You call yourself a “Republican” and as I read what you write here and elsewhere you seem to repudiate most Republican policies – economic and social.

I see little in what we can expect to see from an Obama presidency that would make a Republican happy. So please explain what you mean.

And PLEASE do not just give me a BUSH rant – because I agree that Bush is no “Republican” I would ever vote for but certainly Regan and Bush one were different.

Tell me what Republican ideal you agree with.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/belie...lican_party.htm

Ted, if you had been paying attention over the years, you would know that CR has consistently called for balanced budgets. This is a traditional [Re]publican value, embraced by many Democrats, including Bill Clinton.

Your post isn't relevant to the question of which party will have the first minority president, but I've decided not to let you get away with anything.

Smaller goverment- getting rid completely of oppressive regimes like the DEA and ATF. Get rid of "big brother" legislation like the patriot act. Repeal NCLB. Stop all foriegn aid to other countries that is not private- remove all bases from other countries.

Balance the budget. End corporate welfare. Stop runaway spending on foriegn countries.

Get tough on crime- not just the petty criminals, big time criminals- like Ken Lay, Michael Milken and Dick Cheney.

Stop corruption in government.

Bottom line is- I am a republican in the purest sense- the Ron paul type.

Social conservativism is no different than nanny-state liberalism.

In other words- good republican ideals that have been lost to a generation of Republicans.

The republican party lost it's way when it embraced jerry falwell and Pat robertson.

Get rid of the hypocrites and Karl Roves and Lee Atwaters of the party.

In other words- get some real morals, instead of fake, lip service ones.

Stop paying lip service to conservative values- and actually do something about them. Something no republican in my lifetime has done- except Ron Paul.

The rest are fakes and charlatans.

That all makes me more of a conservative and supporter of the republican party than you can ever hope to be with your ideology.

If Obama wins, hopefully, the Republicans will have to reinvent the party again, just like they have had to do in the past.

Which Party Is More Likely To Give the US Our First Minority President?
Unless Obama wins this year it is clearly the Republicans. If folks want a President as far left as Obama then we will have one. If, as I believe, a more moderate President is favored then a black Republican like Colin Powell will have the best chance.


Read the posts. It takes more than this to define a persons views.

Clearly? Seriously?!

I mean over the course of this debate it has been a questionable prospect that the GOP could give us a minority president at all in its current state.

When stacked up against the Democrats the GOP has absolutely no edge in this regard.

I mean what makes it so clear to you?

Nice trophy.

I say clearly because Republican candidates like Colin Powell will be more centrist and thus able to attract a broader spectrum of voters.

Obama is the darling of the left wing of the Democrat Party and if he does not win in November it will because he is too liberal for the average American – not because he is black.

If the Democrat Party has a moderate black candidate (as Bill Clinton was) I have not seen him/her. Have you?

For what it's worth Ted, I read CR's posts far more thoroughly than your embarrassingly superficial flybys.

I think this entire debate flew right over my head.

I didn't realize either party went out to convince people of any race or gender to run for any political office. In fact, I didn't know the parties got together to decide who should run for higher office.

I guess my point is, is both parties embrace any individual who can win any office. Seriously - does anybody really believe either party gives a crap about what color or race you are if you can get them more power? In fact, both would welcome minorities not because it's better for the people of the US, but because it gives them more political power.

If JC Watts and Harold Ford, Jr. were running against each other, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But both CHOSE not to run - it was not a party decision.

The logic of this discussion - which I believe to be flawed - would seem to indicate the democratic party should have far more people in higher office only because most women and minorities seem to migrate towards the democratic party. It simple statistics - the more you have available, the higher the count. But it doesn't work that way because at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with the parties - it's the people eligible to run.

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

I'm with Amlord on this one. Statistically, in this election cycle, the Democrats are the only ones with a Black candidate, and therefore the only party with anything but an infinitesimally small chance. After this who knows. The landscape changes. Who can say four years from now who will be running? Did anybody see Obama coming, way back in 2004? Anybody see candidates like Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Richardson, etc.? Sure we suspected McCain, Clinton, Giuliani, and Edwards would be running, but it wasn't a sure thing, and three of them are toast.

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

I see several problems with this question.
1) The parties don't "give" us a candidate. Multiple candidates run in each party, and (for the most part) the voters decide which ones will advance to the POTUS Championship. Unless this question makes the assumption that Party = Voters.
2) If this isn't a question designed to elicit a response I don't know what is. Gee, how many minorities are currently running? Oh, look at that, the Democrats win this round.
3) The question makes the assumption that we have an obligation, a national goal, to eventually elect a minority. I don't object to it happening. But it's not my goal either. I have concerns with all three prominent candidates, and they have nothing to do with race/gender/age. I don't have enough room in my Bucket of Considerations for that.

Ah.

Well I don't think I can agree with that judgement. I mean what examples are you basing it on? What's the pool to consider?

Colin Powell has never and probably will never run for public office, but if you're talking about prominent public figures or former office holders from either party then the Democrats have far more minorities of any politcal stripe including moderates.

The GOP hardly has a stranglehold on the political center.



Depends on what you mean. The rarified party apparatus probably doesn't care, but the rank and file are a consideration as well.

On average, rank and file Democrats are more comforable with minorites than rank and file Republicans.

I generally let the chips fall where they may in regards to how people read my questions and welcome people's corrections or suggestions to improve them... you however have read things into the question that are simply not there.

1) OK I could have worded the question differently but I think it's relatively clear what I'm getting at. Point taken.
2) This is one of my more even handed questions More to the point this question was written quite a while ago.
3) This question makes no assumption at all. This question simply asks which party is most likely to get a minority into the POTUS seat.

Ok, I'll admit to having been a little nit-picky on that first point.

For #2 and #3, I apologize for being a late comer to the thread; However, even as far back as March, only the Democrats had any serious contenders that were minorities. It just seems to me that the question begs the answer ("Democrats"), even though technically, the possible poll answers were rather non-partisan. The truest answer I could give was based on objective probabilities for this election landscape, and not on which party actually gives better opportunities.

Would like to back this statement up. I don’t buy it.

I like J.C. Watts and I don’t believe Republicans are “less comfortable” with him or any other “minority”. The reality is that there are fewer conservative black men or women available for the Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_conservatism

Ted, have you ever stopped to wonder why there are so few black men and women running as conservative Republicans?

Here's a hint: it has something to do with "rank and file Democrats" being more comfortable with minorities than "rank and file Republicans."

Like I said to NT – want to back it up? I believe it is related to a childhood filled with hearing Democrats portray themselves as the advocates of minorities – and many minorities “buying” this line of crap.

But that is just my view – which I am sure you don’t share.

I also believe this is backed up by how many blacks take traditional "conservative" issues as part of thier ideology, but don't vote Republican anyway-

There are a fairly large number of blacks, I am quite certain, that are anti-abortion, anti-gun control, fiscally sound policy oriented type conservatives, yet, they won't exactly run to the GOP are they?

It has more to do with the very recent racist campaigns by the GOP- Willie Horton, Jesse Helms, and the Rovian 'brown baby" push poll for Bush in 2000.

The GOP has NO compulsions or ethics of using "fear of a black hat" to gather up white voters, and conservative leaning blacks can figure this out for themselves, I am sure.

I mean, a Jew may have well been on the same page as hitler against communists and economic policies, but it wasn't exactly a safe place for a Jew to be in Hitler' germany either- right?

The GOP has been very, very antagonistic against blacks, and you have to be a sell out or uncle tom to really be in the party, I mean, dems kicked thier racist roots to the curb in 1968, and it cost them the south.

So where DID those dissaffected racist Dems go exactly? I think you ask your average black man, he may have an idea or two where they are residing today.

then Ted likes to harp on Rev Wright- but gives a COMPLETE pass to the GOP for hard core evil types like Jerry Falwell- who, BTW- called the civil rights era the "Civil wrongs"- believes in segregation etc.

There is this attack on the black church today- but the GOP has NEVER taken it's own hard core right wing religious extremists to task, and I will bet this attack on Rev Wright will alienate blacks for at least another generation.

How "good republicans" like Ted can hop all over Rev Wright, while giving a pass to the millions of WHITE religious extremists in thier party will DEFINATELY cause some problems with blacks perception of the GOP.

Attacking Reverend Wright by quoting him is NOT an attack on The Black Church.

I suspect you'll lose that bet.

I started a whole thread on it a while ago, but here are a few sources.

Link

...and a post where I list three studies on that here.

On many issues blacks would actually be naturally sympathetic to the GOP but it's recent history and the higher concentration of racism discourage many blacks from being comfortable on the right.

What- you think that blacks are going to give a pass to the practice of demonizing Rev Wright, who is black, while allowing scumbags like Jerry Falwell practically run the party until his death?

Ya, I would take this bet.

Go to church, most churches say alot of crap that can't be repeated in a political campaign today. Difference is, Rev Wright is held to a much higher standards than the GOP has held for it's out of control preachers- tele tubbies anyone?


How about 9/11 is the fault of Americans because we don't follow God's laws? I notice no one was thrown under the bus in the GOP now, have they>

BA- you don't think blacks don't notice how different white folks are treated in the GOP when they have crazy preachers in their midst?

When the right wing WHITE religious extremist is treated the same in the GOP, that might change BA.

Ya, I don't think you will see to many blacks running to the republican party anytime soon. The GOP has discarded them on too many occasions now, or outright made blacks the bad guys- again, Willie Horton anyone?

And remember BA, this has very little to do with what you or I think or believe- it has to do with the way blacks percieve thier treatment in the GOP.

Did you note your own poll results? Take another look.



The rebuttal is this from your link

“Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he disagreed with the study's conclusions but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he could not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.”

And Gee NT do you thin this could be right? On Campuses where 80+ % are democrats or further left???
“



Your bad grammar aside you are no Republican if you think Falwell ran anything.

And I challenge you to quote even this man saying anything that approaches the garbage spewed by Wright.

Calling the civil rights movement the civil wrongs movement about a thousand percent worse than ANYTHING Wright said.

To imply that black people having the same rights as whites in this country and your pass for thinking this is okay compared to whatever Wright has said makes my point nicely- thanks.

I pretty much can guess where you stand on minorities Ted- it is no secret. But again- it is not me or you that matters in a debate as to "why black people won't vote GOP", as far as our perceptions see the issue.

It is how black people see the GOP, and how blacks are pretty turned off by that party- they may have no monolithic party loyalty to the dems- but the GOP has been downright hostile to blacks, scapegoating them as in the Willie Horton ads, supporting flaming racists like Jesse Helms, to the point of allowing him a place in the republican leadership- the push polls of Rove in SC against McCain and the Rev Wright controversy- again, the hate ministers of the right wing have NEVER taken this kind of hit from the GOP, now have they?

We wouldn't have even had Reagan in office without the moral majority Ted, that is why Rev Falwell and his ilk had a hot line to the prez.

Approaches? Jerry Falwell dunks all over Jerry Wright when it comes to talking trash.

Jerry on civil rights:

The true Negro does not want integration... He realizes his potential is far better among his own race... It will destroy our race eventually... In one northern city, a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife... It boils down to whether we are going to take God's Word as final.

I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations.

Jerry on 9/11:

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Jerry on Jews:

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.

Since Jesus came to the earth the first time 2,000 years ago as a Jewish male, many evangelicals believe the Antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male. This belief is 2,000 years old and has no anti-Semitic roots. This is simply historic and prophetic orthodox Christian doctrine that many theologians, Christian and non-Christian, have understood for two millennia.

Jerry on homosexuals:

AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.

"[Vice-President Gore] recently praised the lesbian actress who plays 'Ellen'' on ABC Television...I believe he may even put children, young people, and adults in danger by his public endorsement of deviant homosexual behavior...Our elected leaders are attempting to glorify and legitimize perversion."

"Someone must not be afraid to say, 'moral perversion is wrong.' If we do not act now, homosexuals will 'own' America!...If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way...and our nation will pay a terrible price!"

I truly cannot imagine men with men, women with women, doing what they were not physically created to do, without abnormal stress and misbehavior.

We will see a breakdown of the family and family values if we decide to approve same-sex marriage, and if we decide to establish homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle with all the benefits that go with equating it with the heterosexual lifestyle.

Jerry on global warming:

It is God's planet - and he's taking care of it. And I don't believe that anything we do will raise or lower the temperature one point.

The whole global warming thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability.

Jerry on feminists:

I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their problem.

Jerry on the separation between church and state:

There is no separation of church and state. Modern U.S. Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Jerry on Hillary:


"Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Rodham Clinton - not even a run by the devil himself ... I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

Jerry on the ACLU:

The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.

Jerry on Billy Graham and religion:

Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America.

I think the Moslem faith teaches hate.

If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.

Had enough, Ted? I sure have! I need a hot bath, a hotter shower and a industrial-size can of Lysol after reading all this Falwell filth. I've been slimed.

If you want the link, just go to Google and type in "Jerry Falwell quotes." Like porn, the Internet is lousy with Falwell's garbage.

Thanks for that one NT- unfortunately- I heard most of this growing up in the church- I have always known how much more hateful the religious right in America is than anything Wright has said.

Again- it is not about white perceptions of Rev Wright that will stop minorities from flocking to the GOP- it is the GOPs current and recent hostility to black people in general- the double standard for religious speech, the scapegoating in elections and the allowing of hard core racists into thier party leadership, that are actively racist and everyone knows it, that causes the GOP problems with blacks specifically and minorities in general.

Blacks have a history of forgiving former racists, or rather-racists that have repented- such as George Wallace, Byrd, and to some degree, Strom Thurmond. So it is not like they are reaching way back in history to find someone to drive them away from the GOP- it is the CURRENT and RECENT embracing of folks like Jesse Helms, who all but went to DC in a sheet and a hood.

The GOP will NOT produce any minority leaders that can be president with thier current positions towards blacks- even if blacks do agree with parts of the Republican party platform in pretty large numbers.

Ya guess is the right word. You are clueless on my views and you know squat about the Republican Party.

You are spouting the standard talking points of the Dems for the election which include:

100 year war, McCain is 4 more years of Bush, and innuendo that Republicans are rasist. All nonsense.



I never said he wasn’t a nutcase but he does not “run” the Republican Party and no republican sat and listened to his trash for 20 years.

And you just made my point – what would you say NT if you knew McCain and his family had the same relationship with this man for 20 years that Obama and his family had with Wright?

Not only would NT be blasting him but rags like NYT would have it as page one every day.

Comparing Wright to Falwell is barking up the wrong tree. Wright is important not just because he's a nutbag but because a Presidential candidate spent 20 years in his church, got married by him and had his children baptized by him oh and put him his on his Spiritual Council. Which Republican candidate (any of them) is linked that closely to Falwell?

Asked for and done. Promptly glossed over and ignored by Ted. What a shock.



I'd say, it speaks volumes about the Senator's independence and ability to process conflicting information that he could sit there and forgive his friend for his occasional lapses into intolerance and ignorance.

Forgiveness is the Christian way, is it not?

For you to to try and deny outright and sugarcoat the input, influence and control the evangelical right of Falwell, Hagee, Robertson, Parsley, Dobson and all the rest have had over the Republicans for decades now aptly illustrates your "hear no evil, see no evil" and "speak no evil" policy toward your party of choice. You need to hook up some satellite TV for that rock you've been living under. I could provide enough evidence to crash the server, but why bother? It's not as if you're paying attention to anyone's opinion or facts.

Facts are good Ted. Facts will be your friend if only you'll allow them to.



Anyone who consumes a daily diet of regurgitated garbage spewed by an unlimited number of far-right wing blogs who then calls a perennial Pulitzer Prize winner like the New York Times a "rag" is just begging not to be taken seriously.

I'm surprised I have to keep repeating this, but I'll do it again and maybe this time that dim 40-watt light bulb will flicker on. Stick to figuring out what YOU would do Ted, because you couldn't buy a clue as to what I would or would not do.

Because in the republican party BA, they are far more than married to one cadidate- they are a powerhouse in the republican party, that NO republican leader can get elected without on the national scene.

WE are not talking one crazy preacher with a long time relationship with Obama, we are talking thousands of hate filled preachers and an entire organization devoted to hate that inhabits an entire wing of the republican party.

Social conservatism isn't even possible without those low lifes- yet, Obama is taken to task- and Dobson, Hagee, the Christian Coalition, the former Moral majority etc etc- you are talking a mite in the eye of Obama while there is a freakin 23 room mansion made of beams in the Republican party's bloodstream.

IT is the raving hypocrisy, the double standard of epic proportions we are talking here BA, that will NEVER allow a legitmate GOP candidate that is a minority.

You HAVE to sell yourself, your heritage, your people and your culture out in order to join the GOP and be a minority- the GOP is outright hostile to minorities- it is NOT like the GOP is "reaching out" to minorities- it is that they are actively shooting bullets at them.

And it is pretty bold gamble for the GOP- do they discard the racists in the party as the Dems did in 68, and lose elections because of it, or does the GOP pander to the racists in the party- as they have done to date.

Again- there are LOTS of issues that allow minorities to flock to the GOP- anti-abortin, gun control, fiscal conseravtism, "family values" etc etc- but, it is the outright hostility and double standards that keep them away.

Does the GOP jettison the Hagees, the Falwell clones, the Dobsons, and gain the minority votes that agree with portions of the GOP platform- or does it pander to the religious right, and demonize minorities in campaigns as they have done in the past?

That is what it boils down to BA- the republican party, if it wants to start courting the minority vote- it is going to have to stop courting the religious right and the racist vote.

Maybe you don't bother reading your own created threads, BA, but it was Ted who demanded proof when it comes to being a "nutbag" Jerry Falwell makes Jeremiah Wright look like a rank amateur.

I complied and he predictably ignored what he couldn't defend. Now here you come singing the same old song.

Jeremiah Wright at his most arrogant never claimed he controlled the Democratic Party. Falwell bragged about it.

WASHINGTON – The Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election.

"The Republican Party does not have the head count to elect a president without the support of religious conservatives," Falwell said at an election training conference of the Christian Coalition.

Falwell said evangelical Christians are now "by far the largest constituency" within the Republican Party, their route to dominance beginning in 1979 with his founding of the Moral Majority, a precursor to the Christian Coalition.

"I tell my Republican friends who are always talking about the 'big tent,' I say make it as big as you want to, but if the candidate running for president is not pro-life, pro-family . . .you're not going to win," he said.

Falwell was among roughly a dozen speakers at the Christian Coalition workshop, which was held in a Senate auditorium, a courtesy arranged by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority whip, the No. 2 Republican position in the Senate. link

Note that last paragraph, BA. Falwell didn't speak in some breezy hotel ballroom. He spoke in a U.S. Senate auditorium at the invitation of the Senate Republicans, No.2 leader.

That's not just influence. That is power. Falwell and the Religious Right has had the GOP by the short and curlies for decades now. They are far more than just another bloc of voters. The evangelical right owns and controls the Republican Party like a pimp owns and controls his prostitutes.

The Republicans work for the evangelical right. Not the other way around.

You take this place very seriously. Which I suppose is nice if not unhealthy. I wasn't particularly attacking you or anything you were saying to Ted. Jerry Falwell is a nutbag. I'm not sure who is disputing that. I think, in general, the Write-rage is all about his influence on ONE particular candidate. Seems to me that Republicans have distanced themselves from Falwell since his 9/11 nutbaggery but I suspect you think they've drawn closer to him. You win. I don't care that much. I think Wright is something of a non-issue compared to what Obama says himself.

BA- do you seriously think the republican party could win the position of dog catcher without the religious right?

You brought up a couple names in your original post-

Condi Rice- ya, Uncle Tom, pretty much undeniable there

Colin Powell- meant well, but in the end, was nothing more than a patsy for Bush- and it cost him, cost him big. He has said as much.

Clarence Thomas- ooo boy- mouthfull now- in fact, the lingo is no longer "uncle tom" but "Uncle CLARENCE tom" in many circles.

So, right or wrong, the perception is among minorities- you have to be pretty much crazy, stupid or an outright self-hater to go to the GOP.

IT IS NOT up to minorities to cozy up to the GOP, it is up to the GOP to court the minorities.

At this time, ain't gonna happen. The GOP has shown it just doesn't care- it would rather have the racist religious right than minorities in the party.

Yes. Would they have enjoyed the successes they have in the last 50 years? Maybe not.

You do realize that the entire concept of "social conservatism" comes from the religious right. correct?

Try as you and the left will you will not succeed in branding the Republican Party “racist” and the point is STILL that we really don’t know Mr. Obama NT – but his Pastor, friends and associates are telling us volumes – and yes I know NT you agree, no doubt, with most of it, but fortunately you are not electing Obama alone.

He is one hell of a lot to left for many Democrats and independents and he will have no way in hell from hiding this even if the NYT covers his butt on everything – that as you say “right wing” or “fair” (as i say) media will get the truth out.

Sadly for you and Obama gone are the days when ABC, NBC and CNN could “make” a candidate with the usual left biased coverage.

The poll was just a thermoter of board opinion got anything to say on the actual evidence?


Anything not from the RNC?

The studies and methodology have been published now for many months not to mention it was only one of a handful of studies I provided in that post.

You asked me to back up my assertion and I did so several times over.

The fact is racists tend right more than left, and it matters when trying to answer this debate question.

Then why did the current Republican candidate kiss up to the "nutbag" at Liberty University in 2006?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051300647.html

BA, there is no way a republican can win on the national scene without kissing some serious religious right butt kissing. Anymore than the Dems can totally cut loose some of the radical elements of thier party. When the dems cut loose the racists back in 68, they lost the south. Takes guts to decide that certain elements of your party has got to go, and decide, i don't care if we lose the south, we don't need the racists.

Republican party needs to do the same now.




No, but singling them out for persecution for thier hyperbole and NOT doing the same to white church leaders WILL alienate blacks for a generation, or more.

BA- you dislike Al Sharpton, for instance. However, Al Sharpton is the ONLY person a black person can turn too in NYC that will help them get justice when justice has been denied- again, remember, he came to fame because black people were murdered, and then the murderers were not charged or arrested, until the activism.

I doubut most black people feel as negatively about Al Sharpton as you do. I am somewhat neutral on the guy, tipping somewhat to the negative over the Tawana Bradley incident. - but my perceptions, and yours, mean jack and less than jack- to quote you- because we ain't black.

If you want to talk about "why" the black people in this nation vote dem 9-1, you have to look at the double standard being given to Rev Wright while the republican party has nurtured the right wing religious nut.

The republican party just "throws black voters under the bus" when it comes to issues like this. You can't expect black people to flock to the Republican party, when they have one nutty preacher, that also happens to be helping the poor in black communities, while you have televangelists being given total access to the halls of power, that have happened to say FAR FAR FAR worse stuff than Wright has ever uttered.

You can think it is wrong however much you want- but it won't change the fact that blacks feel that the republican party will scapegoat them for any national issue at any time.

If Powell had run he would have won - as a Republican.


Bibliography for "Will he run? Polls show Gen. Colin Powell could win 1996 presidential election - if he decides to run"

“WASHINGTON, D.C. - To be born poor and black and into an inner city neighborhood does not mean you can't achieve your highest ambitions.
If you don't believe that, just ask Gen. Colin Powell. Powell was born 58 years ago in New York City's Harlem. But through a combination of ability and hard work, he rose to become chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - the highest position in the U.S. military. Now polls show that General Powell has a good chance of capturing an even higher office - the office of President of the United States. A Time/CNN poll shows that, if Gen. Powell were to run today as a Republican, he would beat President Clinton by 51 percent of the vote to 41 percent.”


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EP...v95/ai_17459252

Newsflash Ted- he didn't-that is why the subject is "which is more likely to give us the first minority president"-

Gee, I wonder how Bill Cosby would have stacked up as a democrat against GW? Or, um, gee, what other popular black man that "would have beat so and so" do you want to bring up Ted?

Right now, for the first time in history- this point is likely to be moot- as, for the first time, a black man will be a presidential candidate, in reality, not Ted fantasies.

The dems will have that milestone, no matter who is elected- the first party to nominate a minority candidate- no matter who wins the primary.

There isn't any black men of national stature in the Republican party, and none appearing on the horizon. We do see what the republican president did to any hope of a Colin Powel ticket, now that GW has shamed and sullied his name by using him as a patsy in the WMD scam.

Nader is a Minority, and he's much better than any REP or DEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjVyhzv3fto&NR=1

No CR I only wanted to bring up the man who seriously considered running and who, according to surveys, had a very good chance of winning.

My point being that “Republicans” care less about the race of the candidate than many liberals like you try to portray.

Do Republicans need more minority candidates for office – YES. If we had a Colin Powell he would have a good shot at being elected imo.

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

Keep in mind that it won't be too long before a white male would be a minority President. Non-Hispanic whites are expected to be a minority in the U.S. by 2050. However, I would expect that we will have a minority President some time before then, primarily because of the issues this change in demographics might cause, as pointed out here.

To answer the question -- is there really any reason to think it wouldn't be the Democratic party? They currently have the most minority support, and have BY FAR the largest group of potential candidates to choose from. Republicans would face the same issue here that minorities have faced becoming accepted in higher levels in our country -- they would have to start from the ground up. Sure, they might get lucky before then, having someone like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice step up, but in general, there are FAR more minority Democratic representatives in our country at all levels than there are minority Republicans, so the Democrats would have a huge lead in this area.

Excellent comment that really sums up the entire thread. The democrats are chock full of potential minorities who are most likely to win the White House. There are a few token GOP minorities, but they are not most likely to win the grand prize any time soon. As it now stands, not one GOP minority appears to win a senate, house, or gubernatorial seat. Kudos to you Hobbes for answering the question honestly and in a matter of fact manner, as opposed to resorting to the "but what about!..but what about!" token candidate tossing reference strategy.