Skip to comments.
A new contract?
TownHall.com ^
| Tuesday, September 9, 2003
| by Thomas Sowell
Posted on 09/08/2003 10:22:58 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: JohnHuang2
Yes! Certainly! Why pay any attention to white Americans. Draw up a contract with blacks, and run on that basis. Sheesh!
Do what's right for all Americans, and leave the racial pandering to those who hate America.
2
posted on
09/08/2003 10:29:58 PM PDT
by
per loin
To: JohnHuang2
Because it would be viewed as pandering from the Black and the Dems. With that said the only thing we're missing are articulate and persuasive politicians with some fire in their blood and the ability to communicate their beliefs. Will never ever happen. They don't have the guts. The Dems are playing poker using a full deck of race cards and our boys fold right after being dealt the cards. That is if they ever show up at the table.
3
posted on
09/08/2003 10:34:45 PM PDT
by
TomServo
("I worked at NASA back when we were next to Cost Cutters.")
To: JohnHuang2
Not a bad idea at all. There are conservative initiatives that DO appeal to the black comminity, lets spell them out!
4
posted on
09/08/2003 10:35:18 PM PDT
by
Paradox
To: JohnHuang2
The Latino voting bloc will be the biggest.
5
posted on
09/08/2003 10:36:02 PM PDT
by
Consort
To: JohnHuang2; mhking
A caller on the Rush Limbaugh show recently had an inspired suggestion for Republicans: Since the "Contract with America" was such a political success back in 1994, why not a Contract with Black America during next year's election campaign? 'course that was this past Friday, and the questioner was talking to guest-host Walter E. Williams--with Thomas Sowell as Williams' guest contributing to the response.
6
posted on
09/08/2003 11:22:18 PM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
To: per loin
Yes! Certainly! Why pay any attention to white Americans. Draw up a contract with blacks, and run on that basis. Sheesh!
Do what's right for all Americans, and leave the racial pandering to those who hate America.Exactly!--and that is exactly what this proposal is. The only point to this proposal is to market the fact that Republican doctrine is better for blacks than Democratic doctrine is.
It's better for everyone--except the fat cats and grifters of the Democratic Party.
7
posted on
09/08/2003 11:39:08 PM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
To: per loin
I heard that caller. I understand the point about the new contract BUT I don't like it. USA does not need more racial division. Besides I'm sure many for prop 54, but then want a BLACK contract? How about Contract for American- New and Improved? The same issues discussed are the same issues everyone is dealing with.
8
posted on
09/08/2003 11:43:30 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(i'm half and half... me mum is a muggle and me dad is a witch)
To: conservatism_IS_compassion
I like Walter Williams, esp. his take on economics. He thinks the underground economy is good for keeping the bloat out of government. Sometimes I get annoyed at the way he talks about his wife. I hope it is just schtick and he's just being humorly.
9
posted on
09/08/2003 11:51:46 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(i'm half and half... me mum is a muggle and me dad is a witch)
To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
Sowell bump!
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
10
posted on
09/09/2003 7:31:31 AM PDT
by
mhking
(Fill it to the top with the cheap taste of slop...)
To: JohnHuang2
Why should white Republicans do this? It wouldn't make any difference in voter turn-out. Everything they listed would be viewed as programs the nasty GOP was trying to foist on the Black community.
If there ever was a real Black leader, perhaps he or she would put together a "Contract", and solicit votes for whichever party promised to fulfill most of the agenda items.
But that won't happen - the Black leaders are "shakedown artists" and they don't care about the community at large.
To: conservatism_IS_compassion
'course that was this past Friday, and the questioner was talking to guest-host Walter E. Williams--with Thomas Sowell as Williams' guest contributing to the response. I heard the show as well, Thomas Sowell was great although some of the callers were a bit suspect.
I think a black contract with America would be pandering, though. Anything in the contract would probably be good for everybody, not just blacks, so what would be the point of aiming it at a particular group?
12
posted on
09/09/2003 5:17:13 PM PDT
by
Randjuke
To: Randjuke
Anything in the contract would probably be good for everybody, not just blacks, so what would be the point of aiming it at a particular group?Two ways to look at it. One, the concept is marketing and market research. Black voters are an untapped market for Republicans, and if they can become even somewhat competitive for black votes the Democratic Party would go into the fetal position. Two, the Great Society tells you what can happen when you do NOT focus sound (i.e., conservative) policy on the opportunity for societal improvement which the needs of black citizens imply. Essentially the idea is that sound conservative policy is marketable to blacks if you do not subvert yourself with a bunch of "Democrat lite" pandering.
13
posted on
09/09/2003 7:12:25 PM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
To: conservatism_IS_compassion
I really like this idea. I think it is a great way to divide the DemonRATs and show the minorities that our policies are the best for their future.
Call it "Contract with Minority America".
To: Tennessean4Bush
I like the plan, but find myself flummoxed as to how exactly to package it. It's not as if we thought that blacks alone were going to elect a majority to Congress--and a bunch of Republicans at that.
So the truth is that it is simply a relabeling of good Republican principle for its benefits to minorities. That is not nothing, even among whites--the Democrats make a killing not only among blacks but with some whites on their "compassion". Whites want to think well of themselves and, by-and-large, believing that their vote is good for minorities matters to them.
15
posted on
09/15/2003 9:11:30 PM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Ask yourself, "Could we do any worse than 8%?"
There is little downside risk and you could perhaps peel off 20-25%, which would spell absolute doom to DemonRATs.
Of course, we don't have to label it anything but another "Contract with America". Just put in the contract all the flashpoint issues which portend to drive a wedge between the DemonRATs core constituencies (minorities) and one of its core funding sources (teacher unions). These policies do not benefit just minorities, but anyone wanting to send their children to private schools.
To: Tennessean4Bush
Lets not forget how miserably the first Contract with America failed. Almost nothing that was promised ever materialized and it was soon discarded by the very representatives that used it to get elected.
17
posted on
09/17/2003 6:05:01 PM PDT
by
thtr
To: thtr
Lets not forget how miserably the first Contract with America failed. Almost nothing that was promised ever materialized and it was soon discarded by the very representatives that used it to get elected. Huh?
To: Tennessean4Bush
Look-up the Contract with America and see how much (or in this case how little) was actually passed. Don't hear too much about term-limits anymore...
19
posted on
09/17/2003 6:28:34 PM PDT
by
thtr
To: thtr
It worked beautifully, IMHO. And, the House lawmakers did precisely what they said they would in the contract, which was to bring them to a vote. They did that in every single item and they passed 7 of the 8. The only one they did not pass was the term limits, which was a long shot for passage. However, in that vein they did term limit committee chairmanships, which was a major victory. 3 of 8 items were actually passed into law, and one other sub-item under the legal reform (having to do with stockholder rights) was passed over a presidential veto. Three major items were vetoed by President Clinton, meaning the Republicans did all they could do since they did not have veto proof majorities and the Senate pubs never signed on to the contract.
The fact that they have not taken up the ball and run with it again on some of these issues speaks more for another contract rather than against another. I mean, they were focused because of it, whereas now they behave too splintered and incohesively as a majority.
Look, if you are looking for 100% passage on something like this then you are bound to be disappointed. As Churchill noted, this deliberative republic is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Don't be so cynical. Remember, an optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, while a pessimist fears this is true.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson