Top Republicans snub Morgan State: Big deal or tempest in a tea pot?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I think the Republicans would be well served to debate before a black audience. However, I think such a forum ought to be well-run, and Tavis Smiley ain’t the guy to do this. He is undeniably partisan, …
[/QUOTE]

Any port in a storm, huh? You know this had nothing to do with Tavis Smiley being there, and everything to do with the event itself. I know that is the current excuse being floated on conservative cites, but it doesn’t mean we are stupid enough to fall for it.

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Using a less partisan figure like Bernard Shaw or Juan Williams would diffuse these concerns.
[/QUOTE]

According to the last cite, the questioners will be asked by Cynthia Tucker, Juan Williams and Ray Suarez. Tavis is only the moderator. I guess that should have diffused their concerns, huh?

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Still, I think you have to understand how much just going out in public is risky for political candidates anymore.
[/QUOTE]

Which although true, is ridiculous on both sides. If they really want apolitical people to vote, they should try to pretend this whole thing is more than an expensive charade to trick people into voting for them. As a politician, your MAIN JOB IS TO BE A GOOD COMMUNICATOR. For the most part, these people, once elected, don’t write policy, or do much of the behind the scenes work. In short, their main responsibilities do not include the intricate details of governance. They are consensus builders, communicators and fund-raisers. I don’t understand why we put up with politicians who don’t write what they say, spend hundreds of millions to convince people they are the best of the two people running for their position, and/or cowardly duck the questions of sane members of the electorate. These people want to be the most powerful person on Earth, yet they can’t answer questions from Tavis Smiley and Juan Williams? And that is not to say that the dems would behave any better, but I think it is really sad that you are trying to defend this.

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Not long ago George Allen was on the cover of the American Spectator being touted as the next conservative president. These days he holds no elective office, and it is a pretty safe bet that whatever is in his future, it isn’t the presidency.
[/QUOTE]

Mr. Allen was exposed as a idiot. I understand his desire not to be exposed to the light of day, but I am glad it happened. His timidity aside, I don’t think we should pretend this is an acceptable choice for someone running for high-level office.

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
While these debates may change no minds if everything goes right, they sure can if things go wrong - if a flub or misstatement is made.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, unlike the seminal you tube debate. We all remember we were when we heard that snowman sing about global warming. This far from an election, few of these debates will have any lasting impact. The reason you go is to be on TV and show that you value to electorate.

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Therefore candidates try to limit appearances, ensure terms favorable to them, and do many other things to neutralize this risk.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sure you are right, but why you feel the need to defend this type of behavior.

22

[QUOTE=monstro]
The party is seen as a harborer of racists, bigots, and the clueless. Everyone knows this.

[/QUOTE]
No, everyone doesn’t know this. The party harboring the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Clan is still the Democratic Party. The party who puts black people in positions of real power is the Republican Party.

If you want to discuss politics as it relates to slavery and Jim Crow laws then give it your best shot. You can start with the longest standing member of the party in today’s senate who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then you can move on to the Voting Act of 1965. Same person. The Democratic Party has seen fit to banish him to the lowly job of Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 3rd in line to the President behind the Speaker of the House.

When you get done with civil rights (by race) you can move on to civil rights (by sex). The last Democratic President was accused of sexual imposition by 3 different women. His biggest supporter was a drunken womanizer who managed to kill one of his sexual conquests. Did Kennedy lose his job? No. Did he go to jail? No. He’s now Chairman of Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. His greatest achievement to date has been awarding his nephew an armada of navy ships to solute him for killing 2 women in yet another Kennedy related transportation event.

In a twisted act of contrition the Democratic Party is fronting Bill Clinton’s enabler wife as presidential material. She’s allowed her joke of a marriage to rule her life in an effort to gain political power. Without her husband she would be nothing. She’s prostituted her way into the Senate. What’s her motto going to be? Vote for me and I’ll let the world walk all over the United States?

23

I wasn’t planning on voting Republican anyway, and stunts like this aren’t really convincing me that I should change my mind. All of the possible reasons that could be behind the absenteeism make them look bad.

  1. Racism? Bad.

  2. Scared about saying the wrong thing? Bad. Why would I want to elect someone to be president when he’s too afraid to talk to people who look like me?

  3. Worried about alienating white voters? Bad. I’m supposed to vote for someone who is more afraid of losing the support of white racists than wooing me? Yeah right!

  4. Had better things to do? Well, what was that? Has John, Rudy, and the others explained that? I’m thinking we would have heard about those if that was the case.

  5. Don’t like Tavis? This is a stupid reason. Missing out on an opportunity to sell yourself because of personal issues with the moderator is a symptom of poor judgement skills, especially when this news comes up after the fact and especially when the audience you skipped out on already views you and your party with suspicion because of a less than favorable track record.

  6. Don’t think its worth the time because African-Americans are mostly Democrats anyway? Well, stunts like this aren’t helping to change this reality, is it? In 2008, the GOP is going to need every single vote they can get their hands on. Seems to me they should start acting like it. If they don’t care about recruiting new bloods to their side, okay, very well. But they don’t even seem to be caring about retaining the few that they have.

Of all the demographic groups, registered black Republicans will be the hardest for the GOP to count on because their loyalties to the party are less likely to be reinforced by their community and family. If the name Obama is anywhere on the ballot, I expect the GOP will see record lows in black support. And when it’s all said and done they will only have themselves to blame.

24

[QUOTE=you with the face]
In 2008, the GOP is going to need every single vote they can get their hands on. Seems to me they should start acting like it. If they don’t care about recruiting new bloods to their side, okay, very well. But they don’t even seem to be caring about retaining the few that they have.

[/QUOTE]

That’s why the Crips are better.

25

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]

One of these things may well be lining up a moderator more fair than Tavis Smiley. That seems reasonable on the face of it. I hope that is what they do, and hold a debate at some time in the future of this sort. Otherwise, they feed a perception that the Republicans earned to some degree over the years,
[/QUOTE]

There has never been a presidential debate where the questioners are all black. Never. Even if America’s Favorite Boogyman Al Sharpton had been the moderator, there is no excuse for snubbing the folks like Cynthia Tucker (who isn’t a liberal’s liberal by any stretch of the imagination, although we tend to agree on political and social matters 9 times out of 10) and Juan Williams (who’s about as conservative as a black man can get without being Armstrong “I’m a Good Negro!” Williams).

It’s not like this thing was aired on BET (which I might have boycotted myself). It was on a national broadcast.

There’s never going to be another forum like this before the election. So if they’re are waiting for a better opportunity to speak to black people, they’ll be waiting for a real long time. This was a chance for the Grand Ole Party to stand before black people of various political ideologies and hold court in front of a constiuency that historically (within the last sixty or so years) had reason to distrust it. Either they are racists, friends of racists, fools, or cowards. None of these are good things to be.

I understand that you feel they made a mistake, Mr. Moto and I’m relieved, but it still seems like this was a defensible mistake. I don’t think it was. As you with the face said, every excuse makes them look bad.

I wish a black Republican could post to the thread and tell us what they think.

26

One day, I will construct a post without typos. One day!!

It meant, “it still seems like you think this was a defensible mistake.”

27

[QUOTE=Magiver]
No, everyone doesn’t know this.
[/QUOTE]

Well, it’s about time they get a clue. That the Republican party is seen in this way is hardly a secret. Regardless of whether this perception is grounded in fact or fiction, the perception is definitely there.

28

By showing up, they might win a few minority voters over. However, they would lose tenfold more racist voters. You can bet the nominee will make his pilgrimage to Bob Jones University.

29

[QUOTE=Magiver]
No, everyone doesn’t know this. The party harboring the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Clan is still the Democratic Party. The party who puts black people in positions of real power is the Republican Party.
[/QUOTE]

monstro was saying that the Republican party is largely perceived to be racist, not that it is racist.

30

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
You’re demanding a lot from me. I already said they should debate before black audiences.

Still, I think you have to understand how much just going out in public is risky for political candidates anymore. Not long ago George Allen was on the cover of the American Spectator being touted as the next conservative president. These days he holds no elective office, and it is a pretty safe bet that whatever is in his future, it isn’t the presidency.

And this was a man with a reasonably good legislative and gubernatorial record when it came to race.

While these debates may change no minds if everything goes right, they sure can if things go wrong - if a flub or misstatement is made. Therefore candidates try to limit appearances, ensure terms favorable to them, and do many other things to neutralize this risk.

One of these things may well be lining up a moderator more fair than Tavis Smiley. That seems reasonable on the face of it. I hope that is what they do, and hold a debate at some time in the future of this sort. Otherwise, they feed a perception that the Republicans earned to some degree over the years,
[/QUOTE]

Let me make it clear that I was agreeing with you, and wasn’t about to tar all Republicans with this brush. Plenty of them thought this was a bad idea. And thanks for answering my question. I’d have a hard time voting for someone who kept himself in a bubble during the campaign. We’re trusting that a person we vote for has the inner resources to make good decisions when elected. If he doesn’t do well under pressure in public, how will he do in the Oval Office? One of the reasons I like Obama more than Hillary is that he seems a lot sharper, and she seems to be more concerned with staying on message. YMMV.

31

[QUOTE=Magiver]
No, everyone doesn’t know this. The party harboring the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Clan is still the Democratic Party.
[/quote]
Even “Klan” has a K. You have heard of the KKK, haven’t you? Byrd, the favorite excuse of the “We’re not bigoted” faction, has (1) recanted and apologized years ago, and (2) was merely a member in his young-and-stupid days, not the top official. So that’s another thing “everyone doesn’t know”, apparently.

Who are their black Presidential candidates? Who are their current Senators and Congressmen and Governors? Can you name even one? :dubious: Take your time to look them up. We can wait.

All paid by … well, you could look it up, but I doubt you will.

And there’s Standard Republican Bogeyman #2, right on schedule.

“His greatest achievement”? :dubious: Ignorance is not something one flaunts like that.

And yet she’s leading every single Republican candidate in every poll. Why do you think that might be?

I’m sure I speak for many of the rest of this board’s members in looking forward to more of your similarly thoughtful and informed commentary as this election season continues to heat up.
As for the all-white, all-male GOP candidates who ducked this debate, yes of course that was politically tone-deaf, to an even greater extent than the scheduling of Negro Night at the 2000 convention. Even bigoted voters know that their candidates have to appear to deplore bigotry, not embrace it.
Mr. Moto, candidates HAVE to appear in public. That’s their job. It’s what leaders, and especially people who want to be thought of as leaders, DO. Whatever gave you any other idea?

BTW, surely you understand that the Democrats who declined the Fox “News” debate did so because they had to demonstrate that they won’t negotiate with terrorists. :smiley:

32

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
I’m sure you are right, but why you feel the need to defend this type of behavior.
[/QUOTE]

Wasn’t defending it, just explaining it. And if the crime is manipulating public appearances to benefit your candidates, this is a very bipartisan offense indeed.

33

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
BTW, surely you understand that the Democrats who declined the Fox “News” debate did so because they had to demonstrate that they won’t negotiate with terrorists. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]
Fox didn’t hide a debate in a demographically opposed venue with a demographically opposed moderator.

And best of luck when your Hillary Care colonoscopy is delayed 6 months like it is in parts of the UK. The Department of Health has stipulated that from this month, all diagnostic tests should be done within 13 weeks of referral.

So the goal (not what is actually happening) is to get the DIAGNOSTIC service of a colonscopy procedure within 3 months. WOW. Not actual treatment, that’s just diagnostic procedures. I guess getting the shaft twice could be considered a bone-us.

I was diagnosed the same day for kidney stones with health care that included X-rays and a high tech scan. After 2 weeks of pain and 3 additional visits I was asked if I wanted them removed. When I asked when this could be done the doctor looked at his watch. I was back to work the next day.

34

[QUOTE=Magiver]
Fox didn’t hide a debate in a demographically opposed venue with a demographically opposed moderator.

[/QUOTE]

Demographically opposed? Why do you think that is? Could it be that blacks and Latinos are genetically Democrats? Or could it be that despite the effort that the Republicans claimed to be making to reach out a while ago, their ideology gave a big fuck you to these groups - in New Orleans, and about immigration. Now it’s “uh-oh, these people vote.” (Though some Republican officials have done their best to correct this little problem.) Your little health care rant basically says "I got insurance. Those too poor to have it can die in the gutter for all I care, to avoid <gasp> socialized medicine. Alas, those who would have gotten insurance for their kids save for Bush’s upcoming veto may vote also.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

35

How did this discussion get to be about colonoscopies?

Well, I guess it’s not a complete hijack since we were talking about some lameass bullshit.

36

[QUOTE=Magiver]

I was diagnosed the same day for kidney stones with health care that included X-rays and a high tech scan. After 2 weeks of pain and 3 additional visits I was asked if I wanted them removed. When I asked when this could be done the doctor looked at his watch. I was back to work the next day.
[/QUOTE]

Just wondering. Does it also work this way for the 47 million Americans without health insurance? I’ll hang up now and wait for my answer.

37

[QUOTE=Frostillicus]
Just wondering. Does it also work this way for the 47 million Americans without health insurance? I’ll hang up now and wait for my answer.
[/QUOTE]

Do those people matter? Answer: No.

38

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Do those people matter? Answer: No.
[/QUOTE]

Can you elaborate? Don’t matter… in what way? I’m sure some of those people will be voting in the GOP convention, so even if we narrowed the context down to that, then those people do “matter”. Outside that context, it’s hard to imagine anyone saying that they don’t matter.

39

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Can you elaborate? Don’t matter… in what way? I’m sure some of those people will be voting in the GOP convention, so even if we narrowed the context down to that, then those people do “matter”. Outside that context, it’s hard to imagine anyone saying that they don’t matter.
[/QUOTE]

If you don’t have health insurance you are almost certainly relatively poor, and probably between the age of 1 and 65, not a demographic that is a very significant part of the voting population.

The poor vote less than the rich, the young less than the old.

40

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
If you don’t have health insurance you are almost certainly relatively poor, and probably between the age of 1 and 65, not a demographic that is a very significant part of the voting population.

The poor vote less than the rich, the young less than the old.
[/QUOTE]

From this website:

Minors can’t vote

Young adults can vote but historically have a very low voter turnout, and young adults also have a typical lack of concern for their health–many of these that are uninsured don’t care. Health insurance is something many people don’t worry about until they’ve “settled down” or until they’ve had the misfortune of incurring medical expenses. A lot of young adults have never had to go through these things, some have, and those ones will be concerned about health care. They are a very small portion, though.

About 60% of the people without health insurance are in lower income families. About 40% are from middle income families (although we’re talking about families with total income of $50,000/year or more when talking about middle income families in this context, which is relatively poor) however we are talking about the lower ends of the “middle class”, not the upper ends.