Jump to content

Sea of white faces at Republican convention


Recommended Posts

What do you mean "giving up the black vote to Obama"? The Republicans didn't *give* Obama the black vote, he *took* it.

What the @#$%!^&*$ How does someone "take" votes? Isn't it still a secret ballot process?

George Bush got 9% of the black vote in 2000 and 11% in 2004, so it's not just a matter of "voting for one of our own" here; the attempts at making an outreach to minority voters haven't achieved the desired results in the past, and this time around they are seeking out Democrats who don't want to vote for a black candidate for president, and see if they will put race ahead of political beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw some black faces at the Republican Convention. How many? Maybe not as many as you would like WIP. Perhaps some of us are more color-blind than to count out how many individuals we see of each race in a crowd. Maybe the Republicans should impose racial quotas on attendance at their conventions. :lol:

According to the numbers I quoted from:"Among the party's 2,380 delegates gathered in St. Paul only 36 are African Americans" that works out to about 1.5%, so it would have been harder to notice them, than not!

Some of the comments posted on that article range from "when did it become illegal to be white" to "Obama hates whites" and "whats wrong with a "room full of white faces?" And most of the comments on the next 18 pages follow a similar theme. All of their self-righteous indignation doesn't hide the fact that they know what the numbers are and the numbers don't lie! At a time when visible minorities are a growing percentage of the total population, the Republican Party is becoming increasingly white (1.5% is almost negligible). Based on what I've read about how political strategists operate, I would like to know how much of this is unintentional and how much is part of a deliberate divide and conquer strategy? Especially when I read that:

Only one African American was given the opportunity to address the convention during prime time -- former Maryland governor Michael Steele. He spoke for about 10 minutes Wednesday ahead of Mitt Romney and

Other visible minorities, most notably Hispanics, were given the chance to address the convention, but not during the time when it was being broadcast live on local television.

So, it's not just a matter of few minority delegates! In 2000, they were throwing every non-white Republican they could find up on stage; this time they did a 180, and limited their access to the podium, especially during prime time. Is that a coincidence? I'm too cynical to believe that any part of convention scheduling is accidental or unintended!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it's not the "voters" who attended the RNC.

Who can attend the Republican National Convention?

Space is limited as a result only delegates, alternates, federal and state elected officials and certain invited guests will be able to attend the Republican National Convention.

As the opening post already pointed out, "among the party's 2,380 delegates gathered in St. Paul only 36 are African American..." so that pretty much explains why there weren't many black faces among that crowd. Guess there aren't that many non-white Republican federal state elected officials, either; and evidently not many non-whites were included in the "certain invited guests." Which all means that WIP does have a "story."

There is another scandal that exhibits the undemocratic practices of the Republican Party: Ron Paul wasn't even allowed to speak at the convention, and the goon squads at the convention prevented most of the Paul delegates from getting their credentials approved so they could cast their votes, and there are charges from many delegations that votes weren't counted (claiming the delegates declined). They were trying for a 100% unanimous endorsement of John McCain, like some banana republic election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another scandal that exhibits the undemocratic practices of the Republican Party: Ron Paul wasn't even allowed to speak at the convention, and the goon squads at the convention prevented most of the Paul delegates from getting their credentials approved so they could cast their votes, and there are charges from many delegations that votes weren't counted (claiming the delegates declined). They were trying for a 100% unanimous endorsement of John McCain, like some banana republic election.

Probably just as well....Ron Pauls's sponsoring of racist newsletters would be a political liability.

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/pau...ters/index.html

Ron Paul was toast even before he started......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a non issue. Blacks are entirely free to join any party the want. They are free to work for which ever party they want.

The question is: why would they want to join a party that threw them overboard to get the votes of white Southern Democrats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the @#$%!^&*$ How does someone "take" votes? Isn't it still a secret ballot process?

Don't be obtuse. Obama has taken those votes through a combination of his charisma, his policies, his party affiliation, and offering the black community a chance to achieve an important milestone.

George Bush got 9% of the black vote in 2000 and 11% in 2004, so it's not just a matter of "voting for one of our own" here; the attempts at making an outreach to minority voters haven't achieved the desired results in the past, and this time around they are seeking out Democrats who don't want to vote for a black candidate for president, and see if they will put race ahead of political beliefs.

For what it's worth, the Republicans say they are continuing to reach out to minority voters:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc.minorities/

The article cites the 36 black delegates at the RNC as a 78% drop from the 2004 RNC. What this means in actual terms: 36 black delegates instead of 64.

You're claiming that the 36 out of 2380 delegates looked like any more of a "sea of white" than the 64 out of 2509 at the 2004 convention?

Talking as if they've enacted some kind of sinister strategy "this time around" is just silly. What it means is that 26 black Republicans who were involved last time decided "I'm not participating in the Republican primaries this time. I'm going to participate in that other party instead." Or, "I don't support the other party, but I'm not happy with my own party right now either, so I'm not participating."

There are reasons why few blacks vote for the Republicans, let alone participate in the party:

-tradition:

"Clarence McKee, a black Republican delegate, said he believes the party's pro-family message is one that would resonate well with the African-American community, but he said, "Historically, blacks have voted based on a blind loyalty to Democrats."

( http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc.minorities/ )

-peer pressure:

"There's a lot of peer pressure for blacks to stay with the Democrats," he said, noting that African-Americans often face ridicule when they align with Republicans.

( http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc.minorities/ )

-historic opportunity:

"There's very little that I agree with Obama on. Since the founding of our country, there have only been white men who have occupied the White House. ... To have someone break through that barrier and say to some kids, you can be president. Whether you like it or not, symbolism is important."

( http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/oba...cans/index.html )

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably just as well....Ron Pauls's sponsoring of racist newsletters would be a political liability.

It would have been a lot less crowded on the floor of the convention hall if you were going to refuse admission to all party members who made past racist statements. But that's not the issue anyhow! I don't care how crazy Ron Paul is, his antiwar stance demonstrated that there are many Republicans who have never accepted George Bush's breaking of his promises in 2000 that he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in nation building; in contrast to the meddling foreign policy of Bill Clinton's attempts to put the right people in power in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and maybe others I can't recall right now.

Kneejerk Republicans like you, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly and others, will declare that every policy of a Democratic president is bad and every policy of a Republican president is good!

Most of the Ron Paul supporters weren't libertarian anarchists; they were there because he represented the traditional doctrine of non-interference except where national security interests were at stake. And even after it became clear that the Bush Administration framed their case to make up an excuse to occupy Iraq, diehard Republicans would rather switch principles than challenge official party doctrine. The Ron Paul supporters represented a significant minority who hadn't forgotten!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be obtuse. Obama has taken those votes through a combination of his charisma, his policies, his party affiliation, and offering the black community a chance to achieve an important milestone.

The Republican numbers weren't much better against Gore and Kerry either, so it's not the historic milestone alone!

For what it's worth, the Republicans say they are continuing to reach out to minority voters:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc.minorities/

The article cites the 36 black delegates at the RNC as a 78% drop from the 2004 RNC. What this means in actual terms: 36 black delegates instead of 64.

No, it means a drop of 167 to 36 delegates:

The 36 black delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis/St. Paul is the lowest total in 40 years for a Republican National Convention. These delegates represent 1.5 percent of the total number of delegates, substantially below the record setting 6.7 percent in 2004. The 36 black delegates in 2008 represent an 78.4 percent decline over the 167 black delegates at the 2004 convention.

You're claiming that the 36 out of 2380 delegates looked like any more of a "sea of white" than the 64 out of 2509 at the 2004 convention?

A hundred and sixty seven would be a more noticeable representation, but even if you contend that the delegate numbers are an unfortunate accident of circumstances, how do you explain the lack of speaking assignments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been a lot less crowded on the floor of the convention hall if you were going to refuse admission to all party members who made past racist statements. But that's not the issue anyhow! I don't care how crazy Ron Paul is, his antiwar stance demonstrated that there are many Republicans who have never accepted George Bush's breaking of his promises in 2000 that he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in nation building; in contrast to the meddling foreign policy of Bill Clinton's attempts to put the right people in power in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and maybe others I can't recall right now.

...if it was good enough for Canada.....

Kneejerk Republicans like you, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly and others, will declare that every policy of a Democratic president is bad and every policy of a Republican president is good!

I am not a Republican....I happen to approve of President Truman's policies....BOOM!

Most of the Ron Paul supporters weren't libertarian anarchists; they were there because he represented the traditional doctrine of non-interference except where national security interests were at stake. And even after it became clear that the Bush Administration framed their case to make up an excuse to occupy Iraq, diehard Republicans would rather switch principles than challenge official party doctrine. The Ron Paul supporters represented a significant minority who hadn't forgotten!

Who gives a crap....Ron Paul is neither original or remarkable, and neither are his "followers". There are plenty of better organized alternatives on the ballot. This idiot's campaign flew an aerial banner over the Twin Cities last week with an underpowered aircraft...how fitting. I don't need you to tell me what is happening down the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
For what it's worth, the Republicans say they are continuing to reach out to minority voters:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/rnc.minorities/

The article cites the 36 black delegates at the RNC as a 78% drop from the 2004 RNC. What this means in actual terms: 36 black delegates instead of 64.

So they're "reaching out to them" by cutting the number of black delegates by 78%. They really know how to "reach out," eh?

You're claiming that the 36 out of 2380 delegates looked like any more of a "sea of white" than the 64 out of 2509 at the 2004 convention?

The audience wasn't just made up of the delegates. But here's a thought. Instead of having less black delegates than 2004, they could have, in their attempt to "reach out to them," had more. But then, it's been suggested here that perhaps there just weren't that many blacks who are as qualified to be delegates as all those white people.

There are reasons why few blacks vote for the Republicans, let alone participate in the party:

There sure are. :lol:

And once again, the audience was also made up of people who were invited to attend. While "reaching out" to the blacks/minorities, perhaps the GOP should have reached out and invited more of them to their convention, eh? -- while choosing more black delegates. There's a reason why the NRC was a "sea of white faces" and it's because that's how the list of those allowed to attend read; and that was the doing of the GOP, no matter how hard you all try to make it appear to be otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blacks were "kept out" of the convention because the GOP chose so few blacks to be their delegates, so few black/minority Republicans have been elected to federal and/or state offices, and because so few blacks/minorities were invited. If those observations weren't true, there wouldn't have been a "sea of white faces" at the RNC.

That also means whites were kept out too..........did you or did you not go to the convention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That also means whites were kept out too..........did you or did you not go to the convention?

This discussion dovetails nicely with the recent e-mails that I have been recieving (wholly unsolicited), claiming that McCain was a member of the KKK as a youth. I have no reason to suspect that this may be true, nor have I ever heard any racist comments from Senator McCain. I have heard rumblings on Hey Martha and US& World Politics Forum. Is there anything to this rumor? If anyone can help me out, please inform me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is already a non-issue if blacks will go for Obama...let us just leave them with that choice. As the country gravitates into heat as we are going to November...I am just praying that the nation will made the right choice of selecting a very good leader who take this nation out of its current lethargic position domestically and internationally.

USA could not afford another war abroad...the cost is killing USA everyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How on earth do you visually identify Jews?

Hook noses? Thick glasses? Recessed chins?

Appalling.

-k

Well kimmy, maybe you are just letting your own prejudice dictate your opinions.

Here is a link to the Canadian Centre for Diversity web page listing their directors. You will note that Harper is an honorary patron. You will also note that the Jewish commuity is very well represented in the list of directors. These are the people who say that Jews are a visible minority.

http://www.centrefordiversity.ca/index2.ht...p:banner.html::

Your post is also notable because it shows what so often happens when anybody tries to start a discussion about politics of the Jewish community, even though they are tremendously influential...

When George Bush senior try to cut off funding to Israel to stop them from illegal settlement building, he was forced to back down due to an extraordinarily vehement campaign directed at his legislative efforts. This was a sitting president who was not up for re-election. Lew Wasserman, widely acknowledge as the most powerful man in Hollywood for many years basically husbanded Ronald Reagan's political career. Reagan was cited as a "Strong friend of Israel" and under his watch the Iran Contra affair involved the delivery of weapons to Iran with Israel serving as intermediary.

And yet, when anybody tries to even discuss the Jewish vote, they get the kind of resistance you put up. No, I didn't say anything about hooked noses, kimmy, but you did and you said it in a way that made it look as though that is what I intended.

The original poster referenced blacks and other visible minorities. Apparently it's OK to talk about blacks until the cows come home, but other visible minorities? Well I guess that's just not politically correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well kimmy, maybe you are just letting your own prejudice dictate your opinions.

Here is a link to the Canadian Centre for Diversity web page listing their directors. You will note that Harper is an honorary patron. You will also note that the Jewish commuity is very well represented in the list of directors. These are the people who say that Jews are a visible minority.

http://www.centrefordiversity.ca/index2.ht...p:banner.html::

Your post is also notable because it shows what so often happens when anybody tries to start a discussion about politics of the Jewish community, even though they are tremendously influential...

When George Bush senior try to cut off funding to Israel to stop them from illegal settlement building, he was forced to back down due to an extraordinarily vehement campaign directed at his legislative efforts. This was a sitting president who was not up for re-election. Lew Wasserman, widely acknowledge as the most powerful man in Hollywood for many years basically husbanded Ronald Reagan's political career. Reagan was cited as a "Strong friend of Israel" and under his watch the Iran Contra affair involved the delivery of weapons to Iran with Israel serving as intermediary.

And yet, when anybody tries to even discuss the Jewish vote, they get the kind of resistance you put up. No, I didn't say anything about hooked noses, kimmy, but you did and you said it in a way that made it look as though that is what I intended.

The original poster referenced blacks and other visible minorities. Apparently it's OK to talk about blacks until the cows come home, but other visible minorities? Well I guess that's just not politically correct.

Polical correctness is emotion manipulation that creates a meek and timid population that is afraid of being cut from the herd - maybe it's time for statesmen to make actual statements that are useful to all! At this rate pandering and debasing ourselves to the level of dumb animals will not be fruitful in the long run - our system is so complex that it is almost humanly unmanageble - so if someone speaks and says . ....this is right and this is wrong then maybe we will have a fighting chance at surviving this chaos and cowardice that grips us as we spin downward into a depression that will render the west a third world happening...IF a man or woman is fool enough to believe that all whites are of supperiour mind - and blacks are of inferiour character and mind - then we are losing our finest human resourses - some blacks behave like brilliant men and woman - as do some whites - skin should be disreguarded....to be proud that a party is all white is foolishness - and to take on the role of a racists as some secularist jews have done - is also an error - Those that persecute woman - also persecute men - those that persecute blacks show no quams about screwing whites either - a bad jerk is a bad jerk and a creeper..low life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well kimmy, maybe you are just letting your own prejudice dictate your opinions.

Here is a link to the Canadian Centre for Diversity web page listing their directors. You will note that Harper is an honorary patron. You will also note that the Jewish commuity is very well represented in the list of directors. These are the people who say that Jews are a visible minority.

http://www.centrefordiversity.ca/index2.ht...p:banner.html::

So you're well practiced at idenifying jewish names? Why would one need that skill?

I couldn't find any reference to jews as a identifyable minority, but given that you have a habit of misquoting and misrepresenting things, I'll let it slide.

Edited by M.Dancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...