Posted on 12/23/2007 2:18:05 PM PST by greyfoxx39
I was a naive college kid thirty years ago when Bill Brock, a native of my home state of Tennessee, became GOP chairman. One of his first initiatives was to launch a campaign to win the black vote for the Republicans. I saw him on one of the sunday talk shows explaining his plan, and on paper it seemed to make all the sense in the world.
Brock noted that Republicans had voted for the civil rights laws in the sixties in greater numbers than Democrats. He said that it was Republican Earl Warren who handed down the Brown ruling. It was Republican Eisenhower who sent in the troops to integrate Little Rock schools. Brock added that most blacks were pro-life and supported school prayer. At the time, Republicans were getting about 10% of the black vote. Brock hoped to boost those numbers to 25% within ten years and even claimed that the GOP could win the majority of the black vote eventually.
Guess what? Thirty years later we still get 10% of the black vote.
Back in the sixties, Everett Dirksen, the GOP Senate leader, pushed incesssantly for civil rights legislation. A majority of GOP senators voted for every civil rights initiative of the decade. At the end of the decade, they still got 10% of the black vote.
George Romney may or may not have actually marched with Martin Luther King, but he certainly allied himself with King and the Civil Rights movement. Romney even supported idiocies like forced busing and a wildly over-the-top plan to forcibly integrate suburbs by requiring race quotas in every neighborhood (Nixon stopped that one). At the end of Romney’s years as Michigan governor, Michigan blacks still voted 90% for the Democrats and turned Detroit into a one-party Democrat kingdom that dominates the state with stolen ‘Rat votes.
The idea that the Democrats are in a panic mode and fear that blacks will defect to Romney because his daddy supported civil rights laws 45 years ago is ludicrous.
BINGO!
All I hear is “love” for Huckabee in the MSM.
I just looked at a couple of “key states”, Fred is no where near 3%. RCP has him at 9.7 in Iowa and 13.5 in SC.
Hell if he get’s any higher I may get nervous...
Come on man, if you want to bull$hit, which you do a lot of, make sure it is at least not easily verifiable....
Your arguments sound pretty convincing and I agree with them. Anyway, I wasn’t thinking that Romney would get majority of black votes. I think Bush got something like 12% (other republicans got around 8-9%) in 2000.
My point was that with Hillary beating Obama, the black turnout might be 10% less than last time, and Romney might get 12% instead of the usual 9%. Combined, this would make a big difference in many states.
I certainly agree that many Romney Sr policies sound awful. I assume Romney Jr does not support race quotas or other idiotic policies.
Damn man, you work like a Democrat...
Repeat that lie, it will be truth one day, you hope...
“Fred is no where near 3%.”
Ok, Thompson is now at 3.2% in NH (in the morning the average was 2.8 - apparently some older poll got eliminated today). WOW!
So you are correct. He is nowhere near 3%. Not even close. My mistake.
In MI, he is at 6.5% (Average), while the latest poll have him at 4% and 5%. In Nevada he is also single-digits (9.7 AVG, most recent 5%).
In Iowa, he is at 9.7% (AVG), most recent is 5%.
In SC, he is in double-digits, but is a long way to SC. I don’t think anybody seriously believes that getting 5-7% in NH and MI will somehow catapult him winning in SC (where he is now third). But I admire your spirit. Maybe he’ll finish third in Iowa, then get the 4% in NH, then shock 7% in MI and then finishing in top-2 in SC. LOL.
Seriously, only a shock win in Iowa can help him. Otherwise, he’ll be trounced in NH and MI. All media attention is in MI for a whole week.
I wonder which one of the candidates constructed this straw man.
Does a candidate get a pinochio any time one of his supporters says something wrong?
If so, Fred’s in trouble.
I’ve given up trying to talk sense into those who seem hell-bent to believe any media source, no matter how liberal and biased, so long as they say something they like.
I finally realised it was futile when one after another, they showed up to sing the praises of a liberal editorial board who was attacking Romney for not supporting banning torture, and who had just said Biden was their man.
Maybe Fred has the right idea. Don’t say anything, answer no questions, just stand around with a grumpy expression on your face and let you wife talk — then nobody will ever question whether anything you said is different than what some liberal reporter can dig up from some other source.
“There you go with that 3% again...”
Just curious. Would you say that 3.2% is close to 3% ?
Who knows, maybe it is 3.9% next week, maybe even 4%.
In all early states (IA, NH, MI) he is in single-digits and the most recent polls have him at 5%. Anyway, if you feel confident then I have to admire your spirit. lol.
It's really astonishing. We've got several wars going with Islamic extremists, we have an Iran bent on getting nukes, and a new Stalin taking power in Russia, and all the MSM seem to be worried about is whether a long-deceased governor, with a well-established civil rights record, physically marched in a demonstration with long-desceased civil rights activist.
If one thing's for sure, the reporters who waste their time writing such crap, as well as people who waste bandwith posting it (that means you greyfoxx39) sure have their priorities screwed up.
That George Romney was a pro-civil rights governor who instilled the same values into his son matters. That he marched in civil rights rallies organized by King and in solidarity with him matters.
Why does it matter whether governor G. Romney and King physically marched together at the same demonstration? And why would it matter whether his son, who was a teenager at the time, correctly or incorrectly remembers such a meaningless, insignificant detail?
Not that I'm conceding that he doesn't remember correctly. It's been by no means been established that G. Romney didn't march with King. Some sources indicate he did, others did not. Frankly, I don't see why anyone should care.
Again, some facts matter, others don't. Why anyone would waste his time on this one is beyond me.
...and God said, "Have you considered my servant, Fred?"
Thus sayeth the Lord, "Tis better to go with the percieved lazy one than the liar."
I don't consider keeping another duplicitous, double-talking, lying, flip-flopping person from the White House wasting my time. I'm sorry for you if you don't think that facts/truth matter - but they do for me.
I've never criticized Mitt on his religion. I base my opinion of him on his lack of honesty and flip-flopping positions. These are issues that I'm not willing to compromise on.
2 count them, 2 out of 500 according accounts of the crowd, are all the other 498 dead?
You said key states,which is more than just NH...
Facts is facts.
“You said key states,which is more than just NH...”
The latest poll numbers are between 4-5% in IA, NH, MI.
These are the key states. FL and SC are later and there is no way Thompson can survive to SC until he wins Iowa (or NH). Getting third in Iowa does not help him at all. Somebody will have the momentum to MI. It may be Romney, Huckabee, or Guliani, or even McCain. They have credible chance of winning or at least finishing strong second.
outstanding!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.