NAACP GOP Presidential Forum

Darla said:
If a candidate can't go to the function because he feels the sponser is partisan, then how is he going to be President for anyone other than the people who voted for him? That's more of what we have now.

They are speaking to the community at large, especially to the black community, who aren't necessarily at the event, but who are watching.
Click to expand...
Nobody said that they "couldn't" go, it is that they see no point. Like the D party assuming their vote, the R party assumes as well. Therefore they have no power with either in actuality.

Ironically, it is the R party who have appointed people with darker pigmentation to positions of power far higher than any other party. If it was for actual advancement, instead of labelling them as "too white" or "oreos" as I have seen this group would have a different view of the party as a whole.
 
Damocles said:
That's pretty much my take too. Plus, they have become a very partisan organization. The assumption is racism in the party, however their opening speaker, before any candidates had committed to being there, spent his entire speech trashing the R Party. While I understand that, an organization that is supposed to be non-partisan really shouldn't set the official tone that way. At least not until they get the answers to their invitations.
Click to expand...



Plus, they have become a very partisan organization.

I don't think the NAACP has changed one iota. Its' the republican party that has changed - they've moved further to the extreme right, and no longer represent any of NAACP's issues. Remember in the 1950s and 1960s, a lot of republicans supported civil rights. I think it was Eisenhower who introduced the nation's first important civil rights bill. There used to be a fairly broad bipartisan consensus on civil rights (outside of the southern Dixiecrats)
 
Cypress said:

Plus, they have become a very partisan organization.

I don't think the NAACP has changed one iota. Its' the republican party that has changed - they've moved further to the extreme right, and no longer represent any of NAACP's issues. Remember in the 1950s and 1960s, a lot of republicans supported civil rights. I think it was Eisenhower who introduced the nation's first important civil rights bill. There used to be a fairly broad bipartisan consensus on civil rights (outside of the southern Dixiecrats)
Click to expand...
The Civil Rights Act was authored by Bob Dole along with a D Senator and was difficult to get past the D party and without the Presidential support from LBJ likely would not have passed.
 
Damocles said:
The Civil Rights Act was authored by Bob Dole along with a D Senator and was difficult to get past the D party and without the Presidential support from LBJ likely would not have passed.
Click to expand...

Right. Like I said, this was 50 years ago. There was a bipartisan consensus on civil rights, with most republicans supporting it. Hence, NAACP seemed more "bipartisan"-- there were Dems and GOPers supporting thier priorities..

Today's GOP is nothing like that anymore. They've moved to the right. NAACP has stayed the same.
 
uscitizen said:
This needs to be in the press/media so people with darker pigmentation can see how the republicans feel about them.

They don't need a proper picture, the story would do.
Click to expand...

There is black press, and the event, including disappearing republican candidates was covered there. In truth, everybody knows that African-Americans aren't going to give republicans more than 8-10% of their votes .. and that may be too kind given the no shows.

African-Americans have always been against this war and probably wouldn't have been too kind listening to proponents of it.

However, Tancredo got some respect for showing up.

"Tancredo got strong applause. He laughed at the empty podiums and took a mild shot at his Republican opponents. "This is my kind of debate," he said. "Do I know something they don't know? No, I think I know something they don't know."

African-Americans have learned they cannot rely on the usual stream of media for news and information, which is we've turned to black press and web media, like blackelectorate.com, blackenterprise.com, finalcall.com, blackcommentator.com, blackamericaweb.com, blackjournalism.com, and many others, including a host of local and community-based publications.
 
Darla said:
If a candidate can't go to the function because he feels the sponser is partisan, then how is he going to be President for anyone other than the people who voted for him? That's more of what we have now.

They are speaking to the community at large, especially to the black community, who aren't necessarily at the event, but who are watching.
Click to expand...

Couldn't the same argument be made about the Democrats avoiding the Fox News debate?
 
Damocles said:
The Civil Rights Act was authored by Bob Dole along with a D Senator and was difficult to get past the D party and without the Presidential support from LBJ likely would not have passed.
Click to expand...

Not quite correct.

Southern dixiecrats opposed the bill but the rest of the Democratic Party was behind it. Republicans were generally against it until Conservative Republican Senator Everett Dirksen, who helped write the act, delivered a stunning speech fo the Senate floor calling integration "an idea whose time had come."

The House version passed 290-130
Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Southern Democrats: 7-87
Northern Republicans: 138-24
Southern Republicans: 0-10

The Senate Version passed 73-28
Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
Northern Democrats: 45-1
Southern Democrats: 1-20
Northern Republicans: 27-5
Southern Republicans: 0-1

When Nixon embarked upon his "southern strategy", he solidified the black vote for democrats until this day.
 
Damocles said:
That's pretty much my take too. Plus, they have become a very partisan organization. The assumption is racism in the party, however their opening speaker, before any candidates had committed to being there, spent his entire speech trashing the R Party. While I understand that, an organization that is supposed to be non-partisan really shouldn't set the official tone that way. At least not until they get the answers to their invitations.
Click to expand...


The event was a demonstration of "equal time" .. but there are no illlusions about what African-Americans think of most republicans.
 
blackascoal said:
Not quite correct.

Southern dixiecrats opposed the bill but the rest of the Democratic Party was behind it. Republicans were generally against it until Conservative Republican Senator Everett Dirksen, who helped write the act, delivered a stunning speech fo the Senate floor calling integration "an idea whose time had come."

The House version passed 290-130
Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Southern Democrats: 7-87
Northern Republicans: 138-24
Southern Republicans: 0-10

The Senate Version passed 73-28
Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
Northern Democrats: 45-1
Southern Democrats: 1-20
Northern Republicans: 27-5
Southern Republicans: 0-1

When Nixon embarked upon his "southern strategy", he solidified the black vote for democrats until this day.
Click to expand...
The vote notwithstanding, the D Party wasn't going to let it out of the Rules (Howard W. Smith, D chaired this committe and was squelching it there and did so until after Kennedy's death) committee until Johnson used the Bully Pulpit in support of the bill finally releasing it from what would have been certain demise.

(I did make a mistake though, Bob Dole was a Sponsor along with another D Senator but the legislation was written by Kennedy).
 
blackascoal said:
I don't think democrats deny it.

Republicans shouldn't deny it either.
Click to expand...

"""If a candidate can't go to the function because he feels the sponser is partisan, then how is he going to be President for anyone other than the people who voted for him? That's more of what we have now."""

That was Darla's quote. Seems more of the status quo then from both sides.
 
Damocles said:
The vote notwithstanding, the D Party wasn't going to let it out of the Rules (Howard W. Smith, D chaired this committe and was squelching it there and did so until after Kennedy's death) committee until Johnson used the Bully Pulpit in support of the bill finally releasing it from what would have been certain demise.

(I did make a mistake though, Bob Dole was a Sponsor along with another D Senator but the legislation was written by Kennedy).
Click to expand...

But my point is that it wasn't the Democratic Party that wouldn't let it out of Rules, it was Smith and a small cadre of southern democrats. Johnson and Bobby Kennedy were working their way around Smith, and as you correctly stated, Johnson used his office to force Smith to give it up.
 
Cypress said:
Fox News is a business. Not a constituency of american citizens.
Click to expand...

No difference. It has a huge contingency of voters who watches the channel and as Darla said it Democrats are afraid to speak to them how can they govern the whole country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top