TROUBLED WATERS: I see via Best of the Web that my representative in Congress, the lamentable Maxine Waters, was one of eleven House members to vote against a non-binding resolution whose purpose is "Expressing the Support and Appreciation of the Nation for the President and the Members of the Armed Forces Who are Participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom". She's in good company, such as Jim "Baghdad" McDermott and John "Impeach Bush" Conyers. Five of the eleven House members who voted to not express support for our troops are from California.
To quote a little from Best of the Web:
In addition, 21 Democrats, including presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, voted "present," which we guess means they can't decide if they're for or against America's troops. Also voting "present" was Republican Ron Paul, the isolationist feather of the GOP.
By our count, 23 members of the Congressional Black Caucus--a clear majority--voted either "no" or "present" on the resolution. This goes a long way in explaining why so few black candidates are able to win statewide office in America. Racial gerrymandering produces districts that elect black candidates who are so far to the left that they cannot even bring themselves to endorse a simple expression of patriotism during wartime.
Sorry for the horrible pun in the title.
I changed Conyers' middle name to avoid causing unintended offense.
I also wanted to note that the Senate passed the same resolution unanimously, which goes to show that representatives who have to worry about facing state-wide electorates tend to be a little more moderate. As Best of the Web aludes to, racial gerrymandering may result a greater number of black elected officials, but it also eliminates the possibility of any of the radical officials so elected continuing on to higher office. This fact works against the interests of racial minorty communities in the long run, but as long as playing race politics benefits the Democrats in the short run it's sure to stick around.