Shaun, no the Republican Party is more pro-Rich than pro-White. They don’t care what the color of your skin is as long as you have money.

I don’t think the GOP is any more religious than the Dems, they just wear it on their sleeves more. I have my sets of values but I don’t try and force it onto others. But the GOP leadership currently, and the far-left Dems, are trying to do just that.

But i thought the Republican candidates were running away from Bush, because of his low numbers and negative baggage?

You, and others like you, want it both ways. Republicans are abandoning Bush when that meme suits you, and are all still loyal to him when that meme is needed.

Like I said in my first post, be real. Some of the candidates are sticking to Bush, some are against. Just like in the Democratic race, there is a real range of viewpoints among the 9 candidates.

But 8 out of 9 thought there was more negative than positive to attend a NAACP event, even though some are actively trying to expand the base into the black community.

If you are going to agree with the supposition that they didn’t attend simply because it was held bya Black organization, then I say that you (and those that feel that way) are the true racists.

Voting Democraitc is just part of black culture the same as rap music and basketball. The idea of getting black america to vote Republican is as naive as the idea that you could get young black men to play lacrosse and golf instead of basketball.

You think it’s all about the NAACP and others, myself included, think it’s at least as much about the Republican Party and its core believers. You know, the ones who still approve of Bush.

No politician wants to exclude or alienate potential voter blocks (except those like the KKK or Communists).

They also quite reasonably to not want to put themselves into situations that are so politically hostile and slanted that the potential for upside is almost 0, and the potential for downside is almost 100.

Here we have all but one fringe Republican candidate, along with their advisors, coming to the exact same conclusion – attending the event, even with the known bad publicity that would arise because it was the NAACP, still didn’t make it worth the risk.

Really, we are not talking a couple of candidates that didn’t attend, but 8 of 9 that were willing to take the bad press.

I think that says more about the politicization and polarization of the NAACP than the Republican candidates.

actually, it is the other way around. If Republicans want to be a full player in the political arena, then they have to be willing to work with different groups on different issues. If they want votes from African Americans, they have to work for them to gain the votes. Not the other way around. The only reason African Americans vote heavily Democratic is because Republicans refuse to address any issue important to the African American community. By not showing up, they have only showed their contempt and that they do not deserve those votes.

Like they say, half of life is showing up.

Why would a Republican speak in front of a group when not a single member will vote for them but they will hoot and jeer him and probably wag their fingers while calling him a racist.

If the black community wants to be a full player in the political arean they have to demonstrate at least a little diversity of political view.

I would have preferred more of the Republican candidates to do like Obama did with the evangelical meeting he was invited to and spoke at. Namely, go there and say, “we agree on these points, but I respectfully disagree on this one. Thank you for giving me an opportunity.” I am sure it could have been very awkward, but then the men are vying to be leader of the nation; they can handle a little awkwardness.

The NRA had its national convention in May. How many Democratic candidates for President spoke at the meeting? I believe the number is zero.

Why would a Republican want to go to a convention where a racist thug like Maxine Waters is going to point her fingre and call you a racist? For a Republican to attend an NAACP meeting has much more downside than a Democratic candidate appearing on Fox News. At least the rest of the media will criticize Fox News. Whereas the unwritten rule is that the MSM will never, ever say anyting bad about a black politician no matter how many bastards baby he has father (Mume), or how many years of none tax payment (Marion Barry) or how much corruption (Kwame Kilpatrick).

And one should not dismiss the ability of Republicans to gain the African American vote. All they have to do is support some issues that are important to that community. The reason the Democrats consistently get the vast majority of the votes from them is because the Republicans have consistently not only refused to represent not one of their interests, but have worked against those interests.

The arguments were almost identical- with lefties (myself included) claiming that Fox was too dissimilar ideologically and too biased to be fair, while conservatives argued that the Democrats missed an opportunity to reach out to their viewers.

The Dems were labelled cowards for the boycott, but that’s what I think of the Republicans who had other engagements on the day of the NAACP debate. Our partisanship deepens by the day.

Now I think you’re engaging in hyperbole. It’s one thing to criticize republicans for not attending an NAACP function, it’s quite another to extrapolate from that to suggest they are all somehow anti-black/minority because they are supposedly “pro-white.” I also don’t see what the problem with being “pro-Christian” is since blacks are just as devout as anyone else – maybe even more.

Both parties focus on ideology, not race. The simple fact is that a majority of African-Americans are closer ideologically to the Democrats. This basic demographic fact does not mean Republicans hate black people – they like people who share their ideology, just like the Democrats do. Of course, Democrats talk the talk with the black community, but do they walk the walk any better than republicans?