Republicans have trouble mastering the "big tent"

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Hispanic Outreach

Going wonderfully for the GOP.

Everyone talks about how crucial the Latino vote is going to be in November. Both parties are putting out literature and Web pages in Spanish in an effort to communicate better with this huge constituency.

The Republicans have a sign-up page -- called "Abriendo Caminos" or opening paths -- that promises Spanish-speaking folks that President Bush and the GOP will "send you weekly news about the topics that most interest you."

The sign-up page asks the usual stuff -- name, address, telephone number and e-mail address. You are to check which of many listed topics -- immigration, health, Social Security, corporate responsibility, crime prevention and so on -- are of most interest.

Then it asks what you are. There are four options: war veteran or retired military; teacher or educator; senior citizen; or farmer or rancher. That's it. Nothing for lawyers, doctors, engineers or corporate executives to check.

Not even a box for "otro?"

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_30_atri...635691463212438

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

Información adicional para suscripción

Conéctese con el Presidente George W. Bush y con republicanos a lo largo y ancho del país. Semanalmente, le enviaremos noticias sobre los temas que más le interesan.

Nombre

Apellido

Dirección

Ciudad

Estado

Código Postal

Teléfono

() -       Dirección de correo electrónico

Temas que me interesan:

Inmigración

Educación

Empleo y Economía

Salud

Seguro social

Reducción de impuestos

Protección del territorio nacional

Defensa nacional

Responsabilidad corporativa

Prevención del crímen

Valores de familia

Soy:

Veterano de Guerra /Jubilado de las Fuerzas Militares

Maestro / Educador

Persona de la Tercera Edad

Granjero o Ranchero

Suscríbame

http://www.hdcsolutions.com/xpress_mail/rn...nol/index.shtml

[Ranger12 46]

Sniff, sniff. Do I smell more desperation? Seems like liberals are wanting to use the race card alot here lately. However, it seems that the forget their history when it comes to which party supports minorities more. Somehow it has gotten twisted that the democrats are all about the minorities when it fact it has alway been mostly democrats who supported segregation. In our countries past, it was a republican who advance minority rights. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself. Who signed the Civil Rights bill into law? Who made MLK's b-day a national holiday? Who appointed the first black Secretary of State? Who appointed the first black female NSA? Who appointed Clarenece Thomas to the Supreme Court. Then, see what governors and congressman stood against integration back in the day. Yet, liberals want to take a questionaire and turn it into a race thing.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Sniff, sniff. Do I smell more desperation? Seems like liberals are wanting to use the race card alot here lately. However, it seems that the forget their history when it comes to which party supports minorities more. Somehow it has gotten twisted that the democrats are all about the minorities when it fact it has alway been mostly democrats who supported segregation. In our countries past, it was a republican who advance minority rights. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself. Who signed the Civil Rights bill into law? Who made MLK's b-day a national holiday? Who appointed the first black Secretary of State? Who appointed the first black female NSA? Who appointed Clarenece Thomas to the Supreme Court. Then, see what governors and congressman stood against integration back in the day. Yet, liberals want to take a questionaire and turn it into a race thing. 

Do your homework. Most of the Dems that stood against integration have became Republicans. And guess what? Clarence Thomas was not the first African-American on the S.Ct. . LBJ nominated Thurgood Marshall a long time ago.

LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights bill into law (Congressman G.H.W. Bush and Senator Al Gore, Sr. voted against it as did most southerners, Republican and Democrat). Republican congressmen largely supported the legislation. In fact, Dem. LBJ praised Republicans for their support. Of course, the Republican Party of 1964 bears little resemblance to the Republican Party of 2004. In fact, even 25 years ago I identified more with the Republican party of that time.

Reagan opposed the MLK legislation since he considered MLK a "communist sympathizer", but he finally signed it after it passed, (Kinda like Dubya signing McCain-Feingold). On the other hand, Bob Dole was a strong supporter of the holiday by 1983 and said to critics concerned with the costs: "I suggest they hurry back to their pocket calculators and estimate the cost of 300 years of slavery, followed by a century or more of economic, political and social exclusion and discrimination."

Each party has its historical plusses and minuses in this regard. And what the parties have stood for over the years has been quite fluid, from a long-term historical perspective. (Ask your great-granddaddies who voted for Reagan if they ever thought they would vote for someone from Hoover's party.)

Check your sense of smell. The point of this post was the narrowness in which the person(s) who came up with this "outreach" viewed the ethnic group they are trying to appeal to. You can probably find similar ones by Dems.

[MDM4AU 336]

One thing to consider too, Tex, is that most Physicians, Lawyers, Corporate Execs., Engineers that are here in the US are educated enough to not only read english but have also already registered to vote.

I'm not saying there is NO narrow mindedness here. But to totally act as though the Administration would assume no Latinos were "Professionals" is spinning a bit as well.

[quietfan 233]

While as a Democrat, I always enjoy it when the Republicans screw up, I've got to be honest and say it doesn't look like this form is meant to be exclusive or biased to me.

I don't think the last question is trying to establish the occupation of every person that signs up, and limiting the options to those four. It looks more to me like it is merely trying to identify particular special interest groups toward which they may choose to target particular information/media releases.

In other words, it looks to me more like it means something like this:

Are you a member of one of the following groups?

     Military or Retired Military?

     Teacher or Educator?

     Senior citizen?

     Farmer or Rancher?

Certainly these four groups are recognized by most politicians as having special interests and therefore being worthy of special attention.

[Ranger12 46]

While as a Democrat, I always enjoy it when the Republicans screw up, I've got to be honest and say it doesn't look like this form is meant to be exclusive or biased to me.

I don't think the last question is trying to establish the occupation of every person that signs up, and limiting the options to those four. It looks more to me like it is merely trying to identify particular special interest groups toward which they may choose to target particular information/media releases.

In other words, it looks to me more like it means something like this:

Are you a member of one of the following groups?

    Military or Retired Military?

    Teacher or Educator?

    Senior citizen?

    Farmer or Rancher?

Certainly these four groups are recognized by most politicians as having special interests and therefore being worthy of special attention.

Well said quietfan. It is pity politics that points silly things like that out that takes away from the reall issues that need to be discussed. Whether you are a dem or republican, the debates should be about the issues, not about the way a survey is worded.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

While as a Democrat, I always enjoy it when the Republicans screw up, I've got to be honest and say it doesn't look like this form is meant to be exclusive or biased to me.

I don't think the last question is trying to establish the occupation of every person that signs up, and limiting the options to those four.  It looks more to me like it is merely trying to identify particular special interest groups toward which they may choose to target particular information/media releases.

In other words, it looks to me more like it means something like this:

Are you a member of one of the following groups?

     Military or Retired Military?

     Teacher or Educator?

     Senior citizen?

     Farmer or Rancher?

Certainly these four groups are recognized by most politicians as having special interests and therefore being worthy of special attention.

Well said quietfan. It is pity politics that points silly things like that out that takes away from the reall issues that need to be discussed. Whether you are a dem or republican, the debates should be about the issues, not about the way a survey is worded.

That's what I admire about you Ranger-- your steadfast, objective analysis of the issues.

[TrueBlue72 0]

I have to agree with quietfan on this one. I was going to post the same ideas, but he said it as well as it could be said. TT, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a storm out of nothing!!! Or were you just parrotting something that you found on one of the pinko websites?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I have to agree with quietfan on this one. I was going to post the same ideas, but he said it as well as it could be said. TT, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a storm out of nothing!!! Or were you just parrotting something that you found on one of the pinko websites?

"Make a storm"..."pinko websites"..."parroting"?

My original post was without comment. My follow up post in response to Ranger 12 was in direct response to his assertion that Republicans do more for minorities than Democrats. That response, if you bothered to read it, was a fairly balanced and factual account which included this conclusion:

Each party has its historical plusses and minuses in this regard. And what the parties have stood for over the years has been quite fluid, from a long-term historical perspective.

What exactly are you whining about? Or are you merely trying to make a storm outta nuthin'?

[mcgufcm 4,107]

geez all this non-sense over a joke. people. take this post how it was meant. this thread is like watching leno do headlines and writing in because he was changing the meaning of what the store wanted to say... it's better if you just keep that to yourself and enjoy the joke. i don't think they were trying to be narrowminded so much as identify special interests. however the wording makes it funny. i'm sorry it just is. especially from the republican party.

and the soutern dem. of the past is the southern republican of the present. it's a switch that took place over time (mainly the 80s), but it's an almost complete switch. the republican party (and i think most who claim it would admit) does not do a great job of reaching to minorities or focus much on representing them.

[quietfan 233]

Pick your historical period.

Today, the Republican Party is generally conceded to be the more conservative, which is why so much of the white South has gone Republican.

But at one time, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln, emancipation, and equal rights for African-Americans. It was after Reconstruction, when the traditional white power structure was able to reclaim ascendency, that the South became know as the "Solid South" for the Democrats. Jim Crow laws successfully eliminated the black vote and the conservative southern whites who associated the Republican Party with Lincoln, emancipation, and Reconstruction would never consider voting Republican.

Then, by the 1960's, '70's, & '80's, the Democratic Party took the lead nationally as the party for civil rights and protection of minorities. Your typical white conservative Southern made the jump to the Republicans then.

Bottom line...the conservative southern white voter has never changed his stripes, the Parties have changed theirs.

[CCTAU 3,349]

The Republican party of today stresses the success or failure on each individual. The Demoncrats of today still enslave all minorities by forcing them to accept the governments definition of being less than normal BECAUSE you are a minority. So as WE, the republicans, try to move forward on race relations, YOU, the demoncrats, continue to hold them back so you can get their vote.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Then, by the 1960's, '70's, & '80's, the Democratic Party took the lead nationally as the party for civil rights and protection of minorities.  Your typical white conservative Southern made the jump to the Republicans then.

Bottom line...the conservative southern white voter has never changed his stripes, the Parties have changed theirs.

Actually, the Republicans were the ones who led the charge for the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, but they were the minority party in both houses of Congress, especially the House of Representatives. They got that ball rolling and were pushing President Kennedy to get behind it. Fortunately he did and Kennedy got moderate Democrats to go with him. Johnson took up the battle after Kennedy's death. But without the Republican support for the Civil Rights Act, it wouldn't have made it because the Democrats were fractured over the issue. Republicans voted for the CVA much higher proportions (138-34, 80%) than did Democrats (152-96, 61%).

I'm not usually given to linking to Newsmax as I think they are over the top much of the time, but they have an article that gives some interesting detail on the passage of the CVA and the years that led up to it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...13/194350.shtml

And finally, I reject the notion that the "white, Southern, male voter" hasn't changed. That's the kind of rhetoric so typical of uninformed liberals who do anything to paint conservatives in a bad light. Most white, male Southerners bear little resemblance to their Dixiecrat forebears and if you would take time to consider that people across the aisle might not be the monsters you think they are, you'd know that. This is very abnormal for you, quietfan. I'm disappointed.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Do your homework. Most of the Dems that stood against integration have became Republicans.

Dude, I dont know about Texas, but here in Alabama, those guys are still yellow dog Democrats. No lie!

And guess what? Clarence Thomas was not the first African-American on the S.Ct. . LBJ nominated Thurgood Marshall a long time ago.

He didnt say FIRST. He said he nominated him and got him approved after a "public lynching" by the Dems Metzenbaum and Kennedy. Ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?

LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights bill into law (Congressman G.H.W. Bush and Senator Al Gore, Sr. voted against it as did most southerners, Republican and Democrat).

True

Republican congressmen largely supported the legislation. In fact, Dem. LBJ praised Republicans for their support. Of course, the Republican Party of 1964 bears little resemblance to the Republican Party of 2004. In fact, even 25 years ago I identified more with the Republican party of that time.

I find the Goldwater Republicans a little over the top but I think the Reps of today are very much like them, just much less intense.

[quietfan 233]

And finally, I reject the notion that the "white, Southern, male voter" hasn't changed. That's the kind of rhetoric so typical of uninformed liberals who do anything to paint conservatives in a bad light. Most white, male Southerners bear little resemblance to their Dixiecrat forebears and if you would take time to consider that people across the aisle might not be the monsters you think they are, you'd know that.

Of course, I'm a southern white male voter myself, although not a conservative white voter. So certainly there are exceptions to everything and I should perhaps make it clear that I'm talking in generalities, not absolutes.

Yes, most southern whites have accepted the idea of equal rights under the law and the basic injustice of the old Jim Crow system. But for the most part, the conservative belief system of most southern whites I know hasn't radically changed...they are still generally distrustful of government efforts aimed at helping minorities or the poor, they are still suspicious of minority groups that refuse to quietly accept the status quo, and they are somewhat fearful of cultural changes that threaten their long-held conservative Christian conventions.

I don't think that make them monsters, just more drawn to the Republican Party than the Democratic.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Yes, most southern whites have accepted the idea of equal rights under the law and the basic injustice of the old Jim Crow system. 

I'd say it's gone way beyond mere "acceptance" to belief that it was and is the morally right thing to do. They would repudiate the old system altogether.

But for the most part, the conservative belief system of most southern whites I know hasn't radically changed...they are still generally distrustful of government efforts aimed at helping minorities or the poor,

Yet they aren't against helping the poor, regardless of their race. You are right when you say they don't trust government to do this very well or to be ultimately solving the problem. In fact, they'd say that many of government's attempts to "help" have made things worse and hindered the poor's progress up the economic ladder.

they are still suspicious of minority groups that refuse to quietly accept the status quo,

To me, this is liberal spin. No one is expecting anyone to quietly accept unjust conditions or laws. What they are suspicious of are minority groups that refuse to quietly accept equal opportunity; instead demanding equal results...and immediately assuming that if the results are unequal, then it must be racism or societal hindrances to their progress rather than first looking to themselves for a possible reason for less than desirable results.

and they are somewhat fearful of cultural changes that threaten their long-held conservative Christian conventions.

"Fearful" is an interesting word. I'd say they hold a firm belief that certain basic moral tenets are non-negotiable. They believe that the nation that affirms proper morality is blessed and the nation that casts off restraint and makes up laws and morality as the political winds blow is destined for trouble.

I don't think that make them monsters, just more drawn to the Republican Party than the Democratic.

Good to know. Perhaps they are drawn to a party that seems to be at least trying to maintain a moral anchor, wants to see gov't be there as a safety net and not a hammock, and wants to implement laws that ensure equal opportunity to all, as imperfect as those attempts may be.

[DKW 86 7,441]

I think the big tent analogy will go away as soon as Rice, Thomas, Keyes, or Powell are finally recognized as real people.

Name me one black Democrat that has a real chance of winning the White House in the next 12 years. There are none.

I just named 4 for the Republicans.

As far as for the Latinos, the Bush family itself is interacially married with Latinos and the Pres is fluent in Spanish himself.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I think the big tent analogy will go away as soon as Rice, Thomas, Keyes, or Powell are finally recognized as real people.

Name me one black Democrat that has a real chance of winning the White House in the next 12 years. There are none.

I just named 4 for the Republicans.

As far as for the Latinos, the Bush family itself is interacially married with Latinos and the Pres is fluent in Spanish himself.

You named one, and he ain't running. And if he did, he would never pass the Republican litmus test, even for VP-- he's pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. And BTW, none of them have ever been elected to anything, except maybe homeroom representative.

Next twelve years? Dem possibilities include Barak Obama and Harold Ford, Jr. There are 38 other black congressmen and congresswomen, all Dems. Like most in Congress, they don't have great odds at being President, but their odds are probably better than those of the nonexistent black Republicans in Congress.

Yes, Jeb's wife is a latina. Poppy Bush calls their children "the little brown ones."

Now if Bush embraces Vernon Robinson, NC congressional candidate who calls himself the "Black Jesse Helms", he'll have to explain this to hispanic voters:

Vernon's latest radio ad is in the news

The Charlotte Observer

June 2, 2004

Radio station again airing political ads

Anti-immigration ad got all candidates' spots pulled on holiday

A Winston-Salem radio station reversed itself Tuesday, a day after taking the unusual step of pulling ads for several congressional candidates because it had pulled a controversial spot for one of their rivals.

The initial decision by WSJS-AM (600 and 1200), the Triad's biggest conservative talk station, left candidates off the air on Memorial Day, when thousands of car radios tuned in during one of the biggest driving days of the year.

The reason: an anti-immigration ad by Vernon Robinson, who touts himself as the "black Jesse Helms" and made national news earlier this year by installing a Ten Commandments monument outside Winston-Salem city hall.

Robinson is one of eight Republicans running in the July 20 primary for the job held by Richard Burr, who's running for the U.S. Senate.

The district runs from Winston-Salem to Tennessee and dips into Iredell County. It's the nation's most expensive House race. Three candidates, including Robinson, each raised more than $1 million through March.

Robinson's 60-second ad targets immigrants who cross the Mexican border.

"The aliens are here, but they didn't come in a spaceship," an announcer says over the theme to "The Twilight Zone." "They've filled our criminal courtrooms and clogged our schools ... They sponge off the American taxpayer ... they've even taken over the DMV. These aliens commit heinous crimes ... You walk into a McDonald's restaurant to order a Big Mac, and find to your horror that the employees don't speak English."

But that wasn't what caused the station to pull the ad.

It was the fact that the required disclaimer, which tells who paid for the spot, was in Spanish. "Yo, Gringo," it said, before continuing in Spanish.

"Our listeners are predominately English speakers," said Tom Hamilton, the station's senior vice president and marketing manager. "If this was a Spanish station, I'd understand it. The disclaimer is designed to give the public information about who the candidate is and who paid for it. We did not choose to be a party to concealment."

Robinson said he was trying to make a point.

"By putting it in Spanish, we were highlighting the fact that 90 percent-plus ... of the primary electorate would not understand fully," he said. "And in so doing we make our case why English should be the official language of the United States ...

"It's clear who paid for the ad. It says `Robinson por congreso.' "

Ads for 5th District candidates were back on WSJS Tuesday. So was Robinson's immigration ad -- with the disclaimer now in English.

It's not the first controversial ad by the Winston-Salem alderman.

Last month he aired an ad about homosexuals. Using a "Jeopardy" format, it accused rivals of everything from supporting gay rights to allowing a "transvestite drag show" on the campus of a state college for which a candidate is a trustee. . . .

The Robinson campaign said the immigration ad is playing in its original version on some stations, including WSIC-AM (1400) in Statesville.

http://vernonrobinson.com/cgi-data/news/files/111.shtml

"Pero, yo hablo espanol," may not be enough. Besides, Bush speaks Spanish, but English...not so much.

You know, Wes Clark speaks four languages, how about him for President?

[DKW 86 7,441]

Typical Democrat:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1=4 not 1

Get upto speed with the Republicans Dude.

I will give you Ford and no other. Thanks for playing...

The rest you talk about are really just like Julian Bond, Kweisi Mfume, et al. IE Democratic Party House N@#$$%rs. You know those are the ones allowed to hang out around the white folks that run the Dem Party, but not actually particicpate.

I was watching the Reagan stuff today. It hit me that this guy was one of our brightest and best. Was exactly right during his Presidency and how hard the Dems fought him and were PROVED to be so completely wrong.

They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Typical Democrat:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1=4 not 1 

Get upto speed with the Republicans Dude.

I will give you Ford and no other. Thanks for playing...

The rest you talk about are really just like Julian Bond, Kweisi Mfume, et al. IE Democratic Party House N@#$$%rs. You know those are the ones allowed to hang out around the white folks that run the Dem Party, but not actually particicpate.

Hang out in the White House and not participate? Sounds like Powell at a Cabinet meeting. Do you really think Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas could be elected President? Arsenio Hall and Clarence Clemons have a better chance. I used to think Bush would dump Cheney and pick Condi. If he gets really desperate he still might, but as THE candidate, she would bomb on the campaign trail.

You may not know who Barak Obama is...but you will.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Alan Keyes is certainly smart enough to be President, and among my "arch-conservative" friends, he's been their favorite candidate. But, while not nearly as bad as Lurch Kerry, he lacks personality and charisma (at least in public speaking) and that matters because you've got to be able to connect with the people. So no, I don't think Keyes could be elected President, UNLESS, he somehow got the vice presidential slot on a winning ticket.

I like Harold Ford, Jr. If he wasn't pro-choice, I could vote for him. But that's a deal breaker for me. And as far as Powell goes, it's not his affirmative action stance that ultimately knocks him out of contention for a lot of Republicans. It's the abortion issue. A lot of conservatives I know are rather flexible on a host of issues, but they can't abide supporting a policy that exalts convenience and "choice" over another human life.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Alan Keyes is certainly smart enough to be President, and among my "arch-conservative" friends, he's been their favorite candidate. But, while not nearly as bad as Lurch Kerry, he lacks personality and charisma (at least in public speaking) and that matters because you've got to be able to connect with the people. So no, I don't think Keyes could be elected President, UNLESS, he somehow got the vice presidential slot on a winning ticket.

I like Harold Ford, Jr. If he wasn't pro-choice, I could vote for him. But that's a deal breaker for me. And as far as Powell goes, it's not his affirmative action stance that ultimately knocks him out of contention for a lot of Republicans. It's the abortion issue. A lot of conservatives I know are rather flexible on a host of issues, but they can't abide supporting a policy that exalts convenience and "choice" over another human life.

Right. The abortion issue takes Powell out of contention, just as it would take out Barry Goldwater if he were still alive. Goldwater, the political father of modern conservatisim, would be viewed as too "liberal." The same issue removes Rudy Guiliani, Pataki, Schwarzenegger (if the Constitution changed) and most other Republicans who would be widely popular with the general electorate. Not b/c the general electorate is largely pro-choice-- it is largely split-- but because the most moderate "seeming" Republicans are also pro-choice. Keyes can be an interesting speaker, in my opinion, but he is, in some ways, the conservative Al Sharpton-- too strident for most Americans.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Keyes has about ten times the brain power of Sharpton. Sharpton is all mouth. Keyes just may be too much of a wonk, not to mention that he does get a tad passionate (strident) when debating.

To be fair, the abortion issue cuts both ways. Trying to find a pro-life Democrat (or at least one that would have a chance of getting the party nomination) is like trying to find an Auburn fan that thinks Eric Ramsey got a raw deal.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

To be fair, the abortion issue cuts both ways. Trying to find a pro-life Democrat (or at least one that would have a chance of getting the party nomination) is like trying to find an Auburn fan that thinks Eric Ramsey got a raw deal.

Agreed.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

To be fair, the abortion issue cuts both ways.  Trying to find a pro-life Democrat (or at least one that would have a chance of getting the party nomination) is like trying to find an Auburn fan that thinks Eric Ramsey got a raw deal.

Agreed.

And I have to say, that is a shame. I could go along with a Democrat who leaned more leftward fiscally if he/she were pro-life. On many issues, though I have an opinion, I can be flexible within reasonable parameters. Many times there is more than one way to skin a cat and I'm willing to go along with a different (read: Democrat) approach on that issue. But abortion comes down to an issue of human life for me and no argument for convenience or "reproductive choice" will ever hold any water with me.