Well, sort of firm. They're waffling about how strong their opposition will be, which is disappointing. But you're right, at least they're saying, "No."

The final paragraph of the story perfectly sums up what is wrong with our political system.

"The president must balance the desires of his conservative backers, who tend to staunchly oppose affirmative action, against potential fallout from the broader electorate if he is viewed as being racially insensitive."

The last thing in the world Bush should be worried about is being viewed as racially insensitive. He was elected to do a job and make decisions consistent with those he has made in the past, which is the basis of why he was elected in the first place. His job is not to get reelected. It's to lead. So lead damn it!

If I could wave my magic wand and make all pollsters go away I think our political system would work a lot better.

What I find most appalling about most of the press coverage is the assumption that if you're a "minority," you automatically want special priviledges for yourself and your children.

Thus the son of a millionaire black man (I've known at least one) needs special priviledges that my son doesn't? All I can say is kiss my pimply white ass.

In California, two and a half times as many blacks voted to ban Affirmative Action as voted for George W. Bush. There's a lesson in that.

Doubly so because California Republicans were cowardly--as they so often are--and refused to back the measure.

gw needs to hire some better speechwriters, because now he's stepped in it. the racial preferences at the university of michigan are not a quota system. this is the same kind of distortion that got republicans in trouble with ward connerly and black republicans like me.

the californians were tricked completely. they wised up and booted pete wilson. those in washington state were tricked mostly. those in florida weren't fooled at all. this time it's going to backfire.

As I recall it, Cobb, Pete Wilson opposed the California Civil Rights Initiative. So I don't understand your point?

In fact, I seem to recall that California's entire Republican Party, in cowardly fashion, refused to endorse it or work for its passage. Which tells me they deserve their current situation in that state, which is terrible.

Survey after survey shows that a substantial number of black voters oppose race discrimination under the rubric of "Affirmative Action." I believe Republicans lose black voters not because they oppose race discrimination, but when they act cowardly about it. It makes them look like they have something to hide, and makes people not trust them.

If they respected black voters enough to forthrightly come forward and defend their position, without apology or equivocation, they'd do better.

Indeed, I believe that's been Republicans' real problem on race issues. They sit around apologizing for what they believe, and apologizing for their record on race issues, even though it's a demonstrably better record than Democrats'.

And they almost always talk to black people only about race. It's as if they think black voters don't give a damn about guns, or taxes, or abortion, or missile defense, or any other issue.

---

I, for one, was pleased to see, that civil rights hero Ward Connerly's American Civil Rights Institute filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging them to take on this case, stating that they support the white students who were discriminated against, and that the high court needs to "reject the diversity rationale used to justify racial and ethnic discrimination."

To read their Amicus Brief, simply click here. (Warning: it's a PDF, but it's not all that big.)

This sounds a lot like dolphin syndrome. Have you heard the stories about dolphins that bring the ship-wrecked sailors safely to shore? Well, you certainly never hear of the ones that take them out to sea.

What does the silent majority really want?

The biggest problem I have being of European descent, is that I have heard so many news reports and other stories that I don't know what to think about affirmative action and the like. First it was Negro. Then Colored, Black, Afro-american and African American. Does that make me Anglo-Danish American? Of course not. I am 100% American. I have never been to the lands of my ancestors and know very little about them.

Tell me, if you don't even know what to call the group of people you want to address, wouldn't that make you uneasy about addressing them? Since the group itself can not decide what to go by, anyone addressing the group is bound to offend somebody. Wouldn't that make you apologetic?

My wife and I recently adopted a baby from the South. When the Black ladies at the hotel's front desk saw we had adopted interracially they stared at us like we were from another planet. After regaining their composure they complimented us on our action. Is it so hard to believe that a White person could love a Black person enough to give them an inheritance?

I think that the underlying problem is that everyone "Sticks to their own kind." Any time you want to have respect between two groups, black/white, male/female, rich/poor, democrat/republican, catholic/protestant/jew/muslim, etc., you need to get those groups working together to accomplish a common goal. This is the only way that people can see and appreciate the "content of their character".

Unfortuately no amount of legislation can accomplish the task at hand. Afirmative Action can not make this happen. The content of one's character is not changed by whether he went to college or not; whether he got a high paying job or not. The content of one's character is based more on values that parents and friends teach than anything. This is not something the democrats and republicans can fix, even if they could agree.

Is the number of your friends of ethnic backgrounds proportional to the number of the people in your area of the same ethnic background? If all men are created equal, why not?