The Rise of the Moderate Republican- An Endangered Species?
By HHR | November 6th, 2008 | Category: Campaigns, Politics, Urban Issues | 54 comments
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
~Theodore Roosevelt
by Richard Ivory
There is a lot of talk in Republican circles about “Rhino Hunting”- described as kicking out anyone in the Party who does not fit the definition of Republicanism. The self-styled Rhino-hunter believes he is the tried and true Republican and thus our party’s lost this election was because of moderates like Sen. McCain.
Rhino-hunters, if they had their way, would choose a candidate who emphasized social issues, such as anti-immigration or abortion as there ideal winning strategy. To them, moderates in the party are the problem not the solution and must be tossed out. This may seem strange given that despite there rhetoric and finger pointing most polls show that moderates were far from the problem this year. Instead, to the contrary they may have been more of a help than any other faction of the party.
Also if any of these Rhino-hunters did just a little homework and checked the Census Bureau data they would clearly see that the nation is undergoing a huge demographic shift. The population that Regan reached out to in the 80′s is getting older and replacing them is a new group of kids who grew up in the 90′s. Mots of these kids know very little about Regan but they are very familiar with the Clintons and now Bush. This new voter group is internet savvy, write daily on blogs and communicate through text messaging. The GOP’s old “my way or the highway” southern leadership is destroying the party’s image and turning off potential new voters but especialy young ones.
Of course all of this is nonesence to the Rhino-hunters because to them young voters are unrelaible. Well “duh” if you do not reach out to them they will respond in kind. No perfect example of this is a group we “did” reach out to and still lost the Latino voter.
The Joint Center, a non-partisan research firm in Washington, DC noted that Latino Americans overwhelmingly went for Sen. Barack Obama. In trying to explain their voting behavior, the Centers pollster said that in every poll the key reason for supporting the left was in reaction to the xenophobic southern leadership in the Republican Party. Despite McCain’s record of moderation with this issue, the GOP’s anti-immigrant image lost the Latino vote. As long as the Party remains xenophobic, these Latino voters will not return. Some Republicans think that we can ignore these voters and stick with the base. They can hold on to this belief, but do so at their own peril. This will mean that the GOP is on its way to be a Party without power and influence. In many areas of the Northeast, the Republican candidates in contrast continues to withstand the Democrat tidal wave.
Karl Rove who had the best strategy of building a Republican majority by broadening the party’s base to women, labor and Hispanics failed because of members of the party. The party grassroots operatives and their indifference to these groups is why we lost this election. Rove while often mentioning Latinos and women rarely mentioned blacks as part of that winning strategy, but this election showed that blacks matter.
Already the excuse is used that Republicans lost the presidency and at least 19 congressional seats because of one scandal and broken promises. While this is part of the explanation, the overarching reason is that the Republican leadership failed to take us abroad the GOP platform. Yes African-Americans and youth voters were all taken for granted. Until we do more outreach and become more moderate in our approach to policies, we will lose. The party actually lost some years back and us saying we lost “because of scandal and broken promises” has to stop- it’s getting old. The facts are clear, the nation is changing and we are staying the same; there is no other explanation.
Despite McCain being outspent by millions and voting for Obama, the legislative districts gave the Democrats seats of power. Virginia, my home state, officially turned blue in 2000 where it was red. In North Carolina, Elisabeth Dole was sent packing, as her Democrat opponent trounced her. It would seem as if the Rove strategy of pumping up the base with red meat lost this week and rightfully so.
Today the only reason why Republicans did not loose their Senate leader was the survival and rise of moderate Republicans like Sen. Olympia Snow and Rep. Christopher Shays. People who want to do Rhino-hunting should think twice because they are killing off this Party! We did not loose this election because our party nominated Sen. John McCain; to the contrary, we were able to fight hard because he was a moderate candidate. The American people choose Barack Obama because they preferred a party who believed in what they stood for versus one that talks about limited government while behind the scenes are expanding it.
An argument could be made historically that the moderate Republicans have a better claim to wearing the mantle of Republicanism. There is rare mention of Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln when referring to GOP heros- its as if the party started in the 80′S under the Regan Administration.
But in hindsight folks why not instead of tearing down moderates, why not try to listen to them. Perhaps there experince of running succesfuly against Democrats might be what the party needs. There is no better time like now especially given that we’ll have four years to do it.
Please Join Rebuild The Party and lets make it happen!…Notably missing in there plan is minority outreach this is wrong and at HHR please let the folks at Rebuild The Party know that unless minorities are represent this party will not be built or grow..speak out!
on 
on 
I’ve saying this for years, the GOP needs to seriously do better outreach to all Americans regardless of race. You can’t keep relying on the South. There seriously needs to be diversity-oriented people in the RNC, Mel Martinez was a good example until the disagreement about immigration with the leaders then left. Look at Jack Kemp for examples, he managed to win Buffalo, NY in Congress and just asked for the vote.
It makes me really sick to see this. Lincoln would be downright ashamed of the party now.
There seriously needs to be some type of grassroots movement like what Fannie Lou Hamer did to make the Democrats accept blacks in the 60′s. It must come from Asians, Hispanics to make the GOP a party of diversity. I’d be all for it, I left the party when the top four missed the Morgan State debate.
We can’t keep saying it has to change, we have to make it happen.
Strongly disagree.While I do agree that the Republican party needs to reach out to minorities and women and so forth and that the Bush administration broke promises and expanded the gov’t,I dont believe that moderates are the answer.The reason,in my opinion, that McCain was defeated so easily is because he was a moderate(liberal) and thus just a second rate Barack Obama.Most people felt like they didnt have much choice.Vote for the old white liberal or the young,handsome,charming,black one.The VP choice of Sarah Palin is the only reason that this thing was even remotely close to being an actual race.The Republican base was not excited about McCain,not because they couldnt differentiate between him and Bush(as the mainstream media would have you believe) but because his own message and record did not sit well with the conservatives.No matter how much the GOP purposely misled us and tried to make us believe that he really was conservative,too many people didnt buy it.
It is misleading to compare the current situation with the Licoln era.There was a very prevalent and inexcusable evil (slavery) that tainted American society in those days.Living in a time where a major percentage of the population had no problem with this would cause one with deep moral convictions to be moderate,even liberal.In this day and age the so-called evil and opression are issues like:gays not being able to adopt or marry and women not being able to have abortions for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.The prevalence of these issues would cause one with deep moral convictions to be more of a conservative.
The Republican party fails miserably when it compromises its core values in efforts to gain new constituents.What the outreach should consist ofrather than this compromise,is rather the spreading of knowledge and the advancement of more minority and femae consevatives who can articulate to their own exactly what the message of the party is.The whole irony in this all is that survey after survey after survey conclude that black people in America are conservative in their views,they just dont know it.Too much emotion and not enough logic has allowed the Democrats to hold a monopoly on the black vote for too long.
Lincoln wouldn’t care. The word “republican” today has nothing at all to do with the word in his time.
You people look at politics in the strangest way.
You look at this as if “Republican” and “Democrat” are two constants in politics; as if all Republican means is “not Democrat” and all Democrat means is “not Republican”.
You say you need “to make the GOP a party of diversity.”
But you won’t talk about the real reasons it is not the party of diversity.
The Republican party completely tolerates bigots. Even here, Hip Hop Republicans, these Black Republicans, will not out right call Republicans out on this.
Instead, you say, “we need to diversify”. It’s almost like telling the KKK, “you know why you’re marginalized? you haven’t done any outreach to minorities”.
So, I’m a minority. Let’s say you come to my door and try your “outreach”. How seriously can I take you when I know you still tolerate the people who hate me? When I see that you do not spend a significant amount of effort to ensure the people who hate me are not tolerated in your party?
There is still nothing clear on this site about what a Hip Hop Republican is. What is “republican” about this group?
Mostly what I have seen is why you are not democrats. How long do you think you will last defined only by what you dislike?
The only explanation for the foolishness of all of this Hip Hop Republicanism is :
1. You are a group of people who want to band together and “not be democrats” You are a group of people who likely have quite personal reasons for not wanting to be democrats. I’m going to guess that it has something to do with your democratic friends and family making you feel guilty about success; something along these lines.
2. You lack courage, fortitude, conviction of your own beliefs. You immediately recognize, perhaps wrongly so, that you’ll be marginalized if you merely band together to “not be democrats”. So that leaves you with two other options :
2a. Start your own party. Determine what your core values are and start a new party.
2b. Latch on to the largest “not democrat” group there is, the GOP.
It’s clear you’ve chosen 2b. One of the very few clear things about this group is that you pride yourself on your professionalism, at least in looks. Your old site had series of pictures of black people in suits and dresses. I am guessing we won’t see a jeans-clad African American image on this site. No hoodie-wearing pants-falling down dudes or women wearing any kind of pant that says “naughty” across the ass. And people who like to wear suits, they don’t like thinking they are part of some fringe movement.
And now that you’ve chosen 2b. You’ve chosen the GOP, and because, at heart, you folks really are quite decent people who the Democratic party would love to have among its ranks, you’ve taken on the task of “fixing” the GOP.
However, it’s clear you’re not willing to shake things up enough.
You’re calling McCain a moderate, but you’re forgetting he picked Palin.
Fix the GOP on Race :
You’re forgetting that at a Palin rally, it was OK for a Black reporter to be told, “sit down boy”. Can you see that by tolerating these members of your party one cannot take seriously your efforts to “diversify”?
Fix the GOP on sexism :
You are unwilling to call out the Republican party’s Vice Presidential pick being pro-life. Palin removed funding for rape kits in the town she was mayor of. How seriously can you expect anyone to take your declaration of equal rights for women when you tolerate the likes of Palin?
I could go on. Wiretapping vs keeping government out of your life. Bailout vs free market. Small government?
But we know the truth – you won’t spend the effort to call your own party out on these issues – and if you do spend the effort – it will never be on the same level or with the same zeal that you call out your opponents.
I usually try not to reply to often because when I do I tend to write rather long drawn out comments however this is short. It is not an attack on you personally just a critique of the suggestions you provided.
Best Regards
Richard
RESPONSE 1: If McCain was just a “second rate Obama” why is it that Obama so successfully tied McCain’s character to Bush? Most people see Bush as conservative if your argument is to hold up it would mean Bush is also a moderate or “a second rate Obama”. On many of the things except for a few McCain and Bush were on the same team. Yet despite this Bush, won in 04 and McCain lost! Could it possibly be that Obama made a better case to the American people? I am not saying his case would hold up in court but the presentation was pretty how can we say…”tight”
RESPONSE 2: Mmm “most people” do not vote in Republican Primaries’ Republicans however do and our party choose candidates that reflected them ins ome ways of age and white! Romney was very charming yet he lost. I guess a better question for you is why did McCain win the primaries.
RESPONSE 3: That is laughable the states she got where states that McCain would have gotten anyway what she needed to do was get Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Virginia ..Did she get them no? She was signing to the choir a choir that most polls show was going to vote Republican anyway. She brought out some of the base This is the problem with the party we seek to empower and strengthen the base. The Democrats are seeking new bases while maintaining the ones they have. Sarah brought out the base Obama built new ones.
RESPONSE 4: Have you ever considered that maybe “the base” is actually the problem. would this be the same base that fawned over xenophobic remarks regarding Latinos that we lost the state of Florida because if it and possibly the entire Latino vote for the next 60 years. Do you mean that base?
RESPONSE 5: Sorry again your argument is not very tight you tell me that “I am making a false historical points” yet you without blinking compare gays adopting to being evil…Question….Is all evil the same? How about the straight mother who tosses her child out while he has to grow up parentless without any advocate but the state.. Is that evil also and if so what laws should impose on this women since its all the same. Life is not ideal maybe the Kingdom of God is but not life Again is I not an evil that families care so little about children that gay and straight people alike have to care for them.
RESPONSE 6: Can I ask you question do you really think this kind of talk is the GOP 2011 winning strategy?? I understand if this was a Jesus mission of sorts where winning souls for the lord amounts to a lot but please this is a political party not a church!
RESPONSE 7: This current situation is the REPUBLICAN PARTY as long as the party is breathing it will be current. The Republican parties’ core values besides opposition to slavery was the modernizing and reforming when need be the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. The early core priniples argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values thus our partys early slogan “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. I wold suggest you read the book Back to the Basics..its a great Republican 101history book which should be requred reading for anyone joing the party….just joking slightlghy!!
RESPONSE 8:Sorry not buying it you can wrap the message in anything you like if it stinks it stinks the point is that were off message that’s the point. Blacks in California just defeated a gay marriage bill while at the same time supporting Barack Obama?
RESPONSE 9: Latino pro lifers, who voted strongly Republican on those issues in 2000, preferred the Democrats this time around this despite being pro life. Why the answer is quite simple they felt the part y was anti Latino or racist o them. How are you going to sale Milton economics to someone who thinks you hate them its not happening. Even as a Republican I would prefer hanging with a Marxist who liked me than a member of my party who I felt did not image matter, actions matter not just repackaging stuff.
RESPONSE 10: The problem is not the conservatism its you are definition of it and how it relates to the modern world. I am a conservative in that I want to conserve and maintaining the ideals of the American Revolution..
RESPONSE 11: Blacks do not vote on social issues for the most part, because for the most part they are more Libertarians then liberal on these issues. We need to make Michael Bloomberg or Richard Parsons the head of the RNC…now that would show results.
Its in the “ABOUT” Section…??
HipHopRepublican.com is an online blog and resource helmed by a group of young, moderate well-educated and professional Republicans (and independent conservatives) of color, all of whom possess diverse viewpoints and from various regions across the United States.
The pillars of HipHopRepublican.com are grounded on the principles of free market enterprise. By advocating the precepts of economic empowerment, academic success and self-reliance, HipHopRepublicans believe the lives of citizens in urban communities and beyond can ultimately be transformed for the better. By and large we are firm believers in free-market principles that harness the forces of competition, and unleash the dynamism of individual choice that carries with it the potential to reshape both lives and communities.
MISSION
HipHopRepublican.com is committed to equal representation in politics, and to making a positive contribution to the political discourse by advancing and applying common-sense Republican principles to the myriad challenges faced by urban communities, and our country as a whole.
As HipHopRepublicans we are all beneficiaries of the civil rights struggle, and proudly assume the mantle of its legacy. We are proud of our roots, and celebrate our culture in all that we do. We believe that our communities are best served when we showcase diversity of opinion, thereby forcing the major political parties to compete for our votes rather than ignore them, or take them for granted. We believe people-of-color are central to the revitalization and long-term success of the modern-day Republican Party. The beliefs espoused by the GOP are more effective in empowering urban communities.
OUR ROOTS
HipHopRepublican.com started as a political blog founded by Richard Ivory and Marcus Skelton in 2004 to support moderate Republican candidates who are comfortable with youth voters and minority voters.
We promote the philosophy of self-empowerment as the first proclaimed “Hip Hop Republican”, former Lt. Governor of Maryland Michael S. Steele. He believes that African Americans and other minorities no longer want a seat at the lunch counter, but want to own the entire diner.
Since 2004 HipHopRepublican.com has become the leading resource for young Republicans of color in urban centers.
Q & A
Who is a Hip Hop Republican?
A. Former Lt. Governor of Maryland Michael Steele perhaps said it best when he stated: “…African Americans and other minorities no longer want a seat at the lunch counter, but to own the entire diner…” HipHop Republicans have not lost their collective identity as a result of self-hatred or economic success.
While hip hop and Republican may seem like non-sequiturs, the worldview embodied by the term suits the politics of many blacks whose identities continue to broaden and evolve in a post-civil rights Diaspora.
It may be easier, however, to explain what a HipHop Republican is not.
A HipHopRepublican is not an Uncle Tom. A HipHop Republican is not a sellout. A HipHopRepublican is not a race traitor, willing to sell out the best interests of the black community to feed themselves with the scraps of the proverbial political table. A HipHop Republican is neither meek nor mild, nor are they content to be trotted out by the GOP for the sake of creating a fig-leaf of racial diversity.
Modern Black Conservatism -and notably HipHop Republicanism-is an avant garde movement. It represents the cutting edge of black political diversity, and it ensures equal representation in our political reality.
What’s the difference between a Hip Hop Republican and a black Republican?
A. HipHop Republicans grew up with the influence of Hip Hop culture and, unlike their peers over age 50, are able to see how Republican values and policies should be applied to urban issues. And while black Republican is a label based solely on race, “Hip Hop Republican” speaks to the existence of a group that has transcended race in many ways.
If Black Republicanism is about assimilating into old-school GOP culture, then Hip Hop Republicanism is about altering preconceived notions of what the GOP resembles, and what it represents. In short, we are dedicated to updating the definition of conservative to look, feel, and sound more palatable to people of color.
As Public Enemy said on the classic CD It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, “Don’t believe the hype… I’m a different kind (but) we’re brothers of the same mind, unblind…” Politically, we may be “…caught in the middle (but we’re) not surrenderin’…”
Q. What are the beliefs of Hip Hop Republicanism?
A. The pillars of Hip Hop Republicanism are economic empowerment, educational choice, access to information and empowering the potential of the individual. This means that in West Baltimore, North Philadelphia, Milwaukee or Oakland, parents should have the opportunity to take the tax dollars assigned to them via the current public school system and re-direct those funds to schools that will truly prepare their children for 21st century jobs. A HipHop Republican believes that competition, the prime motivator in a free market, will force change and progress. Either bad schools will improve or they will be forced to close. New black conservatism holds that buppies and yuppies must harness the forces of economics and invest in private endeavors that create wealth and opportunity for our communities. In a society that embraces competition and freedom of choice, only the best-educated survive. We must invest time and money into our communities to become stronger.
Democrats are not the only ones concerned about the legacy of civil rights. And young Democrats are not the only ones trying to influence a changing of the guard in terms of black leadership. As the children and grandchildren of civil rights patriots, HipHop Republicans embrace cultural diversity and cultural integrity. We are connected to our communities; we are connected to our blackness. We are connected to the post-civil rights generational struggle. But we believe that we have reached the point in American society where blacks must be active across the political spectrum in order to achieve true equality.
Okay, so, admittedly, you do take a stand on one issue : Free-market Capitalism. You also do make some direct statements about education.
Let’s take Free-market capitalism. The idea that free-market capitalism is some how conducive to social justice is at best, arguable. Okay, that’s fine – There is not much in the way of social justice on this site anyway.
But what about the current economic crisis? What do Hip Hop Republicans have to say to Greenspan’s recent statement regarding free-market capitalism? What of trickle-down economics, which many Republicans still agree with? What do Hip Hop Republicans think of corporate bailouts? What about environmentalism? How should companies be encouraged not to pollute?
On education – “Either bad schools will improve or they will be forced to close.”
Where will students go if their school closes? Does it matter at all to Hip Hop Republicans who is to blame for poor performance of the school? Bad parenting, all too common board of education corruption scandals, over crowding?
Most of the above sounds like an advertisement with no substance. There’s nearly an admission of this here :
“In short, we are dedicated to updating the definition of conservative to look, feel, and sound more palatable to people of color.”
But not in substance.
In substance, how much of the bigoted GOP will you tolerate? If a candidate is pro-free-market, pro-closing-down-poor-schools, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, will you overlook if at one of their rallies, you are told to, ‘sit down, boy’?
Bloomberg used to be a Democrat. he switched to Republican and now he’s a registered independent. If he were the head of a ticket (or even VP) I’d vote for him, regardless of party affiliation (I’m an independent).
And Sarah Palin energized the socially conservative base but the WSJ and the NYTs showed that she actually had a negative overall effect on the campaign – more damaging than Bush. Scared away Jewish voters, black voters, independents, and Reagan Democrats. With her on any GOP ticket… there’s no way I’d support the Republican Party.
This is the normal post election (loss) paranoia that effects every party after every major election. Look we (Republicans) had control of the house/senate, Presidency and governors mansions just four short years ago. Four years ago liberals were lamenting the death of the Democratic party as a national force. Our party leaders punted it in the stands and know we’re paying is the price of failure. It’s okay…we’re gonna be just fine in the long run. This election was a referendum on an unpopular President. Most of the country still indentifies itself as either moderate (independent) or conservative. The number of conservatives still outnumbers the the number of people who identify themselves as liberal.
Did we get our butts kicked this week, yes…we deserved to get our butts kicked…we needed to get our butts kicked. Power is a priviledge and we abused it. Competence in leadership is not an option…we led incompetently. If we take an honest assessment of the mistakes we made and refocus on our core values, we’ll be just fine. The biggest hurdle we have to adjust to (in my opinion) is the media. Look I’m not going to cry about bias, enough of that. The question now; how de get the message out in spite of MSNBC.
You bring people into your tent by being successful at what you do. The best outreach program is to prove/demonstrate that your ideas are better that the other guys. Thats how I became a Republican. No one knocked on my door and said here’s the autobiography of Barry Goldwater…any questions? No, once I did the research (and did an honest self assessment) I was hooked and haven’t looked back. Have I been happy with how the party has performed as of late…no. But with is election we’ll get an infusion of new blood and an added sense of purpose.
Don’t forget the Dems will do most of the work for us. They will raise taxes, attempt to subvert both the first and second amendments and put liberal judges on the bench. All of this will play into our hands…
The RINOs are the ones who not only forgot social conservatism (or rather just paid lipservice to it) BUT more IMPORTANTLY they forgot fiscal conservatism.
Lack of Fiscal prudence is why moderates are marked folks. We are in this ecnomic crisis BECAUSE they failed to keep with Republican principles. They have put our Country in danger along with Democrats. They abandoned principle and they are deadly for the Republican brand.
I disagree the rhinos do not run the party there are very few RHINOS? Who is the RHINO that opposed social conservatism..Bush?? Bush is a bug social conservative what he did however do was ignore the physical responsible economic Republicans. The social conservatives who have the roots in the democrat party do not mind expanding government “if its something they like”.
A number of points about Tuesday’s election.
1. McCain’s performance was actually credible with a weak economy and unpopular war (and blundering campaign). He still secured 47% of the vote. He generally ran ahead of congressional Republicans. Had McCain not nominated an inexperienced Social Conservative as his running mate, had he not impulsively tried to cancel the first debate and he had offered a meaningful, consistent economic program, he would have won.
2. The Republicans are losing their base. From the founding of the Republican party in 1854, the base of the Republican party has been the business community (and upper middle class in general). The massive incompetence of the Bush administration, plus the contempt of many Republicans for those who live outside of small town America (fake America, where 75% of its people live) have been driving traditional Republicans to the Democrats. Obama was first Democrat in 44 years to win a majority of the college-educated.
3. A Republican party based upon social conservatism is doomed. An effort to restrict abortion in South Dakota won only 45% of the vote, while an effort to declare that life begins at conception secured only 25% in Colorado. These issues have even less support nationwide. Basically only 25% of the electorate are social conservatives, so sacrificing the remaining 75% to the Democrats is not a good idea.
Of course McCain ran a credible campaign as much as racism is a credible ideology in America. You can tell an African-American reporter at a Palin rally to “sit down, boy” and it is credible, ie, you will not be booed or otherwise be made uncomfortable by the rest of the crowd. What is more, a few African-American will join the GOP with no caveats to this kind of behavior. Brutality, rape, greed have been credible through the ages.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Rice/Romney 2012.
Richard,
You misunderstand my point.When Lincoln was around the “revolutionaries” trying to make radical changes in society were Republicans who had strong moral convictions.In 2008 the “revolutionaries” trying to make radical changes to society are Democrats who are pushing for things that most moral people find repulsive.They are unprincipled hedonists who believe that the whole world starts and stops with what they want and need.The Democrats have no problem “expanding” their base and building new bases because they have no principle on which to stand.They can say or do anything to appeal to anyone because their highest virtue is power.Nothing else matters.They cannot be hypocrites like the Republicans.The language they use is so general that it makes no difference what they do:”for the people by the people “etc….what people?People have different needs and different beliefs and inclinations.The Republican Party can never follow this model because they will cease to be the Republican Party that was once respected and was at the forefront of nearly every good economic,foeign policy and social decision that this nation has made.They will just be a second rate Democratic Party and the people will truly have no choice.Though I am an optimist,I believe the process has already begun.
It’s funny that someone can say that the Democrat’s highest virtue is power when it is a Republican/Neo-Conservative effort which manufactured the Iraq war which has killed over a million. True, Democrat politicians voted for it as well, however many many every day liberal people are completely against it. Not true for the majority of the Republican base – they don’t bat an eye over Iraq civilian casualty figures.
Republicans also have more support from the military, again more evidence that it is Republican who advocate the use of force and respect only power.
Most moral people voted for Obama, they voted for a democrat. They are not unprincipled hedonists, and you have nothing to back up your claim. I can site specific instances of Republican moral repugnance, such as the well known case of Strom Thurmond or racial epithets at their campaign rallies without any resistance. Romney is a Mormon – up until the 70s, Blacks could not even be in the Mormon church and Black discrimination in Mormon towns and churches is well known. Indeed, one factor that helped Obama won because some Republicans who felt the pinch in their pocket books were worried about jobs. They are motivated purely by power, money.
It is the Republican party that is home to those who view rape as a valid method for sexual reproduction.
Dear Andre-
I understood you quite well and depsite this I still disagree with you, the democrats as Republicans have morals. First, your historical understanding of the Republican Party is a bit off. The party was stared out of diversity a group Whigs and former Democrats. Now getting back to morality and the parties both groups highlights varying degrees of morality. For the religious right elements in our party its sexual morality and issues relating to abortion. Yet despite blacks and Latinos, agreeing with the religious right on this they reject there polices…why is that?
Many Democrats oppose gay marriage and other issues you may happen to agree with. Consider the recent defeat of a proposition 8 last week against same sex marriage in California in which blacks and Latinos voted with white evangelical in opposition to the ballot. What this would tell me is that far from being opposed to your view of morality many on the left accept it. However, they also think that racism and economics is a moral issue to.
The Republican Parties white southern base has alienated social conservative blacks and Latinos because the party fails to ignore these issues. When you attack illegal immigrants while there, children American citizens are watching those kids grow up hating the party they associate it with.
When “the base” goes to church while remaining silent while anti immigrant slogans happen you encourage the imagery of the white racist party. I like you agree we need to know who is coming into our nation and we must seal as best we can our borders but we must be smart about it. Are you okay with the “holding true” to your form of conservatism at the expense of governing? If you are okay with the party being out of party for 30 years then that’s okay, I applaud you’re strong beliefs. I just happen to know that this is not the nature of a two party system. How can you effect change or even get your view out if you do not even have a sizable number in the house or senate?
We must change the economic tone also, the tax cut argument does not work in urban areas because it’s not fully understood.
The proof that we can do this is seen in the popularity of Mike Huckabee a poor populist Evangelical Governor and Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign. As a New York Republican I did not like either however I was shocked at how liberals embraced both. I personally and strongly opposed Ron Paul’s foreign policy views but his views have there roots in this party and many blacks actually supported Ron Paul’s Iraq Strategy then Obama’s. Huckabbee and Paul who had a huge black following despite being Republican.
The problem is not the Lincoln or liberals the problem is us…we are the problem. The party had its head in the sand. We need to stop blaming other people and parties and take personal responsibility for what just occurred. Again, we must not just “support the base”. In all honesty I question if its really the as it is an active partisan base yes about 24 percent of the party, but we need to build new base or the GOP is gone. And if you think it’s impossible just imagine it’s a corporation and your the head of the marketing team.
Andre-
Also just a note as a young black person I know what attractedd me to this party and what did not!
Where were these many blacks that supported Ron Paul’s Iraq strategy. Very few Americans have any idea who Ron Paul is, much less know details about his strategy for Iraq.
Not every corporation deserves to survive. How many McCain voters said race was an issue for not voting Obama? Are you forgetting that the Republican campaign attempted to emphasis Obama’s middle name? Are you forgetting that 45% of America thought that was fine. How many Republicans cried foul over ACORN, yet remained silent during the last two elections? Did you forget the bullying tactics Republicans employed to discourage black voters – writing down license plate numbers, government employees telling people that they could vote on November 5th?
RESPONSE: They did not know Ron Paul until the primary when he decided to run on an anti war platform. His Iraq strategy was simple remove the troops the same you got them in, and many blacks did support him. Even in my own family and in my neighborhood of Harlem they liked the guy. The problem I had with his strategy was it was to simple. There were no detail that was the policy “leave as you came”!
RESPONSE: Yes but sometimes its not the corporation it’s the folks running it!
RESPONSE: Yes many Republicans did use his middle name and this was wrong but how many on the left refer to Bush as a Hitler or referred to McCain as insane McCain or attacked his age? In a political run names will be called on both sides it’s the nature of the game.
RESPONSE: Please provide actual names and Republican institutions that did this if you have names then we can talk otherwise its rhetoric. Such tactics are a federal crime and should be prosecuted no matter who it is Democrat or Republican. But to be fair Republicans can also show just as many tactics used by Democrats in cities they run. Republicans in NYC are many times outnumberd 5 to 1 so when we have stories of intimidation also..nothing that would make it a crime. Recently twi black panther members were caught on tape standing in front with a bulley stick as voterd enterd in.
Bush has been compared to Hitler, for his rush to a war which has left over one million dead. Do you see any difference between that and spreading lies that Obama is a Muslim, or emphasizing his middle name to cash in on racial hatred?
McCain sang a song about bombing Iran, that is a bit crazy.
The point about the voting is that many Republicans whined about ACORN while in the past they didn’t care at all about possible disenfranchisement. Contrast this to many Democrats I know who did read articles on ACORN to get the story for themselves. I don’t believe Democrats attempted to intimidate in NYC or other Democrat populated areas – perhaps there was one case. You can easily find video online of many instances of Republican voter intimidation.
Republicans in Alaska have re-elected a convict – Ted Stevens. These are the Republican values.
1.RESPONSE: Millions of lives had been taken prior to Iraqi Freedom so the argument that its about a body count is frivolous. No nation dared go after Saddam while he was butchering his people not even us as liberals like to point out…so when we go in and actually do something Bush is compared to a corporate Hitler. Let me get this straight…
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia – good…
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq – bad…
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia – good…
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq – bad…
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia – good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq – bad…
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good…
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator – bad…
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy – good…
Bush bombs terrorist camps – bad…
Clinton commits felonies while in office – good…
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit – bad…
No mass graves found in Serbia – good…
No WMD found Iraq – bad…
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton – good…
Economy on upswing under Bush – bad…
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden – good…
World Trade Centers fall under Bush – bad…
Clinton says Saddam has nukes – good…
Bush says Saddam has nukes – bad…
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq – good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq – bad…
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton – good…
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan – bad…
Milosevic not yet convicted – good…
Saddam turned over for trial – bad…
Ahh, it’s so confusing!
RESPONCE 2: Its Saddam who truly should be called a Hitler not Bush, Had Saddam lived to an old ripe age I suspect many more acts of genoicde would have occured. So please spare me the semantics and let us deal with the facts. Bush never targeteda group of people to wipe them out entirley like Hitler, however Saddam did try to do this to the Kurds. Bushhas he went to war with France I would have protested with you had it been Spain yes had it been England or Nigeria or some south American nation I am in the street with ya…but Saddam!!..sorry the only mistake Bush made was not going on sooner!
Now with regards your second rational for implying that Bush is Hitler is that “he rushed to war” actually if you look at the historical facts Bush did not rush to war. People who rush to war usually do not wait for UN Charters hoping to build a coalition of the willing. They do not make there case to the Security Council to do this is silly especially given how precious time is. Nor do they wait for there branches of governments to approve the war they just do it.
In addition, I distinctly recall Bush pleading with Sadam for the sake of peace to step down, hardly a rush to war. A rush is split second decision, as most historians will tell you the planning was hardly a rush to war! You also seem to make huge moral equivalencies when comparing Bush to Hitler. Rushing into a conflict or going to war is not evidence alone for being compared to Hitler.
RESPONCE 3 -As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. All major prior to that were proposed and signed into law by Reublicans.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
It was Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen who was the true master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.Neither political party, however, has the right to claim it was responsible for making civil rights for African-Americans happen. But I bet the GOP hasa better case in court. These talks about ACORN are as petty as the stuff Democrats throw up every election cylcle both parties do it for political advanatage everyone knows this!
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill’s final success.Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
RESPONCE 3 -As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. All major prior to that were proposed and signed into law by Republicans.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
It was Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen who was the true master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere. Neither political party, however, has the right to claim it was responsible for making civil rights for African-Americans happen. But I bet the GOP has a better case in court. These talks about ACORN are as petty as the stuff Democrats throw up every election cycle both parties do it for political advantage everyone knows this!
Rivory,
If you really expect the GOP to resonate with a decent percentage of black Americans you will have to stop trying to play us for stupid.
Today’s GOP is not the party of Lincoln and today’s Democratic Party is not a Southern Segregationist party.
A black Democrat has just been elected President for God’s sake and you can’t even name an elected black Republican.
This is the essential irony and the biggest of the Big Lies that the GOP’s silly adherents simply refuse to admit. Your inability to tell the truth about the last 40+ years of American political history, coupled with your continuing refusal to repudiate the dixiecrats that migrated into your base under the Southern Strategy – is what damns the GOP in the minds of every sober and politically self-interested Black voter.
Also rivory
Cutting and pasting lies from the freerepublic doesn’t make you look much like a race man.
Uptownsteve-
Please spell out the lies?…clocks ticking
The attack on Serbia was a NATO operation. Show were Clinton spent 77 billion.
Clinton REFUSED custody of Bin Laden. That’s a rightwing lie.
The Clinton/Gore administration went after Bin Laden right up to point of Bush entered the White House and had the Bush administration taken national security briefings from the Clinton anti-terror team seriously, the Twin Towers might still be standing.
Instead the Bush team, including National Security Advisor Condi Rice dismissed Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, and the Clinton team’s warning as paranoia and were literally on vacation when ominous intelligence noise should have terrified them awake. Clinton was accused of being “obsessed with Bin Laden” and, as Republican Congressmen like Tom Delay and Arlen Specter insinuated, of trying to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal.
That’s just for starters.
Oh BTW,
NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade Serbia during the Serbian strike.
Another GOP slight of hand.
Saddam has killed many Iraqis, however, most of this was while the US supported him.
In fact, by the time Saddam became our enemy, his killing had dwindled, indeed, if he had continued to kill at the same rate, less Iraqis would be dead today.
US government documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that the US supported Saddam for a year while knowing he was using WMD against Iran.
Imagine if in 1845, France or some other more powerful country decided to bomb the US, killing one in forty people, however they said they were doing this in the name of freeing our slaves? Do you think US citizens would resort to terrorism to strike back and kill Northerners who sided with the invaders?
Bush had no plan to capture Osama, ever. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44054
“Millions of lives had been taken prior to Iraqi Freedom so the argument that its about a body count is frivolous.”
It is only frivolous to the likes of Republicans like you, who would and did have supported Saddam at his worst.
Republicans would like to forget this : http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Okay when I mentioned facts I was talking about the history of the Republican Party. The list you are speaking of came from a blog whose point was to drive the point that Clinton used many of the same rationalizations for “rushing” to war.
The hypocrisy that was pointed out was “the legitimacy” of NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo. As you may have forgotten NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council. The war was opposed by permanent members China and Russia. As a result NATO an the Clinton administration went at it alone with the UN and declared war…without a UN Resolution. Bush did the exact same thing using a coalition of the willing yet is accused of being a war monger..Clinton a liberator?..not buying it..The list has come
Yes NATO led the mission but we financed much of it just as we are doing in Afghanistan Between fighting the war, reconstructing Serbia and resettling the refugees, the United States spent some $25 billion and were still there.
W- Many nations supported Saddam Iraq was a sovereign war and we were in the middle of a cold war where our enemies were the Soviets, and we tried to make alliances to defeat a much larger foe at the moment the Red Curtain. Secondly I am not sure what you mean by Saddam killings dwindled and this this was a sign that he no longer had a taste for genocide..not buying it..once a genocidal maniac always one. Most if his killings were not exposed until after we went into Iraq.
Yup they bombed after the -Clinton CIA director have them an accidental map??.. Not everyone buys that story yest a NATO plane getting directions from the CIA bombed the Embassy..okay! Even NATO doubted the Clinton administration explanation.
rivory,
Just answer this for me.
Why was the black vote evenly distributed between both parties prior to 1964?
Why is it SINCE 1964 the black vote is 90% democratic and the white South is almost totally Republican.
Look at the electoral map. McCain’s only stronghold nationwide was in the Deep South.
And you’re going to tell me that it has nothing to do with race??
If you bother to do the research, you’ll find that Saddam was killing far less people by the time we invaded. In the same breath you demonize Saddam while talking about how much we needed to ally ourselves with the likes of him in the cold war. You’ll make a fine republican.
Sorry…CIA director gave them an accidental map??..
The US supported Saddam during his worst, when he killed the most people. There is no guiding principle, no virtue which can explain the US’s dealings with Saddam. This is what Republicans fail to grasp.
And you make a fine Democrat demonize America..while at the same time praising Saddams change of heart on the issue of killing his people..or is it he killed less people maybe 9,000 instead of 20,000…where did you get this metric..and why is it relevant? If you kill your people no matter how large just for sport you are a madmen.
The U.S. policy was very simple any history book will tell you it was simply to keep Iraq from being taken by Iran the US provided Iraq intelligence and aid to ensure that Iran would not win and inch close to regional dominance.
The US as have many nations have supported Saddam and others folks like Stalin during there worst, we supported Stalin to defeat Hitler, it was a strategy far from being without guiding principle.
Sorry, I should have said, no guiding principle other than power and greed. Where have I praised Saddam? All I am saying is that the US has brought much death to Iraq – first when we supported Saddam, and then again later when we invaded. Anyway, it is clear this is not an issue for Republicans – if they had their way, they would feed our military industrial complex even more to kill as many Arabs as possible.
Steve regarding your question it is a fair one I will go into more detail later right for now check out these two resources which give a different view of things.
http://www.jointcenter.org/publications_recent_publications/political_participation/blacks_and_the_2008_republican_national_convention
The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
By CLAY RISEN
Published: December 10, 2006
Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)
The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.
To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.”
W-you obviously have an agenda in portraying America in a particular view…all wars since the dawn of men cost the lives of solders and civilians. Death had already found its way to Iraq before Bush the only thing Bush has done is given Iraq a possible outlet for self determination and hope. If Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon I think Iraq will become a stable nation again…if Iran gets a nuke I fear it will be WW3!
“To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.”
Be sure to explain why the Deep South still supported the GOP while every other region of the country rejected it and the GOP was at the helm during this economic collapse.
And you appear to have an agenda as well. The US ended the possibility of anything for over a million Iraqis. You do realize we helped keep Saddam in power. There are real reasons to be suspicious of anyone claiming that Bush has “given Iraq a possible outlet for self determination”.
Imagine if a foreign nation supported a dictator in your country, killing many, using WMDs, then 30 years later, when that foreign nation no longer needs that dictator as a pawn, they decide to remove him, all while telling you that you can become independent and free, yet creating conditions were even more die. Would you believe them?
rivory,
Just answer this for me.
Why was the black vote evenly distributed between both parties prior to 1964?
Why is it SINCE 1964 the black vote is 90% democratic and the white South is almost totally Republican.
Look at the electoral map. McCain’s only stronghold nationwide was in the Deep South.
And you’re going to tell me that it has nothing to do with race??
The answer to this question is JIM CROW. The black folk who lived in the North were free to vote for the GOP while the Southern blacks had to vote for Democrats or not vote at all.
I will agree that McCain is a full blown racist just look at that dark skin housekeeper that travels with them everywhere they go.
I guess when the evil Darth Vader (Reagan) blasted Mondale and took every state but Minnesota that had everything to do with what? Black folk voted democrat 91% then also? Explain that?
Democrats and Republican have supported dictators throughout history, Going into Iraq was a mistake but a cut and run strategy would not be any better. When we left after the first Gulf war 100′s of thousands died in the ensuing purges do we forget about that? We supported Saddam because Carter couldn’t defend our country against Iran.
Why is it SINCE 1964 the black vote is 90% democratic? Looks like its been pretty high for while before 1964
1960 1964
Kennedy Nixon Johnson Goldwater
NATIONAL 50.1% 49.9% 61.3% 38.7%
RACE
White 49 51 59 41
Non-white 68 32 94 6
1968 1972
Humphrey Nixon Wallace McGovern Nixon
NATIONAL 43.0% 43.4% 13.6% 38.0% 62.0%
RACE
White 38 47 15 32 68
Non-white 85 12 3 87 13
1952 1956
Stevenson Eisenhower Stevenson Eisenhower
NATIONAL 44.6% 55.4% 42.2% 57.8%
RACE
White 43 57 41 59
Non-white 79 21 61 39
Pretty evenly distributed almost 50-50 before 1964.
The term No-white is how it appeared
1952 non-white vote 79% democrat
1956 non-white vote 61% democrat
1960 non-white vote 68% democrat
1964 non-white vote 94% democrat
1968 non-white vote 85% democrat
1972 non-white vote 87% democrat
1976 Black 83% Democrat
1980 Black 83% Democrat
1984 Black 91% Democrat
1988 Black 89% Democrat
1992 Black 83% Democrat
1996 Black 84% Democrat
2000 Black 90% Democrat
2004 Black 88% Democrat
It seems there has been much discussion since I last wrote so I will keep it short.The “problem” is not the base.The problem is that while “moderates” may appeal to democrats and independents,they do not appeal to hardcore Republicans which are the majority of the party.This leaves us in a peculiar situation.Republicans dont trust their candidate,and Democrats prefer a full liberal over a half-liberal.Its a losing stategy if I ever saw one.Another problem is that Democrats somehow identify protecting our borders and enforcing the law as “racism” and many so-called Republicans buy this.The stereotype of racist southern whites is wildly innaccurate and anyone who has lived in or visited the south recently knows that.Most of the true racism is in major northern cities and all sides are guilty.A moderate would be better off going Democrat and trying to influence the party veer right on some of the economic and national security issues.This is why McCain was consdering running as a Democrat in 2004.
I agree with some of what you say but you have to understand that a major problem is the lies espoused by folks like uptownsteve. They regurgitate urban legends like those about David duke and others without doing the research.
I believed the “Why was the black vote evenly distributed between both parties prior to 1964?” until I did a little bit of research and found the data above, I also believed the “Republicans are racist just look at David Duke” story until I researched it.
I am not blind and I see a lot of racism within the Republican ranks but I also see just as much of it within the Democrats and folks get insulted when you tell them the truth.
The GOP should learn from Barack Obama’s election, and take advantage of the positive energy generated therein. Most black republican leaders complain about a lack of support from black people. Well, now it is a documented fact that they vote. Rather than complain about Obama’s victory, wouldn’t it be more intelligent to reach out to minorities and try to bring them into the fold? Why not try to steal those votes? A little bit of community outreach can go a long way. Why isn’t that happening?
You’d think that all of the black conservatives who like to claim that racism is a thing of the past would use Obama as an example of empowerment. No…that would make too much sense. The fact that black conservatives have to preach that racism is a thing of the past holds them back. Most of the people who live in impoverished neighborhoods, who incidentally DID vote are not going to buy that. Educated people who have struggled to survive in competitive environments where they felt animousity from their white contemporaries don’t even buy it. What’s worse still is that black republicans feel that they have to be conservative to be accepted by the party so even they tend to avoid moderates. Yet…this election shows that conservative is not the silver bullet. That’s why this looks like a job for the moderates.
However, going by the current state of affairs, that is unlikely. Obama’s election seemed to have galvanized white racists into joining the GOP, and black republicans are wasting their energy decrying Obama to appeal to white republicans instead of trying to appeal to black independants to become republican. Moderates are even bigger scapegoats now than ever. Thus…the conservatives are going for a whiter, and more extreme base thinking that it will solve their problems. Yet the lesson taught in this election has been clear:
Conservatives are actually a minority in america.
GASP!
Times have changed. Look at the numbers. It will take more than just right wing extremists to rebuild the party. It will take moderates as well, and a productive friction and cooperation between the two.
Yet…instead of trying to become fully aware of the situation around themselves…so many conservatives want to point the finger at moderates, thinking that it will magically solve all of their problems. That’s funny considering that historically speaking, moderates are responsible for so much. In fact, the vast majority of policies that conservatives are quick to mention when they want to say how noble the party are the work of moderates. Conservatives often site moderate achievements when they do try to recruit more black people…and then when people decide to become moderate…a witch hunt. Then they wonder why the democrats have so much support.
Another reason is that democrats acknowledge racism. Conservatives act like it doesn’t exist. Yet…when a white democrat, independant, and especially republican makes a racist comment, all republicans are evil lynchers, instead of just the extreme right conservatives. As long as they push that philosophy, they will fail. The truth is, that as long as white people describe black people as “well spoken” and wouldn’t be comfortable in a room of all black people, racism exists. As much as we like to call the democrats race baiters it doesn’t help when black republicans talk down to black people instead of trying to inspire them.
Saying racism doesn’t exist is far worse than being a race baiter. That’s why race baiting will be continually used. On the opposite side of that, is the overwhelming acceptance of bigots, and an absolute refusal to speak out against the bigots. In order for minorites to take interest in the GOP, someone has to speak out against it’s tradition of racism. Furthermore the racism has to be punished. I was impressed with the responses that a lot of republicans had towards that food stamp. However…the fact that they did not take accountability is the root of the problem.
Bill Cosby had great intentions…but was not well recieved. It’s because we have to inspire and not talk down. The message is lost when people feel they are insulted. That’s why the party is so messed up right now. We aren’t inspiring people.
The democrats are just as racist as the republicans…yet why is the perception so skewed? Well…we have to face facts. This republican party is not the same abolishist republican party under Lincoln’s leadership, and the democratic party isn’t the same either. However…we have the power to change all that. The in-fighting has got to stop, and the party needs to open up it’s doors to minorites.
Moderates need to mediate and conservatives need to become conversatives. Black republicans are severely lacking in not simply leadership, but passionate leadership.
I’m sorry but you are wrong on a lot of fronts, thinking this election was a rejection of conservative values is completely false. i.e. gay vote in California. This election was a complete rejection of George W Bush and his lack of fiscal responsibility among many other things. The GOP has done more for the Black community by increasing opportunity in the business world and leveling the playing field than all the democratic handout programs combined. It’s just easier to claim credit when you are handing out money. The unionized police departments that abuse our citizens are democrat supporters, the unionized public school system that neglects our children’s minds are democrat supports, so why don’t we talk about these issues and these culprits?
Another reason why conservatism wasn’t rejected in this election is because it simply didn’t show up. These were two liberals running in different parties. Liberalism showed up plenty.
I’m in the Rhino camp. I think moderates have pretty much destroyed the party platform and principals. Ron Paul, running mostly on libertarian principals, resonated LOUDLY with young people and was vilified on both sides. No, I didn’t agree with him on all things but I DEFINITELY agreed with him on WAY MORE than either of the lesser of two lessers that we had to choose from in this election.
I think the conservative/libertarian approach is where we need to go. I’m a conservative to the bone but I’m also libertarian in a couple things. I oppose everything liberalism stands for because it’s, in general, anti-Christ in the majority of it’s stances and the foundation of it’s philosophy which is humanism. As a Christian first, I ain’t EVEN havin that.
P.R.E.Z.
http://www.truthmanifesto.com
Yes but what about Republicanism?? I am a Republican that’s why I am a member of the RE-PU-BL-I-CA-N P-A-R-TY I did not join a church I joined a political party.