Check that…not “all” of the candidates.
It seems that three Republican presidential hopefuls: Governor Mitt Romney, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain have declined the invitation to speak on the issues raised in the book, The Covenant with Black America.
Well…four actually. Kinda sorta.
Senator Fred Thompson recently officially announced his presidential aspirations on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Heretofore according to Smiley (as well as The
According to the latest polls, these four candidates lead among Republican voters. In other words, as of “right now” these four individuals are seen as most “viable” Republican candidates for the nomination as president of these
“Right now.”
According to Smiley, Romney cited a “prior fundraising engagement” in
UPDATE: 9.17.07 - Fred Thompson Officially Withdraws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/17/thompson-refuses-to-debat_n_64744.html
Irrespective of one’s party affiliation, what does it say when candidates “decline” to address those issues which are clearly important and integral in the presidential selection process by people of color?
Irrespective of one’s color, what does it say when Republican candidates “decline” the opportunity to boldly declare by example that the GOP is in fact a party of inclusion?
In no uncertain terms, to “decline” the opportunity to come before African-Americans and speak in earnest about issues not only important to African-Americans but Americans as a whole reeks of the segregationist, elitist, classist politics upon which the Republican Party has built its "sterling" reputation.
This seemingly is not a party run by “neocons” as there is nothing “new” about the Republican disregard of issues important to the multitude of African-Americans. Oh there are some “new” “cons,” new sleight of hand, new Jedi mind tricks as to the courtship of the African-American vote through outreach and propped up African-American mouthpieces and candidates, to be sure. Yet, the underlying sentiment of insincerity, insensitivity and indifference continues to permeate the party in an osmotic manner.
Affordable healthcare is not an “African-American” issue…it’s an American issue. HIV/AIDS prevention is not an “African-American” issue…it’s an American issue. Urban crime is not endemic to African-Americans, it’s emblematic of a broken
Either way, we can then rightfully conclude that each is ill-equipped and ill-suited to lead a country that is neither homogenous in skin color, nor ethnic derivation.
This election is in 2008, not 1948…don’t get it twisted.
Under no circumstances should any person, man or woman be entrusted to lead a country when the simple request to engage in meaningful dialogue is dismissed and disregarded.
The declinations are not in and of themselves “insulting,” but coupled with the subsequent and inevitable requests for the votes of African-Americans in November is wildly inflammatory. There is nothing ostensibly wrong with ignoring African-Americans...and I mean that. Just don’t attempt to smooth this egregious insult over with candy, flowers and other tarnished, paltry trinkets of affection to “save the relationship” come November of '08.
Pick one side of the street and stay on it.
If these Republican candidates wish not to be “associated” with African-Americans and other people of color, that’s completely acceptable. Just know that none of them will ever be setting foot in the White House as Commander-in-chief. Each will require a “guest pass” just like the rest of us. It surely will not be their residence.
Given the GOP’s collective stances on immigration and
My request of any presidential candidate is simple and the same, regardless of party affiliation. Do not ask anything OF people of color, if you as candidates aren’t about the business of meaningfully acknowledging people of color.
Do not offer flimsy excuses after a declination in order to deflect scrutiny away from your true sensibilities. Be bold and honest in your disregard of African-Americans and ride it off into the sunset or until the wheels fall off…whichever comes first. If you are too embarrassed to be seen “dancing” in the political spectrum with people of color, simply remember that African-Americans have historically provided the social rhythm and rhyme to which the rest of the country has swayed to and fro. Any serious Republican candidate for the White House should recognize; being out of step in this instance only indicates that he is in lock-step with the deficiencies and deformities of the Republican party of yore.
The Mo'Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse...as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Newstex. For more Mo’Kelly, http://www.mokellyreport.blogspot.com. Morris W. O'Kelly can be reached at mokellyreport@sbcglobal.net and he welcomes all commentary.
Want to sponsor The Mo'Kelly Report and have your company reach everywhere and everyone this ever-popular entertainment e-journal does? Inquire at wax.rhapsodic@yahoo.com
13 comments:
Where are the Black Republicans? Where are the Black Conservative Bloggers?
Why are they so SILENT about this?
Michael Steele has spoken out about this, but the rest of them...
have turned into mutes.
There are NO Black replublicans just like there are NO gay republicans. I'm sure there are some, but not enough to make up any significant difference in the votes. Would the NAACP go speak at the NRA convention? I think not.
Well, given Ted Haggard, Senator Larry Craig et al...there are far more "Gay" Republicans than they'd like to admit, which stands to reason there are far more Black Republicans than we give credit for.
But to be sure, Republicans still want your vote, that is the issue. Nothing wrong with disregarding Black folks per se...just don't get brand new on us when we call you on it later.
And to "Kano"
The problem I have in your analogy is that the NAACP and NRA have nothing in common. Nothing. And that's not about color or agenda, it's because they are two different organizations with no interlocking mandates.
But candidates running for President of the United States, which includes African Americans is a completely different issue.
Evidently five of the candidates already see the point of it, so your analogy is an inappropriate comparison.
The NAACP doesn't "need" or "want" anything from the NRA and vice versa.
The Republicans "need" AND "want" something from African-Americans.
This does not surprise me. Nope, not shocked at all.
The analogy of the NAACP and NRA has nothing to do with shared issues. I was indicating two separate lynch mobs where one would not be caught in a room with the others.
Do I need to refresh your memory of what happened to the President at Coretta King's funeral?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/10/politics/main1303595.shtml
It's amazing how disrespectful and rude your so-called "black leaders" were toward the President and the First Lady. And of all places, a funeral, where we were supposed to honor the life of the late Mrs. King. Your black media whores used the event to criticize and promote their own political agenda. Talk about being tacky.
Now do you question why white republicans avoid large assemblies of blacks?
Here's an interesting article for you:
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2004/gibson/qtr4/1123.htm
Kano...
All I can say is "interesting" that you would use the term "lynch mobs"...that right there is a "telling" choice.
Your knowledge of history is limited at best it seems.
But it is interesting you chose to highlight President Bush's "attendance" of Coretta Scott King's funeral. He was coldly received because #1, he was never a friend to the family, never a friend to civil rights and roundly refused to meet with the NAACP for the whole of his presidency.
So in fact it's a perfect comparison. If you are not a "friend" to African-Americans, then don't be a friend to us in any way. And also, don't expect us to be a friend to you either...ever.
And your analogy is still misguided.
If you think that African-Americans and Republicans have no business being in the same room in the way you think the NRA and the NAACP have no business being in the same room, then explain to me why the former party chairman Ken Mehlman had declared that 2006 was the year of the African-American candidate? Why did he say that the Republican Party is better when African-Americans are included. That's coming down from party leadership. It's a contradiction and an inconsistency.
The NAACP has never been about courting the NRA or vice-versa.
Try again.
Here's some "reading" for you that EXACTLY elucidates my point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901815.html
"He (Mehlman)also spent much of his time trying to enlarge the party's coalition, particularly among Hispanics and African Americans. He helped recruit three African Americans -- Steele among them -- as statewide candidates this year. All three lost, but Mehlman said yesterday that he remained committed to making the party more diverse.
The RNC came under criticism in this campaign, however, for sponsoring an advertisement in Tennessee's Senate race that critics claimed was a thinly veiled racial appeal against Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., who is black."
http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5631
(Ken Mehlman's remarks at NAACP Convention)
"Today Joe Mehlman’s grandson is proud to be chairman of the party of Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass—and of Michael Steele, Colin Powell, Michael Williams, and so many others. As Chairman of that party, I want to speak to you from the heart today, and share a message that I deliver everywhere I go: no matter how many elections Republicans win, no matter how many times we hold the White House, no matter how many seats in Congress, how many governor’s mansions, how many state legislatures we win, the party of Lincoln will not be whole again and won’t truly reflect the dream of African American political empowerment until we effectively and forthrightly respond to the cause of the African American community.
The party of Lincoln and the African American community have a proud history together."
________________
I rest my case Kano. Clearly, the Republicans can't make up their minds whether they want to include or diss African-Americans. They need to pick one side of the street and stay there.
And again, the NAACP has NEVER reached out to the NRA and vice versa. Your comparison is weak and illogical.
You can respond if you want, but the facts are not on your side. You're giving opinions, I'm giving fact.
And lastly. Don't think I take kindly to your "Black media whores" reference either. The only reason your comments weren't deleted on GP alone was because it is better served to publicly pick you apart.
Offensive nature aside, despite what you or I may think of Al, Jesse et al., all of them had every reason to be at the funeral of Coretta Scott King (you brought her up).
President Bush had zero reason. Just in case you didn't know...funerals are for friends and family...he was/is neither.
If you had a modicum of knowledge about history, you've would've known this fact.
Ok, that's about as weak of an argument rebuttal as one could have.
I've more than made my point. You just didn't read it.
Likewise.
Any comment on O.J.?
Yeah...those that "don't get it," don't get that they "don't get it."
But thanks for reading and responding Kano.
And you ask if I'd have a comment on OJ for what reason? There's no socio-political commentary to be had in regards to OJ in 2007, irrespective of his present arrest.
To Kano:
"It is better to be silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Post a Comment