:snicker: Is Trent Lott even out of the leadership, much less out of the party? Helms and Thurmond certainly weren’t hounded and evicted. Who specifically are you thinking of?
Not in the GOP, anyway, which has no black members at all in the House or Senate or governorships, or even big-city mayors that I know of. That is most certainly not true of the Democrats.
Do you really not think there is any substance at all to that belief? No history? That perhaps they’re just not perceptive enough to realize that racism has been “hounded and evicted” out of the party, as you so confidently claim?
Why, what was so bad about Ike? He was pretty much a moderate that disappointed the more right wing Republicans that pushed him into the Presidency from what I recall. Quite often Generals come unencumbered by the ideologies of mainstream politicians. What was wrong with Ike?
Powell would have to make his platform known before we actually voted for him, but he is not a fundie, he doesn’t work for Big Oil, he is a sound diplomat and leader. I find all these traits admirable.
The other problem is that nobody votes for an unnamed candidate. They vote (or don’t vote) for someone specific.
Most black politicians in the US are Democrats, for a variety of reasons. But I suspect their electability or lack thereof to the office of President comes more from their positions and backgrounds than their pigmentation. You mentioned Jackson and Sharpton. The notion that they have no shot at a national nomination basely mostly on their color is not credible - they could both be as white as the driven snow and still have no chance whatever. Indeed, ISTM that the only thing keeping Sharpton from being even more marginalized than he is is the fact that he is black - a white politician with his flaws would not be able to draw on the automatic deference of national party leaders for someone who can deliver the “black dog Democrats” - those who would vote for a turd like him, solely because shit’s brown.
The Republican nomination was Powell’s for the asking, and he declined for the same reasons another politician of a different hue would decline - his wife suffers from depression, and he did not want to subject her to the mud-slinging that a Presidential campaign involves. And that mud wasn’t going to come from the Republicans, any more than the accusations against Clarence Thomas came from them. It was Democrats like Simon and Totenberg trying to think up synonyms for “uppity” to use against someone who wasn’t willing to be their house Negro.
A sufficiently charismatic speaker perceived as having integrity, and with a clear vision (or the impression of a clear vision) of where he wants to take the country, could win if he were black. Or she were black. Or she were a black Muslim.
Demographic negatives are obstacles to overcome. Not insurmountable ones, generally, just obstacles to overcome. The candidate would have to be good.
(Or, as one wall-poster I saw had it, “Equality between the sexes isn’t attained when an excellent female candidate can do as well as an excellent male candidate. Equality is when a female shlemiel tends to do as well as a male schlemiel”).
Colin Powell had the integrity thing, and was a good (not quite excellent) speaker. We have no solid clue on his vision-for-America thing, although presumably he would lay some stuff out were he to run. But as others have noted, the integrity thing is prefaced by “had” not “has”.
Condi Rice is no more charismatic than Hillary Clinton, would have a big integrity problem (IMHO is seen as totally a team player within Bush admin, one who has never been critical of her side, and has defended some pretty indefensible shit). Either her political world-view is largely a continuation of existing policy or she comes off as flip-floppy trying to distance herself from it.
Barack Obama has speaker-charisma to die for and has the integrity, but lacks the experience-chops. Even Hillary Clinton could use another Senate term under her belt, and Obama at this point would look as green as Edwards. He could be a force to be reckoned with in time though, if he can continue to look idealistic and clean and not politically tainted.
Etc.
I don’t see any prospects standing head & shoulders over likely whiter candidates in either major party, but I definitely don’t think it’s impossible for the foreseeable future or anything like that.
Are you crazy? Ike did a lot of really… unflashy, strong, and visionary things. He made America what it is today. Literally… the Highway program, alone.
He ended the Korean War, built SEATO, installed the Shah (starting a long tradition of use of the CIA… yeah, well.), got England and France to give the Suez back to Egypt, started NASA, sent troops to Little Rock to enforce desegregation, worked behind the scenes to take down McCarthy, admitted two states to the Union, and appointed some really good Supreme Court justices.
Course, he’s also responsible for getting us involved in Vietnam.
I’ll repeat what I said in the other threads. The first Black president is probably going to be a Republican. The simple math is that a Black Democrat doesn’t add to the Democratic base, while a Black Republican would add to the Republican base. Also, most Black Democratic politicians are too left of center. There are a few, like Harold Ford, who have staked out positions as centrists, but not many. Obama seems to be the Great Black Hope, but that talk seems to be mostly premature… well let’s just let that sentence end with “premature”. The guy hasn’t even been in the Senate for 2 years yet.
We might see Condi as a presidential candidate if she can snag the 2nd spot on the Republican ticket this time, and I wouldn’t rule that out. I’ve said many times that I think a McCain/Rice ticket would be darn near unbeatable-- especially if the Dems nominate another Senator.
This and the other (Could a Jew…) thread have somewhat similar premises to a poll I started a while back:"Rank these Presidential attributes! " where I asked people to rank candidates of minority groups in order of their (perceived) likelihood of becoming Prez.
It’s too bad that the old canard about Southern racism is still limping its way around the debate circuits.
The only difference between Southern racists and Northern racists two generations ago when this was relevant is that Southern racists were up-front and honest about their bigotry. Even today, in my experience, the occasional bold Southern reference to uppity negroes is offset by the wink and nod from white Minneapolitans and Philadelphians who’ve told me how much they value their neighborhood’s more stable demographic over mine. (Until recently, both the Aryan Nation and the New Black Panther Party were headquartered in Philadelphia.)
With respect to Jackson and Sharpton, I think that calling them liberals is unfair. I think of them as agenda-driven socialists. They’re the Falwell and Robinson of the left, and they’re equally unelectable for the same reason as their right-wing counterparts. To me, a black liberal is someone more like Barack Obama.
Do you not think there’d be a risk that the Republican base might reject that combination? Both McCain and Rice would be good to appeal for voters outside the normal Rep. support - perhaps one or the other would do well (and out of those two, I think McCain would have a better chance) but both together might be alienating.
I think he public would love to vote for a black prez and I don’t even think he’d have to be conservative. I do think he’d have to be Christian, though.
Republican racism is no canard. In the years following 1968, the party constituencies reshuffled themselves. Practically everybody (North and South) who had voted for Wallace in '68 ultimately settled down in the Republican Party, making it what it is today.
It’s fairly common knowledge. I have read the history of the post-1968 transformation of the Republican Party (including the migration of racist/conservative whites from the Democrats to the Republicans) in many books, including the following: