And, I've actually voted for Republican candidates a few times – shocking, I know. Especially for a Progressive Democrat in Maryland. I attribute that willingness to look beyond the (R) or (D) next to candidate's name to a certain high school history & economics teacher I had. He encouraged us to look at the person more than the party which is something I try to do in each election.

Maybe what we need is a cultural shift among the voters. We really do deserve the elected officials we end up with. Whether it's out of apathy or laziness, we allow the two main parties to churn out a series of subpar politicians who care more about furthering their own goals and their party agendas than they do about improving and protecting the country.

To use Jazz's list (and my views in parenthesis);

I'm also pro-choice in the early stages but support restrictions in the later stages of pregnancy. (Personally I'm pro-life but side with the pro-choice crowd because this is a personal issue that everyone needs to make on their own. I disagree with the religious right meddling with what I see as personal decisions, even if I happen to agree with them, such as being pro-life, on a personal level.)

I'm a non-denominational spiritualist (I can say the same- my Mom took my to a Unitarian Church, though very infrequantly. Though she raised me mostly as a Christian, I do consider myself more spiritual than Christian…. but my journey is continuing and changing.)

who is pro gun (same here, though I hate them personally, like abortion I see it as a matter of choice. Given that guns are lethal weapons I do believe in some licensing and on certain automatic/military type weapons some further restrictions.)

anti-Iraq war (same here)

but support Afghanistan (same here).

I oppose hate crime laws (I support hate crime laws- it should be an additional crime to be attacked, on top of the battery charge or whatever the underlying crime is, just because someone doesn't like your religion, skin color, etc.)

and look with severe doubt on affirmative action (I actually go back and forth on this…)

Just to touch on jwest's comment about the Republicans being more tolerant of pro-choicers than the Dems are of pro-lifers… I see this totally. The Dems view the pro-lifers, such as John McCain who want to make abortion illegal, as folks who want to shove their beliefs onto others. The Dems position as beinog pro-choice doesn't shove anyone's belief down someone's throat. No one is forcing a pro-lifer to get an abortion, whereas if the pro-lifers had their way no one would be able to choose to have an abortion.

See how much we do have in common if we just sit down and compare notes? We may not agree on everything but we can agree on some things.

Jazz and I could do a Coke commercial together.

We’re all just one happy family.

The first step to understanding republicans is to stop believing clichés and stereotypes.

I don’t know if you noticed or not, but sometimes my views tend to be a tiny bit right of center. If you asked some of the authors to profile me, they would probably follow the left wing template for someone who doesn’t march lockstep with their views.

Republicans are a diverse group. I’m an atheist, pro-abortion in the early stages, pro-life in the later stage. I can state as fact that the republican party has much more tolerance for pro-choice people than the democrat party has for pro-lifers. Coming from a solid red area, I can honestly say I don’t know anyone who is for outlawing all abortions.

Most conservatives, along with me, think that affirmative action is a degrading and insulting program that hampers progress for minorities. We don’t attribute this to some “evil” intentions of democrats, just a mindless naivety that doesn’t think through the consequences of their feel-good actions. Left wingers view this as being racist, but they think everything the right does is racist.

If you look into who really makes up the republican party, you’ll find it’s far different than left wing radicals would like you to believe.

Anonymous
Columbus, OH

Not all black Americans want the government to solve all of their problems, and the Democrats don't promise that any more. A Democrat reformed welfare, remember??

http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/a/watts4u2/bono_and_j…

<snip>

In recent years, however, Helms has worked more quietly to steer
funding for AIDS treatment and relief to Africa and other poor
nations, where the disease has become a major epidemic. In 2000, while
still chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Helms
co-authored legislation authorizing $600 million for such efforts.
Today, HIV and AIDS affect roughly 40 million people, according to the
World Health Organization. More than 28 million of those live in
sub-Saharan Africa.

The myth that Republicans are systematically racist, oppressive, exclusive continues to work wonders, too.

Republicans celebrated the “accomplishments” of Jesse Helms this year… this freaking year.

There's always the future promise of more entitlements as well as the Perpetual Victimhood scam being run not only by the older black “leadership” but by other activists. Black Republicans and conservatives are treated as and called Uncle Toms and worse. The myth that Republicans are systematically racist, oppressive, exclusive continues to work wonders, too.

That the GOP is something of a wealthier-white-male, WASP “closed club” (the kind of stereotype used originally by Sixties activists and what was meant, in a non-racist way, by Obama when referring to whose portraits are on our currency) doesn't help the party. Otherwise, it's due to inertia (the Dems have been the Inclusion party and vote-buying party since the 1930s and those who joined the Dems then, when there was real discrimination and ill-treatement of minorities, remain Dems now, such as black and Jewish Americans from the 1930s onward and women and gays from the 1960s onward; they favor the party and side that has long been their home) as well as exploitation of this (vote-buying; demonizing the other side and party).

I mean, that is why the GOP base dislikes and distrusts him, after all.

As for the GOP being pro or anti minority, it is a mixed bag. Most of the Republicans I have dealt with truly believe that overall, the 'nanny-state' mentality of the Left and the current Civil Rights leadership has hurt blacks and other minorities way more than they have helped them.

But in politics, perception is reality, and the point of the number of elected GOP blacks is valid. But, how many blacks would be willing to run as GOP? The few that have have been vilified by other blacks, and not been embraced as they should by the GOP hierarchy.

Republicans could make inroads into the black community if they would put their principles aside

I have to say, they've put them aside on every other issue. So why not? Because the base would implode.

Republicans could make inroads into the black community if they would put their principles aside and pander like the democrats.

Naturally, we simply can’t do that.

My question is why the black community doesn’t move instinctively to the right after so many years of suffering under the left?

• In Detroit, Washington D.C. and other cities, only 20% of the kids graduate from high school. Less than that actually can read, write and do math at a high school level.
• Despite of promises every year, unemployment remains high compared to the white community.
• All other ethnic communities have passed black rates of wealth creation.

It seems that at some point, the black community would realize that the democrats have not delivered on their promises and it might be time to try something different. Prior to this election, they only had Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton as community leaders, but it finally appears people are figuring it out that these two are wholly owned subsidiaries of the democrat party.

But yeah I get mostly what you are saying that the Dems being more open to minorities but I agree less with the perception of ideas. Dems are seen as gov't will solve my problems while GOP is that you have help yourself. Even if neither are really true.

Just looking at abortion as an example, the GOP is against it. There's a little wiggle room in cases of rape or incest or if the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother, but even that's not an across-the-board exception. With Dems, you run the spectrum from pro-choicers who think it's entirely up to the mother and any woman should be able to get one without anyone else's input, to the crowd who would ban late-term abortions, to the groups who pretty much agree with the health-risk/rape as the only justification for abortion stance.

With the GOP, there doesn't seem to be room for nuance. That's just a perception – I can't say if it's true or not. It's just how a lot of people see it.

McCain didn't dare pick a black, Hispanic, gay or Jewish VP, and was considered a maverick for picking a white female, even though that barrier had been broken in '88 by Dukakis.