Ward Connerly's accomplishments in "blue" states proves my contention that a large majority of Americans are conservative; would elect and re-elect unapologetic conservative majorities in Congress and would make a non-hyphenated Reaganite to the White House.
(Click here for a comprehensive yet short history by Connerly documenting essential facts in the development of affirmative action and its recent history.)
The MCRI, which Michigan voters approved by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent, amended the state’s constitution to prohibit “state entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
First in the states of Washington and California and now in Michigan (leaning toward the Democratic Party, blue states all), Ward Connerly's anti-race based laws initiatives win everywhere and every time they are presented to voters for consideration.
The same can be said of most all anti-abortion initiatives
Reaganite conservatism also never loses when its tried and the sooner GOP in DC elected officials realize they need not fear the MSM after they get elected, the better.
Most Americans see persons when they see an individual human being inside or outside the womb.
(Gamecock will be posting a separate blog on a South Carolina initiative requiring that an abortion-seeking pregnant woman view the ultrasound picture of the developing human in their womb before being allowed to kill them later today.)
But too many liberal politicians looking at fellow human beings see skin pigmentations before they ever see persons, if they ever get that far.
A case in point is a recent post-mortem by the Chair and Director of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission.
These two liberals, like most liberal Democrats in congress or in the MSM, still worship the neutral value of skin color "diversity" within an extremely narrow ideological leftism:
After an exhaustive, three-month review of state statutes, policies and programs, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission has reached the conclusion that passage last fall of Proposal 2 by state voters does not mean the end of affirmative action, or the barring of terms such as race and gender from the terminology of state agencies or public entities. But the impact of the proposal will be significant. It does mean the end of programs and initiatives that grant preferential treatment based solely on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.
Basing our conclusions on the actual language of the amendment, our review found that of 45 programs potentially impacted by Proposal 2, eight, or about 18%, may be in jeopardy. It is entirely possible that other organizations will draw different conclusions regarding the number of programs affected, but either way, make no mistake, the impact will be widespread and painful.
They bemoan that the "impact" of the end of race based preferential treatment will be "widespread" and whine that readers feel their "pain" at such an impact. It is gratifying to see them admit reality though.
Later in the article, the liberal authors continue the left's intentional obfuscation of the JFK initiated "affirmative action" reaching out to minorities in recruiting efforts with preferences, set asides and quotas, while also trying to claim their goals have always been the same as conservatives:
At the heart of both Proposal 2 and the idea of affirmative action is the concept that greater and more widespread opportunity is better for everyone. We approached this task of reviewing the impact of Proposal 2 from the perspective of increasing opportunities.
Those increased opportunities come in several varieties. For example, we saw affirmative action in the form of increased outreach, which is permissible under the proposal, as an excellent tool for promoting diversity in compliance with Proposal 2. In addition to advertisements in traditional media outlets, the commission's report suggests that state agencies could be encouraged to promote diversity by using outlets that specifically target women or people of color.
This will not be a violation of Proposal 2 as long as the outreach is not exclusive to communities of color or women. In fact, increased outreach can only result in increased competition and a greater range of potential options stemming from a larger pool of contractors or potential employees.
They still wear the blinders that preferences based on race were anti-thetical to the language of the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act since the version of affirmative action "outreach" practiced in Michigan colleges prior to the passage of Prop 2 gave advantages to those with dark skin.
The Left values a transmogrified concept of "diversity" as a tool to wielding power over any allegiance to the American values of Liberty, Justice and Equality before the law for their own sakes.
That is sad.
The good news is that even in a state some (not Gamecock) republicans write off to the Democrats two years out from the 2008 election despite the Connerly victory and the failed state liberal economic policies, the Left LOST!
This should be instructive for those that want to change our minority status back to the majority.
See also at The Minority Report and Race 4 2008 below
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008