If you take a look at all the Republicans running for president, which includes “announced candidates”, “possible candidates”, and my personal favorite, “exploratory candidate”, there is one very obvious common thread. They are all white males.
This is certainly not a news flash, since every United States President beginning with George Washington has been a white male, but the closest thing the Republican Party can drum up for something even remotely resembling diversity is Announced Candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and Exploratory Candidate Fred Thompson, an actor. You won’t find an African-American, an Asian, Latino, American Indian, and most certainly not a female at this party.
Most of them are rich, white males. Now, I’m pretty sure the majority of the voters in the United States, aren’t rich white males, and yet, they believe in their heart of hearts, that they are the only ones qualified to run the country and tell us how to run our lives.
I beg to differ.
Then of course they all pay homage to Ronald Reagan. Most want to be Reagan re-incarnated. According to Ron Gunzburger’s “Poltics1.com” site
Newt Gingrich has “loyalty to Reagan-style conservatism”, Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter “tout themselves as true Reagan Republicans”, and Fred Thompson is “Reagan-esque”.
“Reagan-esque”. What is that? Young voters certainly don’t know what it means, and most don’t care. The Reagan theme is getting old and tired. That era is gone….it’s time to move on.
But, they can’t seem to move past the same worn-out topics. Abortion. Gun control. Gay anything. What about our environment, health care, and the shambles Bush has left our foreign policy in?
I checked on the site “On The Issues: Every Political Leader on Every Issue”. At this point in the campaign, Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney appear to be the GOP front-runners. Here is their stance on environment, health care and foreign policy.
Environment:
Guiliani: “No stance yet recorded.”
Romney: ”Clean environment will be a campaign theme.” (when and what?)
Health Care:
Guiliani: “96,000 NYC children insured via HealthStat initiative.” (May 2007) That’s admirable, but does he have a plan for the rest of the country?
Romney: “MA health plan insures all without taxes or socialization (May 2007) FactCheck: MA plan not yet in place so analysis premature.”
Foreign Policy:
Guiliani: “No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.”
Romney: “No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.”
Oh, and here’s another issue where they both have a “strong” stance, jobs.
Guiliani: “Work is a good thing.”
Romney: “Tax incentives for employee training”
That’s it? That’s the best they could come up with? How about a new, fresh idea, on say…..anything? Diversity in the GOP? Not so much, no.
Note: Yesterday New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced that he was dropping his Republican affiliation. As an Independent, that would make him a “possible exploratory candidate.”
Although he denies an interest in running for president his announcement “set off a storm of interest in political circles across the country.” (NY Times 6/20/2007)
Bloomberg was a Democrat until 2001, when he switched to the GOP party. Apparently he sways with the wind in his party affiliation. I guess he’s decided the political wind is blowing away from the GOP.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics”, published every Tuesday, will reflect on how the life of a 57 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. The articles will be posted to Politics.gather.com as part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a single teacher and writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.ccabot.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 175
I can't believe I am saying this, but the republicans don't get elected on issues like the environment or healthcare. They get elected on abortion and gay rights. It's sad but true, and it will still be true until we are all gasping with asthma and being turned away from ERs. So your article didn't surprise me because these are job candidates basically. They will shoot for the job no matter what. So far, those hot button issues are what wins elections in this country. God help us all.
When labor unions were powerful the standard line about the major parties was that Republican graft involved the rich and Democratic graft involved organized labor. Not much change on the Republican side.
How are the democrats on intellectual diversity? Not very good. they all think and say the same things. They all race to the microphone after everything that is bad news for America to be the first to politicize it.
Republicans have pro life/pro death candidates....pro-victory/pro-defeat candidates on the war in Iraq.....pro-civil union/ant-civil union......pro-tax cuts/anti-tax cuts candidates.....the list goes on. Where have the democrats been on immigration? Where is the leadership of their congress? Where have they been and why aren't they challenged? When are the solution ideas going to start and the finger pointing going to end with them?
The only debate regarding the important issues of America is found in the republican primary while democrats argue who is the most female, black, and queer among them. Or just spending money on Soprano spoofs that have nothing to do with the issues we all care about.
Perhaps it's because they are all sensitive, caring, socially responsible (okay not Kennedy) groups of men who have a clue about little things like how sick people don't work or QUEERS have rights too. That word pretty much illustrates the big difference in "intellectual diversity" between the parties. For intellect to be diverse in Republicans (see above slur), it must first be present.
http://queers.gather.com/
Please drop it. Address the other excellent points Jeff made.
We could see some differences. The two candidates reviewed above are not even on the radar screen of issues of paramount importance to the vast majority of Americans.
http://www.healthtransformation.net/home/
As for the claims made in this article, it's just Cheri going off on her hate fill rant of all things Republican. Do your own research if you want to find the truth. Mitt Romney on health care? Try this for starters.
This is getting old donnyjeffboys.
Did either of you EVER have an original thought or are you totally "bushwashed" ????
Do you two use the word "queer" when cruising the gay bars ?
If so you better watch out most gays don't like to be called "queer" .
Janice....What right do republicans want to take away from queers?
Don thanks for the Romney link. he really has been a leader on healthcare reform but the mainstream media refuses to cover it because it isn't a government agency. I wish for once that these liberals would promote a solution that they can show from start to finish that it will work instead of a litany of complaints.
As for using the word "queer" ....it is very telling. Just as African-Americans use the "n" word themselves, they are offended, and rightfully so, if anyone else uses it. Let me guess, you both call women "broads" and think it's compliment. Go back to your trailer park.
"Broads" is old school. Nags is my word of choice.
But like i said......made for all viewers TV created a show called "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy". Google it. If you are true to your convictions protest it. Never heard of a made for TV "N" word show......
Either way this is typical liberal intellect. The first thing that comes to mind with Cheri in regards to anything Newt says is his appearance (jowls). No wonder they cant win national elections....
The group of which you speak had all of 6 members, all of them are female and if I recall correctly all except one of them describes her sexual orientation as bisexual. I would hardly call that representative of the gay/lesbian community on Gather which from what I have been able to discern in much larger that would be indicated by groups having tags associated with being sexuality attracted to members of one's own gender. That probably is because they consider their sexual orientation to be just another trait not a characteristic that dominates their lives or defines them.
Belonging to a group such a queers is not so much a statement of the acceptability of such a derogatory term as it is an in your face rephrasing of the old fashioned taunt "sticks and stones breaking bones, but words will never hurt me"
I for one would like to know the basis for Jeff claim that the only things Democrats debate is who is the most black, the most female or the most queer? As far as I know the only Democratic Presidential candidate claiming to be black is Obama and the only candidate claiming to be female is Hillary and I have yet to here another candidate, Democratic or Republican, dispute those facts. As for queer, there are probably candidates in both parties who a number of people would describe as queer, but that usage of the word has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
poles apart from LBJ's America.
I have yet to hear the media talk about any other democrat candidate. As far as their ideas.......aside from "1000 and 1 reasons to hate Bush" I really don't know where they stand on immigration, taxes, the war on terrorism, (well Edwards said the war on terrorism doesn't exist and the media has ignored him ever since) health care (other than I should have to pay for the fat smokers, who destroyed their health while I stayed fit, through some sort of socialized health care system all of which no idea has been proposed since the failed "hillarycare" of the 90's) What Are democrats going to do? Fine hate me I don't care but what are democrats going to do?
All you liberals remember.....don't tell me what you want them to do....point to one candidate that has advocated the things you say in this forum other than Denice Kucinich. But since democrats like Cheri rate people by appearance a dude who looks like a ferangey from Star Trek?????? Won't happen with democrats voting.
Carol -- it is a SMALL representative nonetheless. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", "Queer as Folk"... other mainstream examples. We could play this game all day, but let's play "all-grown-up" get back to the discussion.
Cheri -- go read Newts website on health care transformation. His ideas are very well thought out and are years in the making. That you dismiss them only proves how ignorant you are.
http://www.healthtransformation.net/home/
Is a movement gaining momentum.
Can't wait for 2008!!!!!!!!!~
James Caravel said on CSPAN a few weeks ago that "The good news for democrats is that the democrats are going to have to talk themselves out of the 2008 presidency. The good news for the republicans is that they are perfectly capable of doing that."
It's the absurdity and pure ignorance that gets me. It's actually laughable... this is entertaining to me.
agenda and Reaganism will fade into dust.
The nation and the world has moved past it.
That is very ironic isn't it? Against abortion? Don't have one. Like guns? Have one, but put a lock on it. Against gay marriage? Don't attend. Republicans have always claimed to be against too much government, yet all the issues they cling to revolve around enforcing their morals on every one else. Allow people to make their own personal decisions and keep the government out of it. There are too many other important national and global issues that should be the focus (poverty, environment, Iraq, jobs....), so let everyone's personal lives be just that...personal.
For the People by the People. What an "Idea"!
Blessings
Neither of the major parties has any one worht voting for at this point in time.
Both parties need to stay out of people's homes/bedrooms and focus on running the Country and navigating through the minefield that GWB and Co. are leaving behind.
My though is that the main issues they need to focus on are Healthcare reform, Education, Immigration and Foreign Policy... if they can salvage anything useful out of the quagmire that is being left by the current crew...
Republicans have always claimed to be against too much government, yet all the issues they cling to revolve around enforcing their morals on every one else
... "and the truth shall set you free"
... please gather, an edit button would be welcome by all!
Can't the "two" H. guys just get together and write a homophobic article once and for all? It's not like we don't already know where you stand, you could stop trying to hijack everyone else's posts with your (and Karl Rove's) agenda, and most of all, you're the same person anyway.
Kris,
I think the H guys are dealing with personal issues in public forum. I don't approve of any derogatory demeaning term that makes anyone less than human. The piddly little rights I was talking about "gentlemen" were the right to marry who you want, sleep with whom you want and insure your family whoever they might be. Those are the "intellectual" issues that Reps are ignoring. But, of course, they're just (insert name here), right? Unless you have a block of the vote for Republicans, I seriously doubt they give a rat's ass anyway.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
He may have said that but there's one little factual error. He never invented anything. He and Paul Allen developed a nifty version of BASIC but they modified an existing language.
Gates' real break was that his mother was on the board of the United Fund at the same time the president of IBM was. When IBM was looking for an operating system for its new micro-computer (that's what they called them then) Gates got a shot. Microsoft didn't actually have an operating system but they quickly bought another company that had a working 8086 operating system. The rest is history.
Pot; meet kettle. Kettle; meet pot. Pot and kettle; meet Mr. Industrial Strength Dish Washer! I don't care who is dirtier, you both need to be cleaned!
Kris -- I only post as myself. Jeff does the same. I barely know the guy -- we just happen to have similar views. Why is that so hard to believe?
Oh yeah bush just loves minorities .......if they are illegal immigrants.
Thanks for pointing out that this article is about diversity, Suzi, but I guess we at least have a diverse conversation going on.
"Libs have such a narrow view of us conservatives?" Are you joking Don H. (no, probably not...you wouldn't know a joke anyway). We have that narrow view of you because you are so very narrow-minded. Your vision doesn't go past your blinders.
Nothing amazes me more than hearing a working stiff defend the Republican Party. Lincoln was right, you can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time.
Ever since Ronny Ray-Gun we've been watching the decline of the middle class. The only respit was under Bill Clinton, but GW put a stop to that nonsense. Imagine, 2 million new jobs, a successful campaign in Kosovo, a 2 trillion dollar surplus in the federal budget. What the hell was that un-American commy bastard thinking?
There is no denying the fact that as a rule, under Democratic Presidents, the working class prospers, the number of poor decline, and we move ahead with things like social security, medicare, and afirmative action for minorities.
Under Republican Presidents we get tax cuts, budget cuts, reduced government services, and... oh yeah tax cuts. It seems to this correspondent that the Republicans are only about undoing government. Yet they are adament about controlling it in order to carry out their ideologic agenda, which is always touted as "for the good of our nation," but is usually more about forcing their religeous and social beliefs on the rest of us.
How working people and even the rare poor person can be duped into believing the propaganda spewed by the Right about their way "benefitting" working people, and becoming down right combative in their defense of their leaders is astonishing to me. Don't they understand that they've been flim flammed.
It's not rocket science people.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
So Cheri if people don't walk in lockstep with you and all your like minded liberal friends WE have the blinders on? We disagree with politics on a philosophical level.....you really don't have to hate the people you disagree with.
If it makes you people feel so righteous and compassionate to accuse everybody that doesn't believe in your failed solutions to poverty as "not caring" go right ahead. Welfare was torn down by the conservative movement and conservatives are still hated for it even though every study has shown it to be an program that enslaved poor people to government dependency. I am glad people didn't listen to you liberals then and I am sure they won't listen to you now especially in terms of socialised medicine.
White democrats act like I owe them something becuase they have given my race excuses for failure time and time again. I am sure their hearts are in the right place but if you have seen how much worse the neighborhood I grew up in has become in the past 20 it would make you sick. Opportunity and personal responsibility is the only solution to the crises not excuses and government programs.
Liberal hubris.
"The article is about lack of diversity within the GOP"
Then how do you explain so many minorites in high level cabinet positions with Bush? Address that, please.
Diversity of ideas. Diversity can be found in so many places, not just on skin. Way to ignore the point! You get better at it everyday.
Tyrone brings up a legitimate point here. What about the democrats who seem to lockstep with money? What can be done there? Money and the making of it for select politicians and their friends seems to be a part of the issue here. Until greed isn't a factor, does it matter who we elect?
Let me reiterate - And as I pointed out Don, I would vote for Colin Powell if he were running for President. The point here is diversity in those seeking the highest station, not those who are monkeys for the boys in charge.
Aside from that I need know nothing more . . . it speaks volumes that you're content with millions without healthcare coverage and the rest are paying for them anyway. You're content that this country ranks 36th in healthcare . . . you're a fan of Geo. II and his GOP war . . . you support removing women's right to choose . . .
I think I know all I need to formulate my opinion about you through your comments.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Thanks for stating the obvious. Too bad that is not what Cheri was referencing in the article. I get it more than you know.
Cheri says "there are just no NEW ideas in the GOP"
You think that only because you don't listen to what they have to say. I'll keep pointing to just one example to make my point: http://www.healthtransformation.net/home/
Healthcare is going to be one of the top issues... and Newt has the best ideas bar none.
All you people who keep crying about healthcare owe it to yourself to go and research Newts website.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Grasping as usual. Read my comment. MY WHOLE COMMENT. It's identical almost to Cheri's where she clarified diversity for you. Come on. You should know how this works. I assume you went to school before "no child left behind".
"
1. Individuals must take an active role in becoming healthier.
Diabetes and obesity kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and cost our system hundreds of billions of dollars every year. But such deaths are, overwhelmingly, a consequence of poor individual choices. Individuals must be incentivized to make better decisions. For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan introduced Healthy Blue Living, where individuals can save 10 percent or more on their premiums, co-payments and deductibles if they work with their physician, exercise, eat right, control chronic conditions and don't smoke.
Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it. However, an individual mandate is an acceptable option only when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed. It is unjust to require an individual to buy into a broken and dysfunctional system.
2. We must create a culture of health that leads to responsible choices.
We can do this by redesigning how public and private institutions influence individual behavior. For instance, parents and the public-education system have failed to control childhood obesity, a rate that has tripled since 1980, according to the Centers for Disease Control
To reverse this, physical education should be required for every student in grades K through 12 five days a week. Students should be weighed, their body mass index calculated, and the results and relevant educational material sent home to parents. School lunches, breakfasts and vending machines should promote healthful foods, so that unhealthful alternatives are penalized or prohibited.
Grocery stores in poor neighborhoods should receive tax incentives to provide a wide selection of fresh fruits and vegetables. The food-stamp and WIC programs should be redesigned to incentivize purchase of healthful foods. State and local governments should make significant investments in bike paths, sidewalks, public parks and recreation programs to encourage physical activity.
3. We must dramatically improve and modernize the way we deliver care.
We should eliminate any financial incentive to do any test, treatment or therapy that does not directly benefit the patient or add value to the care process. Payments to doctors and hospitals must change from a transaction-based to an outcome-based model. This will encourage the use of new technology, such as electronic health records, and adherence to evidence-based medicine, which will lead to higher-quality, more efficient care.
4. We must radically change the way we finance health insurance and health care.
Between individuals and their doctors are hoards of middlemen and red tape as far as the eye can see. Putting the consumer squarely in control is essential, so that the individual citizen is the primary driver of cost reduction in health care.
Consumers should have the right to purchase a health-insurance policy from anywhere in the country, creating a truly competitive, national market. Health Savings Accounts should be available to everyone, regardless of how or whether they obtain insurance, and HSAs should be opened and funded for low-income individuals and families. Information on provider performance and price, as well as that of insurance companies, should be available to consumers - before they receive care.
We should incentivize the individual to root out waste by pursuing better care at lower cost. And individuals who purchase their own insurance should receive the same tax benefits as employers who provide coverage.
The health-care system as currently designed is incapable of insuring every American. It will always result in rising costs, poor quality and an unhealthy population. Any plan to cover the uninsured that builds upon such a dysfunctional system throws good money after bad. We can do better.
With real change, we will lower costs and make health care affordable for every American, and that will lead to 100 percent coverage. Our country and our citizens deserve nothing less.
Former House Speaker NEWT GINGRICH is founder of the Center for Health Transformation. DAVID MERRITT leads the "Insure All Americans" project at the center."
"""I STILL would love to see that womanizing, divorce-aholic who designed the "Contract ON Amerika" get the GOP nod. You have NO idea how bad I'd like to see that!"""
Way to keep an open mind doyle..... regards...
We don't do this now? Is Incentivise a word? let's check. Not according to world book. I like my candidates to be able to spell.
"We should eliminate any financial incentive to do any test, treatment or therapy that does not directly benefit the patient or add value to the care process. "
Insurance does this now, sometimes eliminating everything right up to breathing.
"Consumers should have the right to purchase a health-insurance policy from anywhere in the country, creating a truly competitive, national market. Health Savings Accounts should be available to everyone, regardless of how or whether they obtain insurance, and HSAs should be opened and funded for low-income individuals and families."
Again we have the right to buy from anyone now. They just don't choose to cover everyone. HSAs maybe. But how is this different from medicaid again, except to limit the amount a family is eligible to receive.
Jeff, Oink! You're the one sounding like a pig here. You didn't share your toys as a child, I bet. That 99% of pharmaceuticals is then sold to everyone but the third world, since they can't afford it. How does that benefit anyone but us? Unless...you don't care about anyone else. Hmm. Have I unwittingly figured out your psyche?
Vickey, innocent lives being lost- try needless. NO WMDs
"The military is volunteer in case you didnt know this, tell the truth, what you are really whining about is how much this war is costing,"
My husband is THERE! It's not a justifiable war, unless we go into the other 0 dictatorships too
"You dont show compassion for a people who has lived under a dictatorship for 30 years, who was raped, murdered, tortured, maimed, robbed of rights that we take for granted,Do you think only the Americans should have these rights, no one else, but yet you would be the first ones asking for help, if you or your family had to live under a tyrant."
Again, There are THIRTY other brutal dictators - that I know of- around the world. Why don't we go after them. The article was about new ideas. Your comment actually reiterates the same tired things the GOP spout daily.
I shared my toys, I am a go to guy for south eastern Wisconsin to care for kids, who end up in the custody of human services, who have irresponsible drug addict parent who end up in jail. I donate a lot of time because of other people's problems and yes I am frustrated as hell that the people who screw up their lives are the ones I am supposed to feel sorry for when it is them that strain our system and leave a trail of victims, mostly children.
Don I checked the newt link. Despite his personal baggage the man is a genius.
You harp on reducing welfare. Have you checked out the article on the immigration law firm who coach businesses on how NOT to hire American Citizens. Olga M posted the link. It's a seminar video. How does that track with W's arguments on Immigration? Is there really a shortage of American Workers willing to do the work? If there were, would those lawyers be having that seminar?
Janice -- I re-read Newt's ideas you posted and they all make sense. Big picture is that he is looking at it from many angles to lower the cost. Are you a poor person? You seem very angry as though you've been shorted in some way.
What you hear here in my tone ,if you will, is disrespect and contempt? I find you extremely offensive in your complete disregard of others thoughts. Jeff runs a close second. You don't even read them. How do you expect to sound intelligent talking about comments you DON'T read?
If you paid one bit of attention to anyone's ideas, I'd respect you more, in spite of your conservative bent. You don't. I don't even filter what I say to you anymore. You don't care anyway.
The poor aren't the only ones having trouble with insurance and medical bills. The working class is rapidly losing access. Are you a rich person, Don, that this doesn't affect you at all?
I'm with Doyle....I'd LOVE to see him the GOP candidate....but try to convince the Christian Coalition that still has a tight rein on the GOP that he is lilly white.
I find you very insulting too, so it goes both ways.
And you continue to cry about all these people not having health care, yet you poo-poo someone brilliant like Newt. It makes no sense. He should be your hero.
Some of his "ideas" are currently not working. They aren't new. That's what currently not working means. Currently being used. And aren't working.