It looks highly likely that the Democratic Party us going to give the US its first Black President (Bill Clinton via Toni Morrison not withstanding) however he could still lose ... (and yes, Ron Paul could still win) leaving the possibility for the Republicans to have the honors.

Many non-Republicans think that the Republican party is racist and that just because they've put into place Colin Powell, Condi Rice (who are by some Uncle Toms and worse) doesn't mean they're not racists and will never allow a Black President. Most Republicans, however, feel they aren't racists and further are, in fact, less racist than Democrats in as much as they (Republicans) want to remove race from the discussion altogether and deal with merit.

What do you think?

Which Party Is More Likely To Give the US Our First Minority President?

What do you mean by minority? I would include any group that has been denied the highest offices - president and vice- president. Although women outnumber men, I would consider them a minority for purposes of this thread.

In 1984, Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro, who was also an ethnic Italian, as the first and only woman vice-presidential running mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro

Jesse Jackson also sought the Democratic nod in 1984.

In 2004 two Democratic contenders were Black - Al Sharpton and Carol Mosley Braun, a woman. Joe Lieberman, a Jew, was in the original 2004 field and had been Al Gore's running mate in 2000.

In the 2008 bid we had ...

Hillary Clinton - a woman
Barack Obama- a Black
and Bill Richardson - a Hispanic

.. seeking the job.

By contrast the Republican contenders this cycle were all male and so white that they looked like my lawn after the early March snow we had here Friday.

The Republicans might get the first minority VP, but the Demcorats will seat the first minority president.

There is one bright spot in Republican history. Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine opposed Barry Goldwater for the 1964 Repulican nomination. Who knows? She may have given Lyndon B. Johnson more of a run than Goldwater did.

It is a statistically verifiable fact that racism is more common among self-professed conservatives, it is a very strongly supported theory that this affects their policy stances on things like Affirmative Action and the like far more than any wishes for a "color-blind" discussion.

So Democrats might be forgiven for doubting the Republican party is most likely to produce the first minority president.

Certainly not the first black president.

If Obama loses maybe they'll get wise and nominate a Hispanic, but they'll have to groom one of national stature in a hurry.

All in all, not bloody likely.

The Democrats win this one hands down. They have the better record of defending recent minority rights efforts, they have more minority constituents and members, and they have a dialog that's more inclusive of minorities.

Since this is my kind of my thread by proxy, I can't totally ignore it, but before I answer the question, allow me to address BaphometsAdvocate's assertion that the Republicans are less racist than Democrats as they want to remove race from the discussion and presumably promote minority candidates based upon merit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.!!!!!.(into infinity)!!!!

Oh, PUH-LEEZE, BA, gimme a break (or a hit off of whatever it is you're smoking) The Republicans promote their candidates based upon MERIT? Since when? And who? Certainly not the current male cheerleader-in-chief. Did straight up gangstas and yo-yos like Tom "The Exteminator" DeLay or Denny "Polish Sausage" Hastert rose to their positions of power based upon merit?

Are you seriously trying to sell me that the wheelers and dealers of the Grand Old Party only select candidates based upon merit? Get out! Who knew?

Now that I've had my laugh for the day, here's my response to your question.

Based upon previous history here are some of the Black Democrats and Republicans whom have run for the presidency:

DEMOCRATS:

Barack Obama
Jesse Jackson
Carole Mosely Braun
Al Sharpton
Shirley Chisholm

REPUBLICANS:

Alan Keyes

As I said earlier, you have to have some kind of platform upon from which to launch a presidential bid. Obama and Braun came out of the U.S. Senate, Chisholm from the House of Representatives and Jackson and Sharpton are both high-profile civil rights leaders. Keyes was an ambassador and career bureaucrat. Not the loftiest of political perches.

Additionally, with NO Blacks in any positions of governance beyond the statehouse (no U.S. Senators, no Congressmen, no governors, no nuttin'), it's hard for me to figure out where the Black Republican comes from to rise to the prominence to become a viable candidate for the presidency.

Let's applaud Bush for his appointments of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, but that hasn't translated to presidential runs.

Why is it the Republicans have failed so totally in getting Blacks elected to high political office? Why since the exit of J.C. Watts in 2002 from the House has there not been a single Black Republican candidate elected to the House. Sure, to get to the Senate you've got to win an entire state, but for the House, all you've got to do is win a district. You mean to tell me that with all the statehouses controlled by Republicans, they can't draw up ONE district favorable to the election of a Black congressman?

You'll never be called up to the major league when you're not even playing on the farm team.

If not this election cycle, it could go either way.

I noticed that this question is conveniently asked as a minority/minority battle on the Democrat side goes on while the non-minority Republican candidate is mostly silent in the media. But anyway...

Turnea said:

Fantastic suggestion, Turnea. Let's see those statistically verifiable facts.

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the Democrat party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher.

And with such "colorblind" guys at the helm, like Robert Byrd, J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton's mentor), Al Gore Sr., Sam Ervin, Richard Russell, Andrew Cuomo, Dick Gephardt, and Donna Brazile to name a few - it's hard to believe that you could make a claim that the Democrat Party is the party of the black person, much less the black candidate.

And the apple didn't fall too far from the tree. Here's Al Gore at a fundraiser. At the home of Fred Phelps Jr. Yeah, the godhatesf**s guy... Even our Log Cabin Republican friends are wanting answers.

The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.

I guess it's real easy to convince people who don't know their history that the Republican Party is a group of white guys led by an ex-cheerleader. Yeah, okay. You got me there. That's embarassing, but not as embarassing as being compared to a bunch of Suth'rn Dem'crats who were members of the KKK and fought segregation tooth and nail.

The fact that the Republican Party doesn't have a black nominee is because blacks aren't being elected by the populace.

When I see sentences like:

... I really have to laugh.

Fewer black presidential candidates = Republicans r teh racist!!!!1!1!!!

The GOP, the Republican Party... none of them have anything to do with getting blacks elected at all. Or anybody else.

It takes votes. It takes grassroots campaigning. It takes a leader who is willing to stand up and be counted on his merits.

But here is a list of Black GOP Elected Officials. Please knock yourself out riddling how unimportant these positions are compared to President, but apparently there is a growing opposition to the Democrat Party as being the party of the black voter.

Just because we don't have a Jackson or Sharpton-like pundits on MSNBC doesn't mean black Republicans don't exist. Or win.


Edited to add:

President Bush, ex-cheerleader and all, somehow managed to have the most diverse cabinet in U.S. History:

National Security Advisor Dr. Condaleezza Rice
White House Counsel (and former Texas Supreme Court Justice) Alberto R. Gonzales
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman
U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton
U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige
U.S. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta

But none of that counts because the Republican Party doesn't "make a black person president" when simple U.S. History 101 shows that parties don't "make" candidates.

I was hoping someone was going to challenge me on my assertion, but this is a novel approach.


Oh, don't I know it.

It was the beginning of a political realignment in this country that as Democratic support for civil rights grew socially conservative Democrats, particularly Southerners left the party in droves and joined the Republicans while many Northern states did the opposite.

Culminating in Nixon and the "Southern Strategy" our major parties sort of switched tents in the 60's.

I'm talking about after Nixon folks, recent political history after the demise of the Solid South.

..and not just politicians, rank-and file conservatives as statistically more likely to be racists.

I started a whole thread on this last year.
Link]
Here's a sample:

Link

Here's a link to a more complete posting of mine in the other thread.
Link
When I said "statistically verifiable"....

I meant it has already been verified... with statistics.

ONLY because Powell chose not to run. Until Obama took the platform, Powell was the most likely black candidate to win the presidency by far. I still think he could have taken Obama if he would have chosen to run, though I don't blame him for not running. The second most-likely candidate would be Rice. If not for the unpopularity of Bush, she would have given Hillary a run for her money. I think that Rice (even with Bush's unpopularity) or Powell would produce a far higher percentage of the votes than any of the aforementioned black Democratic presidential candidates with the exception of Obama. Nearly anyone can choose to run for president. That more black Democrats have chosen to do so than black Republicans is hardly proof of who would be the more likely to win in the near future.

I did say most Republicans (not Conservatives - they're not likely to have a PRESIDENTIAL candidate anytime soon) don't think they're racists. I'm pretty sure I can back that up statistically.

As for your list - who's the more racist party? The one who put up the most blacks and DENIED them the opportunity to run for President or the one who had the fewer black candidates because they have fewer black constituents?

Frankly neither - since 3 out of 5 of the people on the Democrats list are clowns and the lone Republican is so Conservative Limbaugh looks at this guy after popping a pill and says "whoa!"

Let's save the tags and emoticon for other users at AD and just put you down for Democrat, mmKay?

I'm sure most don't think so. And speaking generally it might even be true.

...but racism is more common among Republicans than Democrats and were are engaged in a comparitive excercise here.

The Republican party has major issues being sympathetic to minorities. Particularly Blacks and Hispanics.

From the carping about culture wars and Latin American immigration to the snide comments about welfare queens and failed subcultures.

The GOP is not black man's best friend.

With the exception of Obama, none of the Black candidates was a likely nominee. I would, however, like to know which three you are calling clowns. Did any of them not have serious issues to present.

Is Ralph Nader a clown for running again against all odds? Were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich clowns for remaining long after it was obvious they were going nowhere?

Yep, AZwolf- you are correct- at one time, the republicans WERE the party for civil rights- and as turnea pointed out- that whole entire thing switched parties, about, oh, the 1968 Democratic convention perhaps? -

Now- let's zoom up to, you know, Modern history - Jesse Helms- the most racist person in office in America since the KKK were kingmakers in Indiana politics. http://www.in.gov/library/3311.htm ( if you want the history of the KKK in Indiana and the DC Stephanson scandal ) -

You have the "willie horton" adds of GH Bush- blantantly anti-black and racist. "If you elect Dukkakis you will have black men out of prison, where they belong, and raping your white women- a vote for dukakis is a vote for a rapist nigger"- was more or less the message there.

The BA comment, of course, strikes me as the most clueless of all, or, outright ignoring the problems of racism type racist.

Seriously- like I showed on the Al Sharpton thread- without Al Sharpton, white murderers would have gotten away with hienous crimes and justice would have been denied-

So, BA, everytime some white racists murder a black man or men, we should just "ignore" it and maybe it will go away? Because, it was being ignored by the white population, and it took riots and marching to fix the problem, and it took elevating Al Sharpton to national status to make it happen.

What were blacks supposed to do in your racist hometown nieghborhoods BA- just let murder go unpunished?

Since this is apparently ignored by you, even though it is in your "back yard" so to speak- let me remind you of the incident"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton

[edit] Bensonhurst
On August 23, 1989, four Black teenagers were beaten by a group of 10 to 30 white youths in Bensonhurst, a Brooklyn neighborhood. One Bensonhurst resident, armed with a handgun, shot and killed sixteen-year-old Yusef Hawkins.

In the weeks following the assault and murder, Sharpton led several marches through Bensonhurst. The first protest, just days after the incident, was greeted by neighborhood residents shouting "Niggers go home" and holding watermelons to mock the demonstrators.[31]
In May 1990, when one of the two leaders of the mob was acquitted of the most serious charges brought against him, Sharpton led another protest through Bensonhurst. In January 1991, when other members of the gang were given light sentences, Sharpton planned another march for January 12, 1991. Before that demonstration began, neighborhood resident Michael Riccardi tried to kill Sharpton by stabbing him in the chest.[32] Sharpton recovered from his wounds, and later asked the judge for leniency when Riccardi was sentenced.[33]


So, apparently- ignoring racism doesn't work too well, unless you are a racist, huh BA?

Yes.

I could come in here and recite the obvious: that there are few, if any, promising black conservatives coming up the pipelines. That aside from Colin Powell and the dubious possibility of Condaleeza Rica, I can't think of a single Black republican who has successfully emerged from that pipeline, ready for the nomination or the VP slot.

That the GOP has done everything it possibly could to alienate Hispanics and Arab-Americans over the past 10 years; not to mention non-christians.

I could go on.

But, credit is due where credit is due. Louisiana did elect Indian-American Bobby Jindal governor last year. Personally, I don't think Bobby Jindal could ever win the White House, he is waaay too far right. He has a zero abortions policy, meaning, none, never, not even when the mother is in danger.

Nonetheless, nobody in the past 50 years has come up short underestimating the ability of the American electorate to swing wildly and unexpectedly to the right. For one, we have a democratic party that consistently nominates centrists, and a republican party that, until just last month, consistently did the opposite. So I wouldn't be surprised if one day, I turn on the tube and discover that semi-charismatic Bobby Jindal has ascended to the national level. Could very well happen.

First black field grade officer - Maj. Martin Delany, special commission given by President Lincoln, a Republican.
First black Lt. Gov. - Oscar Dunn of Louisiana, a Republican
First black to vote in an election after the 15th amendment, Thomas Mundy Peterson, active Republican
First black Gov. - P.B.S. Pinchback of Louisiana, a Republican
First black Senator - Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican, Mississippi)
First black Congressman - Joseph Rainey (Republican, South Carolina)

Hmmm...seems there one party that seems first to actually win with black candidates.

Once again- we need recent history dude. I mean, post 1968. You know, that watershed time that deals with modern day voting trends. Something applicable to the issues at hand, not in a long ago history lesson that was before I was even born, or, when after, was long before I was of voting age. I was born in 1965 BTW.

Let's see- Joseph Rainey- man, way to pull that one out of the dusty bins of history- only what, 1879

Okay- let's compare, shall we?



United States Senate

In the Reconstruction era
Senator Party State Term
Hiram Rhodes Revels Republican Mississippi 1870-1871
Blanche Kelso Bruce Republican Mississippi 1875-1881


In the modern era
Senator Party State Term
Edward William Brooke Republican Massachusetts 1967-1979
Carol Moseley Braun Democrat Illinois 1993-1999
Barack Obama Demo

United States House of Representatives

[edit] In the Reconstruction era
Representative Party State Term
John Willis Menard[1] Republican Louisiana 1868
Joseph H. Rainey Republican South Carolina 1870-1879
Jefferson F. Long Republican Georgia 1870-1871
Robert C. De Large Republican South Carolina 1871-1873
Robert B. Elliott Republican South Carolina 1871-1874
Benjamin S. Turner Republican Alabama 1871-1873
Josiah T. Walls Republican Florida 1871-1873, 1873-1875, 1875-1876
Richard H. Cain Republican South Carolina 1873-1875, 1877-1879
John R. Lynch Republican Mississippi 1873-1877, 1882-1883
James T. Rapier Republican Alabama 1873-1875
Alonzo J. Ransier Republican South Carolina 1873-1875
Jeremiah Haralson Republican Alabama 1875-1877
John A. Hyman Republican North Carolina 1875-1877
Charles E. Nash Republican Louisiana 1875-1877
Robert Smalls Republican South Carolina 1875-1879, 1882-1883, 1884-1887
James E. O'Hara Republican North Carolina 1883-1887
Henry P. Cheatham Republican North Carolina 1889-1893
John Mercer Langston Republican Virginia 1890-1891
Thomas E. Miller Republican South Carolina 1890-1891
George W. Murray Republican South Carolina 1893-1895, 1896-1897
George Henry White Republican North Carolina 1897-1901


[edit] In the modern era
Representative Party State Term

Oscar De Priest Republican Illinois 1929-1935
Arthur W. Mitchell Democrat Illinois 1935-1943
William L. Dawson Democrat Illinois 1943-1970
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Democrat New York 1945-1967, 1967-1971
Charles Diggs Democrat Michigan 1955-1980
Robert N.C. Nix, Sr. Democrat Pennsylvania 1958-1979
Augustus F. Hawkins Democrat California 1963-1991
John Conyers, Jr. Democrat Michigan 1965-present
William L. Clay, Sr. Democrat Missouri 1969-2001
Louis Stokes Democrat Ohio 1969-1999
Shirley Chisholm Democrat New York 1969-1983
George W. Collins Democrat Illinois 1970-1972
Ronald V. Dellums Democrat California 1971-1998
Ralph Metcalfe Democrat Illinois 1971-1978
Parren Mitchell Democrat Maryland 1971-1987
Charles B. Rangel Democrat New York 1971-present
Yvonne Brathwaite Burke Democrat California 1973-1979
Cardiss Collins Democrat Illinois 1973-1997
Barbara Jordan Democrat Texas 1973-1979
Andrew Young Democrat Georgia 1973-1977
Harold Ford, Sr. Democrat Tennessee 1975-1997
Julian C. Dixon Democrat California 1979-2000
William H. Gray, III Democrat Pennsylvania 1979-1991
Mickey Leland Democrat Texas 1979-1989
Bennett M. Stewart Democrat Illinois 1979-1981
George W. Crockett Democrat Michigan 1980-1991
Mervyn M. Dymally Democrat California 1981-1993
Gus Savage Democrat Illinois 1981-1993
Harold Washington Democrat Illinois 1981-1983
Katie Hall Democrat Indiana 1982-1985
Major Owens Democrat New York 1983-2007
Edolphus Towns Democrat New York 1983-present
Alan Wheat Democrat Missouri 1983-1995
Charles Hayes Democrat Illinois 1983-1993
Alton R. Waldon, Jr. Democrat New York 1986-1987
Mike Espy Democrat Mississippi 1987-1993
Floyd Flake Democrat New York 1987-1998
John Lewis Democrat Georgia 1987-present
Kweisi Mfume Democrat Maryland 1987-1996
Donald M. Payne Democrat New Jersey 1989-present
Craig A. Washington Democrat Texas 1989-1995
Barbara-Rose Collins Democrat Michigan 1991-1997
Gary Franks Republican Connecticut 1991-1997
William J. Jefferson Democrat Louisiana 1991-present
Maxine Waters Democrat California 1991-present
Lucien E. Blackwell Democrat Pennsylvania 1991-1995
Eva Clayton Democrat North Carolina 1992-2003
Sanford Bishop Democrat Georgia 1993-present
Corrine Brown Democrat Florida 1993-present
Jim Clyburn Democrat South Carolina 1993-present
Cleo Fields Democrat Louisiana 1993-1997
Alcee Hastings Democrat Florida 1993-present
Earl Hilliard Democrat Alabama 1993-2003
Eddie Bernice Johnson Democrat Texas 1993-present
Cynthia McKinney Democrat Georgia 1993-2003, 2005-2007
Carrie Meek Democrat Florida 1993-2003
Mel Reynolds Democrat Illinois 1993-1995
Bobby Rush Democrat Illinois 1993-present
Robert C. Scott Democrat Virginia 1993-present
Walter Tucker Democrat California 1993-1995
Mel Watt Democrat North Carolina 1993-present
Albert Wynn Democrat Maryland 1993-present
Bennie Thompson Democrat Mississippi 1993-present
Chaka Fattah Democrat Pennsylvania 1995-present
Sheila Jackson Lee Democrat Texas 1995-present
J.C. Watts, Jr. Republican Oklahoma 1995-2003
Jesse Jackson, Jr. Democrat Illinois 1995-present
Juanita Millender-McDonald Democrat California 1996-2007
Elijah Cummings Democrat Maryland 1996-present
Julia Carson Democrat Indiana 1997-2007
Danny K. Davis Democrat Illinois 1997-present
Harold Ford, Jr. Democrat Tennessee 1997-2007
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick Democrat Michigan 1997-present
Gregory W. Meeks Democrat New York 1998-present
Barbara Lee Democrat California 1998-present
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Democrat Ohio 1999-present
William Lacy Clay, Jr. Democrat Missouri 2001-present
Diane Watson Democrat California 2001-present
Frank Ballance Democrat North Carolina 2003-2004
Artur Davis Democrat Alabama 2003-present
Denise Majette Democrat Georgia 2003-2005
Kendrick Meek Democrat Florida 2003-present
David Scott Democrat Georgia 2003-present
G.K. Butterfield Democrat North Carolina 2004-present
Emanuel Cleaver Democrat Missouri 2005-present
Al Green Democrat Texas 2005-present
Gwen Moore Democrat Wisconsin 2005-present
Yvette Clarke Democrat New York 2007-present
Keith Ellison Democrat Minnesota 2007-present
Hank Johnson Democrat Georgia 2007-present
Laura Richardson Democrat California 2007-present

BA, there were two questions on the quiz. You only answered one. If you are going to call three of the five Blacks nighttimer listed "clowns," then have the courage of your conviction and tell us which three you are referring to. Otherwise, I'll have to enter a 50 in the grade book. I just cant get away from the classroom.

Turnea said:

Thanks. I think...


Well, gee, Turnea... I'm sure all the white people here are glad to know that you think that there are some exceptions to "generally speaking" whites being racist against blacks.

So would it be productive and turn the tables, and suggest that there's no anti-white racism present by black Democrats? Because we've seen some racism from black presidential bids (Sharpton and the white "interlopers", and Jackson and his "Hymietown" comments), and if it's "real racism", then no amount of apologies should suffice - or can someone apologize without being perceived as weak?

Jesse Jackson says the racist, Jew-hating Louis Farakkhan is "free to express himself." How sad. You cannot condemn some racists, then ignore others.

CruisingRam said:

If you say so. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I simply don't know.

The last I heard, the Republican Party tried to distance themselves from Horton. But if that's the basis of "Republicans are racist", it doesn't seem to hold a lot of water.

So yeah, let's talk about character of the actual people that run.

I *did* vote for Alan Keyes in past primaries, because I find his speaking style amazing, and his morals to be upstanding. Not because he's black. But because he's a genuinely talented man. I also noted that the media was quick to dismiss him, including the debates where his time was much shorter.

CruisingRam said:

I didn't realize "Residents" was a code word for "Republican". Or that New York was so overwhelmingly Conservative.

I reread BA's postings, and I didn't see anywhere where BA said it was okay to murder anybody. What are you talking about? What, people can't criticize Sharpton or Jackson, or call them clowns for any reason OUTSIDE of racism? If you don't like either of those two, welp, that's it? You're racist? Automatically?

Tell you what. The last time I heard the word "nigg'r" and "cracker" spoken out loud was on Chris Rock's HBO special. And it was said over and over to the point I had to switch channels. Apparently I'm more offended listening to it than he is of saying it. But the crowds loved it. So I'm answering my own question and noting that yes indeed, it is not Republicans that continue a tradition of racism, but others that are not only not offended, but entertained by it.


Dennis Kucinich is a creepy little clown regardless of what he does. He and his little communist anti-war followers found no footing with the American people from start to finish. But to his credit, he had what would have been the hottest First Lady ever.

Ron Paul at least had a shtick. He was the Internet phenomenon who raised a record number of donations and whose followers tipped every poll. It was fascinating until the curtain was pulled on the wizard. At least every freeway overpass is no longer littered with his follower's bedsheets. I liked him better than what we ended up with, tho.

Drewyorktimes:

I see your Bobby Jindal, and raise you a Ray Nagin. You Democrats can have all the credit for him. No, really.

CruisingRam:

Once again - like the Bush Administration? The most diverse in American history?

I heard nothing from the left on the Bush Administration except the "token" this, and "token" that at first... but all in all, nobody seems to recall that diversity IS currently in favor of Republicans.

This whole "We r teh bestest 4 gitting a black presidunt in teh white hows furst!" is pretty ridiculous. It's like the party that gets there first gets First Prize for some imaginary race relations award. Or the bragging rights to point at the other party and call them mysogynists for not thinking of running a woman in the last decade. We're in a completely screwed up war, our relations with other countries is at risk, our economy is still somewhat strong, but dropping fast, and our enemy (Al Qaida, remember them?) still hate us and want to see Western Civilization destroyed. They have 80 barges, and could easily detonate an EMP scud 11km over Kansas, knocking out the entire electrical structure of the country.

And we're biatchin' about the color of the president. Is anyone else feeling stupid? Because I am.

I have just one question left. If Jackson AND Sharpton ran for President, was it the post-1968 racism in the Democrat Party that kept BOTH of them from being elected? Or is it actually possible that issue or character, and not race, that kept them from appealing to the American public?

AZ- there is a difference between appointed "yes men/women" and elected officials ya see?

As in- Condi Rice. I don't think too many votes from white OR blacks for that lady is going to happen anytime soon.

However- I am willing to bet a lot of whites vote for a certain candidate this fall that is black- and you know what- he is a dem- not a repub. Even if he doesn't win, it was the dem party that gave the best run for a non-white candidate to date.

Bottom line is- there are scads more black elected officials that are dem than repub. They have achieved high office in the dem party vs repub in a very, very large way. Simply- the republican party is not very receptive to issues that are important to large blocs of black voters- in what, a 9 to 1 margin?

The republican party even alienates many blacks that would be happy to join on many so called "conservative" values (meaning, I call it "so called" because it is obviously a lip-service thing) - abortion, fiscal conservatism, faith based issues- alot of these issues, when polled, IIRC are more in line with the republican party- but the republican party goes SO far in it's anti-black campaigns that it has alienated perhaps many otherwise sympathetic voters.

It isn't a mystery. Heck, look at Ronald Reagan's opposition to MLK day, took a veto proof majority to get him to sign it. How cool was that? MLK is a national hero, on the same plane and level as our founding fathers- and the republican party fought a holiday for him tooth and nail.

I think the Republicans would have a better chance of getting a minority elected if they could ever get one to win the republican nomination at least. I think a minority Republican would play well in the general, simply because many Republican states like Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia etc, won't vote for a democrat, even if many of the Republican voters in states like that have a sneaking suspicians that the white tradition is under attack, and that you just can't trust the allegience to America of someone not white.

The democratic party has (by massive leaps and bounds) the more diverse pool to draw from. Whether it's Jews, blacks, latino's, East Asians, women, Catholics...whatever, the Democrats dwarf the Republicans when it comes to elected officials and names. As far as minorities? You can't call women or Catholics (not really) a minority or anything, but anything barring male WASPS? The democrats kind of dwarf the Republicans pretty bad as far as elected politicians are concerned.

The Republicans have Bobby Jindal and thus corner the Indian-American political corner, though with the retirement of Ben Nighthorse Campbell (once a democrat) they lost that Native American edge.

Still, though a tiny pool, the Republicans have a few names, like JC Watts, Colin Powell, Condo, Jindal and maybe Lt Governor Steele from Maryland at some point. Republicans (the anti-affirmative action party) seem desperate to put a minority VP on the ticket, but nothing is really there. Condo said no (with her credentials over the past 8 years, I don't see how she would deserve to even be considered, but black female is a hot commodity for them I guess). Mel Martinez was born in Cuba I think, and has no experience and low approval ratings. Jindal is in his first years as governor and is massively/out of the mainstream conservative. Colin Powell is old and isn't all enthusiastic to be with another Iraq war president. Watts would look like a sick ploy to nominate, same as Steele. Females? They want good looking Sarah Palin pretty bad, but she has zero experience. Kay Bailey is an option as VP. They really don't have anyone else though. They really want something other than a a white guy on the ticjet, but don't really have anyone but white men. McCaib will settle on a catholic likely, to get away from the Hagee stuff.

So, I don't see the Republicans having a minority who could even see a general, though I feel a republican minority is best situated to run in a general, because he would get more cross-pver vote and the south will vote for anyone with an R by their name

I think so. Blacks are good for appointing into the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy so Republicans can appear to be more tolerant. But if they want to run on their own merits, white people won't vote for them no matter what. That's what you're saying.

I still disagree, tho.

I don't know. You tell me. It's your statistic.

I'm sorry the Republican Party doesn't single out different racial groups in specific terms. I think the day of "A chicken in every pot" is over. Why is it that minorities expect someone to reach out to them? "Working families" or "Single Mothers" or any group of people doesn't mean white people, or mexican people, or black people, it means "working families" or "Single Mothers". If you happen to be black and in a working family, you're still included. Or should we be saying "Black people in working families, here's what you can expect from me..."?

So what is the Republican Party missing? Entitlements? Calls for Reparations on people who never even owned slaves? Is that what the Democrat Party is doing right for black people? Making innocent people pay for a crime that they didn't commit against people they never knew? Is that how a party shows they CARE for a voter bloc?

I can tell you Democrats are doing the worst of racial pandering, called Amnesty. They want every hispanic vote, and promise to not kick out family members who cross the border illegally. Bush did a shameful version himself, not to confuse this as a great Republican victory. But racial pandering leaves EVERYONE ELSE LEFT OUT. I would think the people most sensitive to racial issues, particularly the black vote, would see that for the elephant in the room that it is.

Guess not.

How the hell can we be color blind if you're still counting how many blacks did this, how many whites did this, how many mexicans did this......

Besides, I thought a lot of Republicans would never vote for a "certain candidate this fall". Why are they all of a sudden changing their minds? Or COULD IT BE that they were tolerant BEFORE this election cycle, but never had a black candidate interested in being President on the Republican side?

Just a post before, White Conservative Republicans were "generally" racist according to Turnea. Now you're willing to bet that racist people would vote for a black.

Wait... WHAT?!


Of course. Like black Democrats acting all racially sensitive, but then having the "freedom of speech" to say "nigg'r" and "cracker" to their audiences. And then completely roast a talk show host for describing someone as a nappy headed ho, and then claiming "Freedom of speech" is actually "hate speech" if "that guy" says it, because when HE says it, it's "derogatory".

Right. Lip service. I'm following you.

Oh, I see. We're such flaming racists that BECAUSE of our racism, we'll be voting for a black guy?!

What for? Is this some kind of Vote Reparation thing going on? We owe "some black guy" a vote for all of our racist stuff back in the 1960's, plus the Willie Horton thing, so the first chance we get, we'll vote the first black guy on the block?

You know, Obama isn't my first choice. BUT. IF he won the Presidency, I wouldn't claim it was because he was black. Or because the Republicans were racist and that became some imaginary advantage. It's because America picked him as the most qualified candidate to run the country and solve some problems. I'd even contend that the nation has spoken in that "They Want Change", which is his campaign slogan. Betcha weren't expecting that, but I do listen to both sides.

Did you notice that race never entered my logic? He didn't win "one for the negros of days gone by.." He didn't win because people felt sorry for his heritage.... Or people believed he was a good BLACK candidate... but because he was qualified.

I know you leftys don't buy into what I call the merit over melanon debate, but it exists for a majority of Conservatives. Hell, show me a religious conservative who doesn't believe the Spirit of God dwells in a black church, because you'd be hard pressed to find one.

It seems the people that are concentrating on racial differences and assigning prejudices are the ones either claiming "if Obama wins, it's because he's black", or saying that "if he loses, it's because he's black."

Maybe if he wins, it's because people liked his ideas. And if he loses, it's because people didn't like his ideas.

Are there a few racists that would not pull the lever for a black man? Sure. Al Gore Sr. never would have. He'd send them back out to his tobacco fields. Fred Phelps wouldn't either. And he did fund raising for Al Gore Jr. These are Democrats who would have never vote for a black man. Don't point at Republicans and amplify our wrongs. There's enough to go around on both sides without throwing the hot potato back and forth.

You'll have to take that up with another member of this board who can identify himself if he likes. He contends that whites only like MLK because he's a dead black man, and whites would have hated him if they knew him when he was alive.

Second, "Ronald Reagan" is not "The Republican Party".

Third, it was cool. MLK believed in non-violence and persistence, and was a man of incredible faith. Both sides could learn great deals from him if they'd look at his life and stop trying to claim him for "their side". He didn't do what he did for a party. He did it for a people. And he did it for equality.

But based on this thread, I'd contend that blacks, as much as whites, still concentrate on the color of skin. Isn't that opposite of what "I have a dream" was all about?

Here's a answer for you. In 1984, in his race for the Senate, Gore opposed a "gay bill of civil rights" and said homosexuality was not something "society should affirm." Evil Fred did indeed hold a fundraiser for Gore in 1988 and served as a delegate for him at the Democratic Convention that year.

However, Phelps soured on Gore when he became Bill Clinton's vice-president. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Phelps protested Hillary Clinton during a campaign speech in support of the Clinton-Gore ticket at the University of Kansas on October 14, 1992. In Bill Clinton's second presidential campaign, Phelps and the Westboro church also opposed Clinton and Gore because of the administration's support for gay rights. The entire Westboro congregation picketed a 1997 inaugural ball, denouncing Gore as a "famous fag pimp." In 1998, Westboro picketed the funeral of Gore's father, screaming vulgarities at Gore and telling him, "your dad's in Hell." link

Good try though at guilt by association, azwhitewolf.

I'll see your Byrd, Fulbright, Gore Sr., Ervin, Russell, Cuomo, Gephardt, Donna Brazile (the first African-American woman to be campaign manager for a major presidential candidate? What's SHE doing on this list?) and raise you with Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Richard Nixon, Lee Atwater, Bob Barr, Katherine Harris, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Strom Thurmond, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, George Allen, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz, William Rehnquist, Conrad Burns, George W. Bush and John "I voted against the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday" McCain.

I could go on, but why belabor the obvious?



If you know your history so well, azwhitewolf, why have you spun the role of the Republican Party in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Two weeks into the new year, conservative outlets continue to promote the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar, a 12-month wall calendar "celebrating a century and a half of civil rights achievements by the party of Lincoln."

The stated purpose of the Republican Freedom Calendar is to promote the story, "as remarkable as it is untold," of "the many important Republican achievements in advancing civil rights." But actually the calendar does a good deal more than that. Not only does the calendar ignore the civil rights achievements of Democrats, it paints the Democratic Party as a perennial enemy of civil rights. The calendar also omits the embarrassing chapters in Republican history.

President Johnson also helped to push through the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Yet the Republican Freedom Calendar describes these laws as Republican triumphs. The calendar does not mention that Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, won five Deep South states because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. It does not mention that Republican George H.W. Bush opposed the Civil Rights Act in his 1964 run for the U.S. Senate. (Bush lost to Democrat Ralph Yarborough, who was the only Southern senator to vote for the Civil Rights Act.) The calendar does not mention that Ronald Reagan, in his 1966 campaign to become governor of California, endorsed repeal of California’s Fair Housing Act, saying, "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so."

What the calendar does say is this: "Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."

Like similar statements made by black conservatives over the past several years, this account suggests that the Civil Rights Act was a partisan contest between Democrats and Republicans. In fact, Congressional votes on the Civil Rights Act did not break along party lines – they split along regional lines. In the North, both parties supported the Civil Rights Act; in the South, both parties opposed it. The difference was that the Republican Party had very little presence in the South, which had been dominated since the 1870s by the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party.

Today, of course, the old Dixiecrats have nearly disappeared, and white Southerners vote heavily for the GOP. This is not a coincidence; it was the 1964 split between Northern and Southern Democrats that opened the South to anti-civil-rights overtures from Republicans such as Goldwater, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The realignment of the South is one of the most important consequences of the civil rights movement, yet the Republican Freedom Calendar makes no mention of it. link2

Can I interest you in a Republican Freedom Calendar, azwhitewolf? It's three years out of date and plays fast and loose with the facts, but that shouldn't bother you much.




And it also takes a commitment by the national party to recruit, train, and prepare those "leaders," which is why the last Black Republican Congressman, J.C. Watts left the House to join GOPAC as their chairman until 2007 when he was replaced by Michael Steele. GOPAC calls itself "the premier training organization for Republican candidates for elected office."

Apparently, Watts isn't all that impressed himself with the GOP's commitment to broadening their base. "Republicans want to say we reach out. But what we do instead is 60 days before an election, we'll spend some money on black radio and TV or buy an ad in Ebony and Jet, and that's our outreach. People read through that," Watts said in a The Washington Times interview.




Nobody ever suggested Black Republicans don't exist. They most certainly do.

They just don't win above a local or state level.



A few too many "woulda/shoulda" and "I could have been a contender" scenarios there Mrs. Pigpen.

Either you do or you do not, as Yoda said, and Powell and Rice did not choose to run. I agree that Powell, if not Rice, would have been far more productive as a vote-getter than Braun, Chisholm, Jackson and Sharpton, but first you got to have the fire in the belly to get in the ring. They didn't and history is not created by those who sit on the sidelines watching the ones making it happen.

My explanation may not be the right one, but it doesn't mean I should accept yours.



Say what?

How exactly did the Democrats "deny" Chisholm, Braun, Jackson and Sharpton the opportunity to run for President? It helps if you can raise the money, build the organization and win some primaries and a caucus or two. Until Barack Obama came along, the only one who even came close to that kind of success was Jesse Jackson.

If the Republicans have fewer Black candidates because they have fewer Black constituents, why don't you give some consideration to why Blacks bolted from the GOP to the other side. Could it be that Franklin Roosevelt and subsequent Democratic presidents offered a new deal to Blacks that Herbert Hoover and subsequent Republican presidents have not?



Yep. Especially if you go back in time. You left off your list Macura one Oscar DePreist, a Black Republican from Illinois who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1928 and was the last Black Republican elected to the House for another 56 years!

The last two African-Americans elected to the House were Gary Franks (1991-1997) and the already mentioned J.C. Watts (1995-2003). The last Black Republican elected to the Senate was Edward Brooke (1967-1979).

This is despite the Reagan Revolution, the Republican Contract with America and Republican control of the White House, Congress and Supreme Court under George W. Bush. All that and the GOP still can't get a brutha or a sista elected to a national office? The Arizona Cardinals will win the Super Bowl before the Republicans elect a Black Senator.




The way you ignore Republican racists?



Perhaps because he's a perennial extremist outsider always running for positions he'll never win since he's to the right of Rush Limbaugh and Attila the Hun.



Yeah, a First Lady with a tongue stud. Nothing sexist about that.



I'm sorry but I have to ask---your first and last sentences---is that a lame attempt at Ebonics or do you just write in a language of your own creation?



Maybe they were just lousy candidates who ran boutique campaigns that never had a chance of garnering broad appeal or actually winning the nomination. Kind of like Rudy Giuliani. Remember him?

Which Party Is More Likely To Give the US Our First Minority President?

That would be the Democratic Party.

The only giving that's involved is opportunity. Seems the whole presidential process has scared Republican minorities away during the past 10 years or so. Why not Democratic minorities?

Obama's riding on an Internet wave, which is very interesting. The traditional media seems to be losing out too, which is also interesting, started with the 2004 season. See what happens when people stop watching commercial and passive television? Or watch it on their own terms via TiVo? When the yakking heads get Daily Show treatments? When Netflix offers commercial-free content on demand?

The Republican Party hires minorities. The Democratic Party nominates minorities. There's a huge difference.

We are of course talking national politics, so I'm leaving out governors and Congressional nominees. We are also talking about the future, not the past, so I'm looking ahead to November.

The Republican nominee is known. Might as well skip the convention and save some money. The Democratic nominee is still contended, although probably not as much as the yakking heads want us to think. Commercial and passive TV continues to have its draw but certainly not as much as its golden years, the 1960s to the 1990s. Another interesting thing is seeing the arguments from television showing up on this debate board, the interest being the ability to identify them as to source just by tone.

I don't see the difference being based on racism versus egalitarianism as much as the difference between corporate cultures. The Republican Party likes to micro-manage its people. The Democratic Party is more in favor of letting the pack run. As has been shown with a flair of fake surprise lately, the Democratic Party does have rules.

Must be one of those organizational things.

That's not quite what I said. I was giving the benefit of the doubt that most whites, even most republicans may not be strongly racist (though implicitly it is more complicated among both whites and blacks and I'll explain a little more later.)

...but in any case I'm only being honest about American race relations. Racism is still a problem in politics... and more so on the right than the left.


True enough. Though it's a bit of a stretch to call Sharpton a racist. We've debated this too and the best anyone had on him is inferences.

In any case I advocate ignoring no one's racism simply putting it all into perspective. Sharpton and Jackson aren't even powerful in the black community, let's alone the Democratic party, they are now perpetual also-rans albeit they can do some good in individual circumstance through their organizations.

I'm speaking of mass phenomena as well as actual power player in both parties.

En masse anti-black racism is more influential than anti-white racism both among blacks and whites.


The fact is our cultural bias against blacks holds implicit sway even among blacks themselves.

..plus there are far more whites to go around.

So I'm not ignoring anything.

Which Party Is More Likely To Give the US Our First Minority President?

Given the current fact on the ground, I'll have to go with the Democrats on this one. Obama has about a 75% chance of getting his party's nomination at this point. Either Democrats is at least 50-50 odds for winning in November. That puts Obama's current chances at 37.5% which is higher than any Republican currently on the radar.

If we discount this election cycle, I think the answer is still a toss up. If Obama wins the nomination and loses in November, I think the momentum swings back to the Republicans as the Democrats will be gunshy about nominating another black man for a while. Politics tends to revolve around electability and if Barack can't get elected in this Blue election cycle with his charisma and speaking ability, then what other nominee will?

Do the Democrats have any other prominent black figures on the national stage who might supplant Obama should he falter?

For the Republicans, the issue is getting viable candidates. Ken Blackwell (a black man) was defeated by an old white guy Democrat in Ohio. Michael Steele lost to a white Democrat in Virginia. Condi Rice won't run for elected office. Powell is out. My personal guess is that Steele is going to play a big role in the future, but what do I know?

Who do you think had more minority people working in their admin.? Do you remember Colin Powell who could have run – and imo would have won as a Republican????

Guess not – keep the blinders on sir. Your Dem buddies love it.

I think we all remember (key word) Colin Powell.

Where is he now?

Powell may well have had a chance... due only the the abiding militarism of our country's politics.

...but like many good soldiers he had no political ambition and very few position.

It was always a pipe dream.

The GOP keeps relying on the "exceptional man" theory of a minority rising to the presidency because they have no hope of a grassroots rise to prominence.

And again this has a lot to do witht heir negative attitude towards minority concerns.

To answer the question: Well, there is a good chance this year for Obama, so if I were putting real money on this issue, I guess I'd have to go with the Dems. Plus, there are more blacks in the Dem party, of course--it is the party that panders to blacks, so of course this is true. Personally, all other things being equal, I'd be much more likely to vote for a black Rep than a black Dem, as I would suspect the black Rep would be less likely to hate me for the color of my skin....

Ah, now on to all of the great posts I found above.

[EDIT] as a graduate of the political science department where Prof Krosnick currently teaches, I would have to say these voter behavior studies are notoriously inaccurate when they try to assess motives. Frankly, calling political science a "science" at all is a joke: it is simply gathering data and then mining it statistically. Almost any case can be made in this fashion--I know, because in school I would argue diametrically opposing points using the same data! At least when I was in school, prevailing data indicated a voter's party affilidation most strongly correlated to that of the voter's parents, if that helps any. Of course, determining the underlying motive for that correlation is another story. Political philosophy is a much better avenue of study.

Blacks constitute 13% of the population in the USA. There really is no compelling argument for there ever being a black president. Why should a representative of a 13% minority be elected and empowered to skew the nation's policies in favor of that 13%? The reason blacks do not like the general Republican stance is that most Republicans (and most Conservatives) do not want race to have any place at the table, and black activists (and their Democratic buds) cannot envision any time in the future when race would not have a place at the table, enabling them to get an advantage in all matters social, political and economic. Of course, these positions do not square.

Since the number of Hispanics in the general population has passed the number of blacks, and all indications are this trend will continue, we may have an Hispanic president before we have a black one. Of course, blacks can play the white guilt card, a card which the Hispanics do not play so well and to which most whites do not respond, so that cuts in favor of the blacks. But, you never know.

As far as Colin Powell goes, when I read his autobiography, I was so impressed at his description of the army as a place where he and others could rise on merit in a color-blind environment. It sounded like what all of society should be. Of course, such a goal is not fashionable anymore, but as the resident "racist" here, I'd have to say, I liked how it sounded.

Ya right sir. So the Party with the most minorities in the highest positions has a “negative attitude towards minority concerns”. And that would be…………………….?

Dems are the fraud and always have been – they talk jobs but not about getting the education needed to “qualify” – Teddy K on the Education Sub Committee votes for the Unions every time. So give me a break please.

It’s Republicans that actually did something about the abysmal education system for minorities in this country – and we know it all starts there don’t we………….


I think Rice would be a great candidated - too bad she won't run

You understand of course that this is precisely what many blacks feel about white Republicans.

An added point would be that statistically those black democrats are far more justified in their suspicion.


I know this tactic.

When in doubt plead ignorance and deny the possibility of knowledge..

There will be no stalemate through this channel. If you have actual reason to dispute the studies present your evidence.


Like JFK skewed government in favor of Catholics? Hoover in favor of Quakers?

Non sequiter.

Your "scholarly" quotations are clear evidence of why I value political philospophy so much more than the drivel concoted by "social scientists". I mean, are the authors of this stuff you cite just plain stupid? If the maintenance of power is misconstrued as racism, then every human being who has ever drawn breath, anytime, anywhere, is a racist. You included. Everyone wants power.

In this nation as a political entity, we have legislated that numbers equal power (which numbers blacks do not have), but such power is to be restrained by certain intrinsic or fundamental rights that cannot be denied by those in control. We have also attempted to divide power in a compromise between its efficient use and its feckless diffusion.

But to argue with a straight face that only a racist would want to maintain power? Jeez--do these morons get paid to write this blather?

As far as my bold face language in your first quote, the key is these other factors have "been as thoroughly controlled for as possible," which is the social scientist's admission that they cannot be controlled. But, hey, he had to write something to earn the grant money. Human attitudes are way too complex to address with a silly questionnaire, because I particpated in a number of these in school and have seen them, up close and personal.

Like JFK skewed government in favor of Catholics? Hoover in favor of Quakers?

Cannot say: But Barack is quite clear in his book whom he intends to favor, and folks like Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson, when they ran for president, have been quite clear as well.

Actually, refusing to talk about racial injustice is what makes the republicans and yourself so racist Quick.

To ignore racism is to let it breed- it doesn't go away because you ignore it- once again, the rise of Al Sharpton was a direct result of allowing white people to beat and kill blacks in Bensohurst in the 80s.

But, you don't want to talk about that, right?

It is the ignoring of these racial issues, instead of meeting them head on, that has hurt the republican party so badly- that, and people like Ronald Reagan that denigrated MLK his whole life. Ronald Reagan was not fit to lick the boots of MLK, and this memory lives on- you don't let that kind of disrespect for the greatest leader of our time just go "undiscussed".

No blinders here, Ted. And let's not get things twisted. Appointing minorities to positions is all very nice and giving them a prominent place by the window is cool, but that is NOT the same thing as them running and winning high electoral office. I'm sure you can figure out the difference.

I believe I've illustrated that there is not a slight difference between Black Democrats and Republicans getting elected; the difference is stark, conspicuous and undeniable.

You guys keep bringing up Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. I hate to point out the obvious but it seems I have to: THEY DID NOT RUN FOR ELECTED OFFICE.

Did you catch that Ted or are your blinders on?




Ah, so that's it...Black Republicans love White people more than Black Democrats. So conversely, that must mean White Democrats love Black people more than White Republicans.
That's not what my background in Political Science or life experience leads me to believe, but it does tend to give credence to Turnea's point that more racists can be found on the Republican/conservative side of the street.

You might think since Black Dems hate White people that White people would be electing more Black Repubs since most Black Dems cannot win without appealing to some demographic of White voters.

Apparently, this is not so. Possibly because the Black Repubs are too busy fluffing pillows for White people, bringing them cool glasses of lemonade and trimming hedges?



Edited to remove response to edited name-calling



Wow. The combination of bigotry and absurdity in that statement is so overwhelming that I don't have any response to it beyond saying if 30 million African-Americans have no right to expect even proportional representation, we really have gone backwards, not forward as a nation.

By quick's perverse logic, since Blacks make of 78 percent of the players in the National Basketball Association and 70 percent of the players in the National Football League, shouldn't there be more than one African-American owner among the combined 62 franchises?

It's always a source of amazement how people who say "race has no place at the table" are the same ones who come up with blatantly racist reasons to exclude Black people from their rights as native born American citizens.



White guilt is the only way a Black or Hispanic can get elected in this country? Whatever happened to "merit?"