I do not consider ensuring racial diversity in the House of Representative as there are just as many ineffective (McKinney) and possibly corrupt (Jefferson) African-American politicians who does nothing more but grandstand or take kickbacks.

Right now, I'm extremely upset at the current politicians all of them for not having the neccessary conviction and fortitude like Murtha to take on this war in Iraq and address issues that affects our economic status among global and foriegn influences. America is losing across the board (well we can still launch space shuttles - woohoo) and only nationalism and ignorant blindness would disagree with that point.

I may not even vote if no one is going to come and address and take on the current matters of resolving this Iraq war quagmire, kickstarting the US economy and get rid of the status quo injustices that's holding us back while other countries are progressing ahead of us.

Bottom line, stop looking at politicians in terms of black face or white face and start looking at the issues that matter to you and see which one is more likely to address those issues. After all, it doesn't matter who wins - it matters when you pressure politicians to see things your way while they are the incumbent.

Professor Smith,

Are you planning on participating in these comments or will you be avoiding the discussion like you did on your previous two posts? There was a substantial amount of effort put into the 36+ comments on your Andrew Young post with several questions addressed to you. Many of the commenters showed intimate familiarity with the subject matter and added measurably to the content of your post. Your silence was dismissive at best.

Oh - my - God. A waking nightmare.

Another, horrible, Hate America, Yale educated lawyer. That school needs to be shut down. No lawyer should be permitted to occupy any government policy position, by statute, like the exclusion of felons.

This is a clueless, cult promoting, rent-seeking lawyer, seeking to generate massive litigation, in torts, in environmental law, attacking our American Way of Life. He is likely to be pro-criminal, an enterprise crusher, a teacher union hack, keeping black kids uneducated and down, a preachy, supercilious Yale alum, and a devastated mental cripple, despite an IQ 50 points higher than most of the people here.

KT: Words are the tools of the lawyer. Does a carpenter pick up a hammer for fun, unless it is to do a task, and he is going to be paid? The purpose of the above posting was to criticize his friend by wimpy praise, and to move him to a proper left location. Talking to you, what purpose would that serve?

Leave Prof. Smith alone. He is a decent lawyer.

If you want unstoppable, rapid fire chattiness, wave a $100 bill.

SC: David Yassky went to Yale Law, but so did Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Do you actually think that going to Yale conveys any useful information about someone's views, and if so, how can you explain that folks who agree on almost nothing all went to Yale Law? Your barbs ("Hate America") show a high level of disturbance but a low level of attention to facts.

I largely agree with Professor Smith, but I don't think there should be any fuss about this: making a fuss about it sends the wrong signal, and it sets a precedent for whites to do the same when black candidate tries to run in majority-white districts in the future.

I would suggest taking a page out of the book of whites: black voters should just quitely decline to vote for Yassky. (If the black vote splits and he wins, then he just wins.)

Is professor Smith urging voters to "vote black?" If so, is that more, less, or equally as offensive as suggesting voters "vote white?"

Prof. Moss: If 10% of the Yale faculty votes Republican, it would surprise. There is no one there to disagree on fundamentals, except perhaps the entering students. These will be brought into line fairly quickly by this Democratic Party talking points laboratory. The homogeneous faculty reinforces itself, spinning off into an intellectual wild blue yonder, divorced from reality. If I were a pro-capitalist anything, I would feel so alone at Yale, I would seek to leave, even if no one harassed me. The government has sent a message to Yale by initiating an accounting of the time sheets of its grant recipients. I anticipate Yale will improve its intellectual balance, in the near future.

Yale would like America to be France. Why? A centralized government would be run by their morally superior grads. They are jealous of the Ecole Normale Superieure. They summer in Europe and import a host of flat earth Euro trash ideologies, to plague our nation. One that still plagues us, including conservative jurists, is legal realism, a sibling of the Nazi judiciary, both spawns of the German Free Law Movement.

The conservative alumni are even more disappointing. They should be more resistant to this process and more enlightened. Justice Thomas discussed Natural Law during his confirmation hearing. He was almost there. He just could not see the next tiny, self-evident step. Legal doctrines from the Catholic Church of 1250 AD violate the Establishment Clause. The mens rea violates the Establishment Clause, being supernatural garbage, resulting in massive criminality in the US. The biggest burden of this criminality falls on black people. Justice Thomas missed that, being a cult loyalist, and a race traitor.

It is from 10th grade World History and from Western Civ 101. It had been erased from the minds of people with an IQ 50 points higher than me, by the Yale Law cult indoctrination process .

Why would intelligent people allow such cult indoctrination on themselves? Rent seeking is the best economic theory of the law. It explains the similarity in conduct between people with extreme political differences. It predicts many otherwise weird appellate decisions, statutes and regulations. It was Scalia that wrote Blakely and voted for Booker. He loosed 1000's of vicious criminals so that lawyers could have more jobs, doing more for the criminal than Brennan ever did. The jump in the murder rate was immediate, as judges felt free to downgrade sentences to protect their precious commodity, the criminal. Lawyers had their massive amounts of work to do on remands. Black people had their massive amounts of criminalization to endure.

I have read the studies you will use to rebut. They have neither credibility nor scientific validity; they are filled with lies by omission and biased interpretation. They are written by self-promoting lawyers.

Yasski is just a typical product of Yale Law school. He is highly predictable rent seeker, easily dismissable intellectually. I bet his remedy for crime is more police, judges, courts, public defenders and prosecutors, probation officers, treatment programs, anything that costs a lot of money, does nothing to the crime rate, and generates jobs for union members. That is what he learned at Yale.

Prof. Moss: I think you called me disturbed. You seem to be the only one unable to control himself, compelled to reply to my mildly competent troll messages. No one else has that problem.

Mine is an old trick intended to get the judge to rebuke your personal remark in a trial, basically ending the trial for your client. Don't fall for it during a case.

A web site may emerge in 2007. You may be its only reader. It will be a lawyer love site.

Trying to think of a pro-capitalist Republican who went to Yale...hmmm...oh yeah the President.

Trying to think of a pro-capitalist Republican who went to Yale...hmmm...oh yeah the President. Seemed to be pretty popular too, not very lonely, but who knows?

The President graduated from Yale in 1968, before it became a bastion of Socialist Feeling. (I would have said "thinking" but thinking doesn't lead one to Socialism.) In '68, the Socialists were still taking classes instead of teaching them.

Bush is not a good counter-example. He talks only in "masking ideology" (a fancy Yale phrase for "lying"), acts otherwise.

He exploded the Federal Register. He went on a nation building orgy. He blew up the deficit. He is totally soft on the Moslem terrorists, having some among his best friends, walking hand in hand with one on a visit to his private home. Taxes have increased on productive people. The fraction of the GDP consumed by government has increased. He opened the flood gates of illegal aliens, proposing shortcuts to citizenship privileges, to feed the rolls of the Party of Treason. He passed a government busting, bankruptcy guaranteeing drug benefit for people who are at death's door and cannot be retrieved, wastefully sucking up the tax dollars of the poor and the middle class by their continued parasitic existence, and perpetual luxury sea cruising. His DOJ spent $mils to prosecute a $100 misconduct by Martha Stewart, while 50,000 violent, well organized, heavily armed, para-military gang members slaughter our people in LA. He even has the biggest fraction of minority officials, one being a triple threat. He appointed a lawyer to head disaster management, and failed in one of the most basic of government functions to rescue people who are going to die from rising flood waters.

These are all Yale-Party of Treason aims, fulfilled beyond their wildest hopes. Typical Yale grad.

Any valid counter example found will merely confirm the theory by rarity.

Any study of the success or failure of black candidates in majority white districts has to include the following question: What would have happened if the candidate held the same views and was white?

I would be glad to vote for Thomas Sowell for president over George Bush because ... well, do I really need to go into all the reasons? But no, we're told that we're racists for having not voted for people whose views we dont' subscribe to.

Ideology, particularly conservative ideology, is little more than a stalking horse for racial regression in American political discourse. Need we do the literature review?

More generally, why is this site being stalked by neo-racist whites and self-hating people of color? Where are the progressive respondents to these columnists?

Keith,

I think the evidence strongly suggest that, whatever whites say, they vote in favor of other whites instead of blacks whose views seem more in sink with their own.

I have read that this is one result of Ebonya Washington's work. (It is described here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301776.html and is available -- for a fee -- here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11915.)

Realist: You are being played by a bunch of Yale Law grads, like the Clintons. You sound as if you were from another era, the pre-earth is round era.

If you look at the devastation done to the social statistics of black people by 40 years of the progressive agenda, you might get more real. Lawyers ended Reconstruction, did the KKK bit and Jim Crow. Lawyers finished the job with the progressive legislation of the 1960's. Lawyers exploded black crime victimization. They exploded illegitimacy with regulatory policy changes. They did so with scienter, to increase their own employment.

I find it a mystery why black people would still vote for the Party of the KKK, and not bring street justice to the lawyer on sight.

It is hardly surprising that blacks don't win in majority white districts in that most majority white districts that a blacks would run in, would probably be suburban districts that are most likely majority republican, while the black candidate is most likely democratic. David Lublin's study means nothing if it does not take the districts party breakdown and the candidates party affiliation into account.

elb--Suburban districts, along with the soccor moms therein, have become increasingly Democratic or unaffiliated throughout the 1990's and up to the present. It'd be difficult to believe, yet convenient for you, if the more than 5000 districts studied were overwhelmly Republican. (Some of the contests undoubtedly were intra-party primaries!!) Moreover, during this same period, the suburbs have become increasingly racially diversified.

Terry Smith wrote in that article, [quote]This sometimes requires dispensing with one’s first choice and consolidating support behind the black candidate who appears to have the best shot at winning.
[/quote]

So is he saying that if Yassky is nominated, and the republicans nominated a black candidate to face him in November, that the constituents of cd 11 must elect the republican because that person has the correct skin color?

Alan Keyes should move to cd 11 and run as the GOP candidate, because if Yassky is nominated, he'd be assured of the endorsements of Terry Smith, Al Sharpton and all the others so outspoken on the idea that a white guy getting the seat would be something evil.

This is a substantial issue only if one assumes that only a black candidate can represent a black constituency. I think this assumption is flawed, as all human experience is unique and the only way any individual understands another's is through communication. In some ways I would almost say that a white candidate that is committed to the same general ideals as a majority black constituency but understands his need to copmmunicate with and understand his district's specifics may be a better representative than a black candidate that assumes he understands his constituency based only upon a shared pigmentation.

(Note,I do mean to imply that the example I just gave is applicable to any of the candidates in this particular race. I just offered it as one example of why I think the idea that any group of people need to be represented by people of their own race.)

politicial science 101

Seeing that the study emcompassed the years 1972 to 1994 the vast majority of those races probably occured in a period of republican majorities in those districts. Also, I never made the claim that the districts were overwhelmingly republican. As for whether the races were intra-party primaries, I guess we won't know unless we read the study

elb1999,

Did you read the Wash. Post article I linked? I think you should.

Among other things the Washington study studies the effects of blackness on the voting of white Republicans when the Republican candidate is black. The same goes for Democrats. So if Lubin's study has the shortcoming you point out, Washington's study does not. Which makes your post puzzling (when the link is right there).

"Black representatives are the most liberal voting cohort in the House of Representatives."

That statement requires documentation and it certainly misleads. A number of CBC members vote consistently with Republicans on big money issues like estate tax repeal, bankruptcy, energy policy and Net Neutrality: http://www.techpolitics.org/congress/1091keyvotes.php?sort_field=cbc%20desc,%20state&sort_order=desc

DM,

I did read the article you posted, (before you responded to my post)and even with that taken into account, the political makeup of the district would still be a key factor. Other factors, (and I don't know if Washington took these into account), would be viability of the candidates, i.e. were they political newcomers running against seasoned pols. ( I can't imagine that many of these black republicans in these races were seasoned well-known pols) In the situation of Dems, most suburban dems tend to be centrist and most black dems tend to be considerably farther to the left. I don't know if Washingtons study took things like this into account or if it was more generic....Either way this November should offer some insight into this phenomenon with at least 5 of us running statewide. (Ford, Tennessee; Blackwell, Ohio; Swann, Pennsylvania; Steele, Maryland; Patrick, Massachussets)

elb--

Was David Dinkins further to the left than NYC, a liberal democratic bastion? Was Harold Washtington further to the left than Chicago, a liberal Democratic bastion in which he took under 20% of the white vote. Was Tom Bradley, the safest of the safest black, further to the left in liberal California, as he lost to a white opponent whose name most voters could not pronounce? Shall I continue, or to you get my drift? The regression of analyses of political scientists such as Keith Reeves already control for many of the factors you're attempting to use in your unending denial.

black realist,

There's one small problem with your analysis. All the people you referenced got ELECTED!!!!

The point I'm making is that there are other possibilities that may influence election outcomes. Is racism a distinct possibility? Of course it is and I have no doubt that it plays a part in how some people vote. Always has and probably alway will. But possibilites that I put forth in my previous post could also very well play a part. We shouldn't be so quick to form the knee-jerk reaction that it is all racism, all the time without taking the time to examine other underlying issues and possibilities.

DM,

I think you would find what has gone on and is goin on in the Ohio Governors race, especially on the republican side, interesting and inciteful.

In the Republican primary the 3 candidates were all 2 term state-wide elcted officials. Blackwell, (black male; treasurer, secretry of state), Petro, (white male; State Auditor, Attorney General), Montgomery (white female; Attorney General, State Auditor). They played musical chairs bidingtheir time to run for governor in 06. Blackwell is ultra conservative, the other 2 moderates in the Ohio Republican tradition. Montgomery dropped out early leaving a contest between a balck conservative and a white moderate. Now if stereotypes prevailed, i.e., the most conservative whites are the most racist, you would have expected Blackwell to lose conservative support in this primary. Instead he won comfortably based on rock solid, white conservative support. The irony is he is now trailing his Democratic opponent in the general election, because he is having trouble garnering the support of moderate northeast ohio (Cleveland, Akron, Canton) republicans. The one's who have some history and comfort level with black politicians. The issue with him is his politics, not his race. He is so far right that a significant number of white republicans are having trouble getting on board. It will be interesting to see what blacks, who have supported him to the tune of 40% in his other statewide races do now that he is running for the top job and is responsible for real policy.

elb1999--Tom Bradley lost two statewide gubernatorial bids. Dinkins lost his re-election, and even when he was first elected, the vote was racially stratified. Finally, as previously mentioned, Harold Washtington won election with less than 20% of the white vote. The issue--I thought--was white unwillingness to vote for black candidates--not whether these candiates ultimate prevailed notwithstanding white intransigence. Let's keep this discussion informed and intelligent rather than desperate.

realist,

Nothing desperate. So if Washington won with less than 20% of the white vote then it's safe to assume that he got more than 80% of the minority vote. Is it then safe to say that blacks don't vote for whites when a black candidate is running? Two sides of the same coin. The fact that Bradley and Dinkins won elections in cities that are majority white argues against your point, that they eventually lost subsequent elections, maybe just maybe, might have had something to do with their preformance while in office.....p.s. I always keep it informed and intelligent.

This latest installment by Prof. Smith is very good. Life is just unfair -- blacks cannot move
into a white district and do the same unless, possibly, they are
incredibly charismatic and well-financed. Martin O'Malley (white) got to be
Mayor of Baltimore in the same way. (On the other hand, the local opponents (both black) were local hacks
who would have been horrible.)

Barak Obama is charismatic. If he were a candidate in District 11, does Prof. Smith think he could win?

I had a Psychology professor at Fordham University - Leslie Burton - that I heard once saying that black people and american indians had smaller brains than whites and that's why they were so backward. Messed up. How can someone like that get a ph.d and a job teaching kids?

Nice site. Thanks:
shemales pics