . but the personality of the contestant has a political value that cannot be ignored, particularly considering the recent success of the Tea Party in the electoral process. 

I actually like Sarah Palin.  I like Obama too.  The success of Bristol in DWTS has an incremental effect on the grassroot perception of politicking.

Cassius Clay was not aware what significant role he would play in making Nation of Islam a household name when he changed his name to Mohammed Ali and then knocked out a White man.  The NOI became synonymous with White man's defeat.  The lesson of the story is, political landscape can be transformed by unseemingly relevant event sometimes.  We cannot let down the guard if President Obama's re-election in 2012 is important to us. Boycot of DWTS by those promising to do so has a future imapct on 12 election.

@Negro,

Anyway, we have 90 weeks to 2012 election and if we are interested in re-electing this man then we must not allow our displeasure of national events - and there will be plenty of those – to divert our focus or rouse us to any boycott of any kind. We can still deny Bristol the crown. . . . all Black vote for her rival. This will do more than defeat her, it will deflate Tea Party and their Republican sponsors.

Sometimes you show glimpses of brilliance, and atimes Case in point is the sentence in bold! You mean the rank and file of Tea Partiers are glued to the TV set staking their political fortune on whether or not the daughter (not even the mama herself) wins DWTS? Honestly, I don't know whether to take you seriously or to simply see this as a not so funny attempt at humor. I reserve my judgement for now.

Jesoul, please ask mama grizzy bear to take her daughter out of there, please

armyofone:

Jesoul, please ask mama grizzy bear to take her daughter out of there, please

  how much are you going to pay me?  I've never watched the show jare. And like you, I prefer to do my own dancing in my living room . I think people are giving the show and bristol way more attention and credit than it remotely deserves.

Sometimes you show glimpses of brilliance, and atimes Case in point is the sentence in bold! You mean the rank and file of Tea Partiers are glued to the TV set staking their political fortune on whether or not the daughter (not even the mama herself) wins DWTS? Honestly, I don't know whether to take you seriously or to simply see this as a not so funny attempt at humor. I reserve my judgement for now.

Tayo,

I am grateful for your feedback. I like honest and bold talk like you just gave.

It is too simplistic and naive. . . I want to say juvenile, to imagine, like you said, that "the rank and file of Tea Partiers are glued to the TV set staking their political fortune on whether or not the daughter (not even the mama herself) wins DWTS?"

We do not live in a world of normal reality anymore. . . . . the reality we live in now is plastic. A synthetic theatre of make-believe. Do you disagree?

The consequence of dismissing Sarah Palin and the breadth of her circle of influence has given us an undesirable outcome with the last mid term election. Would you disagree with this as well?

The incoming House of Reps, in full force of Tea Party members, will undo many of the social programs that we all know are necessary to promote social equity. Would you disagree?

Negro_Ntns:

Tayo,

I am grateful for your feedback. I like honest and bold talk like you just gave.

It is too simplistic and naive. . . I want to say juvenile, to imagine, like you said, that "the rank and file of Tea Partiers are glued to the TV set staking their political fortune on whether or not the daughter (not even the mama herself) wins DWTS?"

We do not live in a world of normal reality anymore. . . . . the reality we live in now is plastic. A synthetic theatre of make-believe. Do you disagree?

The consequence of dismissing Sarah Palin and the breadth of her circle of influence has given [size=14pt]us[/size] an undesirable outcome with the last mid term election. Would you disagree with this as well?

The incoming House of Reps, in full force of Tea Party members, will undo many of the social programs that [size=14pt]we[/size] all know are necessary to promote social equity. Would you disagree?

Who exactly is "us" and "we" Negro?

Wow!  Thank you for asking that question JeSoul. 

The plurality can take multiple content depending on what the political issue is.  Obama, many years ago while still a community organizer raised the possibility of resource re-distribution to give social balance.  The target of that program is a plurality that can comprise of all people of many racial backgrounds who by certain social measures fall in the dis-enfranchised (dis-empowered) category of the demographics, as supported by both statistical data and census results.  However, while popular stereotypes would suggest that this plurality is the Black population, we (data consumers) have come to accept. . . . . given the current economic hardships, that it is fluid.  A person who 10yrs ago was on a $100,000.00 salary and would be offended to be labeled "poor" is now today on food stamp and in a shelter home. 

So the "we" is a grouping. . . . . a band of people energized for change in the social imbalance.  As you have witnessed, Tea Party is energized on the opposite side to that and have argued repeatedly that the constitution does not warrant social balance. . . . it only fundamentally guarantees liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness and that every other articles under that is an enumeration. 

If you look at the partyline, "we" would translate to what side of the politik one is standing on - as in "we, the Repubs" or "we the Dems", or "we whatever party"!

Again, it is fluid and you can dribble in and out of it as the content of the argument changes but the theme remains the same.

THANK GOD!!!

^lol.

Negro_Ntns:

Wow!  Thank you for asking that question JeSoul. 

Thank you for answering it with such depth.

The plurality can take multiple content depending on what the political issue is.  Obama, many years ago while still a community organizer raised the possibility of resource re-distribution to give social balance.  The target of that program is a plurality that can comprise of all people of many racial backgrounds who by certain social measures fall in the dis-enfranchised (dis-empowered) category of the demographics, as supported by both statistical data and census results.  However, while popular stereotypes would suggest that this plurality is the Black population, we (data consumers) have come to accept. . . . . given the current economic hardships, that it is fluid.  A person who 10yrs ago was on a $100,000.00 salary and would be offended to be labeled "poor" is now today on food stamp and in a shelter home. 

So the "we" is a grouping. . . . . a band of people energized for change in the social imbalance.  As you have witnessed, Tea Party is energized on the opposite side to that and have argued repeatedly that the constitution does not warrant social balance. . . . it only fundamentally guarantees liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness and that every other articles under that is an enumeration. 

If you look at the partyline, "we" would translate to what side of the politik one is standing on - as in "we, the Repubs" or "we the Dems", or "we whatever party"!

Again, it is fluid and you can dribble in and out of it as the content of the argument changes but the theme remains the same.

I really like the above as it provides extremely fertile ground to sow the seeds of productive and profitable discourse.

Before I make any real comments, might I ask, where do you stand on the side of the "we" and more importantly, why do you stand there?

I really like the above as it provides extremely fertile ground to sow the seeds of productive and profitable discourse.

. . . oh yeah, there are many seeds to sow. . . .you just wait!

Before I make any real comments, might I ask, where do you stand on the side of the "we" and more importantly, why do you stand there?

lmfao! There is a third define for the "we", I purposely left it out yesterday. . . . as in when "we" meet in Spring!

It won't be thanksgiving but you will be "thanking' me as if it was.