Save the G.O.P


GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down' - Los Angeles Times




GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down'

October 25, 1986


this is how Bussh 41 won by such a margin.







"They knew how the demographics were changing already and did what they could to stop poor, black and other minority voters from being able to exercise their voting rights.

The document, called Exhibit 13, was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise when lawyers for the Democratic National Committee said it was needed to question Wolfe.

Wolfe testified that she wrote about the possibility of keeping the black vote down to remind Griffith that there "might be a political situation he might want to consider. . . . I wanted him to be aware of the political considerations." "
 
.

Sure the GOP can come back, there's already signs of it. The marginalization of the crazies has already begun, slowly but surely. Good sign for the party.

.

Out of curiosity, which are the 'crazies' in your view? I'm doing the math here, and looking at the core Republican demos, if you get rid of the religious right, the tea-partiers, and the libertarians - all that's really left is Rove and his neo-cons. Is that what you're after?

I disagree - tens of millions of Americans vote GOP but they are just normal hard-working Americans who don't hate blacks or migrants (many ARE migrants), don't speak in tongues and don't think climate change is a Marxist conspiracy run by the UN.

They are just normal, sane, balanced, average Americans.

That is the GOP heartland.




wht percent of GOP voters think Obama is an illegal alien muslim?
 
.

Sure the GOP can come back, there's already signs of it. The marginalization of the crazies has already begun, slowly but surely. Good sign for the party.

.

Out of curiosity, which are the 'crazies' in your view? I'm doing the math here, and looking at the core Republican demos, if you get rid of the religious right, the tea-partiers, and the libertarians - all that's really left is Rove and his neo-cons. Is that what you're after?

I disagree - tens of millions of Americans vote GOP but they are just normal hard-working Americans who don't hate blacks or migrants (many ARE migrants), don't speak in tongues and don't think climate change is a Marxist conspiracy run by the UN.

They are just normal, sane, balanced, average Americans.

That is the GOP heartland.

Sure, but we're talking about the party - not necessarily voters. If the Republicans "succeed" in purging the fringe groups from leadership positions, the neo-cons will be running the show, just like they are on the Democrat side.
 
.

Sure the GOP can come back, there's already signs of it. The marginalization of the crazies has already begun, slowly but surely. Good sign for the party.

.

Out of curiosity, which are the 'crazies' in your view? I'm doing the math here, and looking at the core Republican demos, if you get rid of the religious right, the tea-partiers, and the libertarians - all that's really left is Rove and his neo-cons. Is that what you're after?


First, all I care about is that we don't end up with one-party rule. Neither party deserves such power, in my opinion. Not even close.

Second, there's a huge difference between "marginalize" and "get rid of". The people you mention have by and large always voted Republican, and a vast majority will continue to do so.

And finally, the "crazies" to which I refer are those who are absolutely unwilling to give even one inch on their pet issues. They have been convinced that absolutism is a good strategy, and are running with it. If these people were not so paralyzed by their ideology, they would consider an alternative: Get elected, prove yourself, then systematically move right if possible. Instead, they think their all-or-nothing Rambo approach is "a real winner."

Either way, not my call. I'm just pointing out that it's nice to see some important party leaders waking up to the damage that has been caused. Happened more quickly than I expected.

.
 
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice





DNC v. RNC Consent Decree



April 1, 2009 |



Voting Rights & Elections,

Restricting the Vote




In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.

The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. Most recently, in late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the Republican National Committee had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. The RNC subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc.
 
Let's see......

Republicans..

1. Abortion. By all means oppose it but rape is the third rail. Lay off the no abortion for rape crap

2. Gun control. NRA is no longer the final word on this issue. The american people are getting fed up. You need to offer up something other than more guns

3. Tax cuts. Not the answer to all issues
 
The republican party has cheated voters of color since they employed the southern strategy
 
The GOP will do just fine.

Until (or if) things start to get really bad, of course, but then both parties are in trouble.
 
.

Sure the GOP can come back, there's already signs of it. The marginalization of the crazies has already begun, slowly but surely. Good sign for the party.

.

Out of curiosity, which are the 'crazies' in your view? I'm doing the math here, and looking at the core Republican demos, if you get rid of the religious right, the tea-partiers, and the libertarians - all that's really left is Rove and his neo-cons. Is that what you're after?


First, all I care about is that we don't end up with one-party rule. Neither party deserves such power, in my opinion. Not even close.

Well, yeah. That's my concern as well. But two identical parties isn't the solution. I guess we've become tired of talking about neo-cons and their neo-fascist plans for our nation. But they never went away. Most of them stayed in power under the Obama administration, and Hillary is even more friendly to them than Obama, being, essentially a neo-con herself. If they solidify their control over the Republican party as well, we're are totally screwed.

And finally, the "crazies" to which I refer are those who are absolutely unwilling to give even one inch on their pet issues. They have been convinced that absolutism is a good strategy, and are running with it. If these people were not so paralyzed by their ideology, they would consider an alternative: Get elected, prove yourself, then systematically move right if possible. Instead, they think their all-or-nothing Rambo approach is "a real winner."

Those groups are the best hope we have, as pathetic as that is to admit. Outside of them, who is challenging the status-quo (in either party)?
 
Last edited:
when was the last time a candidate won by that much?

For Republicans, admittedly, it was a long time ago"

George Herbert Walker Bush by 7.72% in 1988.
Ronald Wilson Reagan by 18.21% in 1984.
Ronald Wilson Reagan by 9.74% in 1980.

William Jefferson Clinton won twice, 1992, by 5.56% and 1996 by 8.53%. Both of these were tainted by Ross Perot siphoning Republican votes from GHWB and Bob Dole, respectively.
 
independents will make sure there is no one party rule.

It may end up producing a second party
 
when was the last time a candidate won by that much?

For Republicans, admittedly, it was a long time ago"

George Herbert Walker Bush by 7.72% in 1988.
Ronald Wilson Reagan by 18.21% in 1984.
Ronald Wilson Reagan by 9.74% in 1980.

William Jefferson Clinton won twice, 1992, by 5.56% and 1996 by 8.53%. Both of these were tainted by Ross Perot siphoning Republican votes from GHWB and Bob Dole, respectively.

Thank you.

and Gore actually won the 2000 election if the floridas central file had not been used by Kathleen harris as a tool to keep voters of color from having their votes counted.

he also had Nader taking votes from him.
Bush 43 didnt win any elections for president the republican party cheating did that for him
 
Let's see......

Republicans..

1. Abortion. By all means oppose it but rape is the third rail. Lay off the no abortion for rape crap

2. Gun control. NRA is no longer the final word on this issue. The american people are getting fed up. You need to offer up something other than more guns

3. Tax cuts. Not the answer to all issues

I totally agree - although the GOP might also abandon the abortion platform altogether and just accept that it is here to stay. No need to state fund it, though.
 

Forum List

Back
Top