The Promise and Peril of Ethnic Minority Outreach

Bottom Line Up Front: Ethnic minority outreach means "reaching out" to them where they are, not inviting them to where we are. But it doesn't mean pandering to them based on rhetoric tied to their ethnic identity.

A very important part of the platform is to rebuild our grassroots infrastructure. One of the issues to be debated is how much our party has to centralize or decentralize our grassroots operations; but what's clear is that the fabric of our state, county and local parties has been falling apart.

Part of rebuilding our grassroots infrastructure at the state and local levels has to include pressing the "Restart" button on coalition building among a series of constituency groups, including ethinic minorities. Sophia Nelson, an African-American Republican congressional staffer, writes about minority outreach in an opinion piece in today's Washington Post entitled "It's My Party, But I Don't Feel Part of It."

"The problem, former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele told the Washington Times last week, is that party officials 'don't give a damn.' To them, he said, 'outreach means let's throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them -- 'See, look at us.' And then we go back to the same old, same old.'

"'The party has simply not understood the importance of having highly visible black Republican operatives, elected officials and political spokespersons working for it on an ongoing basis,' adds an African American who worked for the Republican National Committee during the administration of the first President Bush. 'It's not our message as much as it is our messengers that are killing us.'

"It didn't have to be this way. Only a few years ago, then-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman was aggressively reaching out to the black community. At the NAACP convention in 2005, he apologized for the party's past embrace of racial polarization to gain political advantage. 'We were wrong,' he said. But Mehlman's efforts, like those of George H.W. Bush and President Gerald R. Ford in the 1970s and, ironically, Lee Atwater in 1989, have never really been followed up on in a way that has successfully made inroads and attracted black voters to the GOP fold."

Steele is right! (I have yet to be impressed by any of the candidates for the Chairmanship ofthe RNC, but Steele is starting to impress me.) While having highly visible ethnic minority operatives is nice, we make no effort (no matter what race our party leaders might be) to go to visit African-American churches, Hispanic community meetings, etc. I'm convinced that it has to do with the fact that Republican leaders today don't have the self-confidence and/or feel uncomfortable going to what they perceive as "hostile territory." Whenever I've mentioned the idea of visitng ethnic minority churches to GOP candidates and campaign managers, they've always told me it's a waste of time. This is the type of mentality we need to purge from the GOP: a risk-averse, institutional protectionist attitude that's a disease in our party.

But we have to engage in minority outreach the right way ...

"Consider the comments of Shannon Reeves, an African American who started a college Republican chapter at Grambling State University in 1988. In 2003, he wrote an open letter to the party after it was disclosed that in 1999, a newsletter published by the then-vice chairman of the California Republican Party had carried an essay suggesting that the country would have been better off if the South had won the Civil War.

"'I am tired of being embarrassed by elected Republican officials who have no sensitivity for issues that alienate whole segments of our population,' Reeves wrote. 'This embarrassment is different for a black Republican. Not only do we have to sit in rooms and behave professionally towards Republicans who share this ideology, we have to go home to a hostile environment where we are called Uncle Tom and maligned as a sell-out to the community because of our membership in the Republican Party.'"

While there might be some truth to the need to develop certain sensitivities, we absolutely cannot engage "whole segments of our population" with a message that panders to their identity. Republicans cannot talk about "Black issues" vs. "Hispanic issues" vs. "Asian issues" like the Democrats do. Just take a look at Barack Obama's campaign website: under the "People" tab, there are policy agendas for different ethnic segments of Americans, which I find offending because it is antithetical to Obama's campaign rhetoric of coming together as "one nation."

Nelson provides some other steps, in both the public policy and political realms, that future party leaders should consider:

"Republicans need to go to black churches, colleges and other organizations to make the case for the party as a viable option for African Americans. It should mentor and nurture young black Republicans on college campuses, teaching them to canvass, providing paid internships and encouraging them to attend party rules and platform meetings, where real political power resides. It should introduce elected black state and local officials to the national donor base to help them build their coffers for future elections. It should recruit blacks in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic and in urban districts, offering a Marshall Plan of sorts to rebuild our cities, encourage entrepreneurship and small business start-ups and promote lower taxes for job creation."

These are great ideas. The only problem is that most of these ideas, including invitations to party meetings, would never be accepted by current GOP leaders who want to protect their status. A question to all of the candidates for the RNC Chairmanship: are you willing to take risks? Are you willing to engage in real outreach efforts that don't concede any large segment of voters?

Instead of trying to be creative with a message and tailoring policy around that message (a characteristic that we saw during the McCain campaign), let's be creative with domestic, economic and social policy and tailor our message around those policies. An agenda of "equal opportunity" might be able to reach out to different ethnic groups (and even to centrist constituencies across the board) without pandering to their indentities.

So what are the next steps?

  • Embrace the reality that communities are formed around common identities while also coming up with an agenda that can reach out to all communities. (I've discussed this at length about the Asian-American constituency.)
  • As Patrick discusses, use Web 1.0 and 2.0 platforms to build the netroots of the Right that can merge with a rebuilt grassroots infrastructure. Recruiting activists and educating them about these tools will be critical.
  • Visit every church, every potluck, every ethnic coalition meeting, etc. at the local level to talk about local issues. Any strategy to build a GOP Farm Team must include candidates and party officials that are willing to step outside of their comfort zone.

To put it in twelve words: the next leaders of the Republican Party need to grow a pair.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (4 votes)


The contradiction though

is that what may appeal to minorities is what may turn off those white suburban voters that we lost this election cycle; I'm of the belief that one of the reasons why Bush won 44% of the hispanic vote in 2004, compared to 35% in 2000 and 31% for McCain this year is that moral values was the #1 issue.  He was also able to win 16% of the black vote in key states such as Ohio for the same reason in my opinion.  Minorities are heavily religious and tend to be more socially conservative than white liberals.  However, the mainstream media is pushing the narrative that we have to de-emphasize what they refer to as "social issues" (even the author of the Washington Post article states that but I would ask her to explain how did Bush do so well with minorities in 2004 if not for social issues) in order to win back the 5% swing of suburban whites that we lost this time around.

I do not believe for a second that we should surrender the emphasis we place on social conservatism but at the same time, we have to think of ways to appeal to minorities and white suburbanites on an economic level.  Talking about vouchers won't be enough.

Here's a thought: the military is being composed more and more of minorities.  Is emphasizing a neoconversative foreign policy a possible way to win back minorities, especially if Obama adopts a "progressive" or "realist" foreign policy?  The decline in the surge (partially because it worked so well and contrary to Obama's claim that it was "beyond anyone's wildest imagination," Petreus, Bush, McCain, and Palin all envisioned the surge succeeding) as an issue hurt McCain.

you're going to go after minorities based on foreign policy?

gee. how brill.

I work in a ward that has 20 murdered folk this year.

A friend of mine keeps a Killadelphia murder count.

People with real problems aren't going to want to listen to foreign policy -- unless that's a real problem. Which it ain't. Cityfolk ain't gonna worry about terrorism -- just look at how many people are attending the inauguration.

That was true in 1988, when

That was true in 1988, when the proportion of whites on the population was bigger. Today, you simply can´t win a election losing almost 70% of the Hispanic vote. In some years that will be enough to put Texas, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Florida on the Democratic column. That´s more than 150 Electoral Votes.

appealling to blacks is counterproductive

Going to black churches to pander to the most liberal group is the U.S. is not only a waste of time but counter productive. The costs of gaining a single black vote for Republicans is the lost of dozens of conservative votes who do not want to be in a political party that supports quotas, set asides, affirmative action, and state sponsored racism.

Unless the Republicans are willing to abandon any pretense of being conservative and want to Democratic Party, V 2.0, then appealling to blacks is a total waste.  My guess is that Ms. Nelson was never really a conservative but saw career opprotunities to be a quota black for stupid, pandering Repubicans.  How else could someone who supports race based reparations ever be considerd a Republican.

If you believe African-Americans are liberal across the board...

If you believe African-Americans are liberal across the board, then you really should try to take part in outreach because you have a lot to learn. For example, if you want to meet a population that is fed up with crime and coddling criminals, meet urban, working class African-Americans. They are no-nonsense law and order hard-liners on crime and punishment.

Going to black churches to pander to the most liberal group is the U.S. is not only a waste of time but counter productive.

Based on my experience, which limited but direct, this only shows how much we have to learn about where African-Americans really are on a range of issues where conservative ideas and policies may be able to gain real traction.

Do these same voters want to improve the Justice system? Do they have concerns about members of their community being treated fairly? Do they have concerns about the high incarceration rates of African-American men? You bet they do. But do they want to see the criminals who prey on them and their neighbors get a break? No way! So, yes, outreach needs to be made to tease out the different ways this community sees and has experienced the Justice system. Does a tough on crime GOP that comes to recognize and work with them to address their legitimate grievances with the Justice system have a chance of winning their votes? I certainly think so.

BTW: I don't know where this comes from:

My guess is that Ms. Nelson was never really a conservative but saw career opprotunities to be a quota black for stupid, pandering Repubicans.  How else could someone who supports race based reparations ever be considerd a Republican.

But the implication that all African-Americans support reparations for slavery is just plain ignorant. Put that baggage down, that trip is over.

blacks have little in common with conservative whites

Blacks are overwhelming in their support of black criminals.  Black juries almost ever convict blacks accused of commiting crimes against whites.  Look at how the black community respnded to the OJ verdict and you will see that they see nothing wrong with criminal behavior and lawlessness. 

Blacks demand a large, big spending government that provides no work jobs, security, and taxes whites to transfer the wealth to blacks.  Blacks do not care about improving their communities.  When a group repeatedly votes for black politicaisn such as Kwame Kilpatrick, Marion Barry, Cynthia MckInney, Maxine Waters, and Shirley Jackson Lee. 

The idea that upper middle class whites appearing in black churches and convicing a group that is much more likely to be employed by the government that conservative policies are good is delusional.

As long as Republicans insist on pandering to blacks and Hispancis, they will continue to lose white votes without gaining any minority votes.  Does  anyone really believe that the Republicans can counter the message of the Democrats: tax whites and give the money to blacks and Hispanics?

Too broad and generalizing a view

Like all human beings, African-Americans have complex takes on issues of all stripes. There is room for common ground, there are conservative solutions to crime and other social conservative positions that can appeal to African-Americans if good-faith dialogue can be established. Making the guilt or innocence of OJ at litmus test or the alpha and omega for white conservatives understanding of African-American thought about Justice is to foreclose any possibilities of rapprochement, cooperation and political alignment. If that remains your litmus test, then you are not going to be participating in such outreach.

I believe there is common ground. It will need to be explored in good faith and even so it may be determined that the differences are too great. Nevertheless, I believe based on my committment to the univeral value of conservative solutions to difficult problems that the effort should be made. Remember, we don't need to win 90% of the African-American vote. If we doubled our percentage in 2012 and laid the ground work for increasing those percentages going forward we would be cutting into the Democratic advantage in that subsector of the electorate.

superdestroyer, I recognize we are going to continue to disagree on this. So, let's let that be in good faith. I appreciate your comments and your willingness to make them.

the cost of having superdestroyer

and other people who are definitively racist, in a colorblind sort of way, is that it drives off people with eyes.

People who can see the power structure in our communities, and know what White Priviledge really is.

I figure such people would still vote for a Republican, even if you were actively working on helping the poor, the ignored, and the desperate.

I think they like the brassy tone the Republicans are taking on foreign policy -- and if you're smart, you might be able to play to the "crazy brownies" outside of the US. I think there's a way you can do that, without pissing off our minority population. Well, most of it.

Racebased reparations are better than socialism -- haven't you heard of the Ownership Society?


Appealing to blacks means outpandering the Democrats

If the Republicans are going to appeal to blacks, then Republicans are going to have to support affirmative action, quotas (See 8a contracting), race morning, separate and unequal (See the Gratz and Grutter cases), forced busing for social engineering purposes (See Seattle and Louisville), and a larger public sector to employ more blacks.

Appealling to the liberalist group in the U.S. means abandoning any pretense of being conservative and being a me-too big government, semi-socialist, pro-social engineering party.  It also means tolerating much higher taxes, higher crimes, lousy public schools.

the costs of appealing to blacks is beyond any possible return.  Why not appeal to white collar suburban whites again instead of continuing to alienate them while pandering to a group that will never, ever vote for Republicans.

appealing to whtie collar suburban whites

is also appealing to inner city blacks.

because they don't like racists, nor being considered racists.

look at the other comments

that is a perfect indication of why the Republicans cannot recover with minorities.  Republicans have conditioned their base to hate any programs geared towards helping working class minority communities, and as a result they have force dthemslves to decide between a shrinking minority of traditional conservatives and a growing minority of minorities.  Liebral whites are already with the Democrats and moderate white are with the Democrats right now but their scale tipping abilities are quickly declining.

You guys are your own worst enemy

 I've had really suprising conversations with black democrats over unions.  Unions have made a push in the last decade or so to make inroads with minorities, it's hard because 1) historically unions fight for what's theirs and want their kids to take the spoils and their kids aren't minorities 2) They wind up in fights about immigrant labor which will take whatever they can get are hard to unionize.  That's a wedge you could theoretically use.  It won't work because your average republican is a bunch of know-nothing, white nationalist, bullshit.

The deal killer is your average talk-radio republican.  No matter what the message is, the GOP following is seen as dangerous to their existance.  That's it.  I know Cuban exile, GOP-to-the-bone people, citizens for thirty years,  who left the party because they didn't want to live in an America where they might wind up in some ICE raid because some hayseed decided they had an accent and locked everyone up.

I'm not sympathetic to your cause, If anything I say actually helps you I'd be ashamed.  What's happening here is so obvious though that I feel like I have to say something.  Demographics can be overrated especially as a projectory science, but that's what destroyed you in 2006 and 2008 and if you can't retool to be something other than Lou Dobbs angry, white, peoples party 2010 isn't going to look good either.


you catch that Al-Jazeera piece on Appalachia

and why they don't like blacks around there?

'course, I hear the same thing out of Philly -- unions aren't always the friendliest places for people of color.

Unionize, globalize -- eventually they'll straighten out, but it may take a while.

No I must have missed that.

Mainly because I am uninterested in Islamicist propaganda.  Applachia isn't really all that racist any more.  Most people in Applachia are actually some of the most friendly white country folks to blacks.  Hell there are now redneck gangs of blacks running around Harlan County, Kentucky.  Which isn't suprising because the last time I checked it was number one rural county in the US for crime.

Of course there is still that legacy of racism left in Applachia as personified by Sen. Robert KKK Byrd.  But lets face it, that man hung up the sheets long ago in order to use the welfare state plantation to keep the black n-words in their place (he has said that he believe there is such a thing as white n-words).

Anti-free press much?

al-jazeera is the only free press in the muslim world. i.e. not state owned. you might want to check it out, it's got an interesting perspective due to its audience.

but hey, if you hate free markets so much, why not just listen to voice of america all day long, instead of fox propaganda?

I listen to neither

Al-Jazeera is basically pro-Islamicist.  If it weren't, it would not be allowed to operate in the Middle East.  That is the problem with any actual religious religious-based facism.  Bust since you have leftw-ing fascist views, I'm not suprised you find kinship with its movement.

I am not competent to respond to this statement.

you DARE, you vile piece of shit that crawled out of a person's mouth because you were too awful to be eaten by someone who likes to eat shit?


Thank you

With that idiotic rant coming from the likes of you, I will take that as a compliment. 

Ok, that rips it

With that one vile little juvenile post, RisingTide, you've convinced me that you have all the intellectual firepower of an adolescent living in Mommy's basement. 

Here's what you've won!

  • You're now entitled to 0% credibility in every other comment you've posted on this site (and they are legion)
  • You've successfully achieved Full Troll Status

Now drive through to whatever online village is desperately searching for its Token Idiot.

then feel free to put me in your killfile

it's a free country.

How would you suggest I respond to someone who equates socialism with fascism?

Personally, I think you can just write that up as one person stepped on someone else's nerves, and the someone else (me) decided to vent.

Don't Frame it as Minority

The problem that I have with framing any outreach program to a specific group of people who we distinguish by their race is the very idea that our rhetoric and our policies need to stop distinguishing people by race. Lets stop talking about the "white suburban" voters and the "inner city black" vote. The Republican party needs to go into territory that it has not been winning for some time now, but it can't be an outreach program to the "black" or "hispanic" or "asian" community. It needs to be an outreach to cities, and poorer communities.

In 2006, Democrats started targeting suburban districts that had once been GOP strongholds. This was Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel. They were doing it in such a fantastic way that none other than Newt Gingrich was recommending conservatives read Schumer's book to find out what we were up against. I did read it, and it is telling of how we as Republicans need to start thinking about elections. The problem with our message in cities (and thus black and hispanic, and even asian communities) is that we DONT HAVE A PRESENCE in the cities. As long as the suburbs went Republican, the National Republican Party didn't need to really worry about the inner cities and urbanesque suburbs because the suburban vote carried them to electoral victories. However, only now that the suburbs are going Democrat, do we start worrying about the inner city vote.

We need to start by realizing that our American cities are very much in a disgraceful state. People in inner cities don't realize it, but progressive policies have put them in such a state. Democrats control, and often have controlled, our urban centers for years. Thus, there are so many problems with corrupt government at the local level in our cities that if the Republican National Committee were to simply try to re-vigorate the party at the local level and run on reform minded platforms of "good government" then there are many people who may begin to be open to our message and our politicians. One of the reasons we have begun to lose the suburbs is because people from the cities are still flee-ing to the suburbs and taking their "vote Dem." minds with them. It starts with re-establishing healthy viable local Republican Parties.

A Note on saying that Blacks, Hispanics, etc are knee-jerk liberals...

They aren't. To assume that they are is ridiculous. Blacks don't vote knee-jerk liberal, (especially in the cities)  they vote in a machine party mind-set. Living in a city (I've lived in Philadelphia so I know the experience) when you are poor, etc. often requires that you know people and elect people who agree to give you things. Therefore, you vote to uphold the power structure that consistently gets you the things you need. (This is where local inner-city Republican parties need to totally go outside the box). However, go talk with blacks, or hispanics and ask them about the problems of today. Often they will give you the same answer that you or I would give. "Things start in the home" "The politicians are stealing our money" "The schools are failing our children." However, without an alternative message in the cities, because of the lack of even basic structure in the local Republican party, and the support that a message needs in any campaign, blacks, hispanics, asians, and all people in urban areas end up WITHOUT A CHOICE of who to vote for.


Progressive != Corrupt

I voted republican last year because he was the more progressive candidate. So did my entire ward (I'm in a ward that voted for McGovern, back in the day).

This year, Obama yardsigns on every single block -- all those people who voted Republican, now carving pumpkins with obama's face on them.

Thing is, the Republican didn't win.

You'd do better to run a more conservative Democrat in the primary -- and maybe entice him into switching later.

Now this is an intriguing idea...

You'd do better to run a more conservative Democrat in the primary -- and maybe entice him into switching later.

Actually, I kind of like it.  But that's the sort of radical Republican insurgent that I really am.

Framing Agenda Around Communities = Great Idea!

Chris Bannon, thanks for your comment! Coming up with an urban agenda (as well as a suburban, exurban, and rural agenda) might be the way rebuild policy proposals that can tether to the rebuilding of state and local conservative grassroots infrastructure. Separating community agendas from class warfare will be difficult, but not impossible.


Matt, instead of this being a forum for thoughtful response, it looks like these comment sections often turn into people attempting to thwart discussion, or at least get their jollies off by making distasteful comments. (One of the major cons of the internet which is often not discussed). The same thing is unfortunately happening over at For example, I like many of Rep. Ron Paul's ideas and I have reached out to the people who followed his campaign because they employed many of the grassroots tactics that Obama's campaign did and had a great deal of success with them. However, those same people who are asking for inclusion are attempting to ruin what could be a great discussion over at that site. I do not deny that I like the forum being open to everyone because that is how I truly believe that we develop best practices/ideas that can rise from the grassroots to the top. I just wish that people would realize what an opportunity it is to be heard and not abuse that privilege.

Great comment

I hope this comment doesnt get lost among some thoroughly disappointing takes being shown on this post.  I live in Chicago, the Democratic mecca of the United States.  They have structured the political discussion as they see fit.  Despite poor schools, the highest sales tax in the nation, one of the worst crime rates in the nation, and recognized corruption up and down the government spectrum, the Democrats continue to win every election, many of which remain uncontested. It would be amazing to see what could happen in a city such as Chicago if a stronger political team could begin to set the agenda in this city and challenge the incumbents.

Present Day Chicago = future U.S.

You are just experiencing what the U.S. will face in its future.  As the percentage of the voting population who will even consider voting for Republicans shrinks, the national elections will begin to resemble Chicago city elections.   The real elections will be in the Democratic Primary and the Democrats will work hard to control who can run for office.

In the future, the real contest for President will occur in the Democratic primaries between the Iowa Caucus and SuperTuesday.  Since the Republicans will have zero chance of winning and the Republican party will eventually be eliminate by changing demogrpahics, the primaries will be the real election.  Image in 2016 when everyone will know who will replace Obama almost a full year before the next inaugural.

I hope not!

can't y'all do something about this? I kinda like two party rule, and arguing about ideas.


No future for the two party system

the two party system really depends in the U.S. on white voters since all non-white voters vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party.  Of course, it makes sense since the Democratic party promises to tax whites heavily and give the money to non-whites.

However, since the portion of the population that is white is shrinking, there is little chance that the Republicans can remain relevant in the future.  A good predictor is that if the public school is less than 50% white, the city or county is definitely a blue and Repubicans have little chance of victory.

So in the future, the real elections will be in the Democratic Primary.  It is possible that if the same candidate wins the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, the election will be over a full year before the inaugural.



we'll see a lefter country, but a two party system

works out exceedingly well in terms of political coalitionmaking. So I think we'll still see that.

Interestingly enough, the people likely to be taxed under Obama's plan voted for him by six points.

since the democrats vote proportionally, it will only be over then if they choose not to contest it.

It is possible to be president with Iowa and NH wins.

If Obama would have won in NH, the Democratic race would have been over since the money for Clinton would have ended and the MSM would have declared it over.  that is the future of the U.S. the presidential elections will be held in the Democratic primary and end at some undetermined time.

A one party system does not lead to coalitions but to the use of connections or "Clout" as they say in Chicago.  Since changes cannot be made using the political system and peititioning the government does not work, change only comes about by paying off clout advisors who then get changes made. 

One party states look more like modern day Brazil than what most people think of as the U.S.   There will be a small group of rich and a large group of poor and a shrinking group in the middle who have to do the work and pay the taxes.

you mean how the USofA ALREADY looks.

I can see the shrinkage, adn the increasing disdain that the rich have for Joe the White collar professional -- let alone the blue collar guys.

Sorry, but I'm trying my best to do something about it. What are you doing??

What are you doing about it?

I'm trying my best to do something about it


No, you are trying your best to accelerate the process. The Democratic party is the party of the rich and the poor, and seeks to destroy the middle class to make more rich and poor people.

PS - you are the most blatantly racist commenter I've ever seen anywhere on the internet.

goyishke kop.

Umm... so you think that the creative class are rich?

I'll take any research that you can post, if you've got some that refutes Dr. Bonilla-Silva's arguments on Colorblind racism.

good luck, chump.

There you go again.

I told you to put down the crack pipe, maybe you need some rehab.  Anyone who believes in colorblind racism or whatever the heel it is, needs their head examined.

for fuck's sake, if you can't even be BOTHERED to

read the research, stay the FUCK out of the discussion and let those of us who are actually capable of reading talk about the research. Your illiterate understanding is incapable of making decisions on something taht you know nothing about.



don't know what the fuck i'm talkign about?


why do I even bother?

Why do you bother?

You accuse your opponents of hate because you hate our views.  Just as i pointed out.  No, i am not interested in anyone redfining the term racism.  It simply means you view your race (and their really is only three races of humanity) as superior to the other two, or you view one of the races as inferior to the others.  Any other definition, is intellectually absurd without legitimate merit.  But Thanks for playing anyways.


Well, Boogeyman...

At least in your apocolyptic world of the future the Republicans will have a slight chance since they will have somone on the ballot.  On Election Day it was amazing how many city races I skipped over that were left unchalleged by the Republicans.  Its alot harder to win when you dont even have a nominee!!

I'd like to see Black Republicans...

...make more of an aggressive effort at educating Black Democrats and those White Americans suffering from "White Guilt" regarding the history of the GOP and how, from its inception, has gone to battle, literally in some cases for Black Americans.  Fighting and battling "democrats" on their behalf and for their freedom.  If they need material there's a Gent by the name of Michael Zak who has compiled a lot of GOP History especially the GOP's civil rights heritage.   The democrat party has done nothing but work against Black Americans.  Its is an enigma as to why Black America gravitates toward the democrat party. 

One thing for sure, the GOP has NO APOLOGIES TO MAKE in the area of civil rights!!!   Maybe Mr. Steele is confusing the GOP's "don't give a damn" attitude for one that expects him to know something of the sacrifices that the Republican party has made for Black Americans over the last 150 years or so.   Oh by the way,  Michael Steele just got scratched as one of my choices for RNC Chair.   The man is simply not ready if he doesn't understand our GOP heritage and history.   And as for the young lady who says she doesn't "feel" part of the GOP.  Well thats the GOP!  The GOP is made up of individuals.  It is not  the democrat herds that get herded around like so much cattle.  Young lady its not about "feelings" & emotions.  Its about thought,  reason & logic. 

I was so disappointed that Condi Rice didn't come out and campaign for John McCain.  I think it would have made a huge difference.   And Colin Powell, what a huge disappointment.  You know when an organization of any kind does a lot for an individual and that individuals family and career, you'd think that a little show of appreciation would be in order.  I wish them both well but I am sure they'll both experience regrets and shame for abandoning the GOP in it hour of need.  The party that did so much for them and their careers.

PS:  I fully expect to be branded as a racist.    DD 


 "One thing for sure, the GOP has NO APOLOGIES TO MAKE in the area of civil rights!!!   Maybe Mr. Steele is confusing the GOP's "don't give a damn" attitude for one that expects him to know something of the sacrifices that the Republican party has made for Black Americans over the last 150 years or so."

Southern Strategy?  No?  

" Its is an enigma as to why Black America gravitates toward the democrat party."  

Really?  Here's Lee Atwater in 1981:


You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." 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.


And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".

You expect people to ignore campaigns based on racial politics?  That's not to say that Democrats have always been a bastion of civil rights, but Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, and Republicans spent the next 20-30 years at least playing off the resentment of those who opposed it.  You can say it's unfair that Democrats don't have to account for their mixed record on minority rights, but when they're the only people competing for minority votes, they deserve to get them.  It's pretty useless to say "if you don't know the GOP's civil rights history, you're an idiot." Well, Republican and Democrat don't exactly mean the same thing today that they did in 1865, but the parties aren't that different than they were in 1970.  Your first sentence reveals the problem with your perspective.  Why is it up to Black Republicans to educate the populace about the GOP's so called civil rights history?  Why isn't it *your* responsibility? 

What a stretch pseudonym...

...what an absolute and unconvincing stretch.  Johnson's Great Society literally destroyed the fabric of the Black Family.  You pull some obscure quote from a drunken Lee Atwater?  But you leave out Robert "KKK" Byrd?  Albert Gore  Sr  who voted against said Civil Rights Act?  Took the Repub's to pass it! 

You've lost credibility  pseudonym.   

The GOP need make no apologies!  There are plenty of apologies due form the democrats, however. DD

The dead do not cry out for vengeance

and yet tears of blood they cry.

bare bones burnt black

shattered skulls


we know where you lie.

 "The GOP need make no

 "The GOP need make no apologies!  There are plenty of apologies due form the democrats, however. DD"

Does anyone outside the GOP agree with this statement?  It's not a matter of reality, it's a matter of perception, like all things political.  Why do 9 out of 10 black people vote Democrat?  Obviously they disagree that the GOP has nothing to apologize for.  George Wallace broke off from the Democrats on a racist platform, and then Nixon pandered to his voters in '72.  Unfortunately, the period of racist campaigning Nixon's Southern Strategy through Atwater's Horton ads have become an embarrassment to the GOP, and you can't even admit it.  Democrats are almost universally embarrassed by Byrd (note he's been nudged out the door), while folks like yourself are frequently unapologetic about the GOP's recent history of racial campaigning.  You can argue that Atwater, Helms, etc didn't run literally racist campaigns, but they knew better.  They, their voters, and their opposition knew what state's rights and the whole host of other code words meant, and if you find them race neutral because it doesn't involve the word nigger, that makes you the dupe.  


umm... I'm actually proud of Byrd

for determining that principles are bigger than racism. And for having the capacity to change and grow, and to understand that some of what you've done is inexcusably wrong.

two other words: McCain's black baby.

She voted for Obama and she's a Republican?

This guy left out some parts of Nelson's piece.
For instance, She says  that "Republicans will have to do some retooling. We'll have to decide whether we want to be the party that believes in smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation, or whether we're going to be a litmus-test party that responds only to the demands of social conservatives."
She mentions a black businessman who states "the GOP has gotten swallowed up by a social conservative agenda that seems obsessed with religion, guns and abortion"
And here's my favorite: "Reeves expressed what many of us have felt over the years-and felt again during the recent campaign as we listened to racially coded Republican ads and speeches aimed at scaring working class and rural white voters about Obama. Reeves expressed why so many of us, including me, after struggling with our consciences, supporting and voting for the Illinois senator."
Nelson is an Afrocentrist. This can be readily  discerned by reading her blogs or  her many online discussions at the washington post. And in one of those discussions entitled Conservatives, Race and Katrina she quite clearly expresses her support for reparations.
You cannot serve two masters. The degree to which you pledge your allegiance to your ethnicity, culture or skin color is the exact degree to which you have seperated yourself from the American society.
Not that that seperation means anything to Republicans. Hell they don't care what happens as long as they can keep themselves in a position to "reach out". Poor hacks.
Finally, a small thing to be sure; 'Why is it up to Black Republicans to educate the populace about the GOP's so called civil rights history?  Why isn't it *your* responsibility?"
I would ask you this: why isn't it your own responsibility to educate yourself?

Have a nice day

David Tatosian


I hate Dominionists too

but you let THEM in your farking party.

I pledge myself to my religious ethnicity, and YET, that was part of the reason we worked so hard for removing religion from American Schools -- so that there wouldn't be a bible on every teacher's desk.

Freedom of religion in schools, participation in public schools, this is all a part of my ethnic heritage. It is what we worked for.

So, no, you can have participationist ethnicities. It really does happen.

She's not the only Republican

She's not the only Republican who voted for Obama.  Some of these people need to find room in the tent.   

"The degree to which you pledge your allegiance to your ethnicity, culture or skin color is the exact degree to which you have seperated yourself from the American society."

American society is not monolithic.  Republicans appeal to Libertarians in New Hampshire, Confederate-nostalgia folks in the deep South, Evangelical Christians, Neocon Jews, and the Club for Growth crowd.  These people all represent very different aspects of American society with their own highly specific and distinct cultures.  

"'Why is it up to Black Republicans to educate the populace about the GOP's so called civil rights history?  Why isn't it *your* responsibility?'
I would ask you this: why isn't it your own responsibility to educate yourself?"

Educate here is a soft way of saying convince.  I repeated the euphemism because the delightful gentleman I quoted used it.  The onus is on the Republican party, who minority populations do not trust, to convince them otherwise.  Again, if you aren't competing for their vote, why should you get it?  You seem to have a idealistic view of politics where if you agree with more base Republican principles than base Democratic principles, you are a Republican.  This interpretation completely ignores the role of social context, culture, and identity in voter identification.  Republicans have spent the past 30 years convincing/educating Evangelicals that they should vote GOP, and the effort has paid off tremendously.  Democrats have done the same with regard to urban folks and minorities.  You can see the spectres of Nixon and Wallace lurking over both of these developments.  


The GOP has no apologies to make.

Political parties are made up of individuals who adopt by-laws, a constitution and a political platform. The Republican Party's political platform stands, in part, for less government, less taxation and more individual liberty as the foundation for better government. It is the responsibility of the black community to understand, appreciate and come to support this political view point, not the party's.  To suggest the Republican Party needs to bring this message specifically to the black community is, in itself, racist. We need to bring this message to all our liberal, Democratic friends.

In so far as some individuals in the party hold different views than what is stated in the party's by-laws, constitution and political platform, they should and will be held accountable, period.

           ex animo

Operation Rednet 



Where there is opportunity

David, I think you are exactly right is saying that the Republican party should stop looking at these things in terms of black/white/yellow/red/green/purple...Just because people may look at themselves that way in black or white communities does not mean that we should adopt that as our standard. If we stop saying the "black" or "minority" community, in the Republican party, others will follow suit. This is where I think we have a great advantage over the Democrats. We are not tied to the "black" coalition, or the "hispanic" coalition. Instead we have the opportunity to become the standard bearers and say for the 21st Century that race is no longer a factor in our determinations.

I am not saying that people do not sometimes naturally coalesce around others who look and act the same as themselves, however, we need to acknowledge that this should not be the goal. For example, I know this seems trivial, but as Republicans, on the upcoming census we should advocate that there is no checkbox to put race. You either are an American citizen, or you are not. Period. (at the very least we should push for a "Write in American" campaign.)  If we start moving in this direction, we will already be a step ahead of the Democrats because people will stop thinking in terms of race and those people who have consistently voted for a particular party will be much more open to opposing viewpoints rather than toe-ing the party line.

75% of your wealth, statistically comes from racist american

policies, starting with the Homestead Act.

Just by erasing our STATISTICAL knowledge of the inequities in American society, and the still existing systemic racism, you will not make them go AWAY.

Care to try again? Maybe this time without the White Priviledge?