Strom is old, OK. Should he have retired long ago? ??? The voters of his state (the majority of them) trust him and prefer him “to represent” them, despite his old age, the jokes, etc. Hillarious “represents” NYorkers, becase she convinced the majority of them that she was better than D. Lazio, in 2000. Could she fool NYorkers as long as Strom has fooled S. Carolineans? We’ll see. Will she? It looks, like she doesn’t give a shit about NYorkers, she did it for herself.
Asmodean, join me in the Pit.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this, or at least on the implication of the statement. Strom Thurmond has a less than wonderful history regarding segregation, etc., but don’t assume this is why he is still being elected. All politics is local and Strom is a master at pork barrel politics. As a long-time Senator he is very influential and brings home the bacon to his constituents.
Do some vote for him because they like his 1950’s stands on race issues? Probably. But I think most vote for him because they like the goodies he brings home.
Also, some leopards do change their spots. Like George Wallace, Strom Thurmond has stated that his support of segregation was wrong; Thurmond also has several African-Americans on his Senatorial staff.
Does that make him personally less of a racist? Maybe, maybe not. But the image that today’s Strom Thurmond tries to give is greatly different from the one he tried to give forty years ago.
Of course, he does some stuff that the constiuents like. However, I don’t think we’ll ever see a reliable poll indicating why anyone votes for anybody (‘did you vote for Mel Gibson because of his fiscal responsabilities or because you liked his ass?’)
I believe, tho’ that since he does seem to get re-elected handily, that his constituents, at the very least are not particularly bothered by his actions, so I still don’t think it’s a real big stretch to alude him being ‘representative’. Not, typical, or average, but they’ve elected and reelected him to serve as their ‘agent’, so my comment stands. Obviously we disagree, I believe there’s room on both sides. All of this is a hijack BTW, arising out of Asomedean’s allegation that Strom’s ‘representation’ of his area is no more valid than Hillary’s is of NY. And I think the evidence is overwhelming that 55 years vs. 'newly elected is siginificantly different.
Well thank goodness, I was ready to revoke my membership if I had your condemnation. 
[quote]
I think a small minority are racist.
[quote]
As are a small minority of Democrats… as are a small minority of whites/blacks/orientals/hispanics/the entire population.
I think that because some self-proclaimed leaders of minority communities get alot of press, it influences the uneducated. Just because more blacks and homosexuals are Democrats doesn’t make the Democratic Party more sensitive to issues of race (and class and gender). The Democratic Party positions itself to exploit blacks and homosexuals, counting on their votes and doing nothing in return, always failing to follow through on their campaign promises.
The Democratic Party keeps poor people as poor as possible, knowing that should they get money or an education, they will be lost to the Party that would rather give them all the fish they can eat and count on their dependence than to vote for a Party that would teach them to fish and give them self respect. They convince minorities that they aren’t good enough to get a job on their own, so they will put laws into place, not to protect against discrimination but to force their acceptance in the workplace in spite of their abilities.
No thinking needed on that one, it is plain by the black vote swing.
Ever notice how only Democrats claim that Republicans use the race card? The same card that they have been playing for the last 40 years? The Democratic Party gives not a damn about blacks, they expect their vote and do nothing but provide empty promises and free cheese in exchange.
I don’t think either Party represents minorities. By definition, the word minority would mean less than the majority. Since the majority of voters wins an election, you can bet your ass that politicians will represent either everyone or the majority. They might cast two-faced words in certain crowds, but they don’t truly represent them.
Republicans try to represent everyone. Democrats promise to represent minority groups until the day after elections. Who is really doing more for the minority groups? I have seen the results of Democratic handouts and I have seen the results of Republican handups. The handups are ALWAYS preferable, unfortunately the heavy minority bases have been fooled into thinking that the decades of Democratic rule that have kept them poor and uneducated are better than what life would be like under a Republican term.
Now, there are many educated Democrats, don’t get me wrong, but a big part of the Democratic base is the poor and uneducated who have been taught erroneously of the ‘benefits’ of the Democratic Party.
I figure that was about as closed minded and one sided as the original post… sorry for picking on you jshore, you were simply the best known and capable target. Have fun with it.
Because we all know that government action, no matter how badly thought out, is the only way to solve problems.
I personally believe that many of the ideas supported by liberals work to the detriment of all, including minorities. This in no way makes me a racist. If racists happen to flock to my view because it allows them the freedom to discriminate, they will only find in me as much of a friend as they will find in the ACLU, which supports their right to hold parades and voice their hatred.
By ‘free cheese’ are you referring to welfare? The majority of families on welfare are White.
The implication of your statement is baffling. Are you implying that the Blacks that vote for Democrats do so, in part, because of ‘free cheese’?
I do wonder why the so many Black people are Democrats, though. So far, I don’t have any answers. I don’t think it’s the ‘free cheese’, though.
Here’s one thought: Link here
Since the census is used in the apportionment of districts, which = reps in government. Minority populations contend that the census under reports their populations significantly. The Dems favor using statistical sampling data to augment the census, while the Reps are agin it.
Even if you disagree with Statistical sampling, it would seem that a politically prudent thing to do would be to some how try and assure the minority population that they are in fact being counted.
I see. The old "Well, those aren’t real Democrats gambit. Perhaps you didn’t notice that JuanitaTech was responding to the allegation that Republicans opposed Civil Rights legislation? Why is it okay to blame present day Republicans for something Republicans didn’t do, but not okay to blame present day Democrats for something Democrats did do?
Okay, it was inappropiate for this forum. But your claim that AA is not racially based simply has no basis in reality. Just because it helps both women and blacks doesn’t mean it doesn’t help blacks.
Seeing as how women are a majority in the US, it is clearly not minority based.
This is very true, Juanita. That is one reason I find it so maddening when Republicans are accused of racism for advocating welfare cutbacks. It is now far-left orthodoxy that the Reagan campaigners’ reference to “welfare queens” was simply a naked appeal to racism, when in fact everybody knows that the vast majority of these so-called “queens” were white.
I agree, in that if you did a statistical study of black voters, I think you’d find very few of them would be on welfare. As a rule, people of any race who are on welfare don’t vote much. But I do think many of the black Democratic voters buy into the idea that welfare cuts are inherently racist, and that is one reason that they vote Democratic, even though most of them have never themselves benefited from government handouts.
Maybe they’re just more empathic to the plight of others?
Yes, women are a majority in the U.S. I was aware of that fact when I posted. But Affirmative Action is designed to remove barriers for women and other non-White males in corporate America. In that arena, women and non-White males are a minority.
I still contend that Affirmative Action is not racially based. The end result of Affirmative Action promotes diversity in the work place. Ideally, diversity in the work place benefits everyone.
Yes, but it seemed to me that he was describing urban welfare recipients, which are overwhelmingly black. Though the percentage of white welfare recipients may be higher on the national level, I believe Reagan was in fact talking about inner city poor.
I admit this is weak insofar as I don’t recall Reagan ever coming out and admitting that he was talking about predominantly urban poor. But his description of these queens seemed to coincide with certain unpleasant racial stereotypes. It seems perverse to argue that his comments were equally directed at the white population for whom such stereotypes do not apply.
MR
The end result of Affirmative Action is to give people something based on, or at least strongly factoring in, their race.
Is that not “racism” by definition?
The party that tends to interject race into policy is the Democratic Party, not the Republicans.
George W. Bush’s initial appointments have included a black man, a black woman, a Hispanic man, a white woman, and one white man.
The Democrats have controlled the White House for eight years, and their staffing doesn’t even approach the kind of diversity Bush is putting together in a manner of days.
Any Dems care to explain that?
I forgot; we’re supposed to either ignore that, or dismiss it as tokenism. Just like Bush’s record of diversity in Texas.
Yeah; the Republicans put blacks in such insignificant positions as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor for window-dressing. :rolleyes:
The black leaders I’ve seen on talk shows dismissing Bush’s appointments of Powell and Rice seem to boil down to this:
“Blacks support and are represented by the Democratic Party. Except for blacks who don’t feel that way. And those blacks aren’t representative of African-Americans in general, because blacks support and are represented by the Democratic Party.”
Overcoming self-fulfilling logic like that is going to be the GOP’s biggest challenge. But I think they are making tremendous strides in the right direction.
No, that’s not the definition of racism. Racism is, in short, the belief that one race is superior to another or discrimination/prejudiced based on race. Affirmative Action neither asserts that one race is superior to another nor discriminates based solely on race.
Affirmative Action attempts to remove employment barriers that have traditionally blocked women, non-White males and people with disabilities from employment and advancement in Corporate America.
That’s a very interesting assertion. Although I’m search for facts on this now, I’m inclined to agree with it.
-
I am not black.
-
I am not a Republican (not officially a member of either party, but tend towards less conservative political views.)
-
However, despite the SDMB’s Republican contingents’ protest that their party, platform and candidates are more inclusive than generally thought and really are for things that minorities, specifically blacks would or should like, it remains
-
Blacks as a voting group seem to not buy it.
Some interesting stats listed Here show that Nationally, 90% of blacks voted for Gore over Bush, and even in his home state of Texas, where they would be presumed to know better about what a minority supporting guy he is, fewer than 5% of black voters went for Bush (less than anywhere else).
So, while you may argue all day long that Rep.'s policy, platform, and candidates are inclusive, sympathetic to minority issues etc., the message is certainly clear that minorities don’t believe it.
(emphasis mine)
Bull. Under Affirmative Action, a minority can receive a job or promotion over a white male, even if the white male is more qualified, has more seniority, etc.
That is “discrimination based on race.” You can put a pretty ribbon on it and some glitter, but that will still be what it is.
I would support making penalties and fines much stricter for people who fail to hire or promote qualified minorities, when performance criteria indicates that they should be hired or promoted. What Affirmative Action tends to do, however, is un-American and wrong.
And wring - I don’t dispute any of what you say above. But what are Republicans supposed to do about it? I would submit that they should just keep doing what they are doing, demonstrating diversity in very real ways and continuing outreach efforts and communication about how the party’s goals will benefit minorities as well as everyone else.
** Great, but why can’t you be reasonable like this in other threads? (
-joking, really)
I would submit that if Reps really are interested in minority viewpoints, participation and inclusion, then they should iniate meetings where the Reps listen, not ‘communicate’ but listen to what is wanted. Then try and find ways of incorporating the goals wished for into the platform. Clearly it ain’t happening now.
As an example, there were some ‘irregularities’ in the way Florida elections were handled. Some of those ‘irregularities’ singled out black voters more so than white ones. For example, the choice of election night to hold a ‘routine’ stop and check right by a black polling place was stupid. Republicans should have been first in line to say “Damn that was wrong” (even if said check points had been held before - why election night? it just begged to be controversial) Instead, the Republican stance has been what? Silence at best. Another example is the disenfranchisment of convicted felons. Yes, I understand that there may be other ways of percieving it, however, you should also easily see how blacks could percieve this action as just another way of keeping the black man down (they’re already over represented in the prison populations and death rows).
these are perception issues - so far the Rep have not addressed them head on - saying “yea, we can see why you’d be upset at that” , their stance has been more like “gee if you understood us better, you’d realize we really want whats best for you, too”. I keep hearing Reps shake their heads in disbelief that blacks especially don’t flock to their doors. There’s ample published specific reasons why not (AA is simply one of them)