SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home It's The Swing Voters, Stupid

THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

It's The Swing Voters, Stupid

BY TNR STAFF AND TNR STAFF

Republican eminences like Newt Gingrich and Ken Mehlman are in The Washington Post this morning, bemoaning their presidential field's refusal to show up for a variety of forums sponsored by and/or targeting minority voters.

Most campaigns are peddling the excuse that their candidates' schedules, regrettably, are simply too jam packed to attend such events. But at least one anonymous adviser opted for honesty: "What's the win? Why would [the candidates] go into a crowd where they're probably going to be booed?"

Oh, how quickly we forget the lessons of George W. Bush in his happier, more compassionate days. In 2000, the then-governor was a skilled practitioner of "the ricochet pander." As I noted at the time:

Friendliness toward historically oppressed groups that are unlikely to vote for you--blacks, Hispanics--is a good way to appeal to historically oppressed groups that just might--white women, Jews, Catholics, gays. Which helps explain why, even though W.'s approval rating among African Americans is only marginally higher than John Rocker's, the Texas governor showed up last week to speak to the naacp's annual convention in Baltimore--and executed a particularly fine ricochet pander. The trick is to make the minority audience think you're a nice guy--which whites like to see--without actually engaging its agenda, which whites probably oppose. It's a delicate balance, and it requires adherence to several key principles.

Let's face it, especially after the immigration madness of the past year, today's GOP arguably needs to shore up its non-winger credentials even more than it did in 2000.

Then again, I guess there's plenty of time post-primaries to worry about appearing inclusive. For now, considering the mood of the base, it probably pays to look crazy.

--Michelle Cottle

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 17 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

17 comments

One of the only things Bush did right (out of necessity in Texas) was make a play for bringing Hispanics into the Republican fold. Your observation that "showing up" to talk to black folks is a step in that direction is a stretch, but could be true. Note, however, that Bush spurned NAACP several times before he finally went. And when he went to the Black Journalists (or whatever the group is called) he made a pretty funny gaffe trying to define "sovreign" for the Native American crowd.

- stgla

September 19, 2007 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

considering the mood of the base, it probably pays to look crazy. Hence McCain's new slogan: McCain 08: I'm freaking Nuts!

- adamvaught

September 19, 2007 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush's decision not to penalize Mexicans at the same time Pete Wilson was declaring war on them was a far-sighted political move, as well as an act of decency that earned him a reputation as an actual compassionate conservative. For a while Texas Hispanics were considerably less Democratic than Californian ones, and even Bush-hating liberals like me had to admit that he wasn't a bigot. Stgla is right, that was one of the only things that man did right.

- WillPastor

September 19, 2007 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do not think Bush is a bigot, but he readily uses bigotry to gain power (stigmatizing gays, to put it mildly). You can't pick and choose how to use that monster. Once you sell your soul to that one, it's going to turn around and eat you up. Rove's bleatings right before he left office that Republicans should continue courting hispanics was pathetic. It was drowned out by the hate radio mullahs and winger crackpots unleashing their perma-rage on their latest target. Live by it, die by it Rove -

- Wandreycer1

September 19, 2007 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that's about right. How else does one explain Mitt Romney's assertion that we need more Gitmo's? These guys can't even think about making an appeal, however half-hearted and insincere, to minorities of any kind (except perhaps the minority who still think Bush is doing a good job). All those years the Democrats seemed a little goofy, and now it's the other guys who seem to have arrived from outer space. The great sucking sound is the collapsing GOP.

- purcellneil

September 19, 2007 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pays to look crazy eh? Well why not, it works for mattress salesmen on local TV.

- adaglas

September 19, 2007 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, come now... this is no worse than the Democrats refusing to appear in a debate hosted by Fox News. The vast majority of politicians like to stay within the confines of their comfy political tribes. Period. Pretending that this is about race is just silly.

- corndog

September 19, 2007 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The cheap equivocation between not showing up for the NAACP and appearing to be a racist is just plain lazy.

- Daniel1000

September 19, 2007 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Republicans hate most black voters but they're not racist. It's because black voters have different policy preferences than Republicans. Yeah, right. That makes a whole lot of sense. Look, I'm one of those people that Michelle is talking about. If I (a Jew, natch) see Dubya being at least willing to show his face to black voters or black voters' interest groups, then I am willing to give him a pass on the racism charge. Otherwise, I'll continue to think of him (or his ilk) as being anti-black. Replace "union" or "evangelical" for black and it's the same story. Do you want it to be known that you are anti-black as a politician? I don't know.

- stgla

September 19, 2007 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, Democrats go genuflect before evangelicals all the time, and hell, Hillary is a complete whore for the business lobby. Huckabee and McCain are the Republicans who I don't think will have as much difficulty with minority groups. McCain especially after putting up the good fight for immigration.

- blackton

September 19, 2007 at 7:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She delivers a couple of vituperative paragraphs then is gone. Well at least she's a fast read. Just because you don't take every opportunity to pander doesn't mean you're anti black. With that Texas-pickup-truck add the NAACP has lost much credibility and is losing more every day. Bush's entire cabinet could be black and he and Repugs would still be considered racist by such as them. "Victimologists" such as Sharpton, Jackson and many inner-city black mayors have done more to keep blacks down then a troupe of David Dukes. Talk about "richochet"-the unfair and reactionary stance of such blacks will probably(unfairly)sink the chances of Obama.

- greaterliz

September 19, 2007 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The current title on the homepage, "How Racist Do Republicans Want to Look?", is the key here. When your team has a rep for being racist, deserved or not, passing on the opportunity to address minority groups just looks bad. In real motive, it probably IS more or less equivalent to the Dems skipping Fox News(*) -- just sticking to audiences that they have a hope of reaching -- but it's not the same in results. In skipping Fox, the Dems aren't offending many people who were going to think about voting for them anyway. But appearing to dis minority groups will turn off other minorities and white voters who suspected the GOP was racist all along. --- (*) Since the Dems skipped the Fox News debate because they didn't want to validate Fox as a legitimate voice in the public sphere, if you want to defend the GOP candidates from charges of racism, you wouldn't want to press that motive analogy too far, of course.

- frippo

September 19, 2007 at 9:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Analogies are not *identities* ... and so are limited by their very nature; the Republicans feared being asked "uncomfortable" questions by Mr Smiley, in front of a hostile audience. The Dems feared being asked "uncomfortable" questions by Fox News folks. The bit about not "validating" Fox as a "legitimate voice in the public sphere" doesn't sound like the real motivation of anyone other than the leftie fringe; it would be Really Creepy if "mainstream" Democrat candidates thought that way.

- corndog

September 19, 2007 at 10:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She always seems to be the one called on for the hit'n'run bits ...

- corndog

September 19, 2007 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, lots of GOPers, esp southern ones but also many white northern blue-collar ethnics, are racist. No, it is not racist to refuse to appear at a convention of that political organization that probably has the lowest ratio of media coverage to actual influence and relevance to any political outcome. As to hispanics, the Rove-W-Mehlman outreach was genuine and based on the premise that socially conservative latinos would give the GOP a hearing. Likewise, the opposition to our retarded policy on mexican immigration is motivated mainly by an across the spectrum awareness that this policy is not in the nation's interest, does not help native-born American workingmen of any race-- including native-born hispanic-Americans, who also tend to oppose illegal immigration, and is little more than the fruit of a corrupt deal between the anti-labor party and the pseudo-pro-labor party.

- teplukhin

September 20, 2007 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I mean, the NAACP has the lowest ratio of actual influence to media coverage.

- teplukhin

September 20, 2007 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

racists in both parties, but not as many as in years past. GOPers should take every opportunity to speak at black churches, at black gatherings, etc. Why not? Even if you garner a niggling number of votes, you get credit for trying. Charlie Crist did and does that here in FL. His approval ratings are down (!) to 65%. Repubs have nothing to fear over real policy differences. Go make the case. Why not?

- butchie b

September 20, 2007 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close