Friday, December 28, 2007

Goddard Office Dealing In Black and White?

We recently became aware of an alleged racial issue in state agencies under Governor Napolitano beginning with the Department of Public Safety licensing division which is suspected of collusion with certain private security agencies. It seems that new security firms run by certain minorities have been dragged through the mud when it comes to getting a license. In what is said to be a racially motivated effort, DPS licensing personnel are suspected of colluding with existing security firms friendly to DPS. One firm fighting the battle with DPS has been successful for many years in other states, but has been forced to run the obstacle course with DPS for most of 2007 with no license in sight. In the meantime, Terry Goddard's office has been identified as a possible colluder with DPS. There are some big names that are involved behind the scenes. It may be interesting to see where this ends up as lawsuits begin to be filed.

7 comments:

The Real Sporer said...

Democrat minority hiring after eight years of control in Iowa is abysmal. But hey, they do care.

Sirocco said...

Yeah, our history for the last 40 or 50 years has shown so clearly how minorities fare better under Republican administrations.

BWAHAHAHAAHAH!

Sorry ... I couldn't get that out with a straight face.

Apparently Iowa does have problems hiring minorities. I am no expert on the basis of those problems or how far back they go, but I do see the governor seems to be trying to change things there. Whether he actually follows through or not is another question.

AZAce said...

It's amazing how Democrats take credit for civil rights when it was a Republican, Lincoln, who freed the slaves contrary to the wishes of Democrat states. Again, it was Republicans who pushed through the Civil Rights Act while Democrats, like Alabama's Governor Wallace who refused to let blacks attend classes at the university, put up the resistance. it's under Republican administrations that minorities show the greatest economic gains. And, Republican administrations have put more minorities in cabinet, court, and other key positions than Democrats.

Some say it, others do it. Bwahaha!

Sirocco said...

Oh, absolutely, Lincoln was a Republican, and all credit to him.

Of course, that was 150 years ago ...

There is no question in the 1960's a number of Southern Democrats were actively opposed to the civil rights movement, but to try to claim Democrats were not primarily responsible for pushing things through in over their objections (and those of a number of Republicans) is ... well ... revisionist at best.

That's a major reason (really, the major reason, as so much research has shown) so much of the south ended up switching party affiliation from Dem to Rep - because the Dems pushed so hard in support of the civil rights movement.

It would be hugely surprising if, since 1968 say, Republicans hadn't appointed more minorities (in terms of overall numbers) to various positions, given the extra terms of office they have held (although I was unable to find any actual data to show either way, are you aware of any?). Looking at it on a per-administration basis, not so much.

AZAce said...

Sirocco,
Okay, so I reached back a bit. It's hard to not name Lincoln regardless of how long ago his legacy. Granted, there were many Democrats in support of civil rights, but let's face it, it was a Republican Congress that got it done with more Democrats than Republicans voting against. I don't think that's revisionist. And many of the Dems switching also switched to independent which Alabama Governor Wallace developed into a formal party.

You're correct in that Republicans win in total numbers based on having held more terms. Percentages of total minority appointees slightly favor Democrats in each term. But as for minorities in high profile positions, Republicans win hands-down. And the gap would be much greater except for Democrats preventing so many minority appointments. Whatever you think of the Bush presidency, for example, it has appointed a lot of minorities to important posts:
Colin Powell was the first black man to head the State Department, Condoleezza Rice the first black woman to be the National Security Advisor, Secretary of State. Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic United States Attorney General, Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor, Mel Martinez and Alphonso Jackson as HUD Secretaries, Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, Rod Paige, Sec. of Ed., not to mention all the female appointees.

Sirocco said...

Ace,

Actually, more Dems voted for the legislation than Republicans did. Of course, more Dems also voted against it than Republicans .... a side effect of there being a lot more Dems in Congress (both chambers) than Republicans.

The notion it was a Republican Congress which "got it done" is simply incorrect.

However, it is true the majority of Republicans also favored the bill. The split, really, was along regional lines. For example, among Southern legislators 7 Dems were in favor, 87 against. For Republicans it was 0 in favor, 10 against.

Johnson pushed hard for passage of the bill, even though from his writings it's clear he knew it was going to hurt his party in the South for a long time. You are correct a number of prominent Southern Dems worked against the bill ... and those Dems largely left the party in short order.

But yes, the legislation was largely constructed by Democrats, pushed by Democrats and passed by Democrats ... over the objections of Democrats, and in the full awareness that it's passage was likely to significantly harm the party prospects for the forseeable future. Claiming Republicans had anything approaching an equal hand in it is, in fact, revisionist.

AZAce said...

Sirocco,

I should warn you this is probably not a fair fight.:)
I stand corrected on the raw numbers. But your version leaves out some key points. The percentages bear out the notion that a much higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats which shouldn't be surprising because it was Republicans who widely supported civil rights bills leading up to the CRA, and Democrats who widely opposed them. This is well documented in history. In the 30 years leading up to the CRA, Republicans clearly were the civil rights champions. The CRA never could have passed without the support of key Republicans like William McCulloch who got the bill through committee, Thomas Kuchel, who rounded up Senators every time a key vote came up, and particularly another politician from Illinois, Senator Everett Dirksen who was probably the most powerful Senate minority leader ever and who united Republicans and Democrats in support of the bill.
As Democrats were forced to pressure other Democrats to get enough votes to pass it when it finally made it to the House floor, over 80% of Republicans already supported it, and it was a committee chairman in each chamber (Democrats) who tried to prevent the bill from advancing. Democrat support was far from overwhelming even in the final vote.
Sure, Kennedy and Johnson can take credit for proposing the bill, but Kennedy couldn't get it passed and Johnson could never have succeeded without the solid leadership and support of Republicans who had already been leading civil rights legislation and got it done in the end.
But if it makes you feel better, I will concede that there were Democrats who worked hard to make it happen as well despite their history of opposition to it.