Speaks for itself.

Here is Roger Clegg's comment, from laterin the article:

"If what they're trying to do is increase the amount of contracts awarded outside, there is no need to limit the potential sources on the basis of race and ethnicity," said Roger Clegg, general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity, a think tank that opposes racial and ethnic preferences.

"It may be only a little bit of discrimination, but it's still discrimination. There's no point in sacrificing the principle. A preference is a preference, and a preference is illegal. . . . The government should be trying to eliminate those preferences, not expand them."

Meanwhile, in CA, Ward Connerly won his case against 5 state government agencies using preferences. The key was the passage of Prop 209, which the GOP platform endorsed in 1996, but President Bush has never endorsed. Support for 209 type initiatives was removed from the 2000 GOP platform.

The trend of affirmative action policy under this administration is plain to all but the willfully blind.

It's a shame.

Richard F.

ping

This article might be viewed in connection with our discussion two weeks ago,

Here

Cheers,

Richard F.

ping

Bush has blown reelection.

The Bush Administration thinks sacrificing the principle of equal treatment under the law will win them votes in the black community. They have to be kidding themselves if black leftists don't see their affirmative action scheme for what is pandering in an attempt to buy their votes. And they will still vote Democratic in the end. The real shame is that when AA is finally abolished in this country the Bush administration won't receive credit for getting rid of it when others made it happen. The "others" of course are the courts and the American people. Remind us again why sometimes the Republicans behave like the "stupid party." Principles vs. political expediency. Yes its possible to see the usefulness of the latter at certain times but it shouldn't be too hard to remember why people voted for you in the first place. I guess the Bush administration will have to learn what that is the hard way and this decision doesn't cover it with the glory it so desperately covets.

Related thread.

Unspoken Words, Unthought Ideas

Disclaimer: rdf is the author of the op-ed in question.

cheers,

Richard F.

But...but...Bush is a Republican....

How does this square with the theory, put forth by many supporters of the adminstration, that the defense of racial preferences before the Supreme Court is merely a ploy or abberation of some sort? If Bush puts this policy into place, that theroy is blown all to hell.

How does this square with the theory, put forth by many supporters of the adminstration, that the defense of racial preferences before the Supreme Court is merely a ploy or abberation of some sort?

I'd suggest you ask the proponents of that theory. As you know, I never held it.

Richard F.

So am I but for me the operative word is "conservative." As long as the Republican party best represents the principles in which I believe and as long as the President does his best to uphold them in our laws and his policies both will have my support; but if I don't see them doing that any longer I will look elsewhere. Don't get me wrong; all of us on this forum understand President Bush is only human and he will get it wrong every now and then and he has our understanding when that happens but by the same measure our support shouldn't be interpreted as license by him and the party to abandon the conservative agenda and betray the hopes and dreams of the grassroots. I am not so much committed to making America a Republican country though I'd be naturally thrilled if it happened; its really incidental though to the larger vision of seeing America become a conservative country abiding by the original intent of the Constitution and upholding the rule of law for all. That's not too much to ask and I think that is what every conservative would like to see come about. Let's fight the good fight then.

I actually meant it as a rhetorical question — I'm well aware that you hold a justifiably dim view of Bush's policies so far in this area.

I actually meant it as a rhetorical question — I'm well aware that you hold a justifiably dim view of Bush's policies so far in this area.

I thought you did. It would be really interesting to see what the folks who hold that view are thinking now. Would they stick to it, or change their minds, and say that Bush is giving ground here, and if so, would they defend that as a tactical move, or would they now feel free to criticize him in this area? Or what? So far it's been "The silence of the lambs" this morning on this issue.

Cheers,

Richard F.

Actually what you are seeing here is a bit of political gamesmanship. These contracts are to move work from Federal employees (Read Union Rat supporters) to the private sector. and targeting PC groups (in addition to the current PC groups eligible to get contracts awarded). THis pits 2 rat consticuency groups (unions and designated minorities) against one another. May be a slick move.

They may also be trying an end run around the bid process which may be getting manipulated by bureaucrats to ensure the work (and gov jobs) stays with the fed depts and not outsourced. Easier to not renew a contract than get rid of a gov dept.

Comments?

Actually what you are seeing here is a bit of political gamesmanship.

So was the "Philadelphia Plan" under Nixon in the early '70's ... this was the first quota scheme. It was to get blacks and unions fighting each other, and win R. Nixon some brownie points. Ironically, the young Pat buchanan was in on the strategy, as an RMN advisor.

The whole tale is told very well in a scholarly book called, The Ironies of Affirmative Action,by John David Skrentny, U. of Chicago Press, 1996.

If you're right, we have a bit of "Machiavelliean" politics here.

I'll stick with the sturdy old maxim, "Honesty is the best policy."

Kudos for the inventiveness of your suggestion, though. And it may well be what Karl Rove and co. are in fact thinking, though of course, if so, they're not telliing anybody ... not Roger Clegg or Ward Connerly or me, at least.

Richard F.

Anything that sticks it to the AFSCME union is Ok by me, we need fewer govt employees. Hope this is what they had in mind. Tough for the rats to bitch since the program benefits minority and women owned firms.

Anything that sticks it to the AFSCME union is Ok by me, we need fewer govt employees. Hope this is what they had in mind. Tough for the rats to bitch since the program benefits minority and women owned firms.

the defense of racial preferences before the Supreme Court is merely a ploy or abberation of some sort?

For what it is worth, the defense (or one defense) is that SCOTUS knocked down the racial preferences Adarand first contested, Congress re-wrote the law and the administration is upholding a law fist enacted by a Democrat congress and signed by a Republican president, then re-written, at the prompting of SCOTUS, by a Republican congress and signed by a Democratic president. The defense rests on the theory that an administration should not act unilaterally to create law.