This story focuses more on Senate elections than the Presidency. But it's an interesting take on what's going on. -- Report: Pro-War GOP Senators Refusing To Be Interviewed About Iraq On National Television September 25, 2007 -- 10:17 AM EST // // MSNBC's David Schuster shared some very interesting news with his viewers last night: He said that pro-war GOP Senators who are up for reelection have repeatedly refused to go on MSNBC and have directly turned down multiple invitations to appear on the network and discuss the war. Schuster, singling out GOP Senators like Norm Coleman and John Sununu, said: Indeed, David. Well said. These Senators, of course, are from the WINO caucus -- they are Waverers In Name Only who say they're "wavering" in their support for Bush's policies, but keep voting against any measure that would actually force a change in those policies. One of the worst things that could befall a WINO, of course, is to be asked directly why he or she keeps voting to perpetuate policies that he or she claims to be criticizing. This is to be avoided at all costs, naturally. So the WINOs have now apparently taken to avoiding venues where this might happen and where their WINOism risks being showcased for all their constituents to see. (Editors's note: Should we call them WINO Weasels?) When Senators repeatedly turn down a chance to be interviewed on national TV -- something they'd ordinarily leap at -- you can bet that their internal polling is telling them that things have gotten really, really bad. -- Greg Sargent http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/prowar_gop_sena.php
Ouch! Here are the latest fundraising tallies, as of the end of September, from the Dem and Republican committees in charge of 2008 House races: DCCC: In the bank: $22.1 million Debt: $3.1 million Total: $19 million NRCC: In the bank: $1.6 million Debt: $4 million Total: -$2.4 million Dems, $19 million; GOP, in the red. http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/democrats_outpacing_republican.html
I would suggest that such an election is indicative of massive fraud during the primaries, and thus bad for America.
Republican presidential candidates discussed the importance of reaching out to people of color during a minority issues debate Thursday night that the leading four GOP contenders skipped. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback apologized for the absence of his opponents. "I think this is a disgrace that they are not here," he said. "I think it's a disgrace to our country. I think it's bad for our party, and I don't think it's good for our future." Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed for our party, and I'm embarrassed for those who didn't come." The four - former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney - cited scheduling conflicts in saying they could not attend the debate at historically black Morgan State University. http://www.examiner.com/a-959808~GOP_Hopefuls_Assailed_for_Debate_Absence.html?cid=rss-Politics
I just finished watching the debate this morning. Great opening statements about the missing canidates by Tavis Smiley & Tom Joyner . Huckabee made a comment about a "lid" of mar1juana. Nice to see him up with the times.
There is absolutely no point in Republican candidates spending time trying to get black votes in presidential elections. They have tried in the past and it makes no difference. Black Americans are going to vote 90%+ for the democratic candidate, no matter what the Republicans do. Since blacks represent less than 20% of voters that means that even if the candidate lost all 10% of the black vote that a republican can access, that is only going to swing the vote by 2%. Spending more than 2% of their resources (time and money) going after the black vote is thus not a smart thing to do. If blacks really want Republican candidates to talk about their issues, come to their debates, meet with their groups, etc. they are going to have to start voting Republican at a rate far higher than 1 in 10.
Oh Rudy -- Giuliani Attacks Clinton As McGovern-esque -- But Rudy Voted For McGovern And GO RON PAUL! Anti-War Ron Paul Raises Whopping $5 Million! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071003/campaign-rdp/
October 3, 2007 Paul Campaign Raises Over $5,000,000 In Third Quarter FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter. Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000. "Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message." Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.
I highly doubt a Republican has a chance at winning the presidency. Not to be a cynic, but even Republicans themselves doubt a Republican president will be sitting in the White House in a year's time.
You're putting the onus on the wrong side. If blacks already have a party that talks about their issues, comes to their debates, meets with their groups, etc., why should they care about the other side? It's up to politicians to earn votes. It's not a voter's job to seek out a politician who's not seeking out the voter.
Darn good post, Zac, and right on target. And regarding SM's post earlier, some recent elections have swung one way or the other by tiny percentages. For Republicans to "toss away" the Black vote is rediculous, but if they wish to toss those votes away without fighting for them, as a Democrat, that is fine with me. D&D. Impeach Barbara Bush for Having George W. Heartless Hypocrite.
from josh -- Really never a good sign when you have to do a shout out for your own round of applause. And this guy's neck and neck for the lead. --Josh Marshall
First, as I have said, the party has already made the effort, over and over again. Continuing to do so is just throwing good money after bad. Second, I am not suggesting that black voters seek out the Republican party, only that there not be complaints that the Republican party is ignoring them. I only suggest that black voters start voting for and contributing to the Republican party if they want the Republican party to cater to them. Otherwise, black America and the Republican party are seemingly happily ignoring each other, and if that is what they want, should continue doing so in peace. Every dollar spent chasing the black vote is likely to garner more votes if directed toward another group, by both the Republicans and the Democrats. At least the democrats can try to benefit by driving up turnout among the black vote. As a Republican, I would prefer the party not spend a dime specifically chasing black votes, just because it is terrible strategy. In fact, if the GOP didn't spend a dime chasing black votes, the Dems might spend less and there would probably be reduced turnout.
I used to be for Guliani, now I am leaning more to Romney. I like his business backgroud and his record as governor.
Do you have examples of these great efforts by Republicans to court black voters? People respond to politicians skillfully courting them. Mike Huckabee sought and won half of a labor endorsement this year. The Republican Party initially took over the amazingly Democratic South largely by appealing to the racist nature of white voters there. (Please note that I do not assert that Republicans currently win the South because of racism, only that it was a factor in their becoming competitive there, which is pretty well-documented.) That's not really great political strategy. Parties spend vastly disproportionate amounts of resources on certain voter groups all the time. Democrats are likely to pour millions of dollars into Ohio and Florida trying to win over just a few thousand voters. Republicans trying to swing Pennsylvania, for example, would do well to cater to black voters on either side of the state. This ignores, by the way, the moral argument that while you may be running as the candidate of one party, you're running to be president of the entire country, and you have an obligation to speak to all of your constituents.
Dobson Makes It Official: Religious Right Leaders Will Back Third-Party Challenger Against Rudy -- The Values Test By JAMES C. DOBSON Published: October 4, 2007 Colorado Springs REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications. After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous. The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged. Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed. The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear. One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president. That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04dobson.html?ref=opinion
The reason it was news that Bush refused to meet with the NAACP was that previous candidates from the party had done so. Bush has had black people in higher levels of the Executive Branch than anyone ever before. No, I am not going to research every dollar spent chasing black votes by the Republican party, because frankly a) everyone knows that they have done so in the past, and b) I don't care enough to spend the time. If you want to live in a fantasy world where the Republican party has never tried to win over black voters, you are welcome to. Nope, they would be better off trying to increase turnout among white voters in Pennsylvania, because black voters will almost invariably vote 90-95% in favor of Democrats. White voters vote 50+% Republican nationally. Sure you spend money in swing states trying to win over a few thousand voters, but even in those circumstances, you are better off spending the money going after the voters more likely to vote for you. We have an adversarial system. You can only vote for one person. Once elected, there may be some moral obligation to speak to all of your constituents (there is an alternative theory that you are more morally obligated to those who elected you), but while you are running, the only people you need to talk to are those you can convince to vote for you. There is no point in Obama going to John McCain's house to try to get a vote, because it is not likely to happen, and is thus a waste of time and effort that could be better spent somewhere else. The black vote is the most monolithic voting block in America. Republicans going after the black vote is like Democrats trolling for votes in the Republican candidates families, you may get one or two, but the return is not worth the investment.
I'm kinda starting to like him too. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Elx3UWmyAY4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Elx3UWmyAY4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Dam! You know if some of these republicans would actually run on their true convictions, they'd make good Democrats.
