Gore Lieberman

[Maeglin]

Of course a convention is “scripted.” What do you expect them to do, ad-lib? I bet the Democrats have their speeches all planned out, photo-ops set, etc… This is hardly unusual or a worthy bone to pick.

So because both sides are guilty I can’t pick this bone? That is fatuous. I may be too young to remember, but I know that conventions once were not the coronation/mutual masturbation rituals that they are now. I certainly do object to the way they are handled. I further object to the Republican’s scripted, condescending ideas of tolerance.

According to your standards, the Republicans are in a no-win situation. You castigate them for having an inclusive convention. Of course, if the stage was occupied by 90% white males, you’d castigate them for that, too.

I would say that at least they are being true to the demands of their constituency. I might not be happy with it, but I am not going to vote for them.

Your last statement is the one that seems to continually pop up from those who believe that the only way to create diversity is from government mandate. I respect that this is your position, but I get griped when a person won’t even admit that a different path to a similar end just may exist.

There are many paths to equal civil rights, which I am more concerned with than notions of diversity. Indeed they do not all require government mandate. Trite as it might be, fair interpersonal conduct is the best way to achieve these rights. So why has the Republican party historically placed itself opposed to this kind of fair conduct, whether it has been mandated by government or not?

I am not going to condemn every Republican out of hand, and I really hope you do not mistake my meaning here. Just go ahead and ask Tom DeLay how much he cares about equal civil rights.

“Republicans are against affirmative action; therefore, they are against black people.” No, No, No! Can’t Republicans be ‘for’ minorities in such a way that avoids government social engineering or throwing around money and new programs? How about “Republicans are committed to diversity by rewarding people no matter what their skin color.” How about “Republicans believe the best way to empower minorites is to encourage self-reliance, ownership of private property, and creation of capital through small (or even large) businesses.”

Hey, I agree with that. Affirmative action makes me quite uncomfortable. But that is just one brick in the wall.

This is not just pre-convention rhetoric. These are actual beliefs that aim to help the very people you accuse the Republicans for stepping on.

From some, yes. But I just cannot bring myself to believe that the core of the Republican party actually believes this. It’s just rationalization to preserve the status quo. Otherwise the social policy that they can engineer, namely tax credits, would be consonant with these aims.

You may not like the GOP voting record. Fair enough. But don’t try to convince yourself or others that Democrats have the market on compassion just because you can’t see the many ways in which Republicans desire similar goals, though by vastly different means.

Just because I criticize the GOP does not mean I have to hold up the Democrats as a model. I am an equal opportunity antagonist. Democratic social policy regarding civil rights and racial issues is often condescending and irresponsible. But the bottom line is that there are a lot more black Democratic reps than Republican reps. They don’t have to pretend to include when the votes speak for themselves.

SouthernStyle

Think about all of the civil rights reforms that have taken place in the last 40 years. Affirmative action in its many forms is but ONE of the things that the Democrats brought to this country.

Damn right. And the government didn’t initiate hardly any of them.

Well MOST of this country. Remember also that the U.S. House and Senate were controlled by the Democratic Party through most of these 40 years and chose to explicitly exempt the House and Senate from having to abide by the law.

Which is a terrible thing. Democrats can be old white men just like Republicans. Anyone remember Robert Byrd?

Republicans haven’t approached “inclusion” in a way that is pleasing to you. The Democrat’s method of “inclusion” was to keep the minorities out of their way.

That’s because they haven’t approached it at all. And if you really believe that all the Democrats do is push minorities out of their way, do have a look at our house and senate web pages to see exactly how many minorities are represented in the Democratic party.

MR

[SouthernStyle]

Maeglin,

Not all of the problem comes from within the Republican party.

For anyone to be elected to high office simple economics says that they must have the press on their side. You cannot win without lots and lots of exposure so you buy it or accept what the press will give.

One overwhelming problem with a black man (or woman) trying to make it in politics is that the press doesn’t measure black candidates with the same ruler that it measures white ones. For the press to rally behind a black candidate the candidate must generally portray the “have pity on me because I’m an oppressed minority” image.

Did you see/hear J. C. Watts’ speech during the convention?

[Maeglin]

SouthernStyle

I absolutely agree. I do not hold the GOP responsible for all of America’s social evils, or even those regarding race and ethnicity. You are also right that to run as a minority candidate requires even more dexterity with the media.

I object that the GOP is trying to capitalize on the increased importance of “inclusion” without having made any real changes. I realize that some people might consider this a first step. But to me, it is putting the cart before the horse. You don’t parade your newfound tolerance without a solid record to justify it.

I disagree with Mr. Zambezi who said above that the GOP is looking good. I think it looks very bad, and not to the minorities, but to the white suburban community with an interest in civil rights, whose swing votes the Republicans are trying to woo with this inclusion campaign. I think it looks as superficial to most of them as it does to me.

MR

[IzzyR]

Maeglin:

I object that the GOP is trying to capitalize on the increased importance of “inclusion” without having made any real changes. I realize that some people might consider this a first step. But to me, it is putting the cart before the horse. You don’t parade your newfound tolerance without a solid record to justify it.

The “real changes” that you would request are policy and ideological changes. The GOP, or much of it, believes that these policies and ideologies are the correct ones, so there’s no point in changing them. The reason for the displays is because others frequently attempt to claim that the underlying reasons for these policies is racism and intolerence. Displays such as these are an attempt to show that they are not motivated by antipathy towards anyone, but are legitimate expressions of what the consensus of the party believes is best.

[SouthernStyle]

IzzyR skirted around the answer. Perhaps I can put it in a more straightforward fashion.

The Republicans understand that they must appeal to a broader range of personalities and demographics to be successful. Hence, their message has become “inclusion”.

But their philosophy has not changed. Instead they are trying to make Democrats, Independents, minorites, women, etc. understand that the Republican platform allows greater opportunity for someone to be financially successful in this country. The U.S.A. is not socialistic, and the party continues in a direction that is clearly contrary to socialistic ideals.

Put as a simple analogy, the message that the Republicans are trying to convey is that no amount of taxes on the WalMart corporation is going to make Joe Average a wealthy man. Neither is confiscating Microsoft and splitting its stock among all the citizens in the U.S. If you want a lifestyle better than what welfare will provide, follow us, we’re trying to provide that environment.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Re PLD’s last post

So why is the platform specifically anti-abortion?

because the leaders still vote on morals and not on polls.

Right. “You homos are OK in my book, as long as you don’t want to serve your country or get married or anything.” Terribly inclusive, that. :rolleyes: “Gays, join the GOP–The Party That Fights AGAINST Your Civil Rights!”

First of all, being in the military is not a “right”. Secondly, the army limits people for many reasons. They are NOT ADA compliant. It is a matter of what works the best. If Gays create disruptions, then they undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Would you want a very, very fair army that was wothless?

I don’t know. Why did Mfume allow George W. Bush to speak to the NAACP? Why would they want him at the convention, in the party chairman’s box, but not on the stage?

The presidential conventions are not debates. Only one view is shone. THey didn’t invite any democratic leaders to talk. Hell, they didn’t even let the religious looneys on stage. they said " hey, you can come if you want, but we ain’t gonna give you national air time to tell everypone what a bunch of slack jawed mouth breathers we are." Makes sense to me.

Also, please don’t base any arguments on the supposition that I’m voting for Gore/Lieberman, or throw up other Democrat red herrings, because I’m not.

Damn, it was more fun when we disagreed on everything.

[Mr.Zambezi]

One Leiberman tidbit I want to share. When he got the nomination, he said that the republicans were going to destroy the economy because “they want to use the surplus for tax breaks. They are going to use all or our money.” (I’m paraphrasing.)

That is the problem with him and Gore. It is not their money. It is the people’s money that the government took. I am not against taxes, but this little blurb certainly betrays leibermans leftist bent. All the money I earn is the government’s. They are being nice by letting me keep some of it. Swell guys those dems.

[Maeglin]

One Leiberman tidbit I want to share. When he got the nomination, he said that the republicans were going to destroy the economy because “they want to use the surplus for tax breaks. They are going to use all or our money.” (I’m paraphrasing.)

In all fairness, Mr. Zambezi, you may be selectively interpreting this quotation. At one point Lieberman was a private citizen, and presumably he still pays taxes. So when he refers to the money as ours, he is probably just counting himself along with 260 million other taxpayers. There is no reason to believe that ours means the government’s.

MR