The George W. Bush Minority Outreach Tour

Randy Davis

New member
The George W. Bush minority outreach tour

Bush reaches out to Latino and black voters in his latest campaign swing.

By Jake Tapper

June 27, 2000

(Salon.com) - Texas Gov. George W. Bush kicked off an unofficial "minority outreach week" Monday with more than just more photo ops.

Monday, at the very least, brought a surreal hodgepodge of tangible proposals that legitimately break from the Republican Party's less-than-inclusive past, and presented some odd moments that illustrate how tough it is for a conservative Republican to negotiate racial terrain.

Bush kicked off the day with a speech to the League of Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, which has publicly slammed Bush on several occasions.

Last year LULAC president Enrique "Rick" Dovalina was quoted in the Austin American-Statesman saying that members of his organization were "very disappointed with the way [Bush was] parading around with taco politics. He doesn't have the Hispanic vote sewn up just because he's speaking Spanish."

The conservative politics of the second group Bush spoke to on Monday, the Congress on Racial Equality, or CORE, has led critics to question how representative it is of the African-American community.

From its beginnings in the 1940s leading the charge on integration, CORE has morphed into something else entirely under the leadership of national chairman Roy Innis.

Innis is a member of the National Rifle Association, testified in favor of the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Robert Bork and has spoken out in favor of "subway vigilante" Bernhard Goetz.

In 1988 he got into two physical tussles on TV -- one with the Rev. Al Sharpton on Morton Downey Jr.'s television show, and another with a young skinhead on "Geraldo." Innis and his son, Fox News Channel talking head/CORE spokesman Niger Innis, have endorsed Alan Keyes for president.

One year ago, Bush was criticized for skipping conventions of not only LULAC, but the National Council of La Raza -- which met in Houston -- and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. La Raza conference attendees wore lapel stickers reading "Where's George?"

This year, Bush chose the LULAC convention to announce his plan to split the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency as hated among many Latinos as the Internal Revenue Service.

They won't have to accessorize with "Where's George?" stickers this year; the La Raza convention in California next week is the third stop on Bush's unofficial minority-themed swing.

In Bush's quest to put an inclusive face on the Republican Party, he has made moves both courageous and craven. As governor he supported some limited moves to make up for healthcare and food-stamp dollars that the federal government cut off from the children of illegal immigrants.

On a more symbolic basis, during the South Carolina primary -- even as his surrogates and allies played ugly racial politics -- Bush would wax inclusive, exhorting to lily-white conservative audiences that "family values don't end at the Rio Grande River."

Quite boldly, and counter-intuitively, he would make a point of telling these crowds that many illegal immigrants cross the border so that they can feed their families.

Evil Dubya, on the other hand, seemed to have a high tolerance for various racial Cro-Magnons. Though he said that he opposed the ban on interracial dating at fundamentalist Bob Jones University, his first stop in his South Carolina primary campaign, he didn't condemn it until after a reporter asked him about it, and only after he had spoken there.

For a spell he refused to condemn a South Carolina state senator who -- in the heat of the state controversy about the Confederate flag - called the NAACP "the national association of retarded people."

And yet, long before that, Bush was boldly going where few Republicans had gone before, stepping into several inner-city neighborhoods and even appearing at a charter school in Harlem alongside the Rev. Floyd Flake.

Flake, a leader in the school-choice movement who was raised in Houston, went so far last fall as to call Bush his "homeboy."

But as the Washington Post's Terry Neal pointed out in a story earlier this month, after that visit, Flake "never heard from Bush or his campaign again ... Today, Flake's supporters in New York accuse Bush of, essentially, using him as a political prop." Flake eventually endorsed Vice President Al Gore.

Thus it's tough to gauge how much of it is substance and how much is just a naked appeal for votes -- not necessarily for minority voters, but for white swing voters who like the idea of Bush caring about blacks and Latinos.


Copyright © 2000 Salon.com
 
Salon.com: Now there is a really fair and unbiased publication! ...NOT!

Michael Kinsley, and crew are nothing more than another propaganda arm for the Democrat Party.
 
What is your point Randy? I do not come to this forum to get verbatim quotations of Salon.com articles. If I felt that Salon had anything important to say, I would go there myself.

Are you applauding Gov. Bush for reaching out to minorities? Or are you condemning him?
 
Bush's just trying to be everyone's best buddy.

If the GOP had had any sense it would've run Alan Keyes. But Alan Keyes discriminates against perverts and lunatics and analyzes issues. He's didactic and confrontational. He's not a "cool and groovy guy" who makes people content with their own inadequacy, addiction to mediocrity, and tolerance for depravity. He polarizes people, identifies critical issues and makes everyone feel that they're somehow responsible for their own lives.

No, we definitely do not want a leader, a President, who can challenge us to do the best we can, we want a big grinning buddy who says nothing of substance, who just wants people to feel comfortable with their own mental and moral flabbiness.

What kind of President is that?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
Bush's just trying to be everyone's best buddy.

If the GOP had had any sense it would've run Alan Keyes. But Alan Keyes discriminates against perverts and lunatics and analyzes issues. He's didactic and confrontational. He's not a "cool and groovy guy" who makes people content with their own inadequacy, addiction to mediocrity, and tolerance for depravity. He polarizes people, identifies critical issues and makes everyone feel that they're somehow responsible for their own lives.

No, we definitely do not want a leader, a President, who can challenge us to do the best we can, we want a big grinning buddy who says nothing of substance, who just wants people to feel comfortable with their own mental and moral flabbiness.

What kind of President is that?

[/quote]

Couldn't have said it better, Munro. A truly great leader, leads by example.

George Washington was one such great leader.

George W. Bush is not.

BTW, if I ever do make it to Japan, I will take you up on that beer :-)
 
Originally posted by Munro Williams:
Bush's just trying to be everyone's best buddy.


If that's another way of saying he's trying to get elected, you're absolutely correct. After all, how effective was President Adlai Stevenson? President Barry Goldwater? Oops. Those guys didn't elected...

I'm going back to some things you said in an earlier thread about GW moving toward the center:

"HE'S DAMN SIGHT MORE ELECTABLE than some third-world-party candidates." [Quoting me.]
"Well that's part of the problem. Electability has become a popularity contest, and when some one wants to be "well-liked" by the socialist/liberal axis, that is, play to the media and try to distill ethical theory to fifteen second sound bites then the country's lost already. If we are really that shallow and that ignorant, which I'm beginning to think we are..."

To refresh your memory, check my signature line from de Maistre.

"...that means choosing for the Supreme Court the blandest, most inoffensive of nominees, because he'll want to appeal to the center."

Choosing people for the Supreme Court is something of a crap shoot anyway, as some choices of the last five Republican Presidents have proved. (Consider: Souter/Bush, Sr.,O'Connor/Reagan, Stevens/Ford, Burger/Nixon, Warren/Eisenhower.) So it's a little - maybe a lot - premature to disparage GW's choices.

"As long as we ignore the fundamental issues and focus on this "electability" will-o'-the-wisp, we will have nothing to confront most destructive elements in the country but bland mediocrity."

Again (still?), you're underestimating the importance of electability. I agree that the party needs to take a stand (for something!), but disparaging electability for electability's sake is not it.

"Remember, having a winning TeeVee personality and being fun at parties is part of the problem."

It worked for Reagan; I'd argue - long and loud - that he did more to save this planet from the Cold War getting hot than anyone.

"Part of the solution is being a mean, hard headed SOB. If you're not disturbing to at least five people a day that means you're not doing your bit."

So, you're advocating a sort of Affirmative Action for curmudgeons? I don't buy it. Disturbing people is not the only way to accomplish things. And while it's generally the most fun; it's probably not the most effective way, either.

"We need a leader for President, for God's sake, not 'the national best buddy.'"

Abe Lincoln was a leader, and he led us straight into the War Between the States. (Pardon my political incorrectness, but regardless of boundaries/viewpoints on the issue, it seems to me that some settlement could have been arrived at well short of the million casualties of that War.)

FDR was a leader, and he led us into the biggest welfare state imaginable.

"Think of your heroes, if you're old enough to have any. How popular were they when everything went bad?"

Age has little to do with selecting heroes. (I date back to the early days of Eisenhower.) My heroes (besides Dad)? General Patton, who predicted the Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe; Curtis LeMay, who wanted to bomb the commies back into the Stone Age, Barry Goldwater (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue). I could throw in Reagan and Roy Rogers and John Wayne and Audie Murphy and Lash Larue, but I won't.

I don't guess I should fly to Japan expecting a free beer, huh?

------------------
Every nation has the government it deserves. - Joseph de Maistre
 
Well, Bush reaches out to minorities.

Hey, let's just elect Gore!

That's a great idea!!

As far as the usual hate raving, yawn!
I think George commented in Suggestions that
this isn't appropriate for this group.
 
No offense, folks, but what's the problem with reaching out to minorities? Not only is that necessary to get elected, it's also necessary to keep this country from tearing itself apart.
 
SAGewehr,

In another thread, started by that agitator, Glenn E. Meyer ;) , I wrote something to the effect that we've got to turn the conceptual tables around and express our disdain for idiocy, lunacy, and dishonesty. By doing so we have a fighting chance of getting people to understand that they've got to earn OUR respect. As it stands, every sick, twisted ne'er-do-well thinks that by manipulating our virtues against us we'll be more sensitive to them, thus getting us to pander to them for their votes. This is doomed from the start. It's a little like teaching poisonous fourteen year olds. A demanding teacher gets their respect, and a big buddy gets their disdain.

Affirmative Action for Curmudgeons? I like that!

I don't have time at the moment to respond to your response as fully as I'd like, and your post deserves more than this brief blurb. I'll return to this thread later on in the day.

BTW, I'd be happy to buy you a dai joki, which is about a liter of lager.
 
Can't say I was impressed with Bush's speech today but it had the virtue of consisting of harmless and complimentary generalities. That bugs me much less than "ban this and that" Gore.
 
I stimulate exciting discussions by challenging beliefs, brillant wit and razor sharp rhetoric, Munro! :)

We all stand for the RKBA but the path we walk to obtain it may annoy the other.

But that's the USA! And I love Japanese things. I'll share my buying eel story sometime.
 
Let me squeeze this in: Bush is cashing in on his father's name, and that's about all he has going for him. That, and the fact that Gore is a hopeless mess, and the only argument for Bush is the threat of a Gore White House.

The race is a blandness and inoffensiveness contest. A Bush presidency will try to include every weird-out in the country, and try to make him or her feel valued and wanted. We'll lose the privilege of choosing our friends. This will do nothing to stop the onslaught of the left, who will re-organize and move in for the kill come '04 or '08. He presents no real threat to the liberal/socialist axis.

Things cannot continue like this.

Until someone sets an example of personal responsibility and hard-headed rationality and morality, we are doomed. A Bush or Gore presidency only means the continuation of status quo blandness, and that blandness is smothering the country

Bush and Gore may as well select each other for their VP running mates. Things are that lousy.

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited July 07, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
Let me squeeze this in: Bush is cashing in on his father's name, and that's about all he has going for him. That, and the fact that Gore is a hopeless mess, and the only argument for Bush is the threat of a Gore White House.

The race is a blandness and inoffensiveness contest. A Bush presidency will try to include every weird-out in the country, and try to make him or her feel valued and wanted. We'll lose the privilege of choosing our friends. This will do nothing to stop the onslaught of the left, who will re-organize and move in for the kill come '04 or '08. He presents no real threat to the liberal/socialist axis.

Things cannot continue like this.

Until someone sets an example of personal responsibility and hard-headed rationality and morality, we are doomed. A Bush or Gore presidency only means the continuation of status quo blandness, and that blandness is smothering the country

Bush and Gore may as well select each other for their VP running mates. Things are that lousy.

[/quote]

At the risk of sounding agreeable, I can dispute little of what you say. I'm not really sure about the mutual VP running mate thing, but...

Even John Quincy Adams, the other Presidential scion, was a Secretary of State before becoming President, so he had more to trade on than his father's name. Bush has little besides his name. As far as your comment that, "A Bush presidency will try to include every weird-out in the country, and try to make him or her feel valued and wanted"; well, that may be true only so far as the weird ones that are not already (and this would be far and away most of them) in the Gore camp. And God knows I am ready for "an example of personal responsibility and hard-headed rationality and morality." Unfortunately, our choices, effectively, are Bush and Gore. So where do we go, today? Even Harry Browne says that the Libertarian Party may be able to elect a candidate by the "end of the decade." Should we put our eggs in that basket, yet? We seemingly must circle the wagons here, and wait for another Ronald Reagan to lead the cavalry to the rescue. Until then, if a GW Bush can stave off the heathen hordes for another four years, I'll settle for him.



------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken
 
Reagan's name keeps popping up as the "ideal" conservative candidate who ran on his principles, which is a notion I would not dispute. However, he was running in a political environment that included 17% mortgage rates, nearly 20% inflation rates, gas lines, a very determined enemy in the form of the USSR, and a national debacle called the Iran hostage crisis. I would venture to say that even Reagan would have to moderate his positions now in the face of 7.5% mortage rates, a 3% inflation rate, no major visible enemies and an economy that's putting a new SUV in every garage (except mine). Bold statements and policies play best in times of adversity, whether it's the Great Depression or the Cold War.

And why shouldn't Bush reach out to minorities? The Democrats have had the minority vote for so long that they take it as a given. I'd love to see membership in the NAACP move to CORE.

Dick
Want to send Bush a message? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Monkeyleg,
A better question is why the GOP has been so compromised by lefty liberal mush-brains that Alan Keyes, the only candidate of any stature and maturity, is treated like a pariah.

Can you imagine Alan Keyes debating Jesse Babbling Jackson and Reverend Al What's-his-name? ...which is precisely why he gets no significant media coverage.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Even John Quincy Adams, the other Presidential scion, was a Secretary of State before becoming President, so he had more to trade on than his father's name. Bush has little besides his name.[/quote]

Well, his father's name, and being elected twice to governorship of a state which doesn't re-elect governors.

LawDog
 
Seems to be much in fighting among people on this board, which is a good thing?

IMO only GB or AG will win this thing and all the talk about "we say this will be the last year every year" well eventually it will be the last year as it will no longer be possible to own any arms.

Why not vote for bush this time and hope he fills the court with the likes of scalia and thomas? Since we can all agree that neither the repubs or demos will repeal any laws why not hope the court will make a ruling in the favor of the constitution. Besides the court has become all powerfull in their rulings. Ruling on many things that have nothing to do with the constitution (like abortion).

If bush buys enought time for the court to do its job then maybe its worth a shot (no pun intended) If he gets in and this does not happen what have we lost anyway? At least we will all have a little more time to buy those last few cases.Y'all know what they are for.

Open to changes in my opinion if anyone has a better plan? Havent heard one yet just bikering about admiring men of uncompromising principles which will not get a single law repealed or a court ruling in our favor.

I will post one possible reason not to postpone support of browne. "When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already. ... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'" Adolf Hitler.




[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
Back
Top