Captain's Quarters -

I have long been of the opinion that, starting at the outset, a strong candidate should have dismissed all of these inane TV "debate" forums as foolishness and refused to attend until one of them could come up with a sensible, intelligent format that didn't turn everything into a five second gotcha soundbite contest. Since none of them did that though, and since they even attended the goofy YouTube debate they cannot now reasonably say "oh, this one isn't worth my time."

Really poor decision making. Really poor leadership.

The WSJ editorial by Shelby Steele sort of sets the same tone you do Captain. But, I think the problem is deeper then either you or Shelby describe.
The victim mentality that allows for the disreputable behavior of a large portion of the African American community began to manifest itself from white guilt in the 60's. This mentality has been reinforced repeatedly for real and imagined wrongs. The African-American community rarely has to face scrutiny deeper than one layer. Yes, many "whites" pushed the African American towards victim status because of guilt, but it long ago turned into, first disbelief and subsequently to anger that a population continues, 50 years later, to condemn everything except themselves. Rich by black became sort of the norm for the first 30 years. Their "first black" president played that card so well during his debacle and won. It is time for everybody, white, black, brown or yellow to come to grips with the adult responsibilities of our actions and accept that we are human and make mistakes. When, however, we live our lives as if someone else owes us the living of it and we demand much more than a fair share while a majority of our race long ago achieved parity in almost all endeavors, is way beyond the pale. I for one am tired of hearing Jackson, Sharpton and their apologists demand their "rights" which, according to them are consistently trampled upon, while one blackmails corporations and the other speaks from ignorance.

Sorry...got carried away. What I wanted to say was that until someone other than tinfoil hatted leftists loons, liberals and democrats in general are listened to by the African American community, it is a gross waste of time for them to attend. Sorry but Watts is living in higher plane of existence then most.

"What does it say when you don't think that black issues and brown issues and issues for red and yellow -- what does it say when you don't think that all of us are valuable in this process?" he asked."

Conservatism doesn't have anything for hyphenated Americans, as hyphenated Americans. I don't recognize there are any "black" issues. Please name one. Please name an issue of concern to black people for which the government is responsible, that white people or red people or brown people or blue people don't have a share in.

Kudos to the GOP for refusing to play that game to get elected, when there is no way in Hell they could govern that way as a party.

Jake Tapper, ABC: [J.C. Watts] A former member of the House Republican congressional leadership -- and the last African-American to serve as a member of the GOP in Congress -- harshly criticized Tuesday the decision of the Republican presidential front-runners to not attend a debate focused on minority issues.

Good for him.

I realize how hard it must be for a candidate to show up in a forum that he knows from the outset will be (ahem) less than congenial. I also believe that there are some appearances that are wastes of time. However, it shows the measure of a candidate that he is not afraid to face a tough audience.

Cap'n Ed: I don't think that the refusal to attend the PBS debate has to do with inherent racism, but rather a sense that no short-term benefit will arise from engaging blacks during the Republican primaries. It's an unfortunate calculation. We have messages of empowerment through free enterprise and market-based solutions for education that could resonate, if only our leadership would engage African-American voters early and often.

I agree. We conservatives think we've got the right idea for America. What does it say when we're afraid to tell certain people about it (to the extent that some of the candidate are "conservative")?

I will admit that I have often scoffed at "the black community" for being in the pockets of the filthy dems. However, why should they even consider voting GOP when it is obvious that the party's leaders hold them in so little regard that they won't attend a debate at an all-black college?

I'm sure that the candidates have addressed black audiences in the past and will do so again in the future; that's not quite the point. In this case, they turned what might have been a small opportunity for outreach into yet another "demonstration" of how close-minded, nasty, bigotted and intolerant we Republicans are.

Not too smart.

TO: VIKING O1

FM: CAROL HERMAN

OT

Over at Confederate Yankee, http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/

He's posting that Elle (Elsbeth Reeves, married to Scott Beauchamp), has been "let go" by The New Republic.

Seems there have been some "overboard accidents" occurring in the media world; without so much as leaving a splash. What gives?

It's a tough call. Much like whether or not a Republican president should bother speaking at an NAACP or an Act Up convention while the indifferent audience clink their glasses and play with their food. Like the NY Times the PBS junk-bond stock is way overrated.

Nowadays PBS has become the mostly ignored hippie orphan of TV broadcasting where the synthetic Jim Lehrers and addled Bill Moyerses get overpaid the same even if everyone has flipped them off (pun optional) to see Shark Week on Discovery or the bean dip recipe on the Food channel. Oh, Tavis? Yeah, that guy I surf past when seeing what else is on satellite TV. Another Tony Brown but without the constipated look. Ho hum. Back to that bean dip recipe for the cookout next weekend.

While I've generally been supportive of J.C. Watts his focus on skin color speaks less well of him than of any candidates' decisions to not attend. Presumptions that candidates motives are prejudiced or evoke prejudice is prejudice in and of itself. Remember the old adage that offense is never given only taken?

Newt has apparently become only about Newt whereby his hopping from camera to camera reminds me of a Ross Perot but without a stack of charts and graphs next to him.

This is one of those "Damned if you don't and Damned if you do" situations.

Don't attend - is a race issue

Do attend - you're pandering just for the votes.

GOP front runners did some calculations and decided not to participate because of the end result - little or no votes during the primaries.

I think politicians who are too short-sighted to see that they need to take the ball towards the goal-line at whatever the cost, probably don't deserve to win. Any politician who thinks "these voters are worth wasting my time on" is going to find one day the he (or she) has attracted one too few voters. As bad as ignoring groups of voters, irritating them is far worse. Persuading people to vote against you is a catastrophe.

And then there is the sheer spinelessness of modern politicians who don't seek to offend, no matter how foolish it makes them look. If you must offend, for heaven's sake, show some courage and say, "PBS is a liberal venue and, like the Democrat candidates who won't appear on Fox, we're not appearing on PBS."

But, I imagine that will happen about the time they find the courage to vote against "Bridges to Nowhere."

On this one, I disagree with you, Ed. Tavis Smiley is a left-wing PBS hack. His PBS show is a left-skewing travesty devoid of differing opinions. He's not even close to a "neutral" host. That makes this entire event look like an ambush.

Rudy Giuliani tried to engage Al Sharpton early in his administration. Sharpton immediately betrayed the mayor's trust by publicly opposing Giuliani policies to which he had privately agreed.

As a consequence, Rudy Giuliani then refused to meet with Sharpton and his supporters for the balance of his administration. What was the point? They simply weren't dealing in good faith.

We've long since arrived at a point in American politics where there's a consensus that black Americans are capable of, and have proven their capacity for, the same success as all other Americans. Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Justice Thomas are obvious examples on the GOP side.

Smiley is an apostle of the discredited and obsolete notion that racial oppressors still stalk the streets of America, and that minority communities must remain dependent upon government entitlement programs in perpetuity.

That Democrat cliche is an insult to 21st century minorities, and to their communities.

Whenever they flash pictures of the past week's military dead on television, I usually see plenty of black faces.

If for no other reason, showing up for the the PBS debate would serve as a measure of respect, and gratitude.

Quick,

If we expect to reach past the Sharptons and the Jacksons, we have to start engaging black voters directly. Skipping these debates just leaves a vacuum for the Sharptons and the Jacksons to fill as they please.

Bob Herbert addresses this issue from a liberal African-American perspective in today's NYT. (No longer behind the firewall.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/opinion/25herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

RE: Elsbeth Reeves firing

Not sure what to make of that just yet though it seems that if New Republic is interesting in salvaging whatever credibility they may have left then getting rid of all their fact-checkers would be the right place to start.

If anyone wishes to see agitprop race-baiting at its absolute lowest be sure to check out NY Times' Bob Herbert's steaming pile today about the Jena, LA six entitled "The Ugly Side of the GOP." Second verse, same as the first at the Old Gray Bag Lady.

Among most of my friends who just happen to be black most (especially those with military backgrounds) cringe at being forced into hyphenated groups to be treated as robotic Martians who can only think in lock step with some sort of perpetual victim status. The best way to lose their votes and contributions would be to pander to them as though they are little old ladies who need help crossing the street where you are going to help them cross the street whether they want you to or not.

Discuss issues that work which the "black" community can relate to like school vouchers, public skool accountability and protecting their churches from the ACLU's assaults. Most aren't thrilled with gay marriage activism or the illegals invading either. The same concerns most non-blacks have.

I agree about reaching out and touching base across cultural divides yet don't see PBS as a balanced, open forum for differing views any more than NPR's crew of indoctrinated DNC pimps.

Not attending that debate makes them appear cowardly. Citing "scheduling conflicts" as the reason makes them appear dishonest.

They should all fix their scheduling issues, show up, and say what they friggin believe.

Have to disagree on this one, Ed. Each candidate has a limited supply of precious money and even more precious time. If there's one thing we've seen in the last few elecition cycles, it's the unwillingness of black voters to support white Republicans as a result of appeal to blacks as a group.

We'll never be able compete with the Democrat patronage arrangements without completely abandoning our principles. What we need to do is convince voters limited, color-blind government is good for everyone. We can't do that by kow-towing to each group in turn.

This kind of event reinforces the hyphenation of black Americans. That's not good for Republicans and it's not good for the country.

Eric writes: If there's one thing we've seen in the last few elecition cycles, it's the unwillingness of black voters to support white Republicans as a result of appeal to blacks as a group.
----------------------------------

Possibly black voters are unwilling to support white Republicans because of other things. Such as Bill O'Reilly on Sept. 19 talking about visiting a restaurant in Harlem:

"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." Later, during a discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams about the effect of rap on culture, O'Reilly asserted: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/runninscared/archives/2007/09/bill_oreilly_sh.php

Wow... how could Black voters fail to see the appeal of that?

wasn't aware any white people were voting for Bill O'Reilly this year, either.

In my opinion the Sharptons and the Jacksons are all about playing the race card - that is their bread and butter. I think it is wise of all four GOP presidential front runners not to buy into this side show.

Captain sez:
"Others may object to the special-interest nature of ethnic politics. That didn't keep all of the front-runners from attending the NRA event last week."

It's not the "special interest" nature of ethnic politics I object to, it's ethnic politics. Attending an NRA convention is a wholly different affair than attending one where participation is admittedly a matter of one's race. I don't concur there's a parity between going to one and going to the other at all.

If the candidates had a choice to take back that first debate with the moron Chris Matthews, don't you think they would. That was the worst, most biased hatchet job of a supposed debate that I ever saw. Most of the questions were loaded such as the ones about abortion. What gets me is that abortion is not even a real legitimate presidential debate question because no president can outlaw abortion, all they can do is select judges and even they have to go through congress. Most of that debate was wasted with poor questions that didn't really touch on the real important issues of the day but were designed to make the candidates look like fools and disagree with each other. The You Tube debates were awful. They were like Jay Leno's Jaywalking segment turned into a presidential debate. It just revealed the shallow idiocy of the uninformed American public. I would like to see a debate where the candidates actually discuss issues that matter for more than 30 seconds at a time and see how they think on their feet. That would really show what capacity a person has to do the job and where they would take us as a nation. So far, the best debate was the one that Brit Hume hosted on Fox. That was well done and had some decent questions with a little sparring between candidates.

I saw the PBS debate with the democrats. I think it was a couple of months ago. I don't recall the forum but it was an African American group. Tavis Smiley was a very good host, but the questions posed by the panel were all pandering softballs. Even so, the answers given by the candidates were extremely weak. Not one person had the sand to say anything the least bit controversial. All I could think after the debate was, "god help us if any of these morons ever get elected president." I could also imagine what that debate would have looked like had it been republicans. It would have been a total hostile mess, like the Chris Matthews debate. How can you have a civil debate or discussion with someone when everything that comes out of their mouth is dripping with thinly vieled contempt?

I agree with Eric. In a primary campaign - especially this cycle with primaries continually pushing earlier (who knows when Iowa and NH will vote, for sure)? - time and travel expense must be budgeted to their best possible use. That would not typically involve attending the 115th debate of the cycle with Smiley as host.

We've been doing "minority outreach" for decades now. Bush made strong inroads in the Hispanic vote, and that is a fertile field for more growth for our side. Appealing to the black vote hasn't proved worthwhile, no matter what Republicans do.

It's a puzzlement, to be sure, because black voters are MORE conservative than whites on a wide range of issues, including abortion, taxes, military issues and foreign policy generally, the death penalty, same-sex marriage . . . and yet, they vote the opposite of their views time and time and time again.

In 1960, Richard Nixon won 39% of the black vote. No Republican has received more than 13% since. The proximate cause is the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Although Republicans generally supported those, conservatives (including the nominee, Goldwater) did not, and Democratic conservatives began fleeing to the GOP after Thurmond in 1964 and especially after the next two elections.

Even Moses and the generation of Israelites who offended God only had to wander in the wilderness for forty years. That passage of time, and any number of "outreach" projects, hasn't been enough.

So, attending a PBS debate packed with liberal black Democrats in the middle of the Republican primary season is going to make a difference? ANY difference? ONE MICRON of difference?

Don't fool yourself.

Adjoran writes: "Appealing to the black vote hasn't proved worthwhile, no matter what Republicans do.

It's a puzzlement, to be sure, because black voters are MORE conservative than whites on a wide range of issues, including abortion, taxes, military issues and foreign policy generally, the death penalty, same-sex marriage . . . and yet, they vote the opposite of their views time and time and time again."

------------------------------

Perhaps it has something to do with Republicans following the famous "southern strategy" as outlined by Republican strategist Lee Attwater:

"In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

Gosh, I don't know why all that "outreach" hasn't worked better.

Would it do any good to go to a debate to be asked 30 different versions of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

I don't usually agree with the author of this blog, but I certainly agree here. If the commenters would look back at their arrogant racist comments, imagining an African American reading them, I would hope you would at least be ashamed.

If not, so be it.
Democrats will proudly ask for the votes of African Americans.
You, in turn, can have all the people whose kin once wanted to secede from the Union.

When conservatives play the game of "why go to an audience that hates me?" is this another form of victim mentality? This is a total mistake. When voters see this and say, "Conservatives don't care about minorities." It is not a good response to say "Yes we do. That is why we didn't attend because we are not going to bow down to this stuff." The right response is to go and talk about your views. Win people over. This is PBS. Like it or not, PBS is a legitimate enough forum to go and debate in front of. Actually, the more I think about this, the more it just smacks of aloofness.

Jan, I think you proved out point rather well.

TO: VIKING 01, Thanks.

As to Black voters, similar to Jewish voters, I'm sure no one discusses GOP candidates, with any seriousness, at family meals. The dysfunctional family members would get way too unpleasant. And, what would anyone accomplish? Bozos, as a general rule, are happy "clanned, together." They'd feel like fish out of the sea; in any act that requires independent thinking.

And, it's the "bundling" I worry about, more than anything else.

In other words? Jewish donations still seem to go towards the communists; with none happening on the right side of things.

And, in Black churches? What we don't see is the influx of cash, coming to "programs" designed to keep the left "imbedded."

In other words? Well, in 1944, germans had to appear as if there were no nazi's in sight. Men who crossed the Rhine with Patton mentioned this. They'd ask people if they were members of the nazi party. NO. ONE. SAID. SO!

And, while Patton was still pissing in the Rhine, as promised; before crossing into germany ... Well, you had most germans ripping up uniforms. And, tossing out anything, including insignias, and written paraphenalis, that had anything to do with hitler. Then? Well, they never did morn their dead. They behaved as if everyone in germany was "just waiting for the Americans."

While Eisenhower green-lighted stalin's troops; just to deny Patton the right to say he got to Berlin, "first."

Insiders play games.

And, that's what the Black community is sunk.

Just as are the students at columbia, who became distressed when their school allowed the midget from iran, in. To speak LIES. And, then the wacky academicians labelled this garbage as "freedom."

Which it isn't.

As individuals, who come to the Net, to read what's going on out there in the "commons," I am reminded that we can't stop the nincompoops, on the "top" ... from still spilling their propaganda.

Heck, it took more than two years, and zero sales, for the "home office" to learn the EDSEL really bombed.

Today? How many people know the EDSEL's front grill was shaped like a toilet seat?

It went "beyond failing at persuasion," which is the point I'd like to get across.

While I'm watching to see what happens when the republicans get to nominate their presidential pick for 2008. Why? Because I believe Guiliani (who still needs to keep his health intact, for this.) Actually creates the BRIDGE into the mainstream, that politics in this country has been lacking! Nixon didn't hold the center. Jimmy Carter was just a flake. And, while Reagan was great; he got slapped silly by the freaks who demanded he not access "the center of the Bridge."

Yes, Reagan got there, in spite of the media.

Today's world? Even harder for the media to make a dent.

While I doubt that the New Yuk Times, among other elite crapola, actually sells in the black communities around this country.

That's the falicy; but how does it get proven?

Too many Black Church leaders feed off the "money."

And, this is true, too, for the wacky academics. And, alas, for the Jews, too. I have no solutions.

All I know is that there are groups of people in this country cowering at the communist dogma. Like puppies, they keep missing the training paper.

By the way, Viking 01, I adore the ways in which you can turn a phrase.

TR called them "hypenated Americans." The NRA, while probably mostly white males (I guess)are not Anglo-Americans, or Euro-Americans. Not a valid analogy. Candidates shoudn't honor a forum of Homosexual-Americas, Native-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-(N)Americans, Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, or any other hypenated Americans. Enought of this nonsense. A whole lot of us average-Americans have tired of it.

Gads, how stupid can the GOP front runners be, anyway?!

Of course you show up and put your views out there. It isn't just about the acquisition of power, but the changing of hearts and minds. You can't do it unless you are in the trenches, putting in the time, and clearly making the point.

Leading by example also helps, along with showing real life points of interest that helps the cause. Of course, if that is too daunting a task to do, I have to wonder what else is too scary for the wannabee nominees?

Face up to the Russians? The Chinese? Don't make me laugh. If they can't even handle some factually-lacking, left-leaning black Dems, how the heck are they going to be able to tackle Hillary Clinton?

Ugh. It isn't enough to vote against someone. You have to present real reasons to vote for an alternative. God help us in 2008.

Anything "Moderated" by an uber liberal like Tavis Smiley, Keith Oberman, or Chris Matthews isn't going to put Republicans in a good light.

Put in some balance, allow someone like Tavis but only as one of a panel. Maybe add a J.C. Watts or another black conservative.

Thank you "jay;" you are right. Why walk into a set-up?

Maybe it is a mistake to not go, but for years Democrats the real people who have kept the African Americans down from Jim Crowe, KKK, not voting for their rights etc...have done a good spin on saying Republicans are the enemy. Everytime the Republicans go to speak they are ridiculed anyway and nothing really is accomplished. What is funny is that NPRs Juan Williams has an interview with President Bush discussing race relations etc...and NPR will not air the interview.

Ding Ding Ding!!! Another win for Huckabee before the event even starts. He'll do very well and don't forget how large a percentage of the black vote he garnered in Arkansas. It's because he, like Clinton, doesn't seem so distant and different. Great speaker, probably better than Clinton, sincere, and many blacks will walk out of that debate at least thinking more about him than ever before. Some for the first time of course. We saw this in 1992. Uh oh. What a good thing.

Others may object to the special-interest nature of ethnic politics. That didn't keep all of the front-runners from attending the NRA event last week.

Say what? I never noticed the NRA was an ethnic group.

At a certain point we need to either say that ethnic politics is a good thing or a bad thing. It cannot remain good for some and bad for others. Unless we are going to condone our party engaging in outreach to whites-only groups, we should not be encouraging them to pander to other ethnic slices of America.

How many of the Republican front-runner candidates showed up to that Values Voters forum? Answer: NONE of the front-runners showed up. Hmm, are Republican front-runners trying to tell the Christian Coalition that they don't matter? Heck no!!!

Doesn't anyone remember Edwards and Clinton caught on tape discussing how ridiculous it was to be debating with nine people on stage? Debates with 30-second answers give very little incentive to frontrunners and a ton of incentive to "also-rans." We've probably already had more debates than the entire 2003/2004 primary campaign and there are still three full months to go.

With a neutral panel giving serious questions in front of an interested audience (known to vote Republican), these Republican front-runner PRIMARY candidates have shown up to numerous debates already (well, except for Fred Thompson). Telemundo tried a lame debate and none of the Republican front-runners (except McCain) signed up for that one, either.

Again, put up a neutral panel of questioners and a large, interested audience (Values Voters debate reached a very small audience directly) and these guys will come. They've proven that over and over now.

docjim505

why should they even consider voting GOP when it is obvious that the party's leaders hold them in so little regard that they won't attend a debate at an all-black college?

Would you be comfortable with the candidates appearing before a white interviewer at an all-white college? In an effort to win the white vote?

Thank goodness someone is saying it. The Republicans are giving away votes at this point. Even a ten percent shift in Black voting would be a watershed event. Republicans are wasting the frustration over illegal immmigration and worthless policies.

Tavis addresses the Black and Latino vote simultaneously, someone should get him the memo. The Black Brown coalition does not exist.

Get a flavor of the condescension and pop sociology of some of these comments about the "black" community and their failings. The fact is the "black" community perceives (with some justice for anyone who has lived in the South) that the Republican party is broadly inimical to their interests. The Hispanic community are rapidly forming a similar impression because of recent events. Who can blame them. It was significant that a majority of the major Republican candidates refused to appear at either the black or Hispanic debates which simply served to reinforce the impression. The rather silly reasons the gave were correctly described by Newt as baloney. It also has to be faced that there is a sizeable minority of Republican voters who tend to be vocal who are animated by nativism and xenophobia. I don't suppose we will though and so these constituencies, along with Asian Americans btw, are going to either reinforce their traditional orientation or increasingly vote Democratic. The southern strategy has given the GOP a good run but in the long run it's probably going to ruin us.

These Republican candidates didn't show up for the value voter debate....does that make them anti-Christian?

Like it or not,here it is, a dose of reality therapy: The race card no longer works.

Deal with it.

Um...the same folks that, with all the rhetoric and data, still re-elected Ray Nagin and WIlliam Jefferson?

The same folks whose AM candidates include some of the most virulent and hysterical people in Congress (Major Owens, Cynthia, on and on)?

The information is out there, but a certain cultural segment of our society has nothing but mush between their ears.

flenser,

For all practical purposes, unless a candidate (R or d) shows up at an explicitly "minority" school, they ARE "appearing before a white interviewer at an all-white college". It's a natural outcome of the fact that the country is majority white.

I admit to having mixed feelings on what can be called (and, honestly, has been called by me) pandering. I was nauseated by the Hilldabeast's pathetic attempt to fake a... um... well, whatever kind of accent it was she was trying to fake a few months ago. I would be even more disgusted if I saw a Republican doing it (I expect filthy democrats to be phonies).

On the other hand, there's no question but that refusing to "pander" is perceived by minorities as a snub at best and a reflection of racism at worst.

How to strike the balance is a tough call, but I think it MUST be struck. Not only do the Republicans need to do something to break the grip that the odious democrats have on minority votes, but they also (and far more importantly) have to demonstrate that they are a party of AMERICANS, not just white Americans.

On a related note, 97Bravo brings up TR and "hyphenated Americans". Ever since I read TR's opinion on this subject, I've thought that it made a lot of sense. That is, until I had a long talk about it with a Chinese-American friend of mine in grad school. From her perspective, it's easy for a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male (like me) to scoff at "hyphenated Americans" and claim that we should all just be "Americans". The problem is that people who don't look like me aren't always treated like Americans. It can be something as overt as being assumed to be an illegal alien to something as simple as people being surprised that you're ACTUALLY an American (Something like this happened to her brother. He was born in No. Carolina, but because he is of Chinese descent, his girlfriend's father - with all politeness - kept asking, "No, where are you FROM?").

It was an eye-opening experience.

Frankly, when it comes to the black vote, the GOP should take a page from the Petraeus counter insurgency strategy...get in there and start making inroads little by little. It is stupid and disappointing to think these top tier candidates don't think they can change some minds by being sincere and reasonable and show they are not demons. Blacks might be surprised with how much sense Republicans make when it comes to vouchers and school choice and equal opportunity for the ownership society.

On the philosophical side I think the candidates feel it is a waste of time with no immediate upside and a whole lot of downside. Very debatable for sure!

However way down deep I think the real reason, this early in the campaign, is fear of a "Macaca" moment. Not so much by a direct spoken slur but more by way of convoluted nuanced editorials the following day forcing the candidate to spend their entire time always explaining and re-explaining that they said no such thing.

The damage will have been done and the truth is irrelevant.

The dems, for their part, were afraid to face real questions on Fox. They would not even attend the debate sponsored by the Black caucus. Where was the fall out there?

I haven't seen one comment about the fact that all of the democrats refuse to debate on Fox. They will hardly even be interviewed on any of the shows there. Why is it republicans always beat eachother up over the same things the democrats are very comfortable with doing?

"We have messages of empowerment through free enterprise and market-based solutions for education that could resonate, if only our leadership would engage African-American voters early and often."

The problem is that's really no longer true. It may still exist in the "Party Platform" but for all practical purposes the Republican Party has all but adandoned innovative market-based solutions, NCLB anyone? Other than the tax cut the only thing the Republicans offer is lip service, and if you listen to the viable candidates even that has all but disappeared. Sadly, the Republican party has become a caricature of itself, a perpetually angry two-trick security-social values pony.

Although I'm sure to get flack from the partisans, that's why I'll probably vote for a Democrat for the white house and Republicans for congress. The last time any real meaningful reform happened was when the Clinton administration had to work with the Republican congress (welfare reform, NAFTA, and a host of deregulation). I thinking being without the white house focuses the Republicans whereas they (and any Party for that matter) become complacent and more worried about re-election when they have control over the whole she-bang.

Sharpshooter: Please don't confuse local districts; which can be operated by a few ...

To the whole Magila of the USA.

Why just poke your stick at the Cynthis McKinneys?

You can poke every single senator and see weaknesses. Senators just don't make great candidates for the presidency.

Sure, they try.

THe ambition comes with their suits.

But most crap out at the table.

Anyway, Obama isn't Cynthia McKinney.

And, I don't hold all Blacks reponsible for Ray Nagin, either.

What makes local politics work, is often the crap you'd see if you were watching sausages being made.

Or, as it's said in Israel: SWARMA

As to the republicans running for the nomination; they're getting lots of venues where they can go and handshake crowds.

PBS is a dead horse.

Hot going there, now, tells you more about the horse's lack of life, than those whose major act is to keep on beating it.

And, IF I didn't read this subject here?

It wasn't even up on my radar screen.

We are a long way from Sesame Street. And, we are a long way, removed, from Vietnam.

Time to catch up with the latest.

As we're probably seeing the "primary map" getting re-written.

The Bonkeys are supposedly tied to Hillary. Though Algore is nursing desires for a re-run. See if I care?

And, over on the RIGHT? Wow, it's a whole new ballgame. I don't hear the old stupid drum roll for "life." Roe's been removed because it created a poisonous mix.

Now I hear? Calls for the MAINSTREAM. To look for it, so as not to lose to the Bonkeys, in 2008.

Ah. And, as Hugh Hewitt said in 2004. The republicans need a strong turnout. To compensate for the votes the Bonkeys already know how to steal!

Stealing votes is nothing new in the electoral universe.

And, the congress critters have grown TERRIFIED! They see the "anti-pork" buttons; and even though they don't sweat. Doesn't mean they don't know fear.

Fear of a PUBLIC. Which switches some of the shinanigan buttons OFF.

"Posted by Sharpshooter | September 25, 2007 6:39 PM

Um...the same folks that, with all the rhetoric and data, still re-elected Ray Nagin and WIlliam Jefferson?

The same folks whose AM candidates include some of the most virulent and hysterical people in Congress (Major Owens, Cynthia, on and on)?

The information is out there, but a certain cultural segment of our society has nothing but mush between their ears."

And that right there folks is the element of the Republican party that reinforces every bad sterotype of Republicans. It's not racist although it verges on it and it advocates what conservatives are supposed to be against, treating people as groups based on some incidental similarity instead of as individuals. Don't you think some white folks voted for Nagin and Jefferson, and don't you think some black people voted for their opposition? Where do you think J.C. Watts and Justice Thomas came from? Outerspace?! No, they came from black families and Thomas came from a clearly democratic black family or in your words, "a certain cultural segment of our society," but somehow he became a conservative.

As long as Republicans continue to think that way about minorities, they will continue to fall deeper and deeper into the political minority.

MikeInTheMountainWest,

I'll take umbrage at being painted as a republican who disses Blacks. I've already posted that "local politics," and the whole enchilada of presidential politics, is beacoup different.

And, I don't buy "the nothing between the ears" approach.

On the other hand?

The left keeps greasing the wheels where they are protected.

And, yes, as a Jewish woman, I know for a fact, that once you leave the Bonkey reservation; you're out there, alone in the forest.

Why is there so much dysfunction within my own group? It seems to me, (from what I hear when I hear the BDS going full strength) ... is that there are people who have become aware of the problems within politics; but there are no great voices from within giving guidance. So people move away on their own.

Do they move away?

As me about how Ronald Reagan appealed to Blue Collar democrats, and I'm right at home. I saw it happening. I also knew Jimmy Carter's selection had turned to poison.

And, in this cycle, at least, Obama is out there; still a fledgling, but considered as mainstream as you can get. Ditto, for the billionnairess, Oprah, who made her fortune, here. But seems to prefer Paris. (Where the stores she shops in don't necessarily prefer her. Or Gucci would have opened its doors, 15 minutes after closing them to the public.)

I also don't have to "buy" Obama. I happen to be rooting for Rudy.

But I can assure you, Obama is no Cynthia McKinney! Plus, to get elected senator, he had to appeal, across the board, to the majority voters in his state.

You could leave the "color politics" behind.

While the problem for the Bonkeys beame a pollution of affirmative action hires.

Will something "give" in 2008? I'm hoping it's the beginning of something even bigger. I'm hoping the Internet CONNECTS. And, let's us see it all hang out, at the same time.

Since I could care less about TV in general, PBS isn't a venue worth much. Like the BBC. Too many overpaid staffers.

Not that C-BS isn't rife with useless suits.

docj

For all practical purposes, unless a candidate (R or d) shows up at an explicitly "minority" school, they ARE "appearing before a white interviewer at an all-white college". It's a natural outcome of the fact that the country is majority white.

When were you in an American college last, 1960? Good grief! Whites are already a minority in the coastal states like NY and CA. Wake up, man.

Not only do the Republicans need to do something to break the grip that the odious democrats have on minority votes, but they also (and far more importantly) have to demonstrate that they are a party of AMERICANS, not just white Americans.

The Democrats define themselves pretty explicitly as the anti-white party. Non-whites seem to have no problem with race based politics. I'm not seeing why the GOP needs to react to this by bending over backwards to say it is not a party of white Americans.

Face it, race based politics is here to stay. The only open question is whether the GOP learns to play it.

Bush appointed more blacks to senior cabinet positions than any prior administration. If people insist on regarding the party is racist then nothing anyone can do or say will change their mind.

Oh NO , the Repub are giving up a real chance to get ambushed by a radical black DNC activist , named Smiley on PBS! Gee think of the great clips the Dems could get with Repub after Repub get asked why they allowed all those thousands of phony Katrina deaths at the hands of Bush.
Gosh, imagine all lost opportunities to change the minds of the four left guilt ridden white liberals that still watch PBS.

It also has to be faced that there is a sizeable minority of Republican voters who tend to be vocal who are animated by nativism and xenophobia

As opposed to all the blacks and Hispanics who just adore people not like themselves. Where do people like you come from? Berkely? Xenophila is a disease, and not one your minorities suffer from.

for all practical purposes the Republican Party has all but adandoned innovative market-based solutions

If school choice ever comes, it will be the Republicans who bring it. And if you get Hillary as you seem to want, she will veto it. (Never mind the fact that the Dems already have Congress.)

It is a very tough call.
Why should Republicans reach out to organized groups that villify, defame, misrepresent, and lie about what they say, who they are and what they do?
African Americans, by choosing to vote ~90% straight ticket dhimmiecrat no matter what or who is running, offer nothing to the Republicans. Why spend the time chasing people who are simply going to thank you for expending the effort but still vote for the party that pleases their leadership?
Why not spend that same effort on people who might actually vote for you?
Other ethnic groups in the US seem to be able to realize that by allowing people the freedom to belong to either party, they stand better chances of getting ahead. African Americans, on the other hand, seek to destroy nearly anyone of their community who dares to be a Republican.
It is of no coincidence that Republicans have better things to do than waste time kowtowing to people who hate them. After all, African Americans would rather get token crumbs from dhimmies.
And that is the way it shall be until African Americans decide to allow themselves the freedom they so far deny each other.

Patrick nailed it: There is no possible good outcome for a Republican candidate walking into an ambush event like the one proposed. Here's how that works: First, the event is scheduled for a "historically black" college, where all of the students and faculty are well-trained in the art of racial grievance. Before the debate, a bunch of black liberal speakers goes out to give hellfire-and-brimstone speech to whip the crowd into an emotional frenzy. During the debate, the hostile moderator continuously cuts off candidates and makes snide between-questions remarks, which under the rules of the debate, the candidate smeared by these remarks is not allowed to respond to. Moments after the debate ends, the liberal MSM immediately jumps on air to pronounce all of the candidates to be a bunch of racist homophobic Nazis, pulling quotes out of context to "prove" their point. All of the airtime will go to liberal commentators making accusations, and again the candidates will have no opportunity to respond. And then the next day, the editorials appear parsing individual words and phrases and giving the candidates the George Allen treatment. So what candidate in his right might would expend his campaign time and funds to have his candidacy damaged like this?

Now, having said all that: I have a ton of respect for J.C. Watts. However, in this case, he may have diagnosed the disease, but he prescribed the wrong treatment. The basic problem is that all of the venues where candidates might have the opportunity to address a mostly-black audience are all controlled by Leftist race-baiters. What someone needs to do, and Watts would be just the right guy, is put together a new forum that can bring together groups of black conservatives. That's the place where Republicans can have that debate. Eliminate the leftist control of the event, and you eliminate a lot of the (quite reasonable) fear that the candidates have of such events.

And as for the aspect of hyphenated-American politics: In theory, I agree that there should be no such thing. However, we must keep in mind that past government "remedies" have created a lot of problems that disproportionately impact blacks, such as the atrocious state of the inner city schools. Because past liberal government actions created those problems, I think they are legitimate race-specific issues for conservatives to address.

How can REpublicans erase racism if they don't acknowledge it exists?

Bonkeys? How about Belephants?

I understand the Political reason Watts espouses as to why the Republican candidates should take part in the debate ,but I am one who is sick and tired of catering to groups based on color ,sex ,language ,type of sex ,and so on, We are all Americans and we should all be debating issues that affect us all as that, not what are petty fetishes or prejudices or our greed inspired emotions drive us to

O.K., guys, I'll try again. There are TWO (2) black Americas. The first one has climbed out of the ghetto, and is performing extremely well in an integrated American society.

The second is the one that's been poisoned by massive entitlement programs, single parent families, a toxic "hip hop" culture that demeans black women, healthy families, and committed relationships in favor of sexual promiscuity, gangster fantasies, misogyny, and illegitimacy. Sharpton and Jackson profit from the guilt white liberals feel about past injustices. Sharpton and Jackson promulgate fantasies that white racism is responsible for it all, because it keeps them powerful.

Sharpton and Jackson have trapped the Democrat Party into buying into the fantasy that black people are perpetual victims. Without the votes of blacks who buy into the fantasy, Democrats lose in a landslide. Read John McWhorter for the details. That black America believes that it is persecuted, and believes that it is a victim of racism. Nothing you can say to that group will change its mind. Democrats pander to it, and feed into it.

The Democrats are heavily invested in keeping that group in a victim mentality, in keeping them dependent upon entitlement programs (and in believing that they're "entitled"), and in perpetuating the fantasy that some external, racist enemy is responsible for their ills.

I'm saying that Republican candidates should NOT be appearing in front of the Smiley-Sharpton-Jackson fantasy faction, except to confront it. They can appear in front of the Congress of Racial Equality, which stresses family values, healthy values, and black empowerment, instead.

Which faction of the black community do Republicans want to encourage, Ed? You engage the fantasy by attacking it. You encourage CORE by supporting it.

I find it interesting that so many folks here blame African-Americans for not "waking up" and seeing how great the Republican party is, when the Republican party has for years PURPOSEFULLY ran the "southern strategy" of appealing to racist elements of American society and alienating African American voters. Until you come to terms with that and explicitly reject that strategy, you'll have to reap the whirlwind.

I will always reject the blatant, crippling racism of Liberalism which always assumes that black citizens (no segregative hyphens, please) can't make it on their own.

That prejudice has become as big a fraud as inner city public education

For decades, the overwhelming majority of the "black" vote has gone to Democrats. This is in spite of the fact that Democrats have exploited the black community. They have lied to the black community. They have discriminated against the black community. They have aggressively worked to keep as many blacks as possible in poverty. They have destroyed many black's opportunity to be properly educated. The Democrats have been radically racist and bigoted. The Democrats formulate legislation and policy that deliberately seeks to encourage blacks to be dependent on the government. WHY DO "BLACKS" CONTINUE TO VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HURT THEM THE MOST?

The truth is that actively pursuing the "Black Vote" is a futile effort. Republicans should stop acting like Democrats and present CONSERVATIVE principles to the voting public. Those of all races who are willing to discern the truth and to demand a free America will support those candidates who are willing to "do right." Those who are willingly ignorant want to continue to be abused by Democrats and will NEVER be influenced by reason.

In direct answer to this:
"I haven't seen one comment about the fact that all of the democrats refuse to debate on Fox. They will hardly even be interviewed on any of the shows there. Why is it republicans always beat eachother up over the same things the democrats are very comfortable with doing?"

Here's the difference:
Democrats don't really care if Fox viewers vote for them.

So, taking that to the next step...
What Republicans are saying to African-American voters is, "Republicans don't really care if African-Americans vote for us."

Is that the message you WANT to send?
Consider it sent.

I think it's a mistake for the GOP not to show up.

Tavis Smiley didn't even take questions from the public for this one - THAT's how much the fix was in for the GOP to be seen in ' not so much a negative light'.

African-Americans, of which I am one, vote for the Democrats.

We don't do it because we're dumb. We do it because the Democrats at least act halfway interested in the subjects that concern us.

The GOP does not act interested, and it's not the disinterest that disappoints, it's the outright hostility.

For the GOP supporters to not acknowledge the repeated hostile overtones to the Black community since Nixon adopted the ' Southern Strategy' is disingenuous.

I ask this question all the time..

What WHITE Republican, who has gotten 30% of the Black Vote, has LOST an election in the past 50 years?

birds chirping....birds chirping...birds chirping....

The GOP already has 10%.

That they are unwilling to do what could get them the other 20% points to seriously problems with them.

Look at the number.

30%

Not a half. Not even an official one-third.

30% in a few key states with heavy Black populations...

And the GOP would cut the Democrats off at the knees nationally permanently.

And, the 30% is there. I should know; I live among them.

But, as long as there's outright hostility, you won't get that other 20%.

And, if it's Tavis Smiley that you object to, and not presenting GOP solutions to a Black audience..

Then why doesn't the GOP take the CBC/Fox News Debate in Detroit that the Democrats Cancelled?

If it's not the BLACK audience that made them refuse.

As a black Republican, I want to say that this move to skip the debates just makes my job of convincing my fellow Af-Ams to be Republicans even harder. Every boneheaded move these campaigns make I have to take the first 5 minutes of any conversation to explain away before I even get to discussing policy. And we wonder why only 10% vote Republican when we go out of our way to make it look like we don't give a sh*t about them.

I don't think Republicans should refuse to debate in front of a black audience. I think they should refuse to walk into an ambush. And if they walk into an ambush, they should be prepared to confront dysfunction, not to pander to it.