Republican Watts Calls GOP Front Runners’ No Show Decision On Minority Debate “Stupid”

September 25th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

alaskan_30cm_brushed_nickel_fan.jpg

The n.s. has hit the fan in the Republican Party.

“N.S.” stands for no shows, the GOP’s top, leading candidates who insisted they just could not squeeze in the time to participate in a debate focusing on minority issues. Of course, it’s merely a coincidence that it just happened that none of the four big front-runners showed up.

And former Rep. J.C. Watts, a charismatic African-American whom Republican Party bigwigs pointed to for years as proof that the Republican tent was a big tent and not really a pup tent, minced no words — in words that seem both blunt and a bad omen for the Republican Party in the long run:

A former member of the House Republican congressional leadership — and the last African-American to serve as a member of the GOP in Congress — harshly criticized Tuesday the decision of the Republican presidential front-runners to not attend a debate focused on minority issues.

“I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this,” said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, is “that African-Americans might say, ‘Was it because of my skin color?’ Now, maybe it wasn’t, but African-Americans do say, ‘It crossed my mind.’”

Watts is basically saying what many Americans and pundits — and Republicans — have said: the the decision to snub en masse a forum where key Republicans could have shown that they are not virtually writing-off minority voters is seemingly beyond belief for a party that seems to be on the political ropes. And coming from Watts, who is highly respected by the media and one of the most visible “talking heads” on television and cable shows, there is likely to be long term damage to the perception of the Republican Party among minority voters.

But it is NOT just Watts who has blasted the front-runners’ move that seems indicative of candidates who may not be front runners in a general election:

The invitations were extended in March, but the front-runners have claimed scheduling conflicts. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who’s weighing getting into the race, called that excuse “baloney” and called the no-shows “fundamentally wrong.” On “Good Morning America” today, Gingrich said GOP candidates are making a mistake because “African-Americans have been hurt more by the failures of government” than any other group.

Watts pointed out that some of the candidates with more liberal histories on issues such as guns and abortion have reached out to conservative groups that don’t share their views.

Indeed: those love-fests have been dutifully covered by news organizations and weblogs.

Watts was the former chairman of the House GOP caucus, and served in Congress from 1995 until 2003.

You kind of scratch your head thinking why are they making decisions like that?” Watts said. He speculated the candidates don’t have any African-American staffers who “could say to them, ‘You’re making a huge mistake strategically by not at least reaching out and talking to this demographic.’”

The problem: by the time these candidates decide to do something about it, it will likely be too late.

The larger issue is this: The GOP seems have have written off Latino voters (the candidates avoided the debate on a Spanish television network as well) and gay voters and is losing independent voter support. And GOP party registration is down at a time when young people show signs of turning more to the Democrats.

So, as they seemingly make a point to alienate not just black Democrats but a key black Republican who has been a party role model as well as a news media “star,” what groups do these candidates have that will REPLACE the many groups they are alienating?

Will the support of William Kristol, Rush Limbaugh,Sean Hannity and their readers/listeners be enough?

READ conservative blogger Ed Morrissey in full. Here’s part of what he writes:

Let’s set aside the historical reviews and look at the present political situation. It should disturb Republicans that Watts is the last African-American member of the GOP in Congress, or rather was. He retired years ago, and Republicans have offered few candidates in his footsteps. Michael Steele ran a good campaign for the Senate but came up short in a tough year for Republicans, and Alan Keyes ran a ridiculous carpetbagging campaign against Barack Obama.

We have scolded the African-American community for its lock-step support for Democrats. However, as the avoidance of this debate demonstrates, Republicans haven’t exactly beaten down doors in an attempt to engage these voters, either. Given that these invitations went out in March, the campaigns had plenty of time to schedule one debate to address one of the largest voting blocs in the country, and one whose loyalties could help the GOP turn national elections.

There’s more, then he writes this:

I don’t think that the refusal to attend the PBS debate has to do with inherent racism, but rather a sense that no short-term benefit will arise from engaging blacks during the Republican primaries. It’s an unfortunate calculation. We have messages of empowerment through free enterprise and market-based solutions for education that could resonate, if only our leadership would engage African-American voters early and often. It may not help elect a Republican president in 2008, but it could generate enough interest to replace J.C. Watts as our only black Congressman within ten years of his retirement.

Read it all.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pm and is filed under Latinos, PBS, Black/African-American, Republican Party, Debates, Hispanics, 2008 Elections, Conservatives, Minorities, Republicans, Politics. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 responses about “Republican Watts Calls GOP Front Runners’ No Show Decision On Minority Debate “Stupid””

  1. superdestroyer said:

    The forum was not about “minority” issues but strictly about blacks. I doubt that Travis Smiley wold be asking questions that pertained to Hispanics, Koreans, Chinese, American Indiains, or South Asia Indians.

    The is no upside for the Republican candidates. Why should the Republican candidates care that a large number of liberal pundits and wonks who will never support a Republican candidate think they should appear in front of a group that will never ever vote for them.

    I did not see any Democratic candidates appearing at this years NRA convention and the talking classes could not have cared less. Why? Because none of the Democratic candidates are going to appear in front of a group that will never vote for them. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to Republicans.

  2. insanemansam5 said:

    To compare blacks to the NRA is retarded. The NRA is a group made up of individuals lobbying for a specific cause. While there may be issues that unite black voters there is no ‘black’ political agenda persay.

    African Americans while overwhelmingly democrats like all Americans have varying political views and interests. Republicans may not recieve a large percentage of African American votes but there is no reason that issues such as the Iraq war, inner city crime, school choice, no child left behind and tax credits that have had benefit to the poor and middle class such as the earned income credit and additional child tax credit couldn’t be used to stimulate support among the black community.

    At a time when partisanship is at an all time it doesn’t do the country any favors for either political party whether it’s Democrats boycotting Fox or Republcans refusing to participate in debates focusing on minority issues to ignore groups that are seen to be traditionally conservative or liberal.

Supporter Launches Ron Paul YouTube Video Contest With Money Prize »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.