Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Republican Tent is Torn

Did you ever hear about the Republican big tent? Republicans are concerned about everyone. Republicans invite all people to come in under their big tent. At least that is the propaganda line. When Republican candidates for president are invited to a debate run by Hispanics, they suddently find scheduling problems. When they are invited to a debate run by blacks, the top tier of Republicans don’t show.

Tonight's black-sponsored debate at Morgan State University will be snubbed by Arizona Sen. John McCain, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. The other Republican candidates will be there. Tavis Smiley, the moderator for tonight's debate, is unhappy about this:

When you say no to every black request you recieve, to black organizations, to black media. When you say no to every hispanic invitation you recieve, to organizations and to Univision, and to other hispanic media. When you say no to every black and brown request you receive, is that a scheduling problem or is that a pattern? They’re trying to go, these frontrunners, these Republican frontrunners, trying to go through this entire primary process and never have to address voters of color and never queried journalists of color. And I think in the most multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic America ever, that quite frankly, is unacceptable.

It's worse than "unacceptable." It's glaring racism. When the major Republican candidates for president of the USA refuse to be associated with Afro-Americans and Hispanics it is un-American. If top-tier Republican candidates for president are not concerned with the problems of blacks, Hispanics - and gays - which people are they concerned about?

Whites? It seems that way. But I do not think they are concerned about ALL white people either. For a while it looked to me that they cared about the religious right. Since 2001, they sure made a lot of propaganda about same-sex marriage, abortion and prayer in the school. And remember the Schiavo case? But what did the Republicans accomplish in a concrete way for the religious right? Close to nothing.

The main concern of Republicans are not so much whites but people with money. They gave tax cuts mainly to the rich, passed subsidies and giveaways for the energy industry, passed a Medicare bill that gives money away to insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, they made it easier for banks to collect from cardholders, and so on.

There is no Republican big tent. If there ever was one, it is now torn.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 27, 2007 6:44 PM
Comments
Comment #234642

Paul,

Do you not see the irony of your statements?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 6:49 PM
Comment #234643

Paul Siegal, your comment is way over the top. This is not racism. This is politics. The top Republican candidates are fighting for nomination by their base. They know from polls, that 3/4 of the Hispanic origin folks vote Democrat. And as many as 90% of Blacks vote Democrat. Additionally, they are pressed for money and time, and are scheduling their time and money in the Primary season where it will do them the most good in the Primary elections.

I am not saying this is smart, especially for the candidate running in the General Election. But, it is NOT racist. It is politics and the economics of campaigning. Infinite demand and finite resources dictating those resources be spent where the most bang for the buck can be achieved.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 7:14 PM
Comment #234644

“It’s worse than “unacceptable.” It’s glaring racism.”

That’s a ridiculous claim with no evidence to back it up. As David points out, this is not racism, it is politics… I just wish I could have said it first!

Of course the heavy hitters in the GOP are not going to attend this debate, at least not during primary season. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place! There will be no correct answers in this debate… cater to the black audience and you alienate your base… cater to your base and you alienate the audience and draw harsher questions, making you look even more unsympathetic to the black cause. It’s a no-brainer. Come general election time, when the nomination is locked up and the candidates are fishing for independent votes… that is when you will see a Rep clear their schedule for one of these functions.

You think Hillary would attend a debate sponsored by the National Association for the Advancement of Old & Rich White Guys? Of course not…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 27, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #234645

Rhinehold… nice response… I wonder how many see the irony in his statements.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 27, 2007 7:28 PM
Comment #234653

“I wonder how many see the irony in his statements.”

Doug Langworthy,

Well, I’m not the brightest bulb on the tree so count me as numero uno on the “can’t see the irony” list.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 27, 2007 10:10 PM
Comment #234654


Paul stick with what works. The Republicans aren’t anti-black they are pro-money. Unfortunately, the Democrats are becoming just like them. About the only difference between them anymore is that while the Republicans still believe that crumbs are more than enough for the masses, the Democrats will throw us a bone now and then. Sometimes the bone even has a little meat and gristle still attached to it. More and more, politics is coming down to the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: jlw at September 27, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #234655

KansasDem,

Well, answer me this. If we aren’t suppose to treat people differently because of the color of their skin, why should anyone cater to groups that do nothing BUT focus on the color of people’s skins?

trying to go through this entire primary process and never have to address voters of color and never queried journalists of color

Are they seriously saying that voters ‘of color’ and ‘journalists of color’ can only be reached through these organizations? Isn’t that a little… racist?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2007 10:18 PM
Comment #234658

Paul:

They are running in for the Republican nomination. How many republicans were in the room?

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 27, 2007 10:42 PM
Comment #234664
They’re trying to go, these frontrunners, these Republican frontrunners, trying to go through this entire primary process and never have to address voters of color and never queried journalists of color.

This assumes that voters of color only watch media geared towards them and that the only “journalists of color” who count are those who work for Univision or other media geared only to minority audience.

It’s an extremely racist assumption, and it’s ironic because it actually contradicts the idea that this is the “most multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic America ever.”

Posted by: Liam at September 27, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #234674

Paul,

I think you raise a valid point. Personally I wouldn’t paint the Republican party as racist, but I do believe more racists vote Republican. I make that observation based on living my entire life (referring to voter status) in Nebraska and Kansas, and interacting with residents of both states. (Wyoming was worse while I lived there as a non-resident)

Generally the Republican party has been more opposed to things like affirmative action and that seems to draw the racist vote. It certainly seems like “conservative” radio and TV commentators are more likely to “inflame” the Black and/or Hispanic communities.

Much of that gets into the “single issue voter” arena. IMO we Dems seem to attract those who want to respect everyones legal and civil rights, while “requiring” that every American pay to play a part in our society.

OTOH it seems that the Republicans have attracted those who think the “upper-class” need only provide “opportunity” and then the lower-class can provide for themselves. They claim to support the “un-born” but oppose health care and food-stamps for those already born. (Huckabee and somewhat Brownback are exceptions to that rule)

Rather than go on into “gay rights” I’ll wait for a “conswervative” to explain away what I already said.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2007 12:11 AM
Comment #234675

Rhinehold,

IMO that’s the worst nonsense I’ve ever read. I married outside my race TWICE! My daughter took the “mix” one race further. And race is an issue. When my daughter divorced she debated what name to take because of racism. She easily passes for white.

OTOH my grandson is Black as the ace of spades. Everyone assumes he’s adopted. Her divorce was largely due to the color of her son. Her husband doubted paternity because of my grandsons “blackness”. So we all had a shitload of DNA tests done ……….. and no milkman was involved!!!!!!!

So, I’ve lived with the slurs, the stupid racist remarks like “once you go Black you never go back”. It’s much more acceptable for a white guy like me to be with a Black or Hispanic woman than vice-versa. We’re still a very racist nation.

As I think Edge said in another thread: I was raised by wolves! And I’m proud of it. Wolves have a better societal relationship than conservatives.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2007 12:43 AM
Comment #234677

CORRECTION:

I credited Edge with a statement made by Outraged:

“Myself like the Kansas Democrat, was raised by wolves in the deepest darkest part of the Midwest!!!!!”

My apologies to both of you.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2007 12:52 AM
Comment #234678

KansasDem,

My wife is part Indian and her step-father was black. I have some black in my family tree as well.

The *fact* is that race is meaningless, a made up concept that we created becasue we were too stupid to realize that. ‘Race’ is just a result of long-term changes to our epi-genomes because of where our ancestors lived at the time. In fact, we can all be traced back to the same woman…

But, I digress. The fact is that you can’t legislate against IDIOCY. Should those people who were idiots and said stupid and mean things be put in jail for that? Or is it their right to be morons?

The fact is, until we stop attempting to legislate morality and common decency, we are going to be telling our children that race DOES matter, and they will learn from our example.

We have laws on the books that prevent anyone from denying anyone else their rights based on race or sex already, what else do we need to do? If we tell people that they can’t make it in our society because of the color of their skin, they will begin to believe it! Do you think that we have been helping or hurting those the current laws are intended to help? When something like Affermative Action is in place, any person who COULD be affected by that practice will have in the back of their head the thought that they couldn’t make it without that help and others who view his accomplishments will wonder if he could have done it on his own…

It’s not nonsense, KansasDem. It’s reality and it’s what people who do not see race (since race is an invalid concept to begin with) see. You know, non-racists…

People are people. Not all black people need the same thing. Not all mexicans need the same thing. Not all white people need the same thing. What they ALL need, though, is to be treated with dignity and be evaluated and judged on their actions and their actions ALONE. Not what their parents did, not what the color of thier skin was, etc.

And until the left gets that, and stops keeping these people ‘in their place’ while at the same time telling them they are the only ones that can help them against ‘the man’, race relations in this country will never improve…

But hey, I understand that I’ll be called a racist because I choose not to treat people differently because of the color of their skin or the hardships they had to go through (I was beaten up in high school nearly every week as a matter of course) but how THEY handle it… then yeah, call me a racist. It’s the usual reaction to anyone who speaks out against treating people any differently simply because of their skin color.

And THAT’s the irony I was talking about.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 28, 2007 12:59 AM
Comment #234687

Rhinehold,

I’m sorry, but my translation of what you’re saying is that racists should be ignored. If you don’t ignore them then you’re being racist yourself. The whole idea that anyone “doesn’t see” color is BS. We all “see” color, gender, size, etc.

Our society should find a way to end poverty among the American Indian, and we should be ever vigilant to give every descendant of our African American slaves a fair break and a head start. As a nation we suck when it comes to restitution.

Or have we already done too much for the American Indian? Have we done too much for Black Americans? Are we holding people back by helping too much? Maybe we should issue them all fines for not doing better, just for motivation.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 28, 2007 3:21 AM
Comment #234688


Rhinehold: When I was 25 in 1975, I went to work in a machine shop in Cincinnati, one of the most racist cities in America. Was then, still is now. The company was doing work for the Defense Dept. and they were in trouble with the government becaused they refused to hire any blacks. So, the company hired a young black kid out of H.S. The day he started, the foreman took him over to a 12 foot industrial lathe and said there it is go to work. When I started working there, the foreman showed me how to operate the lathe. After the foreman left, I went over and started teaching the young man when the foreman reappeared and told me to mind my own business. The young man struggled for a week and the company fired him. The NAACP sent two representatives to find out what had happened. While the owner hid in his office, the foreman talked to the representatives. This is how it is n word. That little n word was was a lazy sob’n n word. So we fired the n word. Now get the hell out n word. After the representatives left, I walked up to the office and told the secretary to mail my check to me and I left.

The reason I tell this is because of your remarks about affirmative action. The simple fact is that before affirmative action many blacks could not make it because they were’nt even given a chance to. If I had been given an hour, I could have taught that young man how to run that lathe well enough that he could have caught on to the rest.

America has change a lot since then and a lot of that change was brought about by affirmative action.

Posted by: jlw at September 28, 2007 5:08 AM
Comment #234689

Look…to say that the Republican front runners cannot attend this event because it is going to cost them a great deal of money is ludicrous. How much do you suppose? Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani are most certainly not having a hard time with cash. I agree they probably don’t want to waste the time to try and garner votes they feel all ready belong to their opposition. In a way its refreshing to see the veil fall away to reveal the true nature of the new republican party (or is it the same party just tiring of the pretense?) - they’re white, they’re wealthy. Their tent isn’t torn, they’ve just bought a new tent; it’s smaller and made of more expensive material.

Posted by: Scott at September 28, 2007 7:04 AM
Comment #234690


I can under stand a few ignorant politicians

displaying a lack of CLASS, and I would expect to

see the usual spermicide’s spreading their mess

here, but those whom I have respect for, on this

site, disappoint me a great deal. Sometimes

humility comes with a cost, but with out it,

what are you?




Posted by: -DAVID- at September 28, 2007 7:09 AM
Comment #234694

I think it is presumptuous to say that the Republicans are racist. But they are certainly being short-sighted and, frankly, stupid. They can win elections without the black vote, but if they keep giving the finger to the Hispanic community they are doomed. Many Republicans agree with me on this point.

Of course, if they want to try to keep getting elected as the White Guy Party that is fine with me. :)

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 28, 2007 8:34 AM
Comment #234695
why should anyone cater to groups that do nothing BUT focus on the color of people’s skins?

I don’t think Univision cares what color you skin is. They are catering to people who speak Spanish. Is there anything remotely racist about that?

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 28, 2007 8:36 AM
Comment #234699

We continue to look at racism as overt and in your face like during the civil rights movement of the 60’s. The racism today is much more subtle and obviously for white people harder to define (IE: Jena 6 or Bill O’Reilly). It bothers me anytime white people start discussing racism and then say something is not racism. I think we, white folks, (me included) need to be careful before we start defining something that we really have no experience with. What do we know about the day to day struggle of being african-american or any other minority for that matter.

I have lived my whole life in the south first in Charlotte, North Carolina and now in a small coastal town in South Carolina. There is more racism where I currently live than in Charlotte, NC (eventhough we did have Jesse Helms to contend with). The people in my current town are decent people but they just don’t get it. They say they aren’t racist but they are. They are just unable to define it because it is different than the 60’s.

The democratic party of my childhood-50’s and 60’s was the dominate party of the south but white people left the party in droves when the democratic party welcomed minorities. These white people now vote republican. I am a dyed in the wool liberal democrat and do feel that the republican party has now become the party for racists, sexists, immoral business persons, religious zealots and so forth along with decent and moral people. I must agree with the posters here that the republican candidates are playing political games by not meeting with minorities. This is a subtle form of racism but unfortunately understandable. Just as the democratics refused a debate by Fox (I can’t bring myself to say news)which I thought they should have refused but again that was a political move to strengthened the left wing of the party. Lets don’t pretend that politicans on either side do anything that doesn’t help their political future. I don’t feel that democratic party has the corner on morality.

For me personally I am about ready to vote Green because the democratic party is becoming a watered down version of the republican party. I think we should all stand up for inequality but politicans will not lead the way and we should not expect them to.

Posted by: Carolina at September 28, 2007 9:03 AM
Comment #234705

Paul

I do not know that blowing this invitation off is specifically indicative of racism. At first glance the probability of racism is probably the initial though which runs through most peoples minds. It most definitely does resonate an arrogance and sends a message that the declining candidates consider this debate not to be of relevant importance. Regardless of their reasoning a person running for the most powerful position in the world should show a ready willingness and deep desire to serve and anserw to all citizens of this country. Repeatedly blowing them off sets a pattern and does not go unnoticed and is not forgotten at the polling booth.

Some here claim that it is only politics and that these groups should not feel disenfranchised. That is bull s—t. Using politics as an excuse to avoid specific groups of people is indicative of everything that is wrong in government today. It puts the needs of the party, democrat or republican above the needs of their constituents. It says that what is most important to the party is that the party win at all costs regardless of their worth. In other words the needs of the people are secondary to the needs of the party. I don’t believe any congress has ever made this more evident than the last. And it seems that the republicans are still continuing down this road. I wonder will they ever figure out that the people have had enough of being snubbed in favor of party politics.

Posted by: RickIL at September 28, 2007 9:35 AM
Comment #234706

When George Bush reached out to black and Hispanic groups he was condemned as a racist because he was being insincere. When he appointed a black Secretary of State he was condemned because it was a political gesture and not sincere. When he appointed another black (and female) Secretary of State he was being insincere again, and also cynical. When His half Hispanic nephew spoke out for him that was manipulative.

In Texas Michael Williams is supposedly an “Uncle Tom”.
The “blackness” of Republican blacks is constantly under attack.

The Deomcratic Party routinely uses, as they have ALWAYS used, appeals to the prejudice of groups that can be coalesced around a narrow definition of group identitiy. This was the central strategem of the old “Solid South”. Appeal to poor or malleable whites on the basis of the need to preserve purity in society against the laziness and interbreeding from (fill in the hated group here) an you have used racial identification to solidify an electoral hegemony.

The Solid South broke down over the fact Democrats could no longer resist the movement to give blacks the vote, but they were able to cobble together other group-identity coalitions to take its place. The most ironic of these has to be the black vote.

The structural problem in the Republican Party is that its appeal is not to group-identity but to philosophical identity. Conservatives (though not necessarily Republicans in office) believe in things like limitations on government and strict constructionism that take a good deal of explanation.

Democrats can contrast this with how they are going to use the “bad dog” of government to make the “racists” that stand in the way of (fill in your favorite group identity here) quake in their boots.

It’s genius, really. Use the inherent disaffection and inferiority complexes of some self-identified “minority” to enforce group cohesion in an effort to create a political power. Viciously attack the group identity of people who dare to have a mind of their own, and use the PREUMPTION OF RACISM to paint any effort to appeal to the group from outside as cynical.

What is the obvious indication that Republicans are not really racists? In the old days in the South if one stood up to the white supremacist monolith they were called a “(N word) lover”. It was a common statement I remember well from Democrat majority days. Nobody calls a white Democrat such a thing today.

If I were running for office today I would go to minority venues. But I would tell the Republican message. To people raised on group-identity pablum that is tough to chew, but it’s not racist.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 28, 2007 9:52 AM
Comment #234708

Carolina

Yes racism is still very much alive in America today. I live in northern IL about 60 miles out of Chicago. I socialize with a varied degree of people. They range from college professors to factory workers, farmers and professional people. It has been my personal observation that all of these groups still exhibit a lot of racist tendencies. None of them with the exception of a few claim to be racist. But as you say it is a different kind of racism. Most do not openly voice racist remarks. But when they get together in their individual groups the slurs are not rare. I have witnessed them addressing blacks or hispanics to their faces as though they were long lost friends. As soon as that person is out of earshot the jokes and slurs start. They believe themselves not racist because they treat these folks as normal when in a face to face situation. The equality evaporates as soon as they are separated. To be honest it embarrasses me. I do not participate in these antics and sometimes feel that I am looked down on by my peers for not doing so. What these folks fail to realize is that it is still racism even if you only practice it in private.

Posted by: RickIL at September 28, 2007 9:59 AM
Comment #234715

Hallelujah!

I don’t know if it’s racist, but Republicans have been dodging debates by minorities of all kinds. It’s unnacceptable, and it’s chickenshit.

As far as affirmative action goes, I think Powell and Condi’s opinions are very telling. Both of them are for it, and have even publicly said they wouldn’t have the careers they have without it. To make this statement, Condi even had to come out publicly and deny a statement by Bush that she was against affirmative action. I have not seen her disagree with this president on anything, but in this case she publicly said there must be some kind of misunderstanding.

Posted by: Max at September 28, 2007 11:16 AM
Comment #234717


Lee Jamison: In the old Segregated South the Democratic Party were the masters of Jim Crow. They had it down to a science. Then, segregation was disbanded, the voting right’s act was passed. For the first time in many areas of the South, blacks began to vote and although the Democratic party was synonymous with Jim Crow, the blacks voted for the Democrats. Dispite that, the blue states of the South became red states because the whites when’t over to the Republican Party. Why?

Posted by: jlw at September 28, 2007 11:29 AM
Comment #234718

RickIL,

And? So these people are morons, what do you suggest be done about it? Round them up and stick them in jail for what they think?

KansasDem,

I’ll respond a bit more later, but the notion that ALL people see race ignores those who actually and honestly understand the real reality that race does not exist… Perhaps if people wouldn’t buy into the nonsense that ‘all people…’ and instead treat people as individuals it might help our future a bit…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 28, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #234720

Rhinehold,

You don’t see race at all? You have no biases? Even ones that perhaps you are not aware of? You’re one hundred percent certain of that? In a court of law, you couldn’t say whether the defendant was white or black? You’re that enlightened?

Everyone sees race. Race does scientifically exist. You live in denial.

Posted by: Max at September 28, 2007 11:56 AM
Comment #234722

Max… you are completely missing the point and getting hung up on semantics. I hardly think anyone is suggesting we do not physycally see color of skin… no more than hair or eye color… but we do not segregate groups of people by eye color, why is skin color different?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 28, 2007 12:22 PM
Comment #234723

Carolina,
I disagree that racism is somehow more subtle today than it has seemed in the past. Racism is Racism - it may express itself differently - but it is racism nonetheless. My wife and I share a hobby. We do historical research on smaller cities prior to visiting them and then go and do what we refer to as a “history crawl.” If you spend time in Wilmington, NC. , Macon, GA., Augusta, GA., Savannah or any number of medium size cities throughout the Southeastern U.S. there is one pervasive element shared by all and that is the visible partition, economically and physically, that exists between the races in each. The look and feel of “Jim Crow” hangs in the air of each of these places, along with other things - but the race element is unmistakable. I believe that evil rarely bares its fangs and snarls at you - it is usually banal and takes some time to bubble to the surface violently as it clearly has in Jena, LA. If you do some research on crime in these cities you will find a greater percentage of crimes related to race than you will elsewhere. There is still the feeling that the poor look up from the slums towards towards the wealthy side of town and long for some equity.

Posted by: Scott at September 28, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #234724

jlw,

I explained the mechanism of Democrat domination of minority voting pretty succinctly. Your question makes the assumpmtion that Southern whites voted as they did in the past exclusively out of bigotry, which itself seems a fairly prejudiced position. In my grandparent’s generation many who were strident desegregationist voted for Democrats because they felt it was the only way to change the ONLY political party there was.

When another party finally had a voice many of us stuck it in the old, racially polarizing party’s eye, thank you very much.

The scoop on the Rush Limbaugh thing is that he was talking about a specific “phony soldier” who was convicted of lying about his service record, and who made up stories about atrocities he could not have witnessed because he was drummed out of the service after only 45 days in boot camp. I’m sure he will have this referenced when his website is updated about 4:00 this afternoon.

You know, when I find sources unreliable,(virtually any conservative site on Global Warming,for example) I find other sources.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 28, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #234726

How could you call the Republican candidates for president racists!!!!!!!

They don’t care what color you are, they are going to say anything to get your vote no matter who you are!!!!!!!!

After Election Day they are going to do the work of the corporation that purchased there rotten @$$ during the campaign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take a look at the smirking chimp, do you really think he gives a rats @$$ about what color of people disagree with what he has done after he was elected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hell no he is doing the work of the corporation that purchased his rotten @$$ during the campaign!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 28, 2007 1:08 PM
Comment #234728

Outraged,

Do you think Hillary, with all her illegal campaign contributions and wads of cash from lobbyists for everyone from big law to big oil to big Red Army pays no attention to who stuffs her bank accounts??????????????????????????

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 28, 2007 1:24 PM
Comment #234729
Rhinehold,

You don’t see race at all?

Nope, Race is non-existent, a fairy tale created by our ancestors to explain whey some people looked different than others. Scientifically we have determined that there is no such thing so why should I see something that just simply doesn’t exist?

You have no biases?

Towards the amount of pigment that someone has in their skin? Towards something that no one has any control over? Nope.

Even ones that perhaps you are not aware of?

LOL, what a stupid question that is. But, considering that I understand the science behind the myth of race, I don’t believe so, no.

You’re one hundred percent certain of that?

Yup.

In a court of law, you couldn’t say whether the defendant was white or black?

I could say that they carried a certain level pigment in their skin. That they had physical characteristics. But I would most likely go into details about their eye color, hair color, build, facial features, etc. Those are much more descriptive than ‘they were white or black’ because there are more variations on that than those small ‘groupings’ can hold.

You’re that enlightened?

Depends on what your meaning of enlightened is. If you mean that scientifically I’ve become to understand that changes in the epigenomes get passed onto our children’s dna structure, that our living conditions can and do alter the dns of our chlidren and that any individual’s children, living long enough in a climate like Africa, will eventually appear ‘black’, then yeah.

It’s a simple biological process. Like the markings of a dog within the same breed. Humans are the same breed, we do not have different breeds…

Everyone sees race. Race does scientifically exist. You live in denial.

No, Race does NOT exist, the physical characteristics that we have and can potentially pass onto our children are variable and can be altered by physical environment and other external factors as well. It’s irrelevant and stupid to think that anyone with different skin color, hair type, etc are any different because of that happenstance.

And that YOU see race and choose to treat people differently because of those factors is YOUR problem, don’t project them on to me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 28, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #234730

wow, outraged… that’s a lot of exclamation marks… you must be very outraged…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 28, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #234733

Do you think Hillary, with all her illegal campaign contributions and wads of cash from lobbyists for everyone from big law to big oil to big Red Army pays no attention to who stuffs her bank accounts??????????????????????????

Posted by Lee Jamison at September 28, 2007 01:24 PM Lee Jamison

Lee,

If you don’t like Hillary don’t vote for her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The post is about the republican candidates!!!!!

And I am defending them after they where called racists!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 28, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #234736

wow, outraged… that’s a lot of exclamation marks… you must be very outraged…
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 28, 2007 01:31 PM

Hello Doug!!!!!!!

I think you could be right!!!!!

Or I need to get a new keyboard; some of the key may be sticking!!!!!!!

You have a good weekend Doug!!!!!

And the same to the rest of you blogers!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 28, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #234738

Rhinehold,

I’m not going to argue with you. I think our discussion only goes to show that these terms are so loaded and ambiguous as to be unhelpful. THe point of the thread is that Republicans are dodging minority debates and meetings of all kinds, and that’s very disappointing.

Posted by: Max at September 28, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #234740

And that is why the point of this thread is ‘ironic’, because these same people who profess that they want people to stop treating others differently because of the color of their skin are demanding special attention because of the color of their skin AND implying that the only way people ‘of color’ and journalists ‘of color’ are going to see and ask questions of a presidential candidate is through them…

The worst part is, if they had shown up they would have been labelled as ‘playing to them, only coming around to get a vote’ and if they don’t show up they are labelled as racist…

Where is the incentive, then, to fall into that trap?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 28, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #234746

Rhinehold:
“Race is non-existent, a fairy tale created by our ancestors to explain whey some people looked different than others. Scientifically we have determined that there is no such thing so why should I see something that just simply doesn’t exist?”

Because in saying that race is non-existent, you end up denying the cultures and experiences of many different people. This is huge mistake that so many of those who make comments like yours miss entirely.
Most Liberals don’t make this mistake — we know that culture and experience are important to people, and there is often a great deal of joy and pride that is part and parcel of race, creed, culture and experience. Indeed, this is why the Democratic conventions every four years look exactly like a celebration of people of different colors and creeds, and cultures and experiences coming together. We can respect and appreciate our many differences, yet still share and fight for many common goals.
Sad to say, but this is also (IMO) why the Republican conventions are nothing but a sea of bland Caucasion. I’ve noticed too that while they may have people of various colors and cultures get up on their stage to speak, these are always folks whose demeanor and mannerisms are pretty much identical to that of the White, Christian, and very often wealthy, status quo that comprises the majority of the GOP — and is certainly identical to that of their power structure.

As for the topic of this post, I think Scott’s response really nailed the situation. The GOP front runners could certainly have attended these debates, but they CHOSE not to. The powers that be seemed to have decided to finally drop the pretense that they’re a party who wishes to represent ALL of the people in America. That they see and are sensitive to the many the challenges or problems that different groups of us may have, or may currently be experiencing. It’s sad that they’ve stopped trying, but it’s not like most of us didn’t already know full well that they couldn’t care less about lots of people through so many of their policies and positions.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 28, 2007 3:50 PM
Comment #234747

KansasDem,

Per your post above I never stated you were raised by wolves.

I respect your positions here. I don’t comment when we are thinking alike, and I post when I disagree. You have always been fair. As I hope to be.

It would be my hope you made a mistake and are not trying to promote an image of my postings here that is incorrect.

Posted by: Edge at September 28, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #234748

Sorry KansasDem, I did not see your apology. Noted and appreciated.

Now here is where you are wrong … ;)

Posted by: Edge at September 28, 2007 3:55 PM
Comment #234752

Comment #234526
Richard Rhodes,
I am happy to see young people who have not conformed to the wing nut cloning process!!!!!!!
Myself like the Kansas Democrat, was raised by wolves in the deepest darkest part of the Midwest!!!!!
No matter what they did to me, I could not be assimilated by the wing nut collective!!!!!
Eventually I became what every wing nut fears the most!!!!!!!!
An angry white man who can think for himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Outraged at September 27, 2007 08:48 AM


Let me define raised by wolves!!!!!

In the rural Midwest, win nuts (Republicans) dominate the landscape.
If you where a registered democrat in your county you me be the only one in that county!!!!

If you live in this environment you are expected to conform to the wing nut way of life!!!! It is forced upon you in your home, in your school, in your church and on the street corner!!!!!

That is why I refer to these people as predators (Wolves), they force their way of life on you no matter what you may want!!!!!!!

This is for those of you not familiar with Midwest politics!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 28, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #234754

Rhinehold,

Even if you deny that race exists, certainly you recognize that minority issues exist. For instance, immigration. Regardless of race, immigration is an issue that affects the people that set up these debates. By not attending, Republicans are saying they have nothing to offer these people. It’s not just immigration either. There is literally a sub-nation of blacks living in prisons. I could go on and on… Are these issues of no interest to Republicans? And you’re saying that’s a good thing? That means they are “color blind”? To me that’s a circular argument. The bottom line is that Republicans don’t care about minorities.

Posted by: Max at September 28, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #234755

“That is why I refer to these people as predators (Wolves), they force their way of life on you no matter what you may want!!!!!!!”

How so?

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2007 4:59 PM
Comment #234758

Rhinehold:

So you don’t believe there is such a thing as race? I agree, if you mean that scientifically there is extremely little difference genetically between those that are white and those that are black.

But people in the political world don’t act like scientists. It may come as a surprise to you, but we have white people in this country who are biased against people who have black skin. These people are everywhere. Some of us call such people racists.

We can have a big argument about who is a racist and who is not. However, when the top tier of Republican candidates snubs an invitation to speak to a group of black people, you must admit that this action shows contempt for black people. Call it something else if you want. But call it deplorable.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at September 28, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #234760

Outraged, I do know a little about what you’re saying. I just moved back to the west coast after living for 5 years in Ohio. Whole different ballgame back there, and while going from life in Sacramento, to small-town Ohio was a culture shock, the political landscape became blatantly obvious during the last election fiasco.
I volunteered and spent a lot of time working at the county level for our party, and in doing that, ultimately became good friends with the senior aide for our Congress-woman. We commiserated often over the debacle of that whole election process/outcome.
More in line with this thread, though, is that in a village of some 3500 people, there was one black family that had moved in a short time before I left there. I really didn’t get a chance to see a lot of interaction except for the son, and he was always with a group of the high school kids.
One other thing, is that my husband was 1/4 black, born and raised in Idaho, and grew up in the Mormom religion. That is, until he was 10, had just lost his father and his mom had asked the church for some more help in raising he and his younger brother. At that time, the church told her that they were no longer welcome there as members…….since the father, who was not the black parent…..was no longer around. My husband lost some of the bitterness about that as time passed, but his brother never did. I know the church has changed since then, and now does allow blacks as members, but I do think they still have a certain level within the hierarchy of the church they are allowed to attain.
And you’d be hard pressed to find a handfull of Democrats in the church. So, it was no surpise to me that Romney didn’t show up….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 28, 2007 5:32 PM
Comment #234762

Why is this “group” treated differently from any other group? Like AARP members, veterans groups, etc.? They are all groups, as are these groups of black people. Nothing wrong with identifying with a group of like folks, it’s done all the time.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 28, 2007 5:33 PM
Comment #234763

Seperating people into little controllable groups such as “black people,” instead of including them into the only group that matters: FELLOW AMERICANS…..is what is truly deplorable.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2007 5:36 PM
Comment #234764

Rhinehold

RickIL,

And? So these people are morons, what do you suggest be done about it? Round them up and stick them in jail for what they think?

I am not suggesting that anything be done about it. I would hope that maybe my refusal to participate in racial bashing might make a few of these people wonder why and figure out that what they are doing is morally wrong. My point is that these people represent a large percentage covering a broad spectrum of society. Most of these people would not be comfortable living in a black or hispanic neighborhood. Some would not be comfortable at all with a minority family even living next door. Most would hire a white before a person of ethnic persuasion. Racism exists, most merely approach it more carefully than in the past. Simply denying that it exists will not make it go away.

Lets see, maybe if I deny that my dog is trying to get my attention I will not have to actually take him out to do his thing. I understand your reasoning with regards to racism. I do not however find it to be mired in reality.

Posted by: RickIL at September 28, 2007 5:43 PM
Comment #234768

Kctim:

Most of these folks choose to be part of these groups. That’s wrong somehow?

Of course they are all fellow Americans. They belong to these groups by choice.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 28, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #234769

Because in saying that race is non-existent, you end up denying the cultures and experiences of many different people. This is huge mistake that so many of those who make comments like yours miss entirely.

Through history, and even today, people have been discriminated against based on skin color. Of course this affected culture and it needs to be recognized. However, skin color is not a culture in and of itself. It must be recognized that this discrimination was the result of a myth.
There is no such thing as race and saying so does not deny culture or history. Saying race exists puts you on par scientifically with young-Earth creationists and climate change deniers.

Posted by: TheTraveler at September 28, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #234772

“Torn Tent”…really. Not a single Dem runner thought it important to attend the Democrat Leadership Council. Hillary was the only smart one and she sent her surrogate husband. Sure hope none of these wanna-be’s are counting on my independent vote.

Posted by: Jim at September 28, 2007 7:47 PM
Comment #234777

The debate taking here strikes me as odd because in the scientific community (as opposed to Watchblog, apparently), the claim that there are any inherent racial differences is usually thought to come from the far right.

If racial differences are real, then it follows that racial differences in abilities in various areas are ALSO real. And whether true or not, that opens a whole can of ugliness. If you’re a university researcher, one of the surest ways to be denied tenure or have your research funding cut off is to start claiming that there are inherent differences between races.

Another thing: when talking about ethnicity as opposed to race, I find it very odd when people lump “white people” together as though they are one bland characterless stew. As somebody who has lived all over the country in a variety of communities, I know that nothing could be further than the truth.

In fact, I’d make the argument that the African-American community (at least those who are not recent immigrants and have been here for several generations) have more in common and less diversity culturally than do whites. The Black populations of say, Salt Lake City, New York, Atlanta, and San Francisco have certain differences, but they’re not nearly as obvious as the differences between the whites in those places. And that’s before you even start talking about the differences between the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, Eastern-Europeans, etcetera.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 28, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #234785

Lets see…African Americans (puke for having to speak pc) make up around 12-15% of the population and of those less than 10% vote repub. This “group” (as the dems call them) can either vote to help themselves or keep voting for the same and get the same results. Obviously they are happy with the results they have gotten so what’s the point, at some point you gotta grow up.

UNLESS…you are trying to say they are misinformed and lied to by the same democrats they keep electing.

Hey btw, I hear right to lifer’s and Cuban American want to hold a democratic debate any takers?

Posted by: andy at September 28, 2007 11:25 PM
Comment #234789

Max,

Because in saying that race is non-existent, you end up denying the cultures and experiences of many different people.

No, I am saying no such thing. Each one of us has experiences and history that helps define us. But we should not be judged by them or treated differently because of them …

Paul,

So you don’t believe there is such a thing as race? I agree, if you mean that scientifically there is extremely little difference genetically between those that are white and those that are black.

Well, if by extremely little you mean none (other than the changes in the DNA that exist just like that which make us tall or short, etc…)

But people in the political world don’t act like scientists. It may come as a surprise to you, but we have white people in this country who are biased against people who have black skin. These people are everywhere. Some of us call such people racists.

Yup, and there are those that are biased against people who have white skin. And those who are short. And those who are blonde. etc…

And I have no truck with those that are racist, as I’ve stated already, as they are idiots. It shows their inability to think rationally and lets me know that I can dismiss most of their views since they have proven that they can’t think straight.

But what that has to do with politics, I am having trouble understanding I guess. Shouldn’t we attempt to make everyone’s life as free as possible, allowing them to be racist if they are so inclined, as long as they don’t violate the rights of those people they dislike? Wouldn’t it make the most sense to educate people instead of using the power of force of the government to ‘fix’ it, all the while injecting POLITICS into the mix and creating a tool by which politicans can continue to wedge us apart instead of bringing us together? Your post is a perfect example of what I’m saying…

However, when the top tier of Republican candidates snubs an invitation to speak to a group of black people, you must admit that this action shows contempt for black people. Call it something else if you want. But call it deplorable.

It may be, though I could argue that, and it certainly doesn’t PROVE it. But what does it say when those same people who want to be treated equally call for special treatment? If someone is a racist, that’s bad. If they are a racist who complains that others are racist while saying that without the candidates being at your sponsored debate those others of color will not hear or be engaged by the candates…. isn’t that a little bit worse?

Womanmarine,

Why is this “group” treated differently from any other group? Like AARP members, veterans groups, etc.? They are all groups, as are these groups of black people. Nothing wrong with identifying with a group of like folks, it’s done all the time.

Identifying yourself with a group because of something you have control over is pefectly fine, IMO. Identifying with a group just because your DNA happens to be similar to fight others who want to pigeonhole you for the same reason seems ironic to me…

RickIL,

I am not suggesting that anything be done about it.

You’re not? Then why should they be a political power block, strong enough to demand that people have a special debate on their needs? To what end?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2007 12:08 AM
Comment #234808

By the lack of participation, and no outrage or
comments by the African Americans, that may suggest
they did not give two dead flies about that Rep.
debate, an may even suggest that the few African American Reps. may just vote for some one, other than those
who showed a lack of respect an exclusiveness. I
saw an all white audience, although I only watched
for a short time. I guess if the African Americans
do not care, neither should I.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 29, 2007 6:11 AM
Comment #234922

Rhinehold, you attributed what I said to you to Max. So, even though you addressed this to him, I am going to answer.

“Each one of us has experiences and history that helps define us.”

Right, so to deny the importance of those experiences or that history to individuals merely because you are afraid of acknowledging that they may have something to do with their race, culture or religion is just as wrongheaded as claiming race, culture or religion are the only things that can define people.

“But we should not be judged by them”

You really are missing my point. We are not talking about judging people here. We are talking about acknowledging that differences in experience exist. Many liberals feel that denying people’s experiences is as rude and stupid a thing to do as judging people based only upon their skin color, or culture, or religion.

“or treated differently because of them …”

But people can often be treated differently due to those reasons alone. That is an unpleasant, but very obvious fact that we all know exists. Therefore, acting as though that situation doesn’t exist won’t help to change that problem. Indeed, denying that problems exist is usually the best way to make sure that change can never occur.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 30, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #234955

Womanmarine

“Most of these folks choose to be part of these groups. That’s wrong somehow?”

When it makes being a part of that group more important than being an American, then yes, it is very wrong.

ALL of these “groups” think they deserve special treatment by our govt and in a country in which all men are created equal, that is wrong.

Sadly, the leaders of these “groups” pander to the people and make them feel like victims who deserve “better” because they are a member of a certain group.
Rather than telling them that success only comes to those who work for it, they tell them it is govts job to make them successful.

Not seeing, acknowledging or even caring about these groups does not mean someone is blind.
It means they have progressed past it.

If we are not all members of the only group that matters, Americans, then we are divided and our nation suffers.

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2007 12:41 PM
Post a comment