What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is no motivation to support Amnesty or any Guest worker program unless we first improve our enforcement and crackdown on employers with E-Verify. Once that is successfuly then we can discuss a Guest Worker program, however I think such a think only depresses wages just as much as illegals do as Truman, JFK, and LBJ realized, hence reasons for ending Guest Worker Programs in existence at the time.

The way to go after Minorities is simple and ist not kowtowing the identity politics greivence mongers and the open borders lobby. The way to go after them is by have an adjenda and then communicating to minorities of all backgrounds and colors why it is better for them. On the immigration issue itself, do illegals benefit the legals and naturalized citizens? Can legal immigrants take a bullet just like a citizen in a gang war? Are minority owned businesses impacted just the same as white owned business by crime and gangs? Do legal working class minorities (hispanics included) get hurt by wage depression just like whites? The answer to all of them is Yes. Its about outreach and communication, not issues. You let the special interests (who want open borders and unlimited gov't support for illegals) dominate the debate and yes the results among Hispanics and all races will decline, but if you fight back, question their assertions and labels, and even question there committement to the people they supposedly fight for, I think we would do well. 40% to 45% of Hispanics, 45% to 50% of Asians, and 25% to 32% of African Americans is very possible. You need to have people with balls and guts. In 1940, Wilkie went into Working class districts where he got pelted with Tomatos. The GOP should go on the Reservations of Native Americans, listen to their concerns, and offer an alternative to the current situation that is destroying Native Americans and their families. While reading his book, "Whatever it Takes", I discovered that JD Hayworth (second only to Tancredo in opposing Amnesty) was in favor of reaching out to minorities and expressed a similar idea to what I presented here. He does have grounds to talk on the issue, as he improved his numbers among Native Americans in his old 6th district (most of the modern day First district) from 18% to 50% from 1994 to 2000. Now of course that brings up the whole, Abramoff and Indian Tribe scandal, and you don't want to bribe minorities with Pork either. What is needed is communication, listening, and offering alternative ideas.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do a paradigm change by renouncing the nativists and racists within the party in deed as well as in words (basically don't embrace them as a political asset, either covertly or overtly), and instead run on a platform of social conservatism (sanctity of life, protecting marriage from 'the gays', etc.), keeping the military strong and well-funded, and embrace the notion that government can actually be a force for good in this country while being cognizant of its limitations.  What I am saying is: go back to Eisenhower and Nixon when it comes to economic issues -'trickle down' economics of tax cuts and spending cuts is too fraught with racial overtones to be used any longer as a viable long-term economic strategy for political gain.  It is too easily interpreted as a means by which whites can covertly express their racial resentments by with-holding revenue to fund needed government programs for a diversifying society.  

Ask any African American or Native American on a reservation if they have seen an improvement in the communities situation over the past decades? They will say no. And enormous amounts of gov't aid, programs, and welfare. The answer will be no. The problem is not ideology. Many blacks are Conservative both Socially and Fiscally (maybe 1/4 of them) and the only reason that they vote Dem is because of talking points, pandering and fear mongering by Dems (Wasn't it John Lewis who ran an ad saying if his opponent won, crosses would burn back in 2004). The CBC and its members are interested in self preservative not the African American Community and most of the cities run by Democrats have collapsed, and the lack of competition breads incompetence and corruption. I think if the GOP were to agressively reach out, hear out concerns and offer up ideas and solutions they could peal off a slice of that vote. Could move a state like PA, MI or Ohio towards the GOP more.

Its not trickle down economics to use your phrase that hurts the GOP among minorities. Its lack of effort and Democratic fear mongering, which you yourself engaged in here. Why is securing our borders racist? its not. Why do legal Hispanics benefit from illegal immigration? They don't. Why is cracking down on employers who hire illegals nativist? Its not. Its all about politics and Democrats like yourself putting party ahead of the best interest of country, and surprisingly the very people you claim to fight for. The good think for you is the chances of them waking up are limited. If they did the Dems would be in trouble.

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

Yes, issues such as those need to be discussed and you don't have to come in favor of Single Payer or something or abandon your positions. You need to fight back, defend the position, and argue for why its better then the Dem alternative.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do a paradigm change by renouncing the nativists and racists within the party in deed as well as in words (basically don't embrace them as a political asset, either covertly or overtly), and instead run on a platform of social conservatism (sanctity of life, protecting marriage from 'the gays', etc.), keeping the military strong and well-funded, and embrace the notion that government can actually be a force for good in this country while being cognizant of its limitations.  What I am saying is: go back to Eisenhower and Nixon when it comes to economic issues -'trickle down' economics of tax cuts and spending cuts is too fraught with racial overtones to be used any longer as a viable long-term economic strategy for political gain.  It is too easily interpreted as a means by which whites can covertly express their racial resentments by with-holding revenue to fund needed government programs for a diversifying society.  

Ask any African American or Native American on a reservation if they have seen an improvement in the communities situation over the past decades? They will say no. And enormous amounts of gov't aid, programs, and welfare. The answer will be no. The problem is not ideology. Many blacks are Conservative both Socially and Fiscally (maybe 1/4 of them) and the only reason that they vote Dem is because of talking points, pandering and fear mongering by Dems (Wasn't it John Lewis who ran an ad saying if his opponent won, crosses would burn back in 2004). The CBC and its members are interested in self preservative not the African American Community and most of the cities run by Democrats have collapsed, and the lack of competition breads incompetence and corruption. I think if the GOP were to agressively reach out, hear out concerns and offer up ideas and solutions they could peal off a slice of that vote. Could move a state like PA, MI or Ohio towards the GOP more.

Its not trickle down economics to use your phrase that hurts the GOP among minorities. Its lack of effort and Democratic fear mongering, which you yourself engaged in here. Why is securing our borders racist? its not. Why do legal Hispanics benefit from illegal immigration? They don't. Why is cracking down on employers who hire illegals nativist? Its not. Its all about politics and Democrats like yourself putting party ahead of the best interest of country, and surprisingly the very people you claim to fight for. The good think for you is the chances of them waking up are limited. If they did the Dems would be in trouble.

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

Yes, issues such as those need to be discussed and you don't have to come in favor of Single Payer or something or abandon your positions. You need to fight back, defend the position, and argue for why its better then the Dem alternative.

First of all, the GOP is NOT the fiscally conservative party if you look at the fiscal records of the last five Presidents before Obama. Thus, I don't think the GOP would be able to appeal too well to fiscally conservative minorities. Secondly, even though Bush talked about a lot of important minority issues in 2000, he still didn't do very well in winning the votes of any minority group.

Actually, all you have to do is look at 1995-1999 and you will find a fiscally Conservative GOP. I used the wrong term. I should have said pro-Free Market. Cause Fiscal Conservaitism is not an ideology but a reaction to a period of fiscal irresponsibility. Being Pro-Free Market is an ideology. True but he did do better in 2004.

Seriously, the interests of most minority voters consist of receiving handouts from the government. How can the GOP compete on that level?

First thing the GOP needs to do is get rid of this line of thinking. If you divide the country into an us vs them with the them being minorities always getting "handouts" from hardworking whites....yeah not going to get that many votes. You won't even get the votes of successful Hispanics and Asians, who are even less helped by "handouts" than Whites as a whole.

Overall they just need to have more minority candidates in minority heavy districts, hopefully starting at the local and state levels. The GOP really should be getting close to a majority of the middle class Black vote, but things are a little complicated since the southern strategy happened just a few decades ago. Yet that does not excuse the horrible performance of the GOP amongst Latinos and Asians. Asians as a whole are just as well off as Whites, so why shouldn't the GOP win a majority of their votes? Latinos are certainly more working class, but that doesn't mean the GOP can't win about 40% of their vote. Bush actually ran the perfect campaign to get Latino votes. I don't think he got a lot of the votes of poorer latinos, but he did well among the middle class. Republicans have to compete at that level or they are screwed in the long term.

The GOP shouldn't write them off, but part of the problem is because we ignore them or don't make the effort we don't bother to define issue like securing the borders and instead let the ID politics groups run wild with there hysteria of a racist, nativist GOP. The GOP could actually do well among working class Hispanics if they could successfully define the immigration issue right as a national security and an issue of Wage Depression but unfortunately the Business interests want cheap slave labor, so focusing on wage Depression caused by illegal Immigration would be difficult.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And which direction has the crime rate gone in black communities since the Johnson administration? How many more babies do we have born out of wedlock? What has happened to the poverty rate among blacks? The black community is a perfect example of what the country would be like if everyone voted democrat.

Congrats on proving why Blacks don't like the Republican party, because many Republicans don't like Blacks and are hostile to helping the Black community.  You claim its because of Democrats that cause all of the problems for the Black communities.  

I don't really see any rich Republicans caring about Black problems.  At least Democrats and LBJ passed the Civil Rights Legislation.  The GOP doesn't care about giving handouts to minority small business owners, its survival of the fittest and richest for the already wealthy.

Plus, on a social issue, GOP want to keep the white and black communities separated, just like in the old days.

Dewey and Taft were fighting for civil rights while LBJ was voting against Anti-Lynching bills.

90% of the GOP voted for the Civil Rights act, including both Conservatives led by Everett Dirksen and Liberals of the Rockefeller wing. Without Dirksen's Conservatives it wouldn't have passed. Three Republicans Voted no, Goldwater, Tower, and and Milton Young. It was 67% yes for the Dems. With such Liberal icons as Robert Byrd (god rest his soul for he atleast grew a brain), Al Gore Sr, J William Fulbright (Clinton's mentor and loved by the left due to Vietnam opposition), and Sam Ervin (loved by the left for leading the fight to impeach Nixon) voting no. Nixon was fighting for the Civil Rights bills of 1957 and 1960 which LBJ gets credit for while JFK was dithering on the issue to gain Southern Voters. In 2005, the GOP Congress and evil, omg son of the Devil GEORGE BUSH renewed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

That second part is a bold face lie as son of the devil Bush gave numerous tax breaks and other incentives to minority small business owners and entreprenuers.

Today, yes the programs that sought to help blacks have had the negative effect of destroying the African American family which, according to left wing historian Howard Zinn, was essential to African Americans surviving slavery and segregation.  

The greatest threat and hinderance to the black community and we aren't even allowed to discuss because of your political correctness. You are destroying the black community because you insist on shaping the debate for whats good politically not whats best for the black community and to do that you make sure any challenge to established thought on the subject is RACISM. You and your corrupt party have a nice little con game going on. You aren't interest in helping people but creating long term voting blocks of machine voters so you can enact your adjenda which you "think" will help them but it may not. And we can't even challenge you because you hide behind the racism charge. Democrats are cowards, especially liberal ones.

You want to help Blacks, then drop the arrogance inherent liberals and listen to the opposite side for once instead of categorizing all conservatives as kooks. Republicans don't have a problem with blacks. They have a problem with balls. The balls to face down people like you and address the real problem. They are too afraid, they tried the politically correct path in 2000 and you people responded with ad featuring a brutal crime committed against an African American saying that if Bush is elected that will be your future. Well from what I see it, January 20, 2001 nothing changed from the Clinton years (which did nothing either despite media hype as the first black President, lol). I think its liberals that are afraid. If blacks finally start to become more open about who to vote for the Democratic party will instantly be in trouble. If 25% of OH blacks voted Republican, the state would be a secure red state. MI and PA would become even or Republican leaning swing states instead of Dem leaning swing states. The TX gains will be wiped out. FL becomes a safe GOP state. Yea, I think Dems are afraid and even somewhat patronizing, if not racist, in their methods to keep blacks in line, voting 95% Dem.

The black family has been destroyed. Blacks kids have no postive role models. Even in the media the only positive role model of stature is Bill Cosby and maybe Oprah. Yet I hear it all the time, around here, young blacks don't like either. The media has promoted blacks of questionable intregrity who treat women like crap, who make drugs look cool and at the same time, trivialize respectable people. No amount of money is going to prevent kids from starting drugs, or joing a gang, or committing a robbery, or vandalizing property. Only a strong family unit (even a homosexual one would do the trick) in which the parents instill core values of hard work, honesty, and integrity. Thats the one thing blacks lack that every other race has by wide margins. The numbers show this problem is far worse in the black community then any other group and it needs to be addressed. Or the main career path for young blacks in the city will remain crime and jail.

Somehow I doubt that Dr. King spent his life fighting for equality and justice just so the African Community could laid prostrate by social ills caused by the collapse of the family, which not only survived Slavery (going back to Zinn) but help blacks get survive that hell. You can make the the case for affirmative action and even reparations but you can throw all kinds of money here and not one thing will change. I think we oh it to the black community to address this problem don't you? The pillar that helped them get through enormous difficulty and living hell has been torn assunder. And your solution is, for us who offer an alternative, to shut up, sh**t down, cower in fear, and do nothing. So the Dumbocrats can take there sweat time just like they did last time. The blacks can afford to wait another 40 years while you people find your soul again on black issues. Well guess what, the GOP is already there, they just don't realize it yet. You people in general aren't. The battlelines have moved and you want to fight the 1960's all over again with the new "dixiecrats". That ship has sailed, times have changed, the problems facing the community have taken on a different character. Get with the times on it or accept that the Dem monopoly on black voters may become endangered.

Do as you will, but you don't scare me with your political correctness and no other Conservative should be afraid either. I am not a racist, my best friends in high school consisted of several African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. My first girlfriend/crush whatever you want to call it was with a black girl (damn why did I have to move away from her, well its probably for the best considering my relationships never last ). I respect good people, color never crosses my mind when considering who I should be friends with. So I won't be driven away by a simple mention of the "r" word. I also am not a hack and your first response will be to do what Moderate Dem did to me which is accuse me of opposing welfare entirely (I don't, I oppose the way it is crafted to encourage destruction of poor families). You also can't use slavery destroying the family on me like Moderate Dem did because I cited an "LEFT WING" author to back up the new theory on that. And a passage is currently posted from his book in the LBJ thread in the History Board which describes what I am talking about.


Sorry for the rant/speech/sermon all in one. But I feel this had to be said.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sad fact is that blacks and hispanics, being poorer and paying little income tax on average, are going to vote for the candidate that gives them the most handouts. Republicans would never be able to offer more handouts than the Democrats. Republicans would have to completely alter their traditional ideology to do that. Asians are different, but there are too few of them to matter and they are concentrated in blue states like California anyway.

Here's the real question we should be asking: What should Republicans do to boost their share of the white vote to sufficiently offset the increase in minorities?

I'm pretty sure the GOP has close to 100% of the white male vote.  The only demographics worth fighting for are white women and hispanics.  That is why McCain picked Palin, because he wanted to win White Women voters, but Palin was perceived largely as inexperienced and unintelligent,and not ready for VP or president.  Any other female Senator or Governor can win more women voters.  Meg Whitman could easily win California and become president in 8 years.

About 64% is usually tops nationwide among whites. In 2008, winning blacks was impossible. Blacks wanted and in some ways needed to make history by electing Obama. However I still think its possible for the GOP to win more then single digits. Bush did get 16% in Ohio in 2004. Atleast in swing states if not nationwide, the GOP should be able to reach 25%. I mentioned some of the ways this can be achieved in our last encounter in this thread, though the circumstances were less then desirable.

I don't think Whitman will easily win California. She could potentially in different circumstances but not againt Jerry Brown with and unpopular GOP incumbent. If she wins it will be excruciatingly close.

Yeah, that's a ridiculous claim. McCain won the white male vote only by about 57-41.

If whites voted as a bloc the way blacks do, they'd decide every election.

I really don't understand why you think the "Whites" would all vote for one candidate such as the GOP candidate.  So, 60% of the country should just vote for the GOP nominee because that person is also white?  Blacks voted for Obama because they hoped he would have an ear for their concerns and issues, not just because he was Black.  Its not about race or racism, its about trusting that person to listen to your voice.  So its ludicrous to think that Whites should not vote for Obama because he is Black or that he won't listen to Surburban white voters. 

In the past elections, there has been 2 white guys, and the White voters didn't have to vote as a bloc!  They actually could decide between 2 candidates not just based on skin color!

He talked about whites voting in a bloc because you said McCain won nearly 100% of the white male vote, which was completely inaccurate. And the GOP would fail if it tries to appeal to poor minorities, since those groups feel that the GOP doesn't care about them and have felt that way for decades. Thus, it is too late for the GOP to try changing their views. And a lot of blacks did vote for Obama (especially in the primaries) because he was black. If Obama was white, Hillary would have won 70+% of the black vote in the Democratic primaries and less blacks voters would have came out to vote in the general election.

My Point is that it is not just Race.  Its also about TRUST.  Black voters trusted Obama to listen to their voice and rising Black prosperity.  By your logic, Blacks should vote GOP because Mike Steele is Black and only because he is Black. 

My point is trust is not just Color/Race, but also past actions by the Democrats, past Democratic politicians like Clinton, and its Big tent philosophy. 

The GOP may try to appeal to Blacks, but can Black leaders trust that their voices will be heard at the RNC, or will they be widely ignored by RNC leaders? 

What makes it so difficult is that because 1) Blacks are poorer then whites on average, less educated etc etc and 2) they vote and support Democrats so overwhelmingly it is easy to argue successfully that Republicans are anti-black because they oppose many of the economic policies that benefit the poor. Also the Republicans are pretty stupid as well in there approach when it comes to forming the narative and arguements for there ideas and issues.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

I am mixed on Affirmative Action. I think most of it should be shifted from just race based to race+poverty. The arguement is that minorities have been hampered economically through because of discrimnation so it would make sense to just focus on poor minorities instead of all minorities.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would say that Obama is a strong positive role model for Black kids.  Mike Steele is a role model.  While I would agree that handouts have made it easier to game the system, there is difficult economic mobility amongst Blacks and I'm not sure if its economic racism or poor education.  Its not enought to just have small business owners, you need a strong Black population in the white collar workforce to encourage growth in the Black middle-class.  Additionally, race has divided and segregated the country since 1965 and its time for communities, towns, and cities to mix races and end racial segregation.  Countries like Brazil have successfully mixed former slaves into the population, we can do it in America as well.

Well on a personal level, Obama is a great role model, otherwise he wouldn't have been elected. But I was sticking mainly to non-political celebrities. If every black kid looked up to Obama the guy that struggled with drugs but overcame them and managed to acheive success in life, the community as whole would be a lot better off.

Its not about whether it was enough, but just refuting your point the Republicans didn't do a thing to help blacks at all.

To achieve a larger black middle class, you have to go into the inner cities and bust up the educational establishment some. And most Democrats are unwilling to face down the teachers unions which is why even Obama's reforms are DOA most likely. And even if the educational system is top notch you will hit the brick wall of family issues, drugs, poverty, and crime which distract kids from learning for obvious reasons. A strong family unit with parents that push education and value it can be immensly beneficial to the kid struggling to stay focused on education.

You can't force people to move where they don't want to.  And you will just increase racial tensions trying to do it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

I am mixed on Affirmative Action. I think most of it should be shifted from just race based to race+poverty. The arguement is that minorities have been hampered economically through because of discrimnation so it would make sense to just focus on poor minorities instead of all minorities.

How about making AA just based on financial status? That way, wealthy minorities can be excluded and poor white people can be included.

Thats a possibility.