Republican Decision To Skip Minority Forum

[Love As Arson]

As the Democrats debated last night in New Hampshire, a debate broke out about the decision of the leading Republican presidential hopefuls to skip a televised forum tonight that focuses on issues important to black and Hispanic voters.


None of the leading Republican candidates plan to attend the forum, which the television host Tavis Smiley will moderate at Morgan State University in Maryland and which will be broadcast live on public television. All the leading Democratic candidates attended a similar debate moderated by Mr. Smiley in June at Howard University in Washington.

Instead of attending the televised forum, which has been in the works for months, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney are scheduled to be in California, Fred D. Thompson in Tennessee and Senator John McCain in New York.

“I’m very disappointed by it,” said Michael Steele, the chairman of Gopac, an organization that tries to groom Republican candidates, who said he had spent months trying to have all the candidates attend the forum. “The hope was that it would be a chance for these guys to get out there and have a direct conversation with African-Americans and minorities across the country and lay out their visions.”

Mr. Steele said that shunning the debate could not only harm the party’s prospects with black voters, but with independent voters, as well.

“It doesn’t help,” said Mr. Steele, who became the first African-American to win statewide office in Maryland when he was elected lieutenant governor. “It’s hard enough as a black Republican to stand up in the community and say, ‘Trust me, these guys really do care,’ and then, when given the opportunity to show that, these folks don’t see the follow- through.”

A Republican debate on Univision, the Spanish-language television network, was canceled this month because Mr. McCain was the only leading candidate to agree to attend. (The top Democratic candidates, by contrast, did debate on the network.)

The decision to skip the forum tonight was criticized in an editorial in The Washington Times, a conservative-leaning newspaper, that said, “It is striking that the Republican front-runners believe that some run-of-the mill fund-raiser is more important than building up their relationships with black and Hispanic voters, groups who flock to the Democratic Party in droves.”

Donald E. Scoggins, the president of Republicans for Black Empowerment, a national group, said he hoped that the furor caused by the decisions to skip the debates would persuade the leading candidates to find another forum to address black voters.

“We feel that they’re losing a great opportunity to bring to the black community views that we feel, if they were aired, would go a long way toward dispelling the myths involving Republicans and the black community,” Mr. Scoggins said.

And he said he worried that if the Republican Party did not adapt it would find itself increasingly out of step with the changing demographics of the nation.

“I feel that the Republicans cannot continue to send subliminal messages to the base when it comes to dealing with race,” Mr. Scoggins said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/politics/27repubs.html?hp

[youcomebeforeyo]

Oh American politics how I love thee.

[TxRepresent]

Not surprising at all. Republicans a lot of time skip this kind of stuff because they dont necessarly need the full support of minorities because they have proven that they can win without it. Sad but true.

[aminorthreat55]

Steele is such a douchebag.

[Love As Arson]

Here is the transcript of the debate between those that decided to show up:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/transcript.html

I thought it went fairly well. I was surprised to see Brownback put forth legislation that called for the government to apologize for segregation and slavery.

[Rock]

I was surprised to see Brownback put forth legislation that called for the government to apologize for segregation and slavery.
Pointless. That doesn't begin to undo the decades of injustice caused by segregation and slavery. Noone can really apologize for something like that. Plus, it's not like anyone that's living today had anything to do with it. I've heard talk of fining/suing companies that still exist today that benefited from slave labor, which makes some logical sense, but there's really no point.

[Love As Arson]

Pointless. That doesn't begin to undo the decades of injustice caused by segregation and slavery. Noone can really apologize for something like that. Plus, it's not like anyone that's living today had anything to do with it. I've heard talk of fining/suing companies that still exist today that benefited from slave labor, which makes some logical sense, but there's really no point.
It is meant to be symbolic. The US benefited a great deal from the injustice, yet, as an institution, has refused to apologize for this. I am of the opinion that it would mean a great deal to those that are afflicted by the results of the institution. The point to suing the companies would be to demonstrate that no business should benefit from injustice; this was explored a bit with those that cooperated with Hitler's regime.

[x togepi x]

it's especially important to at least apologize since we paid reparations to the Japanese-American community after World War II, as well as give Native Americans certain benefits. It's almost as if the African American community is singled out as not getting any official response to their injustice.

[Rock]

It is meant to be symbolic. The US benefited a great deal from the injustice, yet, as an institution, has refused to apologize for this. I am of the opinion that it would mean a great deal to those that are afflicted by the results of the institution. The point to suing the companies would be to demonstrate that no business should benefit from injustice; this was explored a bit with those that cooperated with Hitler's regime.
As far as symbolism goes - blacks living today have no real-to-the-flesh experiences with slavery, so I don't feel like an apology would mean a whole lot to them. There are a fair amount of people that were victims of segregation, however, and maybe, in that case, an apology would have some effect.

[Justin_stacy]

The African American community has spent years making their vote irrelevant, particularly to Republicans, but this was still stupid on the part of the "big four." Local debates and network debates can be ignored, but given the fanaticism associated with race and perception of "racism" in our society they should have come to this one. Not so much to gain votes or support, which is highly unlikely, but to fend off against the almost certain accusations that are to follow their no show. Much like the stupid moveon.org ad give fuel to Republican to attack the DNC nominees on the war, this gives the Democrats fuel to funnel the fires of the race game.

Of course they say its about contributions, and we know that some of the Republicans are having problems in this arena compared to their Democrat counterparts, but that’s still no excuse. One night is not going to make or break a campaign. It doesn’t matter that there was little to gain in actual votes, there was gain to be had in perception and good will (especially on the Mexican American side). I don’t know if they feared coming into a hostile crowd or what, but it was a stupid move, and it might come back to haunt them. I’m just glad the one nominee with a brain and integrity went, Paul, and fellow Kansans, Brownback.

[Love As Arson]

As far as symbolism goes - blacks living today have no real-to-the-flesh experiences with slavery, so I don't feel like an apology would mean a whole lot to them. There are a fair amount of people that were victims of segregation, however, and maybe, in that case, an apology would have some effect.
I would argue that many experience very real problems created by hundreds of years of slavery.

The African American community has spent years making their vote irrelevant, particularly to Republicans, but this was still stupid on the part of the "big four."
I agree in one sense. They've consistently voted for democrats, who have continually betrayed them at every step, from welfare reform to civil rights issues.
Local debates and network debates can be ignored, but given the fanaticism associated with race and perception of "racism" in our society they should have come to this one.
Your view seeks to minimize race, when it remains important, not because people talk about it, but because there still exists racism in our institutions. In that respect, there are things which must be addressed. I simply find it hypocritical for one to castigate this forum, but remain silent when candidates go to the NRA. Claims of gun fetishism have little traction, because there is the conception that the 2nd amendment is important.
Much like the stupid moveon.org ad give fuel to Republican to attack the DNC nominees on the war, this gives the Democrats fuel to funnel the fires of the race game.
I think Tavis Smiley said it best: How can one desire to be president of America, and ignore segments of America, which are becoming larger demographics?


Of course they say its about contributions, and we know that some of the Republicans are having problems in this arena compared to their Democrat counterparts, but that’s still no excuse. One night is not going to make or break a campaign. It doesn’t matter that there was little to gain in actual votes, there was gain to be had in perception and good will (especially on the Mexican American side). I don’t know if they feared coming into a hostile crowd or what, but it was a stupid move, and it might come back to haunt them. I’m just glad the one nominee with a brain and integrity went, Paul, and fellow Kansans, Brownback.
My feeling is, if you are not willing to try to expand the base, then you are likely going to reinforce all conceptions and the communities unwillingness to vote for them. As to the hostile crowd, they're college students, not audience members in the Apollo; they can be appropriate.

[Rock]

I would argue that many experience very real problems created by hundreds of years of slavery.
That's a good argument. One which I agree with. The problem I have with it is that the effects aren't direct. If we wanted, we could search the pages of time looking for countless injustices which had negative effects on people living somewhere today and pay them reparations. Plus, we have neat things like scholarships, financial aid, and affirmative action. I know those measures only begin to level the playing field educationally and earning-wise, but the problem is so deep-rooted that it'll be quite some time before we see a level playing field between blacks and whites.

[Love As Arson]

That's a good argument. One which I agree with. The problem I have with it is that the effects aren't direct. If we wanted, we could search the pages of time looking for countless injustices which had negative effects on people living somewhere today and pay them reparations. Plus, we have neat things like scholarships, financial aid, and affirmative action. I know those measures only begin to level the playing field educationally and earning-wise, but the problem is so deep-rooted that it'll be quite some time before we see a level playing field between blacks and whites.
One should not act as though this occurred thousands of years ago, which is what the tone of your argument conveys. Segregation was only four decades ago, and slavery only a hundred and fifty years ago; we need not go through the pages of history, it was only a page or two ago. A straight line can be drawn from that to the socioeconomic problems in the black community. I agree on affirmative action, though I would like to see it class-based. Equal funding in schools and ending the drug war would also help these communities.

[Justin_stacy]

Your view seeks to minimize race, when it remains important, not because people talk about it, but because there still exists racism in our institutions. In that respect, there are things which must be addressed. I simply find it hypocritical for one to castigate this forum, but remain silent when candidates go to the NRA. Claims of gun fetishism have little traction, because there is the conception that the 2nd amendment is important..

I seek to minimize what I feel is without merit. Much of today’s so called racism is in fact created racism or perceived racism, rather then actual racism. Now that is not to say I don’t think racism still exists today, quite the contrary, I just don’t think it survives at the level race hustlers, charlatans and our cowardly media like to present it as, to public. And I think a lot of race is added into non-racial stories.

As for the NRA, i think its unfair to call Republicans “hypocritical” for picking and choose which civil rights groups they will met with base on the level of support they can gain from them. African Americans have already sold their vote, for the least amount, to the Democrats, so what is to be gain by Republicans pandering to them, outside of perception? The NAACP is a political action group now for the Democrats and its ignorantly racist leader, Julane Bond, speaks nothing but contempt for Republicans and conservatives, so in that sense what is actually to gain from Republicans meeting with them? The NRA invites them, listens to them, wants them there and even when it doesn't agree with them gives them a podium from which to speak.


I think Tavis Smiley said it best: How can one desire to be president of America, and ignore segments of America, which are becoming larger demographics?..

This is exactly why democrats are so opposed to rational immigration laws and border security. They want to create a new voting block out of these Mexican’s, and Republicans stand to loose big if they don’t find away to balance the needs to appeal to their shrinking, but powerful, traditional base and its views on border security/immigration with the need to expand into Mexican American communities for votes..

I would say that the one thing Republicans have on their side is that for years the DNC has take the African American vote for granted. They’ve done nothing to earn it or sustain it, and yet Black’s keep throwing their vote away on them. I think Mexican American’s are more savvy then that, and will expect support for their vote, rather then lip service, and I'm not sure the Democrats have it in them to actual work for the vote or listen to a minority group instead of telling them how things will be. The Republicans might be able to make some headway from this in the future although they need to get their shit together fast.

As to the hostile crowd, they're college students, not audience members in the Apollo; they can be appropriate.

To me this is exactly what race hustlers do. Now i know you were kidding, but the point still stands. Instead of taking the obvious route and assume that I meant hostile in the sense that the crowd wouldn’t be supportive of what the speaker had to say or pay them lip service in applauding; you took it as I meant that they’d be hooing and hollering like it was a taping of the Aresena Hall show. As if I'm saying Black lack the ability to set quietly and respectfully in a large group setting. You know I’m not Bill O’riely, I don‘t think all black live lives like those seen in a Li‘ John video.

People with racial mindsets can turn anything into a racial issue, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a valid claim or prove the intent of the individual being accused. You say I minimize “racism,” but the truth is I’m just suspicious of questionable claims and those who continuously make them for profit.

[Love As Arson]

I seek to minimize what I feel is without merit. Much of today’s so called racism is in fact created racism or perceived racism, rather then actual racism. Now that is not to say I don’t think racism still exists today, quite the contrary, I just don’t think it survives at the level race hustlers, charlatans and our cowardly media like to present it as, to public. And I think a lot of race is added into non-racial stories.
I disagree. I think racism has become much more subtle. Certainly, there have been gains, however, when one looks at things like the sentencing differences between blacks and whites, and consequently, the amount of minorities in jails, the prevalence of employment discrimination, discrepancies in wealth, police brutality, and so on, this should give them pause as it pertains to the progress that has been made, and what must be done. Moreover, I would argue that the reason there is this sensitivity to racial issue has to do with the idea that, ignoring racism, and not dealing with race at all, will establish some sort of equilibrium that cancel out racism.


As for the NRA, i think its unfair to call Republicans “hypocritical” for picking and choose which civil rights groups they will met with base on the level of support they can gain from them.
I am not referring to them as hypocritical, rather, there exists a double-standard when speaking of the NRA and black forums.


African Americans have already sold their vote, for the least amount, to the Democrats, so what is to be gain by Republicans pandering to them, outside of perception?
An exchange of ideas. One individual said that Ron Paul resonated a great deal with the students there.

The NAACP is a political action group now for the Democrats and its ignorantly racist leader, Julane Bond, speaks nothing but contempt for Republicans and conservatives, so in that sense what is actually to gain from Republicans meeting with them?
I agree. I would rather it exist as others had wanted it, that is, outside of the political institution, forcing change on a different level.


The NRA invites them, listens to them, wants them there and even when it doesn't agree with them gives them a podium from which to speak.
This is disingenuous characterization, as the only reason the NRA listens to them is because they will do as they wish. One can see how they savaged democrats in past elections.

This is exactly why democrats are so opposed to rational immigration laws and border security. They want to create a new voting block out of these Mexican’s, and Republicans stand to loose big if they don’t find away to balance the needs to appeal to their shrinking, but powerful, traditional base and its views on border security/immigration with the need to expand into Mexican American communities for votes..
Democrats and moderate republicans want similar things with regard to immigration: A permanent under-class, which can be exploited by American businesses. Transforming voting demographics is the least of their concerns.

I would say that the one thing Republicans have on their side is that for years the DNC has take the African American vote for granted. They’ve done nothing to earn it or sustain it, and yet Black’s keep throwing their vote away on them.


I think Mexican American’s are more savvy then that, and will expect support for their vote, rather then lip service, and I'm not sure the Democrats have it in them to actual work for the vote or listen to a minority group instead of telling them how things will be. The Republicans might be able to make some headway from this in the future although they need to get their shit together fast.
The republican rhetoric on immigration has caused them significant losses amongst Latino voters. Their neglect of the Latino forum is also sure to cause losses in 2008.


To me this is exactly what race hustlers do. Now i know you were kidding, but the point still stands. Instead of taking the obvious route and assume that I meant hostile in the sense that the crowd wouldn’t be supportive of what the speaker had to say or pay them lip service in applauding; you took it as I meant that they’d be hooing and hollering like it was a taping of the Aresena Hall show. As if I'm saying Black lack the ability to set quietly and respectfully in a large group setting. You know I’m not Bill O’riely, I don‘t think all black live lives like those seen in a Li‘ John video.
You should have watched the debate, as the audience was receptive to a number of ideas put forth by the republican candidate, namely policies about offering rehabilitation instead of prison time and ending the drug war.


People with racial mindsets can turn anything into a racial issue, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a valid claim or prove the intent of the individual being accused. You say I minimize “racism,” but the truth is I’m just suspicious of questionable claims and those who continuously make them for profit.
I would not characterize individuals as having racial mindsets, but rather conscious of the role race plays in various portions of our society. When you frame it in such a way, it becomes difficult to address this, because the immediate supposition is to think of Al Sharpton, rather than to address it objectively.

[Justin_stacy]

You know it makes it next to impossible to respond in a timely manner when you disect posts line by line.....!?!?!

[Love As Arson]

You know it makes it next to impossible to respond in a timely manner when you disect posts line by line.....!?!?!
Haha. My apologies. I've just found it far more efficient for addressing arguments. I'll try to limit it in instances where I am addressing you.