Talk Elections

Are any minority groups going to be angry, because Kerry had a good choices among minorities but opted for the pretty-boy white-guy instead?

or

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?


Seriously though, will the Edwards pick influence minorities in any negative way?

50 out of 8000 elected black officials in the United States are Republicans. Every single Republican ticket has always had 2 Protestant males. That's not true for the Democrats.

Harold Ford or Barack Obama could become President.  

I need to find that article I read last week.  It stated that there are a record number of black republicans running for office this election, party due to the disenfranchisement from the democratic party as well as the growing number of successful black businessmen who no longer feel as repressed as the democratic rhetoric makes them out to be.  It was a good (but awfully long) read.  

This isn't the article that I was referencing, but it does touch on the points I was making:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-06-14-gop-south-blacks_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-06-14-gop-south-blacks_x.htm)

I don't know whether to laugh at you or vomit.  While there are a handful of exceptions (Snowe, Jeffords - until he bolted, Collins, Specter - to a lesser degree, McCain - to a lesser degree, Chafee, etc), the Republicans have a laughable record on diversity.  This is not meant as a defense of Democrats.  Their pandering to minorities with entitlement handouts is disgusting.

But what party is typically the one taking up inner city issues (thich tends to impact minorities more)?  Democrats.  How has Bush's reduced funding to the nations cities affected them?  Visit Richmond some time.  Ask the citizens there.  The Republicans have cut funds going to police forces, requiring cutbacks.  The result is predictable.  Crime rates in many cities (like Richmond) have been on the rise.  This overwhelmingly impacts minorities.

And how about gays.  O.k., o.k., I know many Republicans will argue that they're not "minorities".  Nice out.  Do you realize that because the ENDA bill never passed (solely because of Republican opposition) a gay or lesbian person can be fired from their job simply because the boss "doesn't like queers"?  That's right, getting fired on the basis of sexual orientation, completely non-work related, is perfectly acceptable to most Republican law makers.  Federal workers are protected based on an executive order from Clinton (and, surprisingly, not repealed by Bush), as are many private workers simply because of company policy.  But as a matter of law, they are not protected.  Yeah, that's wonderfully fair.  I am a manager in my workplace, responsible for hiring and firing, so I have a pretty good perspective on this.  It is repugnant and inhuman that someone can strip another person of their livelihood based on sexual orientation!  I don't care how "conservative" one is.  Most Republican lawmakers think this is fine and dandy and wouldn't want to infringe on "employer's rights".  Give me a break.

WHo were the well qualified black candidates for Vice-President...there is not a single black Senator or Governor on either side.  Richardson was a qualified Hispanic, but from what I understand, he had other issues.

And if the Republicans actually practice diversity, where are there no black Republicans in Congress...or as Governor or Senator.  Every single black Congressman is a Democrat.  Every Asian Governor, Senator, or Congressman is a Democrat.  At least 2/3 of the Hispanic Congressmen as Democrats (I don't know the exact count).  In 2002, we will finally elect a black Senator (Obama) and a Hispanic Senator (Salazar)...both Democrats.  It there Republican diversity beyond a couple Cabinet offices?  I haven't seen any evidence.  

In defense of "Republicans" on the gay issue, the Democratic/Liberal rhetoric is "Keep government out of our bedrooms."  However, you never hear their opposition saying "Keep your bedroom out of our Government."  No matter how much of a groundswell there has been for "gay rights," it is very unlikely that it will become something acceptable in our society, at least, as long as we are still alive.  This isn't the same as the women's rights or black's rights movements.  

Dispite the claims by some of the "gay rights" activists, there has been no proof that being gay is genetic.  It is a choice people make in their lives, and with any choice, there are opportunities and opportunity costs.  Within the US, the opportunity cost is that you are not entitled to benefits which a married couple would be.  

I guess the best example of this would be if Jewish people (religion is a choice, not genetic) were to fight for all of their holy days to be nationally recognized and observed, requiring a whole series of changes both on the national, state, corporate, and personal level.  Would it be "fair?"  Sure, of course it would be fair to observe the holy days of Islam and any other group that would follow in their wake until it came to the point where our society comes to a gridlock and stops functioning.  

Similar is with "gay rights."  If society were to cave into the demands of a small group of people who feel repressed for their choice, we'd start seeing groups of transexuals, polygomists, etc start demanding the same exceptions till the point where the system fails.  

So, back to your example of the person being fired since he was gay, the simple solution is to check your sexual orientation at the office door when you go into work each day.  Just like people do with their religion and other affiliations.  They aren't topics or practices which are appropriate within the working environment since they can have negative impacts on the working conditions of others.  Just like with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy the military had, especially aboard naval ships.  

*I'll throw this little disclaimer in:  I'm not a homophobe, or have anything against people which choose a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle.  Nor did I plan on standing on a soapbox this morning on this topic.  Just my views on the issue, and that's probably all I have to say about it.*

MODU, while I respect your opinion (it was presented far more "logically" than the starter of this thread in terms of minorities in general), there are a few problems...

1) The "keep govt out of the bedroom" idea was a Republican idea!  What happened?  The religious right happened.

2) You make a MASSIVE leap that since there is no proof that being gay is genetic it must be a choice.  For one thing, there have been some bits and pieces of evidence suggesting that it might be genetic... or partially so.  For another thing, genetic science is in its infancy.  Just because something has not been proven to be genetic it is not safe to assume it is not genetic.  As a result, there is, likewise, no proof that being gay is a choice.

3) Even if it is a choice, you make a very correct leap to compare it to religion.  Here's my problem... I, too, don't care to get off on some major discussion about being gay.  My point was regarding simple job protection.  Not entitlements or "special" rights or anything else.  If being gay is a choice, the religion parallel is superbly correct... especially since most opposition to homosexuality comes out of religion.  Well..... it IS illegal to fire someone on the basis of religion!  The precisely same treatment should be afforded to sexual orientation.  The Republicans, in general, oppose this.  That was my point.  I'm not trying to argue for or against gay marriage, civil unions, genetics versus choice, etc, etc, etc.  I'm simply talking about job protection.  Religion, a choice, is protected.  Sexual orientation should be as well.  Period.  As for "checking it at the door", that is WAY, OVERLY simplistic.  People (co-workers, bosses, etc) CAN find out by accident... in or out of the workplace.  That's why there is legal protection based on religion and needs to be based on sexual orientation.  Your parallel is an excellent one.  Problem is, there is protection for one of the groups, but not for the other.  And Republicans solely have blocked that protection.

We should me for lunch.  Possibly turn DC "green" like we have with Maryland and Virginia.  hahaha

Sexual orientation is determined in early infancy and in the womb. There might be a genetic component but don't count on it. (If there is, there is a parallel to eye and hair colour.) It's not deprogrammable.
 

DC green?  Never.  :)  Maybe we can go to Delaware and try there, that's an easier prospect.  Actually, I should be "yellow" (Libertarian).  But many "yellows" are "yellow" for gun rights purposes and "blue" on most other issues.  Drives me nuts.  I have no "home".  :(  So, I'm "green".  I'm a true "yellow" and an old fashioned "blue".  Which is funny, because it forces me to hold my nose and vote "red" most of the time.  :P  What happens when you mix "yellow", "red", and "blue"?  I think you just get "white".  I guess I'm just "white".  :P

I agree.  But I was trying not to start that whole argument here.  :D  ;)   I was trying to keep it to policies and politics... using the issue of job protection for gays.

I blame MODU :P, he brought up the choice versus genes issue. ;)  I was merely trying to point out that Reps don't sincerely embrace/support diversity.  They did in the 1960s (and earlier).  No longer.

hehehe . . . sure, the old "Blame MODU" routine.  ;)  

Hey, I have proof that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is going all out for the "gay" vote.  Check out the drudge website:  www.drudgereport.com (http://www.drudgereport.com)

"Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees..."

(insert images of Kerry and Edwards hugging and touching during campaign stops)

"CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER"

hahaha . . . just too funny.  :)

Maybe during the convention they'll share an "Al & Tipper" moment.  :D

Just to "seal the deal."

Carol Mosley-Braun could have been a good VP candidate, as could Bill Richardson

Colin Powell could be President.  So could Condi Rice.

On the cabinet, we have Elaine Chao, Rod Paige, Alphonso Jackson.

Where were the high ranking minorities in the Clinton Administration?  Just Richardson and he doesn't even have a Hispanic last name (not that it matters, just thought I would point it out).

Sen. Ben Nighthorse-Campbell or don't Indians count?

Then we have Mel Martinez, Vernon Robinson, J.C. Watts, Herman Cain, a whole host of local southern black politicians who have switched to the GOP.

The main reason that we see all these minority Dems in Congress is because most minorities come from areas that have been heavily Democratic since the Irish were considered a minority group and because they have these idiotic ancestral ties to the party that has simply made their lives worse.  The more they pull the lever for the Dems, the worse their lost in life has become.  Don't they realize that.  Well, acctually some do.  23% of young blacks now consider themselves Ind. so at least they are trying to flee the plantation.

And suprise suprise areas that are heavily Republican have few minorities.  So, when a J.C. Watts or a Vernon Robinson gets elected, it acctually means something, unlike the cookie cutter minorities that the Democrats stamp-out.  And, on what planet, in what country could Obama or Ford ever be President, pray tell?

who are these "good choices among minorities"? The only statewide elected official who is a minority is Bill Richardson, who Kerry seriously considered, but he refused to take the position himself. This post is making me laugh.

Are you seriously claiming that Carol Mosley-Braun would have been a viable VP candidate for the Dems?  Or is this just the wishful thinking of a Republican?  Irrespective of her race, Braun is completely unelectable, both for ideological reasons and because of personal scandal.   It would be like the Republicans nominating Bob Dornan, who ran a brief presidential campaign in 1996.

Kerry did ask Richardson and showed interest. Richardson said no.

Mosley-Braun would've been a good VP candidate? How is a scandal-ridden former Senator who lost her reelection bid in a heavily Democratic state to a guy who was basically hated by his own party a good VP candidate?

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  ???

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

Harold Ford is not yet 35 years old.   Once he is, he will be a highly desireable pick for a national ticket.  How is he a viable nominee if he is not even constitutionally eligible?

As for the others....how can you claim that the Dems should have two religious minorites on their ticket when the Republicans have not nominated a single religious minority once in their entire history.  

The Dems have had a female nominee, a Jewish nominee, an Orthodox nominee, and three Catholic nominees.  The GOP has never had any of these!  There may not be many black Republicans, but there are certainly Republican women and Catholics.  Where is the diversity there???

My bad.  Your right.  That's my gaffe for the week.


We don't claim to have this great devotion to diversity that the Dems do.  We put in the most qualified people.  The Dems rail about diversity, but rarely pratice it in acctuality.  Name one high ranking minority in the Clinton Administration other than Richardson.  Vernon Jordan doesn't count either.




Ferraro was set up to fail.  You guys hate Liebermann.  I'll grant you Dukakis, but the only reason he got the nomination is because the Greek Community put him over the top in a lot of states.  Kerry is about as Catholic as Billy Graham.  Smith doesn't count, that was almost 80 years ago.  JFK was a true Catholic, but since I'm an admire of JFK I have no problem conceding it.

Once again, it maybe true that the Republicans have never fronted a minority candidate, but the Republicans don't claim that racial diversity is the one of the most important things in the world.  Still, as I have said, inspite of the fact that we have fewer minorities in our party, we have plenty of qualified minorities in key possitions.  Plenty of practicing Catholics have run or would run for the Presidency as Republicans, but since they were/would all demonized by your party, a nomination isn't likely.  Alan Keyes, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum and a whole host of others.

I admit, that we have feilded no one, but we are working on it.  We have, however, put minorities in prominent possitions and might have a black congressman and a black Senator and possibly an Hispanic Senator, along with an Hispanic Supreme Court Justice (Estrada is headed there) and a whole host of other minorities.

But the Dems go on and on about diversity and don't seem to follow through.

Why should Kerry pressure Richardson? He didn't want the job. End of story.

Democrats may not care much about minor sex scandals, but Braun had much more baggage.  And she doesn't help with any state. Besides, when's the last time someone who LOST their last election was picked for VP? I fail to see how someone who lost in a heavily Democratic state to a rather weak opponent is a good pick.

Ford is only 34. Ineligible.

Feinstein = Senator from state with Republican governor. Automatic disqualification in my view.

Kerry is a Catholic, but since when are Poles and Catholics minorities? Vilsack was seriously considered, but he was too unknown for the nation. Either way, he's still white.

But I thought everyone hates Rendell? Then wouldn't he not help at all with Pennsylvania? You kept talking about how he'd be such a bad choice.

50 out of 8000 elected black officials in the United States are Republicans. Every single Republican ticket has always had 2 Protestant males. That's not true for the Democrats.

Harold Ford or Barack Obama could become President.  

Neither Harold Ford, nor Barack Obama, nor anyone who is not a white male can become president, at least not at the top of the ticket - lets be realistic.  And it doesn't hurt to be Protestant either.

Who cares?  Diversity for diversities sake is sooo important, right?  That's why we have AA, isn't it?  Isn't the Democrats' undying, heart-felt commitment to diversity one of the things that seperates you enlightened Liberals from us racist, troglodyte conservatives?

Its plain and simple Edwards was the most viable candidate he got the job.  Edwrads has the nost to offer.  He makes the ticket stronger in the midwest (Ohio, WI, MI) as well as the south bringing NC into play and giving Kerry a better chance in the southenr satates.  Richardson secures New Mexico and Nevada probably makes Arizona close, but not much other than that.  Mausley-Braun is in a state that the Dems will win by double digits.  When picket the VP ticket much of it is who gives the President the best chance of winning.  How exactly does someone whose influence is mainly on an very safe Dem state going to help??  I personally like Braun, but she doesn't gfive Kerry s better chance of winning.

Other than Richardson who stated he didn't want the jobs  pretty much all the other inorities who were qualified (african americans, lationo's and women) came from states that are heavily Dem to begin with

I let these pictures speak for themselves. Not that there's  anything wrong with it.....

()
()
()
()
()

Taken from the Wayne Perryman website. History of the Republican party and blacks :

The Democrats

Our nation's top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.


The Republicans

Regarding the Republican Party, historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

And gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation

15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
23. Civil Rights Act of 1983
24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988

Programs By Republicans & their Supporters include:

a. Many of our key traditional Black Colleges are named after Republicans Colleges
b. The Freedman Bureau
c. Historians say that three whites that opposed the Democrat's racist practices, including the lynching of blacks, founded and funded the NAACP


http://www.wayneperryman.com/index.htm

All the Dixiecrats are now Republicans. The northern Democrats were all for those things you mentioned from last century. The political situation has shifted. As of 1990, Vermont had gone Democrat once in 41 Presidential elections. Now, it's solid Democrat.

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

for the record I oppose race-based AA, but even when it's used, race is not the top priority. I think Richardson's consideration was mainly because of his race, so that was race based AA at work, but he was a decent candidate on his own merits, if it wasn't for the fact that HE DIDN'T WANT THE JOB. Someone like Braun was not, and a person as unqualified as Braun would never get a job in any case over someone as qualified as Edwards. Edwards was the best choice, and it's quite silly for the Democrats to either put pick someone who didn't want the job or was scandal-ridden over him.

And do you honestly think race was no factor at all in Powell and Rice's appointments? There's AA at work, and hence, hypocrisy.

whatever the case, it's obvious now that this thread wasn't actual political debate, but rather simply setting up a strawman.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?

Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish. :)

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Obviously they are sticking to Democrats for either a) economic benefits or b) someone is preaching to them to vote Democrat. The reason I say this is because any group voting 90% for one party is ridiculous. We can't even get 50% to agree w/each other a lot of the time here on this forum. I can not contemplate that 90% of any race/gender/whatever can agree enough to vote 90% in one direction. I never said it was by gun point that's a crazy. Yes they are using their free will but are they actually thinking before they pull they lever or are they simply looking for the  (D)?

Part of it comes down to AA programs and stuff like that.  Regardess how you feel  about AA most African Americans support it, which Republicans oppose.  Other issues such as community outreach programs and other things the Democrats tend to fund meanwhile the ERepublicans want to pull funding from.  These programs African Americans highly support.  Reasons like this is  why Afdrican Americans vote heavily for Dems.  However one race voting one way isn't just an African American Dem thing.  81% of whites including 87% of White Males voted for Bush in Mississippi in 2000

And Democrats like to act as though we force them at gun point out of the voting booths.  "If Bush is Elected, Another Black Church Will Burn", remember that ad?

The blacks vote Democrat, because of ancestral loyalties started in the 30's, but that is starting to change.  More blacks are registered Ind.,just like Bush is more popular among Hispanics than he was 4 years ago according to most polls, not less.

P.S. and Bush set a record in 2000 for a Republican among Hispanic voters by bagging 37%.

States, Moore, Kerry and Lincoln do not go together.


"One of these things is better than the others, one of these things is really, really good".

Actually Richmond's problems are more from an incompetent and corrupt City Council and a very very partisan Police Chief.  I'm not a huge fan of Gov. Wilder but if he is elected Mayor he will at least get rid of the crooks and idiots.

AA is outdated.  The opportunity-disparity between "whites" and minorities have narrowed well enough over the last two decades that we can focus on abilities and experience rather than quotas.  AA does more harm than good for both sides of the debate, and in the long run, hurts our nation.

I personally think we still need it.  The opportunity disparity is still there & has actually widened over the last couple years.  During the late 1990's  & 2000 the difference between white unemployment and minority unemployment was the smallest it has ever been, however that differerence has shot back up over the past 3 years

Kerry is running ads targeting latinos.
Bush didn't talk at some NAACP meeting.

Well, that's what they tell me.

The NAACP would have been a grilling/mocking session if Bush had shown up anyway.  This is why he hasn't attended.  No need to give the media free soundbites of people boo'ing while Bush was talking.

Do you blame Bush for not wanting to speak? They slammed him in 2000 and basically blamed him for the death of Byrd who was drug behind a pickup truck. Why speak to a group that you don't have their vote and hates you with every bone in their bodies?

They are out of date, just like AA and unions.

This is the best!!!  Kerry/Edwards really working it up before the Amendment vote in Congress this week:

http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html (http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html)

Urban League - YES
NAACP - NO

The NAACP has again shown how radical they have become over the past decade with their hostile attacks towards the President.  In response, Bush, Bartlett, McClellan, and Paige have all denounced the current leadership of the NAACP and agreed to attend the Urban Leagues convention later this month.

Paige (a black member of Bush's cabinet) went a step further from denouncing the rhetoric from the NAACP to remind them that their group was founded, in part, by white people, and was never meant to be a "black" organization, but rather multicultural.

For those that do not remember, following Bush's 2000 visit to the NAACP, the group ran an attack add directed towards Bush in regards to the death of a black man in Texas who was chained up and dragged behind a pick-up truck, using the deadmans daughter as a voice over condemning Bush for being to easy on the guilty gentlemen's sentancing.

They also said if you vote for Bush another black church will burn. Disgusting. Obviously they can read the history and see the connection between the Democratic party and the militant wing known as the KKK.

One of my co-workers here who is a member of Rolling Thunder said he cancelled his membership and support of the NAACP in 2000 after the Bush attack ad was aired on tv.  Talked to him this morning about Kerry's speech there and the NAACPs comments, and he said that he feels this could only hurt Kerry in the black community rather than help.  Many in the NAACP aren't as radical as the leadership.  He also doesn't believe he'd rejoin once the current leadership of that organization is replaced, as well as he's expecting their membership figures to decline over the next few years.

I predict Bush gets 15% of the black vote, 40% of the hispanic vote and near 50% of the asian vote.  His white vote will hold steady around 54%.

If he does that well he wins california.

If he does that well he wins california.

Actually my predictions are more modest than that.  Not enough to swing a democratic stronghold like California.  I think Bush only got 49% of the white vote in 2000.

You sure?  I think Bush only lost the white vote in a handful of states.

Yeah I am about 90% sure on that one.  Could be off a point or two.

Um Bush had to have had well over 50% of the white vote; he had almost 48% of the total vote and 25% of the population is non-white, so it's statistically impossible for it to be that low.

54% could be right, but even that sounds a tad low... in some states, Bush won 2/3 the white vote- and nowhere did he get wiped out.

AuH20,

We were talking about the white vote in CA being 49%, not the national white vote...

oh oh.

Yeah that's possible. Fishy, but possible.

Problem is, 'hispanic' is not a race, so a lot of people of Mexican descent are counted as white. I would imagine Bush got more than 49% of the non-hispanic white vote.

Maybe he did get more than 49% among just the white population, but I doubt it.  And there about 16 or 17 states where Bush failed to get a majority of the "white" vote.  The white vote is not as strong as you think, except in the south and a few mountain states.