JC Watts and The Party of Lincoln
DarkStar
with permission. My reply follows in another post.
http://www.rnc.org/news/tide/9511/article6.html
> [The Rising Tide]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Rising Tide November/December 1995 Volume 3/Number 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lincoln's Legacy: The Party That Truly Believes in Giving
> Power to the People
>
> By J.C. Watts
> (J.C. Watts, former chairman of Oklahoma's Corporation
> Commission, is the U.S. representative from the 4th
> District of Oklahoma.)
>
> It was my senior year at the University of Oklahoma. I was
> a journalism major assigned to cover a debate between a
> young Republican businessman from Ponca City, Okla., and
> the Democratic mayor of Oklahoma City. They were both
> articulate, charismatic and running for the same U.S.
> Senate seat. I walked back to the J-school building
> afterwards confused and shaking my head because I found
> myself agreeing more with the Republican than the
> Democrat.
>
> You see, I thought being a Democrat was my birthright.
> After all, I was the fifth child of a poor black family
> from rural Oklahoma. I was born in a small community
> called Eufaula. My uncle had been the president of the
> state NAACP; I had a legacy to uphold. I had to carry my
> union card for blacks and think like the group--and I felt
> that any black who didn't was a sellout.
>
> But I couldn't get this thought out of my head: The
> Republican candidate had made sense. His words resonated
> with the values on which I had been raised, echoing all
> the things my dad had taught me: work hard, play fair, be
> responsible, pay your own way. Those were words I thought
> my dad owned. I couldn't believe a Republican--let alone a
> white Republican--would be agreeing with my father.
>
> Years later, nine to be exact, I switched my party
> registration. I had the awesome task of telling J.C.
> "Buddy" Watts Sr. the news. I was probably more afraid of
> telling him that I was now a Republican than I was of ever
> facing any lineman during my college or professional
> football career. Well, dad, believe it or not, took it
> fairly well. (He even admitted he had voted for Richard
> Nixon for president over Kennedy.) It turned out that dad
> agreed with my feelings. He was what was known as a
> geographic Democrat--not an ideological Democrat. I think
> my dad is typical of many African Americans, who tend to
> be Democrats by geography or tradition.
>
> African Americans are not Democrats because they believe
> in the party's values. In fact, I think the Democratic
> Party has forgotten its most loyal constituents. I
> challenge every black Democrat to ask himself or herself
> one question: What has their party done for them in the
> last 30 years?
>
> As most of you know, I am one of two black Republicans in
> the U.S. House of Representatives. People in the media are
> always asking me, "What's it like to be a black
> Republican?" I say, "I don't know. I've never experienced
> the alternative."
>
> You see, I don't speak as a black Republican. I speak from
> a set of principles that I believe will totally re-order
> the political landscape in America. My convictions are
> based on a deep, abiding faith in the fundamental
> principles of the party of Lincoln--principles that I
> believe appeal to all people, regardless of race.
>
> Ours is the only party founded on an idea--the idea of
> freedom. From that one idea flowed others: the idea of
> cultural renewal, equality of opportunity and empowering
> people, not government. These ideas transcend race, creed
> and color.
>
> I will make a prediction, here and now. If we remain true
> to our principles and if we govern according to our
> convictions, by the end of the decade--just three
> elections away--there will be more black Republicans than
> black Democrats serving in Congress. Granted, that's a
> bold prediction, but, based on my election and my personal
> experience, it's one I feel confident about making.
>
> For instance, I am the first black Republican since
> Reconstruction to be elected from south of the Mason-Dixon
> line. Even though I got strong support from the black
> community in my district, the majority of voters there are
> white Democrats--obviously, I didn't win because of my
> skin color or my party affiliation. I won because I had a
> strong message that resonated across the racial and
> ideological spectrums. I won because the vision I
> represent is universal.
>
> A recent poll conducted by the Joint Center for Political
> and Economic Studies found that while 72 percent of black
> Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 33 percent
> characterized themselves as conservative. A series of
> Washington Post polls found that 35 percent of blacks
> identified themselves as "conservative" or "very
> conservative."
>
> I, for one, wasn't surprised. Historically, black people
> are conservative. They are the keepers of the flame of
> family values. Blacks believe in family, church and
> community. It was only when they vested their beliefs in
> the Democratic Party and allowed government to control
> their lives that they encountered deepening poverty,
> decaying families and a sick welfare system that penalizes
> women for wanting to marry the father of their child and
> mothers for saving money.
>
> During this past election, Republicans aggressively
> competed for votes in the black community. Republican
> candidates of all races advertised on black radio
> stations, spoke at black churches and went door to door in
> black communities. They revealed a fatal weakness in the
> Democratic Party: a growing number of its most loyal
> voters do not share its liberal cultural values.
>
> We have Americans in all communities who are conservative
> about family values. They are conservative about
> traditional morality. They are conservative about
> empowerment issues, like school choice and lower taxes. I
> am convinced that if we communicate those values to black
> voters, then the gains we made in the 1994 election will
> seem trivial in comparison. If GOP candidates continue to
> spread the principles and ideas of the Republican Party,
> then the Democrats will never regain control of Congress
> or elect another president.
>
> In this effort, our goal is not just to contain
> liberalism--it is to transcend it; not just to reduce the
> costs of government--but to change its very nature; not
> just to urge Americans toward reduced expectations--but
> toward greater and bolder dreams. Many have charged that
> the Contract With America adversely affects African
> Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. In
> fact, it is a racial slur to say black families don't need
> a tax break, don't want a government that plays by the
> same rules as everyone else and don't think that welfare
> reform will ultimately help those it has imprisoned for
> decades.
>
> Are we Republicans without blame? Absolutely not. As
> Republicans, we must make every effort to reach out in
> greater numbers to those who share our values. Black
> Americans are closer to our beliefs than our Democrat
> counterparts would ever want to admit. Recently, House
> Speaker Newt Gingrich told the Los Angeles Times that our
> party needs to spend four times as much effort reaching
> out to the black community to ensure that they know they
> will not be discriminated against as compared with the
> amount of effort we've put into saying we're against
> quotas and set-asides. I agree. This is the real challenge
> to the Republican Party, and I encourage all Republicans
> to prayerfully consider this: The party that Frederick
> Douglass defended can still appeal to minorities.
>
> Gingrich said that one of the things he has learned during
> his tenure as House speaker is that blacks--who only 30
> years ago faced segregation, discrimination and state
> police who were beating them and keeping them from
> entering state colleges--have a legitimate fear that the
> country, in the absence of a strong federal government,
> could slide back into that environment.
>
> But does that mean we should continue to fight
> discriminate with discrimination? No. It does mean that we
> need to look for solutions that will help heal, not
> divide. It also means that the Republican Party--the party
> of Lincoln and the Emancipation, the party that truly
> believes in independence--needs to go out of its way to
> communicate with black Americans. It means that we look to
> the full force of the law to prevent discrimination and
> that we preach against it at every turn. It means that we
> have zero-tolerance for those who would ever dare judge
> someone by the color of his skin. And, lastly, it means
> that we embark on a course of racial reconciliation, not
> division.
>
> Promise Keepers, a Christian men's group, has said that
> racial reconciliation is the only way to end
> discrimination. What better party to bring about that
> unity than the Republican Party? Our party must strive to
> restore the original meaning of Martin Luther King Jr.'s
> words when he urged all Americans to judge people by the
> content of their character rather than the color of their
> skin. To do so, we must recognize that the struggle for
> civil rights today is not strictly about legal rights, but
> about expanding the reach of economic opportunity and
> restoring respect for traditional values.
>
> Someone commented to me recently that our country doesn't
> have a race problem, it has a grace problem. It's going to
> take a lot of grace to create the American Dream for all
> people. But I, for one, am better able to envision the
> Dream fulfilled by the principles of the Republican Party
> than those that guide the Democratic Party. When we talk
> about expanding the reach of economic opportunity and
> restoring the respect of traditional values, I can see the
> American Dream.
>
> When we talk about individual freedom and personal
> responsibility, I can see the American Dream. When we talk
> about redeeming ourselves by living up to the noble
> principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence
> and the Constitution of the United States, I can see the
> American Dream.
>
> I have always believed the Republican Party will not truly
> become the majority party until we regain our legacy as
> the party of minority Americans. To do so, we must bring
> our message and our ideals to people who in recent history
> have not traditionally supported the Republican Party.
>
> We don't have to abandon our principles to reach out to
> minorities; we have only to rediscover them. The
> principles we stand for--morality, integrity, personal
> responsibility--are universal. Those traits are demanded
> of all God's creatures, and we have a historic and
> spiritual responsibility to return the party and our
> brothers and sisters to those values.
>
> As my friend Jack Kemp has so eloquently stated, it would
> be a tragic mistake for the party of Lincoln and Douglass
> to concede the support of minority Americans to the
> Democrats. It would be more than a tragic mistake. It
> would be a betrayal of our party's history.
>
> The black community's history is not steeped in single
> parenting or drug abuse or prostitution or crime. When I
> was growing up, the sense of family was as strong in our
> poor black community as any other community. In fact, the
> single black mom was harder on her kids than my strict dad
> ever thought about being on me. There was a sense of
> responsibility, a sense of strength, a sense that we knew
> right from wrong. The roots of the black community are the
> very principles that make this country great.
>
> Friends, the self-appointed, nonelected black professional
> politicians don't have the good of your community at
> heart. They want to continue to make generation after
> generation beholden to the government dole, to dependency
> on them and the Democrats. They cry "Sellout!"--or
> worse--any time a black person dares to step out of their
> narrowly defined group identity mode.
>
> I ask you, who is more of a sellout--the blacks who fight
> for independence or the snake oil salesmen who strikes
> deals with the white liberals to keep minorities dependent
> as long as they can benefit from that dependence?
>
> As Republicans, we have always believed people should
> think for themselves; that people can make smarter
> decisions for themselves than the government; and that the
> government should be of the people, by the people and for
> the people.
>
> That's what we offer minority Americans--a hand up, not a
> handout. A hand extended in friendship and trust. Remember
> that Oklahoma senatorial candidate who opened my eyes and
> mind during the debate I covered back in 1980? That was
> Don Nickles, a man I admire and respect for many reasons.
> Sen. Nickles offered me the hand of friendship and trust.
> Today, I'm one of two black Republicans serving in the
> U.S. House of Representatives. Trust me when I say that
> the revolution that started with the 1994 elections can be
> just the tip of the iceberg.
>
> Our country's freedom was paid for with the blood of both
> white and black men. At this important juncture in our
> history, this party must reach out to its natural
> philosophic constituency. Our party's growth depends on
> it. More important, our nation's heart depends on it.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> | Main Street | Newsstand |Rising Tide Index |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright © 1995, Republican National Committee
--
-------------------------- Sign below the dotted line --------------------
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Ed Brown - dark...@cais.com
http://www.tnp.com/~darkstar (construction in progress)
Copyright, 1996, Edwin Brown
DarkStar
> [The Rising Tide]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Rising Tide November/December 1995 Volume 3/Number 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lincoln's Legacy: The Party That Truly Believes in Giving
> Power to the People
>
> By J.C. Watts
> (J.C. Watts, former chairman of Oklahoma's Corporation
> Commission, is the U.S. representative from the 4th
> District of Oklahoma.)
...
>
> African Americans are not Democrats because they believe
> in the party's values. In fact, I think the Democratic
> Party has forgotten its most loyal constituents. I
> challenge every black Democrat to ask himself or herself
> one question: What has their party done for them in the
> last 30 years?
This is true, but what has the Republican party done for Blacks
during the last 30 years? Democrats seem to be ignoring Blacks,
meanwhile, Republicans seem to be actively avoiding Blacks.
In the Maryland governor's race, Ellen Saeurbry (spelling?) had
scheduled an appearance with a group of Black voters. Her advisor
told her to cancel the appearance so as not to "appear to be
catering to Blacks." And she did so. After the election, she
acknowledged that she was wrong for canceling. In the Virginia
senate race, Ollie North turned down a request to appear in a
debate being given by the local NAACP. These are two examples of
what happened in my local area. I find it interesting that the
Republicans appear to actively avoid two groups: homosexuals and
Blacks.
>
> You see, I don't speak as a black Republican. I speak from
> a set of principles that I believe will totally re-order
> the political landscape in America. My convictions are
> based on a deep, abiding faith in the fundamental
> principles of the party of Lincoln--principles that I
> believe appeal to all people, regardless of race.
It is true that Lincoln believed the slaves should
be free. However, he also believed that the races could not co-exist
and that the freed slaves should be sent back to Africa.
...
>
> A recent poll conducted by the Joint Center for Political
> and Economic Studies found that while 72 percent of black
> Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 33 percent
> characterized themselves as conservative. A series of
> Washington Post polls found that 35 percent of blacks
> identified themselves as "conservative" or "very
> conservative."
>
> I, for one, wasn't surprised. Historically, black people
> are conservative. They are the keepers of the flame of
> family values. Blacks believe in family, church and
> community.
I agree with this. So then why are Blacks believed to be "liberals"?
...
> During this past election, Republicans aggressively
> competed for votes in the black community. Republican
> candidates of all races advertised on black radio
> stations, spoke at black churches and went door to door in
> black communities. They revealed a fatal weakness in the
> Democratic Party: a growing number of its most loyal
> voters do not share its liberal cultural values.
I have to disagree with the idea that Republicans aggressively
competed for votes in the Black community. It didn't appear that
way in the Maryland/Virgina area.
...
> Are we Republicans without blame? Absolutely not. As
> Republicans, we must make every effort to reach out in
> greater numbers to those who share our values. Black
> Americans are closer to our beliefs than our Democrat
> counterparts would ever want to admit. Recently, House
> Speaker Newt Gingrich told the Los Angeles Times that our
> party needs to spend four times as much effort reaching
> out to the black community to ensure that they know they
> will not be discriminated against as compared with the
> amount of effort we've put into saying we're against
> quotas and set-asides. I agree. This is the real challenge
> to the Republican Party, and I encourage all Republicans
> to prayerfully consider this: The party that Frederick
> Douglass defended can still appeal to minorities.
I agree with what is written. I am registered as an independent,
but I have many beliefs that align with the Republicans. However,
I'm not a Republican because of Republicans. Whenever I start to
consider the Republican party, one of it's members does something
to change my mind. The Democrats have a former KKK member, Sen.
Byrd, and the Republican party has Jesse Helms.
> Gingrich said that one of the things he has learned during
> his tenure as House speaker is that blacks--who only 30
> years ago faced segregation, discrimination and state
> police who were beating them and keeping them from
> entering state colleges--have a legitimate fear that the
> country, in the absence of a strong federal government,
> could slide back into that environment.
This is true.
...
> We don't have to abandon our principles to reach out to
> minorities; we have only to rediscover them. The
> principles we stand for--morality, integrity, personal
> responsibility--are universal. Those traits are demanded
> of all God's creatures, and we have a historic and
> spiritual responsibility to return the party and our
> brothers and sisters to those values.
If Republicans have to "rediscover" their principles, then Blacks'
claim of Republicans being racist has some merit. Is this what
he really means to say?
...
> Friends, the self-appointed, nonelected black professional
> politicians don't have the good of your community at
> heart. They want to continue to make generation after
> generation beholden to the government dole, to dependency
> on them and the Democrats. They cry "Sellout!"--or
> worse--any time a black person dares to step out of their
> narrowly defined group identity mode.
>
> I ask you, who is more of a sellout--the blacks who fight
> for independence or the snake oil salesmen who strikes
> deals with the white liberals to keep minorities dependent
> as long as they can benefit from that dependence?
I agree with what is written here, but I have to ask the question:
If Republicans profess the individual, why do they acknowledge
so called "Black Leaders" who are named "Black Leaders" by the
media? Why do they point out that "Black Leaders" shouldn't be
Jesse Jackson but Clarence Thomas? The idea of "Black Leaders" is
condenscending and insulting. The idea that Republicans acknowledge
and want to "choose" those "leaders" is equally insulting.
Republicans have to come to grips with
the fact that the sterotype of Republicans was not given them by
the media as some claim, but was earned.
-Ronald H.Davis
DarkStar <dark...@cais2.cais.com> wrote:
>
>> You see, I don't speak as a black Republican. I speak from
>> a set of principles that I believe will totally re-order
>> the political landscape in America. My convictions are
>> based on a deep, abiding faith in the fundamental
>> principles of the party of Lincoln--principles that I
>> believe appeal to all people, regardless of race.
>
>It is true that Lincoln believed the slaves should
>be free. However, he also believed that the races could not co-exist
>and that the freed slaves should be sent back to Africa.
>
watts' problem is that he is parroting what people in the republican
party have told him without knowing anything else. if he did know
something he was realize that republicans did get a fair amount of
support from black voters until about 30 years ago. what happened?
barry goldwater, who in 1964 ran what was essentially a racist campaign
in which he opposed practically every civil rights initiative. as a
result, the republican party became the party of racial polarization,
goldwater got something like 4% of the black vote and republicans
haven't received any significant black support in national elections
since. i mean, eisenhower got over 40% of the black vote in 1956, and
even richard nixon got 25% of the black vote when he ran against kennedy
in 1960.
anyway, the point is, citations to people that lived over a century
ago have little more than rhetorical significance to the current political
climate.
>> A recent poll conducted by the Joint Center for Political
>> and Economic Studies found that while 72 percent of black
>> Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 33 percent
>> characterized themselves as conservative. A series of
>> Washington Post polls found that 35 percent of blacks
>> identified themselves as "conservative" or "very
>> conservative."
>>
>> I, for one, wasn't surprised. Historically, black people
>> are conservative. They are the keepers of the flame of
>> family values. Blacks believe in family, church and
>> community.
>
>I agree with this. So then why are Blacks believed to be "liberals"?
>
this shows yet another problem with watts' reasoning [which is parroting
actually so it's understandable that he would commit logical gaffes while
reciting things that he might not have thought about]. sure most black
people think of themselves as "conservative"; i certainly do; but my
definition of "conservative" is very different from that of jesse helms,
pat buchanan, et. al. i mean, most black people and white people in this
country would consider themselves to be "christians" but that doesn't
mean that they go to the same churches, rather, the church is up there
with country clubs in terms of being remaining bastions of segregation.
--
__ ______ __ / __/ | at&t, naperville il, usa
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/ . ronald....@att.com
"man's life is a progress; and not a station" -- ralph waldo emerson
Jon Locker
>> and Economic Studies found that while 72 percent of black
>> Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 33 percent
>> characterized themselves as conservative. A series of
>> Washington Post polls found that 35 percent of blacks
>> identified themselves as "conservative" or "very
>> conservative."
>>
>> I, for one, wasn't surprised. Historically, black people
>> are conservative. They are the keepers of the flame of
>> family values. Blacks believe in family, church and
>> community.
>
>I agree with this. So then why are Blacks believed to be "liberals"?
...cause you dance with what brung ya. The liberals were the ones who were
protesting and fighting for civil rights in the 50s and 60s, so it does
follow that we would tend to trust them more. Really, the question that
ought to be asked is, why didn't the GOP seek black support during the
civil rights era? After all, it seems that the most virulent racists were
Democrats at the time... Considering that the GOP had virtually no Southern
presence back then, they could have seen a tremendous amount of growth had
they followed the morally correct course of action...
>
>> During this past election, Republicans aggressively
>> competed for votes in the black community. Republican
>> candidates of all races advertised on black radio
>> stations, spoke at black churches and went door to door in
>> black communities. They revealed a fatal weakness in the
>> Democratic Party: a growing number of its most loyal
>> voters do not share its liberal cultural values.
>
>I have to disagree with the idea that Republicans aggressively
>competed for votes in the Black community. It didn't appear that
>way in the Maryland/Virgina area.
>
They'll never compete for our votes as long as guys like Pat Buchanan and
David Duke have philosophies that fit in nicely with theirs. Period.
--
Jon Locker | j...@power.ece.uiuc.edu
Power & Energy Systems | 338 Everitt Lab
Electrical & Computer Engineering | 1406 W. Green St.
U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | Urbana, IL 61801
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
> watts' problem is that he is parroting what people in the republican
> party have told him without knowing anything else.
I really get frustrated and irritated by the reflex accusation of "parroting",
made every time a black person dares to offer anything but the party line (so
to speak) in political issues.
I think Watts is dead wrong in his moralistic, universal-values approach, and I
agree with you that many Republicans have, over the past thirty years,
ruthlessly played the race card against blacks and black interests. But I also
think that it's thoughtless, arrogant, and (maybe worst of all) unproductive to
respond to people who hold different opinions with casual insults concerning
the way those people arrived at their views.
Watts gives every sign of being a decent, thoughtful person who deserves
respectful criticism, and who is correct about at least this much: neither
major American political party deserves knee-jerk support from black Americans.
There has been plenty of racism displayed by people in both parties; and blacks
have nothing to lose if Republicans take Watts's suggestion and start fighting
racism as hard as they fight affirmative action.
Harvey
_______________________
Harvey Cormier
Philosophy Dept.
University of Texas @ Austin
Steve GREGG
H.Davis) writes:
>
>In article <4g8vr5$2...@zippy.cais.net>,
>DarkStar <dark...@cais2.cais.com> wrote:
>>
>>> a set of principles that I believe will totally re-order
>>> the political landscape in America. My convictions are
>>> based on a deep, abiding faith in the fundamental
>>> principles of the party of Lincoln--principles that I
>>> believe appeal to all people, regardless of race.
>>
>>It is true that Lincoln believed the slaves should
>>be free. However, he also believed that the races could not co-exist
>>and that the freed slaves should be sent back to Africa.
>>
>
>something he was realize that republicans did get a fair amount of
>support from black voters until about 30 years ago. what happened?
>barry goldwater, who in 1964 ran what was essentially a racist
campaign
>in which he opposed practically every civil rights initiative. as a
>result, the republican party became the party of racial polarization,
>goldwater got something like 4% of the black vote and republicans
>haven't received any significant black support in national elections
>since. i mean, eisenhower got over 40% of the black vote in 1956, and
>even richard nixon got 25% of the black vote when he ran against
kennedy
>in 1960.
Not quite. Most black Americans were Republicans until the New Deal.
By the time Barry ran for president, the blacks had long since swung to
the Democratic Party.
-Ronald H.Davis
i'm not sure what it is to which you are saying "not quite"; if you
are trying to say that eisenhower and nixon did not get these vote
totals then i suggest that you take a trip to the library. nonetheless,
obviously in both cases the majority of the black vote did not go to
eisenhower and nixon but their percentages are a lot higher than any
republican running for president has gotten since goldwater - since
goldwater republicans have been in the single digit range - i think
that it's pretty significant that republicans went from a respectable
minority black support *before* goldwater to miniscule black support
*after* goldwater. the reason for this has more to do with the republicans'
position on civil rights than it has to do with the new deal.
M.D.C.Bowen
jc watts is a good guy. perhaps he can even survive being paraded around
the republican camp as 'our nig'. i hope he does well. let's wait and see.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
m.d.c.bowen think!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DarkStar
M.D.C.Bowen <md...@well.com> wrote:
>
>jc watts is a good guy. perhaps he can even survive being paraded around
>the republican camp as 'our nig'. i hope he does well. let's wait and see.
>
What Mike said, *PLUS*.....
Has anyone noticed the difference between him and Franks?
An interesting note is that Gingrich gave Watts the lead in coming up with
a "plan" to "replace" affirmative action.
Dr. Midnight
>
>Steve GREGG <smg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Not quite. Most black Americans were Republicans until the New Deal.
>>By the time Barry ran for president, the blacks had long since swung to
>>the Democratic Party.
>
>Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists.
More misinformation. Blacks were overwhelmingly GOP until the New Deal
made it about 50-50 through Eisenhower. When JFK called Coretta King after
MLK was jailed in a protest in 1960 (while Nixon did nothing), black
votes swung 70-30 towards the Dems.
>FDR brought most blacks into the party because of the New Deal and all his
>anti-poverty programs, social security, etc. In the 60s practically
>all voting blacks swung solidly into the Democratic party because Democrats
>supported all the Civil Rights stuff, while the Republicans pretty much
>sat on the sidelines and were skeptical about the whole thing.
Goldwater polarized things further, and then LBJ signed the Civil Rights
Bill.
He said at the signing, "I've just given the South to the GOP for the
next 25 years." He was right.
>Republican leaders, with few exceptions, have now pretty much given up
>on squeezing any significant vote out of the black community. It's
Even Newt Gingrich (in his 1st address as Speaker) said that "we (the
GOP) dropped the ball morally or Civil Rights, and that is why we lost
the black vote" (I paraphrased slightly.)
>sort of a cliche to say that white democrats take the black vote for
>granted. The democrats may not worry about the Republicans taking much
>of the black vote, but they do know blacks make a difference if they
>choose to not stay home or vote for a third party.
I would ask you to look at the reaction to Jesse Jackson, the Lani Guiner
controversy, and other examples of how the dems treat the back vote. They
see us a fringe group, sort of the Christian Coalition of The Left.
-Dr M.
DarkStar
Dr. Midnight <george...@crd.lotus.com> wrote:
...
>
>I would ask you to look at the reaction to Jesse Jackson, the Lani Guiner
>controversy, and other examples of how the dems treat the back vote. They
>see us a fringe group, sort of the Christian Coalition of The Left.
>
The *WILDEST* thing about Lani -- "They screamed Quota Queen" -- Guiner is
that her voicing her opinions about voting seems to be causing some dialog.
And on the eastern shore of Maryland, a judge rejectdted the idea of
majority minority districts, and used her ideas to settle a voting
discrimination case.
Kenneth R. Crudup
dark...@cais.cais.com (DarkStar) says:
>An interesting note is that Gingrich gave Watts the lead in coming up with
>a "plan" to "replace" affirmative action.
Not being familiar with Watts' take on either the GOP "mandate" or his views
on AA, is this a good thing for us (ie., will be done with some common sense
and view of history) or bad (as a Black anti-AA frontman)?
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup, Unix & OS/2 Software Consultant, Scott County Consulting
ke...@panix.com CI$: 75032,3044 +1 617 524 5929/4949 Home/Office
16 Plainfield St, Boston, MA 02130-3633 +1 617 983 9410 Fax
OS/2 box: pkenny.tiac.net (when I'm online) Get Warp-ed! OS/2 3.0 is here NOW!
DarkStar
Kenneth R. Crudup <ke...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <4gd4ki$2...@zippy.cais.net>,
>dark...@cais.cais.com (DarkStar) says:
>
>>An interesting note is that Gingrich gave Watts the lead in coming up with
>>a "plan" to "replace" affirmative action.
>
>Not being familiar with Watts' take on either the GOP "mandate" or his views
>on AA, is this a good thing for us (ie., will be done with some common sense
>and view of history) or bad (as a Black anti-AA frontman)?
Gingrich is quoted as saying that African-Americans have a valid fear of
losing ground with the loss of affirmative action or the mention of states
rights. Franks is in the House of Representatives as well, and IMO, it's a
"better" sign that he wasn't tasked with taking charge. Franks is working
with Gramm in the Senate to kill it outright.
Shana Miller
leader, and was elected from a district populated by people who used to
cheer for him when he played football.
He gets very little respect from Black people in Oklahoma, and is an
opportunist by nature. He began his political career as a Democrat,
couldn't get any one to take him seriously, and switched parties when
the GOP agreed to get him some "handlers". They re-made him, packaged
him, and sold him as a "hero".
Julius Ceasar Watts talks about family values, yet refuses to talk about
the daughter that he fathered at a very early age, who he and his
girlfriend at the time gave to some relatives of his to raise as their
own. When the word got out to the press, he was typically dumbfounded
and replied: "She is well taken care of." (or something to that effect).
That stuff about him being an African-American first in Oklahoma (he won
a state-wide election) is more media hype than anything. Yes it is true,
but if you ever played football at O.U. and had some success (and he had
lots), you could probably own that state.
He is an insult to African-Americans nationwide, but especially at home.
When one considers that John Hope Franklin was born in Rentiesville,
Oklahoma and graduated from North Tulsa's Booker T. Washington H.S. in
1931, it is truly shameful that on the verge of a new century, people
associate Black success in my home state with losers like Watts.
S.M.B. Miller
P.S. I saw Alan Keyes in the Des Moines airport during the Iowa
Caucuses, and yes brothers and sisters, his hair and beard are as nappy
and unkempt in person as they are on television. He keeps talking about
his "grassroots" organization, maybe he should take up some money to get
a pick, some hair grease, and some clippers.
Life is truly stranger than fiction for Black people today!
Art Clemons
In article <4gb7cb$a...@cloner4.netcom.com> Steve GREGG wrote:
>Not quite. Most black Americans were Republicans until the New Deal.
>By the time Barry ran for president, the blacks had long since swung to
>the Democratic Party.
>
>
One more time, Steve, you don't know what you're talking about. Nixon in
1960 got a substantial portion of the African American vote. Eisenhower
probably got 40% of the African American vote. Ed Brooke in 1964 was a
shining star for the Republican party, and was probably the first African
American to win a statewide vote since reconstruction, first as Attorney
General of Massachusetts, then as a republican Senator. There were still
large blocks of republican African Americans until first the 1964 campaign
with at least the hints of anti-African American sentiments, and then the
first of the run against crime as a substitute for Black folks during the
1968 Nixon campaign sure dropped the vote total. Since then, with the
exception of Gerald Ford, no republican presidential campaign has been free
of a racist hint or slant that's apparent to most thinking African
Americans. Republicans could have owned the African American vote in the
south by actively recruiting, republicans instead chose to seek the votes
of the disaffected white males who felt displaced by the activities of
African Americans. There was once even a liberal wing of the republican
party which did garner votes from African Americans in places like New York
and Michigan. Be real, imagine that you're an African American, and you
see a party which runs candidates so awful that voting for George Wallace
seems like a prudent thing to do, and the reason for the disaffection might
be more obvious.
acle...@gnn.com (Art Clemons)
Christiaan Blake
Loc...@power.ece.uiu
> David Duke have philosophies that fit in nicely with theirs. Period.
So when David Duke first ran for President as a democrat, did that
party stop competing for your vote? When DD first won political office
as a democrat, did they stop competing for your vote?
Chris
Christiaan Blake
"parroting",
> made every time a black person dares to offer anything but the party line (so
> to speak) in political issues.
>
> I think Watts is dead wrong in his moralistic, universal-values
approach, and I
> agree with you that many Republicans have, over the past thirty years,
> ruthlessly played the race card against blacks and black interests.
But I also
> think that it's thoughtless, arrogant, and (maybe worst of all)
unproductive to
> respond to people who hold different opinions with casual insults concerning
> the way those people arrived at their views.
>
> Watts gives every sign of being a decent, thoughtful person who deserves
> respectful criticism, and who is correct about at least this much: neither
> major American political party deserves knee-jerk support from black
Americans.
>
> There has been plenty of racism displayed by people in both parties;
and blacks
> have nothing to lose if Republicans take Watts's suggestion and start
fighting
> racism as hard as they fight affirmative action.
>
Well said!
Chris
Christiaan Blake
> during the last 30 years?
Lower taxes, job growth opportunities, and a much less regulated
economy for Black entrepreneurs to thrive in.
> In the Maryland governor's race, Ellen Saeurbry (spelling?) had
> scheduled an appearance with a group of Black voters. Her advisor
> told her to cancel the appearance so as not to "appear to be
> catering to Blacks." And she did so. After the election, she
> acknowledged that she was wrong for canceling.
So what's the problem?
> In the Virginia senate race, Ollie North turned down a request to appear in a
> debate being given by the local NAACP.
And? Just because he refused to debate in what he felt may be a
biased and hostile environment, he is avoiding Blacks? GMAB!
> It is true that Lincoln believed the slaves should
> be free. However, he also believed that the races could not co-exist
> and that the freed slaves should be sent back to Africa.
That certainly was a better position than your democratic friends
had, which was to keep us here in order to have free labor.
> > I, for one, wasn't surprised. Historically, black people
> > are conservative. They are the keepers of the flame of
> > family values. Blacks believe in family, church and
> > community.
>
> I agree with this. So then why are Blacks believed to be "liberals"?
Because as a community or group, the Black vote continues to go to
folks who are anti those stated values. Don't say you believe in those
values, but vote for politicians who support legislation that are
against those values.
> I agree with what is written. I am registered as an independent,
> but I have many beliefs that align with the Republicans. However,
> I'm not a Republican because of Republicans. Whenever I start to
> consider the Republican party, one of it's members does something
> to change my mind. The Democrats have a former KKK member, Sen.
> Byrd, and the Republican party has Jesse Helms.
Who or what is the Independent Party? This is a cop out.
> I agree with what is written here, but I have to ask the question:
> If Republicans profess the individual, why do they acknowledge
> so called "Black Leaders" who are named "Black Leaders" by the
> media?
Becasue as liberals you people don't believe in the individual and
neither does the mainstream media.. You people believe in group think,
as you have demonstrated so well on this bbd.
> Why do they point out that "Black Leaders" shouldn't be
> Jesse Jackson but Clarence Thomas? The idea of "Black Leaders" is
> condenscending and insulting.
The idea that either Blacks believe in government programs, welfare,
etc.. or are sellouts, working for the man blah, blah, blah is just as
condescending, but I never hear you complain about that.
Chris
Christiaan Blake
Dark...@cais3.cais.com
> losing ground with the loss of affirmative action or the mention of states
> rights.
I see you are back to using quotes again DS. Should I dare ask you
to cite a source for this quote?
Chris
DarkStar
Christiaan Blake <cb...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Excerpts from mail: 19-Feb-96 Re: JC Watts and The Party .. by
>Dark...@cais2.cais.com
>> during the last 30 years?
>
and erase loopholes like loan deductions.
>job growth opportunities, and a much less regulated
>economy for Black entrepreneurs to thrive in.
since when is the government responsible for creating jobs?
>> In the Maryland governor's race, Ellen Saeurbry (spelling?) had
>> scheduled an appearance with a group of Black voters. Her advisor
>> told her to cancel the appearance so as not to "appear to be
>> catering to Blacks." And she did so. After the election, she
>> acknowledged that she was wrong for canceling.
>
> So what's the problem?
just pointing out a fact.
>> In the Virginia senate race, Ollie North turned down a request to appear in a
>> debate being given by the local NAACP.
>
> And? Just because he refused to debate in what he felt may be a
>biased and hostile environment, he is avoiding Blacks? GMAB!
his campaign avoided Blacks as a whole. the example was a convient example.
>> It is true that Lincoln believed the slaves should
>> be free. However, he also believed that the races could not co-exist
>> and that the freed slaves should be sent back to Africa.
>
> That certainly was a better position than your democratic friends
>had, which was to keep us here in order to have free labor.
but it shows Lincoln was not a saint, doesn't it?
>> > I, for one, wasn't surprised. Historically, black people
>> > are conservative. They are the keepers of the flame of
>> > family values. Blacks believe in family, church and
>> > community.
>>
>> I agree with this. So then why are Blacks believed to be "liberals"?
>
> Because as a community or group, the Black vote continues to go to
>folks who are anti those stated values. Don't say you believe in those
>values, but vote for politicians who support legislation that are
>against those values.
race matters.
>> I agree with what is written. I am registered as an independent,
>> but I have many beliefs that align with the Republicans. However,
>> I'm not a Republican because of Republicans. Whenever I start to
>> consider the Republican party, one of it's members does something
>> to change my mind. The Democrats have a former KKK member, Sen.
>> Byrd, and the Republican party has Jesse Helms.
>
> Who or what is the Independent Party? This is a cop out.
I refer to it as principles.
>> I agree with what is written here, but I have to ask the question:
>> If Republicans profess the individual, why do they acknowledge
>> so called "Black Leaders" who are named "Black Leaders" by the
>> media?
>
> Becasue as liberals you people don't believe in the individual and
>neither does the mainstream media.. You people believe in group think,
>as you have demonstrated so well on this bbd.
"you people"? ain't that group think?
>> Why do they point out that "Black Leaders" shouldn't be
>> Jesse Jackson but Clarence Thomas? The idea of "Black Leaders" is
>> condenscending and insulting.
>
> The idea that either Blacks believe in government programs, welfare,
>etc.. or are sellouts, working for the man blah, blah, blah is just as
>condescending, but I never hear you complain about that.
are Blacks that different from whites on the above mentioned issues?
really?
DarkStar
It started off the thread.
The section follows.
http://www.rnc.org/news/tide/9511/article6.html
> [The Rising Tide]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Rising Tide November/December 1995 Volume 3/Number 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lincoln's Legacy: The Party That Truly Believes in Giving
> Power to the People
>
> By J.C. Watts
...
> Gingrich said that one of the things he has learned during
> his tenure as House speaker is that blacks--who only 30
> years ago faced segregation, discrimination and state
> police who were beating them and keeping them from
> entering state colleges--have a legitimate fear that the
> country, in the absence of a strong federal government,
> could slide back into that environment.
...
Alaskan (A.J. Rawls)
>J.C. Watts is an idiot and a puppet. He lacks the moral fiber to be a
>leader, and was elected from a district populated by people who used to
>cheer for him when he played football.
>He gets very little respect from Black people in Oklahoma, and is an
>opportunist by nature. He began his political career as a Democrat,
>couldn't get any one to take him seriously, and switched parties when
>the GOP agreed to get him some "handlers". They re-made him, packaged
>him, and sold him as a "hero".
Does he represent the views of his district?
If so... He's doing his job..
If not... He's not doing his job and will be a two year temporary
employee...
Later
A.J.
=======================================================
...The Anchorage Fishwrapper and Litterbox Liner Press..
My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect
the policies or opinions of my employer or anyone else.
Alaskan (A.J. Rawls)
>Julius Caesar Watts talks about family values, yet refuses to talk about
>the daughter that he fathered at a very early age, who he and his
>girlfriend at the time gave to some relatives of his to raise as their
>own. When the word got out to the press, he was typically dumbfounded
>and replied: "She is well taken care of." (or something to that effect).
I guess I should comment on this too... Young people screw up, just
like everyone else, and have babies.
Sounds like they screwed up and did the best possible thing, gave the
child to responsible adults... Kids don't usually do a good job of
raising children..
I'm not familiar with Mr. Watts, but the more you type, the more I
respect the man.
Christiaan Blake
Dark...@cais2.cais.com
> > his tenure as House speaker is that blacks--who only 30
> > years ago faced segregation, discrimination and state
> > police who were beating them and keeping them from
> > entering state colleges--have a legitimate fear that the
> > country, in the absence of a strong federal government,
> > could slide back into that environment.
Technically this is not a quote from Gingrich, this is a statement
by Watts on what he thought he had heard Newt said. I believe that Newt
may have said something to that effect, but I just can't hear Newt
Gingrich using the term "fear" in reference to Blacks losing AA.
Chris
Christiaan Blake
Which actually is a good thing since government subsidies always
adds cost in the long run.
> since when is the government responsible for creating jobs?
The government didn't create the jobs, it spurred a pro-business
environment that was helpful in creating job growth opportunities.
> his campaign avoided Blacks as a whole. the example was a convient example.
His campaign didn't avoid anyone. North went after those who he felt
would be more likely to support him.
> but it shows Lincoln was not a saint, doesn't it?
I don't recall any republican ever saying that he was.
> race matters.
Apparently it doesn't when it comes to liberal democrats. They can
be as racist as they want so long as they remain liberal.
> > Who or what is the Independent Party? This is a cop out.
>
> I refer to it as principles.
OK then, what are the principles of the Independent Party?
> "you people"? ain't that group think?
I am pointing out that I believe you people are practicing group think.
> > The idea that either Blacks believe in government programs, welfare,
> >etc.. or are sellouts, working for the man blah, blah, blah is just as
> >condescending, but I never hear you complain about that.
>
> are Blacks that different from whites on the above mentioned issues?
> really?
The Black community certainly votes differently.
Chris
Art Clemons
In article <4grc4o$c...@byatt.alaska.net> Alaskan (A.J. Rawls wrote:
>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 04:13:51 GMT
>From: and...@alaska.net (Alaskan (A.J. Rawls))
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
>Subject: Re: JC Watts and The Party of Lincoln
>
>Shana Miller <sm1...@acad.drake.edu> wrote:
>
>>Julius Caesar Watts talks about family values, yet refuses to talk about
>>the daughter that he fathered at a very early age, who he and his
>>girlfriend at the time gave to some relatives of his to raise as their
>>own. When the word got out to the press, he was typically dumbfounded
>>and replied: "She is well taken care of." (or something to that effect).
>
>I guess I should comment on this too... Young people screw up, just
>like everyone else, and have babies.
>
>Sounds like they screwed up and did the best possible thing, gave the
>child to responsible adults... Kids don't usually do a good job of
>raising children..
>
>I'm not familiar with Mr. Watts, but the more you type, the more I
>respect the man.
>
>Later
>A.J.
Assuming you mean humans younger than 18 as typical, I once again point out
that even in this century, marriage before age 18, and even raising
children was not unknown or frowned upon in sections of this country. Look
at how old your great-great-grandparents were when their first born
happened for some idea about how standards have changed.
The real question in any discussion of family values always amounts to
whose family, and during which period of time.
Mr. Watts behavior isn't exactly the prime time example that people often
tout as acceptable, but it was a common one for some of his generation. At
one time, he would have been expected to marry, and support his children if
he was old enough to father the child. Now of course, he has different
beliefs and urges behavior different than he showed. Note that Mr. Watts,
since he didn't marry the woman whom he had impregnated, didn't have to pay
child support, and if such an order had been isssued, it certainly would
not have absorbed a substantial percentage of his income as such an order
would now do for someone as old as Mr. Watts was, when he first became a
father. The rules and expectations have changed, and people can't move
backwards, no matter how hard they try.`
acle...@gnn.com (Art Clemons)
A.J. Rawls
>In article <4grc4o$c...@byatt.alaska.net> Alaskan (A.J. Rawls wrote:
>>I guess I should comment on this too... Young people screw up, just
>>like everyone else, and have babies.
>>
>>Sounds like they screwed up and did the best possible thing, gave the
>>child to responsible adults... Kids don't usually do a good job of
>>raising children..
>>
>>I'm not familiar with Mr. Watts, but the more you type, the more I
>>respect the man.
>>
>>Later
>>A.J.
>Assuming you mean humans younger than 18 as typical, I once again point out
>that even in this century, marriage before age 18, and even raising
>children was not unknown or frowned upon in sections of this country. Look
>at how old your great-great-grandparents were when their first born
>happened for some idea about how standards have changed.
>The real question in any discussion of family values always amounts to
>whose family, and during which period of time.
Since Mr. Watts appears to have been born in the latter half of this
century, I assume that the child was born after 1960. This being the
case, immediate marriage and taking care of a wife and child would not
have been the most advantageous thing for him to do if he had
responsible adults ready and willing to raise the child.
The best possible thing to do was give the child to someone that
wanted to care for it and for him to get an education and try to make
a decent living.
>Mr. Watts behavior isn't exactly the prime time example that people often
>tout as acceptable, but it was a common one for some of his generation. At
>one time, he would have been expected to marry, and support his children if
>he was old enough to father the child. Now of course, he has different
>beliefs and urges behavior different than he showed. Note that Mr. Watts,
>since he didn't marry the woman whom he had impregnated, didn't have to pay
>child support, and if such an order had been issued, it certainly would
>not have absorbed a substantial percentage of his income as such an order
>would now do for someone as old as Mr. Watts was, when he first became a
>father. The rules and expectations have changed, and people can't move
>backwards, no matter how hard they try.`
>acle...@gnn.com (Art Clemons)
People have been having babies and giving them away as long as there
has been children...
I agree that at one time, in some circles, he would have been expected
to marry (please don't forget that the USA has many cultures and
societies).
The child support issue does not apply, if someone else adopted the
child, they became it's Legal Parents... If they did not adopt the
child and had sought child support, they would have gotten it (I don't
want to discuss Child Support in this forum)
As I posted before... I don't know much about Mr. Watts, but I'm
impressed by what I've seen posted here so far.
If the man represents the people that elected him, I have no problems
with him.
Later
A.J. Rawls
BTW...
The only set of Great-Great-Grandparennts that I can trace: Grandmom
was 23 and Grandad was 31.
A.J. Rawls (Alaskan)
>Leaders today, irrespective of political party, or organization are not
>honest. And it is sad to see a young brother, like Watts, become a
>puppet, when he could honestly seek the higher moral ground, and really
>be a role model.
As I posted before.. I know very little of Mr. Watts, but I ask again,
does he represent the views of his constituency?
If he does, he's doing his job, if he does not, he will not be
reelected.
I often hear people talk of "Role Models"... What or Who is a Role
Model? I would hope that Parents are, maybe Spiritual Advisors should
be, and those who wish to be emulated should be.
My "Role Model" was a Truck Farmer on a two-mule farm, but he was
expected to be because he was Grampa.
Politicians, athletes, performers, etc. are not and should not be
expected to be role models for anyone... They are paid to do a
particular job, period. I doubt if Mr. Watts asked anyone to elect
him Role Model.
Later
A.J. Rawls