After all, even if your ballot gets counted to begin with, and you're not purged from the rolls because you have a name that kind'a sort'a resembles that of someone convicted of a felony in the next millennium (see The Writings of Greg Palast for details, if you really need or want them), there's the shocking fact that Black Democrats see racism in party:
"The Democratic Party acts as if they own black people," said Delegate Clarence "Tiger" Davis, Baltimore Democrat. "The state party is racist to the core."
Another insult, said Delegate Nathaniel T. Oaks, Baltimore Democrat, is that party leaders press black candidates more than white candidates to vote for tax increases, which could cause them to lose their seats in coming elections.
"I think the Democratic Party takes black people for granted," Mr. Oaks said. "I think what [the Democratic Party] does in the state is just a reflection of what it does as a whole on the national level."
The state in question is Maryland, the source of the story, the Washington Times.
But I suppose dismissing the story on that basis is just as bad as ignoring Palast because. . . why is he dismissed again? Other than that he's saying the wrong things?
Any road up, in the interests of fairness and balance, I suppose I should look for a story about elected African American politicians possibly, possibly, seeing racism in the Republican party.
This involves first finding elected Republican African American politicians. As opposed to the appointed sort, like Condi and Colin.
. . .
Bit thin on the ground, aren't they?
And since reading anything from white Republicans about why there aren't more black folks voting for them generally gives me yet more reasons not to vote for them, well, I expect there's no point voting at all, right?
That is what this story was trying to convince me of, yes? Or is it foolish to think it was targetted at me in the first place?
Why am I asking you?