If Dems and Republicans are at odds over everything from Iraq to healthcare, there's one thing that has brought many of them together: shared criticism of the leading GOP presidential contenders for their decision to skip the recent debate moderated by Tavis Smiley, billed as oriented to the concerns of black Americans.
But beginning on yesterday's "Meet the Press" and continuing on today's "Morning Joe," Pat Buchanan has not hesitated to make a pragmatic political case in defense of the Republican candidates' decision. And alone, at least among pundits I've heard, he drew an interesting parallel to the venues the leading Dem candidate is skipping.
View video here.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So yesterday, you and Tavis Smiley got into a little dust-up because people like me have been saying that Republicans should have shown up at the debate. Tavis was talking about how bad it was that Republicans stayed away, and you said "eh, makes sense to me that they're not going." Why?PAT BUCHANAN: The timing of it is one thing. We're 13 weeks out from the Iowa caucuses, and the guys that don't do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, they're going home for good, and the whole effort all the year is going down the tubes. African-Americans vote basically 90% Democratic, and there're very few of them in Iowa and New Hampshire, which are going to be the decisive states. So I say you go hunting where the ducks are; they're in Iowa and New Hampshire and frankly they're not at Morgan State [the historically black college in Baltimore where the Smiley debate was held]. The time, if you're going to make an appeal across the lines to Hispanics and African-Americans, first, with African-Americans, I would go through the churches rather than that debate routine over there. And secondly, you do that in the general election, and you don't get to the general election unless you get to Iowa and New Hampshire under your belt and you do well there.
So I can understand why a scheduler would say something like to Rudy Giuliani, "you know Mr. Mayor, do you really want to go down there and get hammered over why you were insensitive when those cops put 41 bullets into Amadou Diallo? You know, is that really what you want to be talking about and have on news bites for the next week?"
SCARBOROUGH: But Pat, doesn't it make sense at some point, though, to embrace a group of people that may only make up 10, 11 or 12% of the population but who vote against you 95% to 5%? At some point you need to step forward.
BUCHANAN: Let me tell you, Joe, what's happened to us since the Goldwater era, and it was after Johnson came out for civil rights and Goldwater voted against the bill, the only guy that did, Nixon did 18%, but that was in the gigantic landslide of 1972. I agree, you gotta reach out to the African-American community, and as it grows more affluent, and as it moves away from the civil rights area, you've got a real opportunity, I think, to increase your vote. And all you gotta do is increase it to 20% and that would be an enormous help. But my point is, this is not the time to do it. At this point, again, if Rudy gets beat in Iowa and New Hampshire, he's got real trouble. His one line down there is South Carolina, and the African-Americans are all in the Obama-Hillary race; that's where they're going.
Pat concluded on an interesting note, drawing a parallel I haven't heard any other pundit make:
So again, I don't see what point. It's like Hillary going down to [the late Jerry Falwell's] Liberty Baptist University or speaking to a right-to-life convention or an NRA convention. That's not what she's going to do now.
My Take: I'd say Pat is giving solid campaign-consultant advice. Note how he puts the cautionary words to Rudy about getting into the Diallo issue into the mouth of an imaginary campaign scheduler. But sometimes candidates need to rise above the cautious counsel of their advisors and do what is bold and what is right. I sense this would have been one of those times.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I disagree. Black caucus
October 1, 2007 - 07:36 ET by motherbeltI disagree. Black caucus groups invite Republicans to come, and it's a win-win for them. If they show up, they beat them like a pinata, a la Rudy and Diallo. If they don't show up, they hammer them for not showing up. Especially this early, it's stupid.
The reason that Clinton et al are not speaking at Liberty University or National Right-to-Life is because they haven't been invited. Because conservative groups don't do the "let's invite them, we know they won't come and we can make hay on that fact" scenario. They are straightforward.
The liberals' ploy is just that...a ploy. They can have their cake and eat it to. I don't think Republicans should play along. I do, however, think they should stop the "scheduling conflict" BS and come right out and say that they know there is no intention of an honest debate, it's an ambush, and they're not going to play that game. The guy that says that is the one I would vote for.
I do see your point. But
October 1, 2007 - 07:42 ET by Mark FinkelsteinI do see your point. But even from a realpolitik perspective I can see the case for boldness. Imagine for example that alone among the leading contenders Rudy had accepted the invitation and, as you say, had gotten hammered. Don't you think that might have won him conservative street cred?
Would a RINO have needed to "get hammered"?
October 1, 2007 - 08:00 ET by sarcasmoI think just showing up (and not just at Smiley's debate, either -- the RINOs' "scheduling" arguments fall even flatter at this one!) and being honest (and maybe even polite...) might have done any of the RINO "leaders" some good.
Pat Buchanan's not a stupid guy as a campaign-consultant, but blacks aren't stupid about politics 101 either. When the RINOs finally nose-around all those churches after Iowa & NH, it's not likely to fool -- or affect, if you prefer that term -- the 80-90% of US blacks who reflexively vote Democrat. And why should it? What's different from previous campaign-tactics?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Where is the Republican who
October 1, 2007 - 12:28 ET by motherbeltWhere is the Republican who would stand up to the Tavis Smileys and the Jesse Jacksons and say We have good reason to write off the black vote. Why should we waste our time, when we know the blacks vote 95% Democrat no matter what? Then when they say, well you should come and talk to us and try to convince us, say:
Look, you know our platform, same as it's always been...strong families, fathers in the homes, education and hard work get people ahead, not government handouts. That's not what 95% of blacks want, apparently. They want favoritism, preferred admission to college, and set-asides in the business world, which the democrats continue to promise. Now unless you want me to come and mouth platitudes about "starting a conversation" and a "new kind of politics", like Obama, then we have nothing new to say to you.
I really wish someone who had "nothing to lose" would say this!
Ok, let's talk your platform
October 1, 2007 - 12:36 ET by sarcasmo1. Strong families. Sounds good, but what does the Federal Government have to do with your family being strong or weak??? It sure as hell does nothing good for mine on April 15th, and I don't see how a platitude like "strong families" says anything at all to black families any more than it says anything to your family or mine.
2. Fathers in the homes. Again sounds good, but it sounds like something big government has been covertly working AGAINST with AFDC "aid" for decades. That point obviously needs explaining to the aid-recipients, but see my comments above, the RINOs, like it or not, were cowardly & wasted their chance. That's why I and others are grilling 'em right-now, in fact.
3 Education. As all of you know, I believe in the separation of school and state, but that belief (like 2) needs to be explained to sound anything other than heartless. Not attending = not explaining = same crappy election results as before, like I said. It does, however, make for a good self-fulfilling prophecy. Sigh.
4. Hard work. Who's against that??? Another platitude. And do you have proof that 95% of blacks want handouts? Maybe some of 'em just want respect, and don't see it in either Republican or Democrat behavior, for Pat Buchanan's good reasons. I can sure as hell understand that POV, because as a partisan Libertarian I saw it from blacks who were interested in that party ALL THE TIME...Why did I hear that from black people so much, if as you claim 95% of blacks didn't want it?? Could it be you don't know blacks as well as you think you do? I sure think so...
JMR
PS I'll assume, since you didn't address the issue, that you agree with me about the RINOs' shameful cowardice regarding the values voter debate I linked above...
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Yes, I neglected to address
October 1, 2007 - 13:04 ET by motherbeltYes, I neglected to address your point, because I got started on the other. I disagree. I already addressed that in another comment. I think they have a right not to waste their time, but I think they should be upfront about it and not use "scheduling conflict" as an excuse.
I will concede I should have put "low taxes and less government" in there. But I was just talking in generalities. I really didn't intend to get into a point-by-point argument with anyone. But, if 95% of blacks don't want the promised handouts, preferences and socialism that Democrats continue to seduce them with, please explain why they vote 95% Democratic. It sure makes it look like that's what they want. As to why you hear what you hear from black people all the time, I don't know. Did you ask them why, if that's a prevalent attitude, most blacks continue to vote Democrat? What do they think Democrats have done for them, and will continue to do, that Republicans or Libertarians can't or won't do?
I don't have to explain...
October 1, 2007 - 13:12 ET by sarcasmoPat Buchanan already did. Blacks, by the time this crop of RINOs comes nosing around their churches and pretending to respect the preacher & care about black voters, will know the real score from their behavior right-now. That's why some of us are rippin' 'em a new one right now, actually.
And the black folks I heard from as a partisan Libertarian were a very disaffected, and very self-selected group, who had thought long and hard about politics. Libertarians can't have a major party for them, but they'd still come to the conclusion that they wanted to hear us, so they came. Not enough of 'em, but still quite a few.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
its racist to hold these
October 1, 2007 - 13:12 ET by TruthMongerits racist to hold these "minority" debates anyway - the Repubs should not support this racism with an appearance
A debate can't be "racist."
October 1, 2007 - 13:29 ET by sarcasmoAnd whether either one of us likes it today or not, historically black colleges like the one that held the Presidential debate exist. Not attending their debates doesn't do much to integrate the colleges, or society. If anything, the RINOs behavior supports a long history of moronic racism that led to the existence of these historically-black colleges in the first place.
Why not focus on the blatant cowardice & dishonesty of about half (coincidentally, the Northeastern-RINO half -- what a shocker!!) of the Republican candidates, even doing so makes you uncomfortable?? Do you really believe they all had "scheduling conflicts"? If it's truly "racist," as you claim, why should these RINOs tell the American people such lies about their schedules? Why not be honest, and condemn the racism you assume (without any proof I've seen) exists in attending the debate at a historically black college??
Why do you think this cowardice and pervarication is a Presidential-looking policy from the "leading" RINOs? Can you see why black voters might not be impressed? I'm about as white as whitey gets (looks-wise, at least) and I'm sure as hell not-impressed with 'em....
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
This whole conversation is race-based - that's my proof
October 1, 2007 - 13:35 ET by TruthMonger...and are you saying modern RINO's helped formulate 100+ YEAR OLD BLACK COLLEGES?
Anything dealing with skin color is racist - and this is what I'm saying - Repubs should say they avoid these debates that divide Americans into skin-color groups - this is what the Dems to - and institutions dedicated to skin-color missions are supposed to be illegal already
Not formulate, perpetuate.
October 1, 2007 - 13:44 ET by sarcasmoRead my words. And like it or not, we must deal with skin color because we're in a world that has history. The answer is to go there, despite the discomfort you might feel, and say what you feel. And I'll repeat my question: Is lying about "scheduling conflicts" really ok, assuming you're correct and the existence of these colleges is offensive? Why not have the RINOs condemn the colleges, instead of letting them get-away with lying & trying to have it both ways???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
the Dems have suckered you in then...
October 1, 2007 - 14:02 ET by TruthMongerI don't know if they're lying - but if they were of course that's not OK - but avoiding racism is the reason I would provide for my armchair quarterback presidential campaign on this subject...
That's the reason they should all provide IMO. We are not obligated to perpetuate racism just because "the world has a history" of it...
I'm not comfortable with Racism - which a big reason why I am a REPUBLCAN and NOT A DEMOCRAT - and participating in racism for expediency is a discomfort I am happy to live without...
If you take the liberal soap box seriously all "black colleges" should either disband or adopt non-racist missions, and just like the KKK the NAACP should called to be disbanded, and BET and Ebony should cease operation - it's all racist...
How can you not-know??
October 1, 2007 - 14:06 ET by sarcasmoYou assert so-well that the debate's racist. And believe me, the Democrats have put NOTHING over on me, I'm currently in the process of rippin' a new one for the RINOs who -- while they resemble the Democrats in many, many ways -- simply aren't Democrats. Anyway, this "schedule" lying isn't ok with me at all. It's un-Presidential. That's why they're paying for it now. I'll rip the Democrats a new one when THEY deserve it.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
how can you know they're
October 1, 2007 - 14:12 ET by TruthMongerhow can you know they're lying i guess is my question
Ok, maybe by some incredible coincidence...
October 1, 2007 - 14:50 ET by sarcasmoAll the RINOs had the same scheduling-issue which was somehow avoided by all the rest of the candidates...I just think the odds are about 100 to 1 against that is all. IIRC my suspicion about the RINOs "schedule" excuse is shared, albeit in slightly-milder terms, by our own Matthew Sheffield.
Still, if you have faith in 'em for some reason, you should by all means believe the RINOs' words right in the face of others' doubts. (This is starting to sound a bit like our old: "Larry Craig's not gay!" "Yeah, he's bi!" ;^} conversations!)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I think the scheduling
October 2, 2007 - 12:38 ET by BinxlyI think the scheduling conflict is legitimate in all honesty. Like Pat said, they feel any appearance at these debates is time wasted that could be spent on campaigning in areas and among people who are still yet to decide instead of lining up, willingly, to be shot at as 'racist old white men.' While I also sympathize with your hopes that many african americans DONT vote dem because of the continual race preference, I have to agree with some others here that, in my experience, they don't say it in public, but when I've been in a predominantly african american crowd, they dont so much as blush when mentioning that the American government is 'designed to keep them down' and that the only way to 'even it out' is such racial preference given by the libs. Little do they realize however, that if anything, its the libs who are racist. If someone HANDED me something that most others had to work for, I'd feel like it was given to me because "I;m not capable of getting it the way everyone else did, through hard work.'
Racist debates
October 1, 2007 - 12:40 ET by TruthMongerWasn't Smiley holding a racist debate in the first place? It's all about skin color...
And listen to Buchanan about going after the "Hispanic vote" or the "African-American vote?"
I say the Republicans make a case that these so-called minority debates are racist and avoid them on principle for that reason...
TM, The Republicans are
October 1, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Chris NormanTM,
The Republicans are so adrift and gutless, I'd be surprised if they could make a case for the shoes they're wearing...
Mark, I think you are
October 1, 2007 - 08:59 ET by dscottMark, I think you are falling into a liberal trap of "realpolitik". This so called pragmatic thinking only benefits liberals, IMO. Motherbelt is right (pun intended). We need to stop playing the defensive game which benefits liberals. Notice my tag line, it says it all. Look up the word "co-dependent", that's what RINO's are. When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. I'm not saying you're a RINO, I'm saying they are susceptible to the fickel blowing winds of change by the MSM. The fact that Rudy turned down the debate at Morgan State actually speaks to his back bone, and raises him up a notch in my book. I will not support a candidate who does not have a backbone against the MSM. In this regard, I must say George W Bush has shown his mettle.
IMO, a Repub candidate must show mettle, he/she must stand for something not not as the Dems do in their bribing of the electorate with new programs. Pat Buchanan is right for once and I agree with him on this matter. IMO, the candidates when questioned about this need to come out an say point blank, they reject the politics of division that special interest groups tacitly endorse by demanding that government not treat all Americans as equals under the guise of victimization. Equal rights for everyone with special priviledges for no one. (T. Jefferson)
When you feel you have to walk on eggshells to avoid problems with the MSM you are being codependent, the cure is to stomp on the eggshells
yes, that's great - it puts
October 1, 2007 - 12:42 ET by TruthMongeryes, that's great - it puts the Repubs on offense...
And just to underline
October 1, 2007 - 14:00 ET by dscottAnd just to underline my point, I refer you to Ann Coulter's latest piece titled: Liberals and the Woman Who Hates Them http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/09/30/liberals_and_the_woman_who_hates_them
And with every statement that brought my career to a crashing halt, I continued to write bestsellers. (Thank you, readers!) My career has been “finished” so many times, I’ve practically made a career out of ending my career. I don’t know how else to get this message across to right-wingers: Liberals aren’t that scary anymore! Please stop apologizing. The current generation of Republicans seems to be stuck in 1973, living in abject terror of a cruel swipe from the moribund mainstream media and hoping to win recognition as a “thoughtful” conservative. ...
... Perhaps there are Young Republicans who can learn. So let me stress this point: You don’t want to be a member of their club. We are in a tooth-and-claw battle for our nation. This is no time to parse, nuance, or clarify words. Liberals don’t rely on words. They judge us on a jurisprudence of epithets. Fight fire with fire. Just call them traitors and let them sort it out.
When you feel you have to walk on eggshells to avoid problems with the MSM you are being codependent, the cure is to stomp on the eggshells
If Republicans were truly "on offense"
October 1, 2007 - 15:21 ET by sarcasmoThe RINOs would not have avoided this debate. Now, every time Republicans mock the Democrats (rightly!) for being scared of Fox News as a debate-forum, I don't think I need to tell you what you'll be hearin' back from them...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I have mixed feelings on
October 1, 2007 - 07:51 ET by fosstenI have mixed feelings on this.
On one hand, a guy like Thompson could use this kind of invitation as an opportunity to educate liberal black people like Smiley about the fallacies of their Dems who only want to keep them under submission. He could prep himself to the max and take Smiley apart with good logical arguments.
On the other hand, there wouldn't be that much to gain and it would end up being a waste of time.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
this is the DNC's clever
October 1, 2007 - 12:46 ET by TruthMongerthis is the DNC's clever little trap - an "opportunity to educate liberal BLACK people" is racist...
we don't have to go there, we should NOT go there - it's racist - put that back on the Dems where it belongs - they are the party that divides America according to skin color...
They always bitch about racism and at the same time they bitch about the number of blacks, hispanics, asians not doing this or not doing that
they can't have it both ways - unless we let them
I'm a little surprised that at least one of the GOP leaders
October 1, 2007 - 07:53 ET by RJdidn't show up. It would have been a great way to set themselves apart, even a little, from the others in this too-populated cattle-call. (It's way past time to start thinning the herd.)
Of course, boldness isn't a trademark of any of the candidates this year.
In general, I'd agree with Mr. Buchanan
October 1, 2007 - 08:21 ET by FastEdbut if someone were to attend, they would have to be confrontational and steadfast in their arguments - deflect the snotty questions and remind the attendees that is was 'publicans who supported desegregation, not the demolibs, and then push the ideas that if the demolibs were so good, why haven't the "down trodden" gotten better, after all the YEARS of demolib "help"?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
They should of gone.
October 1, 2007 - 14:37 ET by well99If would of been best if they had gone.What are they afraid of?A bias audience?Who cares they dealt with the press for how long?Yes they will get hammered one way or the other but better to face it then turn your back.Yes debates should be about Americans not a certain ethnic group.Still by not showing up they showed they could be intimadated.With the exception of LaRaza which is the same as the KKK they should of gone and got their ideas across.
"Pat Buchanan's not a
October 1, 2007 - 18:54 ET by ckc1227"Pat Buchanan's not a stupid guy as a campaign-consultant, but blacks
aren't stupid about politics 101 either. When the RINOs finally
nose-around all those churches after Iowa & NH, it's not likely to
fool -- or affect, if you prefer that term -- the 80-90% of US blacks
who reflexively vote Democrat. And why should it? What's different from
previous campaign-tactics?"
What's ironic is that is basically the exact same strategy employed by democrats, and it works every time.....well, 90% of the time anyway.
The Republicans who stayed away did the right thing. There was nothing to gain because one, nobody saw the debate, and two, any reporting after the debate would be slanted against the candidates, no matter what happened during the debate, and three, 90% of blacks are STILL going to vote democrat, no matter what.