PDA

View Full Version : GOP fails to recruit minorities


Alonzo
05-21-2008, 09:17 PM
Just a few years after the Republican Party launched a highly publicized diversity effort, the GOP is heading into the 2008 election without a single minority candidate with a plausible chance of winning a campaign for the House, the Senate or governor.

At a time when Democrats are poised to knock down a historic racial barrier with their presidential nominee, the GOP is fielding only a handful of minority candidates for Congress or statehouses — none of whom seem to have a prayer of victory.

At the start of the Bush years, the Republican National Committee — in tandem with the White House — vowed to usher in a new era of GOP minority outreach. As George W. Bush winds down his presidency, Republicans are now on the verge of going six — and probably more — years without an African-American governor, senator or House member.

That’s the longest such streak since the 1980s.

Republicans will have only one minority governor, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, an Indian-American, when the dust settles on the ’08 elections. Democrats have three minority governors and 43 African-American members of Congress, including one — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — who is their likely presidential nominee. Democrats also have several challengers in winnable House races who are either black or Hispanic.

Despite having a Spanish-speaking “compassionate conservative” in the White House, Republicans’ diversity deficit seems to have only widened.

“In 1994, when I first ran, we had 14 African-American Republicans running for Congress. ... I was the only one that won that year, but we had 14, and we had some good candidates,” said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, one of the party’s most recognized African-American voices. “I am grateful for what Ken Mehlman did when he was RNC chairman, but I knew that wouldn’t last — that was one person. I’ve never gotten the impression that it was institutionalized.”

So who’s to blame for this diversity deficit?

Jack Kemp, the former Republican congressman and vice presidential nominee, says the culprit is clear: a “pitiful” recruitment effort by his party. “I don’t see much of an outreach,” he said. “I don’t see much of a reason to run.”

A former black GOP candidate who declined to be identified by name offered a slightly more charitable explanation. He said the party is so broke and distracted that wooing strong minority candidates is a luxury it simply cannot afford right now.

Congressional staffers contacted for reaction on this issue did not want to comment but were clearly uneasy with the party’s all-white slate of viable candidates.

In all fairness, Republicans have never been very good at attracting strong minority candidates, especially African-Americans. Only four black Republicans — Watts, former Massachusetts Sen. Edward Brooke, former Connecticut Rep. Gary Franks and the late Illinois Rep. Oscar Stanton De Priest — have been elected to Congress since Reconstruction.

The party has done slightly better with Cuban-Americans and Hispanics in recent years — Cuban-American Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida recently served as RNC chairman. But the GOP remains a white-dominated party elected overwhelmingly by white voters.

Another mitigating factor for the party is that this has been a terrible year overall for GOP recruitment, as exemplified in the 0-for-3 Republican streak in special elections in recent weeks. The dilemma is simple: Who wants to run when the Republican brand is so unpopular and money is so scarce?

Still, the recruitment failure is striking when you consider the recent history of the GOP on this issue. It was not long ago — 2005, to be precise — that Mehlman, then the RNC chairman, grabbed headlines with a major speech on diversity before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

“Republicans are committed to inclusion,” he told the group’s national convention. “I’m here four years before the next presidential election asking for your help. Inclusion means you work together to recruit candidates, not surrogates to speak on their behalf.”

Mehlman was far from alone. President Bush dedicated significant time in the early years of his presidency to reaching out to African-Americans with countless speeches on education and faith-based initiatives directed at minority communities. He aggressively appointed prominent blacks to his Cabinet, including two secretaries of state: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

Bush sometimes broke into Spanish as he called for immigration laws providing illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, a hot topic in Hispanic communities.

The efforts, of course, were designed to attract voters — not just candidates — into the GOP fold. And the moral of the story is that the party clearly failed.

Some party insiders point to 2006 as the specific proof that diversity efforts may sound great but are still impractical and electorally unrewarding for the GOP.

During that cycle, Mehlman and GOP leaders talked a number of attractive black candidates into running for important seats: Michael Steele of Maryland, for the Senate; and Lynn Swann of Pennsylvania and Ken Blackwell of Ohio, for governor.

Scores of stories were written about the Republicans’ new plan to win tough seats with well-funded minority candidates.

Then they all lost badly. The election results in their respective states showed that they hardly made any inroads — even in the heavily African-American parts of the states they were running in. Swann was later asked to run for the House, and he declined.

Suddenly, the argument for minority outreach seemed to lack the underpinning of any successful political strategy: the ability to produce more votes.

The exit polling data for House races in 2006 showed the depth of the GOP’s outreach crisis. Republican candidates won 11 percent of the black vote and 30 percent of the Hispanic vote.

However, Watts, for one, rejects the argument that Republicans can’t compete for minority votes or successfully recruit minority candidates. He argues that the party simply hasn’t tried hard enough.

“Unless you have an infrastructure to build off of, it’s all throwing mud at the wall and hoping that some of it sticks,” said Watts. “There’s an entire infrastructure that needs to be thought through, and it seems to me no one is interested in building that.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10464_Page2.html

Rage
05-31-2008, 05:22 AM
You mean we can't play the slave card anymore? Could have sworn that would last us a few more centuries.

On the contrary. In Lake Whales, FL there is this guy that used to be in the KKK that is running for city governor or something like that. He has a black running mate. Go figure, heh.

ECW
06-04-2008, 07:50 AM
Are you surprised that the GOP can't attract black conservatives besides Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas? I'm not. They (black conservatives) are not welcome in the GOP and never have been. Between policies that call for the disenfranchisement of numbers of black voters by either caging them or demanding more ID to vote than many people have and the often repeated tactics of race baiting in close elections, the GOP has pretty much become the party of the Kloset Klansman who left the Democratic Party after the 1965 Civil Rights Act. They claim to have a big tent but it's full of white folks.

Rage
06-04-2008, 06:19 PM
Lol thats so true dude, the folly of ignorance stretches far and wide.

ECW
06-04-2008, 10:19 PM
Lol thats so true dude, the folly of ignorance stretches far and wide.

...but it pitches it's tent over at the RNC.

Osborn F. Enready
06-06-2008, 03:24 PM
ECW said:
...but it pitches it's tent over at the RNC.

And let me guess.... you're rubber, their glue?

Come on!

ECW
06-09-2008, 02:11 PM
And when you can show me the wide range of minority candidates running as republicans this year, you'll have something to come back at me about. My statement stands.

Osborn F. Enready
06-10-2008, 02:55 PM
I don't think minorities running within a party mean a damn thing, and who is defending Republicans?

I am making fun of partisan hacks, of which you seem to exude many of those properties by your childish partisan replies and goading.

ECW
06-19-2008, 03:45 PM
I don't think minorities running within a party mean a damn thing, and who is defending Republicans?

It obviously means something to the GOP since they have (unsuccessfully) tried to incorporate more minorities into their party. The Democrats have no such problems because most minorities know that the principles and policies of the Democratic party are aligned more closely with what minorities expect from their government.


I am making fun of partisan hacks, of which you seem to exude many of those properties by your childish partisan replies and goading.

If you are just now discovering that I am one of the most partisan people here, I can't help you with that. Goading is what I am pretty good at. As for "childish replies", well, better those than unrealistic flights of utopian fancy which I see a lot of on these boards.

ptif219
06-19-2008, 03:51 PM
Would care to compare the black and minorities in the Bush cabinet and administration compared to Clinton or othe Dem presidents?

ECW
06-19-2008, 04:03 PM
Would you care to compare actual membership of minorities in the Democratic Party versus actual membership of minorities in the republican party and minority representation in Congress of either party?

Osborn F. Enready
06-19-2008, 06:19 PM
ECW said:
If you are just now discovering that I am one of the most partisan people here, I can't help you with that. Goading is what I am pretty good at. As for "childish replies", well, better those than unrealistic flights of utopian fancy which I see a lot of on these boards.

Thank you for the rare and stunning display of honesty.

This will be noted for future replies, thank you.

Do you view partisanship as a positive value?

ECW
06-19-2008, 07:37 PM
Thank you for the rare and stunning display of honesty.

This will be noted for future replies, thank you.

Do you view partisanship as a positive value?

I am aware of who I am and what I am and posting anonymously on the Internet does not change that fact for me as it does other people who have adopted a 'persona' when posting on a forum/message board.

Partisanship without facts and citations to back up your opinion isn't a positive value. If you have the facts and the citation to back up your claims, then partisanship has it's place. More importantly, it's who I am and who I have been since I got into politics many, many many years ago. Please do note it for future replies. It won't change what I say but it will help you get what I'm saying.

You can decide for yourself whether it is positive or negative. I guess it depends an whether you are getting a mudhole stomped on you by my facts and figures or whether I am supporting what you say. Either way, I'll leave you with a quote I learned in my younger days in the boxing ring: it's not bragging if you can back it up-then it's reality.

My original point still stands.

ptif219
06-19-2008, 07:46 PM
Would you care to compare actual membership of minorities in the Democratic Party versus actual membership of minorities in the republican party and minority representation in Congress of either party?

So now are you going to tell minorities what party they should join?

ECW
06-20-2008, 03:28 AM
So now are you going to tell minorities what party they should join?

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Old Neocon tricks never die. They just keep getting used over and over again even if they don't work anymore. Nice Strawman.

Would you care to compare actual membership of minorities in the Democratic Party versus actual membership of minorities in the republican party and minority representation in Congress of either party?

You did not answer the question. It's pretty straight forward.

Most of the minorities voted with their feet as to which party they wanted to join. They joined the Democratic Party. The good-ole-boy racist Democrats left the party after 1965 and went to the GOP and minorities streamed into the void they left. I had nothing to do with it but nice try in assuming I have more influence than I actually have.

Thirdparty
06-21-2008, 06:49 PM
What should minorities expect from their government? What should we all expect? Beyond defending us and keeping us safe and some health and human services issues, government is not our friend, in most cases.

TP

It obviously means something to the GOP since they have (unsuccessfully) tried to incorporate more minorities into their party. The Democrats have no such problems because most minorities know that the principles and policies of the Democratic party are aligned more closely with what minorities expect from their government.




If you are just now discovering that I am one of the most partisan people here, I can't help you with that. Goading is what I am pretty good at. As for "childish replies", well, better those than unrealistic flights of utopian fancy which I see a lot of on these boards.

ECW
06-22-2008, 07:10 AM
What should minorities expect from their government? What should we all expect? Beyond defending us and keeping us safe and some health and human services issues, government is not our friend, in most cases.

TP

They should expect the same thing that everyone else gets but this isn't about government, my friend. It's about my question to ptif219 concerning the failure of the GOP to attract minority candidates despite their efforts to do so. He wanted to make it about Bush's cabinet and I challenged him over party membership (which is the true reflection of the true believers). He has since run away from the thread.

ptif219
06-24-2008, 05:06 AM
They should expect the same thing that everyone else gets but this isn't about government, my friend. It's about my question to ptif219 concerning the failure of the GOP to attract minority candidates despite their efforts to do so. He wanted to make it about Bush's cabinet and I challenged him over party membership (which is the true reflection of the true believers). He has since run away from the thread.

I don't run.If you can't show where dems put minorities in leadership positions then Bush is doing more for minorities then the dems.

But then we also know it was Dems that filibustered the civil rights act of 1964.Humphrey went to the GOP to push it through.

ECW
06-24-2008, 06:28 AM
I don't run.If you can't show where dems put minorities in leadership positions then Bush is doing more for minorities then the dems.

The only minority Bush has given any power to is his wife, Condolizza Rice. Democrats, on the other hand, have spread the power around to women and racial minorities. There aren't even any minorities in Congress on the GOP side. Here's our list:

Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi

Majority Whip James E. Clyburn

Honorable John Dingell, Committee on Energy & Commerce

Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Committee on Homeland Security

Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Committee on the Judiciary

Honorable Louise Slaughter, Committee on the Rules

Honorable Nydia M. Velázquez, House Small Business Committee

Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ethics Committee

Honorable Charlie Rangel, Ways and Means Committee

Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, Joint Economic Committee

Honorable Silvestre Reyes, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Committee on Rules & Administration

Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Veterans’ Affairs Committee

Senator Barbara Boxer, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

and this guy...

http://www.collegecandy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/barack__obama.jpg

But then we also know it was Dems that filibustered the civil rights act of 1964.Humphrey went to the GOP to push it through.

Nice red herring, but wrong again. You obviously ignored my previous post and don't know your American history very well.

Most of the minorities voted with their feet as to which party they wanted to join. They joined the Democratic Party. The good-ole-boy racist Democrats left the party after 1965 and went to the GOP and minorities streamed into the void they left. I had nothing to do with it but nice try in assuming I have more influence than I actually have.

Minority outreach was not a problem for Democrats once LBJ pushed thru Civil Rights legislation with the help of LIBERAL Republicans (remember those guys? They're extinct now, sadly). The racists left the Democrats and were welcomed by the GOP. They (the GOP) have been unsuccessful in reaching out to minorities ever since.

ptif219
06-24-2008, 02:15 PM
The only minority Bush has given any power to is his wife, Condolizza Rice. Democrats, on the other hand, have spread the power around to women and racial minorities. There aren't even any minorities in Congress on the GOP side. Here's our list:

Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi

Majority Whip James E. Clyburn

Honorable John Dingell, Committee on Energy & Commerce

Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Committee on Homeland Security

Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Committee on the Judiciary

Honorable Louise Slaughter, Committee on the Rules

Honorable Nydia M. Velázquez, House Small Business Committee

Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ethics Committee

Honorable Charlie Rangel, Ways and Means Committee

Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, Joint Economic Committee

Honorable Silvestre Reyes, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Committee on Rules & Administration

Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Veterans’ Affairs Committee

Senator Barbara Boxer, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

and this guy...

http://www.collegecandy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/barack__obama.jpg

Nice try but you ignore all the People Bush has advanced.These people you put forth got there by being elected by the people not by being appointed.

Nice red herring, but wrong again. You obviously ignored my previous post and don't know your American history very well.

No you ignore the fact Byrd the former klansman made historty with his filibuster.The dems not republicans tryed to stop the bill with a filibuster.

Minority outreach was not a problem for Democrats once LBJ pushed thru Civil Rights legislation with the help of LIBERAL Republicans (remember those guys? They're extinct now, sadly). The racists left the Democrats and were welcomed by the GOP. They (the GOP) have been unsuccessful in reaching out to minorities ever since.

The point is democrats showe their hate for minorities and the republicans gave minorities their rights.

Here is another first for Bush.
http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8544455


For the first time in American history, a woman has been chosen for promotion to four-star general.

The Pentagon announced Monday that President Bush nominated Lt. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody to head the Army Materiel Command, responsible for equipping, outfitting and arming soldiers throughout the Army.

If confirmed by the Senate, she would be the first woman to attain the rank of a full general. By law, the Army is limited to 11 active-duty four-stars, including the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey.

Women haven't reached four-star rank because by law they are excluded from serving in combat roles, which historically have been the path to the highest-ranking positions. That exclusion still applies, but with Dunwoody the Army has chosen to cast aside its customary limitations on promotion.

4Reaganomics
06-24-2008, 02:18 PM
I remember Bush giving Powell a little bit of power, what about Gonzales?

ECW
06-24-2008, 04:25 PM
And where are they now?

whoooooooooooooooooosh...gone.

Three minorities for the GOP under Bush to a couple dozen for the Democrats running Congress and running for president. You lose.

4Reaganomics
06-24-2008, 04:28 PM
How many under Clinton?

Not a single ranked higher than secretary of labor

Bush was more welcoming to diversity than Clinton and Democratic Presidents

you lose

ECW
06-25-2008, 05:01 AM
How many under Clinton?

Not a single ranked higher than secretary of labor

Bush was more welcoming to diversity than Clinton and Democratic Presidents

you lose

You just make it too fucking easy to prove you wrong time and time again:

AFRICAN-AMERICAN CABINET SECRETARIES: Mike Espy (Agriculture), Ron Brown (Commerce), Alexis Herman (Labor), Rodney Slater (Transportation), Hazel O'Leary (Energy), and Jesse Brown and Togo West (Veterans Affairs).

WOMEN CABINET SECRETARIES: Janet Reno (Justice), Madeleine Albright (State), and Donna E. Shalala (HHS)

HISPANIC CABINET SECRETARIES: Henry Cisneros (HUD), Bill Richardson (Energy) and Federico F. Pena (Energy & Transportation)

That's 13 for Clinton and only 12 for Bush. You lose.

Again.

Minority Republican congressional leaders are even more scarce than country-western stars in Jamaica. Minorities know that republicans do not have their best interests at heart.