Black Conservative Republicans: Winning Elections ...

This is a great piece and I hope it's distributed and applied widely. However, there is one problem I have actually seen that you may need to incorporate into this before you circulate it too widely.

The problem is this: some Black candidates who run as Republicans get little or no support from the official GOP structure. This is especially true when they run in districts that are overwhelmingly Dem and/or with a strong incumbent. Sure, the odds are against a Black Pubbie winning in these areas but it looks worse when their own party, the one they take all manner of heat for belonging to, fails to support them.

I may run and lose but if I at least know that my party gave as much as it could to my candidacy I'd feel better about running under that party banner again. When that doesn't happen I'd seriously wonder if I should run under that party again. Wouldn't you?

Mafree,

The problem is this: some Black candidates who run as Republicans get little or no support from the official GOP structure. This is especially true when they run in districts that are overwhelmingly Dem and/or with a strong incumbent. Sure, the odds are against a Black Pubbie winning in these areas but it looks worse when their own party, the one they take all manner of heat for belonging to, fails to support them.
I may run and lose but if I at least know that my party gave as much as it could to my candidacy I'd feel better about running under that party banner again. When that doesn't happen I'd seriously wonder if I should run under that party again. Wouldn't you?

I knew there was something I forgot! But I believe the most important thing is financial support. I am not exactly that knowledgable on campaign funding issues. But then these things are what black Conservative / GOP organizations, i.e. BAMPAC, NCNE, CORE, AARLC, Project 21, etc. are supposed to exist for.

But the problem is, I've never yet heard of any state's GOP (or Democrat) organization ever having "enough money" ... and so it's understandable that they'll prefer to spend money in areas where they believe a better hope of victory exists. This generally has nothing to do with race, i.e. the RNC would spend more money on a Governors' race in Kentucky than it would spend in West Virginia. Either way though, morale and moral (as opposed to financial) support from the Party is something you're owed and you should demand it. They should be made to understand that you are indeed taking an inordinate amount of heat for flying the GOP banner and their morale/ moral support is the least they can give you.

But all that notwithstanding, black districts are still the most hopeless cases, unfortunately. Which is why I placed a lot of emphasis on black Republicans aiming for statewide and not-too-black-dominated districts, a sort of top-down policy (kind of a reverse for Conservatism, eh?). Higher profile seats demand party support in the first place, so you won't even need to ask for it.

Anyway, after putting some much needed thought into it, I'm convinced that the hands-on and end-run approach is necessary here when it comes to getting funding. Rather than appealing to the state GOP, go directly to the groups and individuals that are, in some ways, the gatekeepers of the GOP's funding base and ask them directly to utilize their rolodexes for you. i.e. I'm talking about Stephen Moore, Grover Norquist, Bill Bennett, Alan Keyes, Clint Bolick, Newt Gingrich, JC Watts, Dick Armey, etc. and their organizations like the CSE, Club for Growth, NTU, AEI, NFRA, etc.

With the support of black (and other minority) Conservative organizations, explain to them the strategic importance of your campaign - a credible black GOP candidate for office, provided his / her campaign is run well (strong, smart, vigilant and unafraid), could be a major tactical asset to the entire ticket and a major strategic asset to the future of the GOP in the minority community of the state (maybe even the nation).

I thought that the Winsome Sears story illustrated this to a certain extent. Once it became apparent that her campaign had broken the 35% barrier of support in the black neighborhoods of her district, the Virginia GOP dumped almost $50,000 into her campaign coffers. In other words, once it looks like, you can win, the GOP would most likely come through. Unfortunately, the VA GOP recognized Sears potential too late to utilize her success for the benefit of her up-ballot ticket mates, Mark Earley and Jay Katzen, in her district. They got somewhere around 10% of the black vote in her district while she got 46% (which is amazing for a Republican of any color).

With this in mind, point out that if you're able to get up to 30% (or even somewhat less) of black voters in your constituency to consider you a viable alternative, you could provide a platform for your GOP ticket mates to get the black community to give them a second look i.e. when you invite them to come campaign for and with you. Make note of the fact that in most states, Democrats cannot win elections without at least 85+% of the black vote. So losing just 2% of the black vote could very easily mean disaster for them.

And again point out that even if you do not succeed in getting yourself elected and / or that extra 2% that would have helped your ticket mates; Rome was not built in a day. You would / could end up being a major building block. A huge factor in the GOP's weakness in the black community is their lack of presence after all, and it's time this was rectified. As for moral support, i.e. ticket mates campaigning with you, etc.

Either way, black GOP'ers need to start EARLY. There are "unwinnable for the GOP" U.S. Senate seats in CT, MD and OR that don't yet have active declared Republican challengers for 2004. A black Republican (Marvin Scott) is challenging Evan Bayh for Indiana's junior Senator's seat. He gets points for starting early ... but none for his inactivity (I may be wrong about this), so far, when it comes to building support.

Hope this goes some way towards addressing your concerns.

ping ...

There are "unwinnable for the GOP" U.S. Senate seats in CT, MD and OR that don't yet have active declared Republican challengers for 2004.

In CT, we tried running Gary Franks in 1998, and it was a disaster. For whatever reasons, Franks wasn't able to attract many black voters, and Chris Dodd coasted to victory. But I agree that we'd be better of if he tried again and worked harder this time (his lackadaisical campaigning cost him his House seat in 1996), and maybe put a dent on the Dem's lock on the black vote in CT.

In MD, the state with the largest percentage of black voters outside the Deep South, there are several potential black GOP Senate candidates. Two of them, Lt. Gov. Steele and Ambassador Keyes, are strong conservatives (Keyes obviously being the more conservative of the two), and another is a moderate Dem. officeholder from Prince George's county (I believe his last name is Curry) who is considering jumping to the GOP and running against Mikulski. Keyes has run twice for the Senate, and failed miserably both times; I think MD is just too liberal a state for him (and this is coming from someone who supported Keyes' presidential candidacy in 2000). Steele would be a great choice, but I don't know if it makes sense for him to run while still being Lt. Gov. (if he loses, it may hust the Ehrlich/Steele 2006 reelection campaign). The Dem. who might switch isn't really a conservative, but may have a strong chance of knocking off Mikulski. If I had my druthers, I'd have the PG County partyswitcher run against Steny Hoyer for the House, Steele run for the Senate and Keyes campaign for conservatives nationwide.

As for OR, I'm still in shock that we don't have a strong challenger to Ron Wyden, who's far too liberal for a state where Bush trailed Gore by less than 1% in 2000. I know very little about OR politics, but it seems to me that 2002 gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix would be an ideal candidate, since he's got statewide name recognition and came within like 3% of winning the governorship last year. Oregon's got a tiny black population, so I don't see much of an upside to running a black candidate who doesn't have much name ID.

I didn't know Bayh challenger Marvin Scott was black, and agree he deserves points for starting early (I believe he announced his candidacy before the 2002 elections). Since no Republican heavyweight wants to take on the popular Bayh (they're all fighting for the gubernatorial nomination), a black candidate may give us a better chance to win than we would otherwise have. If the GOP can get just 20% of the black vote, not only could Scott pull off the upset of the year, but he could help knock off vulnerable Dem. incumbents Julia Carson and Baron Hill and give the GOP the governorship. But if Scott wants monetary support, he'd better start campaigning hard or else the GOP will keep this race in the "unwinnable" category.

African-Americans are one of the most religious and socially conservative constituencies in America, and the right messenger could increase the GOP's share of the black vote from 10% to 25% in no time flat. In my opinion, there are dozens of House seats where a black conservative could knock off a Dem. incumbent. The South is filled with seats where blacks are between 30-50% of the electorate and in which Bush got between 40-60% of the vote in 2000, and if the GOP House nominee could get as little as 20-25% of the black vote, he or she would be practically unbeatable. I agree with you, MAKnight, we need to support black conservatives wherever they run. This means supporting them not just in the seats I described above (in which black Republican candidates give us our best shot at victory), but also in safe Republican seats where we don't need the black vote to win. Richard Burr's very Republican House seat (which he's vacating to run for the Senate) comes readily to mind---we need to support Winston-Salem Alderman Vernon Robinson, who would show North Carolinians of all colors that it's okay for a black man to reveal he's a conservative. Vernon Robinson's election to the House could be a catalyst for runs by black conservatives in NC01 and NC12, which are between 45-50% black but in which Bush got between 40-45% of the vote in 2000, as well as in four 20-35% black districts in which Bush got between 48-54% of the vote but which have Democratic Congressmen.

BTW, in my earlier post about "unwinnable" Senate races, I forgot to mention the fact that Wyden, Dodd and Bayh have all voted against allowing Miguel Estrada's nomination to be voted upon, and a minority candidate could best exploit their unconstitutional actions.

This sounds like an reach-out initiative tailored to Jack Kemp and Empower America. Something like this has been his vision for years -- long before he was even the head of HUD for Bush 1.

What better established and more impassioned a group rooted in the GOP is there to get the GOP in general and the Bush Administration specifically on board with this task?

How can Republicans succesfully use the fact that Democrats are often far from black (and other minority) voters on social issues?

In CT, we tried running Gary Franks in 1998, and it was a disaster. For whatever reasons, Franks wasn't able to attract many black voters, and Chris Dodd coasted to victory. But I agree that we'd be better of if he tried again and worked harder this time (his lackadaisical campaigning cost him his House seat in 1996), and maybe put a dent on the Dem's lock on the black vote in CT.

From what I remember of Gary Franks, he was a "moderate" / Rockefeller Republican (the anti-thesis of an AuH₂0 Republican) ... basically a hair's breadth away from being an out and out RINO. "Moderates" (of all races) generally lack the fire in the blood necessary to motivate Conservatives and the courage that would be needed to not be afraid of pissing off the Press and the NAACP, NOW, etc. which is what in my humble opinion, is what is needed for a Republican to make it in hostile territory.

Anyway, It doesn't surprise me that Franks' simply being black didn't attract many black voters. You can be certain that the black Left made every effort to make the fact that he was a Republican to be interpreted in the black community (is it large?) of CT as proving that he was less black than Chris Dodd. Either way, I really do not think he should be run again. We need a more fiery and more conservative candidate.

As for MD, I don't know if it is wise for Michael Steele to run, given that he only won the Lieutenant Governorship only last year. Alan Keyes has run and lost before, and his reputation has already been seriously soiled by the racial arsonists. Curry (I think his first name is Wayne) simply does not deserve the nomination for the Senate race. Another Arlen Specter may be better than Mikulski but he will be even weaker than Franks was in CT. I think your idea of his running for Steny Hoyer's seat is a much better idea than him running for the Senate. Either way, considering how popular Mikulski is in Maryland, I confess to much hope of this seat being winnable.

Oregon's got a tiny black population, so I don't see much of an upside to running a black candidate who doesn't have much name ID.

While I pretty much echo your points about House seats, I'm more concerned about the "higher-profile" seats, i.e. Governor, Senator, etc. because I think that, uniquely for black Republicans, they're more winnable than the more local black dominated seats ... and the cool thing about that is that they're also much more strategically important. My stance is that it is therefore not that important that a black Republican run in a state / district that has a substantial black population. Note that I agree that it is extremely important that we up the number of black GOP Congressman (without resorting to preferences) and I am very excited about Vernon Robinson. But, quite frankly, black Congressmen are a dime a dozen and the GOP having one or two doesn't really do that much for us strategically. The NAACP and its cohorts can easily dismiss (and demonize) them as "tokens" and go about still asserting that "GOP = Ku Klux Klan".

But a black GOP Governor or United States Senator ... now that would seriously cramp their style. It doesn't matter whether he / she represents Maryland with its huge black population or North Dakota with its near non-existent black population. If the only black U.S. Senator(s) / Governor(s) are Republicans, the Democrats and their handmaidens have to work a lot harder to terrify the black community with tales of all white (and even black) Republicans in Congress being secret members of the American Nazi Party, who can't wait to start working on legislation to legalize lynching.

Secondly, sh*tty deal though it may be (life has never been fair, after all), all black Republicans running for any office have the additional task of broadcasting it loud and clear that one need not be a Democrat, support high taxes, Partial Birth Abortion, racial preferences or worship Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton to be "really black". Estrada has it easy compared to what black Republicans routinely go through. This basically means that even if a black Republican loses, so long as he / she runs a credible race and uses the bully pulpit his / her campaign would afford him at every reasonable opportunity to smash into the local racial arsonists' hold on the minority community, he / she would have advanced the ball that much further.

A lot of sensible yet Democrat-voting black people I know tend to be conservative on social issues. A substantial number are extremely unhappy about high taxes and extremely skeptical of big Leftist government programs, because (like everyone else) most are smart enough to see that they seem to discourage individual responsibility and punish initiative and success. And I can't think of one of them who is happy about the state of public education or crime-control in poor black neighborhoods.

The only thing that seems to be stopping them from voting for the GOP is the fact that for well over three decades, they have been taught and told (by organizations / individuals they feel they owe some allegiance to, like the NAACP / John Lewis for their past actions on behalf of civil rights) that there is something intrinsically "wrong" about voting for someone with an 'R' next to his name. The Press plays a huge part in this as well.

Being rather outspoken about being a Conservative and a Republican, I've had to slap down a lot of idiots calling me an "Uncle Tom" (which I don't react quietly too), usually in front of a largely black audience. I haven't lost a single argument yet. Almost every opponent was forced to concede that I could very well have come to the decision that Conservatism is the best path to progress for the black community and that it doesn't make me any less black than they are. Practically after every time, when it's over, people come up to me and tell me that they've never really thought about it "that way" before. And most of them are extremely well educated.

There is a name for this in psychology, I think. It's almost as if they need some sort of permission to actually think it through and vote their minds. It reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone pretended that the Emperor's "new clothes" were simply too beautiful for words until a child gave them leave to acknowledge what they were seeing with their own eyes, by pointing and exclaiming: "The Emperor's naked!". That, in other words, is the black Republican's most important job when running for office, apart from winning; to give that permission by pointing at the racial arsonists and their handmaidens and shouting that the "Emperor is naked!".

ping ...

Terrific post! But do not feel that you are alone. Chester. Pa., has a black conservative Republican mayor and I believe most member of City Council are black Republicans. With obviously intelligent black conservatives like you leading the way. Republicans will be scoring victories elsewhere. Good luck.

Owl

This is by far the best thing I have seen anywhere on the issue of converting the Black community to the GOP.

The GOP has either ignored Blacks, on the assumption that their resources are better spent elsewhere, or has pandered to Blacks – with predictable results.

Your ideas are great. They are required study – not only for Black GOP candidates – but also white ones.

Let me give you an insight that may help in the financial and activist area. My wife’s Republican Women’s club gave some money to Winsome Sears. They only gave a token amount. First, because they thought she was a long shot and second, because she did not appear personally before them. The next time around, she will get a lot more support.

Here’s a dirty little secret though. The local GOP District Committees are usually not much more than endorsement committees. Once you get the nod, you get the opportunity to raise your own money, get your own volunteers, plant your own signs and do all the other work to get you elected.

The real untapped resource of the GOP candidate are the women’s groups. They will provide money, polls workers, sign posters, literature drops, and all the other nuts and bolts of door-to-door politicking.

Combine this with a no-nonsense style of meeting the enemy that your advise, and we could have an unbeatable combination in a lot of districts.

Wow!
BUMP

The floor is yours, MAKnight. You've given us an outstanding, truthful piece here.

Excellent post

Men and women like you will run the "Freedom Railroad" out of the Dim plantation.God speed in geting the message out.

Right on to everything you've said- even the GOP doesn't have endless resources.

bump

As the former National Political Director for Alan Keyes' presidential bid in 2000, and someone who has run campaigns at every level--from school boards to the U.S. Senate--I would like to offer my assistance to any and all candidates here, black or white.

The only questions I would have up front are in terms of policy, ideology and personal ability.

Just FReepmail me.

A tremendous piece, friend.

EV

I stand corrected on Gary Franks. I was re-reading an old Almanac of American Politics over the weekend, and noticed that Franks was pro-abortion and not all that conservative on other issues (but hey, he's from Connecticut, natural habitat of the RINO, so we're lucky he was as conservative as he was). BTW, Connecticut is about 9% black, with most of its black population concentrated in Hartford and New Haven (and a very small percentage in Franks's old congressional district).

As for your idea of concentrating on Senate and gubernatorial races instead of House races, I think it makes sense in theory, but unfortunately it would be more difficult in practice. Successful Senate and gubernatorial candidates are usually selected from among Congressmen or statewide elected officials, and unfortunately there are very few black conservatives in those positions. I think we need to start by electing black conservatives to lower statewide offices such as Lt. Govs., attorneys general, secretaries of state, etc., or as U.S. Representatives, and then have them run for the Senate or the Governorship after a few years. Believe me, it will be easier for JC Watts to be elected governor of Oklahoma in 2006 than it would for someone whó has never run before.

MAKnight, keep up the good work, and Godspeed.

BTTT