Would it be fair for the democrats to paint the republicans as the "Racist" party since they garner the most intolerant votes. I remember personally hearing that "a vote for Kerry was a vote against God" and since the democrats are portrayed as the "Godless" party it seems to me that "racist" tag is more than fair. I realize both parties have a history with regards to racism but currently the democrats embraced civil rights and social issues with greater impacts on the evils of discrimination. Just throwing it out there...........
Absolutely not, even though those who won directly appealed to that part of the party in 2000. But you can't be held responsible for a vast minority of people who may call themselves Republicans or Democrats or whatever. I truly believe that most of both parties want what's best for all Americans.
The candidate who most benefitted from racially-inspired votes in the primaries was Obama. He didn't have to lift a finger to campaign for the black vote, but he got around 95% of it. So which side is race-focused again?
There are many that feel that just because you're not voting for Obama, you must be racist. Now that is awful
I don't think the nature of a party's members should determine where it is racist. It's platform determines that. I think the Republicans, more than the Democrats, have a race-neutral platform. But does that provide adequate defense on behalf of minorities against racism, and if not does that itself make it racist?
The Republican party is certainly the more exclusive and the Democrats more inclusive. I don't think anybody needs to point that out to effect the election. Richer, whiter, more religiously activist people are probably going to vote Republican anyway and in pretty high percentages of their population. The trick is to get the less rich, more diverse, less religious people to vote for their own interest. That portion of the population tends to be more apathetic generally. Obama and the party need to arouse a passion for democracy, meritocracy, and rational government. But these ideas are harder to grasp in a sound bite.
Obama campaigned hard for all the votes he received both white and black, and he won the primary. 90+ percent of blacks usually vote for Democrats because that party. Over the years Democrats have worked harder on issues that affect communities with large black populations. Of course Obama connects with populations where there is almost a non-existent black population such as Iowa Nebraska, Utah, Colorado etc. It is absolutely hilarious when people try and claim that Obama won votes from black voters only because of his race. If that was true Al Sharpton would have done the same thing when he ran for the office of President. It didn't happen. I actually I should say it is hilarious when people make the claim to almost everyone except the poor souls who end up with egg on their face after making it.
The Republican party definitely doesn't have a monopoly on racists. That's for sure. Republicans are not more biased than the Democrats. Their values are just different.
Obama did nothing to campaign for blacks' votes and purposefully avoided photo opp's where he would be juxtaposed against crowds of blacks. That's a fact. If it's not a fact, prove me wrong by posting a picture. No candidate has done more to advance civil rights than Hillary. Obama has done virtually nothing, except to bolster his street cred by attending the black liberation theology church. So tell me, why did 90% of blacks vote for Obama, instead of Hillary? It's the reason he won the primary, plain and simple. Hillary had to work for every vote, whereas he did not. It's because blacks voted based on race. And here we've got a ridiculous thread accusing Republicans of being racial? Get real.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mop827WmWHE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mop827WmWHE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Actually he doesn't. In SC Obama was in primarily black neighborhoods holding events and working had for the vote of all the voters.
But you have to admit that being black is going to help get the black vote out and garners more votes. I mean, if Colin Powell ran on the republican side, he'd get blacks as well. People do tend to vote for those similar to themselves....it's just human nature. That's not racism necessarily, but it a bias.
As Mrs. rimrocker says, "There are losers in each party, but the Republicans just do a much better job of organizing the ones on their side."
Colin Powell has his own merits that have nothing to do with race. Sharpton ran and didn't get 90+ percent of black votes. It is insulting to say that 90% of a race only votes based on the candidate's race being similar to their own. Race may help a candidate be in touch with some of the issues affecting people of a similar race, but that doesn't automatically get them votes unless they have something to offer besides the color of their skin.
I think it's fair to say that the Republican platform is anti-minority in so many respects that they will continue to lose the black and latino vote into the foreseeable future. If the latino vote ever galvanized like the evangelical Christian vote, the Republican Party would be in huge trouble.
poor trader, first obama wasn't balack enough, now he didn't have to work for the balack vote. balack people have been voting dem for the last 40 years, i guess it was racist when they all voted for clinton
This is not a defense of the charge. Of course they vote dem. The question is why they supported Obama over Clinton (both DEM). Clinton has done far more for blacks over her life than has Obama. Clinton actively campaigned for the black vote. Obama did not. So what does that leave you to conclude? It's so obvious.
Bringing race in this is really dumb. I am sure that there are blacks that will vote for Obama just because he is black. There are also whites that will vote for McCain just because he is not black. There is racism or bias on both sides but it is not nearly as significant as some want you to believe and others have pointed out the reasons why.