The @SenatorTimScott insult, why this Black Republican has no standing
A lot of Republicans, as well as conservative pundits, talking heads, Tweeters and talk radio types are bemoaning the fact Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) was not invited to speak at today's 50th Anniversary celebration of the March on Washington.
Quite frankly I am insulted . . . but not because Scott wasn't invited to speak but because there are those who think he should have been invited to speak at all.
Why should he be invited to speak and what would make someone think he has the standing to appear alongside an august list of civil rights leaders, artists, entertainers, personalities, thinkers, activists and current/former elected officials who gathered to pay tribute to participants/organizers of the original March on Washington and Dr. King?
Has he established himself as a champion of or spoken out eloquently about civil rights? NO!
Has he distinguished himself as leader in the Senate in any capacity? NO!
Has he spoken out against the wave of new laws making it harder for people of color and the poor to vote? NO!
So why in the hell should he have been included?
The whole "Tim Scott was not invited" poutrage (yeah I said "poutrage") was most likely launched once folks noticed that no high profile Republicans participated in the event. While both former Presidents Bush (HW and W) were believed to be unable to travel, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) declined invitations to speak. Once people started calling out the Republican snub the Scott poutrage began in earnest.
This poutrage is patronizing and downright insulting.
Thinking that Scott, an unremarkable Senator who just happens to be Black, would be an acceptable stand in for the Speaker of the House or the House Majority leader is patronizing.
To insist that Scott deserved to share a stage with Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), the only living speaker from the original March on Washington, former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Dr. King's family and President Barack Obama, just because he is the only African American Senator is insulting.
In the corporate world there are events in which its acceptable to send a director of minority affairs or chief diversity officer and then there are events that demand an organization send its top executives, this was one of those events that demanded the participation of top executives. The Bushes, Boehner and Cantor are top GOP executives in this analogy, while Scott is a mediocre staffer in the diversity office, hell he isn't even the chief diversity officer, that was Michael Steele but he is no longer with the company.
The absence of invited Republican speakers made this non partisan event, partisan and sent a message that the GOP is ceding the causes of civil rights, diversity and tolerance to the Democrats. Republican leaders dug themselves a hole when they decided to blow off this important and unifying event, they dig themselves a deeper whole by suggesting Scott should have been part of the event.
White southern Democrats Carter and Clinton talked about what Dr. King meant to them and in doing so signaled that his legacy is important to all Americans, it would have been nice to hear some high ranking Republicans do the same. This wasn't a Black event, it was an American event.
As I do whenever Republicans complain about being viewed as racist and/or indifferent to civil rights, I tell them save their poutrage for their party and its allies who continue to drop the ball when it comes to race.
tangentwithtanner
yousharknotpass
dededos
prguitarman
kaledo-art
gummygunk
izzy806
discoholicmusic
