Carlito, in general you may be right. Usage does changed. Black was capitlizes when I was in school.

The 2003 edition of The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors and Publishers, which I bought on recommendation of ArthurMusician, says this in section 8:43:



Chicago, however, added a caveat:



Certainly nighttimer has the latitude to capitalize "Black" if he wishes. It has to be more correct than referring to children as "childrens."

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

A Republican Party that got trounced in 2006 is only furthering its destiny of becoming a marginalized and minority party in 2008, according to some political commentators.

We start with a tip for those who seek elective office: In order to be successful in politics, you try to get every vote you can earn while making sure that your opponent earns every vote he gets.

Many Republican candidates for president have forgotten this rule. They seem to think it's better to give than to receive, as illustrated by their willingness to give up on attracting many minority voters.

With their support for freedom and economic fairness, Republicans have a message that those voters need to hear. Ronald Reagan understood that, and so did George W. Bush. Both men did very well with Hispanic voters. But you can't share the message if you don't even begin the dialogue. And for some reason, many in the current crop of Republican presidential candidates are staying away from specialized debates that might give them an opportunity to speak directly to Hispanic and African-American voters.

First, all the GOP candidates but Rep. Tom Tancredo skipped out on the NAACP debate in Detroit in July. The Democrats went to theirs. Then the entire field of Republican candidates except John McCain skipped out on the Univision debate, which was supposed to air on the Spanish-language network on Sept. 16. The Democrats showed up for a Spanish-language debate a week earlier.

Whatever the reason for these snubs of minority voters, they don't represent a very smart strategy. But they are helpful to Democrats, who probably just underwent a bump in their popularity with some of those voters. Judging from the last presidential election, the Democratic Party already enjoys a nearly 9-to-1 advantage with black voters, and a 3-to-2 advantage with Hispanics. But it could always get better for Democrats – just as it can always get worse for Republicans.
link

So if the GOP thinks they can win back control of Congress and hold on to the Oval Office by kissing off Blacks and Latinos and just relying upon preaching to the already converted, they can keep up that strategy and get ready to deal with President Clinton Part II.


The leading GOP contenders skipped last night's Morgan State debate focusing on the African-American community. A number of explanations were bandied about -- it is the end of the fundraising cycle where finance events get top priority, limiting the subject matter to issues affecting African Americans was thought to be unfavorable ground for Republicans, and moderator Tavis Smiley is generally viewed as unsympathetic to conservatives, having written a book entitled Hard Left: Straight Talk About the Wrongs of the Right. However, some commentators and potential candidate Newt Gingrich thought the decision unwise for a party that has great difficulty getting support from minority voters.

The latest Gallup poll painted a dismal picture. Gallup pollsters explained: "Between 2002 and today, the percentage of Americans with a favorable view of the Republican Party fell from 54.7% to 38.7% -- a 16-percentage point decline. (This was after a sharp rise in Republican Party ratings between 2001 and 2002 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.) Over the same period, the Democrats' average favorable rating barely changed, falling by 1 percentage point (from 54.0% to 53.0%)." That's not all: 54% of those polled now think Democrats will do a better job keeping us prosperous compared to only 34% who favor Republicans. On national security, a longtime winning issue for Republicans, Democrats are favored 47-42%.

These figures should also be viewed in the context of the 2006 election in which independent voters voted approximately 2-to-1 in favor of Democrats in elections for governors, senators and congressmen. This occurred even in formerly red states like Ohio where the Democratic candidates for governor and senator swept the independent vote. In short, the GOP is losing popularity and is no longer viewed by most Americans as the party of fiscal sanity and strong defense.

It is perhaps natural in such times to go into a defensive crouch and stick to the safe confines of Fox News and friendly talk radio hosts. Particularly in a heated primary it makes perfect sense to seek out venues which have large numbers of politically active conservative listeners and viewers. But over time it is limiting and self-defeating for several reasons.

link 2

Meanwhile, back in Iowa, David Jespen of the DesMoines Register wondered what was going through the minds of the GOP no-shows.

They held a debate among Republican presidential candidates over minority issues Thursday night and the big loser was the GOP.

The party's top-tier candidates — Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain — were no-shows at the All-American Presidential Forum on PBS. That sent a hostile signal about the Republican Party to the nation's black and Latino communities.

For a party already in minority status in much of the country, it defies political logic to just brush off these constituencies. Republicans don't need to win the votes of everyone in those groups, but they must carry a big enough slice to deny victories to Democrats in close contests.

Maybe the demoralized GOP has some sort of death wish in 2008. In the 1850s, the Republicans of that era managed to alienate people of Irish ancestry and drove them into the Democratic Party for generations. The same thing has happened to blacks, who just two generations ago were often voting for Republicans. It is about to happen with Americans of Latino ancestry, who find the constant GOP bashing of illegal immigration to be racially tinged.

The evening also gave all Americans a chance to hear the issues and concerns of minority voters, especially blacks. Those questions are sometimes overshadowed in other debates or in all-white discussions. They include such things as the connection between race and unemployment, school desegregation, and what to do with people in the country illegally.

link 3

What so many of those who think Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson did the right thing by passing up the debate fail to understand is too often all the Republicans do is talk to other Republicans about their own issues and leave everyone else out of the conversation. The Morgan State debate was an opportunity for the GOP front-runners to step out of their comfort zone and speak to people of color about topics never touched upon in the majority of the debates. Their decision to stay home is a strong indication they have conceded the votes of non-Whites to the Democrats without even putting up a fight for them.

So for those of you who say the Republicans need to secure their base first and then start the outreach next year, I think you will find to your lasting sorrow that next year is going to be far too little and far too late.

1. Are Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain making a mistake by skipping the Tavis Smiley-hosted debate?

2. Black voters are criticized for their consistent support of Democratic candidates. Are the Republicans giving them any reason to change their minds?

3. Should presidential candidates only speak to groups that may potentially vote for them?


Black debates, Hispanic debates, YouTube debates, Gay debates... What's next? Cross-dressing Jewish midgets with Asian surnames debates? Who really cares right now? It seems to me that it's only the politics nerds like most of us here in this forum. I suppose it's our form of "American Idol" or something, but it doesn't really matter right now. Not to most people - Black, White, Hispanic or even cross-dressing Jewish midgets. All of these early "debates" look the same, sound the same, are the same and to be honest, they are useless at determining who would make the best President.

Now, since Fred Thompson is "my guy" in this one, I'll use him as an example of how I'd advise him, but my advice would be the same for any candidate of either party. If Fred wants to reach out to the Black community, and I think he should, then he should schedule some events in the Black community. Next time he's in Los Angeles, drive down the 110 freeway and meet with the people in South Central and/or Inglewood. Talk with them one on one, address their concerns and talk about the kinds of things he could do as president to help with their problems. Spend a couple of hours of quality time discussing the specific problems voicing to him there. Far more effective than a 3 minute soundbyte from the stage at Howard University that nobody's watching anyway. And oh Fred, while you're at the NBC Studios in Burbank talking to Jay Leno, walk next door to the Telemundo studios and do an hour one on one with their political reporter. That's how one can reach out to minority communities more efficiently than standing on a stage and swapping soundbytes with the other candidates.

So no, I don't think this was a rejection of "Black America" at all. More likely it was a rejection of all these stupid media events cloaked as "political debates".


Aquilla

The people that showed up to the debate are not among the people likely to get the Repubican Party nomination to run for President. The outcome of the 2008 elections has NOTHING to do with this debate. No one cared about this debate besides a few bloggers and us. Tavis Smiley, nice guy he might be, held a debate that didn't matter. And the ja'mokes who bothered to show up could have probably spent their time more constructively elsewhere.

The Democrats may have gone to the NAACP debate in Detroit, however they bowed out when Fox News co-sponsored a debate in Detroit with the political education and leadership institute of the Congressional Black Caucus. Personally, I think it's even a bigger mistake to decline an offer from this one than it was from a PBS co-sponsorship based on the number of viewers alone. This was an opportunity to address not only the black caucus for the primary election, but to address the largest viewer block of any news channel for the general election next year.

As we saw with Tavis' debate, there were no pitchforks or torches, and to believe that is what would've happened on the Fox co-sponsor debate is pure political bias. People think the Republicans are taking orders from big business, well it seems the Democrats are taking orders from MoveOn....

Arf! Chicago owes me a discount!

I capitalize White, Black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic, Spanish or really any other term that refers to a person's heritage. That's out of respect and fairness. Then you get style guides that contradict this simple preference, and there you go. The editor makes the LC slash and I'm trumped.

I have noticed NT capitalizing White too, so I'm assuming he's going on this simple preference.

Anyhow, I really don't care if the Republican candidates accept or reject any debate. As has been brought forward here, I can't vote in any Republican primaries. I am politically aware enough to know that the biggest lies are advanced during the early stages of campaigns, balloons floated, various songs and dances tried out, babies kissed, chests thumped, cleavage shown and the such.

This move was probably bad for attracting any Black independents, but there's also probably enough time that people might forget. I suppose this was the reasoning behind avoiding a potentially embarrassing situation. Yet if this is true, it does say something about what is considered a potentially embarrassing, perhaps even threatening, situation.

Another thing is the overall value of what passes for political debate during campaigns. I'm in the habit of ignoring these things and going to party platform planks instead. If policy statements are available, those too. The debates could just as well be replaced with Trivial Pursuit for all they're worth. And then there's the stump speech (urp).

But then one must have a high trash-talk tolerance level when following politics. Or maybe it's the trash-talk decoder ring that one needs. Also a bald-faced unabashed lie detector. I am certain that these political aids aren't available to most of the electorate, judging upon how easy it is to fool most of the people most of the time.

So I won't judge the front-running Republican candidates on their refusal to debate in this particular context. I will judge on the party's past and probable future performance, which takes a minuscule effort.

2. Black voters are criticized for their consistent support of Democratic candidates. Are the Republicans giving them any reason to change their minds?

Same reasons they give to voters of any other skin shade, mostly having to do with keeping the country properly defended and the courts staffed with judges who understand the law, among other things. I don't accept the premise contained in the title of this thread one bit. Whatever the wisdom or lack thereof of attending this particular event, the NAACP is not "Black America". For that matter, I don't accept the notion that black interests are at odds with white interests. Apart from maybe some issues relating to federal funding of research on medical conditions genetically associated with one race or the other, we all have the same needs. We might as well be wondering if candidates are giving appropriate enough attention to left-handed voters, or voters who are fans of Mariah Carey.

If Republicans have anything in particular to offer black voters, it's a way out of this totally counterproductive habit of viewing everything through racial lenses. Doing so creates an inherent separation in society, and as the Supreme Court correctly observed over half a century ago, separating the races makes them inherently unequal.

Partially on simple preference, AuthorMusician and partially because when I was the editor of a Black newspaper, we always capitalized "Black" or "Blacks" when it was clearly being used as a racial identifier. The same goes for "White" or "Whites." It runs counter to The Associated Press Stylebook that most newspapers use as a guide, but rules are made to be broken.




There is nothing "counterproductive" about viewing things through racial lenses when it is appropriate, and the decision of the GOP front-runners to blow off the most recent debate qualifies. The position they are competing for is the job of being The President of the United States of America. NOT the White President of White Americans.

Republicans may have something to offer Black voters, but they'll never sell it as long as they refuse to speak with them.

1. Are Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain making a mistake by skipping the Tavis Smiley-hosted debate?

After seeing the the results I think they received more publicity from skipping the debate then the people who participated. By some of the comments here, it seems that skipping the debate and ignoring a minority portion of our population might not seem acceptable, but maybe justified. Is this something we should like to see in a president? Meanwhile the candidates that did participate are receiving minimal praise for making an attempt to draw more voters to their party.

2. Black voters are criticized for their consistent support of Democratic candidates. Are the Republicans giving them any reason to change their minds?

If anything they are encouraging them do either go against mainstream candidates, or strengthing their tie to the democratic party. With the war and administration as unpopular as they are, I don't think the Republicans has the luxury alienating possible voters.

Again, the NAACP is not synonymous with black voters. As far as I know, no Republican candidate has ever insisted that the events they speak at exclude blacks or has in any way discouraged them from attending. The objection here isn't that they refuse to speak with any particular racial group, but that they don't go out of their way to. I don't see why they should.

Basically, the NAACP represents a political constituency that overwhelmingly supports the Democrats. I don't think anyone can seriously deny that. Have any of the Democratic candidates attended an event hosted by an organization representing a constituency that overwhelmingly supports the Republicans?

The Democrats bailing on the Fox News debates is not the same as the Republicans bailing on the PBS/Travis Smiley debates. First, neither party has any trouble reaching out the white (or White) voters. Second, Democrats are not perceived as having trouble reaching out to black/Black (or any minority) voters as compared to Republicans. So, if the Republican front runners skip out on a significant forum tailored specifically towards minority voters, then it is the Republicans loss. It's that simple.

Republicans need to go out of their way to address minority issues head on if they expect to change the inaccurate perception that Republicans are a party of racists.

The NAACP had nothing to do with the debate at Morgan State. They did not host or participate in the debate so your suggestion that they were involved is wrong. As to your question whether any of the Democrats attended an event hosted by an organization that overwhelmingly supports the Republicans, Bill Richardson recently appeared at a NRA convention along with several Republican contenders. Does that answer your question?

If you don't believe the GOP should "go out of their way" in speaking with people of color, I would suppose that means you know what's best for the Republican Party. Certainly more than former RNC head Ken Mehlman, Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich.

Somehow though, I doubt it. If the GOP wants to commit a dimwitted act of political suicide by narrowing, instead of broadening their base and treating words like "outreach," "inclusion" and "diversity" as anathema, then when they go sailing off the cliff next fall, hopefully you'll be there to throw them a rope. Or at least bring a broom to sweep up the pieces.

Racism doesn't really cater to the notion here. I think the facts lead to the idea that politicians are going to spend time and money in places where it benefits them most and where our "political capital" (votes) will be most likely to land. Mitt Romney threw a big rally in Salt Lake City... why? Umm... he's mormon. Go figure. Does he not like Catholics and that's why no Rally in Baton Rouge? Of course not.



I hear ya man. I can't wait for a candidate to offer something to middle class Americans with two incomes who are getting beaten by taxes. I don't know that there are any true conservatives running. Romney pretends, but his record shows that he favors raising taxes (even capital gains).

All I'd say about your previous posts NT, I'd have to say to be leary of polling data and national polling agencies in reference to the Presidential election.

Remember that they were dead wrong last time, and that polls can always read what the pollster wants you to read.

What I think will be the problem for Republicans in 2008 is going to be purely financial, as the field isn't nearly as narrow for all intensive purposes. Obama and Clinton share the lion's share of donor $, while in the GOP it's Romney, Giuliani, Paul, McCain, and Thompson.

I believe that pocketbooks are the new equalizer, and polling data this early is a barometer at best.

Finally- I really think that it's not that the GOP doesn't think that the black vote is important, but moreover that appearing with Tavis Smiley isn't going to win votes. In my opinion, places they should've been were like Jena, La. They need to appeal to the hearts of minority voters in order to bridge the gap. Maybe Jena wasn't a great example, as standing up for a 3 time offender is bad press, but it just might turn a head or two.

Where else? If I was Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, I'd take up a national cause associated with Black America and show up instead of providing lip service. Be genuine instead of perpetuating the same ol' political stigma.

Maybe it's my disenfranchised view, but I think that all politicians go where the votes are like leeches. For instance, Hillary Clinton would never think to go to Shreveport, La. Heck- I'd be surprised if she makes Dallas, and if she does it surely won't be north of 635. Why? umm... it's pretty conservative up here. Even the Democrats in Dallas hate her. Again... if black people aren't gonna be buyin' what the candidate is sellin'... it's like selling ice to eskimos...

Read my post again. Fox News may have been televising it, but it was co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus in Detroit. Not exactly what I think of when I think "White voters". I'm just saying it was a huge opportunity to not only address questions from the Black Caucus, but to address the largest viewer block of any news station.



That may very well be the case, however during the primaries, it's not about "reaching out". It's about letting the people who are already going to be voting for one of you, decide which one is the best.

What does Mitt Romney's rally in Salt Lake have to do with an invitation to debate with other Republican hopefuls in a context geared towards minority interests? Political capital? I don't even know what that means.

~~~~~

Sure. It was an opportunity; I doubt it was huge. Democrats don't have the trouble reaching out the black/Black voters like Republicans do.


If that's the case, then Republicans have already lost '08.

Why? Because they didn't address a group of people that not only won't vote them in the primaries, but can not vote for them?

As I've said before, I wish more of the Republicans would've attended the Tavis debate, but let's not pull any punches here. The number of PBS viewers at it's all-time peak is probably what Fox News does on a boring news day.

Looking at this completely from a pragmatic standpoint. Let's take out the race factor for a moment and we'll call them "unlikely to vote for a republican candidate".

So, four republicans won't show up for a debate to address people who are unlikely to vote for them in the general election and can not vote for them in the primaries(which is the process we're still in right now) in front of a very small viewer block.

On the flip-side, all but two democrats(moot point since it was canceled anyway because of that fact) declined an offer to address not only likely voters(which is good during the primaries), but a huge viewer block of unlikely voters, aka conservatives and independents who watch fox news religiously.(which is good for the general election).

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I'll end this by saying, personally, I believe both parties have made mistakes here, hopefully some of us can agree on that.

Because while the primary is the first hurdle, the election is what matters. By narrowly focusing on the primary, it demonstrates to potential voters that the candidate doesn't really care about the voter's issues but rather only cares about "winning". It is self-defeating on its face.

Well that sounds all well and good on the Democrat side, seeing as how Hillary pretty much has a lock on the primaries, that's not the case on the other side of the aisle. No matter how poorly Hillary does in a debate, no matter how many times they play her cackle, she seems to increase her lead in the polls. It's pretty much anyone's game for the Republicans, though.

I have to disagree with the 11 words that Baphomet's Advocate has spread across 4 posts in this thread. The opinion that neglecting this voting block doesn't matter is plain ignorance. This is an opinion that makes you seem like the Mohammed Saeed of American Politico.

The insult is the insinuated racist belief that bLACKS are incapable of controlling their hostility and only created this venue with the intention of attacking Republicans. It is the same racist sentiment that Bill O'Reilly echoed when he was surprised at the decorum of a bLACK-owned restaraunt in Harlem. He assumed that bLACKS behaved like savages. And McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and FOXs Candidate all had a similar racist belief, that bLACKS were going to be wild savages attacking them. It is the ignorance of these men that is most appalling.

With that said, our country is in a sad state right now. Our race relations are the worst they have ever been since I've been alive (1975), not the worst ever of course. Hanging nooses in the South, hanging nooses in Police stations, racial fights over a tree, lynching lessons given to children, a bLACK woman tortured by six wHITE people, and the general disdain each race has for each other. It is quite depressing. With the direction that things are going, we are headed for a violent racial conflict. It is imperative that George W. Bush and his divisive regime leave office as soon as humanly possible and get someone in office who can unite this country once again. If you are proud of this America, you are living in a secondary delusional world of ignorance and stupidity.

Of for the love of God....

Read the introductory post to the thread:


Those are NTs words, not mine. I parroted them.

Further, while Bill O'Reilly is complete tool I strongly recommend you listen to what he said with the questions he's answering. Context counts. Bill O'Reilly is still an idiot though.

Your assessment of the race relations since 1975 is laughable. 4 of the 5 examples you cite are the same case. I don't know what disdain you have for black people but I have no more disdain for them than I do for any other humans who are, as group, fairly disdained!

Oops. Sorry, my error.


It does, as far as it goes. It's the equivalent of Tancredo, Hunter, Huckabee, and Paul showing up at this one: notable for who's there as well as who isn't.


No, I wasn't offering strategic advice to them. I was only pointing out that there's no moral obligation on the part of politicians to specifically address racial groups as though they were separate racial groups, as opposed to simply addressing the entire country as one nation. Whether or not that makes good strategic sense is something I'll leave for the professionals to work out.

Well, Senator Obama certainly isn't neglecting the black vote: Obama on Tyra. With him in the race it's no wonder the republicans just gave up.

I'm not sure that's true.



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...h-blacks-in-sc/

A recent poll in South Carolina show Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are both receiving more than 30% Black support, with Obama having a slight lead. I'm not sure you can assume Black primary voters will necessarily vote for a Black candidate. The Black community may not be the monolith you assume.

What I am sure of is, that in the aftermath of Katrina, Blacks will rally behind the Democratic nominee in the general election in traditional numbers, eroding the increased Black support Bush enjoyed in 2004. Not showing up at this debate is the Republican candidate's way of throwing in the towel in getting Black votes. I watch Republican self-destruction with glee. It sort of makes up for all that time listening to Bush garble the English language and watching tom DeLay's ugly face as he tells us all Terri Schiavo needs is speech therapy.

The saddest thing is that you might be partially right about Katrina. A Democrat Mayor and Democrat Governor were 200x more responsible for the mess, and a Republican president gets blamed because of an ignorant song "George Bush Don't Like Black People".

Sure. Brilliant. Makes perfect sense, as always, liberal America shirking blame. Figures.

Hey, Aevans176, as long as we're going down Memory Lane, remember this phrase?

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

That particularly poignant phrase was issued by the President of the United States even while dead bodies were floating in the brackish waters and rotting on the streets and children were crying for food and water. I'm sure you must recall that.

A Republican president got blamed for a tardy, inadequate and inefficient response to the greatest natural disaster to devistate an American city. Maybe you remember that?

Then again, you probably don't. You couldn't even recall that there was no "ignorant" song called, "George Bush Don't Like Black People." Allow me to refresh your faded recollections.

On September 2, 2005, during a benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina relief on NBC, A Concert for Hurricane Relief, Kanye West was a featured speaker. Controversy arose when West was presenting, as he deviated from the prepared script:

I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, 'They're looting.' You see a white family, it says, 'They're looking for food.' And, you know, it's been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the teacher-the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help — with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way — and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us!

Mike Myers, with whom West was paired to present, spoke next and continued as normal by reading the script. Once it was West's turn to speak again, West delivered the controversial phrase:

“George Bush doesn't care about black people.” link

Kanye West was right in 2005 and guess what? If he were to update that phrase to add the names of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, he'd STILL be right today.

Nothing "ignorant" about that. Your biased and slanted recounting of events might deserve that description.

Kanye West is your source? Are you sure you don't want to use Mike Tyson or Mr T... Flava Flav hey, nine one one is a joke, word yo boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Seriously NT. Kanye West did make that song that was on the radio about "George Bush not liking black people"....

And using him as a source is equally absurd. You're scratching for something that's not there.

Read the Great Deluge by Douglas Brinkley. It's a true account of what happened in Katrina, and maybe you'll learn some factual information about what went wrong leading up to Katrina. It had nothing to do with race, but rather typical Louisiana politicians, who happened to also be Democrats. Heck- one is black.

**Note- MY biased account? It's just factual NT. There are a hundred reasons why Blanco and Nagin are to blame. Read a book. Then we'll discuss racism and party politics in relation to Katrina... but you're not even close on this one.**

No, that would be you "scratching for something that is not there. Kanye West did not make a song on the radio about "George Bush not liking Black people." Your overly vivid imagination may think you heard a song with that line, but it wasn't by West.

Checking The All Music Guide, the definitive resource for musical acts, there is nothing in the Kanye West discography about a song in which he says "George Bush doesn't like Black people." Not an album. Not a single. Not a video. Nothing.

He said in live and on television. Perhaps someone came along and sampled his remarks and put them in a song or a rap, but it wasn't done by Kanye himself---despite your protestations to the contrary.

So you can do the research yourself but you're going to have to decide between your open mind and your lying ears.



No, that would be you--again.

Thanks for the reading suggestion, but I'm familiar with Douglas Brinkley's The Great Deluge and he doesn't let Dubya off the hook in the process of assessing blame.

"After Katrina, the Gulf South region -- and the United States as a whole -- needed compassion. What it got instead was the incompetence of George W. Bush, who acted as though he were disinterested in a natural disaster in which there was no enemy to be found ... Bush's slow response to the Great Deluge made Americans ask if he was a 'bunker' commander in chief ... relying too much on cautious paper pushers such as Brown and Chertoff for advice."

If there are a hundred reasons to blame Blanco and Nagin, there are a thousand reasons to include Bush in the laying of fault.

And if you are naive enough to believe race had nothing to do with the response to Hurricane Katrina, I don't think any discussion about racism and party politics is worth the time it would take to do it.

It wasn't Kanye West, it was Legendary KO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XjHS6yUdio
The Legendary K.O. remixes Kayne West's statement with West's number one hit "Gold Digger" with new lyrics by Big Mon and Damien (aka Dem Knock-Out Boyz) to create the political mashup "George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People" (or "George Bush Don't Like Black People"). So yes, the song exists and was a big hit for a short while with 10,000 downloads the first day it was made available. At least as far as Viral Videos go.

I will not claim that I know all of the details of who is to blame in regards to Katrina, I am just a simple man in Iowa. With that said, I knew the Friday prior to the storm making landfall that it was a major storm and headed for New Orleans. If the city and state leaders had a plan in place to evacuate all of their citizens in a timely manner, would the federal government even been needed in the extreme level it was? Furthermore, when I did live in Florida for about a year, four hurricanes hit the state in only a couple of months. At no time was the need for as much federal assistance required that Louisiana needed. Another question is why was New Orleans the only city on the gulf coast that was in such a debacle? As I recall, Louisiana was hit by the top left quadrant of the storm, which is not the most powerful part. Why is it, then, that none of the states to the east that got hit harder did not find themselves in such turmoil? Could it be that their local and state leaders reacted appropriately and the leaders of New Orleans and Louisiana didn't? Like I said, I am just a simple man in Iowa.

Well decades of corruption and misappropriation of monies for the levees had a lot to do with the aftermath of Katrina. The fact that what hit NOLA as a storm wasn't as devastating as it could have been is irrelevant as the real damage was done when the Levee Broke.

And STILL Nagin and Blanco should have been jailed for their negligence in regards to Katrina. And "chocolate city" Nagin got re-elected proving the people of NOLA deserve everything that happens to them.

Your position is pretty clear, isn't it?

1. I honestly don't know if they are or not. It would appear that they could be given your unbiased narrative, but is it possible that they had scheduling conflicts? Nah, that is just rubbish. Honestly, I can see why it would be important for them to attend this particular debate. Realistically, do you think that the candidates would be given a fair shake by the moderator and the press when it is all said and done? Maybe it is best to skip this one.

2. Another "un"loaded question....Anyway, at first glance, no, they aren't. But let's really look at what the Democrats want to do for the nation and what the Republicans are supposed to want to do. Dems want to provide free everything for the poor. I am not saying that all black people are poor, but in the context of political discussion, they are usualy portrayed as such and statistically speaking, a too high percentage of them are. What good does the Democratic party do for the poor people by giving them everything that they need to survive? In the theory of the Republican party, those that are down on their luck would be given the same choice the majority of all the other Americans are given: "Get up and do something to better yourself, or stay where you are." Wouldn't the latter situation be better for all of America? Hard work and perseverance create innovation and success. Why would anyone that wants to better themselves and persevere want the government to hand them anything?

3. Again, not certain on the right strategy to get elected, but I would think that since this nation has become so spread out over the spectrum, that candidates should try to get in front of more than just those that are registered to vote in their respective party. I am not saying that Mitt should go to a Young Democrats group and meet with them, but for the millions of independants and undecideds, it is important for candidates to reach out to as many groups as they can.

Good job with again, shirking the facts. (and you used literally one quip from the book... and obviously haven't read it, because Mr. Brinkley is repeatedly critical of Nagin and Blanco).

Let's talk about how a BLACK mayor screwed the pooch.

When Lt Gov Steele suggested using city school busses to get the elderly and poor out. Nagin didn't do it.

Blanco put the National Guard in Jackson Barracks. This is the lowest point of the city.

The Coast Guard moved to Alexandria, and the National Weather service warned Blanco and Nagin that they should move first responders inland too. NOPD and The Guard were stuck under water.

Blanco never asked for help from the President until it was too late. Nagin didn't either. The federal government's job is to aid AFTER being asked by state government. Maybe it was slow, but surely wouldn't have changed the outcome. People still would've been stuck in the Super Dome. People still would've stayed in their homes.

Why did the Mayor of Bay St Louis force evacuation? He knew what was coming. Nagin went to the 10th floor of a luxury hotel and hung out. He had no plan to save his people. He could've cared less, of course until the opportunity to make this a racial topic evolved, and then NOLA became the 'chocolate' city.

How is that racist NT? Well, it's not ... unless you believe everything on the planet is "keeping a black man down".

This lady said it best:
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/1201


I wonder why she didn't say "New Orleans suffered because of too many black people"!

If you'll check, the subject of this thread is not about Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco, Kanye West, Douglas Brinkley or how much the New Orleans Saints suck this season.

Jaime has already suggested we stick to the topic. Unless you have something to add related to it, then I think we're finished here, don't you?

Oh, and even though you "shirked the fact" that you were wrong as two left shoes about Kanye West's so-called song about George W. Bush not liking Black people, I fully understand your reluctance to admit the error. So many of your assertions about Black people are.

Just for future reference, why do you sneer at "the man holding me down" websites when you quote from clearly partisan right-wing sites like "newsbusters.org" that proclaim to go after liberal bias? Glass houses and all that....

nighttimer:

Re (2), message from the Republican Party to "black" America, you too can be Secretary of State. That would be reason enough for me, but I ain't you and you ain't me. The other way of putting the matter is that certain members of the Dem Party who also happen to serve in Congress complained of this "glass ceiling" that exists in the Dem Party. Repubs may have such a ceiling as well, but it rises high enough that you too could be Secretary of State, or at least your skin color doesn't rule it out, and so if the choice is low glass ceiling or the high glass ceiling....

Edited to substitute "Dem Party" for "Congress" owing to vapor lock in the brain.

Despite the predictions that the decision of Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson to skip the debate hosted by Tavis Smiley would have no lasting effect, it would appear that is not quite the case:

Republican voters in South Carolina think their party should make a special effort to reach out to black and Hispanic voters during this election. Too bad then that candidates seem to be doing just the opposite.

Republican front-runners, including Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, have skipped debates courting both black and Hispanic voters. They passed up an invitation by Univision, the country's largest Spanish-language network, to discuss the Hispanic community's issues. Then they ducked an invite to debate on concerns specific to black voters at a forum hosted by commentator Tavis Smiley at Morgan State University. Minority voters in both those groups have largely voted for Democrats in past elections.

But, in racially diverse South Carolina, the Republican base knows the party needs to shore up its ranks. A survey out tonight of 522 voters in South Carolina's Republican primary by Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C. and the state's ETV television and radio network found that 66 percent of voters think that the party should make a special effort to reach out to blacks and Hispanics. Only 47 percent of those respondents think the party is doing already doing enough.

Is anyone at RNC headquarters listening? link

A stupid move at the time hasn't become any smarter as time has passed.