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?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The NAACP represents a group of people defined by skin color, not by ideology.

This is the funniest statement I've seen you post in a while, Cali. Julian Bond ... that non-partisan he.

[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.

[ChinoCoug]

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.

I can understand why Bush didn't go, after all the insults the NAACP hurled at him.

[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.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Bush wasn't invited. It was the other 8 candidates for president who couldn't make it.

in 04 Bush was invited and he declined. I'm not excusing the other candidates for their absence, but I think Bush's rejection set a bad precedent and it's not completely the GOP's fault.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why make it about skin color? Maybe because the organization is called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). It isn't the national association for the advancement of issues unrelated to race.

Why would I be appalled if Democrats don't want to address a pro-life organization? Who would expect them to? Why would I be appalled if Republicans refused to speak to Planned Parenthood? Who would expect them to?

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

You're being dishonest in that you say the NAACP is about skin color and not ideology. Politics is about ideology, not race.

But then, the Dems would surely address the KKK if invited, wouldn't they? After all, that is an organization of white people.