"It's important that we show the African-American community and other minorities that we are an inclusive, tolerant and diverse party," said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine. "We have to show not just in words but in actions that we mean what we say on that subject. Now the question is, how do we best go about it?"

[quote]Originally posted by bluebird48234:
"It's important that we show the African-American community and other minorities that we are an inclusive, tolerant and diverse party," said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine. "We have to show not just in words but in actions that we mean what we say on that subject. Now the question is, how do we best go about it?"

---

I think they should get all the African-American house republicans and go on TV and, oh wait a minute - that wont work, never mind.

Hint: a party whose racist foundations can be traced back to the late 19th century will have to spend SEVERAL presidents on "melting-pot" class integration.

We just embarrassed Lott, a life-time racist (i.e., in 2002) for attempting to "carry the torch" into the 21st century. I don't think any mere "talk" of integrating a party can be taken seriously.....plus, the Republicans are just "on the rebound" and want a taste of integrity (just a taste, mind you) because they're sorry they got caught red handed.

Where is Laine Hansen when you need her?!?


[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

BB, the whole basis for founding the GOP in the 1850s was its opposition to slavery, which I'll equate with racism for purposes of this discussion. But exactly what did it do in the late 19th century to evidence its racist roots? As far as I can tell, we didn't make the mistake of admitting frustrated DixieCRATS to our ranks until the second half of the 20th. And it wasn't ALL Republicans who "got caught red-handed," but only one whose big mouth got the better of him - and forgive me if I err in assuming that we're ALL glad he's no longer leading the GOP in the Senate.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
But exactly what did it do in the late 19th century to evidence its racist roots? As far as I can tell, we didn't make the mistake of admitting frustrated DixieCRATS to our ranks until the second half of the 20th.....

and.....

And it wasn't ALL Republicans who "got caught red-handed," but only one whose big mouth got the better of him.....

---

Well, things must be looking up because this is the first well-reasoned, level Republican rebuttal to one of my political posts that was not directed to me as a person.

For this ALONE: thanks, gmginsfo.

- - - - -

Now:

1/I would have to go through the Presidents (1900-1950) to see where I stand on the change in U.S. Republican sentiment/mission.

2/The "one" Republican argument doesn't fly with me because he was the LEADER. We should be able to assume that the Republicans agreed on him because they felt that he the BEST amalgam of their views.

2a: What kind of American party has a man like Lott leading them in(to) the 21st century?

2b: My point, above all others, was that it will take several years and the dedication of several presidents to rework the image of the Republican Party as an American organization best (and mostly) represented by racist plutocrats.

If I'm missing something here, please inform me.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

BB, Re: items 2a-b, I'm an active GOPer and NEVER considered Lott my leader, literally or figuratively; that distinction goes to President Bush. And Log Cabin Republicans, in which I'm also active, loudly and publicly called for Lott's ouster from his leadership position several years ago when he made his silly "kleptomaniacs" analogy. Thus we and most all moderate Republicans were quite pleased to see him go.

I also disagree with your characterization of the GOP as formed of racist plutocrats, but that's a matter of opinion so minds will differ. But I will tell you that I and MANY other GOPers have a huge problem with not only its perceived - and actual - racism, but also with its still too frequent pandering to the rich and corporations. That's why we favor a tax cut for everyone, increased at moderate and lower income levels more than the President would like to do for now, and for strict law enforcement across the board for business fraud and whatever other form it takes. We also disagree with the President on issues relating to the environment and family planning, but are closer to him than to the opposition, which is why we choose to remain Republicans.

Finally, don't paint the GOP into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" corner. There are those of us who are seriously working to court Blacks and other minorities to our party because we honestly believe our political philosophy does offer the best hope for individual success. Again, that's a matter of opinion and you may well disagree. But don't stop listening to what we say, because if I didn't believe in what we have to offer, I wouldn't be working and promoting it as I do.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
There are those of us who are seriously working to court Blacks and other minorities to our party

---

Im glad Im a member of a party that doesnt have to "court" Blacks and other minorities.

Exactly - your party seems to take them - and everyone else - for granted!

BTW, I missed your post about Bill Frist stopping and rendering first aid last week on a FL freeway. You did mean to post that one too, didn't you??? Or are old news and animals' rights your only concerns?

Not to sound catty or anything. ^..^

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
Exactly - your party seems to take them - and everyone else - for granted!

---

Oh, is that why they are flocking to the GOP? How many GOP black members of the House are there?
Happy courting!!

That's right. We're courting, not counting. That's a job for the quota-meisters.

Regarding the Log Cabin Republicans, I am none too familiar with their stances on a lot of the issues, but a lot of the things that the Log Cabin Republicans seem to support (according to your post) seems like all the reasons that I generally do not support the Republicans. These issues have been waning for so many years in the Republican Party's efforts (i.e., environmental neglect, tax cuts for the wealthy, lack of middle-class and lower class support, not having a balanced budget in several years under Republican regime, excessive international arms control)

My basis for how I vote is looking at the response of the rest of the world when a Republican is in power versus a Democrat. The U.S. seems to truly lack respect for other countries to formulate their own policies and control their own conflicts under the present regime. We are dangling our hands in two many mousetraps right now and before long, one of them is going to snap back on us....

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
That's right. We're courting, not counting. That's a job for the quota-meisters.

---

News flash: Your courting is a disaster. Also, you forgot(?) to answer my question.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
How many GOP black members of the House are there?

---

From today's Washington Post Magazine: Fade To White -- "The only African American Republican in Congress is headed home. Can the party of Lincoln -- and Trent Lott -- afford the loss of J.C. Watts?"

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
From today's Washington Post Magazine: Fade To White -- "The only African American Republican in Congress is headed home. Can the party of Lincoln -- and Trent Lott -- afford the loss of J.C. Watts?"

---

Thank you, I knew gmg wouldnt touch that question.

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

Not to add fuel to the fire ... but ... (I can't resist: \"How a Republican Desegregated the South's Schools\" op-ed by George Shultz in today's New York Times [reg. req.] about Nixon's efforts in the 1970s. "There's no doubt about it — the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years, or probably since."

DCB, thanks for not resisting. I was about to post that article by GPS when I noticed you did. It hardly adds fuel to the fire; it only makes it burn a little cleaner. Speaking of smoke scrubbers, another interesting fact about the Nixon years: his EPA was actually one of the strongest.

Memo to RZB: to quote your lord and master Bill Clinton, from a press conference shortly before* his initial inauguration responding to the lupine bleatings from feminists and racial politicians about the "need" for more "minority" appointments: "I'm not a bean counter."
___
*Early in arriving, late in leaving. The ever-imperfect guest in the White House.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
DCB, thanks for not resisting. I was about to post that article by GPS when I noticed you did. It hardly adds fuel to the fire; it only makes it burn a little cleaner. Speaking of smoke scrubbers, another interesting fact about the Nixon years: his EPA was actually one of the strongest.

Memo to RZB: to quote your lord and master Bill Clinton, from a press conference shortly before* his initial inauguration responding to the lupine bleatings from feminists and racial politicians about the "need" for more "minority" appointments: "I'm not a bean counter."
___
*Early in arriving, late in leaving. The ever-imperfect guest in the White House.

---

Thats a perfect quote for you - there are no beans to count!!

I have seen it argued that Nixon was further left than Bill Clinton. It's just an indication of how far American politics has swung to the right. Goldwater would be a moderate Republican today, and there's no mainstream democrat remotely akin to George McGovern.

Actually,apropos of Nixon, Joseph Califano wrote to the NY TIMES to counter Shultz's revisionist account of Nixon's efforts in desegregating the South. In fact, Califano, who took office when Jimmy Carter became president, had to do considerable remedial work to force southern school districts to comply with the letter of the law. In St. Louis, Missouri, where I grew up, desegregation efforts didn't really begin until the late 1970s, almost 20 years after Brown vs. Board! My brother, who was in school in the late 1980s, had "desegs," as the black kids from inner-city St. Louis, being bussed out to the suburban high school that was attending.

Let's not become totally revisionist here. Nixon was liberal on some things, but he was hardly "more liberal" than Clinton! The man was an avowed racist and anti-Semite, a vicious anti-Communist, and one of the sleaziest politicians EVER to hold the White House. In addition to Watergate and his abuse of the IRS and the FBI to attack his "enemies," do not forget his lowdown tricks when he was a Congressman, or his self-serving Checkers speech that led Eisenhower to keep him on board. He also utilized the "Silent Majority," "Law and Order," and "southern strategy" scenarios to perfection. The voters of 1960 did the best thing by keeping this guy out of national office!

[ January 13, 2003: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I'm hardly endorsing Nixon. Still, he did sign some remarkably progressive legislation into law during his stint (clean air and water acts, also didn't he sign some key AA/EO legislation or am I wrong?). I believe he also toyed with the idea of a national medical system. Despite being personally noxious, the realpolitik of his time required him to endorse some policies that are hard to imagine from a modern Republican.

Clinton's personal beliefs may be fairly liberal (I wouldn't doubt it), but his actual political record is pretty conservative on economic issues.