Black Power Politics

A polemic and critique of Black American politics and movement toward sophisticated applications,

Location: New York, New York, United States

A veteran organizer in the “movement,” Gary James was a staff organizer in the borough of Queens for the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), from 1966 to 1971 under the leadership of the late Dr. George Wiley organization’s President. Gary James is a political analyst and free lance writer. He is the author of a book entitled ERACISM that will be released in the spring of 2007. The provocative "political faction" book highlights grassroots politics in New York from the late 1960s to the present. For a limited time the book can be accessed at his web site:

Saturday, March 03, 2007


Apparently one of the provocative commentaries on the Black-Power-Politics BLOG has inspired an interesting but, A-typical interaction between Dr. Lenora Fulani and Gary James, a political analyst and author of the controversial commentary: “Black Mules & RINO’s Cut-Off New Generation Leaders.”

The piece in question is a critic of black politics in general and asserts apparent political limitations of political business as usual in the black community specifically. A controversy was inspired when a comment to the post was made by Attorney A. Frazier, on behalf of Dr. Lenora Fulani and Dr. Jesse Fields.

According to Frazier “Your comments regarding Dr. Fields and Dr. Fulani fail to mention their thirty year plus record of building/leading the independent movement in electoral politics. Especially, the historic presidential run of Dr. Fulani in 1988 when she was the first woman and Black ever to be on the ballot in all fifty states. They represent in part the 47% of Black voters that left the Democratic Party to vote for Mike Bloomberg as Independents in 2005. Dr. Jesse Fields had run on the Independents line many times. More Democracy, less sexism.”

In reaction to Frazier’s allegation of “sexism” James said, “I have made the observation in a private conversation that Dr. Fulani was an attractive sister in my opinion. If that comment is a demonstration of my “sexism,” I plead guilty.”

Responding to Frazier’s comment James wrote:
“A. Frazier, Esq.
Thank you for the comment on my post: ‘Black Mules & RINO’s Cut-Off New Generation Leaders.’ While the piece is a critic of black politics and does not highlight the impressive political accomplishments of leaders such as Dr. Fulani individually and in the context of advancing “minority” politics, I thoroughly recognize her ongoing contribution. And kudos to the important work of Dr. Fields as well.

I regret if Dr. Fulani took my critic personally. Interestingly enough a political associate advised me that there may be some residual fallout from 2002 when Dr. Fulani’s candidate Dr. Jesse Fields prevailed over my candidate Conrad (Muhammad) Tillard for the Republican Party nomination in the 15th CD against the Honorable Charles Rangel. Also, I was informed that Dr. Fulani was made aware of my interest in her romantically as opposed her politics. Since then I have not been invited to her political events or to break bread with her and colleagues. Nevertheless, I stand by critical post and my “sexist” comment.”

Alton Chase is a long-time political activist and analyst. Chase is the Political Director of Harlem PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) a recently formulated think tank and can be accessed at

Saturday, February 24, 2007


In the wake of Senator Barack Obama’s eloquent and rousing keynote speech during the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, the freshman U.S. Senator has enjoyed an astounding popularity crescendo. Now that the political rock star has formally entered the sweepstakes for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination he is being touted by both black and white partisans as a possible savior of American electoral politics.

More sober political analysts argue that the charismatic Senator needs the benefit of time and experience prior to becoming a viable Democratic Party Presidential nominee, notwithstanding his impressive potential. But some in the “savior” camp hold that the 2008 party primary election is an ideal time for Senator Obama to get his political feet wet for presidential positioning in the foreseeable future.

Other analysts are more cynical relative to the advent of the Obama presidential nomination celebrity and reference his candidacy for president as a political juggernaut on one hand and in the context of a rabbit in the race on the other. In either scenario, the traditional African American civil rights leadership may have a diminished role in the party political platform and respective presidential campaigns.

According to political analyst Gary James, “Obama pandemonium may be a political ruse designed among other things to have a chilling effect on potential presidential aspirants in the African American civil rights leadership to entire the party’s nomination process. Specifically, the freshman Black U.S. Senator may have been encouraged by the national party leadership to run in the hope to mitigate the emergence of possible ‘African American spoiler candidate’ to their party unity strategy for winning the presidency in 2008.”

James said, “In the context of a political juggernaut the Obama presidential candidacy neutralizes the traditional demands of the civil rights leadership and agenda, while simultaneously maintaining the requisite level of ‘diversity’ and ‘political correctness.’ Obama is being lauded as the “second coming” and enjoys the lion’s share of media coverage and commentary. But the Hispanic community is being targeted and sought after as the decisive critical vote in 2008.” James said.

“Since the publication of the census data that suggests the Hispanic community has eclipsed the Black American community as the country’s largest ‘minority’ community there is a perceptible shift in political rhetoric and targeting that seems to formulate a political juxtaposition between the growing Hispanic vote and Black vote.

In the context of a political juggernaut the Obama campaign conveniently establishes a new political paradigm that moves beyond the African American civil rights leadership and agenda. In addition,” according to James, “the Obama campaign may also function as an electoral rabbit to set the political pace only to fail to win the party primary, which is viewed by many as a for gone conclusion.”

Longtime community and political activist Alton chase said, “Notwithstanding the Senator as a possible political juggernaut, I would not be surprised if Rev. Al Sharpton announces his presidential aspirations for 2008. The lack of a civil rights agenda and absence of a prominent traditional civil rights African American vying for the party’s nod may be enough incentive for a Sharpton bid.”

Chase continued, “The Senator may have acquiesced to the political objective of the party establishment to obviate the controversial and unwieldy Black civil rights leadership contingent, in the interest of party unity. Hence, the attractive Senator enjoys the adulation of the media and masses of primarily political partisans.”

While the Obama presidential nomination campaign relishes in its fifteen minutes of fame, the unequivocal front runner Senator Hilary Clinton may at the end of the day be in a photo finish for the party’s mantel with Senator John Edwards, the Vice Presidential candidate in 2004.

Senator Clinton may loss her leading edge as the questions of elect ability in the general election will become a factor and diminish her support in the presidential primary election. Apart from the formidable patriarchal political hurdle the Senator must navigate in the primary, the ‘southern strategy’ imperative which is the cornerstone of a successful general election strategy may doom the prospect for the first woman President of the United States in 2008.

Consequently, Senator John Edwards, who is currently trailing both Clinton and Obama respectively, may at the end of the day be the ultimate victor for the nomination as the requisite southern strategy for the general election seems already in place. Moreover, the national party has targeted the Hispanic vote while Senators Obama and Clinton will deliver their respective African American supporters.


Despite Rudy Giuliani being soft on gay marriage, longtime political grassroots activist Gary James supports the former Mayor’s bid for the Republican Party’s Presidential nomination in 2008. James declares that he will lobby Rudy on the issue of gay marriage with the hope that he will edify his position, should his candidacy for president generates political legs.

James said, “I could appreciate the need for Giuliani to be ‘politically correct’ as the Mayor of New York City, but as a GOP Presidential nominee his position on the issue will need to be ‘strategically correct,’ if his campaign is to gain national credibility.”

He continued, “Marriage is an ancient institution designed for ‘straight’ man and women. It is the gay community (LGBT-lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and trans-genders), that codified the juxtaposition between the ‘straight’ vs. ‘gay’ lifestyles. Given this popular ‘politically correct’ juxtaposition, it makes no logical sense that the distinctive LGBT community would advocate joining a traditionally ‘straight’ institution.”

“It seems reasonable to me that the appropriate political position of the gay community would be to seek to establish a comparable nuptial institution unique to the issues associated with the gay community. Just as there is a dichotomy between ‘straight’ and ‘gay’ their respective institutions of marriage should be appropriately represented, James concluded.”

Apart from the controversy associated with Giuliani’s position on gay rights, his candidacy may be just what the doctor order for the defunct local GOP infrastructure in New York State, and an apathetic local Democratic Party. A legitimate heir to the legacy of President Ronald Reagan, Giuliani’ bid for the presidency will likely be more successful the former New York Mayor Al Smith.

During the 1984 re-election of Reagan-Bush, the Republican Party ticket carried New York State, due in large measure to the effort of so-called “Reagan Democrats,” and grassroots GOP activists. Prior to President Reagan landslide re-election victory, the Republican Party had not carried New York since Calvin Coolidge 60 year’s earlier.

Similar to Reagan Democrats, Mayor Giuliani enjoys the support of many “Giuliani Democrats,” but it remains to be seen if his campaign will address and overcome the lack of a credible local GOP leadership and a bewildered electorate. Perhaps Giuliani may follow the example of President Reagan and reach-out beyond the GOP county organizations and engage the grassroots Republican Party elements.

Keisha Morrisey, a former GOP candidate in 2002 and 2003 for the New York State Assembly in the 70 AD, and New York City Council in the 9th CD respectively, said. “I am in the process of evaluation the feasibility of seeking the GOP nomination for the state legislature in 2008, and I am hopeful that Mayor Rudy Giuliani will seek the party’s presidential nomination, and stimulate party reform at the local level.”

Ms. Morrisey, who is a single mother of a teenage son concluded saying, “But when my son gets married I want him to marry a woman. But, I support civil unions for gays tailored to protect their domestic relationships.”

Gary James said, “Based on anecdotal data there are currently less than ten percent of the population who affirm and practice the gay lifestyle. If ten percent or less of the American population is gay, then it is an aberrant lifestyle and while its practitioners should be treated with the respect accorded to other members of the human family, it is clear that they are among the communities of special needs and require civil rights protection.”

James concluded, “While Mayor Giuliani’s position on gay rights may be ‘politically correct,’ it is not ‘strategically correct’ and will need to be edited in order to pull off an upset GOP primary election victory.”

Black Mules & Rino's Cut Off New Generation Leadership At Grassroots

Arguably one of the most significant hybrids in human history is the one between horses and donkeys, vis-à-vis, the mule. Breeding a male donkey with a female horse results in and mule; breeding a female horse with a male donkey produces a hinny (mule). Offspring from either cross, although fully developed as males or females are virtually sterile. Therefore a line of horses and a line of domestic asses must be maintained in order to perpetuate mule production.

The mule has greater endurance, is stronger and less excitable than a horse. Depending on the need, different horses are used to produce fine riding mules, heavy draft animals or medium-sized pack mules, as the case may be. In Medieval Europe, when horses were bred large to carry armored knights, mules were the preferred riding animal of gentlemen and clergy.

In 1495, Christopher Columbus brought four jacks and two horses to the “new world.” They would produce mules for the conquistadors’ and facilitated expeditions onto the American mainland. Ten years after the conquest of the Aztecs, the first shipment of twelve horses and three jacks arrived from Cuba to begin breeding mules in Mexico.

Female mules were preferred as riding animals, while the males were used more as pack animals along trails that tied the Spanish Empire together. Mules were used in the silver mines. Along the frontier each Spanish outpost had to breed its own supply of mules, and each hacienda or mission maintained at least one stud jack.

On the Iberian Peninsular, Catalonia and Andalusia each developed a large breed of ass, putting Spain in the forefront of the mule-breeding industry. Exportation of Spanish jacks was prohibited until 1813. However, the King of Spain presented George Washington with a large black jack in 1785. This animal, called the “Royal Gift” is considered the father of the mule industry in the United States.

Mules were once used to pull fire-fighting equipment and were often employed by armies to pull artillery and to remove the wounded from the battlefield. The twenty-mule team that hauled borax from Death Valley has become part of American legend. Indeed, some western towns were originally laid out with extremely wide streets in order to allow the mule teams to turn around.

Popular mule-breeding centers in the United States developed in Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri to provide work animals for the cotton fields of the “Old South.” After the American Civil War and the development of tenant farming throughout the South, the mule continued as the major draft animal in American agriculture.

“Forty acres and a mule” was all one needed for self-sufficiency. The importance of the mule declined rapidly in the 1940s and 1950s, however, as gasoline-driven tractors became widespread, and mules all but disappeared from the American agricultural scene.

A curious political correlation between the creation and application of the utilitarian hybrid (mule) and the “orthodox” black civil rights leadership occurred to this writer.
Both the “Royal Gift” (Black jack gift to President George Washington said to be responsible for the American mule industry) and black “orthodox” civil rights leadership have interesting parallels relative to the advancement and achievements of American culture, not to mention their hybrid nature.

The mule and 19th century Black America enjoyed a most unique symbiosis and synergistic relationship. Just as the 20th century witnessed the decline of the mule due to the advent of the internal combustion engine applied to the agricultural industry, the black civil rights orthodoxy has apparently outlived its practical application in relation to the political, economic and social needs of 21st century black America.

Beneath the surface however, there is an even more intriguing correlation between mulse and the inherited leadership that constitutes the black civil rights orthodoxy. Interestingly enough the “orthodox” black civil rights leadership is also apparently sterol and unable to produce political progeny, hence they may have gone the way of the Dinosaurs. Consequently, the black political leadership may be phantom donkeys but are in fact political mules, with a similar pedigree.

As a practical political matter Rev. Al Sharpton former candidate for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination in 2004, having been mentored by the “movement,” may represent the last generation of “orthodox” black civil rights leadership. And there is no coherent civil rights agenda being advanced by the respective echelons of the traditional leadership to move the black American community at large from point A to point B.

Some in the black community argue that civil rights techniques, political tactics and rhetoric are not sufficient to enforce or sustain the legislative and statutory advancements achieved, during that era. Equally insufficient is their capacity to cover new political ground in the context of the emerging black American demographic. The political leadership bears considerable responsibility for the fact that African Americans are the weakest politically among virtually all political minorities despite the comparatively disproportional high number of black elected officials and longevity in America.

The voter turnout in the recent Connecticut Democratic primary that pitting incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman against political neophyte Ned Lamont, is an example of illusionary politics. Party officials are absolutely ecstatic about the “overwhelming” and unprecedented voter turnout and attribute the hotly contested primary to the anti Iraq war sentiment within the Democratic Party. The fact that voter plurality in Connecticut was only 42 percent speaks volumes relative to the legitimacy of the state party leadership and the apathy among the states constituents.

Anti-war candidate Ned Lamont enjoyed support from the entire complement of black “orthodox” civil rights leaders and elected officials who were prominently displayed and deployed in his campaign offensive. There was not one traditional black political leader to support or endorse Joe Lieberman. The lone black politician to support Lieberman was the newly elected new generation leader, the honorable Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Corey was of course derided by the civil rights orthodoxy for not walking in lock step… Nevertheless, the two U.S. Senatorial candidates virtually split the Black vote.

If you follow the logic of “political correctness” relative to the delivery of the black vote in Connecticut, new generation political leader Mayor Cory Booker ran a dead heat with the combined efforts of Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Congresswoman Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus. Despite diminishing electoral returns, pervasive voter apathy and overwhelming numbers of unregistered voters the black political establishment has yet to solidify its tenuous partisan advantage with aggressive voter education and registration efforts.

On the contrary, the national black political establishment defends its monolithic provincial approach to political ascendancy against all opposing points of view. The ferocity of the pack dog mentality political attacks against competing points of view to some extent takes the form of political fratricide. The recent attacks against professor, comedian, philanthropist and neo-political activist Bill Cosby, is but the latest example of the prevailing political pack dog mentality.

Perhaps the late author Harold Cruse described the Black American dilemma best in his profound expose published in the late 1960s entitled “The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual.” You need only replace the word Negro with Black or African American and the same crisis scenario remains here in the first decade of the 21st century. Too many Black Professors and intellectuals in prominent positions simply profess… but know not. We need only take a cursory look at the recent literary works of professors Michael Erick Dyson and Ron Walters for confirmation.

Professor Ron Walters, who came to public prominence as a political operative in the 1984 and 1988 presidential campaign of Rev. Jesse Jackson, is now one of the gurus of “progressive” black politics and member of the civil rights leadership establishment. In his most recent book “Freedom Is Not Enough” Walters continues to promote the vagaries of social justice, racial entitlement, victimization and partisan White paternalism.

Alton Chase a longtime community and political activist based in the Bronx and Harlem said, “Freedom is enough if we take full responsibility for ourselves, children and community.” Chase said, “Black folk need to be more sophisticated about how to maximize the power derived from the electoral process. Instead, we continue to buy into the political salvation rhetoric preached by the one legged politician or political leader.”

Chase continued, “But freedom is not enough if you are still pursuing “forty-acres and a mule” and engaged in modern day victimization and reparations politics.” When the famous Bill Cosby defied the protocol of “political correctness” by publicly admonishing black parents for the anti-social behavior etc., of their children and decried the disproportionate number of out of wedlock births among black youth, he was roundly criticized by the gatekeepers of plantation politics.

The black civil rights orthodoxy lead the invidious political assault against Cosby followed by character assassination pop-shots by media opportunists with apparent personal motives. The flamboyant and popular black popular-culturist and rhetorician Professor and Rev. Michael Eric Dyson has monopolized the anti Bill Cosby political fallout by authoring a book entitled, “Is Bill Cosby Right?: Or Has The Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?”

According to Rev. Dyson, “For most of his career Bill Cosby has avoided race with religious zeal.” Well known TV Journalist Juan Williams who is currently working for National Public Radio (NPR) in a direct response to Rev. Dyson’s book he (Williams) has authored a book entitled “Enough” that offers an eloquent and insightful polemic that questions the premise of Dyson’s political assault on Cosby. Williams’ book has sparked a long over due broad based political, economic and social discourse in the black community.

The breath of the abounding discourse seems to focus on the transitional needs of black American politics to address the short and long-range crisis may be cathartic. Traditional civil rights leaders are currently hard pressed to justify staying the course of civil rights as a viable strategy to move black folk at large from point A to point B in the 21st century. Some call for a third civil rights movement in black America, while others say a third civil rights movement is a bad idea and wholly insufficient.

The political inertia of the black political establishment with the cooperation of their partisan paternal masters are making every effort to silence independent black political thinkers. The attack on Cosby, whose contribution to the advancement of black folk speaks for itself, is an example of how blacks that think outside of the political box are maligned and politically “black” listed.

But the attack on Cosby is an act of political desperation and in fact a rear guard action to forestall what is politically inevitable, vis-à-vis, a changing of the political leadership equation. The increasing shortcomings of the traditional black civil rights leadership continues to generate voter apathy that has resulted in a pervasive political denial and paranoia.

Prior to the Bill Cosby political controversy among black folk, public TV talk show host and rising political star Tavis Smiley was being accused by some in the civil rights leadership of attempting to pull off a political coup when he published “The Covenant With Black America,” following his latest nationally televised annual forum on the state of Black America.

In the introduction to the book Smiley writes, “Why a Covenant with Black America? In short, because … without organization, black folk will never be able to take, keep, or hold onto anything, much less the hard-fought gains that we have struggled to achieve. Our interest with this document was to create a national plan of action to address the primary concerns of African Americans today. Once we are organized and mobilized, we can create the world we want for generations to come. The Covenant is required reading for any person, party, or powerbroker who seeks to be supported politically, socially or economically by the masses of black people in the coming years.”

On the local level in New York City the political fratricide continues, constricting if not imploding the black Democratic Party leadership leviathan. In Brooklyn’s 10th CD incumbent Congressman Ed Towns is in a three-way race with two former political allies City Councilman Charles Barron and Assemblyman Roger Green. Tragically, of the 400, 000 registered voters in the district only 10 percent of the voters turn out in the general election. Hence, the three candidates are contesting over who will get the lions share of 10,000 votes while the 390,000 voters are out of the electoral pool.

The political fratricide is so destructive in Brooklyn’s 11th CD, a so-called black congressional seat as the result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The three black candidates (Mr. Chris Owens, Ms. Yvette Clarke and Mr. Carl Andrews) will likely split the black vote enabling the White candidate David Yasski to win the so-called “minority” seat.

In Harlem, the political turf of the “old” guard, the term limited City Councilman Bill Perkins is facing a primary battle with a Latino Ruben Varges for the open State Senate seat vacated by Senator David Paterson as he runs for Lieutenant Governor on the State House coronation ticket of Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. There is great political speculation that should Mr. Varges prevail in his primary race there will a domino effect that could lead to a Latino successor to the Harlem Congressional seat of the honorable Charles Rangel.

Apparently the perceived political donkeys are in fact variations of the hybrid mule unable to produce offspring to carry the political agenda beyond the civil rights and racial paradigm of victimization and entitlement. But the black political crisis is compounded because the RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) have not practiced and abided by the rich legacy that brought them into being, in 1854.

The anti-social RINO’s have distinguished themselves by devouring new and young political sprouts at the grassroots. And in conjunction with the political imperative of the White RINO’s the Black RINO’s are clandestinely allocated turf strong holds to help manage the “reservation” and the status quo political scenario. By political design the black Republicans cannot be competitive in Brooklyn’s 10th and 11th CD’s and the GOP party leadership (white) will certainly negotiate short and long term power relationships issues beneath the surface, as usual.

Likewise, the Grand Old Party in Harlem has no opportunity to be competitive in the short and long term. However, some note a major improvement in that for the first time in at least 30 plus years the New York Republican County Committee designated a registered Republican for the coveted Harlem Congressional seat the 15th CD. Mr. Edward Daniels a political neophyte and local uptown party operative has set the unprecedented standard of being the first registered Republican to head the county ballot.

In 2004 the Republican Party candidate in Harlem’s 15th CD was Mr. Kenneth Jefferson a registered Democrat and political neophyte. Mr. Jefferson’s candidacy was supported by the uptown district leaders in order to stop Ms. Keisha Morrisey a ”hip hop” generation grassroots insurgent who was the GOP nominee for New York State Assembly in the 70th AD and New York City Council in the 9th CD in 2002 and 2003 respectively. The resulting controversy between Ms. Morrisey and the uptown Harlem GOP leadership was the basis a lawsuit initiated by Ms. Morrisey.

In 2002 the party gave the congressional designation in Harlem’s 15th CD to Dr. Jesse Fields an official of the Independence Party, reportedly controlled by Dr. Lenora Fulani. Many longtime local Republicans were irate because of the obvious snub and apparent compromise of GOP values in the political deal with the Independence Party. But the controversy began because Mr. Conrad Muhammad the former minister of the Nation of Islam’s Mosque # 7 and his GOP supporters were lobbying for his (Conrad Muhammad) designation as the party’s congressional standard bearer.

The popular and charismatic Conrad Muhammad had begun evaluating both political parties as well as the prospect of running for public office a couple of years earlier. The advent of Conrad Muhammad as a GOP Congressional candidate generated shockwaves within the leadership of both local political parties. The word on the street began to generate great curiosity, if not a ground swell, and much local and state political interest in the Grand Old Party was percolating.

Governor Pataki’s re-election campaign quickly embraced Conrad’s candidacy and reached out to the grassroots political activists associated with his (Conrad) campaign for cross endorsements. The high profile public re-election endorsement of Black community leaders included Conrad Muhammad and chairman of the GOP Grassroots Political Taskforce among about twenty other prominent celebrities of varying genre and community and political activists from around the city.

Conspicuously missing from the statewide assembly of black leadership were the uptown black GOP district leaders and county operatives, who peppered the hundreds that constituted the audience.

On the contrary, the leadership of the New York Republican County registered in the strongest terms possible that they had a problem with the notion of Conrad Muhammad as the party’s congressional designee following a cursory interview. Consequently, the uptown GOP leadership who formally introduced Conrad to the county leadership as a prospective designee jumped ship and lined up behind the county chairman at the time former State Assemblyman John Ravitz. Somehow, Ravitz came to the conclusion that Independence Party official Dr. Jesse Fields was the best designee for the party.

Not only had Conrad upset the County Republican Party leadership, but the energy associated with his (Conrad) proposed campaign smoked Congressman Rangel’s people out, who made direct inquiries to the campaign organization. And the writer was advised that the esteemed congressman has considerable leverage with GOP county officials and may have had some influence on the decision of county chairman Assemblyman John Ravitz.

Excitement was resonating in the media as well as the community concerning Conrad’s planned entry into the congressional race. The New York Press published a comprehensive interview July 17 – 23, Volume 15, Number 29 with Conrad Muhammad, that also included Congressman Rangel and GOP County chairman John Ravitz. The extensive piece was headlined: A Great Race In Harlem – Will “Hiphop Minister” Conrad Muhammad Go From N.O.I. to G.O.P? By Adam Heimlich

Ravitz was hard pressed by Heimlich to justify resorting to an officer of the Independence Party in general and Dr. Jesse Fields in particular while ignoring local registered Republicans to head up the county ballot. Dr. Fields, and her associate Dr. Fulani have been mired in controversy in the context of alleged anti-Semitic statements and the lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual agenda which is in direct contradiction with the values and standards of the Republican Party. Ravitz without question compromised the GOP by insisting that the county endorsed Fields for the designation.

Ravitz was totally against a GOP primary to let the voters make the decision, between the candidates and sited Conrad’s alleged anti-Semitic statement when he was the minister of Mosque number 7. Ravitz maintained that a primary was not a healthy process for the local party.

According to Heimlich’s piece, “Ravitz said there are reasons why the G.O.P. is wary of Muhammad, and none of them are secret. Directing me (Heimlich) to the Anti-Defamation League’s website for specifics, he says, “Conrad knows about the problems with some of the things that he’s said in the past… I believe he’s going to have to address and deal with them. I think that all of us who are in public life have to be held accountable for our words, and there are a lot of things that Conrad still needs to work with – people who are still feeling very hurt about some of those comments.” Ravitz said.

Some astute political analyst suggest that Ravitz made a serious miscalculation with the Fields and Muhammad scenario and may be held accountable for compromising the values and growth of the party should he seek public office in the future in New York City.

Meanwhile, embattled new generation grassroots GOP activist Ms. Keisha Morrisey said, “I will continue undaunted with my efforts to help grew the party at the grassroots level… And I remain encouraged by our forward movement.”


The 2006 mid-term elections are being touted by many political analysts as a referendum of the “Presidential” war on Iraq. Respective polls are unanimous in their calculations relative to the anti-war sentiment growing among the American public and the dismal approval ratings of President Bush. Without question, the president is now a lame duck and his agenda will suffer the consequences as Senate and House Republicans keep the president at arms length as they fight to retain their seats and the GOP majority.

Democrats smell blood but are tempered from gloating, the prospect of their ascendancy to Senate and Congressional majorities following the November election. Although there is great optimism among the party leadership and the rank and file concerning the final out comes of the mid-term elections, discretion as the greater part of valor appears to be the approach to their possible elevation to congressional majority status.

While the Democratic Party has the momentum going into the mid-term elections, there is a note worthy dichotomy among the party leadership as well as in the fragile coalition that constitutes Democratic constituency. The result of the Connecticut Democratic Senatorial primary election in which incumbent Senator Joseph Lieberman was narrowly defeated by political neophyte and anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont is snapshot of the fissure separating critical elements of the party, vis-à-vis, the war in Iraq.

The Connecticut general election promises to be a titanic battle as the defeated incumbent Senator Lieberman will be on the ballot as the Independent Party candidate. The controversy associated with this Senatorial race may invigorate the electorate to an unprecedented high voter turnout according to some party leaders. However, notwithstanding the rate of election turn out, the polarization between the vociferous “anti-war” elements of the party and centrist Democrats will likely cut both ways in the November election and in 2008.

Should Lieberman prevail and retain his seat the party centrists with the help of their friends would have defeated the anti-war elements in the Democratic Party which is comprised of a general amalgamation of “leftists,” “radicals,” “progressives,” the “black” vote and some liberals in the Democratic Party. On the other hand if anti-war candidate Ned Lamont wins the general election the respective left of center Democrats would have wrested control of the state party. In both instances there is a potential negative political fall out for the Democratic Party in November as well as during the 2008 Presidential election.

As the anti-war contingent and liberal-centrist square off in the Connecticut race, the bi-polar political rhetoric within the Democratic Party may spill over and infect other elections. Extremist rhetoric from the left will likely polarize competing party contingents and negatively impact their hopes to gain control of the House and Senate this year. But the Democratic Party coalition is showing internal tensions beyond the Lamont vs. Lieberman political juxtaposition.

Perhaps the most graphic example of the ideological split among Democrats generated by the Lamont vs. Lieberman juxtaposition can be gleaned by the results of the “black vote.” A virtual split of the black vote between both candidates speaks volumes relative to the internal dynamic of the party. The only black American political leader to line up behind Lieberman was the newly elected Mayor of Newark, New Jersey Corey Booker. On the other hand the entire black civil rights leadership including Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, and elected officials were very visible in their support for the anti-war candidate, while chiding Booker for stepping out of line.

Apparently, Mayor Corey Booker’s endorsement is competitive in Connecticut with the entire black leadership contingent, and/or the black American electorate has demonstrated an unprecedented level of political independence from the conventional civil rights and elected black leadership. In any case, the chilling of the black electorate towards the traditional black Democratic leadership coupled with the radical political antics of the party’s anti-war radicals, and leftist ideologues threatens to truncate the party’s positioning and political momentum in the November elections and prospects for 2008.

Needless to say, the November general elections will forecast the political climate for the next two years and beyond. The multiple blunders of President George Bush and his administration and the lack of congressional oversight by the Republican House and Senate majority has put the future of the GOP Congressional leadership at risk. But, poor leadership on the part of both the Democrat and Republican Parties (black & white) have alienated the electorate and has fostered apathy and isolation of would be voters.

Hence, the outcome of the mid-term elections is any body’s guess, as both parties and the Bush administration increase the level of political hyperbole. But there are a few certainties, such as the fact that the black vote is not as predictable as it once was, and the anti-war “movement” embraced by the “left,” “radical” and “progressive” elements of the Democratic coalition are destined to exacerbate an already fragmented party leadership and rank and file. Whatever political party prevails in November 2006, the results will likely mark a watershed relative to the future of the proverbial “black vote.”

Recent voting patterns among black Americans indicate an increasing disposition to vote independent of the Democratic Party machine particularly in urban municipal elections. This increasing independent voting trend was crystallized in the 2005 re-election campaign of New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg who got 30 plus percent of the black vote running as a Republican and Independence Parties ballot. Mayor Bloomberg achieved this plurality milestone, despite his lack of support from prominent black civil rights and elected leaders who endorsed his Democratic opposition.

All indications suggest a growing level of voter sophistication among black Americans, and an aversion to club house politics by both Democrat and Republican Parties. Should this increasing trend toward unpredictable voting by black folk continue in the mid-term elections, there may very well be a paradigm shift of the black vote in the 2008 Presidential election. As a practical political matter the black leadership in both major parties may have played themselves out of position as possible stewards of the paradigm shift and will likely be eclipsed politically, by new generation leadership.

The black Democratic civil rights and elected leadership have no effective lines of communication to the disillusioned, apathetic and disaffected constituent or the tons of unregistered voters. This fragmentation of the leadership coupled with the need for a coherent and lucid agenda for the future beyond civil rights has apparently confounded the leadership. Moreover, the “liberal,” “progressive,” white Democratic paternalism that co-opted if not help to politically organize black Americans for the goal of “social justice” were unable to produce measurable results beyond bequeathing to black Americans at large their inherited political leadership.

Regrettably, the black Republican Party leadership on the national as well as the local level has also failed miserably in terms of making black Americans and the party relevant to the local and national black political power process. Apart from the symbiosis between black Americans and the Republican Party at its very founding in 1854, the elective and civil rights achievements of black Americans during the 19th century remains unprecedented in comparison to the achievements of the modern civil rights movement.

Interestingly enough, the modern Republican Party and Black America had an auspicious beginning in 1972 when the National Black Republican Council (NBRC) was established by an amendment to the party rules of the Republican National Committee. NBRC was founded by people like Gerald Ford, Robert Dole, Henry Lucas, Art Fletcher and Ed. Bivens, for the purpose of providing a mechanism for black participation in the Republican National Party (RNC). Following its timely beginnings, NBRC in the early 1980’s became mired in financial controversy and scandal and lost its official credentials with RNC and its offices at party headquarters was closed in the 1990’s. Nevertheless, the titular head of the phantom NBRC from its days of infamy to the present is a former GOP district leader in the Bronx, Mr. Fred Brown.

Alton D. Chase former NBRC Vice President and Bronx district leader and longtime political activist said, “The new generation grassroots leadership can see beyond the political smoke and mirrors of the bygone leadership generation and seem to understand their responsibility associated with building leverage, black power politics.”

Ms. Keisha C. Morrisey entertainment and boxing industry entrepreneur and former GOP nominee for the New York State Assembly and the New York City Council from Harlem said, “I have started a political club with some associates directed to the “hip-hop” generation focused on teaching electoral politics and how to run for elective office. Based on my personal experience I have chosen not to link our Republican Party activism and organizing with NBRC.”

Fortunately, the increasing level of voter sophistication among the black community at large and the emerging grassroots leadership has a more practical and utilitarian understanding of politics as a tool, as opposed to a group of like minded political friends. Is there a political paradigm shift underway in the black American community? Stay tuned.



Keisha Morrisey, former candidate for public office, and entertainment entrepreneur is calling for the popular election of the Police Commissioner, thereby making New York’s top cop accountable to all the citizens, as a means to end police brutality as we know it.

Morrisey said, “Although Mayor Bloomberg is people friendly as compared to his predecessor, the Mayor cannot change the culture of the police department in relation to how they interact with the Black community. The New York City Police Department (NYPD), culture has a history of clashing with the culture of the Black community.”

Ms. Morrisey continued, “I am reaching out for support in order research the feasibility of providing for the popular election of the Police Commissioner. We must begin to change the prevailing policing and accountability culture. If it requires a change in the New York City Charter, and / or pursuing the advent of Ballot Initiatives in New York electoral politics, options beyond protest tactics are in order.”

Keisha Morrisey was referencing the pre-dawn shooting of 22 year-old Sean Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield in Queens on November 25, 2006, by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) as unfortunately another case of police brutality. An impulse for over kill is pervasive in the culture. The 50 odd barrage of bullets discharged by five under cover police officers killed unarmed Sean Bell, and critically wounded his two associates, has again challenged the behavior of New York’s finest in the Black community.

“This latest clash of NYPD culture with Black community culture is punctuated by the usual array of protests, rallies and talk of economic boycotts as a means of holding the relevant political officials accountable. Ultimately, these activities dissipate as emotions get exercised over time and people must resume the demands of daily life. Also, many people get frustrated, confused and misguided by competing political agenda’s that are open ended and vague,” Ms. Morrisey said.

The general confusion associated with traditional efforts to address historical police brutality is often exacerbated by poor dissemination of accurate and updated information from the media. And in some cases the media are compelled to follow up on information that they have disseminated, but fail to do so.

Ms. Morrisey added, “I am also very concerned when senior citizen constituents come to me complaining that they responded to out dated information concerning a public demonstration to be held at City Hall at noon on Tuesday November 28, 2006. My constituents showed up for the rally along with others only to be told by NYPD at the scene that there was no group demonstrating there today. The officers reference the previous day, November 27, when the Mayor held a public hearing.”

“My constituent said that he got the information from the Sunday talk show on Kiss FM, between 10 and 12 noon,” she concluded. Ms. Morrisey is exploring the development of a movement for the popular election of the Police Commissioner. She has established a web site that will be formally launched after the holidays.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

African American Vote Hijacked By Jack-Asses & Rogue Elephants

Among the mosaic that constitutes "minority" politics in the United States, the African American vote is increasingly less influential despite it’s historical numerical advantage. Recent polling and census data indicate that the Latino American community has eclipsed the longstanding African American numerical edge as the result of recent immigration patterns from the Dominican Republic, South and Central America and Mexico, in the past generation.
Some in the African American community dispute the data and argue that a good number of Latino Americans are in fact Black Americans until they speak their indigenous language. Some suggest that there is political motive behind the Black-Latino juxtaposition and is a convenient if not classic divide and conquer scenario. And to compare a person’s phenotype with language as a distinguishing characteristic is an odious political machination. However, such arguments are superfluous and it avoids the political reality on the ground that Latino Americans have totally eclipsed African Americans in terms of raw political power whether or not they currently enjoy a numerical advantage.

Moreover, all other "minority" communities such as Asians, gays, Jews and women for example have more political leverage than African Americans despite their comparatively small numbers. Paradoxically, African American elected officials out number all other "minority" communities combined, but the proliferation of African American elected officials has not translated into political power for Black Americans comparatively.

The political odyssey of African Americans in the "new world" is perplexing when viewed through the lens of advancements made by African Americans following emancipation in the 19th century and the modern civil rights movement of the 20th century, juxtaposed to the current state of black political power here in the first decade of the 21st century. The state of African America political power is without question a complex and perplexing situation and merits strategic observation, critical study and a practical sustainable resolution.

Interestingly enough, the celebrated social, political and economic victories and advancement of African Americans during the modern civil rights movement of the 20th century are dwarfed by the achievements of Blacks in the 19th century following emancipation from slavery and the imposition of marshal law characterized as the period of "Reconstruction." Comparatively speaking the African American leadership of the 19th century were apparently light years ahead of their contemporary counterparts of the 20th century in terms of imagination, character, principles and elective achievements.

Concomitantly, the Democrat and Republican political Parties have effectively morphed to their current political rhetoric and applications from their respective polar opposite and both have virtually exchanged their politics as they relate the African American community. The modern civil rights movement of the 1950s, 60s and 70s was a cornerstone of the Democratic Party’s prominence during that dynamic period. Likewise it was the Republican Party of the 19th century that crusaded civil rights of the time in the framework on the abolitionist movement that facilitated an unprecedented number of African American elected officials and accumulation of wealth.

History is witness to Republican and Democrat Parties political ambivalence when it comes to the bottom line interests of the African American community and the enforcement of laws and statutes that safeguard their civil rights. Unfortunately, the level and quality of the current African American political and elected leadership continue to exacerbate the political crisis in the African American community and position the community at large as political pawns in the context of the generic "black vote" and power sharing process.
African American donkey’s (Democrats) and elephants (Republicans) of the 20th century have demonstrated political similitude and essentially function as gatekeepers for the ruling White political elites and have advanced no coherent agenda since the civil rights era, for moving Black Americans beyond subservient partisan politics. On the national as well as the local level both Democrat and Republican African American leadership have demonstrated no imagination or initiative for political and economic improvement beyond continuing the civil rights agenda items and self indulgence.

On the national political scene, the esteemed Congressional Black Democratic Caucus in the decades following its auspicious founding and the cumulative legislation enacted by all of its members cannot compete with the singular legislative achievements of the late Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. On the contrary the Congressional Black Democratic Caucus is renown more than anything for its weekend parties and social gatherings as apposed to power politics. In fact the caucus is informally referred to by many as the black Congressional ruckus.

For their part, "black conservatives" (Republicans) are apparently politically delusional in their attempt to intellectually justify and market the politics of "White Republican social conservatism" as a practical partisan political alternative to liberal Democratic paternalism. Unfortunately both national black Democratic and Republican Party leaders apparently lack the political imagination and independence to think and organize outside of the conservative vs. liberal political paradigm to argue and organize in the context of bi-partisan leverage power politics and the organic issues required to move the community from point A to point B.
In New York City the crisis in black politics is must acute and has caused substantial political disillusionment and apathy among black voters over the decades. In 1969 the election plurality was 80 plus percent as compared to half that (40 %) these days. And the percentage of registered voters as compared to eligible voters among black Americans calls into question the legitimacy of the inherited civil rights leadership. Internal rivalries among black Democrat and Republican leaders have further neutralized the potential of the black vote in addition to the lack of strategic deployment.

The longstanding political rivalry between the black political leadership in Brooklyn (vanguard) and Harlem (old guard) that began in the 1970s (when the Brooklyn contingent achieved elective office) has accounted for a traditional split of the black vote and has facilitated the current divide and conquer political scenario that plagues the Black community, particularly in city and state wide elections. The Latino American political leadership was played out of political by the political machinations of the "vanguard" vs. "old guard" when than Mayoral candidate Herman Badeo was undermined by the Black Democratic political leadership rivalry. As a consequence the potential of a "Black and Latino" electoral coalition for city wide office was seriously undermined for the future, not withstanding the one term of Mayor David Dinkins.

While the Harlem "old guard" political leadership has maintained hegemony over the Brooklyn "vanguard" to date, political cleavages are emerging within each respective political camp. As the prospect of the eventual retirement of the Congressman after 30 plus years in Congress looms large on the Harlem horizon. In Brooklyn Democratic leadership is imploding with the retirement of Congressman Major Owens and the internal challenge to unseat Congressman Ed Towns. As there is no apparent African American successor to the veteran Congressman within the Harlem "old guard" ranks or community at large, speculation abounds that Congressman Rangel may be the last Black Democratic Congressman to represent Harlem.

Be that as it may, it is highly unlikely that a Black, White or Latino Republican candidate would be competitive in the eventual sweep stacks to succeed Congressman Rangel. As a practical political matter there is no Republican Party in New York City in general and Manhattan in particular capable of competing. And the black GOP district leaders in Harlem have been effectively compromised by the Democratic Party operatives therefore they have no party infrastructure, political troops or leadership capable of fielding viable Republican Party candidates. Black GOP district leaders and candidates for political office are appointed by a haphazard and vest pocket arrangement and have no credibility or visibility in the districts that they represent.

This years gubernatorial election in New York State will likely mark a watershed for both local the Democrat and Republican Parties relative to Black electoral politics. In Brooklyn’s 11th Congressional District established in 1965 by way of the Voting Rights Act as a "Black" Congressional District is currently an open seat due to the retirement of 24 year incumbent Congressman Major Owens may get it’s first White Congressman. In typical political fashion the black political leadership has demonstrated how fragmented it is as three would be black Congress persons Chris Owens Jr., Yvette Clarke and Carl Anthony are competing in the party primary election. The likely result is that the three black hopefuls will cancel each other out thereby enabling the election of David Yassky. There is a three way primary contest 10th CD wherein incumbent Congressman Adolphus Towns is being challenged by Charles Barron and Roger Green, all three were former allies.

Despite the fragmented black political leadership, ultimately, a Democratic Congressional candidate will prevail as there will be no viable Republican Party infrastructure or candidate in Brooklyn or Harlem to be competitive. But it is a foregone conclusion that black Democrats are a diminishing political force in party power relationship yet the leadership continues to advocate a dead end partisan civil rights movement political agenda.

The Black political fragmentation in Harlem is a particularly interesting studying in view of its historic hegemony over the Brooklyn "vanguard" leadership. Under the veteran political of Congressman Charles Rangel, the political operative of an esteemed triumvirate that includes the honorable Percy Sutton and the honorable Basil Paterson, Harlem electoral politics has over the years enjoyed a reputation of being the hallmark of African American politics around the country. With luminaries like the late Congressman Rev. Dr. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. and J. Raymond Jones referred to as the "Harlem Fox," Harlem became world renown as the foremost African American community world wide.

For most of his Congressional career the honorable Congressman Rangel enjoyed running on the top of both the Democrat and Republican Parties ballot, yet he has been a Republican Party basher throughout is career on Capital Hill. The longstanding political deal between the Harlem black Democratic leader and respective Republican County bosses was a benefit to White Republican Party county leadership who doubled as elected officials and had political assurances that their seat would be exempt from competition from black Democrats in particular. On the other hand, black Democratic elected officials received political assurances that the GOP would thwart the emergence of viable black Republican electoral opposition and leadership.
In the balance, the Republican Party district leadership infrastructure was rendered none existent and potential organic community based political leaders both Democrat and Republican continue to be cut off at their political knees. The process of marginalizing "unsanctioned" organic black political leadership is reinforced on the Republican aisle black political geldings who function as "house Negroes." Alternatively, insurgent black Democrats have to navigate invidious technical and legal tactics by incumbents to gain ballot status.

Former Bronx GOP district leader and titular head of the infamous and defunct National Black Republican Council (NBRC) and the New York State Council of Black Republicans for 25 plus years has help to the black GOP political power illusion by slight of hand and smoke and mirrors. Reported to be in charge of 44 states nation wide Brown has skillfully neutered the black GOP presence in New York City and in Washington. In Harlem, Brown was the central figure in positioning district leaderships of Mr. Leroy Owens, Mr. Ronald Perry and Mr. Will Brown (no familial relation), for county leader anointment. The pervasive political deception has effectively thwarted the emergence of organic community based Black Republican leadership in Harlem.
But the Republican Party has its own unique style of plantation politics that mitigates against the emergence of organic grassroots African American leaders. Lack of a party primary election facilitates the selection and anointing of district leaders and candidates for elective office. And the GOP political plantation operates on two basic principles. The first is to keep the "official" black Republican district leaders and leadership ignorant of the "how to" as it relates to the petitioning and ballot access process, hence no need for a primary. The second principle is to select candidates for elective office that are simply happy to run as window dressing but not interested in changing the local political status quo. Alternatively, some get to do cameos in conjunction with state-wide or national candidates.

It remains to be seen if this years slate of GOP candidates and "official" black leaders in Harlem will be helpful to the gubernatorial ticket and the growth of the party. Local Republican candidates in Harlem usually receive a single digit plurality in the general election and this year there are two perennial candidates and one no show candidate, which speaks volumes. Perennial candidates Al Mosley is running for New York State Senate in the 30th SD and Edward Daniels is running for Congress against the incumbent Congressman Charles Rangel. Will Brown district leader in central Harlem’s 70th AD officially declined to run for the New York State Assembly in the 70th AD on July 17, 2006.

Speculation abounds as to way Mr. Will Brown decided to pull out of the race at the eleventh hour and there is an interesting controversy as to way a replacement candidate was not selected. While Brown has been a district leader for several years, he first ran for public office in 2005 for New York City Council against incumbent Will Perkins. However, Brown’s campaign was the subject of a devastating controversy when in the December of 2005 edition of the Amsterdam News under the by line of Talise D. Moorer published a story with the headline:
"Bronx Students Get Lesson In Political Scam By GOP Candidate." According to the story a teacher June Smith Bryant of the Bronx High School for Law, Government and Justice alleged that the students were owed at least $1000 based on a contractual agreement they had with the Will Brown campaign. The political fallout and potential future fallout from this reckless and irresponsible act seriously put Brown off limits for another electoral run in the immediate future. Hence he was wise enough to assess that he should step down as a candidate for the New York States Assembly in the 70th AD, in the interest of the party.

On the other hand the issues associated with the fact that there is has been no replacement candidate named for the Republican Party line are a bit more complex and requires exploration in order to appreciate. Ms. Keisha Morrisey former GOP Assembly candidate in the 70th AD during 2000 and 2002 was ready willing and able to be a replacement candidate and there are others that may have been available such as Ms. Denise Johns (GOP aspirant in 2005 for New York City Council), but the state of the personal animus and political ineptitude carried the replacement process to its most illogical conclusion. Unfortunately both Morrisey and Johns had challenged the political status quo in the Harlem black leadership and were therefore ruled out by the black Republican leadership as replacement candidates.

Keisha Morrisey sent the following email to the honorable James Ortinzeo chairman of the New York County Republican Committee, Mr. Marcus Cederqvist, Executive Director of the county committee and Mr. Will Brown, district leader in the 70th AD as a potential replacement.
"I am writing in regard to the agenda that I discussed with Mr. Alphonso Mosley the candidate for the New York State Senate in the 30th SD in an attempt to unite the many factions of the Uptown Republicans, while working on his campaign. On Monday May 17, Mr. Mosley suggested to our district leader (Will Brown) that I replace the withdrawn candidacy of Mr. Brown and run for State Assembly along with him (Mr. Mosley State Senate) and Ed Daniels for Congress as a way to help accomplish the goal of unity in this years election."

"Although I may not be the Assembly candidate to at this time, I still believe that the unity agenda can be accomplished after talking with Ms. Denise Johns, Ed Daniels, Leroy Owens among others. I will continue to help grow the party by inviting young people into politics and to promote Republican candidates in general. I am in the process of developing a grassroots organization as well as my own political club. I want to share this information with you so that you can know what my agenda is from my mouth and in my own words."

"I intend to keep lines of communication open and I am available if you need to reach out to me. I understand that some wounds may not have healed due to various controversies in the past, therefore I want to be careful and cautious to make sure I communicate directly, so no one can speak for me. Thanking you for your consideration and time in advance. Keisha Morrisey."
But the plot thickens… Keisha was working with the grassroots GOP reform movement that drafted Al Mosley for New York State Senate because he (Al) was falsely accused of aiding Morrisey in her law suite against the Uptown leadership in 2004. Because of the accusations against Mr. Mosley he was passed over for consideration as the GOP designee for the New York State Senate in the 30th SD, although he (Al) had been the party’s Harlem electoral standard bearer and crusader for many previous campaigns. In the wake of the exclusion of Al Mosley as the party’s standard bearer for State Senate and his rejection by the uptown Republicans for the designation a petition campaign was organized by the grassroots GOP reform movement to draft Mosley as a GOP reform candidate and petitions were filed on July 13, on behalf of Al Mosley.

Following the filing of Mr. Mosley’s petitions he (Mr. Mosley) received a phone early on the following week from district leader Will Brown Jr. who invited Mr. Mosley to be the official party designated candidate for New York State Senate in the 30th SD, as the original candidate of record district leader JoLinda Ruth Cogen reportedly had no intentions to run. Mr. Brown told Mr. Mosley that he (Brown) was the candidate of record for Assembly in the 70th AD but had officially declined his candidacy. According to the taped conversation Mosley than touted Ms. Morrisey as a replacement candidate and Mr. Brown indicated that it was a good idea and asked Mosley to have Ms. Morrisey call him for that purpose…

Apparently the conversation between Ms. Morrisey and Mr. Brown was not productive as Ms. Morrisey is not the designated candidate and therefore there is no GOP candidate to compete against incumbent New York Assemblyman Keith Wright. Interestingly enough Assemblyman Wright successfully knocked his Democratic Party primary election competition off of the ballot and will face no opposition from either Democrat or Republican. Arguably the most vulnerable Harlem Democrat, the incumbent Assemblyman will get a free pass without even an illusion of GOP competition.

Alton Chase a longtime community leader and Republican Party activist and one of the architects of the GOP reform movement that drafted Al for Senate campaign said, "Apart from the personality and sophomoric political intrigues that typify Harlem GOP politics the bottom line is that the "official" uptown leadership have successfully picked off Al Mosley from the GOP reform movement to embrace him once again. Now that Mosley is apparently back in good graces with the uptown leadership fold it is clear that his agenda is divergent from the objectives of the GOP reform movement, Chase said. Mosley will face the winner of the Democratic primary battle between Bill Perkins and Ruben Vargez for the open Senate seat."

"The GOP reform movement deserves kudos from Mr. Mosley because the draft Mosley petition campaign secured his nomination and acceptance back into the "official" party fold. Also, the absence of a Harlem based State Senate and Assembly would constitute a major embarrassment and defect in the state wide gubernatorial campaign. At this point with only one candidate lacking on the uptown ticket it may be only a minor embarrassment."

Thursday, November 18, 2004


The political handwriting is on the wall, now that the Presidential election of 2004 is history and the Bush / Cheney administration has won a second term in office. Although election 2004 as compared to 2000 was much less controversial in terms of the balloting process, vote counting and the ultimate outcome, arguments questioning the Bush victory are beginning to abound. Most of the information alleging that predominantly black voters were purged from the roles or their vote was not counted is coming from the so-called “swing” states particularly Florida and Ohio among others. However, this time around President Bush won the popular vote with more than 50 percent of the electorate voting, as well as winning the required electoral votes.

Following the Presidential election of 2000, Black Democratic leaders including the Congressional Black Caucus was unable to get than Presidential candidate Vice President Al Gore, or one of the Democratic US Senators to support their efforts for a recount in Florida. The apparent and alleged irregularities associated with election 2000 are earth shattering as compared with the reports and allegations associated with this year’s Presidential contest. Yet, efforts are mounting in various quarters of the fragmenting Democratic Party coalition to organize against the policies of President Bush’ final term administration. And not surprisingly, Black Democratic leaders and the community are being formulated as the spearhead of “anti-Bush” and “anti-Republican Party” next four years political protest movement.

During the Presidential campaign the Black political leadership and civil rights orthodoxy were unabashedly behind Senator John Kerry. In July, NAACP President Kwesi Mfume tore into President Bush’s Black supporters calling them “Ventriloquist’s dummies.” Mfume was particularly teed off because there were a surprising number of Black folk willing to defend the President. Following the NAACP President’s remarks, the Presidents website announced the formulation of a 76 member African American Steering Committee.

Black Journalist Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote, “Bush’s African American team is a blatant effort to bypass mainstream civil rights leaders and cultivate a new brand of Black leadership. It is driven by political necessity, and racial opportunism. From the day he entered the White House, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the NAACP officials, and nearly all the mainstream civil rights leaders are career Democrats and Bush bashers. They have waged a relentless, and sometimes a nasty personal name calling war against Bush. At the NAACP convention that Bush snubbed, NAACP officials treated Democratic presidential contender John Kerry as a virtual conquering hero, and vowed to treat the election as a holy crusade to beat Bush.”

Mr. Hutchinson continued, “Bush has also played hard on the open hostility of many Blacks to the mainstream civil rights leaders, and Democrats. He drew thunderous applause in an address to the Urban League the week after the NAACP convention when he repeatedly pounded away that the Democrats have taken the Black vote for granted.”

Some astute Black political analyst like Alton Chase a longtime political and community activist, observed that, “the Bush campaign was politically wise to move beyond the “mainstream” civil rights leadership because they are a diminishing if not irrelevant political breed as it relates to the imperatives for 21 century Black political empowerment. These Black Democratic leaders have the unique distinction of being both “politically correct” and “politically wrong” at the same time. These bygone political leaders are afraid of saying Black or African American without including Hispanics, or Latino’s or using the word “minority.” Political correctness has played the Black community out of political position and it must be reevaluated and discredited. Democratic Party plantation politics has rendered the Black community the weakest of the political minorities in this, the 1st decade of the 21st century.”

While the Black vote for the President barely broke double digits, the Hispanic Community gave the President an unprecedented 44 percent of their vote, 10 percent higher than in 2000. Mr. Roberto Suro, the director of the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization based in Washington said, “The bottom line to me is this result, it’s no longer sensible to think of Hispanic Voters on a national basis as a core constituency of the Democratic Party.”

Mr. F. Chris Garcia, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico said, “We are up for grabs. That is a good thing for Hispanics; we’re going to be more influential in the future and a bigger target for both campaigns.”

On the other hand Rev. Al Sharpton former candidate for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination was applauded enthusiastically during his presentation at the Democratic National Convention when he said, “The Black vote is not for sale Mr. Bush and we are going to ride this donkey until he can’t carry us any further.”

Rev. Sharpton and the “mainstream” civil rights leadership are positioning the Black community to another four-year protest period of assailing the Bush administration and the Republican Party. The Clarion Call has been issued by some Democratic Party operatives to reinvigorate the dubious coalition of Blacks, Latinos, White progressives, and the gay community to organize for 2008, in terms of protests, marches, and rallies against policies of the Bush administration, particularly the war in Iraq. Apparently the civil rights leadership has an aversion to power politics and leverage voting.

From the perspective of this writer there appears to be some great political lessons to be gleaned from the Hispanic community in terms of how they strategically deployed their vote. The Hispanic community is now positioned well to play the game of hardball politics and have become a swing vote in the mainstream American political party process. How the process will ultimately play out politically in local elections is interesting speculation. But it is likely the dawning of the new political day in terms is Black and Hispanic power relationships.

In Harlem for example the veteran Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of 30 plus years will likely retire soon, and an interesting political scenario may develop. There is an interesting political discussion underway as to the possibility that Congressman Charles Rangel may be the last Black American to hold the coveted seat in the US House of Representatives from Harlem’s 15th Congressional District. Unfortunately, the Black Republicans and their supporters have not have not engaged in competitive electoral politics.

The civil rights leadership is wedded ideologically and emotionally to the Democratic Party although some suggest that Blacks have somehow developed and organic relationship to the party. Therefore the civil rights leadership may have to be displaced by the emergence of a new kind of Black American political leadership in order to move the community to hardball politics and become a swing vote to leverage power in the American political process.

Saturday, November 13, 2004


By: Jim Higdon

A political hurricane circles Kenneth Jefferson. Yet in the storm’s eye, Jefferson, the Republican candidate to unseat Democratic incumbent Charles B. Rangel as New York’s Congressman for the 15th District, remains calm.
While Jefferson sat in an empty Windows Over Harlem, a restaurant located inside the Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. office building on 125th Street, talking to a journalism student about his campaign against Rangel, his former Republican challenger, Keisha Morrisey, eliminated from the race by a last-minute petition challenge, was busy serving papers to 14 named defendants in a $500,000 lawsuit filed with the New York Supreme Court on August 27. While Jefferson is not named as a defendant in the suit, all 14 defendants are Republican Party functionaries and several are political supporters of Jefferson. The suit calls into question the legitimacy and legality of Jefferson’s campaign.
Jefferson, 48, sat in the back room of Windows Over Harlem in front of one of the restaurant’s many floor-to-ceiling windows at a table covered with a pink tablecloth. His light blue polo shirt was buttoned to the top, and he wore a well-trimmed mustache that complimented his salt-and-pepper hair. He spoke about his candidacy in broad strokes, highlighting his early involvement in the community as a child.
His parents were very active in the Harlem community, he said. His father, a minister in the Nation of Islam, “instilled in me a desire to help people.” Although, Jefferson pointed out that he is not currently a member of the Nation of Islam, “In 1975 when Elijah Muhammad passed, I went towards Orthodox Islam.”
When talking about his campaign specifically, Jefferson said he doesn’t “see it as running against Rangel.” But, that doesn’t mean Jefferson thinks he can’t win, saying of Rangel, “He’s not bulletproof, and that’s the point … He’s accountable to the community.”
Jefferson thinks of his campaign as “going up and raising some issues and concerns” such as housing and escalating rents, which he described as increasing “astronomically.” He wants to help the voters of the district “take control of their communities,” he said.
Yet despite Jefferson’s claims that he is running a serious campaign to challenge Rangel, his fundraising has yet to begin with less than 60 days until the general election. “That’s a real challenge for us,” Jefferson admitted. “I suspect as we get closer to the general election that support will be forthcoming from the state, county, and from the federal level.” But Jefferson has not completed the most basic preliminary fundraising requirements of running a Congressional campaign: filing with the Federal Election Commission. By contrast, Rangel has over $650,000 in cash as of August 25 for his campaign against Jefferson, according to the FEC.
Jefferson was recruited by leadership within the Harlem Republicans, including Claude Sharrieff-Frazier, President of the Harlem Republican Club; Will Brown, Jr. and Ronald Perry, both Republican Party district leaders. All three are named as defendants in Morrisey’s suit. Morrisey claims that the Harlem Republicans wanted to block her candidacy in order to present a non-candidate that wouldn’t run a serious campaign against Rangel, the Democratic incumbent. When they couldn’t find a Republican, Morrisey claims, they asked Jefferson, a Democrat, and Jefferson changed his party enrollment from Democratic to Republican.
To change party enrollment, a voter must change enrollment before a general election. The enrollment change takes effect only after the election, according to New York State Election Law 5-302 and 5-304. Jefferson admits to only having changed his registration “about six months ago.”
Therefore, Jefferson’s candidacy appears to be in violation of Section 6-120.2 of the New York State Election Law, which says that a nomination is not valid unless the nominee is an enrolled member of the party “at the time of filing of such certificate.”
When asked if it was unusual for a Democrat to change parties to run as a Republican, Jefferson said, “No. Look at Bloomberg.” However, looking at Bloomberg reveals a significant problem in Jefferson’s candidacy. Bloomberg changed his party enrollment in October of 2000 in preparation for his 2001 bid for mayor of New York, which was “the last possible moment allowed by New York election law,” according to the New Yorker. By his own admission, Jefferson’s candidacy is in violation of the law.
Consequently, the Harlem Republicans used Section 6-120.3 of the State Election Law to circumvent Jefferson’s belated Republican registration, which says, in effect, that a party can nominate a candidate that is not a member of that party, so long as a quorum is present, and that by a majority vote the party committee can authorize a candidate not enrolled in the party. It also clearly states that, “The certificate of authorization shall be signed and acknowledged by the presiding officer and the secretary of the meeting at which such authorization was given.”
In her lawsuit, Morrisey claims that the Republicans did not meet the qualifications set forth in 6-120.3. On the Certificate of Authorization filed on behalf of Jefferson’s candidacy, the roles of presiding officer and secretary were assumed by Ronald Perry and Will Brown, Jr., respectively. While both are district leaders in New York County, the suit claims they willfully misidentified themselves on the Certificate of Authorization and are not authorized to act in the capacity of presiding officer and secretary.
According to Morrisey, Gertrude Hess Parker is the secretary, and James Ortenzio, the county chairman, should be the presiding officer. Without these two officials present, there could not have been a quorum, according to the suit, which therefore invalidates Jefferson’s nomination.
“I want to make a difference,” Jefferson said. “I want people to think critically about how they vote.” But then, apparently in a slip of the tongue, he added, “If I really wanted to get elected, I would have stayed a Democrat.” Stepping away from that comment immediately, he clarified, “I’d have a better chance as a Democrat to beat Charlie Rangel” but changed parties “because of the principles.”