What was the deal with the debate last night on PBS?

Unregistered

Moderator
There was a Republican debate last night that was on PBS, but appeared to be minority oriented. None of the big names were there. Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain were all noticably absent.

Why weren't they there??
 
I'm thinking that the "no-shows" were playing the same game as the Democrats, who REFUSED to have a debate on the Fox News Channel. The Democrats felt that they wouldn't get a "fair and balanced" forum on Fox, so maybe the Republican "front-runners" figured that having a debate at a traditionally all-black college, hosted by a black civil rights attorney, and broadcast on PBS, which tends to be VERY slanted toward the Democrats was a "lose-lose-lose" situation.
 
I watched it. They left empty podiums for the people who did not attend. I didnt think it was really any different than any other debate, though the questions were mainly related to minority issues.

I didnt see any surprises.
 
The problem for any white candidate or white person of authority in general is that any statement you make no matter how innocuous if left any room for racist connotation it will be seized upon by the liberal media.
 
I'm thinking that the "no-shows" were playing the same game as the Democrats, who REFUSED to have a debate on the Fox News Channel. The Democrats felt that they wouldn't get a "fair and balanced" forum on Fox, so maybe the Republican "front-runners" figured that having a debate at a traditionally all-black college, hosted by a black civil rights attorney, and broadcast on PBS, which tends to be VERY slanted toward the Democrats was a "lose-lose-lose" situation.

I guess it's equivalent, if you consider "Fox News Viewers" to be a demographic on par with "blacks." I'd say this just reinforces the perception (whether true or not) that the overall Republican strategy regarding blacks is, "screw ya'll, we don't need you anyway."

Granted, it's somewhat true...unless I'm mistaken, Republicans have been polling almost within the margin of error in many elections (including presidential) among blacks...yet they've still been managing to win. Particularly in presidential elections, southern blacks are simply outvoted, and in a majority of the other states Republicans win (most of the big square ones for instance) it just isn't an issue.

But really, I have to wonder if it's a chicken and egg problem. Republicans seem to write off blacks, because the vast majority vote Democratic. But at some point is that voting trend perpetuated by the Republicans giving up on them?

I mean, I'd agree that the forum probably wouldn't have been particularly "neutral." Nor is any forum geared toward blacks likely to be. But unlike Fox News viewers, who are such by choice and can easily change the channel to catch Democratic debates if they choose...well, blacks can't just stop being black. And if Republicans keep snubbing forums like this it's not like they're suddenly going to become more welcoming.

Well, that was a bit of a ramble. Sorry 'bout that.
 
With the bungling of the current administration I suspect there are Fox news watchers that will vote for a Democrat.And,Fox has a huge audience by comparison.So,if a candidate could sway a few percent it would be meaningful.
PBS has a very small audience and if black's were going to look at the Republican party it probably won't be in this cycle.
 
I missed the first part of the "minority" debate, but caught the last half hour or so. Ron Paul got plenty of applause whenever he got a chance to speak and as usual, came off as sensible and unafraid to speak his mind. And unlike the Dem. debate a couple nights ago, no one person was allowed to dominate and yabber on and on. Perhaps this was because none of the frontrunners were there.
 
I also watched the debate (was called a forum). To minority issues were appropriate given the forum. The first question was in fact what Republicans have done for blacks since Lincoln.

-Eisenhower sending the national guard in '57 to allow blacks in schools despite a Democrat Governor blocking the doors

-Republican Presidential administrations consistently have more minorities in appointed positions and since Reagan have had them even more in high level appointments over Democrats.

-More Republicans then Democrats voted in the Civil Rights Act despite a Democrat led congress.

-Republicans repeatedly passed in the congress welfare reform (3 times) until it was finally signed (which Clinton then promptly took credit for) that broke the welfare cycle that was crippling minorities.
 
After seeing how Tavis Smiley falsely smeared Bill O'Reilly, it's no wonder Repubs didn't show up there. There's no way he'd give them a fair shake.
 
fossten said:
After seeing how Tavis Smiley falsely smeared Bill O'Reilly, it's no wonder Repubs didn't show up there. There's no way he'd give them a fair shake.

actually, i watched about the last half, and the "shake" seemed quite fair. i was glad the front runners werent there actually. im not going to be voting for any of them in the primaries, and it was nice to hear from the "2nd tier" candidates. ron paul is still my guy for now, but i was pretty impressed with huckabee and would have no problem voting for him in the general (or the primary depending on how the other primaries before mine go).

one thing i was wondering the whole time though: why the heck was allen keyes there?
 
one thing i was wondering the whole time though: why the heck was allen keyes there?

Just throwing out a wild guess, but I'd imagine it's because he's running for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. Could be some other reason, though.
 
JuanCarlos said:
Just throwing out a wild guess, but I'd imagine it's because he's running for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. Could be some other reason, though

i had heard that he was not running this year...which is why i asked. having actually looked it up, it appears he just announced on the 14th of september. sooo, yea. question answered i guess.
 
It has astounded me why the blacks and Latino's hold onto the Democrat Party. It also amazes me how spiteful the Democrats have been toward blacks that have switched to the Republican Party....especially when those blacks are successful within the Republican Party (ala Condi Rice, Colin Powell, J.C. Watts....and yes, Allen Keyes)!

I watched the PBS debate, but I didn't see any of the "critiques" of how the candidates did. Anyone know who was deemed the "winner"? I thought that it was a dead heat between Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. Keyes was given the cold shoulder, of course!
 
Juan: "Republicans seem to write off blacks, because the vast majority vote Democratic"

Juan, I understand why you say that but I don't think it's true.

"Conventional Wisdom" says having the "news media" behind a candidate - or party - is worth 17% at the polls. I believe it. I think both Kerry/Gore/Clinton, etc, got at least that much more support at the polls than they would have IF the media hadn't championed every liberal against every conservative! It is THEY who ignore what the conseratives really say, distort much of it and then decry that conservatives don't care for poor folks! Since the old media still dominates, that has a corrosive effect over the two or three years before a major election cycle.

All the liberals/media (they're locked at the hip, why not as a word?) feel is the proper support for blacks, browns, yellows, greens, is competition for who will lavish the most money on them for being "poor". They are poor because they ignore the free educational opportiunites available and won't work at the jobs they are qualified for, so their lot can't possibly improve!

It wasn't always that way. Back in the early 60s black unemployeement wasn't much higher than for whites, their illigitamate birth rate was only about 11-12% and their education opportunities were being taken at every opportunity. Blacks were making progress back then. But compare that to what they endure now, all as a direct result of liberal policies for welfair without restraint, many excuses for not working, silly forgiveness for criminal behavaior. The black's road to today's hell has been paved with liberal good intentions devoid of common sense, LBJ's "Great Society" was the spring board for it. (And the "Voting Rights Act" of '68 was passed with a higher percentage of Republican support than Democrat - Sen. Robert Byrd fillibustered it - but few liberal politicians or their media chose to remember that!)

When any conservative tries to bring an element of common sense into the political discussion of race. Jesse Jackson. All Sharpton, the Congressional Black Caucus, et all, run to a microphone and before the cameras to moan of the unfairness and hardheartedness of conservatives who disagree that giving away ever larger bundles of "free money" is the only answer and the media provides them all the forum time they want.

The media takes the professional black failure-supporters word as gospel and then go out to ask conservatives questons. I've seen them say, in effect, "Sir, it's been said that conservatives still want to lynch blacks. Is that true?" I want to scream, "It's never been true and you distort the facts!"

No, it's not conservatives who ignore blacks/hispanics. It's just that the determined media want it to seem so. So long as people listen to the old media, little change will be possible.
 
Bruxley said:
The first question was in fact what Republicans have done for blacks since Lincoln.
I didn't watch the debate, but they could have added "The Republican party, UNLIKE the Democrats, has made sure that Klansmen aren't given leadership positions in today's Senate."
 
I agree with wncchester.You can't have a dialog indicating that some life choices disproportinate to blacks may explain some of their problems without being accused of sterotyping or racism.

When Juan Williams suggests same he is accused by some black college professor of being the eternal smiley faced black man.

Why would any Republican front runner want to step in that mine field where common sense and logic will end your political career.
 
The Dems have it easy.

They can say anything and get away with it. They can say anything and people believe them. They can do anything and people will forgive them. But that is also how you treat a retard. They ARE retards.
 
Back
Top