Does the American black population know the true history of the Democratic Party??

How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves—were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23% of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, three of eight in the Senate) voted for it.

Most importantly, Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS’ “American Experience” notes, “In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865.” Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Civil rights in the ‘60s? Only 64% of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80% of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, six against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican “Southern strategy”? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term “Southern strategy.” They expected the “strategy” to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. “We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense,” said Buchanan, “and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.’” And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.


Questions for Debate:

1. Where did the distaste for the Republican party start in Black America?

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences divide republicans from black majorities, what can bridge the gap? (Realistically, we're not talking about music , clothing, or other rhetorical rants...)

4. Is the disdain for Mr. Bush, and the current administration a manifestation of the black community's disdain for the GOP? (edited to add...)

This thread needs some serious editing.

The topic title leads one to believe it is about President Bush's horrific polling numbers and stature with African-Americans.

But when I read aevans176's actual post, President Bush isn't even mentioned. Instead, he gives us a extremely selective history lesson that would lead one to believe Blacks should be madly in love with the Republican Party.

I'm really not following what one thing has to do with the other. Is the question about why Blacks aren't down with the GOP in general or Bush specifically?

Bush's lack of standing with African-Americans is a subject worthy of discussion and debate. However, the questions posed do not further that debate.

I believe that the questions actually coincide with each other. I believe that the Black community's overwhelming cultural distaste for Republicans has manifested itself in a disdain for Mr. Bush...

They have everything to do with each other...

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Mine is just as it is possible to support the troops without supporting the president, it is also possible to hold George W. Bush in low esteem and be a supporter of the Republican Party.

If that is the focus of the thread then I'd be glad to participate. If it's going to be a history lesson about all the wonderful things the GOP has done for Black America then I'll take a pass.

Of course it's possible to be a supporter of the GOP and loathe George Bush, but my question is, as far as the majority of black votes are concerned, are they mutually exclusive?

How many black people openly support the GOP, but don't support George Bush? (this is very common among US conservatives; i.e. Bill O Reilly, Ann Coulter, and a number of other "pundits"...)

It's not a history lesson, but more a question of whether there is truth behind the 2% approval rating, as opposed to social pressure and media dis-information.

Sorry to post a one liner, but where is this 2% number coming from?

How about the washington post?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/13/BL2005101300885.html

The information apparently actually came from NBC/WSJ....

Where did the distaste for the Republican party start in Black America?

Aevans, GOT HISTORY?

The 1960 presidential race was marked by vague campaign gestures in favor of racial equality by the Republican and Democratic tickets. Nixon and Kennedy wanted to court the black vote without alienating the segregationist South. MLK was arrested at a sit-in and a local judge “held that the arrest violated his parole on a traffic violation and immediately sentenced King to four months in a dangerous penitentiary far from the relatively progressive environs of Atlanta. King's imprisonment was now a matter of international focus. The threat to King's life was apparent to all of his close associates. While in prison, he could be killed in a staged escape or he could be put into an area with hostile white prisoners and come to an "accidental" end. Moreover, four months of hard time for a traffic violation seemed to be Jim Crow justice at its worst. Two weeks before an extraordinarily tight presidential election, the situation was instantly perceived by political observers to be electoral dynamite.” (Link)

Jackie Robinson, black White House aide Morrow, and Deputy Attorney General Walsh urged Nixon to make a statement against the sentence. According to Nixon his press secretary and the Eisenhower administration failed him. JFK made a phone call to Coretta King against the advice of his campaign manager and brother, RFK. Yet RFK followed up with his own phone call to the judge, King was released, and the political landscape changed almost overnight as black Americans left the party of Lincoln and threw their support behind the Democratic candidate.

A few years later LBJ would use the shock of Kennedy’s assassination to push passage for the CVA of 1964 with the help of northern liberal Republicans. As a result of the law’s passage for the first time in U.S. history The Big Two underwent more than a name change. The Democratic and Republican parties experienced an ideological polar shift that would align what used to be northern liberal Republicans with the Democratic Party and southern conservative Democrats with the Republican Party.

Nixon would win the 1968 election using the Southern Strategy and cement black support for the Democratic Party for decades to come.

Now I have a real question for you, Aevans. No party can offer let alone accomplish everything a minority wants. It may very well be that black Americans share common interests with the Republican party like smaller taxes to keep more money out of the government’s hands. Nor am I blind, deaf, and mute to the racist origins of my party. Do you think a black American can tip his or her hat to Lincoln and vote like it’s 2005?

1. Where did the distaste for the Republican party start in Black America?

After the parties switched political philosophies in the 1960's. The democrats becoming the more liberal party and the moderate to liberal republican party (which made it a minority) went conservative nd picked up all the once pro segregationalist democrats,. The Civil Rights act of 1964. Kennedy and Johnson (who ironically was personally very racist) were visibly fighting for equality in the face of southern democrats. Blacks who up until FDR started to moderate and liberalize the democratic party voted like up to 90% republican (when they could get around Democrat Jim Crow laws). This changed as the republicans adopted the "southern policy" of racial division to pick upf the white male conservative southerners. Ken Melhman speaking for republicans (to their credit) apologized for. In short the republican party gave power to segregationalists when the democratic party was moving away from them. The blacks switched parties.

If you look at the voting lines(link) of the 1964 Civil Rights act you see how geographic the breakdown was and why southern democrats became southern republicans starting with the Goldwater movement.

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

Now in 2005 about 25% rhetoric the rest history. Like 35 black members exist in congress...all of them democrats. Colin Powell and Condo are not going to erase years of pasty white male republican politics. However it is obvious that the democrats at tims take the black vote for granted and paint republicans as being more anti-black to keep this base. The same as republicans paint democrats as anti-religion to shore up religious votes. Blacks are aware they are being used as a degree but being such a small minority (12.5% or so) they like most American's stick too the party that best represents them.

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences divide republicans from black majorities, what can bridge the gap? (Realistically, we're not talking about music , clothing, or other rhetorical rants...)

Getting some pro -affirmative action republicans (other then Colin Powell) would be a start. To see that affirmative action is not designed as a racist institution but is designed to alleviate societal racism and a social scale tilted towards white's. Republicans by and large do not want to hear that. They do not believe that the scale is still so tilted towards white society or that societal racism playes such a huge part. In fact some democrats probably no longer believe it either but still toot the horn to not lose votes. Republican's listening to Jazz, Reggae, Motown, Rythym and Blues, R&B and Hip-Hop I am guessing (as a rural white man) isnt going to bridge the gap. Republican's need to understand the black community. Their churches and their culture.

4. Is the disdain for Mr. Bush, and the current administration a manifestation of the black community's disdain for the GOP? (edited to add...)

It's a show that black's have felt ill-will towards the republican party for sometime and that recent events like Katrina has made that minority of republican supporting blacks even smaller in number.

I would guess that the southern black vote died for republicans they moment they openly embraced Barry Goldwater and the Strom Thurmond's of the world. Modern day republicans like Trent Lott, William Bennett, and Richard Baker also do not help republican's.

In addition the support the confederate flag in southern states by republican's and 20 or so congressman (mostly southern) all republican refused to agree to an apology for US states not passing Anti-Lynching laws. (link)

Just because a person has a certain color to his or her skin does not denote some neat political formation. If you watch that 9-11 film by Roger Moore, I think I remember the republican rap, and that is not saying much. I also do not understand how that would work, the statistic that is, did they ask some folks their opinion, and then just tally on skin tone? With a low approval rating already existing, was there to be a matching percentage of acceptance by people with a certain skin tone?

Its issues like that which make affirmative action come off as a racist institution, everyone is more into the words that make up race then why things like affirmative Acton come to exist. It has nothing to do with society and its history, and has to do purely with skin colors right Plus affirmative action according to its own design will destroy itself in time, either by fixing a “problem” or not doing anything.

Back to the topic.

I would opt, that with a low approval rating overall, it would not be odd to conduct a poll that would basically result in the same, a low approval rating. Plus its the media, they like to get attention and viewers, imagine how boring news would be if they did not fill the time with all the negative stuff one can view. Not saying its fireworks or some form of manipulation, just a possibility, or maybe part of it all. There has not been any mud being flung in relation to race, heck Bush has giving high ranking jobs to people that because of genetics do not have white skin, so what could it be? It simply could be that Bush overall has a low approval rating. Though I would find it funny to have the KKK at large polled for acceptance of the current president, but I doubt for anyone to care if they have a high ranking in that area openly in today’s America.

1. Here's an anonymous article, with references, which goes into the historical background of this situation.

Link



2. Like all politics, this situation is a mixture of rhetoric and fact. I won't attempt to guess what percentage of each goes into the mixture. Despite what you might be trying to imply, however, there are some factual aspects of Republican policy which do not appeal to many African-Americans. It is not simply an illusion on the part of African-American voters.

3. Assuming I wanted to encourage more African-Americans to vote for the GOP, the strategy seems clear. Focus almost entirely on "cultural issues." From the same article:



Talk about your opposition to same-sex marriage. Cut back on the rhetoric against affirmative action and welfare. In fact, do what the GOP has done in recent years; make the Religious Right the heart and soul of your party.


4. Like it or not, George W. Bush is the symbol of the GOP. That's one of the prices you pay for being President.

The only gap is between perception and reality [for the most part]. My initial response to Wertz, or rather, my response to the perceived implication that the GOP is the party of racists, IS the gap that needs to be overcome. And Wertz, that is and was my point, i.e., the Democrats can't seem to stop themselves from spouting this lie about how we are either racists or pander to them. The Dems have labeled us boogeymen for decades now, and they have gotten away with such malicious nonsense precisely and only because the GOP has not rolled up its shirt sleeves, gotten its hands dirty, and demonstrated the falsity of such label. And since we haven't done that, the Dems have been entirely free to run the table, i.e., paint us all as Klansmen in an effort to scare those black citizens who would not otherwise vote to the polls so that he/she/they might vote Democrat.

And true, some issues will be "losers" for us, at least partially so. Affirmative action, with respect to black Americans, and immigration reform, with respect to Hispanic Americans, are two of those issues, though if we presented our position and arguments respecting the same in a heartfelt and passionate manner, the "loss" would not be as severe as it otherwise would be.

Wertz is not saying this. He is saying that the racists join the GOP and not that the GOP is racist.

You are employing a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent:

However, I agree that some Democrats do employ such a logical fallacy when attacking the Republican party. Considering how you just employed exactly the same fallacy upon Wertz's statements, I suppose I don't understand your complaint.

Really? Which racists would that be? Did the majority of Southern racists join the GOP, or did most of them opt out? Senator Byrd? Where are the non-white racists? Can you point to any statistical evidence that the majority of Southern racists are in the GOP now, or is it simply a convenient assumption that is used to explain the loss of the Democrats stranglehold on the South?

Of course, politically speaking, perception is 80% of reality. The Democrats, and more significantly, the Left, has done a masterful job of painting the GOP as the enemy of minorities. Tell a lie loud enough and long enough, and a substantial number of folks will believe it, especially if the liar is busy giving goodies to the listeners.

Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, La Shawn Barber, Ward Connerly, etc can perhaps give better insight into this matter than I. I'd recommend anybody interested in this subject give them a read.

Good questions. I'm sure Wertz has an opinion on this (he seems to at least patially answer your questions; I'd suggest reading the earlier posts). Also, I'm not the one making these arguments. I am merely pointing out that KHT was asserting a logical fallacy.


Yeah, I agree we these points. And "terrorists hate freedom" too .


Thanks for the names. Can you provide links to CVs and/or articles?

You will find Elder, Sowell, Williams, and Connerly here:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columnists/

For a good examination of the demonization : http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/lar.../08/155368.html

La Shawn Barber is a blogger. Sowell and Williams are both economicsts, Elder is a lawyer turned pundit, and Connerly just recently finished up 12 years as a University California Regent. Finally, not mentioned before, I'd suggest paying extra attention to Star Parker.

The statistics of the Republican party incorporating racists is evidenced in voting trends.

Segregation supporting southernors were largely democrat up until the 60's.

As bloc 1 party as they are today for Republican's they once were for the democrats here is the electoral map of the elction of......1952 the election of 1956 the election of 1960 and then you see the south switch with Barry Goldwater with his pro-segregationalist state's right's agenda in 1964.

A clear and dramatic shift happened in the 60's. The 1964 election being the finalization of a few decades of democrats moving away from segregation and republican's beginning in 1964.

Strom Thurmond was a Democratic senator until 1964.

To say the republican's incorporated racists is simply a logical and simple observation. The civil Rights act of 1964 and the past few decades of the democratic party becoming more and more liberal pushed segregation supporting southerners to the republican party and the modern father of the Republican party Barry Goldwater.

It isn't as if all of those segregation supporting democrats just happened to overnight forget being racists.

The names of the political parties isn't even important the labels that have been on one side or the other in regards to civil rights has been liberal versus conservative and those two labels over the history the US do not eternally mean a specific party.

Conservatives used to be democrats. The Republican party in it's northern and northeastern manner was the centrist to liberal party. Starting with FDR and more or less finalizing in 1964 the two major parties supporters switched. Liberals and moderates became democrats and conservatives became republicans.

This is widely understood so much so that Richard Nixon made it a strategy in 1968 to capitalize on the Goldwater pro-segregationalist campaign of 1964 and the modern southern strategy was born. To rouse the fervor of black hating southern whites who had not learned to accept blacks yet by any stretch of the imagination. Something the Republican party has recently apologized for.

A 1968 Gallop poll indicated that 68% of all-American's opposed interracial marriages and that 48% believed any such union should be criminalized.

I do not have the geographic listing for that poll but I have a pretty good idea what region the majority those 68% and 48% people lived.

And I'd recommend anybody interested in this subject not to rely upon "the usual suspects" of Black conservatives (Connerly, Sowell, Williams, Elder) who haven't had an original thought in ten years and haven't had any clout with mainstream African-Americans ever.

Bikerdad's list of Black conservatives excludes individuals who bring more to the table than the racial apologists he so admires. Sowell, Williams, Connerly, Elder and Star Parker have been all too happy to provide cover for an antiblack agenda advanced both by some conservatives and Republicans. The primary purpose in life for these Black conservatives is to villify Black liberals (a task even many White conservatives are afraid to do less they be accused of racism). The strange thing is while they smile and reassure other conservatives they are the true voice of mainstream Black thought, their sphere of influence is conspicously limited to right-wing radio, television, think tanks and websites.

But don't take my word for it. Read for yourself how certain Black conservatives are livin' large on the largesse of their White patrons.

http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=173

There are others that have expanded upon and are redesigning Black conservative thought as something beyond parroting the rhetoric of George Bush and Dick Cheney. They are pro-Black/Black conservatives. Among their number included are John McWhorter, Debra Dickerson, and Joseph C. Phillips.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mcwhorter.htm
http://www.debradickerson.com/articles/bla...ging_blacks.htm
http://www.eurweb.com/story.cfm?id=23332

I don't agree with everything McWhorter, Dickerson, Phillips and many other Black self-described conservatives say. When they feel it's deserved they give Black Americans hell. But, that doesn't mean they give a pass when White Americans deserve to get some grief too. That's a critical difference between them and the likes of a Ward Connerly.

Exiled from the short list of good Black conservatives is Glenn Loury whose turnaround angered and confused many on the Right.

After his brush with the law, Loury became increasingly alarmed by the right's punitive rhetoric on issues ranging from racial profiling to the criminal justice system and wary of the ways in which, as a black man, he was being used as a screen for an antiblack agenda. He was horrified by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein's 1994 book, ''The Bell Curve,'' a social Darwinist tract arguing that black poverty was rooted in inferior intelligence. He was even more appalled by ''The End of Racism,'' the lurid assault on ''black failure'' written by Dinesh D'Souza when he was a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Not only did his conservative friends not share his rage; they were taken aback by it and tried, he says, to muzzle him. Commentary, which had welcomed Loury's writing in the past, refused to publish his critique of ''The Bell Curve.'' And though The Weekly Standard ran Loury's caustic review of D'Souza's book, it also published a lengthy response from the author. In 1995, Loury resigned from the American Enterprise Institute over its support of D'Souza.

In a column called ''What's Wrong With the Right,'' published in the January-February 1996 issue of The American Enterprise journal, Loury wrote that while ''liberal methods'' on questions of race were certainly flawed, 'liberals sought to heal the rift in our body politic engendered by the institution of chattel slavery, and their goal of securing racial justice in America was, and is, a noble one. I cannot say with confidence that conservatism as a movement is much concerned to pursue that goal.'' (emphasis added)

http://phuakl.tripod.com/eTHOUGHT/Loury.html

Which gets to the heart of the matter and answers WHY Bush's support from Black America wallows in the depths of a miserable two percent. Despite what The Usual Suspects of Black conservative "leadership" might say, the majority of Black people see that despite the mistakes, errors and flaws with some of the policies and remedies liberals have applied toward creating a country where racial justice exists, conservatives have not participated in this social movement with equal zeal and commitment.

That's why Black America holds George W. Bush and to a lesser degree, the Republican Party in low esteem. Too often the GOP and this president have been on the wrong side of what's right to bring about racial justice in America.

Nighttimer, 2+2 isn't an original idea, and there are thousands of teachers who have been repeating it every single year. They do so because establishing the basics is critical, which is what those who you indict as functional Uncle Tom's strive to do.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1774271,00.html

Whoa. Was it really necessary to quote my entire post, Bikerdad, just to make a point? Edit, man, edit!

I'm not sure what basic mathematics have to do with my previous post or your response---such as it is since you didn't address or refute any of my points---but I will have to correct you on the one salient issue you did raise.

At no time in my post did I "indict" ANYONE as "functional Uncle Toms." Those are your words and descriptions. Not mine.

What I was saying and what apparently eluded you was my contention that the likes of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker, Larry Elder and especially Ward Connerly enjoy whatever notoriety and acclaim they possess almost exclusively and predominantly with White conservatives (such as yourself) and hold little to no such similar status in mainstream Black America.

That doesn't make them "functional Uncle Toms" (your phrase, not mine). It does mean they are typically beholden to the White conservatives that provide them both patronage and a podium.

That makes them part of the problem instead of part of the solution in achieving racial justice in this country. On the other hand, they DO probably make up that whopping two percent of Blacks supporting George Bush, so they do serve some useful purpose in life.

Oh, and I'm happy to see you found the links to John McWhorter useful. Always happy to expand the scope of someone's reading list. However, I already said that I don't always agree with McWhorter and the link you included was one such example of that disagreement.

I have to take issue with this portion of your post NT. To believe this, one has to believe that no part of conservative idealogy can enhance the lives of minorities or help to bring about racial justice. True racial equality and harmony cannot come about unless all sides are heard and have a place at the table. I think it can be argued that there are at least as many liberal black activists who are typically beholden to the White liberals that provide them both patronage and a podium.

When you assume only the left to be allowed legitimacy in this issue, it disenfranchises the sizable number of minorities who do believe in less intrusive government, a pro-life stance, traditional family values, lower taxes and school choice, just to name a few issues.

You may not agree with the screeds of the 'usual suspects' of black conservatives, just as I don't agree with the rantings of the 'usual suspects' of black liberals. But denying legitimacy to either point of view will never, ever........let me repeat.....never bring about any semblance of racial peace. It will simply retain the divide and status quo.
Unfortunately I believe there are similar numbers on both sides that are more than comfortable with the status quo

Sorry, my bad. I'm using an I-Book without a mouse, a configuration I'm not comfortable with. (Of course, Julian has probably, and rightly, castigated me in another thread because I didna quote enough. sigh...)

In addition to being basic mathematics, "2+2" is rhetorical shorthand for basic concepts. I'm sure you can string the rest of it together....

Certainly, they're my words, but they are your descriptions.
First, a definition of "Uncle Tom" :
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

Now, what you've written:



Any questions? The only thing you didn't do was use the actual term "Uncle Tom", which is why I said "functional."

btw, if you actually read the folks I've identified, you'd know that they never identify themselves as the voice of "mainstream Black thought."



I've read McWhorter before, in fact I believe I've quoted or referenced him here at AD in the past. His name simply didna pop to the top of my mind as I haven't recently read him.

Grace and peace,
BD

1. Where did the distaste for the Republican party start in Black America?

Way back when, the US political partys which still exist today, had a lot less philosophical centralization. There were many conservative democrats, and many liberal republicans. I think it would be best, if we throw partys out of the picture when considering that period of time, as the partys of that era, had different platfroms then era, then they do now.

Instead, lets look at things, in a liberal conservative perspective.

Liberals are for change, and Conservatives are against it. Conservatives seek to hold things in place (and often pull things backward), and liberals seek to push things forward. Forward is not always good, as change can be precarious. At the same time, society is not perfect as it is, and therefore has room for improvement. In instituting change, you attempt to perfect society, via use of methods that often have not been properly tested, and as such, you risk just making things worse. On the otherhand, if traditions were always maintained in all situations, we would preside in a much bleaker world then we currently live in.

As conservatives are for the upholdence of the status quo, during the equal rights movement, they were against racial equality. If proof for this assertion needs to be provided, then just look how of the politicians, spoke about "protecting our society" when making racist speeches. Just look how devout racist organizations such as the KKK are, and how the KKK in particular uses the Holy Cross as its rallying symbol.

Liberals on the otherhand, were/are for changing the world...Its the 60s were speaking of. The fight for racial equality, was only one of the many radical motifs held by the liberals of that era.

2. How much of the sentiment is based purely on rhetoric as opposed to truth? How much is imbedded in actual history?

Well, i've just explained myself already. Rhetoric and ignorance, certainly have a great deal to do with explaining how people see history as far as partys go, but I think how people see history, as far as convervative and liberals go, is accurate.

3. If the media, pop culture, or cultural differences divide republicans from black majorities, what can bridge the gap?

Blacks feel victimized, their economics status is very small compared that of the rest of the country. They want change, and conservatives don't.

Blacks are poor. Democrats have an advantage with the poor, because the poor don't have next to no taxes, no matter who is charge, and the poor also rely heavily on social services. In short, economic wealth distribution offered by big government aids them greatly. All this bad PR the republicans get about cutting taxes only from those in top 1%, doesnt help much help much eitheir

When Clinton was president, he ensured that an enormous portion of his administration was made up of those with color. Bush on the otherhand, rolled that back. His central cabinet is diverse, but his administration as a whole is very white.

Most of our countries blacks, have been here since the 1800s. Immigration issues aren't particularly important to them. In courting blacks, Republicans lack the primary playing card they use on hispanics.

Democrats are for affirmative action, Republicans aren't.

Message is only part of the problem the Republicans have here. If they truly want to get the black vote, then they need to change their platform.

4. Is the disdain for Mr. Bush, and the current administration a manifestation of the black community's disdain for the GOP? (edited to add...)

Partially yes. Bush seems to be recieving (justifiably or not)