Free Republic

This is not a fact, it’s your opinion.

The problem is, it’s an opinion that’s not even based in fact.

A majority of Blacks do not receive welfare. To suggest that a majority of Blacks vote Democrat due to wanting to keep their welfare is a logical fallacy.

A majority can’t be voting to keep something a don’t have.

Now, if you want to argue entitlement, role of government, past perceived injustice...ect ..ect that’s fine.

A majority of Blacks vote to keep welfare is too simple and does not speak to the challenges of the time. It’s a urban legend (pun intended) which has become self sustaining and ignores the broader topics

Thank you for providing the link and I did read it.

I agree 100% with your commentary

But I think he would also agree that broad generalizations ie. “blacks only vote for welfare” are not a reflection of Conservative principals.

I live in a diverse suburban upscale community just east of Columbus OH. My neighbors are 2 doctors (black), pharmacist (white), real estate agents(white), dual income state employees(black) and even a local strip join owner(white). I talk to them, I saw who had what signs in their yards. Welfare is NOT the primary voting motivation of these people and my little sub division was divided largely along racial lines.

Thank you and in this Regan’s 1977 CPAC speech we find a response to those who would stereotype blacks as “only” voting for welfare.

“The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: Look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support.” We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs”

Ronald Regan.....

Isn’t that the 64,000 question?

As long as you accept that’s the *only* reason, it kinda makes the search for that answer impossible, no?

Give people more credit, (no pun intended) perhaps there other reasons, self inflicted reasons.

Barack the Magic Negro anyone? Yes I know a black writer from the LA Times wrote it first, but why go there, it only reinforces the stereotype? What’s the upside, there is none, it’s stupid and self defeating.

I think you are missing the point. To say a majority of Blacks vote democrat because of welfare (a social program a majority don’t receive) over simplifies the issue. You think these voters vote on personal economics only, I disagree, I think there is more there, there.

Once again you have me. I should say, how do you communicate to both, which is what I really meant. I was being too lazy in my question. That aside, how do you communicate these virtues to both?

jveritas,

You are quite correct I did join 6 days ago and perhaps I’m not the kind of person who will thrive here. In truth in the past I have more often described myself as a Libertarian rather than conservative. In recent times I have come to realize that the two party system is so entrenched in the US election system that it was time to get off the Libertarian fence. This fact may be why you see me as a liberal as I think I’m more pragmatic in my views, I don’t do the spin or repeat meme’s. There was a post here that said the Market went up because Obama was silent, I said it wasn’t true, he spoke. There was a post here that said the new ominbus bill banned stem cell research, I said that wasn’t right, it banned money from that particular bill being spent on stem cell. If factual representations of reality make me Liberal, call me what you will. I speak truth to power even when unpopular, it’s a Libertarian principal, some habits are hard to break.

Did you want people to wrongly think Obama had banned stem cell research? Talk about taking a vital issue off the table.

The facts are always better than the spin.

Compare the Regan presidency to the Libetarian platform, you might find they are closer than the recent GOP policies.

That said, I’m in this fight now and I want to win. That will take candid, hard assessments of the facts, not more “me too”

It may not have worked with Blacks but it did with Hispanics, it was worth the effort in votes.

Servant Cross, You are correct on the first point, I did in fact do what I argue against, a mistake on my part. My point was that the sterotypes exist and simply wishing them away won’t change them. It takes overt action to change perceptions.

re: MrB’s point about women, that is a good observation on his part, the question, how do you appeal to both.

I go back to my yet un-posted response re: the contract with America. You give them a real choice, something clear, concise and specific. Right now the brutal truth is we lack that message beyond those already highly invested. You don’t convert people speaking to those already converted, you must find a vehicle that makes the message easy to understand to those on the outside looking in.

Thou dost protest too much. I wasn’t attacking Rush, I was pointing out the Democratic goal, that’s all.

When did Hispanics become a non-minority. The shifting demographics are here:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

This was never a conversation about Blacks, it was a conversation about “Minorities” (and I added women).

Re: Obama voter, believe what you like, yes I am a provocative on purpose, I want to challenge people to think, no different than Allahpundit at hotair. Nothing new comes out of a echo chamber, you just hear the same thing, distorted.

The best conversations actually include different points of view, provoke thought.

Not just get the message out, but refine the message into something can point to as an alternative. Look back at the “Contract With America” there were policies real choices.

Government Reform
Fiscal Responsibility
Taking Back Our Streets
American Dream
Job Creation
Wage Enhancement
National Security...
ect..ect..

Those were not messages that discounted the judgment or motivation of groups it was an affarmation of American values expressed in plan that looked forward.

Please tell me where I can find this in todays GOP?

Writing off those who question the current direction is just crazy and the fastest way to marginalize the party.

Ok, you win, ignore the shifting demographics of the country and look back at how we won in the past.

I’ll ask you to not assign a liberal tag on me just because I had the temerity to suggest the “minorities only vote for welfare” meme was a self fulfilling prophesy. I don’t understand how people don’t get that. It goes to the central point of the article, minorities need to accept conservative principals as freedom and conservatives need to discontinue the demagoguery.

That’s the problem, you can’t even discuss ideas without being cast out. I’m no Obama voter, I’m pragmatic.

Discussion of reality does not make me a RINO or liberal it makes me honest. Why do you think the Democrats wanted to link our party to Rush? Women...women..women 53% of the electorate. Insulting the groups you seek to include feels good but does nothing to advance a cause. Must this be a echo chamber or are ideas ok to discuss?

Thank you for the welcome!

I was not trying to divert from the point of the thread, I was just thinking that discussing creating a more diverse coalition without discussing women is fairly narrow. I should not have said it was a white make strategy, instead it’s a message that seems to currently be resonating with white males, a fact that is hard to ignore. The larger issue, speaking to all groups in a way that respects those groups without resorting to generalizations ie. “Minorities only vote based on welfare” or women only vote on xyz.

You are right, and the post you respond to is a perfect example of why there is a disconnect.

If a group/party assumes that:

“Most minorities only vote for one reason: Welfare and more welfare”

how can that group expect minorities to not see it as racist and against minorities when faced with generalizations like that?

That thinking is a cop out, it relieves conservatives from the responsibility of looking in the mirror, many just repeat the same line over and over....

“It can’t be us, they just want more welfare” ... that’s not a strategy for winning only self validation.

The larger issue is Women. Women make up 53% of the electorate, Obama won them by 13%, you do the math. Even as Obama’s poll number fall (largely in the south & males) women give him job approval ratings in the low 70’s. The southern white male strategy will not work in the new demographics of America, like it or not.

This http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/obama_creates_w.html is no accident.

“this bill”

Meaning that funds from that particular bill cannot go to fund stem cell research, not that all stem cell research funding has been banned.

Knowledge is power

The only problem, he spoke today at length. The topic was investment in education and that he can do more than one thing at once, he does not have the luxury to address one issue at a time.

I’ve yet to hear anyone explain the two birth announcements that were in separate newspapers announcing his birth at the time.

It’s a bridge too far to suggest that 47 years ago some plan was hatched by his 17 year old mother.

The problem with the cases, they have provided no reasonable doubt regarding where he was born, making the other observations (living in other countries) moot.

If people want to bring cases, it’s their right and they should, but they should also recognize that if they loose they might be liable for fees, no free rides.

Frankly, I’m surprised that responsible people using he court system would complain when held responsible. Don’t we want ALL people held responsible? Imagine if this was a frivolous lawsuit against a company, no one would be complaining that the plaintiff had to pay fee’s if they lost, double standards are bad.