Frameshop: A Picture of the GOP on Civil Rights

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm challenging the study.

I've Googled. Can't find one example of a black person currently making 75% of a white counterpart in the same, exact job.

Oh, you've googled it, well that that must mean that you're right. Besides, I didn't do the study, so you might want to look to those who did, and you know those people that actually do that sort of thing for a living.

So, when are you going to name a member of my church?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Bingo. Absolutely no reason to go into THAT environment

Talk to the Urban League. No reason to talk to the NACCP

Wait, I thought if the future President can't handle Fox News then they have no business being President....shouldn't the same apply here?

[UncleBen]

I'm challenging the study.

I've Googled. Can't find one example of a black person currently making 75% of a white counterpart in the same, exact job.

Locally, is it the Federal Gov't? FedEx? Pepco? McDonalds? Household Finance? Nationwide? The Caps?

Please, demonstrate just one example. Anywhere in the country. Out of the thousands of different jobs and industries.

There's no way the number you're quoting can be accurate. Any smart businessman(person) would hired only black people and save 25% on his/her payroll. At that rate I'd easily underprice my racist competitors and monopolize the market. Of course, as a monopolist I'd be another liberal bugaboo.

[Mooney]

There's no way the number you're quoting can be accurate. Any smart businessman(person) would hired only black people and save 25% on his/her payroll. At that rate I'd easily underprice my racist competitors and monopolize the market.

Exactly.

[twa]

Bingo. Absolutely no reason to go into THAT environment

Talk to the Urban League. No reason to talk to the NACCP

Perhaps the Urban League could persuade the Reps to debate with them as sponsors.

Since the Dem's can't find time.

Interesting stat on the NAACP...if true

only 1 in 72 blacks are NAACP members. That's only 1.4% of the Black population,and it's membership has not grown since the 40's .

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921123_mz021.htm

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Bingo. Absolutely no reason to go into THAT environment

Talk to the Urban League. No reason to talk to the NACCP

Exactly. Be strong where you can be strong and avoid those places where you are not strong unless absolutely necessary. The only thing that would have come out of that debate was a plethora of soundbites taken totally out of context and edited to sound like something totally different than what the speaker actually said. There was not a single vote to be gained for any of those candidates by attending that debate

[Burgold]

Yup, because walking around with blinders and ignoring every weakness you have is surely the way to solve problems and make things better.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Wait, I thought if the future President can't handle Fox News then they have no business being President....shouldn't the same apply here?

One is a "mainstream" media outlet. Does it have a bias? Certainly. But you can't avoid the mainstream media

The other was as MSF put simply an ambush. No reason at all to go to an organization that is so lock in step with the Democratic party when you have other black organizations to go that will actually listen to you

Like I said, it would be as if R prez candidates when to CAIR. There are other far better Muslim organizations to speak to

[Mooney]

Besides, I didn't do the study....

Of course not.

But yours and others, all reasonably intelligent, willingness to accept just about anything for truth, regardless of reality, is both telling and disturbing.

[UncleBen]

I have to say the idea that the NAACP is comparable to FOX News is ridiculous hyperbole.

The Republican debate FOX hosted was impressively well-run. It was fast-paced, challenging, and well-researched. I see no reason a Democrat debate wouldn't be the same.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Yup, because walking around with blinders and ignoring every weakness you have is surely the way to solve problems and make things better.

Burgold... we all know there is no chance that ANY Republican candidate was going to get even a single vote out of attending that debate... can we agree on that?

We also know that there was no chance that the Republican candidates could have gotten a fair and balanced forum when the NAACP is sponsoring the event and that many of the questions would have been worded in such a way to provide soundbites detrimental to the candidate... agreed?

So why the hell would any of these candidates fall into that trap? Some weaknesses can be shorn up. Others can be removed entirely. The anti-Republican sentiments of the NAACP and the majority of citizens who not Caucasian is something that cannot be shorn up or removed. Not until there is a sea change in the NAACP and the beliefs of those citizens. The Republican party and these candidates understand that and apparently are smart enough not to waste their time and money attending this sort of event.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Here is the difference

A Democratic debate on Foxnews would not be hosted by Bill O'Riely and Sean Hannity. If it was, I would boycott it also

A debate would probably be hosted by guys who know their stuff, like Chris Wallace and Britt Hume

If it was a FoxNews debate hosted by the likes of O'Rielly and Hannity, there would be good reason to avoid. But its not

Going to the NAACP with its crooked leadership is like Hillary going on O'Rielly. No reason to at all

[Burgold]

Here's the thing, the NAACP may lay traps for them, but they should be better, especially because the NAACP doesn't want to be too overly blatant. More, and I know you disagree with this, if you're going to be the President of the United States you are the President of the whole United States and so it's important to keep your ears open.

To say it another way, when Martin Luther King Jr. decided to march in Selma, he didn't do so knowing that all the residents would be agreeing with him and throwing rose petals at his feet. He went into a hostile territory where he could challenge predispositions. These candidates ought to dare greatness, not be timid mice running in fear of a biased question.

[UncleBen]

Here's the thing, the NAACP may lay traps for them, but they should be better, especially because the NAACP doesn't want to be too overly blatant. More, and I know you disagree with this, if you're going to be the President of the United States you are the President of the whole United States and so it's important to keep your ears open.

To say it another way, when Martin Luther King Jr. decided to march in Selma, he didn't do so knowing that all the residents would be agreeing with him and throwing rose petals at his feet. He went into a hostile territory where he could challenge predispositions. These candidates ought to dare greatness, not be timid mice running in fear of a biased question.

I guess at least one candidate agrees with you.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Here's the thing, the NAACP may lay traps for them, but they should be better, especially because the NAACP doesn't want to be too overly blatant. More, and I know you disagree with this, if you're going to be the President of the United States you are the President of the whole United States and so it's important to keep your ears open.

To say it another way, when Martin Luther King Jr. decided to march in Selma, he didn't do so knowing that all the residents would be agreeing with him and throwing rose petals at his feet. He went into a hostile territory where he could challenge predispositions. These candidates ought to dare greatness, not be timid mice running in fear of a biased question.

These aren't just hostile enviornments, these are "GOTCHA" moments

Why even bother with that? Like I said, if Hillary went on O'Rielly she would be walking into a bunch of "GOTCHA's"

Speaking to the Urban Leauge, or in the case of D candidates Brit Hume and Chris Wallace is a far better option. You reach that audience that may not agree with your views but you won't be ambushed

[Burgold]

I think that Hillary should never run scared of an O'Reilly either. These guys are going to be negotiating very important issues and they are going to be facing lots of fine print and gotchas. They should be better than partisan hacks. As I said, if these guys want to be Pres. I want them to dare to be great, but more importantly, I don't want them running away or turning a blind eye to any of their constituants.

And that's the major difference. FOX is a broadcaster, not a constituant group. Ignoring the NAACP sends a message. It's not fair, it may not be accurate, but it does.

[UncleBen]

The NAACP is in such lock-step with the Democratic Party they even oppose vouchers despite the fact that the majority of blacks support them. Any debate hosted by them might as well be hosted by the DNC.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Here's the thing, the NAACP may lay traps for them, but they should be better, especially because the NAACP doesn't want to be too overly blatant. More, and I know you disagree with this, if you're going to be the President of the United States you are the President of the whole United States and so it's important to keep your ears open.

BullCrap!!! The NAACP is as blatantly on the side of the Democrats as the SwiftBoats were on the side of the Republicans. Neither group is going to hear a single thing the other side says with any viewpoint other than how they can turn it against the speaker. I think if we're both being honest we can agree on that, right?

Actually, I will agree with part of your statement on the POTUS. I'm a firm believer in keeping my friends close and my enemies even closer, so it is important to hear and see what your enemies are doing, even if you ignore their point of view.

To say it another way, when Martin Luther King Jr. decided to march in Selma, he didn't do so knowing that all the residents would be agreeing with him and throwing rose petals at his feet. He went into a hostile territory where he could challenge predispositions. These candidates ought to dare greatness, not be timid mice running in fear of a biased question.

Mr. King loses a lot of respect in my eyes for the same reason Ghandi does. I think we both know what that is, as I've discussed it before so I'll save us both the time of discussing it again.

[SkinsHokieFan]

And that's the major difference. FOX is a broadcaster, not a constituant group. Ignoring the NAACP sends a message. It's not fair, it may not be accurate, but it does.

I don't think it does when you can simply speak to the Urban Leauge

[Burgold]

I remember reading that since it's creation every President has spoken before the NAACP. Bush broke that chain (I don't know if he ever succumbed), but he was the guy who introduced this idea that is fine to be President to the people who like you and those that don't are the enemy. It's a poor model to follow.

[Burgold]

I don't think it does when you can simply speak to the Urban Leauge

If and when they do that. It would be an interesting statement and fine with me. (By the way, if they have and I don't know about... sorry) Until, they find a place where they can meet the questions and concerns of each population, I think that they are lacking.

[UncleBen]

I remember reading that since it's creation every President has spoken before the NAACP. Bush broke that chain (I don't know if he ever succumbed), but he was the guy who introduced this idea that is fine to be President to the people who like you and those that don't are the enemy. It's a poor model to follow.

Yeah, you're right. His first year in office he did and later that same conference Julian Bond made some sort of ludicrous Nazi reference or something. He skipped a couple years and I think has since gone back to a much more polite reception. I think the NAACP realized they had better treat the POTUS with a bit more respect if they want to hang on to the little bit of credibility they have left.

[twa]

I remember reading that since it's creation every President has spoken before the NAACP. Bush broke that chain (I don't know if he ever succumbed), but he was the guy who introduced this idea that is fine to be President to the people who like you and those that don't are the enemy. It's a poor model to follow.

You make the accusation, yet don't know if he ever did?

C'mon Burgold you're better than that.

It did take him six yrs,but he had a few distractions.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

but he was the guy who introduced this idea that is fine to be President to the people who like you and those that don't are the enemy. It's a poor model to follow.

I'm not sure I understand your train of logic here, Burgold....

It seems to me that you're saying that the POTUS should throw away everything he campaigns on the moment he takes office in order to get the people who DIDN'T vote for him to like him. Am I missing something?, because my comment in his place would be... "They didn't vote for me. They disagree with everything I stand for. Let Them Eat Cake."

[Burgold]

Yeah, you're right. His first year in office he did and later that same conference Julian Bond made some sort of ludicrous Nazi reference or something. He skipped a couple years and I think has since gone back to a much more polite reception. I think the NAACP realized they had better treat the POTUS with a bit more respect if they want to hang on to the little bit of credibility they have left.

You're a bit off. Here's an article.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/18/155606.shtml

Bush to Speak to NAACP for First Time

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:51 p.m. EDT

The White House announced Tuesday that President Bush plans to speak to the NAACP for the first time since taking office, after rejecting the civil rights group's invitations for five straight years.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush decided to speak to the group Thursday because of "a moment of opportunity" for the president to tout his civil rights record and mend fences.

"He has an important role to play, not only in making the case for civil rights, but maybe more importantly, the case for unity," Snow said. "Because as long as we have a nation that's in any way divided along racial lines or where politics become a source of division rather one of civil debate and trying to perfect the democracy, that's a problem."

Bush's decision comes in a critical midterm election year, when Republicans fear losing control of Congress and Bush has been working to get more votes for the GOP. Bush received just 11 percent of the black vote in the 2004 election.

Edit: Thanks TWA for covering me. I remembered the controversy and even that he spoke at some point, all the details just get fuzzy sometimes. I think it's all the spittle and vitriol covering my monitor