Lack of African Americans in Republican leadership more due to:

flounder you changed your name to charydis,,you still think that black people are all the same how intriguing you don't say..and charydis do you still think black people are lazy and want to be poor for the free bees..

Right on maggot...

don't bother me

No thats not true, just most GOP believe that crap....whether its true or not...thats the lie they,ve been fed....and constantly spew...

Charybdis,,,you and comments like that could very well be why blacks steer clear of republicans!

Tracy - you are truly racist.

licha-You call everyone who doesn't think just like you, racist. It makes one wonder who the actual racist is? Have you even seen a mirror lately? Your spew is tired! The world according to licha-RACIST. I say IGNORANCE!

You are wrong. Only those who continue to spout that blacks are lazy and out for a handout. That is racist and you have never read a post of mine that says that. Maybe you are the one that is racist also, and it hit a nerve?

licha- Yes I have read several of your posts where you have made those statements. In fact you called me "truely racist" in one of my posts. Maybe you should go back and look at your posts. You call people racist more than anyone on here. And yes it hits a nerve because people like you just try to keep the division going. I'm black,white,native american and republican, but I'm sure as hell not racist and either are alot of other people on here. Everyone on here has an opinion that's the point of this site. Argue points it's healthy and as Americans our right, but why do you have to call people horrible things when your in a debate? Your intelligent, use that instead of your ignorance. If people would stop throwing around the word racist, it would stop having power. I think any good American excepts their President whether they voted for them or not. I don't agree with alot of his policies, but it doesn't make him a bad person. This should be a time when our country can finally unite as one and yet there's still people that love the race card. My grandparents and great grandparents went through unspeakabe horrors as did many other family's. Don't you get tired of race issues? Stop giving the ugly little word so much power. Stick to the issues, leave out the ignorance.

If I called you that, it must have been because you made a statement that reflected such a sentiment. I think you are exaggerating when you say that I call people racist more than anyone, there are plenty of white bloggers who have used that word against Wright and other blacks insinuating reverse racism.
Perhaps you have not experienced racism in your life, (you say you are white/black) and I am glad for you, but I have seen racism displayed, by people that call themselves Christians and it has left a bad taste in my mouth.
I don't agree with you on the point that if we stop using the word it will simply go away. I think it is an undercurrent, and while it would be nice if it would go away, it continues. I think that people who make racist remarks need to be apprised, because many times they don't recognize that their remarks are a sign of their true feeling.
I happen to appreciate people, regardless of their race and am usually too sensitive in that area because it is despicable for people to think that they are better because they are white. And it really appalls me when people generalize and call all black people lazy and looking for handouts and that they throw in the race card just to get their way.

So, since you agreed that this is a forum for people to express their opinion, I will grant you the freedom to say what you feel, and I expect that you will do the same for me.

You go ahead and handle it your way, and I will handle it my way.

Bravo,,,leann60,,,Excellent,,,I dont think she says it to be mean,,or win the argument.

It's sad,,but she believes it. Call it upbringing, environment,,whatever,,she believes it.

Your post was great!

Boy you are so out of touch...Why does it matter if democrats don't believe....In leadership it would be evident....

He is running for chairman of the RNC, but even he is smart enough to realize that he won't get it, so he is supporting Dawson. Amazing that the Republicans can't find any blacks they consider smart enough to represent them, yet they voted Bush in.

Actually, Steele is still in the running. Also of note... of the six people in the running for RNC chair, two are African-American (Steele and Blackwell).

Yes, I know that makes 661/3% of the blacks! They only have 3 in case you didn't know.

I would not mind Blackwell either. I'd be very happy to see either one of them in a powerful GOP position!

tokenism.....it needs to appear less racist...so stick 2 in for good measure....where were they before the need to appear more inclusive...some may buy it but most won't because of their recent history....

Chuchee - I'm not following you around, just happen to have a response in this area, but you and I think very much alike. They only have 3 blacks in the RNC - and how long has the RNC been in existence? And they deny being biased.

Coming to think of it, I guess I voted incorrectly. I picked 'GOP bias' based on the fact that African Americans as a demographic are biased against the GOP, but asker probably meant the other way around and I should have voted 'representation of their base' instead, no?

And why do you think they vote democrat, genius? Another brilliant rationalization by a Republican.

Licha,

Try not to make assumptions. Koros is not a Republican.

Independents usually side with Republicans here on Buzzdash, in case you haven't noticed.

licha most of the so called independents have never voted independent,,their republicans that won't commit and makes their voice week in my estimation,,however there are some that are truly independent and are respected,,how many democrats hide as independents none that i know of

not true....

I'm sorry, are you an independent? I apologize, but I think you are one of many on here that doesn't. Unless the others are lying, which is very possible, since they defend the Republican party to the end.

Yes..yeah i've noticed that...

Yeah, we gay atheist Obama-voting Republicans are probably the biggest wing of the party. Just... wow, I've been called a Republican. That's a genuine first. I'm not sure whether to be insulted or deeply, deeply amused.

My apologies, I would never want to call anybody a Republican unless I knew for sure they were. That is such an insulting term, however, from your comment, that 90% vote democrat, I guess I just wondered if you thought that was a coincidence. They don't vote Republican because the Republican party is mostly racist. Why would anyone in their right mind one to be part of an organization that despises them, considers them lazy and all on welfare. They may snag a few rich blacks and use them as their token black representation, but I think most of them prefer to not have anything to do with blacks.
For example, Katon Dawson, running for chairman of the RNC, just very conveniently resigned his membership to a club for whites only. That ought to tell you something.

"They don't vote Republican because the Republican party is mostly racist."

There are some racists in the Republican party (frankly, there are some in the Democratic party, too), but the party is not mostly racist... not by a long shot. I will say that the roughly 90/10 black Dem/Repub split is probably largely due to the opinion that you have being relatively prevalent, though.

I don't think that you are going to find as many racist in the Democratic party as there are in the Republican party. Of course, they are not going to admit it, but the fact that they join a club that only allows whites, and their leaders feel comfortable sending out a racist CD tell a lot. Look at Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana - they are red all over and you are not going to tell me that they do not have a large concentration of racists. I lived in one of those states for a long while and I know how they feel.

"Of course, they are not going to admit it, but the fact that they join a club that only allows whites, and their leaders feel comfortable sending out a racist CD tell a lot."

Do you really want to get into this? I could invoke Byrd, Pfleger, and Wright straight out of the gate. There are a lot of people who are racially insensitive on both sides of the aisle and quite a bit fewer who are actually racist.

I haven't really noticed that people on the left are more sensitive to things like race, religion, gender, etc. In fact, from a political correctness sense in the modern media, it is much more acceptable to caricature a traditionally Republican demographic (white, rural, religious conservative) than a Democratic one (any other race, urban, religious or unreligious liberal). Form a proportion perspective, I easily know as many intolerant Democrats as I do Republicans.

I believe I've already gotten into this. I never said that there weren't any racists in the Democratic party, I suppose you have them everywhere, but what I said is that the Republican party is mostly racist. It is led by closet racists. That you don't see it, when it is so intuitively obvious is because you don't want to see it.

That the people on the left aren't more sensitive to race, religion and gender - are you kidding?

Who are the ones that are intolerant toward other religions? Who are the ones that want to block all programs that help minorities? Who are the ones that do not consider women equal to men when it comes to pay?

McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate
mixx.com
LIBBY QUAID | April 23, 2008

****************************************************************************

And, here is a little lesson in Republican history:


A RACIST PARTY WITH A RACIST STRATEGY: THE REPUBLICANS

When President Johnson helped pass Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s he commented that: "Well, there goes the South." He meant, of course, that now the South would become Republican as they now saw the Democrats as the party standing up for the blacks.

Following the Civil War, the South defeated what little there was of Reconstruction when in a contested presidential election the Republicans under Hayes agreed to pull out Federal troops from the South in exchange for Hayes being president. After the troops wee gone, the whites took back any remaining outstanding power that blacks had and placed blacks in a new type of slavery: this one an economic slavery through the share-cropping system.

Southerners have traditionally dominated American politics to a greater extent than their proportional representation entitled them, because, although they were largely members of the Democratic party (because the South was poor), they could quickly shift their weight to the Republican party to pass conservative legislation or to block liberal legislation. They voted virtually as a block and this ability gave them legislative power. Southern Democrats were pretty solidly racist and voted to keep the racist system in place.

Following the Civil Rights legislation, the South temporarily lost some of its legislative power as its voters and politicians switched inexorably to the Republican party. This, of course, has made the Republican party even more conservative and racist than it had ever been following the death of Reconstruction.

The South also changed its religion. As the former Democratic South changed it allegiances in politics, so did it also start to change its allegiances in religion. In the days of the anti-slavery movement, when the Anglican ministers in the South would not support racism and pro-slavery sentiment, the South changed its religions to the more personal, evangelical religions whose ministers did support racism and slavery. An insistence on maintaining a racist structure leads also to an insistence on racists values and hence racist religions. Similarly, today's Southerners are abandoning the more staid evangelical religions for the highly personalized religions characterized by the phrase "born-again Christians." Whereas, many a Methodist or Baptist preacher would not now condone racism, the Southerners don't have to worry about this with their new preachers of born-again religion.

Licha,

"Who are the ones that are intolerant toward other religions?"

The ACLU clashes with the religious pretty regularly.

"Who are the ones that want to block all programs that help minorities?"

This is a whole other discussion. I will say that many of the programs that you are referencing typically amount to a, hire this person because he is black rather than that person because he is white, policy. It may appear justified due to past discretions, but the fact that it solves discrimination with more discrimination against someone who probably hasn't benefited from the past discrimination should at least leave a bad taste in your mouth, even if you support it.

"Who are the ones that do not consider women equal to men when it comes to pay?"

How in the world are you going to determine whether men and women are paid equally? Statistically significant numbers of women prioritize family over work more than men and make decisions due to that priority. This corrupts the data.

For example, my wife has never taken a job based on pay. She has also at most times in her working career purposefully sought part-time work rather than full-time work, and the last job she took was largely because it offered flexibility to stay home with the kids (which she preferred over me doing that). She quit her job once I made enough to cover the bills.

I, on the other hand, have always chosen the job that pays the best, regardless as to whether it is an undesirable job. I have also been more willing to do things to gain a promotion than my wife has. This is all because my priorities are different than my wife's priorities. I'm not saying that one approach is better than another, but that you have to acknowledge that the two approaches impact the statistics.

I know that not every woman is like my wife, but a statistically significant number of women do have the same priorities. Statistically speaking, she and other women like her drag down the average pay for women. This sort of thing is never controlled out of the statistics and is never mentioned as a qualification to the statistics. Knowing this, how can we ever know whether equal pay has been reached or whether it has been reversed? Without that knowledge, isn't discriminatory legislation against men unwarranted?

I have heard several Dems point out the statistic that working class males, when inflation is calculated in, have actually seen a decrease in pay over the last twenty-five years. At least some of this has to be due to the process of the gender gap being closed somewhat, perhaps even passed in some cases.

Who are the ones that are intolerant toward other religions? The reference link will show you Republican after Republican saying they do not consider having Muslims in their party. Sarah Palin was the only one to say that the party would not discriminate against religions, but I guess many Republicans missed when she said that.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1417423198/bctid1875308543

When I say they discriminate against minorities, I would like for you to take a look at the Republican National Convention and tell me how many minorities you spot in a sea of white. Why aren't minorities drawn to the Republican party like they are to the Democratic party?

In reference to your stand on equal pay and how in the world are you going to determine whether men and women are paid equally. Where have you been?

If they couldn't tell, why then did they draw up a bill which McCain opposed?

NEW ORLEANS — Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

Senate Republicans killed the bill Wednesday night on a 56-42 vote that denied the measure the 60 votes needed to advance it to full debate and a vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had delayed the vote to give McCain's Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, time to return to Washington to support the measure, which would make it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination.

*******************************************************************

By Ali Frick on Apr 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
McCain dismisses equal pay legislation, says women need more ‘training and education.’»
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) skipped the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which “restores the longstanding interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,” overturned last year by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. In New Orleans today, McCain explained his opposition to the bill by claiming it “opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.” Later in Kentucky, he added that instead of legislation allowing women to fight for equal pay, they simply need “education and training“:

It is obvious to me that you like the rest are in complete denial, so what is the point in continuing this conversation?

"The reference link will show you Republican after Republican saying they do not consider having Muslims in their party."

Anyone could take a video camera to a political rally for either major party and make people there easily look biased in some way or another. It's not hard. I was actually expecting more outrageous claims in the video than were made. So, a few people said they prefered a Christian in the White House rather than a Muslim. Most people are going to say that they prefer someone in the White House who has a similar world view to their own.

"I would like for you to take a look at the Republican National Convention and tell me how many minorities you spot in a sea of white."

Yeah, I'm sure that's because the Republicans are trying to keep the minorities out. The only point this makes is to illustrate something we both already know... that minorities are underrepresented in the Republican party. To state that it is absolute proof of racism stretches the bounds of credulity.

"Why aren't minorities drawn to the Republican party like they are to the Democratic party?"

I am sure for many, it's that they don't like the policies. Anti-Republican views are probably self-perpetuating after a while, though. Imagine that you agreed with the Repubs much more frequently than the Dems on issues. It would still be difficult to be a minority Republican because you have to explain to your family why you disagree with them politically and your friends why you disagree with them politically and deal with the claims that you are an uncle tom and all of that sort of stuff. It would be easier to just embrace the Democratic party than to even consider dealing with all of that crap.

"If they couldn't tell, why then did they draw up a bill which McCain opposed?"

Huh? Your statement doesn't really address my argument. Who are "they" in this sentence.

The bill you mention doesn't touch too closely on the point that I made. That was a question of what types of litigation are acceptable. Indeed, Repubs tend to favor limiting litigation of all kinds because Repubs tend to believe that ours is a too litigious society. The vote would have gone the same way had the issue been a different type of litigation as well. That explains the vote rather succinctly.

"It is obvious to me that you like the rest are in complete denial, so what is the point in continuing this conversation?"

I have noticed trend. It has happened a few (two or three) times, and follows the stages below.

1. You take a cheap shot at Republicans in general, basically calling them racists.
2. I call you on it.
3. You give me a reply that illustrates your feelings.
4. I rebut your points.
5. You tell me there is no point in discussing the issue.

My response is simply this. Please be certain that what and who you are calling racist really is.

Well it is going to be hard to tell you who is racist because you all will continue to deny it. I just look at the facts, they are there for all to see, too bad you have blinders.

Licha,

I held back at first on this, but it really isn't right.

You posted an op-ed that basically calls the entirety of Evangelicalism racist and provides little evidence other than that it is convenient that Evangelicalism is prevalent in the South. You asked what kind of religious intolerance the left has. Well, here it is.

Many on the left love to stereotype and mock religious conservatives (especially Evangelicals) as back-woods morons whose religion is based more on hate than on salvation through Christ. Just think about this. List for me five modern white Evangelical characters on television that are presented positively rather than negatively. You probably can't think of three. I can name five of most other demographics that are as large as Evangelicals, but I can't for Evangelicals.

There are racist and moronic Evangelicals, indeed. However, the stereotype is just that, a steroeotype. It is a tool of ignorance that is used to minimalize someone you disagree with or worse. You should be very careful in your characterizations of people just because a subset of those people match your characterization.

One thing I will mention because this came about from a discussion with Koros is that most Evangelicals do still have a problem with gays. Many other churches do as well. Religious blacks and Mormons voted for Prop 8 just like Evangelicals did.

I am an Evangelical, and so I am torn on the gay marriage issue. Maybe it is a civil rights issue. Maybe it isn't. Maybe my views in that respect are intolerant, though I try very hard not to be intolerant. I do think that it is stupid and hypocritical for churches to focus so heavily on that issue if they are going to largely ignore other issues of probably greater social significance (the divorce rate is a prime example).

It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, though, except that this is the one area where there is a possibility that Evangelicals as a whole can be accurately seen as actually being against civil rights in modern times. It would be inappropriate for me not to mention the issue if we are going into Evangelicals and civil rights since Koros is probably still a part of the conversation.

It appears that you are talking about people that make fun of one another and you are right, but they are on both sides, and that only proves that you have morons in both parties.

There are many in the Republican party who do the same toward those who do not have a faith or are less fortunate. I happen to be Christian, so I am one of the ones they make fun of, but we have many Chrisitians in the Democratic party and that isn't what I am talking about.

I was actually talking about the Party and what the leaders in the Party tolerate and do not tolerate. I believe the link I gave you in the previous post will point that out.

Regarding the south, I said what I did, because I lived in Alabama and went to a Christian church and it was obvious that blacks were not welcomed. I heard the "N" word used to describe people that might come to visit and it was always voiced that if any blacks were to visit they were only coming to cause trouble. And this wasn't in just one church as we belonged to 3 different churches while we were there. This from Christians I find hard to accept. I have relatives still there who have told me that they received e-mails with veiled instructions not to vote for Obama.

As for the Gay community, being a Christian I probably have the same view that you do. However, I do not judge and I don't see anything wrong with granting rights if it takes civil unions to get them. I do not feel that God is going to hold me accountable for what other people do. It is a difficult and sticky position because you want to do what is right without compromising your beliefs.

Morons in both parties? I agree wholeheartedly!

"There are many in the Republican party who do the same toward those who do not have a faith or are less fortunate."

I agree.

"I happen to be Christian, so I am one of the ones they make fun of, but we have many Chrisitians in the Democratic party and that isn't what I am talking about."

I have known that you are a Christian. I think that certain branches of Christianity get hit with stereotypes more than others, though. I will say that the stereotypes for black Christian churches went up dramatically with the TUCC recordings.

"I heard the 'N' word used to describe people that might come to visit and it was always voiced that if any blacks were to visit they were only coming to cause trouble."

I have also heard Christians use the word, but not many. I have heard as many Christians berate others for using that word. I did not grow up in the South, so that could be a difference. Regardless, no Christian should ever use that word.

"However, I do not judge and I don't see anything wrong with granting rights if it takes civil unions to get them... It is a difficult and sticky position because you want to do what is right without compromising your beliefs."

Yeah, we're probably in the same boat on that.

And the reason I voted "representation of their base" is because most Republicans don't see that as a negative! I bet you thought it was a positive.

I am incredibly disappointed that you assume what you do. After the interactions that we have had, you still believe that I think that way?

I absolutely think it is a negative that there are not more minorities in the Republican party (especially in leadership positions). You are the one who is working diligently to diminish the number of minority Republicans through your accusations.

I really don't remember many interactions with you where we are of the same opinion. I don't know you and you may not be racist at all. I never said you were. I am sure there are many Republicans that aren't and are unaware of any racism in their party.

I too think it is a negative that there are not more minorities in the Republican party, but until the racists are rooted out, the policies the Republican party supports are not going to win them in.

My husband was thoroughly disgusted when a group of bikers he rides with (not necessarily close friends, just members of the same club) were so comfortable in exchanging racist jokes about Obama not realizing that he was being offended. Living in a red state, I guess everyone assumes if you are white you are Republican and we have been offended repeatedly by Republicans that assume we are Republicans, with their racist attitudes. And, it was worse when we lived in Alabama. So, I am sorry if some minority Republicans leave your party due to what I am saying, I really don't care.

You said that I probably think it is a positive that there are few minorities in my party. To me, that's a pretty significant charge. That's what I am reacting to.

The point of the matter is that, we have discussed this very topic enough that you should not have made that assumption. The only reason that you would make the assumption that I think negatively of minorities is my political party. The racial insensitivity you are complaining about is that people are treated differently due to the color of their skin. You assess the foundation of my morals based on my being a Republican. I know that is not a one to one relationship, but I think that you should know better than to do that.

"...but until the racists are rooted out, the policies the Republican party supports are not going to win them in."

As I said, the racists have not be rooted out of the Democratic party either. There will always be people on both sides of the aisle who are racially ignorant and those people will always be used as an example of how everyone in that party is like so-and-so.

"My husband was thoroughly disgusted when a group of bikers he rides with (not necessarily close friends, just members of the same club) were so comfortable in exchanging racist jokes about Obama not realizing that he was being offended."

I would be disgusted too. Note that I have heard those sorts of jokes from Dems too. I don't want to call out people who have passed away, but I will say that the most racially ignorant people in either of mine or my wife's family were rabid Democrats who full-heartedly supported Gore in '00 (they passed away before Obama). The ensuing argument ruined a Christmas dinner. I think that you may find that even some of those people talking about Obama like that are Dems.

"Living in a red state..."

Texas is a very red state, but even so, the split is something like 60/40 Repub/Dem. Again, I think you are making some things into political party issues that aren't.

"And, it was worse when we lived in Alabama."

I will say that I have never been to Alabama, so if things are different there from where I've been, I wouldn't know. I have some friends who moved there, but that's as close as I've gotten.

"I am sorry if some minority Republicans leave your party due to what I am saying, I really don't care."

What I am saying is that if you are going to go on a tirade about people judging others based on the color of their skin, don't in the process judge others by the political party they belong to.

It seems to me in your post that you are taking what I say personally, when I am really talking about the majority or a large number, based on mine and other's observations.
I happen to know many Republicans and I know for a fact that many are not racist. But I know many, like I mentioned in another post, who do not even try to hide it. You can read AmanitaX1's post and you'll see what I mean.
I'm sorry if you felt offended, because that was not my intent. I guess I really despise hypocrisy and it really aggravates me when people claim they aren't racist and their actions say the opposite, and perhaps I didn't make myself clear in the post that I wasn't directing it directly at you.

I know it looks like I am taking this personally. I actually am not, but it's hard to relay nuance in a forum. Also, I do get passionate about things to the point where it looks like I am getting overly sensitive.

I do think that disunity has the potential to destroy the country, though, so I like to be sure that discussions work toward something constructive rather than destructive. If something or someone is indeed racist, it is okay to call it out, but I think that there should be extreme certainty before doing so. Otherwise, all we get is an "Us vs Them" situation.

"You can read AmanitaX1's post and you'll see what I mean."

I agree with you about AmanitaX1. I have replied to him or her once that I recall, and it was to ask him or her not to use that word.

I apologize if I got too worked up (or appeared that way). Not my intention.

and at that shakedust, I say to you....fantastic job!

Shake - Thanks for your honest and very well worded reply. I, too take it personally when someone generalizes about Democrats but I have to admit that sometimes what they are saying does apply to some. I guess I speak mostly out of personal experiences but I know that I cannot blame everyone for what a few do.
It is just that sometimes people make comments that seem thinly veiled of their real meaning.
I can appreciate your feeling passionate about what you believe and it didn't appear that you were getting worked up, just motivated to get your point across. I hope you will also appreciate my passion for what I believe. Maybe someday we will see more unity, but I think it will take a while before the dust settles after the recent election.
Thanks for your honesty, I really appreciate it, and I especially appreciate that we were able to end on a good note.
Sorry it took so long for me to answer, I just haven't been on Buzzdash too much lately!

cut me short--the repubs I know are local leadership and I know they have problems with recognition and support from the local black community.

So, what you are saying is that people make fun of black Republicans, so that makes it much less appealing to be one?