GOP Front-Runners: There Are No Blacks In America?
Every now and again, news events create a uniquely instructive conflation. Such a situation can be found in the events and the headlines of the last two days. Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded to a question about the mistreatment of homosexuals in Iran with an answer that would befuddle anyone with remotely identifiable cognitive abilities. In suggesting that Iran doesn’t have homosexuals, the defiant leader, who seems so determined to establish his own legitimacy, elicited little more than laughter and ridicule. The response was appropriate and should have been anticipated.
Today, the discussion centers upon the apparent decision by the four GOP presidential front-runners to forego attending a PBS sponsored debate being held at a prominent Black college in Baltimore this Thursday. While the invitations were issued back in March, somehow each of the four leading candidates has declined due to “scheduling conflicts”.
One might be inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt had these same candidates participated in a debate sponsored by the Hispanic television network Univision and a forum in July hosted by the NAACP.
“I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this,” said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, is “that African-Americans might say, ‘Was it because of my skin color?’ Now, maybe it wasn’t, but African-Americans do say, ‘It crossed my mind.’”
All four GOP presidential front-runners — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson — have said they will not attend a PBS debate at a historically black college in Baltimore hosted by Tavis Smiley.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who’s weighing getting into the race, called that excuse “baloney” and called the no-shows “fundamentally wrong.” On “Good Morning America” today, Gingrich said GOP candidates are making a mistake because “African-Americans have been hurt more by the failures of government” than any other group.
Watts pointed out that some of the candidates with more liberal histories on issues such as guns and abortion have reached out to conservative groups that don’t share their views.
African-Americans are the most reliably Democratic voters around, with up to 90 percent voting Democratic in the last five presidential elections, but Watts and other Republicans including former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, and former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, have said that’s exactly why Republicans need to reach out to them.
These no-shows come just days after the Spanish-language channel Univision canceled its debate because only one of the 11 Republican candidates — McCain — accepted.
Frankly, I view the refusal of these GOP candidates to participate in the PBS debate, as well as the prior NAACP forum, in much the same manner as I view the Ahmadinejad statement. For all practical purposes, these candidates are telling Americans that there are no blacks in America.
To understand the degree to which blacks have been ignored by the GOP, one need only look to the sitting President…a man who attended his first NAACP meeting in the sixth year of his presidency. Whether his decision to attend was at all intended as atonement for the poor handling of Katrina can’t be determined…but the about face seems rather suspect.
More telling, Robert Draper, author of the new Bush biography, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, during an appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher, offered some added insight into the President’s views on the lack of interest in courting black voters. Draper recalls the words of George Bush following his election as Governor of Texas, “The Blacks didn’t come out for me like the Hispanics did, so they’re not going to see much help from me.” Draper qualified his statement…elaborating that the remark was offered as an example of the President’s petulance; not any innate bigotry.
While the President doesn’t speak for all Republicans, the fact that the four front-runners seem to be responding accordingly simply highlights the apparent complacency on the part of the GOP with regard to the issues of Blacks in America. We need candidates who seek to represent all Americans…and that holds true for both Democrats and Republicans.
While not participating in a forum or a debate isn’t the equivalent of the spoken words of Iran’s fanatical leader, the refusal seems to send a similar message…one that would rather ignore an American constituency than address their presence and their issues. Let me be clear…refusing to attend a debate should never be seen on par with Iran’s execution of gays. Clearly, the former is a unwarranted snubbing and the latter is a blatant disregard of basic human rights.
Regardless, I find it fascinating to watch the outrage from the right at the Iranian President on an issue (gay rights) which the GOP has a less than stellar record. When this outrage and this record are juxtaposed with the silence by many on the snubbing of Blacks and Hispanics, it provides an important look into the prevalence of bias and the refusal to acknowledge and address it.
Fortunately, the United States isn’t Iran and our record on human rights issues is commendable and often regarded as a model for the rest of the world. Nonetheless, as we prosecute this war on terror and extremist ideology, we would be well advised to recognize the comparison and contrast found in these recent events. We must avoid the inclination to suspend civil liberties in order to preserve and protect our hard earned freedoms.
Further, we must never forget that our freedoms will prevail so long as we extend them equitably and without bias. What led us to demand and create them will always provide the motivation and the passion to defend them. We can only be defeated by succumbing to our own shortsightedness and fear.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Comparing Iran to the GOP is ludicrous… especially when this administration has had more minorities in top positions than any other. Granted you may not like guys like Alberto Gonzalez but I do believe putting people in power like Colin Power and Condi Rice shows that the GOP does care for the advancement of all people of color. Wasn’t it the white Democrats giving trouble to Rice’s appointment any way?
September 25th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
No. They are telling Americans that, for the purposes of winning the GOP primaries and, thus, becoming the GOP presidential candidate, it is not necessary to attend debates at hispanic or black venues. That is, the hispanic and black contingents are so small in the GOP that to go and face largely hostile non Republicans in debate is not only not necessary but is counterproductive. Quite different from denying the phenomenon of homosexuality exists in an entire country when the world has seen pictures and reporting of gays being hanged in Iran. The latter is absurd. The former quite reasonable.
I’m not saying that they are right to avoid either debate but that there is no even remote similarity between Ahmadinejad’s direct denial of the existence of homosexuals in Iran and the GOP candidates’ skipping of debates where there are so few who will actually be responsible for picking the GOP candidate for president.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Steve,
I am not comparing Iran to the GOP. I am suggesting that the silence about the leading GOP candidates refusal to participate in the upcoming debate at a Black college is inconsistent with the furor over Ahmadinejad’s statements with regards to gays. I give credit to Watts and Gingrich for speaking out.
The fact that the Bush administration has appointed Black cabinet members is noteworthy…but how is that relevant to the actions of the current GOP candidates?
Craig,
Which Americans are these candidates speaking to and what is the message? Are these candidates hoping to lead America or just those American’s they choose to engage? How would attending a Hispanic or Black venue damage their prospects?
On the contrary, I would think that an appearance by a candidate in favor of strict immigration enforcement (a position favored by most Republicans) at a Hispanic forum would actually help their cause since it would endear them to their base. I suspect that is why Tom Tancredo was the only GOP attendee.
I’ve not stated that GOP candidates aren’t entitled to decline such invitations. I have stated that it is the equivalent of ignoring the issues of a segment of our society…a tacit admission that their needs aren’t all that relevant. That message is not dissimilar from the one communicated to gays in Iran…albeit having far less deadly consequences.
Out of sight, out of mind isn’t an assurance that one is also out of harms way. For gays in Iran and Blacks and Hispanics in America to impugn that being ignored may have future repercussions is a reasonable assumption…and it feels the same to each group.
Ahmadinejad’s denial that homosexuals exist isn’t the relevant issue…his willingness to discount them, nullify their legitimacy, and act in opposition to their needs and their well being as citizens of Iran is the issue.
At the same time, the fact that so many Republican’s acknowledged that actual reality, while ignoring the actions of these GOP candidates is, in fact, an important observation. In the end, the marginalizing of people feels the same in America as it does in Iran.
Understanding that fact and being able to empathize is essential. Therefore, the outcome of one’s behavior (whether it be the behavior of Ahmadinejad or GOP candidates) is the issue as well as the relevant comparison.
Thanks for sharing your observations.
Regards,
Daniel
September 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Daniel,
Actually I was just borrowing from you. It was your premise that skipping a venue spoke a message. I don’t necessarily agree with that premise but I went along with it for the purpose of argument. So to whom the candidates are speaking to is really to those who will be choosing the GOP candidate for President and the message is that, to win that candidacy, those who chose not to attend these venues have decided to focus their speechifying to those groups who make up the majority of the primary voters.
Now I am willing to concede, for the purposes of this argument, that by doing that, those candidates are saying that hispanic and black GOP primary voters are sufficiently numerous to pay attention to in their effort to win the primaries and that is certainly a bad message to send and can only tend to further reduce the percentage of hispanics and blacks who vote Republican. That’s why I said that I was not saying that this was a good idea. It wasn’t.
However, I think that it is a pragmatic estimation. By attending a fund-raising event, for example, on the days of those debates, they could fill their coffers rather than speak at what will undoubtedly not be favorable settings and be forced to answer difficult questions that will likely supply the Democrats with fodder for attacking the Republicans. Also, by speechifying within important early primary states on those days, they can extend their own base of support within those important primary states. They undoubtedly estimate that by skipping these events at venues with niche electorates that are by wide margins Democrats and thus difficult to move into the Republican party and by concentrating their efforts, rather, at those venues where their majority backers can be reached effectively, they can do themselves more good (by doing one or the other or both of those things that I mentioned) than they could by actually attending the debates at those events on those days.
My other purpose was to point out that I think that you were over stating when you said “for all intents and purposes” since the only intent or purpose for ANY presidential candidate during the primary phase is to win the primaries and gain their party’s candidacy. There is no other intent or purpose during this phase. Now, during the head to head, Republican/Democrat phase, after each party has chosen it’s presidential candidate, the Republican candidate would be a fool to not speak at a primarily black or Hispanic venue since his intent and purpose is to expand and extend his base of support to as large an extent as possible and beating any Democratic candidate would require, I would think, trying to gain as large a contingent of such a traditionally Democratic base as possible. But even then, by avoiding such venues, the candidate would be no more than conceding that he or she has no chance of moving either of those contingents over to the Republican side. He would not be saying that they don’t exist but, rather, that they are so solidly Democratic that they, as a Republican, are not going to win them over.
So I’m not saying that speaking at such venues during the primary phase would hurt their overall chances so much as I am saying that, by doing other things on those days, a candidate might decide that he can help his chances of being chosen the GOP candidate more (which, I guess, he would be hurting his chances by forgoing those other choices). Does that make sense to you?
Well, obviously a president is leading America regardless of whether any particular group within America votes for her or him. He is the leader of the free world, by default of there being any other powerful nation in the world. She or he sets policy directions, wields a powerful tool for directing it in the veto pen. Her or his actions will have an effect on all Americans whether they are her or his supporters or not so, objectively, she or he does lead all Americans whether they choose to follow her or him or not.
However, the president should not ignore any constituency in America. She or he should include blacks and Hispanics within his cabinet in significant numbers and listen to their concerns and take minority concerns into consideration when making and directing policy. The more she or he does this, the greater the chances that members of those constituencies will be impressed with his leadership and his party and will be moved to support his party. In that sense, the president should and has the opportunity to lead all Americans. I would hope that the GOP president in ‘08 will do just that.
Anyway, I haven’t addressed all of your comment, but I must break off for now. I hope this helps you understand where I’m coming from in my above comment. I’ll try to get back to address the rest of your comment later.
Good chatting with you.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Oops. The GOP primary candidates, by skipping these venues are saying that the black and Hispanic GOP voters are NOT sufficiently numerous to pay attention to. I had written that they were saying that they WERE sufficiently numerous. The error there, I hope, was sufficiently obvious that the reader compensated for my omission of the negative in the text at that point. Sorry for the confusion. I really need an editor.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Craig,
I think you may be overlooking my point. You’re focused on the message intended by the candidates and I’m focused upon the message received by the constituent groups which are ignored. I posit that the message intended can be much different than the message received.
In that potential, the message received by Blacks and Hispanics can be the same as the one offered by Ahmadinejad…they don’t exist; hence they don’t count…and their issues will receive little attention.
I fully understand your point as to the candidates strategic considerations. Notwithstanding, I am focused on the message received. As they say, perception is often reality. Keep in mind I stated, “For all practical purposes”. I did not mention intent.
When I asked, “Which Americans are these candidates speaking to and what is the message?”, I am not asking who they are targeting in their campaign strategy; rather I am specifically asking who they are speaking to by not attending these type of events…and therefore what are they saying by their actions. Hence my contention that the message is that Blacks and Hispanics are irrelevant (i.e. they don’t exist).
I hope that helps clarify my thoughts. I appreciate that you have done so as well. Thanks for the dialogue.
Regards,
Daniel
September 26th, 2007 at 12:29 am
What I am hoping is that the republican party is signing it’s death warrant by actions like that. We are a nation of immigrants and more and more they are not white european. All studies show that wasps will be a minority soon and if that is the only people that the party is willing to address they will become extinct.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Daniel,
Ok, I follow. I misread “these candidates are telling Americans” to mean what the candidates were saying rather than what the constituents were hearing. It is quite clear that the message a hearer receives is often quite different than the message that the speaker thinks he is sending. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I wonder whether appearing at a black or hispanic forum would actually hurt a GOP candidate with the base in the Bible and Bread Belts. Perhaps that is part of the reasoning.
JMJ
September 26th, 2007 at 11:56 am
No, in fact what the GOP is saying is they don’t need the black vote. In the past two presidential elections what did the GOP hold like 5% of the black vote. There a waste of time mostly because of the MSM.
Now, the GOP should probably think twice about skipping the hispanic vote.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
So, Emmet, are you saying that black voters are just stupid sheep hypnotized by the “MSM” (Fox is the biggest news outlet in Americ, ya’ know - talk about “MSM”!) into voting for the Dems?
Get real. The black boters know who their freinds are, and they ain’t Red, White and Blue-tied.
The GOP lost the hispanic vote this and last year with their racist attack on hospanic families and immigrants. Abortion, gays, and Castro may play with some of their vote, but a safe place to live is going weigh a lot more this time around.
Kiss the majority goodbye, Emmet. Your team just wasn’t talented enough to hold on.
JMJ
September 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The dems do this every single election by saying the republicans are racist,don’t care for the poor don’t care about old people just to get the vote.
Yeah some black people are baited in by the democrat party by promising free stuff. They’ve been doing it for 50 years.
Answer me honestly if you are around in another 75 years and we are the minority are you gonna fight back when Spanish is the #1 language and Mexico gets the whole west coast of the US . Always worried about the future of the country but willing to sacrifice the future just for the power now. I wonder how liberals will be when Mexicans get their own party and they are against abortion. being they are Christians.
At least France is realizing what liberalism has done to their country.
So concerned about the poor well they raised the minimum wage . Wasn’t that supposed o raise people out of poverty?? Woopie.If they were so concerned they would vote to give the full amount now.
Phonies!
September 26th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Here’s a song for you all: Enjoy!
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/20/new-vent-runaround-hsu/
September 26th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
The dems do this every single election by saying the republicans are racist,don’t care for the poor don’t care about old people just to get the vote.
Of cousre they do because it is true. The two core values of the republican party are fear and hate. Since Willie Horton (1998) that is what they have campaigned on.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Excuse me that was a typo Horton was 1988
September 26th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
And the 2 core issues of the Democratic party is pander and enabling. And of course being hypocritical about ethics. They are politicians too so they don’t fool me.
Ther is only one democrat I like Steve Levy. One who doesn’t pander to his party.
.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/webtemp3.cfm?dept=19&id=2358
September 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Lisa,
You have a comic-book epistemology. Purile partisan stupidity. Are you saying that black people are just lazy, greedy, stupid suckers? Are you a racist? ‘Cause it sure sound like it. So what if America gradually becomes hispanic. That’s just the course of societal evolution. I don’t care what language my great, great grandkids pseak. Why should I? Spanish is a beautiful language! Got a problem with that?
JMJ
September 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
see you are the problem Jersey no matter what anyone says regarding language or anything else related to that you start labeling racism. Every friggin thing is race with you. Chill the F out already.
And don’t be putting words in my moutj and come up your own assumption of how I feel about blacks because I state a fact about how the democrats bait them in. It’s the truth whether or not you are too afraid too admit it.
Here’s an article you should read before shooting off:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/284511.html
September 27th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
What does that atricle have to do with the democratic party?