What About Minority Groups?

[12th Doctor]

Are any minority groups going to be angry, because Kerry had a good choices among minorities but opted for the pretty-boy white-guy instead?

or

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?


Seriously though, will the Edwards pick influence minorities in any negative way?

[12th Doctor]

Are any minority groups going to be angry, because Kerry had a good choices among minorities but opted for the pretty-boy white-guy instead?

or

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?


Seriously though, will the Edwards pick influence minorities in any negative way?

WHo were the well qualified black candidates for Vice-President...there is not a single black Senator or Governor on either side.  Richardson was a qualified Hispanic, but from what I understand, he had other issues.

And if the Republicans actually practice diversity, where are there no black Republicans in Congress...or as Governor or Senator.  Every single black Congressman is a Democrat.  Every Asian Governor, Senator, or Congressman is a Democrat.  At least 2/3 of the Hispanic Congressmen as Democrats (I don't know the exact count).  In 2002, we will finally elect a black Senator (Obama) and a Hispanic Senator (Salazar)...both Democrats.  It there Republican diversity beyond a couple Cabinet offices?  I haven't seen any evidence.  

Carol Mosley-Braun could have been a good VP candidate, as could Bill Richardson

Colin Powell could be President.  So could Condi Rice.

On the cabinet, we have Elaine Chao, Rod Paige, Alphonso Jackson.

Where were the high ranking minorities in the Clinton Administration?  Just Richardson and he doesn't even have a Hispanic last name (not that it matters, just thought I would point it out).

Sen. Ben Nighthorse-Campbell or don't Indians count?

Then we have Mel Martinez, Vernon Robinson, J.C. Watts, Herman Cain, a whole host of local southern black politicians who have switched to the GOP.

The main reason that we see all these minority Dems in Congress is because most minorities come from areas that have been heavily Democratic since the Irish were considered a minority group and because they have these idiotic ancestral ties to the party that has simply made their lives worse.  The more they pull the lever for the Dems, the worse their lost in life has become.  Don't they realize that.  Well, acctually some do.  23% of young blacks now consider themselves Ind. so at least they are trying to flee the plantation.

And suprise suprise areas that are heavily Republican have few minorities.  So, when a J.C. Watts or a Vernon Robinson gets elected, it acctually means something, unlike the cookie cutter minorities that the Democrats stamp-out.  And, on what planet, in what country could Obama or Ford ever be President, pray tell?

[12th Doctor]

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

[12th Doctor]

Harold Ford is not yet 35 years old.   Once he is, he will be a highly desireable pick for a national ticket.  How is he a viable nominee if he is not even constitutionally eligible?

My bad.  Your right.  That's my gaffe for the week.

As for the others....how can you claim that the Dems should have two religious minorites on their ticket when the Republicans have not nominated a single religious minority once in their entire history.

We don't claim to have this great devotion to diversity that the Dems do.  We put in the most qualified people.  The Dems rail about diversity, but rarely pratice it in acctuality.  Name one high ranking minority in the Clinton Administration other than Richardson.  Vernon Jordan doesn't count either.

The Dems have had a female nominee, a Jewish nominee, an Orthodox nominee, and three Catholic nominees.  The GOP has never had any of these!  There may not be many black Republicans, but there are certainly Republican women and Catholics.  Where is the diversity there???

Ferraro was set up to fail.  You guys hate Liebermann.  I'll grant you Dukakis, but the only reason he got the nomination is because the Greek Community put him over the top in a lot of states.  Kerry is about as Catholic as Billy Graham.  Smith doesn't count, that was almost 80 years ago.  JFK was a true Catholic, but since I'm an admire of JFK I have no problem conceding it.

Once again, it maybe true that the Republicans have never fronted a minority candidate, but the Republicans don't claim that racial diversity is the one of the most important things in the world.  Still, as I have said, inspite of the fact that we have fewer minorities in our party, we have plenty of qualified minorities in key possitions.  Plenty of practicing Catholics have run or would run for the Presidency as Republicans, but since they were/would all demonized by your party, a nomination isn't likely.  Alan Keyes, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum and a whole host of others.

I admit, that we have feilded no one, but we are working on it.  We have, however, put minorities in prominent possitions and might have a black congressman and a black Senator and possibly an Hispanic Senator, along with an Hispanic Supreme Court Justice (Estrada is headed there) and a whole host of other minorities.

But the Dems go on and on about diversity and don't seem to follow through.

[12th Doctor]

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

Why should Kerry pressure Richardson? He didn't want the job. End of story.

Democrats may not care much about minor sex scandals, but Braun had much more baggage.  And she doesn't help with any state. Besides, when's the last time someone who LOST their last election was picked for VP? I fail to see how someone who lost in a heavily Democratic state to a rather weak opponent is a good pick.

Ford is only 34. Ineligible.

Feinstein = Senator from state with Republican governor. Automatic disqualification in my view.

Kerry is a Catholic, but since when are Poles and Catholics minorities? Vilsack was seriously considered, but he was too unknown for the nation. Either way, he's still white.

But I thought everyone hates Rendell? Then wouldn't he not help at all with Pennsylvania? You kept talking about how he'd be such a bad choice.

Who cares?  Diversity for diversities sake is sooo important, right?  That's why we have AA, isn't it?  Isn't the Democrats' undying, heart-felt commitment to diversity one of the things that seperates you enlightened Liberals from us racist, troglodyte conservatives?

[12th Doctor]

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?

Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish.

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

And Democrats like to act as though we force them at gun point out of the voting booths.  "If Bush is Elected, Another Black Church Will Burn", remember that ad?

The blacks vote Democrat, because of ancestral loyalties started in the 30's, but that is starting to change.  More blacks are registered Ind.,just like Bush is more popular among Hispanics than he was 4 years ago according to most polls, not less.

P.S. and Bush set a record in 2000 for a Republican among Hispanic voters by bagging 37%.

[12th Doctor]

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?

Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish.

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Obviously they are sticking to Democrats for either a) economic benefits or b) someone is preaching to them to vote Democrat. The reason I say this is because any group voting 90% for one party is ridiculous. We can't even get 50% to agree w/each other a lot of the time here on this forum. I can not contemplate that 90% of any race/gender/whatever can agree enough to vote 90% in one direction. I never said it was by gun point that's a crazy. Yes they are using their free will but are they actually thinking before they pull they lever or are they simply looking for the  (D)?

States, Moore, Kerry and Lincoln do not go together.


"One of these things is better than the others, one of these things is really, really good".