Bush supporters' aftermath thread

I thought Mehlman's words to the NAACP were wonderful.

I was very proud.

You don't hear straight talk like that often in politics.

Can GOP 'unplay' the race card?
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | July 19, 2005

LEE ATWATER would understand.

In the throes of a fatal brain tumor, Atwater, the onetime chairman of the Republican National Committee and campaign manager for George H.W. Bush, offered a deathbed apology, saying he was sorry he used race to savage Michael S. Dukakis in the 1988 presidential contest.

In a speech this month before the NAACP, Ken Mehlman, the current RNC chairman, said, ''Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Atwater was preparing to meet his maker, or at the very least charm the obituary writers. Mehlman has a more down-to-earth, but equally pragmatic goal. He is trying to grow the GOP -- how and where shows how much the political landscape changed from the last time a Massachusetts Democrat challenged a Bush for the presidency.

In an interview published before his death in April 1991, Atwater apologized for disparaging remarks he made about Dukakis and for saying he would make ''Willie Horton his running mate." That was a reference to a campaign ad about William R. Horton Jr., a convicted felon who was released while serving a life sentence for murder, compliments of a Massachusetts weekend furlough program. Horton was later captured in Maryland, after assaulting a man and raping his fiancee. The infamous ''Willie Horton" ad portrayed Dukakis as soft on crime. The mugshot of Horton, who is African-American, also provided a menacing subtext that the ad's creator described as ''every suburban mother's greatest fear."

Playing the race card -- pitting whites against blacks and maintaining the South as a Republican stronghold -- helped the first Bush win. With race no longer the key issue, the South held for his son. But the GOP knows it needs a different hand. Today, the party is reaching out to Latino and African-American voters, following a basic business maxim: grow or die.

The country is increasingly diverse; GOP leaders know that soon the white vote alone won't be enough to win national elections. If the party fails to make inroads into those constituencies, ''We could be toast in a decade," predicts one national Republican strategist, who did not want his name used.

Within the next six to 10 years, there will be more Latino or Hispanic voters than African-American voters nationally. This fast-growing voter population explains why President Bush and Senator John McCain are promoting immigration reform, despite pushback from the GOP's conservative base and from some white Democratic swing voters.

When it comes to African-American voters, the GOP is likely opting for more of a psychological victory than harboring any real hope of carving away the Democratic Party's longtime base. In the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush won 44 percent of all votes cast by Latinos -- but only 11 percent of votes cast by African-Americans. Still, ''Every African-American vote we get costs the Democrats -- the one they lose and the one we get. If we can ever get that vote in play, take say, a regular 35 percent, we will really hurt them," said the GOP strategist.

The GOP is banking on compatibility with black and Latino voters when it comes to some social issues, such as same-sex marriage. It also cultivates positive imagery with Bush Cabinet appointees such as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and her predecessor, Colin Powell.

Now comes Mehlman's apology. Can it help the cause?

Deval Patrick, a Democrat who served as assistant attorney general during the Clinton administration and is now running for governor in Massachusetts, said, ''The Republicans have a lot to answer for . . . An apology is never too late, but it's not enough if it's just words." Added Patrick, who is African-American: ''In some ways, the Southern Strategy of yesterday is the suburban strategy of today, to follow that old temptation, what divides us, instead of what unites us."

In other words, racial division may no longer be key to electoral success. But that is not the end of the GOP's divide and conquer strategy. In last year's presidential campaign, the party used issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and patriotism to divide voters.

That makes the new politics a lot like the old: Do what it takes to win.

Atwater would understand.[/[/b]QUOTE] http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/19/can_gop_unplay_the_race_card/

The clock's ticking folks and at this rate; if the rambling ABB's don't pull there collective head out soon, the republicans won't lose another Presidential race until they split in two to fill the void.

In Hegemony or Survival Chomsky writes:

Quote:

The need to establish ties to terror was quietly dropped. More significant, Bush and colleagues declared the right to resort to force even if a country does not have WMD or even programs to develop them. It is sufficient that it have the "intent and ability" to do so. Just about every country has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder.

Chomsky named his sources for this conclusion as none other than Colin Powell and Condi Rice.

It is this kind of rhetoric, artfully done, carefully constructed, presented under the illusion of intellectualism, to which conservatives object. Not only is it dishonest and misrepresents what people actually say. but it has a subtle brainwashing effect on those determined to believe it. Before long they seem to longer be able to distinguish fact from elaboration.

Of course the Left makes the same accusations of the Right. I think the difference is that the Right can usually back up their convictions with documentation that can be put into context without changing the meaning, and that actually does reflect the intention of the speaker, writer, etc. Those that cannot are just spouting talking points and spin with no complete understanding of what they are saying and are no better than those on the Left who do that.

And, I think, we ought to refer to Eric Rudolph from now on as a "pro-life insurgent". What do you all say?

The infamous ''Willie Horton" ad portrayed Dukakis as soft on crime. The mugshot of Horton, who is African-American, also provided a menacing subtext that the ad's creator described as ''every suburban mother's greatest fear."

Senator Al Gore raised the general issue of the furlough program during the 1988 Democratic presidential primary.

In June of 1988, after Dukakis had clinched the Democratic Party nomination, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, bragged that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name." Horton had never gone by the name Willie, but rather William. [1] Media consultant Roger Ailes was reported to remark "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."

Beginning on September 21, 1988, the Americans for Bush arm of the National Security Political Action Committee, began running an attack ad entitled "Weekend Passes," using the Horton case to attack Dukakis. The ad was produced by media consultant Larry McCarthy, who had previously worked for Ailes. After clearing the ad with television stations, McCarthy went back and added a menancing mug shot of Horton, who is African-American. He called the image "every suburban mother's greatest fear." The ad was run as an independent expenditure, separate from the Bush campaign, which claimed, as is legally required, not to have had any role in its production.

On October 5, a day after the "Weekend Passes" ad was taken off the airwaves, the Bush campaign ran its own ad, "Revolving Door," which also attacked Dukakis over the weekend furlough program. While the advertisement did not mention Horton or feature his photograph, it did depict a variety of intimidating-looking men walking in and out of prison through a revolving door. The commercial was filmed at an actual state prison in Draper, Utah, but the persons depicted - thirty in all, including three African-Americans and two Hispanics - were all paid actors. Attempting to counter-attack, Dukakis's campaign ran a similar ad about a Hispanic murderer named Angel Medrano who murdered a pregnant mother of two while on furlough from federal prison. Dukakis's ad stated Medrano's name and showed his photograph.

The GOP has a far better record than Democrats do on ALL aspects of race relations in this country. And that's a fact.

I just get tired of repeating myself, but here it is again. (This is not to say there was no Democrat support for these issues or that all Republicans supported them, but the GOP had a far higher percentage of anti-racism votes than did the Democrats all along the way.)

Republican Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves

1866: first civil rights act passed by Radical Republicans over a Presidential veto, blacks granted citizenship, segregation was forbidden

1868 Republicans passed the 14th amendment passed granting equal protection

1871 Republicans passed voting rights
This, really, is quite ridiculous Foxfyre and I am also quite sure you realize it. You can post all the "facts" you want about how the republicans lead the way on civil rights and I can, likewise, post comparable "facts" demonstrating how republican rare racist bigots and always have been. Buth are examples of pissing in the wind. MY contention with your statement is that it's bogus in intent, there is no collection of supporting "facts" that can honestly demonstrate that one party or another is more or less racist.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to invite an African-American to dinner in the White House.

1920s, the Democratic platforms didn't even call for anti-lynching legislation as the Republican platforms did.

1957 civil rights act pushed by Ike, passed . Sen Kennedy voted against it, A Democrat Senator filibustered it for 24 hrs, Senator Johnson watered it down so that it lacked enforcement

Eisenhower sent Federal troops to Little Rock to integrate Central High

1960 another civil rights act, again Dems kept enforcement measures out of it

1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Kennedy and Johnson get credit for this one. More than eighty percent of Republicans voted for both--due to Democrat opposition, neither would have passed without Republican support despite the fact that the Democrats held substantial majorities in both houses of Congress.

Nixon created the EEOC and expanded civil rights law.

Ronald Reagan signed the bill making MLK day a public holiday

Today the three highest ranking black government officials are all Republicans (Powell, Rice and Thomas)

Will Bushie choose Edith for SCOTUS ?

Is he faking us out ?

How often does Laura get her way ?