Rebublican Presidential Candidates No-Show at Debate

I highlighted the segment on Employment Disparity here ( http://danatuszke.townhall.com/g/4f4ef700-f187-405... ) if anyone is interested. I'm going to watch the parts I missed also. Here's the link ( http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums... ) if you'd like to see the debates, too.

I'd encourage you to consider whether Republican values - those of responsibility and independence in personal decisions - are consistent with legislating an issue as deeply personal as choice. I'd encourage you to consider whether you want your government deciding whether or not you're pregnant. I'd encourage you to consider the larger implications of a government that requires you to give birth but does not provide health care for you or the baby. Pro-choice does not exist in a vacuum. Consider the implications of supporting a government that thinks it has the right to legislate your body, the bodies of all women. Then consider whether finding an anti-choice democrat is really the critical point here. You can find plenty of democrats who think that, in the words of my favorite flawed president, that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Creating a system in which women have access to education about birth control, health care, and support for their families is a better method of reducing abortions than restricting choice.

Nerd's Eye View ( http://www.nerdseyeview.com )

Gena, thank you for those links and the great information.

It's only been ten years since I had my last history class but I know that I was never taught about Lincoln's reasoning for freeing the slaves as a method to save the union. In a way it makes sense, but it also seems to contradict everything I learned. It makes me wonder how today's children are learning this history. I may have to investigate the local schools. :)

Babz,

When I read your comment it brought tears to my eyes. It's wonderful to have this discussion with you.

In my earlier days of writing politics, I used to let emotions rule my mouth. It was very difficult to think clearly because I was so passionate about my beliefs.

To be honest, I don't have the energy to get emotional these days. I still get angry of course. Angry at ridiculous things some of these candidates do.

I do wish there was some sort of middle ground. I often think about what I would do if I were the leader of this country and all I get is a feeling of fear. Fear that no matter what I could do or say, not all Americans would be happy with me. And I think this must be true for every President we've had. They know they can't please everyone. It's impossible.

I'm so happy that you have been elected to public office! We definitely need more women in politics. If I wasn't such a chicken, I'd go for it. :)

I was toying with the idea of adding links to Lincoln issues with slavery. Yes of course it was a difficult time and he grew into his decision--by outlawing slavery in the confederate states first--so that slaves would be hard pressed not to fight for their freedom against southern slave holders/owners. Of course it was attractive to fight for the union with all that at stake. Nonetheless, it is not what you say but most importantly what you do. We would do well to take our cues from history and learn. The Africans call this Sankofa--looking back while moving forward.

Love,
Babz

Honest, I was trying not to post but it is important to add a little context to LoveBabz statement. In a letter dated August 22, 1863 to Horace Greely Lincoln wrote:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mal:1:./temp...

Lincoln struggled with the concept of slavery. He was a man slightly ahead of his fellow countrymen (women didn't count) and if the Civil War did not happen I doubt if he would have moved the freedom agenda forward. He was a complicated man in an extraordinary time.

To be fair, neither mainline political party at the time had freeing slaves on the agenda. It was the extremists and the outside agitators. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/almintr.html

The Civil War was a war of economics, state rule and freedom of commerce.
Does the above statement by Lincoln invalidate the Emancipation Proclamation? Nope. But he had to work his way to it.

Is there a compelling reason for modern day Republican presidential candidates to attempt to reach beyond the base at the risk of alienating potential funders and supporters? Nope.

Is it the right thing to do? Yes. Will Republican candidates stand before the American people and declare that they will represent all of the people? Yes.

Do they mean it?

Actions speak louder than words.

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )

This is why I love this site. You and I are on opposite sides and yet we are able to have a rich discussion as women rooted in what we believe. I love the fact that you are firm in what you believe and I respect and admire that. For you the abortion issue is key and for me it is not. I think there is middle ground somewhere. I do believe that both parties have room for great change. And if change is to happen in our lifetime we have to get women to take a bigger role in the political process. This is hard. I have been elected to public office and I understand fully why women shy away from it. It takes time away from the things, people and activities we hold dear. I do say that if we are to continue to hold all that we love near and dear to us, we better suit up and get in the game. No one knows our hearts, minds and beliefs better than us. I daresay if you and I are at the table, things would be a lot more harmonious and that Dana I know for sure. I loved this conversation with you--this is what women do best...we talk.

Love,
Babz

Lovebabz -- thank you for clarifying.

The fact that four candidates did not attend tonight's debate upset me. I watched the last half hour and was impressed with those who made the effort to be in Baltimore to speak. But the GOP has been causing me so much grief for quite some time. That's why I toy with the idea of leaving the party. The reason I don't is because I'm against abortion. This is why I brought up that question.

When you say "hell, don't worry about abortion" I have to reply that I can't do that. That's the most important issue for me. It affects how I vote.

Surely there is an important issue or issues that affect how you vote?

I'm at a crossroads here -- members of the GOP refuse to speak to an audience that is predominantly black, and there isn't one Democratic candidate that opposes abortion, so what other choice do I have? Not many.

And when you ask me: "Surely you know your history?" I have to say: I know "the history" as it was taught to me by white people. That's why I asked you for clarification. Thank you for taking the time to answer.

Lincoln--was a Republican and was not comfortable freeing slaves. He initially didn't want to do it--but he did because they needed the manpower to fight the civil war--they pomised Negroes if you serve in this war we will make you whole. It took years after the fact and to this day they did not live up to their promises. As you know Negroes weren't even considered 100% human. Surely you know your history? As far as abortion goes--what does that have to do with Black people and showing up to a debate sponsered by Black people?. The majority of folks having abortions are poor white women--Rich White Women don't have to deal with clinics--who is this abortion nonsense aimed at--poor women? Contact Planned Parenthood and get the statistics--don't just take my word as gospel--look and dig and find out. And having an abortion isn't against the law yet. I am not suggesting you go against your beliefs, but at the end of the day you have to ask yourself is abortion high on my list--hell don't worry about abortion, what about this war that we are 5 years into under fradualent terms. Worry about the health care crisis, the education crisis WHAT ABOUT KATRINA! What beating are they taking?--it ain't enough of a beating to get them to the debate in this forum, in the Latino forum or the Gay Community forum. So what do they have to lose? Obviously White women don't have enough power to compel them to show up to any of those forums. I know few republicans who are comfortable around anybody that is not White male, rich and well connected and that in and of itself is not the most egregious thing--the fact is America is more than a country of White rich men. Perhaps I am wrong. They are not listening to you or anybody they think is beneath them. Sure you are for your party, the ideals appeal to you, but how do you reconcile that the folks who represent your party have no love for you or respect for you? Calling yourself a Republican is accepting that your party is...fill in the blanks.
Love,
Babz
www.lovebabz.blogspot.com ( http://www.lovebabz.blogspot.com )

Lovebabz, forgive me if my question sounds naive, but when you say Lincoln was forced to sign off on emancipating the slaves, what do you mean?

Secondly, what about the voters who are pro-life? How can we embrace the Democrats who supports abortion? How can we vote for a candidate who supports something that goes against our values and beliefs? In some ways, we have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

As for the Republican candidates. I have no idea what they would have said if they attended tonight's debate. I do know that no amount of criticism they would have taken by being there would be worse than the beating they're taking by ignoring it.

You are right, they're not comfortable outside their own element and this is sad.

Pam, you make a good point.

If I could find a Democratic candidate who was not pro-abortion, it would be a dream come true for me!

Excruciating is the word I like to use, Sheila! :)

Thanks, Elisa! That's good to know. It's unfortunate that the original plans didn't work out. Here's hoping next year's conference brings more Republican campaign reps.

To say I am a democrat. I am a democrat. I am not surprised at the MIA Republican candidates. What would they say if they did show up? Really it is very telling--but then it's always been telling. Is it me or am I mistaken--when has the Republican party been about anything other than well-to-do white men. They don't even respect White women. So why would they do anything other than talk to the folks they are most comfortable with--other rich white men. Now all you well-meaning republican white women and poor republican white folks need to search your heat--ya'll don't matter...never did. Not since Lincoln was FORCED to sign off on emancipating the slaves---(Africans enslaved in America) that the Republican party had to deal with then Negroes--now Black/African Americans. Let's not even talk about Latinos--the legal ones, Gays, Lesbians, and people who work for a living. And yes I am saying the Democrats are better--why? Because they will and do talk to anybody--and I mean anybody and everybody. No we're not perfect, but we will go where people are, we will meet people where they are and we understand that America is only as good and strong and decent and profitable and caring as the least among us. So vote Nader and thank God for all the work he has done on consumer product issues and vote if you will for Ron Paul, but make no mistake that is NOT how you send a message--that is wasting votes and straddling the fence--the fight is center stage--not off to the right or left or liberal. Center stage. If you want to affect/effect change get yourself a voting block--a strong voting block and talk loud. The majority of Blacks, Latinos, Gays and Poor People don't care about the Republican party and so their not showing up to address issues raised is not a dream deferred.
Love,
Babz

A representative from Romney's campaign was supposed to speak on a panel, and had to cancel one week before. We could argue about what it means that they canceled on us and left a hole in the schedule one week before, but at least they had planned to show up.

Similarly, we had a speaker who was on John McCain's team when we signed her on to speak, but by the time of the conference his campaign was in meltdown, and she and half the staff were gone. Still still spoke, but was no longer a McCain operative when she did.

So originally the GOP was looking a lot more responsive to BlogHer than the Dems :)

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

I have some shockingly Republican tendencies. You know, things like fiscal responsibility, keeping the gov't out of personal decisions, that kind of stuff. The Republican party in their current carnation has some shockingly fascistic tendencies, you know, legislating everyone's life within an inch of itself, regulating travel, spending spending spending with little regard for long term implications, empire building, exploitation, you know.

Democrats are the new Republicans. That sounds like a joke, but it's not. If Republican voters would abandon the party in the same way the party has abandoned them, we'd have some hope of recovering our national dignity. You're not jumping the party by going to the left if the party has fled to the corners of the right. Moderate Republicans won't, I think, find themselves disappointed by what I thing is a shockingly rightist Democratic party.

For the record, I'm thinking of voting Ron Paul or Ralph Nader because I think the Dems have strayed too far to the right, too. The whole nation needs a good kick back towards the center.

Nerd's Eye View ( http://www.nerdseyeview.com )

I vote a straight Democratic ticket these days because I'm tired of nutjobs. If the Republican party could remember what "moderate Republican" used to mean, and would field candidates like that, I'd be happy to consider them.

The upshot of what's happening is that the pendulum of power and influence will swing and is swinging. Republicans will start to "get it," or die. It's just that it's a very slow process and painful to watch.

Sheila
Family Travel blog ( http://blogs.bootsnall.com/Seafarer )
Perceptive Travel blog ( http://perceptivetravel.com/blog/ )

Mata, thank you for the link. This makes me sick. I'm so angry. I know it's not healthy to be so mad about it, but the way the GOP ignores minorities and women makes me insane!

Just like at the BlogHer conference. Not a single Republican candidate sent a representative on their behalf. NOT ONE.

(DO YOU HEAR ME GOP? WHAT GIVES? DO I HAVE TO TAKE MY SHIRT OFF TO GET YOUR ATTENTION?)

I can't even stand to write about it anymore.

--Dana from The Dana Files ( http://thedanafiles.com ).

Check this link ( http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2007/... ) to a story about all but one Republican candidate snubbing -- of all groups! -- the NAACP -- in a JULY debate forum in which all Democrat candidates showed up. Tancredo was the only Republican who came.

I applaud you for bringing it up, Dana.

And if ever there was proof that the media was not rabidly liberal, this is it -- I cannot find a major story yet that points to the fact that this behavior is now a trend.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs liberally at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )