We Only Care About White Men
By Keith Boykin, in politics·race
Wednesday, September 19 2007, 10:13AM
I'm just going to say it. If you're black, Latino, female, gay, poor or middle-class and you're still a Republican, you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant. I know I'm not supposed to say that because it's not politically correct, but it's true. I know I'm supposed to pretend that both parties are the same, that they're just as corrupt and just as hypocritical and just as unconcerned about minorities, but it ain't true.
Here's the truth. The Republican Party is the party of rich white men. It helps if you're straight too, but you can hide that and they won't care unless you're "caught" in a wide stance. As if we needed any more proof than a party that has no black members in Congress, now the leading contenders for the GOP presidential nomination are all refusing to debate at a black college. They've already refused to debate Hispanic issues and LGBT issues, but now they're willingly writing off the black community, 12 percent of the population, as well.
The leading contenders for the Republican nomination have all said they will not attend the "All American Presidential Forum" organized by talk show host Tavis Smiley, scheduled for September 27 at Morgan State University in Baltimore. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain all claim they have "scheduling conflicts" that prevent them from attending the debate. In political speak, that means they don't want to come but don't want to look like they don't want to come.
That's the standard operating procedure for the Republican Party these days. The objective is to be racist, sexist and homophobic enough to appeal to the prejudices of the base without looking or sounding so racist, sexist or homophobic that they turn off moderate and Independent voters. They pull off this task by creating red herrings to divert the public's attention from their own insensitivity. Sure, they say they support blacks, but they just don't support affirmative action. Sure, they say they support women, but they just don't support a women's right to choose. Sure, they're not homophobic, but they don't support gay marriage, gays in the military, gay adoption, gay parenting, or laws preventing discrimination against gays.
The Democrats, for all their faults, can't hold a candle to the outright racism, sexism and homophobia practiced by the Republican Party these days. All of the top Democratic contenders attended Tavis Smiley's black issues debate held in June at Howard University. And the Democratic presidential field already includes a woman, an African American and a Latino candidate. The Republican field, on the other hand, is made up solely of white men.
Kanye West only got part of the story right when he famously said that George Bush doesn't care about black people. The truth is that the Republican Party doesn't care about black people. Or brown people. Or women. Or gays. Or the poor. Or the middle-class. Unless the poor and the middle-class go to evangelical churches and buy into the party's backward social conservatism.
"At this moment in American history, it is clear that either the Republican Party wisely embraces people of color, or it chooses to be a losing political party in the future," Cornel West said this week. He was being diplomatic because it's clear which side they've chosen. After snubbing the NAACP, the Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus and just about every other representative black forum, the Republican presidential candidates have shown their true colors: their only interest is in representing white people.
Fortunately, there are some Republicans who are smart enough to see the problem. "We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us," said former congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY), who was the party's vice presidential nominee in 1996. "What are we going to do -- meet in a country club in the suburbs one day? If we're going to be competitive with people of color, we've got to ask them for their vote." That makes a lot of sense. But Jack Kemp was an economic conservative, and he isn't running for president. Since Kemp left public office, his party has been hijacked by the hateful social agenda of the religious right.
Even Newt Gingrich, a social conservative himself, called out the hypocrisy of the GOP candidates. "For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error," said Gingrich. "I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse -- this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That's baloney."
Of course, Gingrich himself is considering a run for the White House, and he's no great friend of women and minorities, but he was Speaker of the House of Representatives, which means he can count. He can count votes. He can count up the numbers of the constituency groups the GOP is excluding, and he's smart enough to know that the old math of winning elections with southern white men doesn't add up anymore.
Beyond the obvious strategic reasons for reaching out to minorities, there is a meaningful philosophical reason as well. The president of the United States is elected to represent all the people of the country, even the people who didn't vote for him or her. The president should not be the president of white America or rich America or straight America; the president must be the leader of all of America. That's something we haven't seen in the past 6 years on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Meanwhile, the debate at Morgan State next week will take place as scheduled. Smiley says debate organizers will set up lecterns showing the names of the absent candidates. Hopefully that will send a message to voters about why those candidates chose not to attend. "When you reject every black invitation and every brown invitation you receive, is that a scheduling issue or is it a pattern?" Smiley said. "I don't believe anybody should be elected president of the United States if they think along the way they can ignore people of color. That's just not the America we live in," he said.
Apparently it is. Unless we do something to change it.
Comments conceal
Derrick from Philly
September 19 2007, 10:40AM
It always amuses and frustrates me when black Republicans say, "the Democrats take blacks for granted," or "you blacks belong to the Democrats." Look, who abandoned who first? Up until the election of 1960, many blacks (who could vote) voted Republican. Then came Barry Goldwater, then came Nixon's "Southern Strategy". The Republicans decided that as the Democratic Party embraced the "Civil Rights Agenda" (don't that "agenda" stuff sound familiar) that southern white former Democrats--the kind who supported George Wallace--would come to the Republican Party. They did, and the strategy worked. Except for Jimmy Carter, the southern racists have give the Republicans victories. But now the table may be turning: the Conservatives have allowed their worst element to fuck up this country--especially in foreign policy. The American people--even southern racist idiots-- may have had enough.
Wait around long enough, change is gonna' come...Conservatives need to suffer a little more though...oh,yeah.
Darnell
September 19 2007, 10:56AM
In 2007 it shows that they can continue to pander to the right wing element of the GOP without fear of being seen for what they are, racists. They know that the party faithful, and those who will vote in the primaries are anti-black and will punish them for showing any interest in black issues. It comes as no surprise that Mitt won't show up, after all, he belongs to a church that only said blacks were humans in 1978. Rudy? His disdain for blacks can be seen throughout his "career" and during his reign of terror as mayor of NYC. McCain? A pitiful old hypocrite. Thompson, clueless "good old boy."
Why any black person would align themselves with a party whose core is based on racism baffles me. But, that said, the Democrats aren't too much better.
And, I for one don't care about white men on any level,straight and certainly not gay, as all they are good for is war, violence and hate.
hello
September 19 2007, 11:23AM
to Darnell:
"And, I for one don't care about white men on any level,straight and certainly not gay, as all they are good for is war, violence and hate."
hm, talking about racism, hate, generalizations and judging one based on color of his skin.
way to go, dude
gs
September 19 2007, 11:33AM
If you are black, poor or another minority and pledge your blind allegiance to the Democratic party you too are ignorant and stupid. The party that promotes social dependence to keep the poor poor and blacks enslaved in a victim, "why don't the white man take care of me" mentality. A party that has suckered and roped in 95% support from blacks who has some of the highest numbers of poverty, unemployment and single parent homes among a race in this nation. Since blacks have jumped ship and embraced the democrats in exchange for the free cheese - our social demise has spun out of control. Anybody who pledges blind allegiance to any party has fallen for the okey doke. Use what's between your ears - YOUR BRAIN. Buy books...research. Leave the plantation and vote based on what the candidate says and does regardless of their party.
Gordon
September 19 2007, 11:38AM
Call me racist if you want. I share the same sentiment as Darnell.......We just have the balls to say it, while others show it.
Derrick from Philly
September 19 2007, 12:12PM
The last progressive accomplishments of the Republican Party were defeating the Confederacy and the Emancipation Proclamation. What have they done lately? Staggering deficits, unfair tax cuts for the greedy upper-class, huge defense budget debts, no innovative attempts to improve public education, no protection or healthcare for poor American children, allowing irresponsible & UN-PATRIOTIC corporations to abandon the people and abuse the environment; and now, the Iraq War.
This aint Abraham Lincoln's Party, it's Ronald Reagan's Party--it embraces and encourages the ugliest fears, most selfish desires, and the disgusting hypocrisies of Americans.
Plus they have a lot of closeted homo politicians who go down on policemen in public toilets & and a Louisiana senator who prefers to mess with whores 'cause he got a little weenie. Oh, what a grand ol' party!
Darnell
September 19 2007, 12:22PM
Thanks Gordon, I wonder if "hello" is on the gay white web sites telling them the truth when they are spewing hate about black gay men, and how perfect white gay men are. If, "hello" can actually show proof that there are "good" white men who are inclusive , I for one am open to hearing about it, until then, I still have no need for any of them, and especially not gay ones, and the ones who run the country.
I didn't make the rules of how race works in this country, I live by them, and as this thread says, its still all about white men, and the rich ones still rule the roost. And, as I said, the GOP and the Democrats are all the same, liars looking out for the interests of those who look like them, the hand full of backs in the democratic party are juts tokens with no real power to make the changes this country needs. And, until black voters start voting issues and not party and demanding that our issues are heard, one party will ignore and the other take us for granted.
Just keeping it real.
Kyon Saucier
September 19 2007, 12:45PM
I agree with Keith's assess,ent of the Republican Party 100 percent, and I gotta say I feel what Darnell and Gordan said I mean I feel pretty much the same way. As far as the Democrats go, clearly they are doing a better job on the campaign trail than the Repbulicans are when it comes ot us of Color or of the sexual minorities. However I make no mistake about their agendas either. Too often candidates from the national to state and city wide levels across this country play the game with us, particularaly those of color. Y'all know of what I speak.
They throw us more promises than a fine brotha who wants to get some ass,and we like fools give him that ass (our votes),and then he kicks us out of the bed after he busts and leaves us high, dry, and knocked up with an ugly baby (ie their broken promises and bullshit programs).
Personally I'd like us to have a multiparty not biparty system. I mean why not it works in Europe and Asia why can't it work here? I'm tired of choosing between lesser evils.
Nathan James
September 19 2007, 12:49PM
I just feel sad for those Log Cabin republicans--gays who support the GOP--for their delusional belief that their party actually wants anything to do with them, or any other "minority" not GOP-approved as socially acceptable. Now, I felt the Dems made a poor showing at the LOGO LGBT debate, but at least they were there. The GOP sent a loud and clear message to the LGBT community by not showing up at all. Likewise, by their refusal to address the African-American electorate, their message of separation and intolerance is crystal-clear.
I cannot fathom how the GOP can still hold "family values" so dear, when its ignorance and hate are so obviously not virtues our children should embrace. Keith points out that exclusion of any "minority" is un-American. No, it's not. Our country has almost 400 years of history (since 1609), built on doing exactly that. I see little reason why this should change just because this is the 21st century...
James
September 19 2007, 1:29PM
Darnell, judging by the things you say, you seem like a pretty intelligent and informed man. I really don't understand though how a clever guy can make himself look so stupid by finishing his comment with the words "And, I for one don't care about white men on any level,straight and certainly not gay, as all they are good for is war, violence and hate."...Charles Taylor, Idi Amin anyone?...Ofcourse I understand what you are trying to say, but you and I both know that what you say is not true.
cmoney
September 19 2007, 2:07PM
As usual, the Republicans, like gs, will say "We can't understand why Blacks support the Democrats". How about the fact that Republicans DON'T SUPPORT BLACKS? You can't have it both ways. You can't blame Blacks for supporting the Democrats 95% of the time when the Republicans are anti-Black 100% of the time. We are not stupid and we vote in our own self interest. The Republicans have taken every opportunity to bash Blacks while paying lip service to wanting a "big tent" party. Actions speak louder than words. If most of the poor, uninsured, Whites who vote "Values" voted in their own self interests too, there would be no Republican party. There just aren't that many White millionaires to go around.
Black Woman
September 19 2007, 2:19PM
I'm not a Republican. But I do think more black people SHOULD join the Republican party and make change. I do think that the Democrats are taking us for granted.
I also think we've got more leverage with Republicans than we think. We can't make enough inroads with this party if we stand on the outside. Look at the Cubans and how they've embraced the Republican party. This small but strong voting block has allowed immigration to go unchecked down in Florida. They've also been extremely effective in getting their voices heard and needs met. The democrats have been been out of favor until recently. This has really, really hurt us. Black folks have got to penetrate the Republican party and make change. Unfortunately, I just can't do it though....rich white men are just too darksided for me...
Mikey
September 19 2007, 2:29PM
I do agree with Keith's assessment, however I still support Ron Paul who is running on the Republican ticket, but he's not like the other candidates. Really he's NOTHING like the other candidates. And I agree with a lot of what he says, like getting out of Iraq, cutting government spending, he's never voted to raise taxes, never voted to increase spending, didn't vote for this National ID card they're trying to start, he's against this North American Union that George Bush signed in 2006. He's against big government and I think we as black people should be against big government too. As a libertarian he basically believes that individuals can do whatever they want so long as it's not harming others around you and I think that's a good thing. He's against income tax, Federal Reserve Bank, wants a humble foreign policy and wants US to mind it's own business and many other things.
Darnell
September 19 2007, 2:35PM
James, the topic of the thread is GOP white men and why they have no need to address black voters, not former, current or dead dictators in Africa. Sure, I know that there are many black gay men who feel a camaraderie with gay white men and white folks in general, as is their choice. I'm civil and polite with whites, but, know for a fact that they for the most part don't like, need or want to deal with black men and gay white men are worse than the GOP when it comes to black men. If, you have facts to show that this is wrong other than your personal dealings with them, since as in mine, I can only speak from my life's lessons, I'd be more than happy to entertain them.
matterhorn
September 19 2007, 3:19PM
Keith, in an attempt at full disclosure, you should've clarified that most of the republicans running for president will be present next week.
Of course that doesn't mean that the crux of your argument is untrue. However, that's a small but important fact.
Does anyone know why the democrats chose to snub the Fox News debate?
alicia banks
September 19 2007, 4:24PM
amen keith!!!
a black or gay republikkkan is akin to a black klansman or a gay black christian
an oxyMORON
peace
ab
Daniel
September 19 2007, 4:24PM
The problem is IF you want higher taxes, MORE govenment, MORE illegal immigration, LESS responsibility, more welfare, then go to the Democrats.
..and dont forget a healthcare system that the democrats want that will make ALL Americans accept third world health care.
No thanks...
cmoney
September 19 2007, 4:41PM
Daniel: Spare us the talking points. We are talking about the RACIST attitude of the leading GOP candidates and their pandering to their racist base. As for illegal immigration and healthcare and more government, if I were a Republican, I wouldn't even bring up those topics. Under the GOP, the government is bigger than ever, the deficits are higher than ever, the GOP hasn't even proposed ANY solution for our healthcare crisis and George Bush has been the best president Mexico ever had. So don't even go there. By the way, there are about 47 million Americans who would love to have some Third World healthcare--it's more than they get here!!
MidwestGuy
September 19 2007, 5:03PM
I'll admit that the idea of a gov't "requiring" everyone to have healthcare is a bit unsettling.
Although I haven't done the fact checking, I saw on the news that Hillary is going to require that americans show a proof of coverage irrespective of occupation.
If that's true, it's a very scary proposition.
DJ Black Adam
September 19 2007, 5:25PM
I say: To hell with them both. The democrats don't deserve the votes of African Americans any more or less than the republicans.
The republicans are up front with theirs at least, here in Chicago, we have democrats (Daley, Stroger, etc) who get the votes because Blacks just vote for whomever "Pastor" tells them to vote for, and who do nothing for the AA community. To hell with them both I say, start our own party and take our votes to whomever candidate will deliver.
Darnell
September 19 2007, 5:28PM
While, I don't know if her idea will work, at least she has an idea, and that's better than any of the others, too bad she is telling a public that isn't interested. They seem to be blissfully unaware, along with all the other candidates, that 47 million people lack health insurance. And, when they do need it, they go to the emergency rooms, which ups the rates for everyone else. As far as healthcare getting 'worse' this country pays the most for it, and has the worst system in the industrialized world on just about every statistic from infants born underweight to shorter life expectancy, and, blacks suffer the most under these two factors.
And, wasn't Mitt behind Massachusetts requiring every adult to have healthcare?
Illegal immigration? The new code word of fear for the GOP, like gay was the last two elections and black the three before the last one was before that, and oddly enough, those who vote GOP benefit most from this situation.
Daniel
September 19 2007, 5:37PM
Cmoney..spare ME your talking points. IF the 43 million americans cant third world healthcare, then GO TO the third world....try Mexico for a start!!!
Again, I repeat...MORE taxes, Less responsibility?,less morality? Vote Democrat.....
The republican party has to change no doubt.....if they will not,then they will become the dustbin of history....
cmoney
September 19 2007, 5:55PM
Less morality!!? Ha! Will Larry Craig, Mark Foley and David Vitter show us the way to righteousness?
bubba
September 19 2007, 6:01PM
Speaking of blindly supporting people who don't have your best interest at heart, you need to stop linking to Towleroad, Keith. Towle consistently allows a battery of racist commentary to infect his site while claiming not to know about it.
Daniel, do you realize that each political party has strengths and weaknesses that only demonstrate how the policies of either one should be enacted in moderation? Like Bill Maher says, the republicans claim that government is a problem because it doesn't work...and then they get into office and prove that theory right.
MLee
September 19 2007, 6:16PM
Keith, what got you so riled up all of a sudden? You are 100% correct. Before Bush and his so called religious racist fanatics, I considered myself an independent voter but leaning democratic. Now, ALL republicans are repugnant to me.
Daniel
September 19 2007, 7:03PM
Again, I am not going back and forth. The IDEALS of the republican party are MORE personal responsibility,LESS govenment, LESS taxes, MORE business related way of governing (Bloomberg and NYC). The faster the republicans get to that, the better....notice I said nothing of religion...the party has been hijacked by religious fanatics!!!
bubba
September 19 2007, 7:26PM
Oh, Daniel. Stop taking the naivety pills. Your repugnants have already achieved that which you're advocating.
MORE personal responsibility for Democrats than themselves when it comes to adultery, lying about sexuality, lying about the need for war and its progress.
LESS government for the people who truly need a helping hand from its social programs.
LESS taxes for the richest people and corporations who wouldn't have missed the money anyway.
MORE business related governing by way of catering to lobbyists from industries whose companies need more regulation.
Maybe you aren't from NYC, but those of us living there don't see Bloomberg's reign as a plus when gentrification and an obscene sprawl of luxury housing are soon to make the middle class here extinct. You would do well to cite another role model.
Daniel
September 19 2007, 7:40PM
Bubba
The so called middle class YOU talk about is being taxed to DEATH...so dont talk about the upper classes. Yes I AM from New York..and you cross ANY bridge using a car for instance and ask yourself if you are paying the true cost of crossing that brigge or subsidizing someone else??? Like welfare cheats, subway riders who want the $1.00 ride to continue indefinitely.
Bloomberg has run the city as a business...wish other cities would do that too.....
You are telling me with ALL the government we need more?? Take a valium and shut up....
Richest people and corporations EMPLOY people....when was the last time a whino did that....????
Lobbyists? Well., YOu go to congress and outlaw lobbyist. dont attack the model
Welfare never created jobs..it just keeps the people in power there longer and self feeds......
'dre
September 19 2007, 7:46PM
bubba, that site, towleroad, is great for general gay info,and fun stuff, but, child, when there is a story about a black man of any sexual persuasion, its open war, and its a shame that it has to be that way.
to the election, call out the repugs for what they are, anti human. and the dems for being complict with them and having no backbone for this silly war, out of control sepnding and all the cuts to real working americans. this country needs a viable third party option. until then, its one of the two evils that will run the place.
MidwestGuy
September 19 2007, 9:03PM
Daniel I really could care less about her having a "good idea." As the preemptive frontrunner, the assumed most experienced, after traveling this road in the 90's, IF requiring people to show proof of health insurance when trying to get a job, is the best idea she can come up with then you guys can have at her and this "idea"
She is NOT the only candidate to propose a healthcare plan. The whole debate was sparked for the most part by John Edwards. Where have you been guy?
bubba
September 19 2007, 9:38PM
I shut up when I'm ready, Danny boy. Pop a valium your damn self, because trying to be this site's version of Bill O' Reilly is only going to get your pissy temper going. What a brilliantly inaccurate picture you paint, where people are either pro-corporate greed advocates or defeatist whinos. Maybe people who want a $1.00 subway fare get their opinion from the reality of wages that don't go up to account for the MTA's increases. The companies you want to give a hand job aren't hiring them either. Those businesses are kept as elitist and white as possible. Who the hell said welfare creates jobs? You're all scattered in an attempt to discredit the institution. Maybe you'd be happier if people who fall on hard times went straight from losing a job to total destitution and homelessness. No unemployment benefits, no hope for welfare as a last resort, nada. It's ok for Bush to bail out his pet industries when they mismanage finances, but God forbid we help those who lost it all through no fault of their own.
Daniel
September 19 2007, 10:36PM
Daniel: Go somewhere please!!!!!!!!!!! These major companies are the biggest welfare recipients there are. Those tax cuts come from the same place money come from to support the homeless and those in need. What rich folk do not realize is that when more than half of this country is poor and destitute, they will be in the minority. And who says you have to be a fucking crook to employ someone.
And if you sitting on comfort street give reason for you to make such comments about big business and what not, remember, the life you save might be your own. You can have it today, and lose it tomorrow, and that is true business.
James
September 19 2007, 10:49PM
Well Darnell, I don't care that you choose not to deal with white people on an emotional level (what about mixed, or 1/4 white?), I just don't like to read that all I'm good for is war, violence and hate...I'm not stupid either ofcourse, I do get what message you try to get across, and for a large part I can even agree to that. I just think you should stay away from these hateful, untrue words that don't do the rest of your statement any good either.
cmoney
September 19 2007, 11:23PM
Midwest: that crap about having to show proof of insurance to get a job is a LIE that came from the Drudgereport. Hillary Clinton did not say that. It's just a Republican propaganda talking point that was put out into the web by liars like Matt Drudge and Dittoheads like Daniel. Republicans are so dishonest that Mitt Romney called her plan socialized medicine, eventhough it is the EXACT same plan he signed into law while governor of Massachusetts. They will say anything, regardless of whether there is any truth in their statements or not. Here's a good rule of thumb: If a Republican is saying it and it involves Hillary Clinton, it is probably untrue and should be dismissed out of hand. It works 90% of the time.
BookishGuy
September 20 2007, 7:45AM
James is right.
Hatefulness doesn't become anyone.
(1)
I too have felt the hate and exclusion of many white gay men; but that doesn't make me think that all white men are evil, warmongering, or hateful.
(2)
According to my experience, most white gay men call us separatist when we have a gay black pride event; but they never talk about how deeply separatist and whites-only they are in their porn, their politics, their homes, their friendships, their love-life, their cruising, and their work; but this doesn't mean all white gay men are like that.
(3)
I have met a few white gays who are genuinely anti-racist; who care about the lives of non-whites; and who care about poor folks.
(4)
But I have also met many black gay men who act cliquish, exclusionary, and hypercompetitive toward other black gay men. (And this is a huge problem among us.) I have met a lot of black gay men who play out thug stereotypes; who are macho stereotypes; who are as viciously queeny as a white drag queen.
No yet utopia exists.
BookishGuy
September 20 2007, 8:30AM
I meant: No utopia yet exisits. Sorry about the typo.
Some black gay scholars who are partnered with white gay men (like Phillip Brian Harper) offer insightful commentaries from their experience in individual chapters of their books. Some Asian and White gay writers like the men who run this website have written about gay interracial problems. There's a huge, but often confidential, literature kept by organizations like the often debated Black and White Men Together (debated for its arguable roots in fetishized attractions and cruising).
But, currently there are no books about the conflict or the solidarity between black gay men and white gay men (& the scholar Robert Pharr's new book does not count because it is chock full of unclear jargon.)
Let me offer one of my favorite book titles about solidarity among the races:
Common Differences: Conflicts in Black and White Feminist Perspectives by Gloria I. Joseph (South End Press, 1986); Gloria Joseph was Audre Lorde's last life-partner.
MD2BnDC
September 20 2007, 9:10AM
Keith: GREAT post!! You articulated my feelings exactly!
MidwestGuy
September 20 2007, 10:23AM
Cmoney, thanks.
I listened some commentators on fox last night talking about it. They put her statement into context. They clarified that it was not part of her plan but something like "she could envision it" and congress would be involved or some'n like dat.
But, as you said, it wasn't part of her plan.
Darnell
September 20 2007, 11:28AM
Cmoney, are you serious? I should have known that it had to be due to some right winger, or whatever Drudge calls himself.
Fox actually had something on other than the OJ booking and exiting the jail, getting on and off the plane shots? Oh yeah, its Hillary, their worse fear, other than OJ :-).
cmoney
September 20 2007, 1:11PM
Have you ever heard a Republican or Fox News say ANYTHING complimentary of Hillary Clinton? She IS their worst nightmare. That's why they've been campaigning against her for several years before she even announced that she was running for president. Notice how they hardly ever say anything bad about Obama, eventhough his positions are not that different from Hillary's? They are not worried about a Black candidate in this racist country becoming President so they leave him alone(of course, that will change if he gets the nomination). They are scared to death of Hillary and know that she can kick their sorry neanderthal asses out of the White House.
MidwestGuy
September 20 2007, 1:44PM
It's rare if at all that you see Fox saying anything good about Hillary. I don't think that they think her a worst nightmare per se. I just think they detest her and her husband. It was MSNBC that I heard the false reporting of what Hillary said. Fox cleared it up.
I also think that them not attacking Obama (other than how "we are the world" and naive his is) has little do w/them not being worried about a black man running for president. I honestly believe they would have a much harder time attacking him personally w/o it becoming 'going after a black man' thing as they would Hillary.
They want hillary to be the nominee because they are looking for an armeggedon, day of reckoning, an all out war. If by some unfortunate chance she is, a war it will be--before and during her presidency.
That unsettles me
Topher
September 20 2007, 1:53PM
I don't understand the US. Your leaders just don't get it..baffling beyond belief
Darnell
September 20 2007, 1:55PM
Midwest, you summed it up to a t, they want Hillary, they will get thier voters out in force, she is satan to them and its the end of the earth if she's elected. What bothers me with this, is that while, I can't see myself voting for her, the rancor of this election will be the worst in history. Hillary on one side, and Mitt on the other, talk about a lack of choice and the country being worse off than it is with the current dimwit in office.
KBJr.
September 20 2007, 11:25PM
::SIGH:: We all know just how disingenuous an invitation from a black organization to Republican Candidates can be. Presidential campaigns, especially during primary season, are about courting base voters. As a candidate, you go where the potential core votes are, or the money. Fact: Blacks hardly make up a fraction of the Republican base. So why exactly would GOP candidates waste resources and time courting a group of individuals who will not cast a vote for them regardless? The same for the LGBT community debate. You don't see too many Democratic candidates attending NRA forums. Or pro-life debates. There is a reason for that. Come on people. Debates take a lot of effort by candidates and his/her staff; they offer little benefit and a higher exposure to risks. Gaffes are prone to surface in these types of atmospheres, so of course candidates will be selective about what debates and constituencies they will actively court. THIS IS POLITICS FOLKS! And its not exclusive to Republican candidates.
KBJr.
September 21 2007, 12:01AM
Firstly Keith, you are no authority on what does and does not encompass ignorance or stupidity. I take exception to such a statement, and although I respect your opinion, I find it incredibly outrageous and insulting. Back on topic: It's laughable that you all lambaste Republicans for not actively courting minorities who have historically shown disdain for the Republican Party. We could discuss the assumed (accurately or not) notion that these nine white, Republican men are racists (or the very least prejudice and out-of-touch), but that would be a futile activity; because it's all unscientific assumptions rooted in already unfavorable perspectives. I happen to think that anyone who argues these men are racists with no categorical evidence but the mere fact that they're white, rich, and Republican may have to check themselves for prejudicial proclivities.We can however add up what the political implications of the said snub to Tavis Smiley and other black organizations will/could be: NOT MUCH.
KBJr.
September 21 2007, 12:40AM
Regardless of how easy it is to paint the GOP candidates as racist and out-of-touch with American minorities; it still does address the point that it would be silly for candidates during primary season to try and court the opposition base. Call me when it's the general election, and the GOP candidate refuses to debate at a black sponsered event. You might have an arguement then; but now, once again Keith, you allow you partisanship to irresponsibly cultivate notions. And how exactly will the GOP have black Congressmen if blacks make up little-to-none of the GOP electorate? Usually black Congress-persons are Democrats because black Congressmen are elected in overwhelmingly BLACK/DEMOCRATIC districts. And for the record, I tend to argee that our GOP candidates ought to be actively pursuing blacks, not out of politics, but out of principles. But I do understand why most don't even bother...in my opinion, both sides need to shape-up.
Darnell
September 21 2007, 12:24PM
KBJr, you bring some good points up, however, vote for them or not, they are supposed to be for all the people, not just who vote for them in primaries and the general election. That's the problem with both parties, they pander to the ones who vote, and which is not democracy. And, sure, those who don't vote get left behind and ignored by the politicians who don't care about those voters, with Katrina being the perfect example.
The GOP may not like it, but, the have a duty to be concerned about the black, gay and any other citizens who don't subscribe to their polices, well, if they had any moral conscience they would, but, that's for another day. I for one would have not one problem voting for a GOP canidate, as long as they didn't have to pander and praise and defend the Battle flag and fight anything about real fairness, so far, not one stands up to such a small request.
Justin
September 21 2007, 12:41PM
Keith:
I agree with you about most of the things in this article, but I still believe that the Democrats are no better alternative. This party is now run by DLC centrists like Harold ford who rather join them than bet them. With all this support we gave them what have got to show for it? They take us for granted. Left wing, right wing, They're still part of the same bird of prey.
cmoney
September 21 2007, 5:57PM
KBJr: Learn some history. Blacks were historically Republicans until they started looking to Democrats in the FDR era. Then they left en masse in the 50's and 60's when the GOP became an openly White nationalist party, taking the place of the Dixiecrats. The reason Blacks do not support the GOP is because the GOP has shamelessly and openly aligned itself with White, Southern racists and used race baiting to win elections. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican to continue the legacy of Jim Crow. In the 60's it was Nixon getting tough on crime (but only in Black neighborhoods). In the 70's, it was busing. In the 80's Lee Atwater and Reagan pushed an openly hostile campaign against Blacks and any White person who was sympathetic to Blacks using codewords like "Welfare Queens" and "Quotas". A lot of Blacks agree with some GOP conservative positions but would have nothing to do with the racists in the Republican party. Blood is thicker than water.
KBJr.
September 21 2007, 9:09PM
I misstated "historically" which implied more time than 50 years. I should have called a 'modern historical disdain'(although I DO believe the disdain of the last 50 years could be called 'history', dontcha think?) You can spare me your truncated modern history of the GOP and the black community, I've done more reading on the matter than I'd care to admit, and I understand the reasons why IN 1960 and 1964 the black community officially dropped its allegiance with the Republican Party. That still does not address a viable reason why nine GOP candidates (for 2008 by the way) should waste their valuable trail-time at a Tavis Smiley sponsered debate, when as you stated "a lot of black want nothing to do with the racists in the Republican Party". Again, I believe principally Republicans should not concede black voters to the Democrats, especially since there is an opportunity to change the tenets of the Party. But politically, I can see why there isn't much effort involved.
CHOCOLATEBEAR
September 22 2007, 10:41AM
PLAIN AND SIMPLE....
THE INDEPENDENT PARTY LOOKS MORE, AND MORE GOOD TO ME EVERYDAY!
Gordon
September 22 2007, 12:06PM
KBJr: Sometimes people are so concern with their own points of view that they forget and mistakingly mis-quote or give wrong information.....I sympathize with you.
Your point of view is seperatist, even though in theory it makes a lot of since. There is a new book out about the Governorship of George Bush Jr when he was elected Governor of Texas when he was quoted as saying " The hispanics showed up for me, and the blacks did not". "Therefore they can expect nothing from me". Just because someone does not vote your punk ass, does not give you the right to discriminate.
We've heard the seperatist bullshit too much. And naturally, you vote for those who stand the chance on addressing specific issues that concern you. So if the Republicans want black vote, they should be more empathetic toward all people, and not flanky white rich folk....PERIOD!
Comment Preview