The Democrats have certainly had their share of racists as well. As a matter of fact, until very recently, the "Racist" South was solidly Democratic. As a matter of fact, if you look at many of the most-outspoken racists of the '50s and '60s, nearly all of them were Democrats. I think, these days, there are two factors that contribute to the heavy percentage of minorites who vote for Democrats. First is the fact that Democrats, as a party, have been trying to appeal directly to minorities for a longer period of time. I don't think the Republicans, as a whole, wanted to exclude minorities or even had anything against them. They simply didn't go after their votes early on, and once those votes appeared to be solidly Democratic, they wrote them off and didn't try to change the minds of those voters. It has only been very recently that the Republicans decided to try and appeal directly to minorities. I don't think that it was an effort before to exclude those minorities, there just wasn't any focused effort to appeal to them. Secondly, there is simply the tradition. Once a person starts voting a certain way, they tend to vote that way pretty well all their lives. Look at my grandmother. She voted a straight Democratic ticket all her life but her views were more in line with what the Republican Party was espousing for the last two decades of her life. But she was a Democrat and she would never vote Republican. It works the same with a good many people, though it appears that younger people are less likely to vote party lines than their parents and grandparents were, so it may be changing. ------------------ www.houstonsportsboard.com
If you want to talk tired, how about the policy of automatically dismissing anything the Republicans do as racist or 'a sham' designed to hide their racism? I've already pointed out that that interpretation of the GOP-- because they don't say "HERE'S OUR PLAN TO SAVE THE BLACKS!", they're racist-- is incorrect, because the GOP doesn't pander to racial minorities as the Democrats do. You're operating from what I've already described as a flawed premise-- the GOP is racist, so unless it expressly adopts the Democrats' position on racial issues, it will continue to be so. Who says Reagan was a racist? As I've already said, that tag was nothing more than an easy way for the Democrats to dismiss Republican positions. Saying that the GOP's agenda is racist doesn't make it true. If you look at the facts and realize that-- as I think most of the lefties on this board would admit-- the Republican Party simply disagrees with the Democrats over the best way to serve racial minorities, then you have to dismiss the idea that the GOP is some grand conspiracy to hurt black Americans. Your response, "Well, the GOP's always been racist and still is, sorry" makes it pointless for me to continue this discussion. I have explained to you WHY you are mistaken in categorizing the GOP as racist. If you can manage nothing more substantive than to ignore what I'm saying-- my explanation of the miscategorization-- then I'm through. I do want to make one more comment, however. I find it extremely personally offensive to be called a racist because I don't agree with you on how the government should operate. If someone said something like that to me in a bar-- "Oh, you're voting for Bush? You racist!"-- they'd leave with fewer teeth than they came in with. ------------------ I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.
Here is a perfect example on how the Republicans think they help out minorities. Reagan comes in with his trickle wachamacallit which says give the rich all the tax breaks they need. Eliminate them from the corporate structure as well. Then, when the billionaires become gazillionaires, we can all benefit because it will trickle down and everybody will have more. Well, guess what? That didn't work. Minorities don't own that many businesses. They don't make money like the people that own them. All it did was widen the gap between the rich and poor even further. They fooled American into a bunk idea when all it did was swell the pockets of rich, fat, white guys who own 90 percent of everything. Thats just one example. I can come up for more. On the other hand, Democrats do more for minorities on the whole. Although, I don't think its enough STILL, they do more. For example, look at the Family Leave Act of 1993. It states that you have 12 weeks after a baby is born to stay home and take care of it. Who do you think that benefits? The rich guy who can afford 50 nannies to take care of his children while he is off to work in his new Ferrari? Or guys like me who are soon to be fathers and can have his girlfriend take of 4 months to be with our new baby without worrying about losing her job? "The United States is enjoying the longest economic expansion in history; the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the most new jobs ever created under a single administration; the highest homeownership rate in history; the lowest poverty rate in twenty years and the largest five-year drop in child poverty since the 1960s." Wall Street Journal, April 4th 2000 Take a look at the above. Notice the "lowest unemployment rate" part and the "highest homeownership" part and the "largest five-year drop in child poverty" part. Um..do you think that these are the rich white guys they are talking about or the "other" people that had no home, were unemployed and their kids lived in poverty? You don't have to announce that this policy is for minorities or that this one is for blacks or this one is for Mexicans, etc. But a record showing that you are TRYING to help us out would be nice. Don't cut the taxes for Bill Gates so that he can hire more people. Cut MY f**king taxes so that I can afford to keep my home. But alas, Clinton is leaving and the country will go right back to the partisan bulls**t it was always in before. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Brian, Figureheads don't make a party inclusive or not, policies do. Paying a washed up hag like Chakka Khan to play for a convention doesn't make a party inclusive, policies do. Gore on the surface has some cajones. On review though, which states in the U.S. would actually vote differently b/c of the ticket? Florida may be the only one, and that's actually a positive for the Gore campaign... In the moderate midwest, it doesn't seem like being a Jew is of any importance. The racist states in the South are going to vote republican anyway (you guys can have those votes ). This pick is pretty interesting. It calls out Liberals that were afraid of Gore (Liebermann is the same guy, just Jewish) and challenges those to not vote for a Jew. ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
No, Brian. Thats not why. Its because when you look at the Republican constituents, 95 percent are white. I know that there is still 5 percent non-white. But, in my opinion, they should have a liiiiiiiitle more variety, don't you think? ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
1. It's OK to call people what they call themselves. Blacks are blacks. Jews are Jews. Joe Lieberman is a Jew. You can call him a Jew. You can call him Jewish. You can call him "of Jewish descent," if you want, but that's like calling someone "of black descent" or "of Catholic descent." Barry Goldwater was of Jewish descent -- his dad was Jewish, but Barry decided to become an Episcopalian like his mom. But Joe Lieberman is a plain good-old-fashioned Jew. As am I. 2. I have to step in BK's side about the Republican ethnic outreach stuff. First of all, George W. Bush was not too racist or too afraid to pick Colin Powell as his running mate. Bush would have put his own hair in cornrows if that would have persuaded Powell to join the ticket. Powell would have blown the doors off the Democrats. The only plausible reason why Bush didn't pick him is that Powell refused to be picked. Second, although Republicans have often practiced racial tokenism (and so have Democrats, by the way), there has to be some point in the courtship at which you say to yourself, "Hey, maybe these guys are for real." That Republican convention was not just tokenism. They spent hours talking about the kinds of problems that blacks and Hispanics in poor urban neighborhoods face every day. And their keynote speaker slapped a lot of their donors by ripping Republicans who want special tax breaks but oppose affirmative action. Spending that kind of TV time and taking those kinds of political risks signifies more than tokenism. It is serious stuff. It's just a start, but it's serious.
Will, I have no doubt that Bush's feelings towards minorities is genuine. As Mango has taught me, go literally on everything someone says (j/k Monsieur Mangue). You should give someone the benefit of the doubt until they spoil your efforts. Although I'm sure that the majority of moderate Republicans aren't racist, Colin Powell was in no means preaching to the choir on minority issues/concerns. He utilized (as well he should) his position of fame to focus the Republicans at the outset on issues of affirmative action and abortion. Did they stay focused? Hell no. They took advantage of the 'air' and then redirected the theme into a place they felt comfortable (they were of course fine w/ minorities meeting them at that place ). Was that a 'risk'? Not for the party, Powell isn't running and there's no way in hell that republicans would ever support affirmative action. Considering there are constitutional concerns too, I consider Powell's speech tokenism. He means it, Bush probably agrees with it in principle (different method), but 95% of the people there were shaking their heads at a man they respect, little more. "I have deep admiration for Powell" and then the focused whisper "of course I don't agree w/ most of the things he says". If it wasn't tokenism, then open up the debate... don't hide behind a potential misunderstanding for Americans... we're just playing "sexual relations" games in that ballpark. If a democrat brings up banning abortions (not just partial birth) next week, do you not think that the party will immediately correct the individual in a press release in 5 minutes? p.s. I'm sure the Republicans enjoyed the attention that Powell granted them, however. Everybody likes a man in uniform. p.s.s. And as Chris Matthews said "it must be great to be a black American, everyone of them spoke tonight". ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
Hold on there, hoppity! Did I ever post "BRIAN KAGY IS A RACIST"???????? I keep looking through previous posts and I don't see it. Therefore, I don't believe I called you one. So, do us a favor & chill. With that said, here are my reasons why the GOP can be considered a little more racially, ethnically, religiously & sexually "intolerant" than the Democrats: 1. The Republicans historic lack of support for civil rights. 2. The Republicans historic lack of support for Gay rights. 3. The Republicans historic lack of support for Affirmative Action, a stance that was belittled at the Republican Convention by your supposed future Secretary of State, Colin Powell. 4. The Republicans historic lack of support for the Equal Rights Amendment. The facts are there, and you can look them up for yourself. I could go on until I'm blue in the face, but it would be useless to argue this with someone who ignores facts. May I suggest, rather, that you try switching to decaf. It may save you from that early heart attack you are well on your way to! Here's a little story for you to read. Enjoy! ******************************************** Officially formed on July 11, 1954, less than two months after the landmark anti-segregation decision Brown v. Board of Education was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Citizens Councils of America was founded with the express purpose of supporting the concept of White Superiority. Nevertheless, in hopes of distancing themselves from other racists, the leaders proclaimed that they were of a "better class" than the KKK who burned crosses and wore white sheets. Instead, they proclaimed, the members of the Citizens Councils of America wore suits and ties, were owners of local businesses, were doctors and were elected mayor. The driving force behind the group, Robert Patterson, wrote in 1956 that the Citizens Councils was created because, "Integration represents darkness, regimentation, totalitarianism, communism and destruction. Segregation represents the freedom to choose one's associates, Americanism, State sovereignty and the survival of the white race". The group wielded great political clout throughout the South in the 50's and 60's but saw their membership fall from an estimated 250,000 at its peak in the 50's to the point where the group nearly disbanded in the late 70's. The early eighties, however, was a friendly time for racists, a time when America elected an administration far kinder to their sick views. The group began using the vocabulary of the time to legitimize their cause. They first changed their name to Council of Conservative Citizens. Then they began decrying "giveaway programs" and "special preferences" and "quotas" and "crack-related crime" and "single mothers" and "third generation welfare mothers" "dependent" on government checks and food stamps. They found that they could join with other far right wing radical groups like the John Birch Society and that they were even able to attract past campaign workers for racists politicians like Lester Maddox of Georgia and George Wallace of Alabama as well as supporters of the white government in South Africa. Forming new branches in many Southern states was simple, considering that the local government was epitomized by folks like conservative Republican Governor Kirk Fordice of Mississippi who declared that he was not "going to, just because it's politically correct, demonize the CCC. There are some very good people in there with some very good ideas. All this stuff about them being racists, that's hearsay, as far as I'm concerned". (All a statement like that proves is that Fordice needs a better foundation in American history.) The group promotes the view that the white race is superior to all others and that America has always been a white, European culture that is now threatened by black and Hispanic cultures. Even though these racist views have long been found wanting in more intelligent circles (in particular among the Native American tribes who occupied this land for just a few thousand years longer than white Europeans), that hasn't stopped them from pretending to be intelligent. Even their national board "boasts" such "thinkers" as Yale University educator and self-described "racialist" Jared Taylor, author of "Paved With Good Intelligence" which argues that different races have genetic differences in intelligence levels. Apparently, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, even though he was born in the same area, Carroll County, as the national headquarters of the CC of C, hasn't learned the lesson that the majority of Americans detest any form of racism. He has made many speeches to its members as well as inviting the leaders to his Washington Senate offices. Lott has even appointed the head of the CC of C's Mississippi branch to be his election chairman in Carroll County. The Council of Conservative Citizens crows that at least 34 state legislators belong to their little organization and it is a fact that at least two candidates for governor in southern states have spoken at their meetings and, as noted above, even the Senate Majority Leader has knelt before the group's ideological altar of hatred. Now, Lott suddenly finds his association a problem in that he sees himself as a possible vice-presidential candidate and worries that ties to foul and hateful groups such as this may be too expressive of his true beliefs. In fact, his greatest worry is that his association with the Council of Conservative Citizens might put off real human beings who would vote for any Republican, even Lott, but may find an overt racist just a tad too disgusting. ******************************************** Have a wonderful day! ------------------ Bring It!!
From today's Orlando Sentinel (by Kathleen Parker): Improbably, a mariachi band dressed in blue toreador suits is playing "Guantanamera" as a parade of, yes, mostly white people passes by: two portly women in matching red-and-blue shirts dotted with white stars; a woman in sequins and high heels; many, many legs mysteriously sheathed in white hose. I spot a yarmulke or two; an Asian man videotaping ; a lone black woman. Rather than mirroring America's soul, these random ethnic sprinkles give the impression of an Epcot fire drill. It's easy to understand the cynicism. Where is the diversity? The better question may be, where are the reporters when diversity happens? Where were they when Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., called a press conference Thursday afternoon? At a convention criticized for its pale complexion, Watts' appearance with a few dozen fellow African-Americans had the visual impact of a spontaneous oasis. Suddenly in the midst of White Wonderland (the media, not the convention) materialized a crowd of black people eager to talk about conservatism and their man, George. Did you see the story? Didn't think so. Why? Because J.C. Watts is a black conservative, which constitutes non-news in the media tents. Perhaps the same non-news perspective is what kept the networks from covering Watts' speech before the 1996 Republican Convention. Cynicism or censorship? Give a conservative African-American a microphone and a podium and reporters figure there's something wrong with the guy. Give Jesse Jackson the same microphone and a civil-rights platform as fresh as a loaf of Capt. Ahab's hardtack and reporters jockey for sound bites. The few reporters who did attend Watt's conference hurled the requisite challenges, especially concerning the congressman's historical opposition to affirmative action, as in: "How could you?" Watts' answer was less prosaic than most of what passed for "quotes" at the convention and bears repeating on its own merits, if not for old-fashioned reportorial balance: "You take a poor black child," he said, "Give him a good education, tell him he's somebody, that God didn't create junk when he created him, and that black child will create his own affirmative action." Only a cynic would disagree, or fail to mention it. ------------------ www.houstonsportsboard.com
mrpaige: Everyone listens to Jesse Jackson b/c they're expecting him to say an ethnic slur towards Jews again. Plus, it's fun to impersonate his speeches. On J.C. Watts: I'm not so sure that he's being censored. Ask Americans who two black Republicans are and they'll guess Powell and Watts. ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
Here is what it comes down to. RocketmanTex stated perfectly about the lack of credibility that the Republicans have when it comes to minority issues. There is very little and even to this day, they boo their own gay congressman on stage. I don't care much for affirmitive action myself, but we all know what they think about that. But, the Democrats can do BETTER when it comes to issues that concerns us. Yea, they do more than the Republicans, but what does that mean? We still have prejudice at work. We still have inner city problems that can be addressed more. Minimizing welfare was an excellent move. But still, we have a long way to go and I don't think we can get there unless the Republicans and the Democrats tackle this problem TOGETHER. But, because of the bi-partisan bull, the people of this country will have to do it on their own if they want to live together in peace. If you think about it, the parties mirror America. Republicans are white. Democrats are the minorities. They occasionally get along. But most often than not, they don't let their friends and relatives even give a thought about marrying someone from the other side. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Achebe, I wasn't promoting the opinions of Ms. Parker as my own. I was just noting the column since it related to the subject at hand. I don't think she was saying that Watts is censored. She was saying that he called a press conference at the Convention and few reporters showed up, for whatever reason. Her point was that the media can be biased in regards to Republicans (I mean, it was a reported story that there weren't many minorities at the convention, yet when there was an opportunity to showcase one of the rising stars of the GOP who happens to be a minority, much of the media passed. Now, I don't think it is necessarily bias against Republicans that made those people pass on convering Watts and the other Black Republicans at this press conference, but it is curious to me.) But I wasn't there and haven't asked the reporters why they didn't attend the press conference. Perhaps they all have very good reasons for not doing so. But one point is that you can't very well see minorities at a convention if the media chooses not to cover one of the events where minorities were showcased (poor choice of words, but you get my drift.) Of course, evenryday that goes by, I feel less and less like I belong in the GOP, so I might be arguing for the other side by the time that this thread finally winds down. ------------------ www.houstonsportsboard.com
