Apparently, the leading Republican candidates are NOT "willing to be moderated by Tavis Smiley, a Black card-carrying, self-identified progressive, in a potentially hostile venue."

WASHINGTON - Tavis Smiley will host the Republican All-American Presidential Forum on PBS to be broadcast live Thursday evening from the campus of Morgan State University in Baltimore. A similar event for the Democrats was held last June on the campus of Howard University in Washington.

One by one, the four leading candidates for the Republican nomination for president have announced they will not participate. This is not only a strategic mistake for these campaigns but also a major embarrassment for the Republican Party.

The absence of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson from what has been, so far, the only nationally televised debate to focus solely on topics of interest of black Americans sends a very clear message that not only is the Republican Party not interested in courting the "black vote" but is not even willing to engage on issues of importance to African-Americans.

link

The withdrawal of Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson from the debate comes one week after massive demonstrations in Jena, Louisiana protesting attempted murder charges filed against six Black teenagers following an attack on a White classmate and the same week of the 50 year anniversary of the Little Rock Nine.

The political calculation may be there is little to gain for the front-runners by appearing at a historically Black university to be questioned by a panel of Black journalists on issues of particular interest to Black Americans. Apparently, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Alan
Keyes, the newest Republican to join the race, don't share those sentiments. Rep. Tom Tancredo will not appear either.

Former Congressman J.C. Watts called the decision of the front-runners not to appear, "stupid" and Newt Gingrich characterized it as "fundamentally wrong."

"You kind of scratch your head thinking why are they making decisions like that?" Watts said. He speculated the candidates don't have any African-American staffers who "could say to them, 'You're making a huge mistake strategically by not at least reaching out and talking to this demographic.'"

On "The Tonight Show" last week, Smiley protested the decision by the front-runners. "What does it say when you don't think that black issues and brown issues and issues for red and yellow -- what does it say when you don't think that all of us are valuable in this process?" he asked. link

The questions for debate are:

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?

The questions for debate are:

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

Not at all. Why take an invite to speak in front of a potentially abusive crowd? They are front-runners for a good reason, they know when to say no to a bad situation.

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

I think the question should be are black voters doing anything at all to court patronage from the Republican party. The criticism is not so much that black voters are predominantly democrat, it is that a majority of black voters are blindly democrat. That is assuming the black vote can be seen as a block vote, which is is becoming less of every year. Black issues are becoming less about race and more about locality, and class. If the black community wants true political power it needs to reach out to both parties, especially when it comes to black issues. That there are still issues with political solutions shows that the adherence to democrats only has been a failed policy.

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

Absolutely. The candidate is in the business of garnering support which will lead to votes. Every moment spent speaking with someone or some group solidly against voting for them is a moment wasted. Once elected however the individual represents all of the nation and as such should be a bit more universal in outreach.

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

Well, duh- first off, they are a bunch of pansies. At least even the president of Iran had the cajones to go in front of a hostile crowd, and be ambushed by a Jew no less. Can we really afford a president that is such a pansy painty waste coward?

2. Black voters are criticized for their consistent support of Democratic candidates. Are the Republicans giving them any reason to change their minds?
Easy answer- um, no? I mean,come on, Mostly- at the very least, it appears they are afraid of black poeple.

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

NOt really- in fact, I would support a constitutional amendment that FORCED them to answer questions of a hostile crowd/

1. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain have made it perfectly clear that they don't need and don't want the support of Black voters by refusing to speak in a forum specifically meant to address issues of concern to African Americans. Representatives for the no-show candidates are saying it's a scheduling issue. Bull. It's a deliberate snub. What the four men who want to be the next President of the United States are saying is, "We only want White votes." The apologist for McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson will protest that I'm being unfair and bashing Republicans.

And they'll be right. I AM bashing Republcans--exactly four of them. Next summer, one of these guys will be the Republican nominee for the presidency and not one of them will deserve it. When you write off 12 percent of the population because they don't look like you, you don't deserve to be the leader of the free world. These four candidates have effectively told Black Americans to drop dead. Message received on this end. They are just as dead to me from this point on.

2. If one party takes your votes for granted and the other doesn't want them at all, there's not much choice but to vote for the candidates that at least doesn't spit in your face and tell you it's only rain. Some Republicans (Brownback, Hunter, Paul, Huckabee and Keyes) apparently don't consider speaking to a predominantly Black audience a waste of time and effort. Kudos to them. The Republican Party has done itself no favors by refusing to speak to Blacks, Latinos, women and the LGBT communities. They have written them off and come next November, they will find that those groups will return the favor.

3. "We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us," said former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.), who was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. "What are we going to do -- meet in a country club in the suburbs one day? If we're going to be competitive with people of color, we've got to ask them for their vote." link

Kemp has hit the nail on the head. Macura's suggestion that "Every moment spent speaking with someone or some group solidly against voting for them is a moment wasted. Once elected however the individual represents all of the nation and as such should be a bit more universal in outreach," is absurd and ridiculous. If GOP candidates don't have any interest in reaching out to Blacks who may be looking for a reason to vote Republican in 2007, why the hell should they think they're going to be open to "outreach" after they're taking the oath of office in 2009? You can't insult me today and then expect me to be your friend tomorrow.

I suspected McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson had little or nothing to offer to woo Black support to their side. I didn't think they would make it so obvious they don't want any.

1. Are Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain making a mistake by skipping the Tavis Smiley-hosted debate?
No. Smiley's debate is a joke, and they lose nothing by missing it. Actually, if you listen to his radio show, Smiley himself is a joke at this point. It's September of 2007 and there is no time nor reason to attend any debate that discusses the election of November, 2008, unless every attendee is writing you a check for $4600. Sorry, but that is the way the system works today. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is having a debate this year, and they should rightfully be poorly-attended. I personally believe that they should attend, but I'm not in a place to say whether they are 'making a mistake' or not. In any case, I hear that Alan Keyes should be there, so the rhetorical quotient should be way high.

I also love how nighttimer capitalizes "Black" in the topic post. For some people, it will always be 1968.

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

Yes it is a mistake, if for no other reason than the political backlash that will occur because of it. These candidates should have just manned up and went to the debate and scored some political capital with the electorate. But hopefully this can be a plus for the lesser know candidates (such as Ron Paul ) to get more air time and express there views better to the black constituency.

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

I wouldnt say so. One of the key reasons that I feel that there is such a discrepancy between Repubs and Dems among black voters is because the GOP has done such a poor job at getting their message across. This only exacerbates that.

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

I am going to take a different stance on this one. Candidates should spend their time and money on events and groups that are most likely to bring in the most support for them. It would be a waste of resources to go to a group that has open opposition to your views because even if you perform well, the net gain in support would not be substantial. To get away from race for a moment, a socialist candidate would not want to waste resources speaking at a libertarian convention. The message would fall on deaf ears.

1. No
2. Not unless lower taxes means anything to them
3. Probably. I mean let's face anyone like to show up at Tavis Smiley's isn't ever going to vote for these four.

This is one of your longer stretches NT. Let's reverse this scenario and come to the same conclusion:

Clinton, Obama, Kucinich and Edwards refuse to attend Sean Hannity's debate at George Washington University.

Democrats to White America: Drop Dead!

Perhaps in the school you went to carlitoswhey you wouldn't capitalize "Black" when it is used in conjunction with "America," but that's how I was taught to handle it. What that has to do with 1968 is beyond me. If you're obliquely referring to the GOP's successful, but race-baiting, "Southern Strategy" you're off by two years.

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats." --- Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips in the New York Times (1970)

"Negrophobes." I like that. Kinda sounds like what McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson---and you--have a bad case of, carlitoswhey.

First you answer that the less-than Fantastic Four are not making a mistake by skipping the debate, but then you turn around and say, "but I'm not in a place to say whether they are 'making a mistake' or not." Nice bit of consistency there, CW. You could be a Republican presidential candidate.




This is one of your lamer attempts at a hypothetical, BA because this isn't about what the Democrats did in the exact same situation. This is about what the four leading Republican candidates refuse to do.

And though your one-liners don't merit much in the way of a response, why precisely would "anyone likely to show up" at a debate moderated by Tavis Smiley be less likely to consider voting for Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson than any other group of prospective voters? Is is because Smiley is Black and so is most of the audience?

Cut the double-speak and the thinly veiled innuendo, BA. It's obvious the less-than Fantastic Four don't think there's any downside to blowing off Black voters and clearly you don't either.

You can roll up the excuses and rationalizations any way you want to but the cold political calculation going on here is just another version of the same old Southern Strategy playbook. Everybody's vote matters, but some voters matter more---and less.

Nice try. Your manufactured rage, however, fails.

You know Smiley's politics and if you don't educate yourself. The audience that will show up will not be "on the fence" waiting for a reason to vote Republican. As such, the cold political calculation, is simply a matter of not wasting breath trying to be heard over the din.

Now where was your rage when Democrats Dissed Blacks?

I find it interesting that a Republican supporter here thinks that the Democrats are "anti-White." This point of view reminds me a great deal of the Ku Klux Klan-inspired "Society for the Advancement of White People." Is such a society necessary, and if so, is it the Republican Party?

I think that this is all a consistent part of the Republicans' "Southern strategy," which is to say, strategy of appealing to Southern White racists. This is discussed at some length by Bob Herbert in today's New York times, indeed. It was not for nothing that Saint Ronald of Reagan kicked off his successful presidential campaign with a speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi of all places, saying "I am a supporter of states' rights." Yeah, "states' rights." The White folks in Philadelphia durn sure knew what that meant, and loudly they cheered. And in Meridian, and in Laurel, and in a lot of other places throughout the former Confederacy.

Well, now the Southern strategy has come back to bite the Republicans on their collective rear ends. They're in danger of being boxed into the Southern bed they built for themselves, and nailing the lid on that box should be the prime purpose of left-wing strategy, as argued by Thomas Schaller in Whistling Past Dixie. And mirabile dictu, the leading Republican presidential contenders are actually cooperating!

Each one says: "I would lead the United States but I will not speak to its African-American citizens." That point will be richly made next year, I can assure you of that. Personally, I'm tickled pink.

Since I actually read most of your posts I'll just assume you're being intentionally obtuse and not that you can't understand what I was posting. Oh, and my voting record doesn't include too many Republicans - none in Presidential Elections. If you're going to hold me up a "Republican supporter" you're going to look silly.

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

I think some of us have forgotten the point of primary debates, and taking this personally. The purpose of primary debates is to reach out to your own party, after all, a registered democrat can't vote for a republican candidate in a primary, unless I'm mistaken of course, which could be the case. So, is it a mistake to reach out to a bunch of people that can't(not won't) vote for you? Of course not. Granted, some of those people might be registered republicans, but if it reached a double digit percentage, I'd be surprised. If the primaries had already been decided and let's say....Clinton and Rudy were invited to debate at this same place and Rudy said he couldn't come due to scheduling problems, then yes, you'd have a case. The only reason the other five candidates are showing up is because it's free publicity.


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


You honestly think a debate is going to change anyone's mind? I can see it now....

Smiley - "Senator McCain, I'd like to know what you would do, once elected, to ensure that blacks get a better education"

McCain - "Actually, my plan will benefit everyone by ensuring...blah...blah...blah"

Smiley - "No, No, No, I asked you what you would do specifically for the education of blacks"

McCain - "Uhhhhh, nothing"

Just like every other debate question regarding minorities I've ever heard. What's amusing is that when a Republican answers a question detailing how he's treating everyone equal, he's criticized for dodging the question. When a Democrat answers the same question in the same way, everyone gets those warm fuzzies.


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


During the primaries? Absolutely!!!

Wasting breath? The only obvious waste is in blowing off a group of voters who have extended an invitation to Republican candidates for them to speak and be heard. How many times have Republicans said, "We have a message for Blacks if they would only listen to it." Well, here is one of those moments where a open hand has been extended and the frontrunner's response is to slap it away. Or is it your contention, GA that predominantly Black audiences are less congenial than White audiences? With generalizations like that you could be another Bill O'Reilly.

As regards the Democrats decision not to do the Fox-sponsored debate, you think two wrongs make a right? As Robert Cox said in the original article I quoted:

The absence of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson from what has been, so far, the only nationally televised debate to focus solely on topics of interest of black Americans sends a very clear message that not only is the Republican Party not interested in courting the “black vote” but is not even willing to engage on issues of importance to African-Americans.

This goes beyond any one campaign. It is nothing less than a disgrace for the entire country. Is it any wonder that when Kanye West blurts out “President Bush hates black people” on national television that many black Americans nod their heads in agreement? ...

Knowing that about nine out of 10 black voters have cast their ballots for the Democratic presidential candidate over the past two decades, the candidates can have little doubt that the audience at the All-American Forum is not likely to be receptive to Republican candidates or Republican policies.

But how can Republican supporters, many of whom labeled Democrats “cowards” for refusing to debate on the Fox News Channel, remain silent while their candidates run and hide from Tavis Smiley, one of the most congenial black talk show hosts on TV today?



Despite the disclaimer of not being much of a Republican supporter, with the passion and vigor you're bringing to the defense of the Republican no-shows, you're doing a fine job making yourself look silly.

Actually NT it's your manufactured rage that drew me to this thread. The flame-o-licious title and huge fire hoop jumping conclusions you drew. Now, about those Democrats who dissed the Black Caucus?

QUOTE

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?

1. Nope, they'd be making a bigger mistake going to the event. Let's not be coy here NT and politically correct. We are talking about the Republican party here. These are the primaries, and these four have a chance at winning. Before they can run for President they have to what... WIN the primaries.

So they get on Tavis Smiley and address issues pertinent to Blacks and likely many other minority groups. What happens to them when they show a caring heart to the plight of any minority group. What will happen to any republican who is seen as a appeaser or sympathizer to the plight of any minority in this country?? *Wink Wink* They won't get past the Republican primaries!! Republicans don't want their delegates and soon to be elected officials courting votes of minorities by making promises that deal with minority issues.

On the flip side. They do their base proud, and make great sound bites of hard stances against anything that looks or smells like Affirmative Action or Amnesty (to name a couple of issues). Well, hell they done basically propelled themselves to winning a Primary, but have given their opponnents even greater ammo then if they had just said nothing.

2. No, they are not giving Blacks a reason to vote for Republicans.. nor will they. Macura said it best.



See you have to think in the reverse to be a minority in the Republican Party. Which is why so many Blacks in the Republican party get a bad name by other Blacks. Same goes for Latinoes too. You can't think "What is the republican party going to ensure us (as a minority group) to earn my vote" That is all wrong to be a republican You have to think on more personal gain lines. How am I going to be richer? How is my God going to be #1?? And how am I going to stomp out anything counter the items 1 and 2. From there you can do whatever is necessary to garner the patronage of the Republican party. There is no room for some obscure minority group in all that.

3. They shouldn't, but that is the nature of a reublic. It's all smoke and mirrors, and this is but an unfortunate side effect.

That is a large part of the point: the Republican Party is exclusive to White people; it excludes Blacks and Hispanics. Not literally excludes, but practically excludes. It has to be exclusive, given its strategy of appealing to Southern White racists. Naturaly once you've decided to exploit a given subculture's antipathy to all skin that is not white, "it would be a mistake to reach out to a bunch of people who can't vote for you." It would equally be a mistake for the Ku Klux Klan to recruit in Harlem.

But you would think that anyone aspiring to the presidency would at least want to make a pass at embracing the whole of this nation, including its African-American and Hispanic parts. Do you think that if someone is the nominee, he won't be reminded of his refusal now to address these people? This is not the Anti-Republican Society; this is African America.

I can tell you what our side is going to be saying next year. It is that the Republican nominee and all the people to whom he is beholden are lily-white racists. And it will be true.

While I may disagree with the veracity of your claim, I, on a personal note would love to see the big guns go to this debate. It's good publicity considering the democrats refusal of the FOX invitation. But, if I were a betting man, I'd say what happened is that the first guy to decline the invitation was probably actually "due to scheduling problems", then came the domino effect. The next guy saw that one of big guns wasn't going to show up and figured, why go if he isn't going to be there? Now two of the top four aren't going, why would any of the top four go now? This actually happens a lot during the primaries and not uncommonly leads to a cancellation of a debate.

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

I would say this is a mistake if it happened next year. But these people are in a primary race, not a general election race. Which means, in most cases, that you need to appeal to Republicans. I hate to make generalizations, but chances are there will be few Republicans in the audience at Morgan State University. The usual strategy in primaries is to appeal to the base and then in the general election to broaden your position.

I agree that this is cold, hard political calculation: the candidates have a very limited amount of time and this simply is not going to help them win the primary even if one of them could convince the entire audience that he's the guy.

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

Republicans shy away from pandering to groups. That is a Democratic strategy. Republicans rely on the keep government away, do-it-yourself, self-reliance, and that rising tides lift all boats type of strategies.

If that doesn't appeal to a group, then so be it. (Aside: I hate it when Medicare/Social Security are described as the most popular government programs of all time. Of course they are! They are handouts to a large number of people. Who is going to complain about that?)

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

In a primary they should. In the general election, they should widen their appeal (yet stay consistent with their message).

We can look to the Democratic debate earlier this year at Howard University to see questions and the unashamed pandering of the Democratic candidates: Transcript

Crap such as "thousands of African-Americans left behind by their government with Katrina" (I guess we'll get to the tens of thousands of whites later) and "Two Americas" to Gravel's apparent pledge to free the 70% of prison inmates that are black.

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

I have no idea who Tavis Smiley is so I can't answer this one.


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

Lets be honest. In these types of questions, where we generalise so broadly by refering to 'blacks' and 'Republicans' (as if the two could never be one and the same thing) then there is no credible answer. Of course 'Republicans' are giving 'blacks' a reason to change their minds, the trends simply indicate that most blacks reject what is offered.


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

This is the interesting question.

Yes. I believe, in a democracy that any politician worth voting for ought to make a serious and ongoing effort to reach out to those people who are considered her/his 'opposition'. Using American black people as an example, I'd say that any American politician who wishes to be seen as a decent human being who will do the best job possible should take every opportunity to meet with people who are sceptical. And the same goes for any other politician facing a minority element in a democratic society.

After all, communication is the key to understanding. A politician who takes the time to communicate (as opposed to simply turning up on a meaningless debate and pretending to listen) will be a better choice than one who smiles a lot and looks good kissing babies.

Now that's a real news bulletin Amlord.

What in hell have Republicans been doing with James Dobson and those other religious right clowns for years - the Terry Schiavo affair, faith based initatives, the Bush pandering on the stem cell veto, and fanning the flames of abortion and gay marriage issues.

Would you like to try again?

Apparently, you are. Strange though how quiet Republicans get when it comes to handouts for corporations and the wealthy through tax cuts, corporate welfare, and sweetheart deals stuck into appropriations bills.

I almost spit my Diet Coke all over the monitor with that "Republicans shy away from pandering to groups." Are you smoking somthing, Amlord? Of course, Republcans pander to groups. They're just different groups whether it be the NRA, evangelicals, anti-abortion groups or lobbyists.

This notion that Republicans and Democrats should ONLY look to shore up support with their base is an interesting notion, but a fallacious one. Yes, you have to win among those most likely to be receptive to your message, but you can't wait until
August of 2008 to start appealing to the broader constituency you have to capture to get elected. The base isn't large enough to guarantee victory.

Or as a conservative blogger put it:

Let's set aside the historical reviews and look at the present political situation. It should disturb Republicans that Watts is the last African-American member of the GOP in Congress, or rather was. He retired years ago, and Republicans have offered few candidates in his footsteps. Michael Steele ran a good campaign for the Senate but came up short in a tough year for Republicans, and Alan Keyes ran a ridiculous carpetbagging campaign against Barack Obama.

We have scolded the African-American community for its lock-step support for Democrats. However, as the avoidance of this debate demonstrates, Republicans haven't exactly beaten down doors in an attempt to engage these voters, either. Given that these invitations went out in March, the campaigns had plenty of time to schedule one debate to address one of the largest voting blocs in the country, and one whose loyalties could help the GOP turn national elections.

Some will say that the African-American community doesn't turn out for Republican primaries, and that's mostly true. They focus on Democrats. However, the entire point of outreach is to change that voting behavior, and leading Republicans have to give them a reason to do so. Ignoring them in the primaries will not gain the Republican nominee any votes in the general election.

Others may object to the special-interest nature of ethnic politics. That didn't keep all of the front-runners from attending the NRA event last week. It's a good event to attend for Republicans in the primaries, but it doesn't advance the brand beyond the choir. While primary candidates have to focus on the short-term goal of winning in the various states, they should also look to build the party's reach -- and so far, they haven't shown much range.

link

Amlord- now that is very funny- I almost spewed coffee at that one- Republicans NOT pandering - OMG = do you get money deliveries from the tooth fairy as well - Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones University, the Religious right- very hilarious. Not to mention the NRA, anti-Abortion crowds- and OMG corporate USA

Reagan pandered his soul to the religious right- there wouldn't even be a republican president in 1980 without his pandering to religious groups.

Very funny indeed.

BTW- the democrats rightly recieved alot of scorn and calls of cowardice for not showing at the Fox debates- and I would say the same for the republicans here- who try to tout how much tougher they are than "whiny" liberals- they have shown that they are not only racists at heart- but cowardly ones at that.

The blacks that vote for anyone in the republican party are the same ones that voted for David Duke in LA (I understood David Duke got 2% of the black vote- proving insanity is not exclusive to white poeple either! )

But really- how does the RNC expect to repudiate the "southern strategy" WITHOUT attending events like this? How does it expect to throw the label "party of racists like Jesse Helms" when they don't go to events like this?

Whether you believe it fair or not- if you want to repair the damage of the Jesse Helms and Willie Horton days- then they need to go a little farther out of the way to do so.

This would have been the perfect place.

In fact- this might have been Romney's watershed event- if all the others refused and he didn't. I think he would have been warmly recieved, had he been the only one.

I think Republicans don't pander because by golly their panderees are as American as apple pie. Whereas Democratic panderees are anti-social, anti-establishment, anti-apple pie creeps. You can't pander to the establishment. They don't need no stinkin' pandering! Got it?

Have any of the no showers given a reason not to show? I mean have they said I'm not going cuz I have white God-fearing delegates to pander to? It could be the main reason they don't show up. If it isn't I hope the next GOP politician, Republican pundit or panderee to whine about blacks voting exclusively Democratic is struck by lightning on national television.

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

I would like to answer with a categorical 'yes', but not sure that that would be truly correct. Obviously, the campaign managers of each of these candidates has decided that the answer is 'No.' There must be some reason for this. If you look at recent times when candidates have spoken to these groups, I don't think it has swayed any votes their way. So, there isn't anything to gain. However, there's always the potential for having something happen that loses votes, so it's probably seen as something that offers nothing to gain, but still has the potential for costing votes.

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

No, not really. I'm not sure why a group would be criticized for not voting for people who don't even want to talk to them. I do believe that quite often the audience is not exactly receptive to the message being given, but I personally would love to see Republican's take the bull by the horns rather than simply run from the fight. I know the vast majority of blacks vote Democratic. Therefore, there's a potentially huge number of votes there to be taken away, isn't there? Conversely, if you speak to a group that already votes overwhelmingly Republican...what is there to gain?

Personally, I think Republicans have a great deal to offer the black community, they just do a terrible job of getting that message across. If they're not even speaking to them, I'm not sure how they're changing that. I'm very surprised that even Guiliani and others considered as 'moderates' are not attending this conference. You'd think they'd have the best message to convey.

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

No, see last sentence above. You don't need to sway people already in your camp. I believe the qutoe from NT's post correctly summarizes my stance here.



'We don't care to even speak to you' is almost never the correct message for a party to be sending, regardless of any campaign statistics showing the reason for the decision.

I think opportunities in tight primary races were missed by both parties- Obama should have showed up to the Fox debates, and Romney should have shown up to the other.

Both have experiance and light wieght monikers on them, to some degree. This would have shown some chutzpah and real centrist leanings.

It is not the direct audience that matters here- it is the real fence sitters in the primaries- and they missed an opportuntity- somewhat indirectly, of showing thier bravery and centrist leanings to the un-converted.

The Republicans (in my view at least) run on issues. The pro-life position includes anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia. You can't pander to those that agree with you on an issue.

Pandering to a group is offering such programs as Affirmative Action, which benefits one group and excludes others.

I don't think you can make much of a case for that.

For example, Mitt Romney, was not "pro-life" when he was Governor of Massachusetts, but now that he's running in a Republican primary, that has changed.

Conviction or pandering?

By in the topic post, I meant in the post itself - "Tavis Smiley, a Black card-carrying, self-identified progressive," and the references to Black teenagers, Black journalists, etc. I don't have an AP book handy, but the Carnegie-Mellon style guide says this.



I apologize for the 1968 reference; I was actually thinking of Tommy Smith and John Carlos with their fists in the air.

Off topic, I still have 6 full bottles of Black Pride Beer at the house. I wonder if they are worth something.



Good point, so let me clarify. Is it a mistake, in terms of winning the primary? No. Fundraising and feeding the core Republican base are more important in 2007. In 2008, we can talk. That's why it's hard for me to call this a mistake, even though it may be long-term for the party itself.

Net net, I wish Republicans would attend more black venues. I think Hobbes said it better than I.

The questions for debate are:

1. Are Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain making a mistake by skipping the Tavis Smiley-hosted debate?
No, they aren't, although black poverty pimps and racebaiters, similar to those who charge the Republicans as telling Black America to "drop dead", will try to make it into a mistake.

Simply put, there is no "black issues block" within the Republican Party. The candidates are running for the Republican nomination, and very few are the registered black Republicans who vote based on "black issues." The vast majority of citizens who vote based on "black issues" are Democrats, and don't vote in the Republican primaries.

An analogy would be conservatives attempting to make hay out of the Democrat candidates refusing to do a debate at Liberty University, hosted by Phyllis Schafly, with Linda Chavez, Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter handling the questions. Ooohhh, those bad, bad, silly Democrats telling the Traditional Women of America to "sod off!"

Now, if the Republican nominee were to refuse a debate such as Smiley's, then your loutish, ill-mannered accusations would have some foundation.

2. Black voters are criticized for their consistent support of Democratic candidates. Are the Republicans giving them any reason to change their minds?
Well, as long as "black voters" see things in terms of "black", not in terms of individuals, then no, the Republicans aren't giving them much reason. The Democrat plantation is just too darn familiar and secure, what with all the other groupthink folks around.

3. Should presidential candidates only speak to groups that may potentially vote for them?
Uh, pretty much, yeah. Otherwise, we'll have such stupid spectacles as Dennis Kucinich winging off to Syria to pander to the Ba'athist vote. oh, my bad, that already happened. Candidates only have so much time in the day, they've got to spend it where they think it will do them the most good. That's why you probably won't see the Republican nominee heading out to Hawai'i. Its a waste of time, Hawai'i is a "safe" Democrat state.

The second tier candidates are going to this event because they're hoping it will give them enough of a boost to get into the top tier.

They are speaking to the black community. There are a lot of Republicans out there doing it, including black Republicans. Given what happens to the latter ("Uncle Tom", "race traitor", etc), methinks that the hysterical shrieking of the folks who love Democrat plantation life is simply too loud.

I've read one of Tavis Smiley's book, and frankly, were I a second or third tier Republican candidate, I would appear in the debate. I'd be gambling that ripping Tavis and Co a new stern orifice on national TV would garner me enough attention to vault me into the top. I'd spend 2-3 days before the debate with folks like Deroy Murdock, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, and LaShawn Barber preparing.

The only "loutish, ill-mannered accusations" present in this debate are all yours, Bikerdad and while it apparently distresses you that I have dared--DARED--to criticize Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Romney for their craven and cowardly disinterest in attempting to broaden the Republican base beyond Your Favorite Pet Negroes, that's just the way it goes when you step into the political arena and beat your gums spouting rhetoric about how you want to be the leader of ALL Americans.

That doesn't exclude 30 million African-Americans despite what you might think. The Republican Party will never be "the Big Tent" it claims to be as long as it tells Black people and Latinos and gay people and non-wealthy people, "We only want people who think exactly the way we do---and that's white people."

Oh, and your analogy? It's ridiculous. The Republicans candidates were not invited to speak to a debate hosted by the NAACP, the Urban League, the Nation of Islam, Kanye West or the Wu-Tang Clan. Despite your sneering disdain for Tavis Smiley, he IS one of the prominent media personalities in journalism with far more credibility and legitimacy than Deroy Murdock, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, and LaShawn Barber or any other of Your Favorite Pet Negroes.

Jack Kemp, one of a handful of loyal Republicans that remembers when Blacks and Republicans were allies instead of adversaries said on The Tavis Smiley Show, "This is not the way for a great party to go. It's not good for the African Americans in this country, it's not good for people of color, and it's certainly not good for the party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass...if you don't do it during the primary and show your true views and vision for America, then no one's going to trust you in the general election. If you're not willing to say the same thing in the primary that you say in the general, people are gonna say that you can't be trusted. And the coin of the realm is trust. The coin of the realm is the values, and you can't express those values only in a general campaign."

"You've gotta show that we're one America, an undivided America - albeit politically divided, we can still be undivided. We want the best for all our people, and that would come in a primary rather than in the general. Because I wouldn't trust anybody who wouldn't talk to me in the primary the same as he or she would talk to me in the general."

But today's Republican Party isn't the party of Lincoln and Douglass, is it? Today's GOP is the home of mean bigots like Trent Lott, hypocritical liars and whore chasers like David "Diaper" Vitter, pathetic closet cases like Larry "Men's Room" Craig, and obnoxious blowhards like Bill "black restaurants are the same as white restaurants" O'Reilly. Oh yeah, and four leading cowardly contenders who don't have the guts or interest to speak to the same people they say they want to lead.

There's nothing "manufactured" about my outrage with Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson. It is quite authentic and quite justified.

"When you reject every black invitation and every brown invitation you receive, is that a scheduling issue or is it a pattern?" Smiley said. "I don't believe anybody should be elected president of the United States if they think along the way they can ignore people of color. That's just not the America we live in."

Apparently, that is the America we live in. which is just the way you like it, right, Bikerdad?

*yawn*

Not going to discuss Democrats dissing the Black Caucus huh?

Precisely. That is the point. Equally there is no "black issues block" within the Ku Klux Klan, since very few Klan members are Black. That is why Klan is not going to go recruit at Morgan State.

One fully understands the Klan's attitude toward the Black race, concerning which it is entirely open. What is less clear to some people is the Republican Party's position on these questions, concerning which it is not entirely open; I mean its real position, not what they say in their press releases. And we can judge that, among other things, by this. And by the Willie Horton add; by the famous ad run against Harold Ford in Tennessee; by Ronald Reagan's kicking off his campaign with a "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi; by the treatment that Black people in Florida received during the 2000 elections; and by many other things.

The Republican Party self-consciously appeals to White, Southern racism and its friendly cousins in backwoods Pennsylvania, rural Indiana and so forth. That was the whole Southern Strategy, so-called, to which the Democratic Party exposed itself by passing the civil rights laws of the 1960s. So naturally, the Republican party now must its turn back on Blacks, since doing otherwise would alienate its racist base. It certainly would not serve any of the Republican contenders to go and be seen in public soliciting the approval of Black people -- that is the opposite of what is necessary to obtain the Republican nomination.



The analogy fails because Falwell and his university, Schafly, and so forth, are identified by their ideology, not by the color of their skin. The Democrats do not propound political ideas consistent with this ideology, and the Party, with the exception of Holy Joe Lieberman, makes no pretense of trying to appeal to these people.

There is, on the other hand, no Black ideology; and Morgan State is merely a historically Black institution, not an institution such as Liberty, established to promote an ideology. Tavis Smiley is a Black person and talk-show host of very moderate and courteous demeanor (I sometimes listen to his radio show); he is not the like of Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schafly at all. Further, the Republican party and, I assume, its potential candidates avow that they are not only not racist, but indeed are highly welcoming to African Americans and that Republican ideas are deeply consistent with the values of these people, if only they would see it. But it appears from the actual conduct of the most important people in the Republican Party that the reality is something quite different.

Oh certainly next year, after there is a nominee, we will hear a great chorus of Republicans chanting how inclusive and broad-minded their party is, but thanks to such events as this, nobody will believe them. In fact, when the White folks in Philadelphia hear that on the radio, they'll wink at each other.

Something that happened almost five months ago? No. With you? No.

If you want to go back in time and discuss that subject, there's a forum for History Debates. If the here and now bores you so, BA, I've got a suggestion for you: lie down and take a nap.

Otherwise, if you have something to contribute to this discussion, please dazzle us with something other than one-liners.

You are wrong. Your premise is wrong. Tavis Smiley is wrong. There is no reason at this point for any Republican to debate in front of a hostile audience. Whine about Republicans not showing up to "black" events in 2008.

You are fast and loose with the truth of this matter. Any facts that don't fit into your preconceived notions on this matter, which are wrong in any event, you deem unworthy of discussion.

This thread is disingenuous, misinformed, misleading and yet another in your canon of threads that demand willful suspension of logic.

At this point you should simply admit both Republican and Democratic candidates are smart enough to avoid hostile audiences and that this is a non-issue.

I'm not even going to broach your question about Hannity's debate. I mean, it's Hannity. Hannity of "Defeating Terrorism, Depotism and Liberalism". Thanks for sorting out America's priorities, dud. Hannity of "Lesly's account has been hacked"! Remember that?

As for Fox's debate, the answer is on your link: Why are the candidates voluntarily withdrawing from a chance to get their message across to the largest prime-time audience in cable news? Pressure from two online organizations—ColorForChange and MoveOn—who accuse the "Fair and Balanced" news network of being "hostile to the interests of Black America."

Besides, I thought the Black Caucus was racist if not stupid for refusing Steve Cohen (D-TN) a chance to join the caucus and better represent his constituents due to his race?


Only in your world, where right leaning libertarians don't need the damn gubnit to tell 'em what's wrong and right with the culture and where the patriotic groupthink following 9/11 leading to one of our worst foreign policy disasters wasn't groupthink at all.

First, I used Hannity as a parallel to Smiley - both on the Radio.

But the Fox thing is an excellent parallel in it's own right. The Democrats refused to do it because it was likely that they'd be on hostile ground. Same thing here.

There's really no story here. There's not much to debate. Why didn't the Republicans show up? Same reason the Democrats didn't. Using NT's logic then, Democrats are telling blacks to Drop Dead! too.

I doubt it would be very hostile with the CBC hosting the debate.


No one's posted an explanation for why Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are no-shows, but there has been plenty of speculation and conjecture from both sides of this thread to go around. We can debate the accuracy of your own article where it states Dems aren't showing up because of MoveOn and ColorForChange's objections, but we can't really debate the reasons why we think some Republicans won't show up to Smiley's debate without someone or something (perhaps the RNC) providing an explanation. We're not filling in the gaps—we're starting with them.

So, it would be nice if someone posted a candidate's explanation or something along those lines.

I thought that someone had said the official reason was scheduling conflict, but maybe that was conjecture

Thanks for the unsolicited and unneeded advice, but I hardly need you to tell me what is a "non-issue."

If I'm wrong Jack Kemp is wrong, Newt Gingrich is wrong, J.C. Watts is wrong and Ken Mehlman is wrong. The thing is, I'm not wrong and neither are they. You and your fellow apologists for those four sniveling cowards are the ones who are wrong and getting more wrong as you continue to make your weak-as-water excuses and rationalizations.

The only thing I've deemed unworthy of discussion is your irrelevant and inaccurate attempts to find a equitable scenario concerning the Democratic candidates and your lame analogies, BA. You haven't presented facts. You've presented insipid one-liners in an attempt to derail the debate into an area you think will be more favorable to your argument. Sorry, not happening. Not with me.

If this thread is disingenuous, misinformed, misleading and yet another in my supposed canon of threads that demand willful suspension of logic, that brings up an interesting question: Why are you posting in it repeatedly and with such passion for someone who describes himself as not a Republican supporter? Unless you are some self-appointed enforcer of truth and accuracy on , something must be bringing you back to this thread like a dog to his own vomit.

You keep repeating that the audience at Morgan State University will be a "hostile audience." Hostile in what way? Is the physical safety of the Republican candidates at risk? Will a angry mob storm the stage and rend them limb from limb if they
begin to drone on about capital gains tax cuts or how affirmative action programs hold back minorities? What exactly do you mean when you say a "hostile audience?"

Are predominantly Black audiences considered hostile audiences to a group of all-White male Republicans? Pray elucidate.

Otherwise, I'm afraid I have to reply to your disingenuous, misinformed, misleading and drearily dull postings with the same response you gave previously.

*yawn *

Actually NT it's your manufactured rage that drew me to this thread. The flame-o-licious title and huge fire hoop jumping conclusions you drew. Now, about those Democrats who dissed the Black Caucus?

So why, precisely, are these four different from Clinton, Obama & Edwards in a similar situation? Or can we all fairly call those three cowards and pansies for refusing to show up at a debate.

OR

Is it simply smart for a candidate in PRIMARY season to choose their audiences intelligently?

So......what you're saying is, even if all candidates provided proof that they are not showing up because of schedule conflicts, time/date stamped emails, etc.... You wouldn't change your position on this issue? Your mind is made up? If that's true, there's not much point to debate this.

I'm not saying they'll provide any proof, from the sources I've read, they've had six months to decide whether or not they'll attend and yet only recently sent in their declination. My point is, I get the feeling that no explanation will ever change your mind that the four candidates not attending are racial reasons and not because there is absolutely nothing to gain by attending during the primaries. Once the primaries are over, I hope to see a similar debate. Whoever the Republican candidate is then won't have an excuse if they decline.

The double standard here is frustrating. No one questioned the democrat's scheduling conflicts when they declined the invite from the black caucus in Detroit.

As I said before, I would personally have preferred them to attend this debate and will watch it streamed online tonight. I don't think we'll ever know how "hostile" it would have been since the top four aren't going to show up. I doubt they'll press too hard on Ron Paul, but would've probably been more aggressive in their questioning of Romney and Thompson. I hope everyone that is debating in this thread watches it as well, it will make for some debates tomorrow!

BA- as far as the faux debates - it is dishonest and downright silly to try and compare Hannity and the Faux debate and the toned down atmosphere of PBS- I mean, come on, a little sense here. You can't realy leak those two- one is rabidly anti-Democratic, in the extreme, with not even the closest attempt at balance OR decorum, in fact, Hannity wouldn't last 2 fast seconds on this board before banned or proven to be the fool and liar he is.

PBS- McNiel/Lehr is not exactly the bastion of mean spirited news reporting ya know?

Smiley can be considered partisan, but toned down to the max in comparison.

Even still, I think Barak had nothing to lose by going there and wiping the floor with Hannity- as long as he demanded some ground rules that put Hannity at the same disadvantage he puts his "guests" in on his show- the abilityto turn off Hannity's mike

Well you can't compare them because it destroys the premise of this thread.

I can compare them because the premise of this thread and the title of this thread are incorrect.

I don't know about that- it was an RNC sanctioned event wasn't it? Regardless- considering we are only talking PBS here- not an ambush or something like that- I think "cut and run with tails between thier legs because they are afwaid of the mean ol' black man" would be a bit better title? - I mean- what is so threatening about presenting a consistant message during thier debates? Afraid of "mistakes" during a debate? Man, is this the nancy-boys that the republicans have picked here?

Ya, if I were a black voter, with some conservative beliefs (IIRC< there are a great many blacks that identify themselves as conservative on socially conservaative AND fiscally conservative platforms) - I believe there would be alot more of a "base" to the republican party had they shown up- they snubbed a potential base. Wrote them off really.

I think the message is "drop dead- we don't need your stinkin' votes"

I believe that is pretty easy to see here. Lame and cowardly as well. But cool- keep eliminating potential voters only helps better candidates, I hope!

What was?

The Congressional Black Caucus debate on Fox News? No.
The All-American Presidential Forum on PBS? No.

Many leading Dems avoided the Congressional Black Caucus debate on Fox.
Many leading Republicans avoided the All-American Presidential Forum on PBS.
7 of 8 Republicans avoided the College Republicans convention.
Only 2 Republicans showed up at the Young Republicans convention (in Florida I think)
Fred and Rudy avoided the Iowa Caucuses.

Why is their avoiding this forum surprising or controversial?

I hear you CW- and agree- they are all being a bunch of made for TV , only the most canned audience possible avoid all controversy Enuchs ( I and use that as a generic term as far as the lady running )

Personally- I would like to see a law that forced them into debates.

I still think the republicans actually disaffected the most potential converts here, and really torqued off those that might have voted for them (conservative blacks- there are a lot of black poeple out there with decidedly conservative leanings with the exception of a couple things)

No matter = I think NTs title is still within range of conversation here- "we are afraid of the black man" might be it as well"

Or "Wimps for president that are afraid of scary black poeple"

I just got done watching the debate. A lot of tough questions were asked and surprisingly they were answered very well. I still stand by my earlier statement that showing up would not benefit them in the primaries, however I think it could've helped them in the general election.

It was certainly not an "ambush", in fact there were many black republicans in the live audience that applauded nearly every good point made by the republican candidates tonight. Whatever the reasons the top four didn't show up.....they missed out big.

There were two things missing from the debate tonight. Any sign of "hostility" from the audience (so let's drive a stake through that stupid assertion once and for all) and the four "frontrunners" who stayed home to watch C.S.I. or something.

As moderator Tavis Smiley did not bait, bully or browbeat any of the six candidates that attended. In fact, the only swipes were the ones radio personality Tom Joyner made at the expense of the missing four. Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele introduced the six presidential candidates and pointedly thanked former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman and ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for their help in arranging the debate.

I don't believe these types of debates lend themselves to simplistic determinations like who "won" or "lost." Everyone had nicely tailored suits on and nobody picked their nose or scratched themselves in a inappropriate place. If I had to name one guy who impressed me the most it would easily be Mike Huckabee. He comes off as a conservative, but not a nut about it. Huckabee seems like a thoughtful and intelligent guy and very likable.

Ron Paul was firm and got the biggest cheer of the night when he said the War on Drugs should be ended. He also made me frown with his non-intervention/isolationist rhetoric as regards what the U.S. should do about the situation in Darfur, but I had to give the man credit for not changing his opinion to cater to a predominantly Black audience.

Senator Sam Brownback wasn't bad, just not as good as Huckabee and Paul. Tom Tancredo (who showed up after all) and Duncan Hunter didn't impress, but they didn't say anything to tick anybody off (unless you're an illegal immigrant). I don't like Alan Keyes even a little bit, but he does ramp up the passion level of these debates. However, Keyes is so far-right, I bet he won't make a left turn in his car.

When all was said and done, I thought the Republicans acquitted themselves quite well. They said what they thought and nobody pandered to the audience. I never felt like they were telling me what they wanted me to hear. I'm sure they didn't show all their cards or talk about some of their positions or programs that might not look so friendly to people of color. Still, I came in as a skeptic and came away thinking it's too bad Mike Huckabee can't get