RPOF courts black vote in Orlando

Gov. Charlie Crist chats with former pro football great Lynn Swann, left, and Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams at a state Republican Party conference on minority voter outreach in Orlando on Friday. Crist and other state GOP leaders say they are serious about increasing black voter registration in the Republican Party. AP Photo/Bill Cotterell.

Comments

special guests include trent lott, strom thurmond, james east, jesse helms, etc., etc., etc................

what ajoke!!

the once-proud party of lincoln has become the refuge for racists of all sorts and kinds!!

Why was this meeting held on Friday in the middle of the day instead of on the weekend when more people could have attended?

Is Peter Boulware there? He is a great representative of African-American membership in the GOP.

[FS Tate]

The first comment is so very typical of elite white Democrats who become so HATEFUL when black voters are not totally submissive to White Democratic Party masters, or worse if black voters leave the White Democratic Party Plantation for the Republican Party.

Reminds me of 1866 until the early 1960s when the KKK and the White Democrats lynched more than 3,000 people (2,000 black and 1,000 white, almost all of the 3,000 being Republicans).

Blacks may wonder why fellow blacks are Republicans, BUT they are never HATEFUL of their fellow blacks for being Republicans, ONLY White Democrats are hateful of blacks who are Republicans.

For those ignorant of the history of the KKK, it was started by the Democratic Party in 1866 and it lynched Republicans, black and white Republicans. The only role that Republicans had in lynching was being lynched (in being killed by White Democrats).

They better be courting someone as they've abandoned their base and a lot of long-time Republicans will be staying home next election.

8:16, name your history book references, please

5:11 / 9:01 -You name your sources first. Fool!

Swann: Yes, Governor, what they say about black men is true. Like this...

You think the Rs are racists? How come the Ds are NOT coming out for Obama?

[FS Tate]

8:16 AM post

For reference material about the KKK and the Democratic Party start with any or all of the following books:

A Short History of Reconstruction
by Eric Foner

Unfounded Loyalty
By Rev. Wayne Perryman

Back To Basics For The Republican Party
By Michael Zak

BAMBOOZLED
by Angela McGlowan

Of course the Elite white Democrats will refuse to read any of these books or anything else that provides them facts about the history of their White Democratic Party.

[An Independent]

Gee, the party that appointed the Supreme Court Justices that ruled this year that while the law under Brown v. Board holds that racism is inherently evil, the new Roberts doctrine amends Brown by adding, "but it is unconstitutional to consider race when formulating remedies to the evil consequences of racism." How stupid is that?

So, while the Republicans appoint ideological judges to remake the Constitution rolling back the progress made in the last half century, they expect African-Americans to vote for them? How stupid is that?

Remember that in 1876, Blacks voted and even served in Congress. By 1905, the Supreme Court had ruled that Blacks could be excluded from one party state political processes because--does this sound familiar, they were private groups. The haters' views prevailed politically and were chiseled into the law by judges appointed by politicians beholden to the haters--oh, I'm sorry, it wasn't hate it was "tradition."

The pendulum is now swinging to reverse the legal progress brought on by the Civil Rights Movement and judges appointed by Republican politicians beholden to ideological zealots are paying back political debts in the currency of human rights.

[An Independent]

Gee, the party that appointed the Supreme Court Justices that ruled this year that while the law under Brown v. Board holds that racism is inherently evil, the new Roberts doctrine amends Brown by adding, "but it is unconstitutional to consider race when formulating remedies to the evil consequences of racism." How stupid is that?

So, while the Republicans appoint ideological judges to remake the Constitution rolling back the progress made in the last half century, they expect African-Americans to vote for them? How stupid is that?

Remember that in 1876, Blacks voted and even served in Congress. By 1905, the Supreme Court had ruled that Blacks could be excluded from one party state political processes because--does this sound familiar, they were private groups. The haters' views prevailed politically and were chiseled into the law by judges appointed by politicians beholden to the haters--oh, I'm sorry, it wasn't hate it was "tradition."

The pendulum is now swinging to reverse the legal progress brought on by the Civil Rights Movement and judges appointed by Republican politicians beholden to ideological zealots are paying back political debts in the currency of human rights.

- "it is unconstitutional to consider race" ... because all men are created equalk and therefore must be treated equally under the law. Only a rank racist would want to treat "the poor little black children" differently on the inherently racist proposition that they cannot make it on their own merits.

- "in 1876, Blacks voted and even served in Congress" - and most if not all were Republicans.

And by the way - Jim Crow was a Democrat.

What is hapenning is that as black people take their rightful place in society as equal citizens, they look arorund and balk at being stigmatized by the inherent racism and prejudice of low expectations.

Smell that white and black Dems? It's the scent of smart, thoughtful and inherently American black folks actually thinking and acting for themselves, based on what they individually believe in and hold true.

Now,...I expect to hear more from the "some of my best friends are black" white libs about how awful this must be - the whole Black Republican thing. But, I DARE those of you in the "blacker than thou" camp, who are stuck in the land of monolithic thinking, to jump through your keyboard and take away my black card/call me Oreo or sellout...you know the routine. Come out, come out wherever you are.

[An Independent]

It wasn't unconstitutional to consider race in formulating remedies to racial hate and the discrimination that still today exists in America until the Roberts opinion earlier this year.

It isn't unconstitutional to consider whether or not individuals are poor when formulating solutions to poverty, nor is it unconstitutional to consider prior service in the military when considering veterans issues. It isn't unconstitutional to consider where someone lives when considering his zoning request. The age of people is considered when senior citizen benefits are considered. The disability of individuals is relevant to disability policy. "Created equalness" doesn't blind and constitutionally bind the government in any area other than when formulating remedies to racial discrimination.

The only class of Americans who cannot seek remedies imposed on them because of membership in a class are the victims of Robert's doctrine--victims also of racial discrimination.

"Created equal" is only cause for encumbering government when it seeks to assist the victims of racism. How neutral and "colorblind" is that?

The new constitutional doctrine of the Republican appointed Supreme Court is both irrational and placed to ensure the perpetuation of the effects of hatefulness. It is payback for political support from "conservatives" who oppose civil rights progress.

Your "colorblindness" is ain't so blind, nor is it benevolently neutral.

Politics is just an entertaining game between two teams. The teams organize themselves around attitudes--attitudes that in turn impose themselves into law and sometimes create victims--or more properly refuse any aide for the Americans who are still victimized by racial hate.

If you think the Roberts doctrine (race can't be considered when formulating remedies to racism) is rational then I need do no more than point to you and say to my fellow Americans who happen to be Black, "Look out! That guy is why racism is a problem today and will worsen if you vote for his party."

Jim Crow was Democratic, but--alas, that is a half century past. As soon as the Civil Rights movement started showing success, The Republican Party started pandering to racists with its so called "Southern Strategy" --purposeful exploitation of hate for political advantage.

Not that I don't think the race coin couldn't flip between the parties in the future again, but for the time being, I don't see how African Americans can vote for the party of Chief Justice Roberts and people who apply "created equal" only when it works against Blacks.

It'd be cool if both parties were neutral on civil rights issues, but they ain't. Votes matter. People shouldn't shoot themselves in the foot with their own vote.

[zenator]

Independent:

We have made the decision as a society to accept the values embodied in the 14th Amendment, which, by its plain language, prohibits the state from discriminating against a person on the basis of "race." The blanket prohibition against racial discrimination is offended whether the person subject to racial discrimination is black, white, yellow or pink.

Brown v. Board does not state otherwise. Rather, that decision rejected the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine finding that by definition separate is not equal. Judge Robert's recent decisions are wholly consistent with the rational of Brown v. Board. State sponsored discrimination on the basis of race is by definition racial discrimination.

I will pray for you sick people!

People like Independent are just sooo guilt ridden. Medication might help allieviate that, but they need to recogize the illness for what it is.

[FS Tate]

For "Independent" and other guilt ridden White Democrats, read some or all of the following books about the history of your White Democratic Party and be less ignorant of the basic facts.

A Short History of Reconstruction
by Eric Foner

Unfounded Loyalty
By Rev. Wayne Perryman

Back To Basics For The Republican Party
By Michael Zak

BAMBOOZLED
by Angela McGlowan

[An Independent]

zenator

So for you the 14th Amendment requires that we try to remedy the consequence of racial discrimination without considering race? It's like a ship captain saying, "Let's save the ship, but let us do it without considering all the water inside the hull."

How can you deal with racial discrimination if you are legal bound from considering the fact that races exist--that individuals have different races that somehow invite very evil of discrimination?

Assume with me for a second that racial discrimination still occurs in America and that it has hurtful effects on some Americans. When those injuries gets brought up in the political process, the Robert's rule is that you can't consider race when you are talking about remedying the discrimination. Isn't that really a second case of racial discrimination? This time by the government?

Let's be honest. Isn't the Robert's doctrine just a statement that government is out of the business of protecting individuals from racial discrimination? The Robert's doctrine doesn't just apply to busing--it is a constitutional doctrine applying to all government interventions to remedy the effects of racial discrimination.

On what other issue does anybody try to fix a problem by requiring themselves to put on a blindfold so they can't see the problem?

Why doesn't the same mechanical rule you propose as the 14th Amendment apply to age discrimination, or religious discrimination, discrimination based on national origin, discrimination against the poor or the rich?

To be consistent (to treat equally), doens't yours and Robert's definition of "equal treatment" require that solutions to the other types of discrimination be formulated without reference to the victims ages, religions, national origins or economic circumstances? Doesn't your view of the 14th Amendment take government out of all those areas of policy making?

Naw, Mr.zenator, you and I know it is only about race.

Roberts isn't even going to pretend his doctrine touches those kids of victims.

The Robert's doctrine is irrational--since is requires self-blinding, and is yet another instance of racial discrimination. The only kinds of victims it touches are victims of racial discrimination.

The Constitution should not require us to ignore reality. "Ignore race when considering remedies to racial discrimination" would be hilarious if we were not treating it as a credible intellectual product. "Separate but equal" sounded useful at the time, but it suffers from the same flaw as the Robert's doctrine--it was complete at variance with reality.

The purpose of "Separate but equal" was actually to protect inequality, just as the purpose of the Robert doctrine is not to create equality but to stop any government attempts to remedy inequality.

The two doctrines share irrationality and actual purposes opposite to the effects they claim(ed) to serve.

Jim Crow used doctrines of states' rights and limited federal jurisdiction to protect legal segregation. Robert's new doctrine is both broader in scope and more focused in expressed purpose than anything James Eastland ever knew. The Robert's doctrine is absolute in its reach, while discretely focused on racial discrimination. There is no pretense that it is about federalism or jurisdiction.

Any American, of any race, who votes to elect a Republican president that will appoint Justices like Roberts and the majority that backed him (all put on the bench by Republican presidents) must in my opinion believe there is no need for courts or the legislatures to further address racial discrimination in America. A vote for a Republican president is a vote for the doctrine that race cannot be considered when addressing racial discrimination.

Of course, any Republican candidate could just get on record on this issue--denounce the Robert's doctrine and commit himself to appointing judges who would reverse the decision.

Not one of the Republican candidates will do it--and for the same reason not one Democrat needs to: because the varied constituencies expect to be served on this issue when a president next appoints to the Supreme Court. Millions of votes are at stake, so it is by common consent between the candidates a non-issue in the election.

It should not be a non-issue for voters though. Unlike Roberts, we have to live outside the marble halls of the court.
We should expect our laws to be rational and our values should act to keep driving racial discrimination out of American life.

[zenator]

Indie:

Sorry, but you are missing the point. The 14th Amendment is not intended to prevent racism. It is intended to operate as a limitation on state action.

Thus, by way of example, the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from interfering with the ability of the members of the KKK to assemble and exercise their right of free speech to advance their racist agenda.

You, me and hopefully most citizens disagree with the views of the KKK and we too have the right to express that disagreement free of state interference.

[FS Tate]

Concerning the "Indie" comment: The 14th amendment to the US Constitution is NOT about prohibiting the states from interfering with the KKK, rather it is about equal protection being extended to black Americans.

Please remember that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the US Constitution were written by Republicans and passed by Republicans (with very few or no Democrats)in the US Congress after the American Civil War. These amendments were added to end slavery and discrimination by white Democrats (to include the KKK) against black Americans.

Tate, you can't just gesticulate at the history of the Democratic Party without bringing any hint of contemporary realities into the discussion. Since you're keen to recommend books, here is one for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Republicans-Black-Vote-Michael-Fauntroy/dp/158826470X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195522967&sr=8-2

And a video of the author discussing shifts in the parties' racial politics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te4B7T6iE7Y

[Pretty dumb but....]

zenator:

You make my point for me. If the 14th Amendment is about limiting state action by ensuring equal protection to individuals, why is it that only in the area of racial discrimination is the status of the victim an equal protection concern?

The 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit the state from considering individual's relevant characteristics when formulating remedies to discrimination based on age, religion or national origin. Nor does the 14th Amendment's equal protection language limit government from considering individuals' characteristics when passing out government benefits.

The Roberts doctrine discriminates between types of victims--only applying to citizens victimized because of their race. The Roberts doctrine itself is racial discrimination.

Constitutional doctrines--especially those serving equal protection, are supposed to apply to all citizens equally.

If Robert's doctrine that the state can't consider the individual characteristic of citizen when setting policy was applied to all state actions, individuals who hadn't served in the military would be qualified for veterans benefits because their personal characteristic of not having served could not be constitutionally considered when establishing eligibility policies; nor would it be possible to consider age when determining qualification for Social Security benefits.

These examples are absurd, but why isn't it just as absurd to apply the same reasoning to disadvantage of the victims of racial discrimination?

Robert's doctrine is irrational and only aimed at victims of racial discrimination--mostly African Americans. What a surprise!

It is clever and and fancy, but it is nothing more than another instance of racial discrimination by government directed at Blacks. Worse, it is enshrined in the Constitution. Busing may or may not be a bad idea, but fixing it shouldn't require new constitutional laws--unless, of course, the politicians want it done without their fingerprints on it.

The Roberts doctrine is a service done for the race haters among us, who want government out of the business of interfering with racial discrimination. There are millions of them--even at this late date.

I think politicians like Charlie Crist, and the Bush Brothers are a different from those of earlier times who tolerated or even expounded overt racism. But I also think they pander for votes and will deliver to their "conservative" constituents on race issues--when it can be done cleverly and non-overtly: meaning through the courts.

They'll hold the base: the first rule of winning elections. The Solid South is Republican today and mostly because of race; just as it was once Democratic for the same reason.

Who are we? Who are you?

We'll never overcome this hateful national heritage by closing our eyes to it.

That's why I can't imagine any American who believes racism is still a problem in America voting for Republicans candidates for the Presidency who will appoint federal judges like Roberts and his ilk. If they'd appoint other judges, I'd vote for them because I am

An Independent