What do you think?

[Phil]

I posted this blog about a year ago and didnt' get the discussion I hoped to get from it. So I'll toss it here. I wonder sometimes when the spectrom has gone too far. Like can we be accused of reverse bigotry if we replace a woman or an African American in office do we have to keep that seat in the same hands?

I'm not sure what the answer is but I raised the question in this blog.

[Jersey]

I didn't have a chance to watch the whole video, but I think I got the general gist of the question. Should the racial status quo of any governmental position or seat be maintained in the event of an elected official leaving, passing away or becoming unable to finish the term.

My answer is absolutely not. The idea of filling a seat with someone of a similar skin tone is ridiculous. It runs along the same lines of the liberals howling about how Senator Ted Kennedy's seat should always go to a Democrat or perhaps even another Kennedy. It isn't fair for one thing, and counterproductive for another.

The elected officials of our country should always be elected on their credentials, their experience, and the content of their character. Not the color of their skin.

[Slayzie]

Choosing a white male for a position is only racist if the main reason for the choice is that the person happens to be a white male.

People should be selected based on how good they're likely to be at their job, it shouldn't matter whether they're a white man, a black woman, an asian man, a latino woman, or a damn alien from outer space.

I believe Barack Obama was elected not because he was black, but because he represented a change from the policies of the Bush administration, which had managed to piss off not just a lot of Americans, but most of the rest of the world as well. Let's face it - George W. Bush was a very nice man, but a terrible president. As far as I can see, John McCain would just have been more of the same.

[Classicblast]

I think you guys should watch Phil's video in full if you didn't. I know it takes a few minutes its a longer one but the situation he discusses is not elected officials. It's more that the governor of Illinois would appoint a replacement to Obama's senate seat. And he selected a black man to replace him. The guy he picked had plenty of governmetal experience but was the governor forced to keep that seat in the hands of a black man because that's who was vacating the seat?

The same in New York when Hillary Clinton vacated the senatorial seat to become secretary of state. Was that governor (who is an African-American and blind) did that governor have an obligation to appoint a woman to replace Hillary.

Is the governor in each state going to look bad if he doesn't appoint someone of similar elk to replace the outgoing senator? And is the governor who happens to be an Afro-American going to have less suspicion of being chauvinistic or racial that the Illinois governor if he doesn't follow the said pattern.

[Mahnarch]

I agree with everyone's statements (even Slayers, about people believing B.O. represented a "Change" - into socialism. 'Change' is 'Change', good or bad, after all....) that everyone seems to think about the status quo.

Remember Scott Brown takeing[/b] "Ted Kennedys'" seat?!


Ted Kennedys'? Really?

Besides the fact that he DID have his name on it; Teddy didn't OWN that seat.


Burris was the worst choice that the corrupt Blogo could've picked:

Burris (on the Senate floor): "You people is racist."

You people IS?

[Here's where I'm of two minds over Burris.

1) He believes that the black movement should allow him to use ghetto slang on the Senate floor.

or,

2)He was elevated to his position based on his race and affiliation to Al Sharpton - using fear tactics for advancement.]