The GOP gives the NAACP a hint about its priorities

snood wrote:

Thomas:

Quote:
As it happens, I think their record fails the test that should matter to the black community

Well, dang. Nevermind, then.

Glad we found some common ground. Smile

And sorry about saying "particular" three times in one paragraph.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Why do you insist on missing the painfully, painfully obvious?

I have not missed anything. I think that the fact that attending would not have been politically expedient makes a lot more sense to me. Hey, we are dealing with politicians, not rocket scientists. They want to maximize their political clout. If they thought that going to that debate would make any difference in the political scheme of things, IMO, they would have gone.

I am not making a value judgement about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of those people not attending the debate.

Let's look at it this way. Do you think that the Democratic candidates would attend a debate hosted by a group of evangelical Christians? Would that make them anti-Christian, or simply practical?

0 Replies

Re: The GOP gives the NAACP a hint about its priorities

snood wrote:

This past Thursday, the NAACP hosted a debate just for the GOP candidates. Below are pictures from the debate. Only Tom Tancredo showed up.

Tell anyone anything?

Maybe the invitation started off with "Dear Cracker"? Laughing

0 Replies

Good one, hokiebird.

0 Replies

Hmmmm...

I think the fact that the non-appearance of any GOP candidates became national news (I was well aware of this story before this thread was posted) belies the contention that the Republicans had nothing to lose anyway by ignoring the NAACP. They have lost much face, and not just with black voters. The NAACP may not represent all African-Americans, but it is a respectable and well-respected organization and most of the black community does look to it for guidance. It can be a bell-wether for national trends. To say that the GOP leadership figured they couldn't get the African-American vote anyway is to say that they have admitted defeat without even putting up a fight. If the NAACP is considered a 'lap-dog' of the Democratic Party, then I would think it was to in the GOP's interest to try and lure the doggie into their own lap.

0 Replies

Well, I don't think it can be said it exactly made "national news" - seems the major outlets ignored it.

And I don't know if "most of the black community looks" to the NAACP "for guidance", either - but I would agree that it is still respected by most.

0 Replies

The story was on NPR several times, Snood. It got lots of attention in the Detroit Free Press (obviously, because that's where the convention was held) and other local papers. It was printed in the NY Times and the Washington Post (not front page, though). I think the only people who missed it were those who rely for their 'news' exclusively on the television.

0 Replies

That's a depressingly large number of people, if you sit down and think about it. ;p

Seriously, though, let's assume that there's not any -actual- racists among the Republican candidates for a moment. Why would they attend the NAACP-sponsored debate? Is there a need for a "black" debate and a "white" debate? If you're of the position that we really should go beyond race - the whole "content of character" thing - then there's no sense in having different debates for different races.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, politicians rarely appear in front of hostile crowds during an election campaign. What's the point? Standing up in front of the NAACP and saying "there's no difference between affirmative action and Jim Crow" is not going to win you any votes. You're spending time and energy to no effective gain. Is Tancredo going to benefit from having attended? Probably not, given that most of the people who care on that score won't be voting in the Republican primary, huh? (But of all the Republicans, he is the one whose pet issue can definitely be framed in a pro-black slant - so he's going to benefit more than any of the other candidates.)

And don't forget the morale effect. Politicking is hard, but if you're a politician, one of the benefits is the support - not just the checks, but the feeling you get when a lot of other people agree with you and want you to win. You don't get that from a hostile crowd - the only thing you get is beat up for holding the principles you hold. You're not going to change your mind, they're not going to change their minds, so why pretend that might not be the case in some kind of elaborate Kabuki?

(You can't really contest that the event was actively hostile. You don't put up a podium for someone who tells you they're not coming unless you, on an organizational level, are ready to mock them from the beginning.)

Is anyone going to remember this a year from now, when the party conventions are over and we're gearing up for the final stretch of the campaign? Heck no. Hell, there'll be another NAACP annual convention in between then and now, even.

0 Replies

Re: The GOP gives the NAACP a hint about its priorities

Thomas wrote:

snood wrote:
This past Thursday, the NAACP hosted a debate just for the GOP candidates. Below are pictures from the debate. Only Tom Tancredo showed up.

Tell anyone anything?

Apparently most GOP candidates take for granted that whether they show up or not, the NAACP clientele (liberal blacks) will vote for the Democrats. Apparently most Republicans consider it a waste of their time to change that. They may well be right.

The time was, all blacks voted Republican. Ever heard of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President? In the first decade of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., an undeniable racist (c.f., his comments on Margaret Sanger as a "race traitor"), carefully courted the black vote as a traditional Republican voting block. When after many years of Republican administrations, Woodrow Wilson finally took the White House for the Democrats, one of his more prominent actions with regard to race was to sign an executive order segregating Federal offices so that nice white women didn't have to sit next to nasty black women.

This all changed with FDR and Harry Truman. Eleanor Roosevelt was FDR's eyes and ears on the road, and she just as carefully visited and listened to and was seen with black men and women. Truman desegregated the armed forces by executive order in 1948. Lyndon Johnson, as the first "deep south" President since before the Civil War (they didn't count Wilson, who came from Virginia), pushed through the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Republicans have abandoned Americans of African ancestry, not the reverse. Miss Rice, Mr. Powell, Mr. Justice Thomas all provide evidence that there is political life and hope for black conservatives--but if no one provides them anything more than an opportunity to work as a house slave rather than a field hand, how much will Republicans ever be able to rely on the black vote? If blacks vote for Democrats because Democrats at the least listen, and Republicans can't be bothered to even show up to hear what blacks might have to say, why should anyone be surprised if blacks turn out to be Democrat "clientele?"

0 Replies

What Set said.

0 Replies

I was thinking about this thread, and all of a sudden it struck me. The answer was so simple that I was shocked that I had not thought about it earlier.

The time before the primary is when all the candidates of a particular party attempt to convince their constituents that they are the right person for the job.

Only members of a particular political party may vote in the primary elections.

The potential candidates need the time to maximize support from people in THEIR party.

If you check the statistics done by the Pew Research Group, you will find that only 6% of black voters in the 2004 election were registered Republicans:

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

(See Party Identification Trend, by Demographic Groups)

I would suspect, that if one polled people who were active in the NAACP, you would find that the percentage of Republicans in that organization is much less.

Therefore, potential candidates attending a debate in front of people who cannot vote for them in the primaries is, IMO, counterproductive.

Yes, it is true that Republicans have not reached out to black people in any significant way. I don't think though that pre-primary is the time to accomplish that. Right now the presidential candidates need to gather the support of their constituents.

Once a candidate is named though, I think that dialogues with black leaders need to begin.

0 Replies

They haven't "dialogued" with the black community pre or post primary, or pre or post election. You're still dodging that elephant in the living room.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

They haven't "dialogued" with the black community pre or post primary, or pre or post election. You're still dodging that elephant in the living room.

Very true about the dialogue, which I have acknowledged. But I am not dodging. There is a time and place for everything, and pre-primary is NOT the time.

If a potential candidate spends his time currying favor with people who can't vote for him, rather than gathering support from people who can, he won't have the opportunity to run for the office where he might be able to do some good.

0 Replies

"Pre-primary is not the time".

Judging by their actions, there never is a time.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

"Pre-primary is not the time".

Judging by their actions, there never is a time.

Never has been, never will be.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

"Pre-primary is not the time".

Judging by their actions, there never is a time.

I hear what you are saying Snood, and to a great extent, you may be right. My point is that the pre-primary is a completely different issue. I know that you are angry about what you (rightly) perceive as being ignored by the Republicans.

If a Republican candidate for the presidency is wise, he will look to be more inclusive, and attempt to gather a coalition of voters from all walks of life.

Bottom line, a potential candidate cannot do very much if he is not elected president. So, the top priority is becoming a candidate, and getting elected.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

snood wrote:
"Pre-primary is not the time".

Judging by their actions, there never is a time.

I hear what you are saying Snood, and to a great extent, you may be right. My point is that the pre-primary is a completely different issue. I know that you are angry about what you (rightly) perceive as being ignored by the Republicans.

If a Republican candidate for the presidency is wise, he will look to be more inclusive, and attempt to gather a coalition of voters from all walks of life.

Bottom line, a potential candidate cannot do very much if he is not elected president. So, the top priority is becoming a candidate, and getting elected.

Your bottom line - not mine. And I'm not angry this morning. Can't a black man have a strong opinion, without being angry? Laughing

0 Replies

Snood wrote:

Your bottom line - not mine. And I'm not angry this morning. Can't a black man have a strong opinion, without being angry?

Of course!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If a potential candidate spends his time currying favor with people who can't vote for him, rather than gathering support from people who can, he won't have the opportunity to run for the office where he might be able to do some good.

and if s/he doesn't bother putting him/herself in front of people who might register on his/her behalf at the primary stage, they're sending a clear message - "you're not worth the trouble"

I'd have thought that the primary stage was the best time to get out there and attempt to make a good impression. There's an opportunity to not only get voters, but canvassers and delegates, campaigners and donors.

<shrug>

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I was thinking about this thread, and all of a sudden it struck me. The answer was so simple that I was shocked that I had not thought about it earlier.

It's simple all right. Just not as innocuous as you seem to be attempting to suggest.

0 Replies

The GOP gives the NAACP a hint about its priorities

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know