What is the GOP afraid of?
Promoted by Brendan
There's a long-scheduled Republican debate Thursday night on issues of concern to minority voters, and five GOP candidates are taking a pass. The four leading contenders -- Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain -- all pleaded schedule conflicts. Tom Tancredo dropped out several days ago.
The debate moderator is Tavis Smiley, the place is PBS.The panel is made up exclusively of journalists of color.
Tavis Smiley is a polished advocate for raising up the standing of blacks among blacks, getting them to rise above poverty, and challenging them to avoid the stereotypes of the generation rap, and get after improving yourself with education and enterprise.
Is this acceptable to the GOP? Why the disappearing act. What are they afraid of? If they are tough enough to fight terrorists abroad why why away from addressing people of color?
Really this is utterly baffling in this day and age that the GOP would be unable to attend now the third minority sponsored debate? Why does the GOP keep reinforcing the stereotype of supporting only rich white men?
This is now the third minority-focused debate in which the Republican front runners have refused to participate. They also did not attend a debate on gay issues hosted by the Human Rights Campaign and the Logo network as well as a Spanish-language debate hosted by Univision.
When you say no to every black request you recieve, to black organizations, to black media. When you say no to every hispanic invitation you recieve, to organizations and to Univision, and to other hispanic media. When you say no to every black and brown request you receive, is that a scheduling problem or is that a pattern? They’re trying to go, these frontrunners, these Republican frontrunners, trying to go through this entire primary process and never have to address voters of color and never queried journalists of color. And I think in the most multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic America ever, that quite frankly, is unacceptable.
Is the GOP so confident that they can win the Presidential nominamtion without the support of minorities?
Even Ken Melman is advising that this is a stupid move by the GOP. John McCain..... absent? Mitt Romney..... absent? Rudy Guiliani......absent? Fred Thompson..... absent? Tom Tancredo, a no show?
Reallly what are they afraid of. Is the GOP the Big Tent party or the pup tent party.
I have to salute the courage of the remaining GOP candidates that will stand with five empty lecturns at the debate.
Former GOP star MIchael Steele has said that he can't believe this, and it is time for the GOP to or put up or shut up when it comes to minority communities in this country?
Which GOP candidates will be on the stage today, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and ... Alan Keyes
- missliberties's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
The GOP should have made Steele RNC chair
after he lost his Senate bid.
McCain was the only Republican candidate to commit to the Hispanic-issues Univision debate
.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
But they didn't
Steele was representative for the GOP and a strong talker. I wonder if he has the same feelings now? He is still a strong talker with the put up or shut up remark.
I just don't get it. Does the GOP really think they can win without the minority vote.
And Tavis himself, seems like he could lean Republican if they would support him.
It is the economy, stupid.
that's too bad.
Glad my man Ron will be there. He'll have a lot of time to talk about such issues..too bad nobody will be watching or care.
I hope Ron Paul calls out
the rest of these 'macho manly' candidates who are afraid to be asked a question by a minority group.
It is the economy, stupid.
The Ron Paul Medley from the debate
click
If they want to send a message
the debate organizers should leave five empty podiums up there with the appropriate candidate's names. That way it is glaringly obvious who did and who didn't feel it was worth attending.
A particularly cruel debate organizer would put unflattering cardboard cut outs behind said podiums.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Congradulations to Front Page World missliberties...
I can't say why the leading Repubs blew off the debate without my bias showing. I could suggest that they feel it is similar to the Democratic candidates who stiffed Fox on their proposed Nevada debate. Even if that's the case though, while it might be excusable for Democratic candidates saying they don't want to appear on a network that is actively trying to sink their party, do Republican candidates really want to suggest that they consider minorities enemy groups worthy of avoidance? How is that going to play out in the general election?
well......
I hear only crickets chirping so far from the conservatives at SC.
I wonder if they think this is black racism against white people.
You know discrimination against white people by having black people invite them to a debate on the issues.
Are African Americans forcing the GOP candidates to look bad.... on purpose.....?
Did they focus poll this and decide it was no big deal?
I really am stunned at what seems like blatant racism on the part of the GOP candidates.
I mean is there any other way to read this? If so, please feel free to explain. Anyone?
It is the economy, stupid.
I do not like the idea
of "minority sponsored debates" because I do not think there should be debates in front of anyone other than "all Americans".
I don't want to see debates before Latinos only, Asians only, Union workers only, whatever only.
Democrats are all into this separation because that's how they operate. As if somehow some groups are worth of more special attention and have more worthy issues than the others just on the basis of some minority or other status. Screw that.
I am glad the major GOP candidates did not fall for that nonsense. Keep the segregationist stuff in the Dem party.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
while I said the same thing
to my girlfriend, a liberal Dem, as the debate started, I still feel the candidates should have all gone.
They may feel as you do that such "minority debates" are part of what's wrong. I do as well. HOWEVER, I think they should have made that pitch at the debate.
The others did. Paul was great. He stressed often that black or white should not matter...along with a lot of other things. He got rousing applause.
maybe
but participation in this one meant nothing to me. If it provided a good platform for Paul then good for him :) He needs more exposure obviously.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The dark horse is becoming a couple of shades paler
The incomprehensible admission by the Dems top tier that they can't guarantee that US combat troops will out of Iraq by 2013 if elected was stunning.
Paul is now saying he is running a combo Barry Goldwater/Eugene Mccarthy insurgency campaign while his fundraising continues to increase. Someone might have to do an analysis of the closed/open primaries in the GOP slate...
Pie in the Sky
Talk about being unrealistic.
What is incomprehensible is that with the twitch of a nose, you think that anyone, a Dem or even superman Ron Paul, will be able to bring all troops out of Iraq by a date certain.
You do know that there is an enormous US Embassy there right? Which by law is considered US territory, ( I believe ), and that we have 14 military bases being built in Iraq.
This is the part that really sticks in my craw. The US footprint has been built, however shoddily, and the reality is that there will be troops in Iraq as long as the US Embassy remains. By building these structures, the zealots who thought up this war, have guaranteed that ever getting out of Iraq will be next to impossible.
Do you think Ron Paul would shut down US military bases in Iraq and close down the US Embassy in Iraq? Because that is the only way that there will be no US combat troops in Iraq.
It is the economy, stupid.
Well if the embassy is US territory ...
then the guards stationed there aren't technically in Iraq, right? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So I guess the R's will have to
decline the invation from the girls at Hooter's who sorely wanted the GOP to come and discuss topics of importance on women's only issues.
Tell me, what does a swath of all Americans look like and who is the judge of that is enough of a piece of the American pie for the GOP to be honor with their presence.
Is an all military forum a representation of all Americans?
All Republican a representation of all Americans?
Really your premise is ridiculous, imho. The Republicans candidates meet with all kinds of separated special interest groups to discuss the issues.
It is the economy, stupid.
show me a regular GOP debate
before a special interest group?
Regular non-segregated Americans are a representation of all Americans. All Republicans are a good subset because Republicans should be debating before Republicans. That's how it's usually done.
Subdividing a political group into whites, minorities, women, etc is a liberal tool so your trying to inflict the way you guys do business is not acceptable. Keep that crap in the Dem party.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Interesting
Subdividing people is liberal crap.
But then how do you see Democrats if they aren't a subdivision of Americans.
Or are you finally saying that Democrats are Americans too, and you don't see the difference?
So the GOP wouldn't speak to a subdivision of say evangelical Christians only because that is subdividing America and not representative of the whole.
It is the economy, stupid.
political parties
selecting their candidates are natural audiences for those internal debates.
Yes, Evangelical Christians would be a separate group, but that is more forgivable because it's not a division by external characteristics like the Dems love to do.
Minorities and women are not issue-oriented subdivisions.
I'll grant you that you got me a little with the evangelical Christian bit.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
:+)
External characteristics???
Does that mean you don't see women with external characteristics? %-)
It is the economy, stupid.
hehe
I see those external characteristics alright.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Minority sponsored debates?
What are these "minority sponsored debates" of which you speak?
I don't see ethnicity or color.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
the usual liberal invention bro n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Minority debates
I don't see why. America is a big country with a huge amount of sub cultures and subsets of people. If the autoworkers in detroit want to throw a debate to see how the candidates respond to their particular concerns then I see nothing wrong with that.
Of course I don't expect the candidates have to attend. If they feel like auto worker's concerns aren't a major issue for them then by all means let them skip it.
Similarly if a given minority want's to host a debate focusing on issues that are paramount to their comunity then fine.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hey, how do people feel about Hillary and the others
throwing the anti-war crowd under the bus in the debate? I mean none of them would commit to pulling the troops out during their first term, what's up with that? I thought that was the biggest thing on the Democrat agenda, getting the troops out of Iraq, right?
On last Sunday Hillary was saying that she wouldn't commit to pulling out because she didn't know what she was going to inherit. Would we have routed al Qaeda or not? Would Iran be more aggressive or not? Will the Iraqi government have resolved their issues or not?
I thought that the official Democrat position was that the Iraq war was already lost, there was nothing we could do, and that keeping our troops there any longer will just increase the death toll for no good purpose. But when she waffles over whether we might route al Qaeda, whether the Iraqi's might salve their problems, etc., isn't that sort of admitting that we could still win and that things are not hopeless?
That just seems to be off the Democrat reservation.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You are off topic.
This thread is about the GOP's fear of black people and why the frontrunners ignored the invation to answer questions that address minority issues.
It is the economy, stupid.
Sorry, thought I was in an open thread.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You are forgiven
Maybe you could write another illustrious Hillary dairy about she is going to destroy America as we know it.
It is the economy, stupid.
Republican Debate last night...
First of all, the crowd was actually quite diverse--it wasn't a "blacks-only" debate--there were probably slightly more whites there than blacks who attended.
There ended up being 4 empty lecterns (Tancredo changed his mind). Even Former Speaker Gingrich, not exactly a race-panderer had the following to say:
Yes, I don't think Newt is always right, but I think he's right on at this point. Truth is, when you have "normal debates," issues that are central to minority groups are ignored--that's the reason these focused debate happen in the first place.
Forget "external characteristics," that's beside the point--the debate is not about being black or being a woman, the issue is about issues that relate to those groups and how they can be addressed.
It's the same as Values Voters debates or gun rights forums. It is the issues that matter, and just because they happen to be Black, Latino, or female does not discount their concerns. They can't help what they look like.
Black groups often want to know how they can work with the next Administration to tackle issues that tend to plague their communities--how to slow and pare back the absurd dropout rate among black males, how to prevent the need for Jena 6 type issues from happening again without having bloggers and college kids do the job of the state and federal justice systems.
Lastly, the "scheduling conflict" excuse didn't pass the smell test considering the debate invitation was extended in March. If there was conflicts, it could have been pushed back or forward, just like the YouTube debate was.
I did catch a little bit of it though, and I did see the guys on stage make comments about going past the politics of race, which is the point. Express your viewpoint, even if you think it would be unpopular. And I think that those who did show were treated just like any other debate. The no-shows kinda reinforce the idea that Republicans won't even talk to people who disagree with them.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Thx for the review
I couldn't bring myself to watch it, so I appreciate your snapshot.
It is the economy, stupid.
why?
I hope you realize that that is the wrong attitude.
Such an unfortunate, tragic and all too common position.
It shows a total resignation to a one-sided, monolithic word view of "us vs. them" and "good vs. evil"....as if one party has the people with all the answers.
Don't think I'm picking on you in particular. This goes for everyone who shares your view...from either side and you are far from alone...not just here but all over the country.
Well that's assuming a lot
it could easily be that she couldn't watch just because political debates tend to be dull.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Could be
but in the context of her views and nature of the debate, I doubt it.
Funny thing
about people. They don't enjoy being lectured.
Discussions are one thing being lectured to another thing altogether.
Your condemnation of my right to not watch the debate is duly noted.
It is the economy, stupid.
Is that really it?
Is that what we're talking about here? Rights?
Now this is a criticism of closed-off attitudes...not an insinuation of what I think you should be doing.
Attitudes and assumptions
I think that's the de facto definition of a partisan: having the unshakable belief that the other side is wrong on everything simply because they are the other side. And an unwillingness to be exposed to anything the other side says, because, again by definition, whatever they say will be incorrect and biased and untrustworthy.
I'm not picking on anyone in particular either. Well, actually, my brother comes to mind ;}
I have a bit of a different take on why so many did not show up for this debate. I think the assumption of a racial motive is part of the stereotypical partisan view of the Rs (which may or may not be valid, but is beside my point). I think they just didn't show up because they saw no political value in doing so. In other words, attendance would not translate into enough votes to make it worthwhile when balanced against the potential risks associated with speaking in any debate.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
It is difficult to find
any other motive than purely racial unless you want to go with the stereotype that black people are typically poor and won't contribute enough cash to your coffers. Or we could go with the other stereotype that blacks are too uneducated to even bother voting. Avoiding the Hispanic debate and now the Black debate because R's are unprejudice? And what percentage of the population is black and hispanic. If it is a minority of the population it is one that is certainly growing.
I wonder why blacks and hispanics would even want to vote for a party that dismisses them.
The stereotypical partisan view of R's was reinforced by the fact that the leading R candidates didn't think it was important enough, or have the courage to answer questions from people that might not be able to $contribute$ enough to their campaign. What a sad day.
This is not Ike's Republican party, that's for sure. Ike was inspired by the blacks serving in the military during WWll to make it a priority that since they served for their country, their country should also serve them by instituting equal rights, and civil rights. You know the fight to defend human rights is why so many died in the fight against the Germans and the Japanese. It would be nice if it was a high priority value in this country once again.
It is the economy, stupid.
Here's what perplexes me about the whole thing.
You can't generalize a whole people's politics by their ethnic background, but that's what's happened here.
When you look at latinos as a group, they are a conservative family orientated people, who being primarily catholic support many of the republican "base" issues - ie- they don't support abortion, they say they believe in fidelity of marriage, they don't support gay rights. They'd be a natural to be republicans if republicans could only stop being such race baiters as far as immigration is concerned. No....not all republicans are race baiters, but the loudmouths are loud enough and the silent majority is so silent that people should be able to understand where the impression that republicans are kinda racist comes from.
Blacks....they're a harder group to pigeon hole. There are very conservative people of color. But they too see the loudmouths, and well....it's like the KKK or the Nazi party having a membership drive at a B'nai B'rith meeting. It ain't gonna happen.
True, but...
...what you can do is to provide a forum specifically for a given ethnic background, cutting out the other voices and hope that a the concerns that come forth represent the overall concerns of that population.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think there's a little more to it than that
I think the Dems do a good job of appealing to the down-trodden and playing the art of victimization and retribution.
That in itself is not really a problem. The problem for me comes from how they go about rationalizing what's wrong and then go about offering "solutions".
It can be very appealing but also very flawed.
Flawed, because I feel they often ignore or misinterpret what's wrong and attribute the idea of "disease" to what are really "symptoms" of a larger problem that finds its roots in previous misdiagnoses of older problems and flawed solutions.
Granted, it's not ALWAYS the case but it is the case far more often than they care to realize.
The debate was tolerable
Compared to the first debate where they compete to build the biggest Guantanomo base or the cruelest torture, these debate sound more sane.
Ron Paul talked about decriminalizing Drugs.
Huckabee talked about Drug Rehabilitation instead of prison for non violent drug crimes.
Brownback talked about how racism still affects job disparities for minorities.
I like Huckabee--if I were a Republican I would vote for him. Actually I hope he wins the Republican nomination. He seems the most safe candidate compared to the rest of the GOP field. In fact, he sometimes sounds like a Democrat.