Way to represent, GOP!!!

[Cali Coug]

http://info.detnews.com/pix/photogal...es/index12.htm

When Tancredo is the candidate from your party who shows the most interest in minority rights, your party has a problem.

[il Padrino Ute]

Let's be honest here - would the NAACP really endorse a Republican?

Why waste time if it is no doubt going to be fruitless.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't know- maybe they could learn something?

Such as?

It's all about politics. Do you really think a Democrat would show up if they were invited to address the Pro-life Action League?

I say no.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The NAACP represents a group of people defined by skin color, not by ideology. Your comparison to the pro-life action league isn't a good one.

I would hope you don't have to think too hard to come up with some examples of things people could learn by sitting down and talking to the members of the NAACP.

I could do it, but that isn't my point and I think you know it but don't want to admit that the Dems are just as closed-minded about issues as the Republicans.

You don't think the NAACP has anything to do with ideologies?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Both parties can be closed-minded on many issues. But for one of the two major US parties to avoid addressing the most prominent organization that represents African-Americans in the United States is appalling.

I hoped for better.

Why do Democrats make it about skin color?

My point is still valid - the Dems would not address the most prominent Pro-Life organization in the country. I would hope that it would be just as appalling to you.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Refusing to speak to an organization whose membership is defined by race is an entirely different category.

I don't see what is so odd about not going to speak to an organization who is so rudely opposed to you. I think Limbaugh calls it the NAALCP ("liberal"), and he's right.

Moreover, 90% of 2000 black voters voted for Gore. Politicians listen to people who vote for them. It's the same reason why senior citizen issues are always on the table while the 18-25 crowd gets legislative table scraps. Old folks vote and young folks don't.

One can argue that it ought to be the other way around, but that's just not reality. If the blacks as a race want to attract the attention of the GOP, they'll have to do a better job in how they divvy out their loyalty. Otherwise they'll continue get the cold shoulder (and suspicious eyes) from Republicans, and nothing but lip service from the Democrats.

The GOP, for it's part, can do a better job of outreach as well, but I don't consider the NAACP part of that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is the job of blacks to "attract the attention of the GOP?" Are you serious? So there isn't any chance that the GOP isn't getting the black vote because they may be doing something wrong (like refusing to speak to the largest black association in America, for example). Instead, it must be the blacks' fault for not getting the GOP excited to talk to them!

I'm not the first person (nor has it been only whites) to observe that the blacks have been wholly in the back pocket of the Democrat party, to the extent that the Democrats have taken them entirely for granted.

I did say, in case you didn't notice, that the GOP has to do a better job of outreach. But ultimately political parties respond to constituencies and not the other way around. Surely a brilliant political observer such as yourself recognizes this.

The NAA"L"CP is nothing more than an arm of the Democrat party. No reason for the GOP to go into "enemy" territory to be heckled and mocked by a bunch of people who have already decided to vote against you before you've ever opened your mouth.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Maybe I will just read Rush Limbaugh's statements on the matter so I can at least spare myself of listening to your paraphrasing of his thoughts as if they were your own.

You certainly could. It wouldn't make this response any less of a dodge, however.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You certainly could. It wouldn't make this response any less of a dodge, however.

Political parties respond to constituencies AND constituencies respond to political parties. To pretend it is all a one way street is disingenuous to say the least.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Political parties respond to constituencies AND constituencies respond to political parties. To pretend it is all a one way street is disingenuous to say the least.

Then I guess it's good I didn't pretend that, isn't it.