Stupid and the RNC’s Outreach Plan

Is the Republican National Committee just “stupid” as Gov. Bobby Jindhal (R-LA) implied last week, or just hell bent on business as usual, ignoring the minority vote til’ the next century? Either way, the same people who insisted Mitt Romney be anointed the GOP 2012 presidential nominee are the same people now in charge of the party’s image makeover and recruiting voters of “color” to the party: Yes, middle aged and old white men. And all signs point to the fact that we’re heading for the same underperforming results unless we change directions fast.

Nearly three months after the election, what we see coming from the RNC is lip service to minority outreach. A Republican source who is familiar with the committee’s inner workings told me there are still no blacks working at the RNC other than in administrative positions and only one Hispanic person working the RNC political department.

Maybe that’s why the outreach plan includes the Martin Luther King Jr. video, the RNC released Jan. 21, King’s holiday and Inauguration day, in which Priebus looked uncomfortable talking about King’s legacy. In the three minute video, Priebus is surrounded by four people, two of which are minorities, who never speak but look like hostages held against their will. Does the RNC like its minorities silent with no voice or influence?

Adding insult to pandering insult, during the RNC’s winter meeting held in Charlotte in January, it approved a resolution to commemorate the achievements of black Republican Frederick Douglass. This is the RNC’s idea of outreach to black voters: a resolution and a video!

Priebus says he wants to spend time doing “extensive research” on why the GOP lost in 2012 and learn ways they can grow the GOP tent beyond white voters. In the press release  announcing the initiative, the RNC proclaimed “The Growth and Opportunity Project is co-chaired by five prominent Republican leaders.” But there lies the problem.

Oddly enough, the five people Priebus appointed are part of the GOP establishment, do not bring a fresh perspective. The committee includes: Henry Barbour National Committeeman from Mississippi (nephew of longtime Republican Haley Barbour); Zori Fonalledas, National Committeewoman from Puerto Rico; Glenn McCall, National Committeeman from South Carolina; Sally Bradshaw, Veteran senior strategist in Florida and national politics; Ari Fleischer, Former White House Press Secretary (under George W. Bush, this part was omitted from the press release)

What’s striking about this makeover gang of five is there are only two people of color. How can we seriously have increase our standing with minorities if the committee designed for outreach isn’t majority minority?

It’s doesn’t require a brain surgeon to figure out what the Republican Party needs to do to win. Nor does the RNC need to spend months navel gazing, hosting conference calls and meetings to the hear from the same people they’ve been hearing from.

What the RNC needs to do is to start building meaningful relationships with Asians, blacks and Hispanics, take the conservative message outside of its comfort zone of the suburbs into the cities, particularly inner cities. It’s really not hard to do, if you are serious about “growing” and winning.

The RNC needs to take the conservative message to all Americans.We need to ask Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX) how she got 26 percent of the black vote in 2006. We need to ask Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn) how he won 26 percent of the black vote in 2008 or what Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ strategy was to win 20 percent of the black vote in 2008. How about the RNC hosting forums in cities across the country or at colleges, particularly historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), featuring young, diverse Republicans talking about why they are conservative?

Priebus needs to give a mandate to all state chairmen and committee members to tell their local parties to make it a priority to recruit more minority members to the over 3,000 local Republican chapters. Now is time for the GOP to literally take its message to the street. The party will only get more diverse through grassroots outreach.

Meanwhile, while the RNC is contemplating the next phase of its life, perhaps it should reexamine its rules for membership to the RNC. Currently, each state or territory has a state chairman and a committeeman and committeewoman. As David A. Bositis wrote in “Blacks & the 2012 Republican National Convention, “at least one third of the members of the RNC are women by quota.” But there are no quotas for minorities. I think the RNC should either have quotas for all or quotas for none.

The RNC also needs to do a much better job identifying and supporting minority and women candidates.  Not just monetary support but strategic support to help them win.

Ultimately, the GOP won’t begin to shed it’s “white only image” if it continues to use mostly white spokespeople talking about conservative values.  Chanel recently hired Brad Pitt to be appear in its Chanel No. 5 perfume ads because Brad makes anything sexy and Chanel wants more women to buy it’s perfume.

If the RNC wants more minorities to buy its message,  it should use spokespeople who look more like Sarasota Springs, Utah Mayor Mia Love, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senators Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz and less like Ari Fleisher and Henry Barbour. It’s time for RNC make conservatism sexy because “stupid” has got to go.

If you enjoyed this article, Get email updates (It’s Free)

44 Responses to “Stupid and the RNC’s Outreach Plan”

  1. @Truevoice, I did notice that, Interesting how no one responded to that.

  2. Reed Haven says:

    MDB: just a clarification: Colin Powell left the Bush Administration because he was lied to…and made to lie…by the lowlifes Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush. They made a liar of the Honorable General Powell in front of the entire world body and Colin left the Bush Administration because of it…because Colin has moral values and Liberal Principles like honesty, sincerity in government, trust of the People, belief in the Constitution, and the Liberal Value that elected representatives should not lie and deceive Americans for the purposes of promoting false wars and what can only be called mass murder against 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens.

  3. Reed Haven says:

    This whole fraud of a “conservative black chick” sounds like a TEA Party front to deceive the readers. I wonder how much this alleged black woman is being paid (she’s probably just another angry old white guy in some basement of his parents who has never had a job and is on welfare and self-hatred) by the TEA Party…and if this website is part of the $10 million minority “reach out” scheme that Reince Preibus proposed in the lowlife CPAC conference… Intelligent minds wanna know just how far the deceit goes in the GOP that they stoop to these levels… This is just too transparent…

  4. MDB says:

    You guys really don’t get it, or you are being willfully stupid.
    “Scot” actually had the audacity to post that Herman Cain and Colin Powell did more to fight racism than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Can you really be this damned stupid ? Up until now Colin Powell has for all these years given consent to the RAGING racism of the GOP/Conservative moment by simply not addressing it, and Herman Cain is nothing short of a damn minstrel show.

    Let me lay it out for you as one of 99% of African Americans who absolutely despise the GOP. We see the movement for what it is. There is no secret as to why the conservative movement is made up of White persons. We are not “misguided”, or “confused”(which are just fancy ways of saying that black folk just don’t know what’s good for them…they are like children…you know?). The modern conservative moment w/r to the United States is NOTHING more than the Neo-Confederacy. I mean seriously….in this day and age they actually tried to blatantly disenfranchise people of color. They continuously get caught doing things like trading pictures of Obama as a monkey, or the White House being surrounded by a water melon patch, their TV and radio personalities on a daily basis accuse people of color of being lazy and too dumb to think for themselves. Your politicians are openly racist(Steve King comes to mind). The GOP are ones who came up with the Southern Strategy…you know the one where they purposely scape goat Blacks to win elections….

    In closing let me give you a list of all the things conservatives fought against and still oppose today:

    Civil rights
    Civil rights act
    Labor laws
    Clean water and air laws
    Food Safety laws
    Womens sufferage
    Public services(schools, police, firefighters, etc)
    Your right to bargain for fair compensation for you labor.
    Emancipation of slaves
    Voting rights
    Laws against violence against women
    etc…etc…etc…

    …and for the guy who said he is color blind and he doesn’t see race…your a liar. Of course you “see color” when you encounter a person of color, and everything that goes with it. The Americas has been race conscience ever since Europeans set foot on it 600+ years ago….but somehow you don’t “see color”.

    So in closing…the reason we don’t like you is because you and the people you align yourself with made it clear that you really don’t like us.

  5. REAL TRUTH says:

    John, you make the typical conservative mistake of linking welfare with the black community. Also standard in your benign condescending attitude, you make a broad generalization of the decline in the cities being liberal based. Detroit is not the capital of Michigan; Lansing is. The governors over five decades have been Republican. So until you take an honest assessment of the issues, you would have no effect in the black community….and neither would any other conservative

  6. jerry says:

    Those of us who fit the old white man class are having trouble understanding what it is that we need to do to gain access to the minority commuity.

    You see we have it firmly implanted in our mines that a fare and good society is one that doesn’t see color or gender as criteria in making decision on what is good for this country. We apply that reasoning to things like affimative action, which when we do it is interpited as we hate blacks.

    I truly believe in my heart that welfare (especially when it becomes a way of life) destroys all those who are on it, including the large number of whites who are living on it as well. The great projects that were suppose to improve are cities are total disaster. I just watched a video of the Detroit city counsel and it was, atleast in my eyes a prescription for more of the same which has led to the total decline of that once great city.

    I want blacks to thrive. I want Mexicans and asians and whites to thrive. What then is the best enviroment for them to do so. I personally believe a honest look at free markets needs to be part of the discussion. Most who oppose free markets oppose it for the same reason that i oppose the left wing program.

    When government interfers with the markets they make it possible for crony capitalisim, or a market that only looks like it is free. regulations and restrictions on business which seem to be good only keep the small businessman down.

    I would hope that some in the black community could see that free markets and small businesses, both white and black, are the best solution to the plight of our cities.

    Well then for me, white old and conservative, how do I get the message accross that a free society also includes being free to pursue ones own happiness.

  7. Scott says:

    to all: sorry about the double post – the first one was refused at my end.

  8. Scott says:

    @Wes – I agree, just wondered about how much others were interested in our line of discussion. It seems way off topic.
    Thanks for all your thoughts and for your civility.

  9. Scott says:

    @Wes – agree with lots of what you said. just wonder about relevance to the blog itself. thanks.

  10. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    The beauty of this venue is if I say something that isn’t factual, people like truevoice can always chime in with a “Wait a fricken minute” kind of a challenge or correction. I tend not to respond timely when it comes to email, but for some reason I am driven to communicate here in a timely fashion. I don’t think it is the topic but I am most curious regarding what will be said. I haven’t posted on the latest blog but I read the responses.

    I posted on bulletin boards back in the nineties and it was amazing what I learned. Can you imagine I was told that GW Bush would be the next president BEFORE he publically stated that he would even run? Obviously I didn’t believe that person at the time, but once W announced he would run I became very alert. Once he won the nomination, I knew the person that told me he was the next hand picked person in line to be president, I knew that person had connections. I have no such connections. I just watch, and what I see is that Obama is sort of a de jure kind of guy. That is why some people see a lot of similarities between what he is doing and what W did.

    I like to learn and I prefer to communicate in this venue. I’ve learned a lot from you and others. Any point raised as though it is a fact should stand up to critical analysis. In a one on one dialog, the rebuttal is only as strong as the person making the rebuttal. However in the public forum, hundreds of people from all walks of life are out there waiting to challenge anything said. I prefer to abandon all of my notions that I hold only because of certain prejudices I have, and rather hold onto the truth and the facts as they present themselves. One truth is I genuinely wanted Obama to succeed because of the color of his skin. Another truth is that he is no different than his predecessors. My position may sound like reverse racism to someone who has never walked in my shoes. But to those who have, it probably sounds like a dose of common sense. As you are aware, some people are down right puzzled by why anyone would want to be a black conservative. Indeed there are valid reasons. I guess I am here to learn what some of them are that I don’t hold and confirm the ones that I do.

  11. Scott says:

    @Wes – I thought about the spice line. It really might be selling spice to a guy who can’t buy potatoes while the salesman eats beef. I am guilty of making that up, thanks for the compliment.

    Funny, I consider myself a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Yet we seem to have some common ground.

    Would like to communicate more, wish there were a way to give you, but not the whole world my email address.

  12. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    “You seem to be saying that both sides are liars and cheats, but the Republicans are not even bothering to pretend they care about the average guy.” Yes, this is exactly what I am making a poor attempt at saying. People who are struggling are hoping the dems will help them while knowing the reps could care less. I don’t hope because I have seen enough to know better. Yes there are people that I believe actually care, people like Marcy Kaptur, Byron Dorgan, Fritz Howlings and Sherrod Brown. But the democratic leadership has sold us out whereas the republican leadership has basically told us to take our silly problems down the road.

    As a social conservative and fiscal liberal, the libertarian seems diametrically opposed to everything I believe in. Still Ron Paul was the only candidate in the republican primary that made sense. The people who ran all of those debates basically ignored everything he said. It was almost like he was speaking Chinese or some other foreign language. They made him look like a crazy man and all he was doing was telling the truth. I was not on board with all of his solutions, but I admire him for actually giving a reasonable assessment of where we are and where we are heading instead of all of the smoke and mirrors I usually hear. I have reservations about anybody who seems to put black people into a second class role in this society and I am not indicting Ron or Rand Paul in that regard. However I will give them a good scrutinizing if they ever get any traction. For now the media is making them look irrelevant by giving us two choices, bad and worse.

    I am going to have to use that potato and spice line.

  13. Scott says:

    @Wes – cannot argue with your logic. I pretty strongly agree special interests are a big part of the problem. Your step to the rich is to a large degree valid, but it is the rich special interests. And, the those interests do not represent the car dealer for instance who is rich enough to be affected by the tax increases, but not rich enough to buy someone – at least at the federal level.

    Your last post is an eye opener – apparently I am an even slower learner than I thought. You seem to be saying that both sides are liars and cheats, but the Republicans are not even bothering to pretend they care about the average guy.

    I still think liberal policies cannot work. But your point that the Republicans are selling a program they are apparently not using is a major issue. To relate it to my discussion with @Daren: Republicans are selling spices to a guy who can’t afford potatoes – and the spices are not the ones they use.

    But I feel the Democrats are even more controlled by special interests. Wall Street gave hugely to Obama and have been given a free pass by the Democrats. Unions have been given the bond holder interests in GM. Obamacare will make pharmacy companies and medical testing companies rich – and distort good health care. Look at the Democratic model used in Chicago. They talk the talk, but the result is an entrenched, self-serving, ineffective government which has gone broke.

    Having conceded all the above, I agree the Lobbyist has distorted everything in Washington (and probably the state governments, too). Perhaps that is a large part of why government programs do not do what is intended. That is why we need smaller government. That is why there should be term limits and major limits on lobbyists. That is why I am a libertarian, not a Republican. But, the next question becomes how would an in-power libertarian differ from a Republican or Democrat?

    Lastly, I will point out that the TEA Party is really a revolt against both parties, just coming from within the one. TEA Party people are being distorted by the press – a major lobby in their view. TEA Party people want to cut off the money and quit supplying the lobbyist with his payola.

  14. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    Well, I’d say we have similar views regarding what is happening and how it affects us adversely. We still do differ regarding the underlying perpetrator.

    You say that inflation is more or less obvious, yet the government is keeping interests rates low. You may be presuming that the treasury controls monetary policy as the founders intended. My understanding is the treasury turned over policy control to the Federal Reserve some time just prior to the Great Depression, and the Federal Reserve is not the government, but rather, the bank. Therefore if the bank is keeping interest rates low, the rich are at the bottom of it and the government is only allowing it to happen by not taking monetary control back from the bank. You cite other examples that can be traced to groups that lobby the government rather than the government itself.

    The politicians are making money off of the lobbyists. The media is protecting the politicians from the electorate. The rich run the media. Half of the electorate is blaming the liberal politicians because that is what the media is feeding them. The other half of the electorate is blaming the conservatives because that is what the media is feeding them. In the end, the dems and reps get back in power and continue to get rich off of the lobbyists.

    Yes I am trying to understand, but so far you have only confirmed what I have been saying and that is the problem is that the special interests have control. I do understand that a government too big is a government that will ultimately be our undoing. But as long as the lobbyists can afford to buy the politicians, think of how much money they must be making to be able to afford to buy the politicians. The reason I asked you to google distribution of wealth in America is because the central part of my argument is that you can’t tax anybody except the rich because they are the ones that actually have the money.

    I watched a bit of Washington Journal the other morning in order to listen to everyday people call in. Some were blaming our budget problem on “all of the money” we send helping other countries. The overwhelming part of the problem is the entitlement programs and government being too big has a lot to do with that. However when you google the distribution of wealth it doesn’t tell you any of that. It only tells you where the money winds up.

  15. Scott says:

    @Wes – I sort of ramble here, but that may be the best way to let you know how many “middle class whites” feel. I definitely get the feeling you are trying to figure things out, not just put your view over on me.

    interesting observations. States do have income taxes. And I am not opposed to income taxes per se. I do think today’s convoluted income tax scheme ends up favoring richer people. One reason I like the Fair Tax.

    One must remember that when the Federal government takes in money and gives it to the states, there is an extra layer (or several!) to pay for this processing. That extra layer is essentially wasted to the intended and adds bureaucratic control.

    I define “feel good” programs as those whose goals sound good and even the most extreme conservative likes, yet have demonstrated no success. The War on Poverty. Think conservatives don’t care? Look up the percentage of donation to charity in Mississippi vs any New England state.

    Maybe it is my perspective, but the entry to business today is more difficult due to the myriad laws and regulations which must be met to the letter (not always spirit, by the way). Failure to meet one criteria can lead to being closed down. All increase the costs of doing business. The net result is that the rich can expand more easily than the poor. Absolutely, but the rules and bureaucrats are making that more true, not less.

    In the end penalizing the rich may decrease their pockets, but it does not help the poor. That is scapegoating which dictators use to great success (for them, not their citizens.) Note the Liberals bash the banks, fine them and call out their CEO’s but the poor people have not gotten any better.

    There is a group in the middle which is not rich and not poor. I consider myself in that group. I worked hard, have some assets and on paper a pretty comfortable retirement. I have watched as prices have increased (while the government keeps interest low pretending there is no inflation.) The government spending is threatening to put me back into the poverty which I worked my way out. (A real feeling for me and many of my friends.)

    Our government is spending more money than it takes in. There are three solutions to that problem: 1) inflation – that will make my assets basically disappear, putting me in the poor category. or 2) depression – taking the profits out of companies which pay a dividend. With no dividends my retirement and those of all the unions etc will be reduced to zero. or 3) take in more money: higher taxes only accomplish that to a small degree. Read up on the effect on national debt that taxing the ultra-rich has. Take in more money can only work if business thrives.

    Everyone seems to forget who does pay the bills: business. The federal government does not make money, it takes it from citizens and businesses. And it cannot take more than they make on an indefinite basis. We are Greece on a grand scale, just further away from the end result.

    Medical care: several problems. off the top of my head:
    1. People do not realize who is paying, nor how much. In the end paying for the insurance is paying for the product. The extra middle man gives naive people the impression their health care costs nothing, especially if paid for indirectly (business paid or government programs.)
    2. The AMA has a major monopoly and keeps the supply of physicians limited.
    3. Insurance for the practitioner increases costs by large amounts. I was over-for-cards friends with a anesthesiologist in the early 80s. His insurance bill was $125,000 per year. He did not pay that, his patients did. I wonder what it costs now.
    4. The model of medicine is to treat what is wrong. Get you stable with drugs. Why not prevent the problem? Why not get you off maintenance medications.
    5. Even “Preventative Medicine” is being euphemistically defined. Since when does Early Detection (frequent testing) equal Prevention? Google it and see.

    Physicians are motivated to keep you alive on drugs. If one has side effects, guess what?, another drug and more testing will keep you alive. Really, how does that differ from the street corner drug dealer, once you are hooked?

    Obamacare (for lack of a better term – he is not the real cause even) but Obamacare is not addressing the problems, just adding bureaucracy and driving people out of the health care business. Health care will get worse and cost more.

    I believe middle America wants a fair system with regulations and taxes and even some social welfare included. But fair also means allowing business to succeed. Extremists on the right, who don’t speak for the middle, are easy to demonize and have allowed the liberal agenda to swing the pendulum too far. I believe most of middle America, like I consider myself, realize the country would be way better off if all groups in society (white, black, other tints) were included in the middle.

    Demonizing other groups does not create that middle. (do you hear Mr Obama?) Opening doors does.

  16. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    I agree that the group (in this case the nation) advances with cooperation. The trick is to fool the lower class into believing they are doing well enough to be complacent. Clearly things aren’t bad enough here to spawn an “army” of suicide bombers. However there is a sense that things aren’t going so well. A relatively easy sell for the upper class is, “Just let us keep 98% of the money and we’ll fix it so anybody who needs a heart transplant can get one. Your only problem is finding a donor. We’ll take care of the procedure because we know there is no possible way that you can afford it.” A more difficult sell is “The rule of law says just because we have 98% of the wealth has no impact on our ability to get 99%, or your responsibility to make your own way”. The real world contains both Henry Fords and John D Rockefellers. While I understand that there are antitrust laws, the general perception is that it is easier for the very wealthy to become wealthier than it is for the less fortunate to make ends meet. This presumes both sides are working their butts off to make a better life for their respective families.

    When a person walks into a casino, hopefully that person understands that the odds are against him. The cool thing about it is he doesn’t have to walk into the casino. When the economy is stacked against him, it isn’t cool because he must play in this game.

    Putting more responsibility on the states requires the states to raise the necessary revenue to make that happen. The federal government is in the position to control the states by withholding revenue. Assuming the federal government is too broke to provide revenue in its newly downsized condition, would you support a state income tax? I’m guessing you won’t because it doesn’t sound like a good idea to me either. Where does the state get the funding to do the stuff the constitution says it should do?

    I can’t confirm that there are trillions of dollars spent on “feel good” programs. However I’m pretty certain that if we don’t resolve the medical crisis we won’t make a significant impact on the budget problem. There are people who claim the Obamacare solves it and people who claim it compounds it. For me, it is easy to see why Obama spent so much time on it. However I’m not convinced that it fixes what needs to be fixed in order to put the economy on a road to recovery.

  17. Scott says:

    @Wes – First, thanks for taking the post as intended. Yes, things have changed since the early days of the Republic. Those who think the constitution of 1789 was meant to be final just are not informed.

    I agree about the Department of Regulation of regulations. and I want to be chairman (joke, also).

    Putting things back on states is exactly the point. That way New Yorkers who want high taxes and many benefits can have them. Midwesterners who don’t want either, don’t have to pay for the New Yorkers. Funny, I met a man yesterday who said he moved here to get away from the Massachusetts taxes. Then he started to complain about the lack of services here … true story.

    But putting things on the state, puts the bureaucrats closer to those being affected and hopefully a little closer to needing to answer for the results of their rules. And you can move out of a state ruled by idiots.

    Your points are valid. EPA progress on air is undeniable, one can see it in the sky. They are at least somewhat based on science.

    I am not convinced, however, that social and economic programs are based on science. Science requires a testable hypothesis. Social “science” offers no scientific proof. And many successful market people think economists only work in a pretend world. Read “Antifragility” or at least a few relevant chapters for much more researched comments on both these fields.

    The result, though, is that we are spending Trillions of dollars now on some “feel good” programs. These programs are really just based on guesses of what will work and help people. Significant evidence that it is not helping is being pushed aside by propaganda.

    Science is suggesting that we are all better off (read: richer) with cooperation. That to me is a much better argument against racial injustice than anythings else.

  18. Wes says:

    @Scott
    I thank you for that sincere response and I thank you for your service.

    To strip down the federal government as far as you are suggesting does indeed put a lot of the responsibility of governing on the individual states, and from the constitutional perspective you are indeed upon solid ground. Unfortunately this nation over the years has moved closer to being a republic and farther from being a confederation as it was in its inception, and such changes would require very radical adjustments.

    I agree with the idea of closing all of the bases overseas with the one exception of Korea. Thanks to GW Bush making public the conclusions reached by our intelligence that the so called “axis of evil” was Iraq, Iran and North Korea, two of these nations felt a need for a nuclear bomb after we invaded the third. At this point, I don’t think South Korea feels occupied, but if they do, I think we should leave there as well.

    I think the concept of overwhelming military might should be examined under the premise of the manor in which we wage war. Technology has advanced faster than our ability to act in a civilized manor. Hopefully you can read between the lines to catch my drift. I think the concept of overwhelming military might sells better in politics than it plays out on the field of battle.

    Again, closing all of these departments doesn’t really presume there is no need for them. It merely puts the responsibility of managing them onto the states, which in terms of resources are unable to deal with them.

    Clearly you have effectively raise concerns regarding over regulations by the federal government. There is a big difference between making people count pills or filling out idiotic forms than ensuring the food we eat is safe. Maybe we need a department of regulation to decide which regulations are needed and which are bogus {just joking of course}.

  19. Scott says:

    @Wes – This is the overwhelming question. I think a lot of the role of the federal government should be protecting us from other nations and from the criminals within ours. I do think promoting our well being is a critical role which has expanded beyond what the Founders imagined. Having said that:

    (spoiler alert: I go off an a tangent!)

    Our military should be overwhelmingly powerful. But why do we need bases in Japan, Korea, Spain, Germany, the Philippines, Greenland? I cannot imagine a local person feeling anything other than occupation. Reducing overseas troops should cut the pentagon budget a lot. Cutting the military, which many libertarians want, presumes the world is populated with nice guys. Just don’t believe that.

    What does Homeland Security do that was not being done before?
    What real function does the Strengthening Communities Act perform?
    Many of the functions of the various cabinet departments sound great, but end up poorly executed because of distance from the result (bureaucracy levels.)

    Education is a nightmare: most private, for-profit “colleges” seem to be a rip off. I noticed my son-in-law did not consider one when he decided to further his education. Reason: no business really values them. They seem to mostly exist to milk government subsidies for education. Another example of unintended consequences. Yet, the GI bill is what enabled me to get an advanced degree and become a success in life. (relatively)

    So the question becomes: how to do the good things without allowing the grafters (like the fake educators seem to be)?

    I would close the Department of Education. It should be at the state level. How to reconcile that with my thought that all education should be government supported is a real problem. I also think all students should be required to study history and some philosophy. This idea that only business related learning is relevant leaves kids easy marks for the propagandists. Students should also be required to perform to stay in school beyond high school.

    I would close HUD. The goals are great. The results are a disaster.

    I would close whichever department made me create MS-DS forms in my vet clinic and spend hours in meetings telling my employees things they already knew.

    I would close whichever department is now requiring vet clinics to count every single phenobarbitol tablet in the clinic on a regular basis. And to keep prescription pads under lock and key. (Implemented on my last day of work!)

    I would end farm subsidies to people for not growing cotton on land they are using to grow trees (in my family).

    I would close the IRS and use the Fair Tax. All the 1099 requirements and increased complexity of tax compliance made me decide to close one small business I was helping my daughter with. (Consider the effect of a $500 accounting bill on a business which takes in $7000 total. And I provided the accountant the 12(!) numbers he needed for the tax return.) And it was the FIRST thought I had when I was offered an opportunity to get into another small business. I declined. Just not worth it. Tell me government is not stifling small business.

    I think the answer may be to sunset every department other than State and Defense. And turn over many things to individual states – although the same problem is happening in some of the bigger states.

    This has kind of become long and disjointed, yet I feel that maybe that alone will help you see why some on the right are frustrated.

    My personal story: my parents split when I was 12, for a while we lived in government housing. In the 9th grade, my mother took a job 350 miles away and left me and my 5year old brother in the care of a Mexican origin family. I was too naive to realize they were supposed to be inferior. I earned my own spending money in high school and paid for my last 3 years of college with work and ROTC. In the Air Force I was an industrial engineer and watched unneeded spending happen at the end of every fiscal year so the budget was not cut for the next. I did use the GI bill and my wife’s income to get through Vet School after the AF). I had my own clinic with no government subsidies. I liked computers so I wrote programs to do my accounting. I noted that every quarter, my federal tax deposits were greater than the money I made from the clinic. As a veterinarian I saw more and more government intrusion and the not so subtle threat to close my business for allowing clients to make their own choices about medical care. I sold the clinic when I was 53 (1998) because I felt as if the economy would soon tank. I feel I was right about the results of all the liberal policies, but my timing was early. My health insurance costs more now than it did when before I went on medicare. (I will admit to a smaller deductible.)

    A bottom line: even in the 70’s as a young man, I felt this was the land of opportunity. Today, I wish I could convince my son-in-law to find a more reasonable country in which to raise my grandchildren. I would give up my social security and live better. I could buy health insurance for less than my medicare supplement now. But I won’t give up my grandkids.

    I know I am ranting so don’t beat me up. I have tried to listen to others here. I don’t think minorities have a monopoly on imperfect lives. I am acutely aware of the government help in staving off starvation for my Mother. But in the end she fought the prejudice against women by taking responsibility for herself.

    Responsibility for herself.

  20. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    In trying to learn from your note from a few days ago, you stated:
    “The problem is there is a minimal amount of morality. And there NEVER has been any morality, except maybe in very small social groups. In the view of economics, competition between similarly sized competitors provides a reasonable alternative. That for instance is why unions were once absolutely needed.
    That leads me to this flash insight: big government is bad because it is bigger than the people it is trying to regulate. There is minimal feedback against its bureaucratic power.”

    I agree. Big government is bad. So let’s go with that for the time being to see just how big government should be. Ideally NO government would be the best, but people don’t seem to have the propensity to do what needs to be done for this domestic tranquility thing to prevail. Therefore the need for some government is established in order to curtail and moderate all of the bad behavior that we humans seem compelled to do to one another.

    I know you are not advocating a wild wild west type of government. I would like to hear just how big you think government should be? For example: do you think that the military being bigger than the next ten militarys combined is too big? Or do you think the other areas of the government are the areas that have overwhelming “bureaucratic power”?

  21. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

    Sometimes it isn’t the fault of the school. When there is a genuine hunger for learning and learning still doesn’t take place, then we can look at the schools. However when the parents don’t instill that drive and initiative in the student, that student may not reach his or her potential no matter how efficient the school is. We can agree that education is a problem. However I am not so quick to agree that the schools are the cause of that problem. Sometimes when the general consensus is that “there are no jobs out there” it has a negative impact on the student’s drive to put in the effort.

    Hope is very much, part of the equation.

    We agree that the stuff the media is spewing out isn’t helping a whole lot. If it wasn’t so sad it would be hilarious. As you probably recall I am none to fond of this NDAA. The left seems more concerned with the “due process” rights than the right. But when it comes to guns the right is more concerned with the rights than the left. It’s like they are taking turns on us. Running a train…

  22. Scott says:

    @Truevoice – re: education. absolutely, I think vouchers is an admission of failure of the public schools and a weak attempt to pretend to help.

    Although I believe in less government, I do not believe in no government. Society must invest and the best investment is our youth – ALL of them!

  23. Scott says:

    @Wes – I have twice started to write long convoluted articles.

    It comes down to this: complicated laws designed to impose social ideas don’t work. Large company CEOs get lawyers to invent work arounds. Prohibition led to gang warfare and mediocre booze. The “War on Drugs” is doing the same. Food labeling is deceptive at best. Price controls lead to shortages. The war on poverty is followed by increased poverty percentages.

    I don’t think so much that “trickle down” is good. Rather, artificial restraints and redistribution actually backfire, like the prior paragraph.

    The problem is there is a minimal amount of morality. And there NEVER has been any morality, except maybe in very small social groups. In the view of economics, competition between similarly sized competitors provides a reasonable alternative. That for instance is why unions were once absolutely needed.

    That leads me to this flash insight: big government is bad because it is bigger than the people it is trying to regulate. There is minimal feedback against its bureaucratic power.

    Causes (relating to your last thoughts):

    Our news media no longer reports news; media routinely distorts it, slants it and then emotionally comments on it. Both extremes.

    Education works, but slowly. And education is being killed in this country. There seems to be no concept of justice. Self-esteem is never earned just given from others. History is distorted. Even science is under attack in some areas.

    You are right. The citizenry is ignorant in the worst sense of the word. People seem only to want to respond to the injustices (many real, some perceived) which happened to them. And the responses are reflexive not thoughtful.

    To me, the worst crime visited on blacks in particular, but poorer people in general, is (lack of) education. And in the end, that is a crime on the middle and upper echelons also. We created an ignorant mob with little understanding of the possibilities of life, and little means to reach for those possibilities.

    Sorry to be long. And thank you to you as well as @Truevoice and others who force me to consider things which are outside my daily experience. And to re-evaluate my beliefs.

  24. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    I really do understand the merits of the “rule of law” versus the challenges that concerned Socrates regarding mob rule. That wasn’t what I was driving at with the “what do the republicans have to offer” comment.

    As we have had many discussions in the past and while some of my concerns do resonate, the concerns I have with supply side economics clearly do not resonate. As I am not as articulate as many who post here, my failures can very much be the source of the problem. Therefore I urge you to google “distribution of wealth in America” so you can understand why I do not embrace conservatism as a whole. The numbers are out there for any to see and they come from a variety of sources. Historically, serfdom doesn’t produce the domestic tranquility that is mentioned in the preamble of the constitution. I know the right hates talk about feelings, but the truth is that domestic tranquility is tied very closely with the sense of hope and as long as the have nots have hope the peace can be maintained. The ignorant must be maintained is a state of confusion. We put a black man in the whitehouse and within a month the Iranians see right through the smoke and mirrors as indeed little has changed from Nixon down through Obama. As I see things, the electorate is very confused and very divided as the tone of the posts here prove categorically. It is the electorate that put the politicians in power.

  25. Noel says:

    @GoodMojo…..well said.

    @Scott…………well said.

    @Wes……what GoodMojo and Scott said.

  26. Jinsky Jean-Pois says:

    The 2012 presidential election results should invoke a response from the Republican Party. In the beginning, various political operatives in the Republican Party erroneously presumed victory for the Romney-Ryan presidential ticket with forecasted data. Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove presumed that the 2012 general electorate was more conservative, male, older, and Caucasian. Furthermore, the actual voter participation rate perpetuated the negative outcome in addition to the actual preference vote. The actual voter participation rate was 60% in total for the nation and 28% for ethnic non-Caucasian groups whose preference vote was 80% for the Democratic Party. Moreover, the response to the 2012 presidential election results should signal that the sole Caucasian electorate is always inadequate for electoral victory. The fact that the Republican Party did not earn more than 18% of the ethnic non-Caucasian preference vote should be deemed corrosive. With all of this in mind, the Republican Party should be cognizant generally of the 57th presidential election results to discern how this political party should exist in the future as a governing political party.
    For many decades, the population of the United States of America has evolved demographically, which will continue as the time elapses. To begin this discussion, there should be cognizance for how demography has shifted in the nation. Demography has evolved as a result of the immigration of people from Africa, Asia, and Latin American in addition to ethnic minority birth rates exceeding death rates. To continue this discussion, demography has impacted how elections are beneficial to the two-party system. According to the ROPER Center, the electorate that participated in the 2004 presidential election was 77% Caucasian and 23% Non-Caucasian, which was beneficial to the Republican Party when 27% of Non-Caucasian voters supported George W. Bush over John F. Kerry who earned 71% of Non-Caucasian voters. To conclude this discussion, the actual demographic shift should be calibrated to determine how to communicate to solicit votes from the various demographic groups. When the actual demographic shift is calibrated in the decennial census, it should be used in voter identification programs to locate those demographic groups. To reemphasize the demographic shift, it should mean that the electoral outcome from demographic evolution in the population plus the calibration of the demographic shifts allows for the comprehensive assessment of this nation.
    Confronting this demographic shift requires an acknowledgement that dialogue could have the potential of alienating any member of the general electorate. One example that actually proves this is the rhetoric expressed by Mitt Romney as the general dialogue in the broadcasted primary candidate debates for the nomination. During the Republican Presidential Primary Candidate Debates, Mitt Romney used hostile and divisive rhetoric towards illegal immigration and immigration policy in terms of self-deportation, which is incendiary and derogatory towards Latinos whose illegal immigration rate is 9-1 and population growth rate is rapidly expanding in the nation in addition to Pacific Islanders. A second example that actually proves this is the rhetoric used towards people in poverty who are recipients or beneficiaries of federal entitlement programs. Mitt Romney has said that he was not concerned about the “very poor” because of the safety net, that he “likes firing people who provides services to him”, and the remark that he does not have to worry about “47 percent” of the people because they will vote for the president (Barack H. Obama, II) not matter what, and that they are victims dependent on the government. A final example that proves this was the rhetoric used towards females in the final Obama-Romney presidential debate. Mitt Romney said that he received “binders full of women” to employ females in his gubernatorial administration, which devalues women as human beings. Accordingly, assessing the dialogue and impact among any segment of the electorate allows the Republican Party to comprehend toxicity and electoral capacity.
    The policy positions asserted by the various candidates for federal office were hostile, derisive, and divisive to the multiple segments of the general electorate. Probably the best example to begin with this discussion is the abortion philosophy expressed towards females on abortion policy. Republican senatorial candidates Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana said that a rape victim should not be allowed to procure an abortion and thereby carry the pregnancy to term, which contradicts George W. Bush who endorsed exemptions for an abortion ban of rape, incest, and maternal life. Next, this discussion about Barack Obama’s religious affiliation and his eligibility to serve as the President of the United States was toxic. Many conservative voices demonized this president with xenophobic, nativistic, and incendiary rhetoric. In addition to the first two examples, the philosophy on the environment was hostile towards the clean environment advocates. The philosophy on regulation was too rigid for voters who covet frugal regulations. With all of these examples, it is rational to deduce and conclude that the public policy positions and incendiary dialogue are bio-hazardous for the Republican Party.
    The electoral process should obligate the campaign strategists to focus on the diverse populations in the nation. The first instance that comes to mind is when the solicitation for electoral preference by the general electorate transpires. Electoral preference could be attained when persuading the electorate with a multitude of communication. Second of all, it is imperative to educate the general public how a candidate shall govern if he/she were elected. Voters are capable of deciding which candidate to support in the primary and general election when those voters are educated. Last of all, the dialogue in the candidate debates should be substantive for healthy discourse that the general public would listen to. This dialogue would refer to public policy positions and governing on the behalf of the general public. This adds up to one conclusion; the diverse populations in the country should be solicited by this political party for his/her vote to win the general election campaigns during the election year.
    After recognizing the fact that the demographic data should always be a factor, then electoral benchmarks should be defined for achievement. One reason is how certain groups vote in elections for their preference candidates to the elective office. Younger voters and ethnic non-Caucasian voters prefer Democratic candidates while older voters and Caucasian voters prefer Republican candidates. Another reason is that relevance is essential and important for any political party to survive to govern in any capacity. The repulsion of younger and ethnic non-Caucasian voters could relegate the Republican Party to irrelevance, minority status, or extinction. A final reason is that the electoral arithmetic has to be factored in to yield a favorable result for any political party. The electoral arithmetic that should be factored in is how much votes should be earned from segments of the electorate on a percentage basis to win. In summary, this information allows the demographic data to be factored in to guarantee electoral achievement.
    Electoral benchmarks should be focused on the diversity of the nation and inclusion to be respectful of all people in the nation. On one hand, there is the contribution of ethnic non-Caucasian voters and other groups to the nation. Ethnic non-Caucasian voters and other groups should be recognized for their respective contributions to the nation. Ethnic non-Caucasians and other groups should be recognized general for their contributions in the history of this nation. On another hand, inclusion requires that the rhetoric and language be oriented to the fact that many groups are welcome. This universal language of inclusion would be race-neutral, gender-neutral, and age-neutral. Lastly, the diversity of the nation should be recognized by visiting those communities to earn electoral support. Candidates should visit the various non-Caucasian neighborhoods whose electoral precincts are favorable to the Democratic Party. This entire information should be deduced as the general recognition of diversity and inclusion requires healthy dialogue for intellectual discourse.
    The exponential demographic evolution in this nation will relegate the Republican Party to a permanent minority party if the present electoral strategy does not adapt to the evolving demographic profile of the United States. Initially, one could rationally deduce from the twenty-third decennial census (2010) that the national demographic profile is projected to become a majority-minority nation by the middle of the 21st Century (2042). The United States Census forecasts that Caucasians will no longer be a national racial majority after 2040 when the nation attains majority-minority status. The term majority-minority status refers to a geographic jurisdiction whose Caucasian population is less than 50 percent of the total population. Next, one could observe that various municipalities, counties, and states have majority-minority status based on the derived twenty-third decennial census data. The States of California, New Mexico, Texas, and Hawaii have majority-minority status. States such as Maryland, Georgia, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, and Louisiana have Caucasian populations of less than 60 percent and therefore Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas could become permanent Democratic strongholds when Caucasians are no longer the majority of the population (majority-minority status) and/or electorate. Eleven percent of the counties of the nation have majority-minority status and another seven percent of the counties would transition to majority-minority status by the 2020 census. The majority-minority counties vote Democratic in presidential elections. All territories of the United States that don’t vote in general presidential elections such as Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico have majority-minority status. Presently, the 13 of the 40 largest metropolitan areas have majority-minority status. Children of color are the majority in the ten states of California (55), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), Arizona (11), Texas (38), Florida (29), Georgia (16), Hawaii (4), Mississippi (6), and Maryland (10). By 2019, non-Anglo children or ethnic children of color will be majority of the total child population in the nation. But most conclusive is the demographic profile of this nation. By 2015, more than 50 percent of the children will be non-Anglo ethnically. As a result, the exponential evolving demographic national profile should not be disregarded or ignored by the Republican Party or otherwise the repercussions would be incurred by the party itself for permanent minority status.
    The Future Majority Project is an initiative of the Republican State Leadership Committee to recruit candidates of ethnic color for elective office. To initiate this discussion, the Future Majority Caucus plans to recruit female and ethnic colored candidates for public office. This purpose of this objective is to have candidates that reflect the demographic profile of the nation. To continue this discussion, it is imperative to note that the composition of the advisory board is diverse. Governor Susana Martinez (R-NM) and Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NV) are the honorary members of this advisory board. To conclude this discussion, the Future Majority Caucus intends to visit ethnic colored communities to earn the votes of those precincts in addition to recruiting female and colored ethnic candidates. It is imperative for the Future Majority Caucus to exist to expand the demographic coalition of the Republican Party by visiting ethnic colored communities for acquiring the precinct votes in addition to recruiting female and ethnic colored candidates. In summary, it is appropriate for the RSLC to have the Future Majority Caucus expand the demographic coalition of the Republican Party to conform to the evolving demographic profile of this nation, which is identified as the coalition of the ascendant.

  27. Scott says:

    @Truevoice –
    @Daren –

    I acknowledge I do not know what it is like. At the same time I think the Democratic Party is pandering and doing nothing for anyone except possibly the unions who demand payment for votes delivered.

    I do believe a policy of equality is essential. I do not feel the Democrats believe in that. I feel they think minorities are like beloved pets; taken care of, fed well, and the smarter ones counted on to guard the sheep.

    Once upon a time our ancestors spouted the ideal of equality. Neither major party is now. I think a FEW Conservatives – as opposed to Republicans – are espousing true equality in all things.

    I am taking CBC as Conservative Black Chick, not Republican Black Chick.

    The point about the dead greek and frenchie was that crowds can be manipulated into doing rotten evil things. Obama is a great manipulator of crowds. But I do not think he is helping black people, white people or anyone outside of his Illinois political machine.

    As for dealing with the present. I am for killing the Republican Party and starting over with true Conservative Principles, not the crap being sold by Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and Palin.

  28. Scott says:

    @Truevoice –
    1 – my point was the use of hysteria to control crowds. Note I mentioned Bush and Patriot Act as well as Obama.
    2 – economies move slowly in response to things other than who is president. I conceded several articles ago that markets under Democratic Presidents have done better than under Republicans. THAT is a fact.
    3 – 9-11, really in every discussion?
    4 – Patterson post: He decries pandering and suggests the goals of the groups are different from those of “Old White Men.” I cannot tell if he thinks their goals are subsidies or freedom and self-reliance or what.

    My goal and belief is in Rationality, Freedom, Self-Reliance and Equal Opportunity and status for all: Something I thought (to some degree still think) Republicans stood for. Apparently, as an “insider” in that group, I did not see the limited definition. But I bought the program.

    You see dead set on stating how anti-black the Republicans are, but remember the civil rights movement started effectively under Eisenhower – remember Central High, Little Rock 1957? I think Ike saw in Germany the real results of bigotry and hatred and realized he had to at least allow change in the USA. I have read black commentators who felt that change was coming long before MLK became well-known.

  29. Scott says:

    @daren sorry you don’t understand the difference between ideas and the people who spout them. Do you know who Robespierre and Socrates were?

    read what @GoodMojo said. I have perceived the same thing, but as a white guy could not say it, as I have not experience much discrimination.

  30. Scott says:

    RE: what are Republicans offering vs Democrats?

    At its most basic level, I think the Republicans offer Rule of Law vs Tyranny of the Mob. Two great instances of pure Democracy were: the French Revolution where people were guillotined simply because they were not in total agreement with the current mob. (think Robespierre); and ancient Athens where the mob killed Socrates (among others) for basically asking questions or simply not succeeding at their job.

    I think Democrats offer rule of whatever the majority and loudest want now, even if it is unfair to some. Orwell’s “Animal Farm” comes to mind.

    Blacks have seen “Rule of Law” implemented by people with an agenda. Evil. As an apartment owner, I am seeing “Rule of Law” with an agenda toward the tenant. Limited example, but not so good either.

    Which is better? I submit Rule of Law: it takes too long for individual injustices, but it allows right and wrong to be worked out. Tyranny of the mob does not. Tyranny of Mobs allows demagogues to manipulate the crowd and ignore laws and in the end freedoms and opportunities. (Kind of like the current administrations(!) in Washington. Note how Bush used 9-11 to push the Patriot Act and how Obama is using the Connecticut massacre to try to control guns.)

    Republicans offer a great product with terrible salesmen. And in the past, the product has not been delivered. Democrats offer a terrible product with demagoguery and manipulation. But they have delivered nothing beyond rhetoric either.

  31. Wes says:

    @ Noel
    I wasn’t compelled to post under this topic until I clicked on the Malcolm X link. If I understand your assertion that the democrats aren’t helping the blacks correctly and agree with that assertion, then how are you going to convince me that the republicans have, offer and attempt to provide something better?

    Most of the complaints I have with the democrats are indeed infecting the republicans. It sounds like you want me to go catch the flu in order to get rid of the cold I have. I apologize if I misconstrued the tone of your note, but this is what I think I am hearing.

  32. GoodMojo says:

    @truevoice, and others…

    Whenever I see posts such as a few i’ve read here, I usually wonder, “Why do these Black people hate Black people so much?”; “Why are their expectations of Black people so low?”; and most troublingly, “Why does the ‘Black Community’ remain excitedly mired in those low expectations?”

    I’m a black man who grew out of youthful, naive, liberalism, and into conservatism. It didn’t happen overnight, but over a number of years. It was nothing so sudden as an epiphany, but a realization that, over that same course of time, I recognized that certain choices I made, tended to make my life better, and other choices made my life worse. I saw that replicated (To varying degrees…) in just about everyone I came in contact with.

    I went through periods of denial, in which I blamed my every temporary bad circumstance on anyone, and everyone but myself. Eventually, it became clear (Even to hard-headed me…) that, if I desired a better circumstance, I had to take full responsiblility for my actions, my inactions, and my results. This understanding informs my opinions to this day.

    In short: There is no family member or friend, there is no group or association, there is no guru or program, there is ‘no politician or party’, that can fix what ails a person, group, or ‘community’, that can overcome “the ailings’ habitual poor choices.

    The Democrat party of today takes the Black vote for granted. Indeed, why shouldn’t they? After decades of fighting to preserve and expand the evil institution of slavery, (Thereby enhancing their own collective comfort and power). After decades of ‘Jim Crow’ (Thereby enforcing the legal and social inferiority of Blacks). After decades of actual ‘suppression’ of the Black vote, (Thereby maintaining virtual mathematical superiority at the polls). After decades of intimidation by their ‘enforcement arms’ of The KKK, and The White Citizens Council, just to name a couple (Thereby stamping out any possibllity of the ‘hope and change’ the ‘colored folk’ needed). The “Black Community” still stumbles inexorably toward the ballot box, like a zombie apocalypse in seach of more brains, anxious to vote for the latest, or next Democrat to fail us all.

    The Democrats do pay a price for such slavish devotion: Social programs and ‘optics’. The lowest possible cost with which to buy a vote. They have now spent decades promoting policies that have damaged families, in particular the Black family. The results of their ‘good intentions’ are horrific, but that doesn’t matter. They did have ‘good intentions’, remember? From the euphemistic “abortion”, which devalues human life to the point some are convinced no babies are being murdered; to “welfare programs” that told women they could not have a man in their house and receive assistance, to child support laws that seeked to reign in “deadbeat dads” (They deserve their own diatribe.) that further reduced the role of a Black father to that of a piggy bank. (No real fathering necessary.)

    Those same welfare programs are set up with no strict consequences for abusing the assistance, so rarely is a person required to meet standards of conduct similar to those a person who holds an actual job meets as a matter of course. Perhaps more damaging, if that is possible, there is rarely a point at which a person is expected to have prepared themselves to be self-supporting. The programs never end. Since allowing someone else to expend effort is very easy, it’s no wonder so many have fallen into the Democrat “traps.”

    Democrats also take advantage of many Black citizens willing to look good while they are failing. This embrace of mediocrity and failure wrapped in fancy clothes, and shiny cars, is a detestable at it’s very best. At it’s worst, it has caused Black citizens to elect black leadership, then hold them to no discernible stadards of performance, or conduct. The Black community has been bought off and pandered to for so long, anyone who doesn’t pander is seen as the enemy. Vile and vicious attacks invariably ensue.

    In closing, I urge the “Black Community”, such as it is, to stop supporting unqualified, or unscrupulous politicians to throw you bones, in a weakening social and economic environment. I further ask that they stop demanding Republicans, or conservatives layout some social buffet with a “Blacks Only” sign on it. Instead, demand positive results from all.

    We should demand more from ourselves, from each other, and from our elected representation. By results, I don’t mean “more free stuff for Black people”; or advantages that “The White Man” dare not expect, I mean “Leaders” whose knowledge of history, business, economics, and human nature, have prepared them to create an environment where freedom and free enterprise do what they do best: Create opportunities for people of all descriptions to maximize themselves.

    When you search for leaders, investigate them, and if they have a voting record, check it. Have they ever run a business? Have they ever had decision making responsibility for a large group of people? Do they respect you? or do they just want to buy another vote from you? Do they believe in your innate abilities to succeed, if you are motivated, and the government would stay out of your way?

    If you find such a person, they may be a man or a woman, they may be Black, White, Latino, or Asian. There is little telling what cosmetic attributes such a person may possess. The important things will prove to be the prepodurance of the choices they have made.

    In today’s climate, it very unlikely that person will be Democrat. It is becoming increasingly unlikely that person will be an “establishment Republican”. It is more likely that person will be a conservative.

    “Just say ‘no’ to pandering”.

  33. Noel says:

    ……and listen to what Malcolm X said about White liberals; in regards to exploiting the black vote.

    Google: Malcolm X Speaks on History of Politics in the U.S.

  34. Noel says:

    @truevoice

    Malcolm X said Black Democrats were “political chumps” and “Traitors” to their race…..and it’s still true today.

    Google it; Malcolm X on Democrats.
    Or search YouTube and hear him say this, if you haven’t heard it already:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYVv4LY_KQ

  35. […] Stupid and the RNC’s Outreach Plan A VIDEO is the extent of the RNC’s plan of outreach to blacks. We’re fucked. […]

  36. Jeff Turner says:

    @truevoice….

    Good points. I think the Republicans came somewhat close to winning considering the badly flawed candidate, and all the goodies that President Obama can and did give away. I am a Conservative first and a Republican because the Rep. Party supports more of the things (not all) that I support. I would love to see Colin Powell as a candidate for President (I would vote for him in a heartbeat) but Mrs,. Powell said NO.

    I agree with you voter supression is stupid, BUT if a voter is not able to organize themselves to obtain a Photo ID with 6 months notice, then they do not need to be voting for the most powerful person in the world. Also, things are no better for Black Americans since President Obama was elected, in fact they are worse (except the President’s skin is black). So if things are worse for Black Americans after 4 years, how did Obama get 93% of the vote of Black Americans? How do you argue with that poor logic?

  37. The problem is the east coast Washington insider types live in world all there own. I am not one to dwell too much on race, skin tone is a flimsy excuse to divide up human beings. The fact is people do vary by culture, those that ignore this fact end up looking like fools. The Tea Party (despite all the racist accusations) has brought in a lot of good new blood into the party, including Mia Love (love the name and love her message). Using these emissaries of conservatism would seem to be common sense, unfortunately common sense is one of the things those breathing the thin air of Washington politics seem to lack.

  38. I think that recruiting courting and exploiting a certain minority group to make sure that your political party is put into power is very very wrong and you may want to do some self-reflection. What you should be doing is recruiting individuals whose ideals, morals and beliefs align with yours. Let’s face it the Republican Party’s beliefs and agenda do not coincide with this new “target group” identified by republicans. It doesn’t help that old white men dominant the party, It doesn’t help that old white men are the majority of the party and although minorities do exist they a few and far between. Why is this? Their beliefs are fundamentally different. What the majority of old white men want is different than the majority of Hispanics, African Americans, Asians and women. For instance on the issue of Abortion blacks being about 13 percent of the American population have nearly 37 percent of the national total of abortions, Hispanics are around 16 percent of the American population but are around 22 percent national total of abortions whites being about 64 percent of the population but having only 52 percent of abortions, oh not to mention they are women having them not men. So you just lost a lot vote on abortion alone, or shall we do statistics on welfare and who uses it? There are many other examples. It requires a compromise of the fundamentals of the Republican Party’s ideas, not a change in the message or who is delivering the message or where they are delivering the message.

  39. Scott says:

    OK racism then seems to be the primary issue for some here. Other conservative values are taken to be less important or maybe even unimportant until racism is eliminated.

    I cannot defend the overt criminal racism of the past. I cannot defend voter suppression. These things are flat wrong. And I acknowledge that racism exists today in the white community and in the others, too. Try walking into an upscale Japanese jewelry store in Honolulu dressed in middle class clothes! That was an eye opener!

    But I wonder how much racism is really “class-ism”?? And I don’t think whites have a lock on that! Given that our society is descended from European cultures, it is easy to see that going on. In every European country aristocrats looked down their noses at the peons. Europeans then extended that attitude toward anyone who did not share skin color.

    Do you think the Africans who captured and sold the other Africans who ended up as slaves here and the Middle East were guilty of racism? Or were they just businessmen making a profit? or What?

    I would ask then whether at least some whites have gotten past skin color and seen that some Blacks, etc have the skills and attitudes to reach the highest levels.

    There is a hierarchy in all society. I have had the levels pointed out to me within the local black community, and I certainly see it in the white community.

    I wonder if, to a large degree, the racism is an easy trump card being used to promote some leaders who have little else to offer after rallies for equality. In other words, they don’t seem to have significant solutions to the problems.

    To me, the exploits of Jackie Robinson, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Stephon Alexander, April Savoy, and Don Thompson do more to destroy racism than all the harangues of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. The aforementioned people are all admired by even some of my most bigoted friends.

    I wonder if racism will end. I have to think it will be reduced a lot when minorities get equal education and compete on an equal basis in all walks of life.

    Addressing CBC’s post: Republicans are only offering window dressing. They need to offer the crux of gaining equality: equal education and not just the mirage of education.

  40. Scott says:

    I have come to recognize there is a difference between Republicans and Conservatives. But I do not understand exactly what it is that Blacks, Latinos and Orientals and others want. What is it about the “blacks who do not realize they are black” that offends some in the black community? And who are they?

    CBC seems to be saying that Republicans have taken a butt whoopin’ and now are trying to change. But that they are only making superficial changes. Having heard Eric Cantor on CNBC this AM, I am concerned she may be right.

    I believe there is a base of Conservative people who believe all should be treated equally. Unfortunately, they (we?) are contaminated by groups who support a few conservative ideas and many radical prejudices.

  41. James says:

    The main mistake Republicans make is that they actually think symbolic moves will accomplish the job here. More black speakers at the convention, three Latinos in office instead of one. Most people are actually smart enough to figure out that symbolism with no substance behind it is kind of insulting.

    The bottom line is about the base. The GOP base consists of good ole southern white people and a few token blacks (who think they are white) who are terrified of losing their skin privilege in Barack Obama’s America. Even if Priebus and a few other Republicans are sincere in their efforts, the minute they start to take steps that are anything but symbolic and that are aimed specifically at trying to win over African Americans or Latinos, the base will howl to the moon.Whatever they might say publicly, they really won’t actually try to win more minority votes. Why? Because the positions the party would have to embrace to win minority votes are abhorrent to the GOP base. Which, you may have noticed, is kind of racist.

  42. Brian D says:

    Why aren’t they talking to J.C. Watts? Or Herman Cain? Or Condi Rice?
    Because the RNC is run by rinos’ from the Bush power base. They are not interested in Conservatives. They have moved from Reagan Conservatism to Bush Moderates.
    I am a Reaganite. I am a Libertarian. I did not leave the Republican party, they left me.

  43. Scott says:

    Spot on, exactly right. Jeff Turners comments also hit something very true: Republicans continue to hand the Democrats ammunition. Perhaps the Republicans just carry too much baggage, and are too accessible to extreme groups.

    It kind of hit me today when my 7-year old grandson was asking me about MLK and Jackie Robinson. His magnificent question was, “why were white people so mean?” My only defense was that long ago most people acted that way, American whites just kept it going longer. Democrats have effectively saddled Republicans with that burden. Republican ongoing emphasis on taxes just proves their point.

    It sounds to me that, if the Republican Party is to merit further support, it should openly have a platform stating that racism equals ignorance, religious intolerance equals ignorance, and intruding on a personal aspect of a citizens life is intolerable. Business is important but moral behavior is more important. All citizens have a right to voice their opinion by voting. Republicans must embrace the Declaration of Independence and Constitution fully, not just the parts they like.

    As a perhaps naive conservative, I have long felt the Republicans offer many virtues. Reading in this blog has been an eye-opener in some ways. While I think some of the those commenting are shrill, repetitious and closed-minded, with an agenda of being destructive; there is also a group which is looking for answers and is not accepting the whole simplistic, emotional based answers of the Democrats.

    CBC makes me think that if the Republicans cannot forcefully emphasize these ideas, conservatives need another forum.

  44. JEFF TURNER says:

    Very true and very good points.

    The RNC should be able to do better. We must find a candidate that can voice the conservative message. Mitt Romney was a nice enough guy, but he could not do that. We almost won with the wrong candidate. Probably he was the best of the bunch, maybe. The vote of Black Americans will be very hard to remove from the Democratic clutches. The statement by Gov. Jindhal was very “stupid”. Talk about handing the Democrats a juicy sound-bite, how stupid. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. He should not be the Republican candidate in 2016.

Leave a Reply