Site Index / Menu.

Racial Politics 2000:
General, Newer Stories

[ See also:  George W. Bush Opposition to Racial Quotas! ]

BACK:  More Links, More News Index.
Chronologically (newest first):

Republican Convention:  Colin Powell Calls for More Quotas (08/01/00)

Ward Connerly accuses Colin Powell of dividing the GOP while trying to pull it to the Left.

          BACKGROUND:  During Colin Powell's July 31, 2000 speech at the Republican Convention in Philadelphia he made the following, quirky, pro-quota statement:  "Some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped a few thousand black kids get an education, but hardly a whimper is heard from them over affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax codes with preferences for special interests."

(SACRAMENTO -- by Ward Connerly) – Responding to charges by retired General Colin Powell last night that those who oppose racial preferences "create cynicism…in the black community," American Civil Rights Institute Chairman Ward Connerly, a registered Republican and backer of Governor George W. Bush, issued the following statement:

          "There he goes again. Four years ago, General Colin Powell addressed the Republican National Convention and defended affirmative action preferences. Last night, he did it again.

          "One would think that he would catch up with the American people on this issue. Instead, he reminds us that he is to the left of voters in liberal states like California and Washington who have rejected preferences as a divisive policy that forces us into little boxes and pits one group against another. Governor George W. Bush has consistently spoken out against these ill effects, using those same words. General Powell, on the other hand, wants to drag the Republican Party to the left of the political spectrum, making it indistinguishable from the Democratic Party on this issue.

          "General Powell is respected for his military expertise. His views on race carry no greater weight than any other American who is entitled to equal treatment under the law and special preferences for none, whether they be -- to use the odd dichotomy the General used last night –- black kids or lobbyists.

          "If Powell wants to flip-flop on affirmative action, as he has done, let him do so, but the G.O.P. and Governor Bush need to make it clear that Powell speaks for himself and not for the rest of us.

          "When Powell claims that "affirmative action" helped a few thousand black kids get an education, is he really so badly informed that he does not realize that the end of preferences is not denying anyone the opportunity to get an education? By his own admission, kids in Texas still have access to a quality education without affirmative action. The same goes for kids in California, Washington, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts and many other places where affirmative action has been found immoral by the voters and unconstitutional by the courts.

          "Finally, I fail to understand why someone who is opposed to preferences based on race has any obligation to speak out against lobbyists who seek "special preferences" in the tax code for their clients. Talk about a non sequitur. If Governor George W. Bush wants to be a "uniter and not a divider" -- and I take him at his word on that -- he should begin by putting a leash on those who use the forum provided by the Republican nominee to bash those in his own Party." -- Ward Connerly 08/01/00

Related Links:  See also Definition of Affirmative Action.

Racial Politics 2000:  Al Gor(e)ing Blacks Again, by R. D. Davis (posted 10/16/99)

[A New Visions Commentary paper published by The National Center for Public Policy Research.  See below for the link to their web site.  Editor]

          Al Gore is continuing the Democrats' brainwashing of blacks for their votes.  National Review magazine reported that Vice President Gore recently told the NAACP in a speech that his father, the late Tennessee Senator Albert Gore, Sr., lost his re-election bid in 1970 because he supported civil rights legislation. His black audience believed him.

          The Sacramento Bee reported Vice President Gore, while addressing the Progressive National Baptist Convention, lauded his father's "battle" through the 1940s, 50s and 60s for civil rights. His black audience believed him. "He supported the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and lost his re-election," said Gore of his father. "But his conscience won, and he taught me that was more important than any election."

          Yeah, right.  What is the truth? What is a myth? And what is a bald-faced lie? The truth is that Albert Gore, Sr. did vote for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (see the Congressional Quarterly voting records, May 28, 1965).

          The myth, which is implied, is that Republicans unilaterally voted against the Act. The truth is that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 received overwhelming support from Republicans (more so than from the Democrats) in both houses of Congress - with 82%

          Republican support in the House of Representatives and 94% in the Senate.

          The Senate vote for the Voting Rights Act was 77 to 19, with Democrats voting 47 to 17 in favor and Republicans 30 to 2 in favor. Among those voting against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were 17 southern Democrats, including President Bill Clinton's political mentor, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

          Now for the lie, which is definitely implied by Vice President Gore: that Albert Gore, Sr. voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The truth is that the elder Gore was a key player in the 74-day filibuster that delayed and intended to weaken the Act. As a matter of fact, all of the southern Democrats voted against the Act in the Senate, and all but 11 of 103 southern Democrats in the House.

          The Republicans don't always get the credit they deserve when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his autobiography An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South." Mr. Young admitted that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, and were "among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."

          Another implied myth is that Republicans unilaterally voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The truth is that, without the Republicans' efforts, no such bill would have been passed. Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House, 61% of Democrats (152 to 96) voted for the Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 to 34). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 to 27) voted for passage along with 82% of Republicans (27 to 6).

          One of the reasons Gore, Sr. lost his election to Republican Bill Brock may have been Gore's vote against amending the Constitution to permit prayer in public schools. As far as his record on civil rights goes, Gore, Sr. was definitely not the martyr for black rights as his son tries to portray him. By Andrew Young's own account, the elder Gore was a segregationist and not a champion for civil rights.

          Here is Albert Gore Sr.'s legacy on civil rights: He did vote for the Voting Act of 1965, but was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ostensibly, it was acceptable for black people to vote for him, but not to eat at the same restaurant with him.

          Al Gore, Jr. knows he has to perpetuate the civil rights deceptions and outright lies to ensure that blacks will continue to be used to further the socialistic and secular humanistic agendas of the Democratic Party. God forbid if blacks knew the truth about what the party really stood for.

          Think about it. If the Democratic Party has to continue to lie and deceive you for your support, what have they to hide?   A lot, my friend - a whole lot. -30-

("Al Gor(e)ing Blacks Again" is a New Visions Commentary paper published October 1999 by The National Center for Public Policy Research.  Author R. D. Davis is a member of Project 21 and a writer and radio talk show host in Huntsville, Alabama.   Visit Project 21's web site at    Return to TOP of this story.)

Racial Politics 2000:  Democrats Dictate Number of Minority Delegates (08/11/99 - dead link)
          "Intent on projecting diversity, California Democrats have spelled out precisely how many gays, lesbians, disabled people and minorities should serve as delegates to the party's national convention. State party officials sent a memo to 2,500 activists last week, laying out what they called goals for how the 432 delegates should look. In August 2000 the delegates will gather in Los Angeles to choose the Democratic presidential nominee, and the party is eager to showcase its diversity before a television audience of millions.

          "According to the memo, 26 percent of delegates should be Hispanic, 16 percent black, 10 percent disabled, 9 percent Asian-Pacific Islander, 5 percent gay, 5 percent lesbian and 1 percent Indian. Half should be men, and half women, the party said. ... California Democratic Party officials formulated their goals based on the state's population and voter exit polls, Mulholland said Tuesday.

          "The party's strong [pro-quota] push follows a move by the state's top Democrat, Gov. Gray Davis, that struck a blow against such preferences. Davis vetoed a bill last month that would have declared outreach programs for minorities and women permissible despite Proposition 209, a voter-approved ban on preferential treatment by government based on race or gender. ... Republicans derided the targets as tokenism. The Republican Party has no such mandate for diversity, said Stuart DeVeaux, spokesman for the state GOP and a former Republican National Committee official. "We are an inclusive party,'' DeVeaux said. "If you're a white male and you've done nothing wrong, you're discriminated against by the Democratic Party.''"  (Associated Press, via FoxNews, by Scott Lindlaw)
[former link **]

Related / Response:   (newest stories first)

Democrats' Diversity By Numbers (08/20/99)
          "THE CALIFORNIA Democratic Party doesn't have quotas for its delegates at the Democratic National Committee convention in Los Angeles next year. It has a quota. Half of the 495 delegates must be men and half must be women.

          "(I think they ought to fill the odd number by mandating one delegate who has had a sex change -- or maybe a hermaphrodite, or a sex-offender who had agreed to chemical castration -- but party swells have decided to allow the delegation to be ``gender-balanced within one.'')

          "Otherwise, the party has goals, not quotas, for its delegates: 26 percent Latino, 16 percent African American, 10 percent disabled, 9 percent Asian Pacific Islanders, 5 percent gay men, 5 percent lesbians, and 1 percent Native Americans. Those numbers are based on census data, exit polling data and whatever numbers activists wanted to pick, according to Bob Mulholland, an adviser to the California Democratic Party.

          "The goal behind the goals, state party chairman Art Torres will tell you, is ``diversity.'' Boosters say that the goals will make the delegation highly representative of California's diverse population.

          "If that's the real goal then, perhaps the party ought to have a goal of finding delegates who voted for Proposition 209, which was supposed to stop gender and ethnic preferences in state hiring, contracting and admissions. After all, 54 percent of Californians supported 209 in 1996. Or a goal of picking at least 60 percent of delegates who supported Proposition 227, which mandated English immersion for most limited English students."  (San Francisco Chronicle 08/20/99 by Debra J. Saunders)
[link ]

This diversity isn't real (08/18/99)
          "THE PROMULGATION of racial, ethnic and sexual-orientation quotas for the California delegation to the Democratic National Convention in 2000 is an exercise in crass showmanship - not a true reflection of power-sharing by the white male-dominated party establishment.

          "This ordering up of a diverse-looking 432-member contingent to carry out the leadership's bidding at the gathering in Los Angeles next August is done primarily to make a favorable impression on viewers tuning in on national television. The public is invited to conclude from this artificial rainbow of California Democrats that the party's nominees deserve support from an equally wide range of voters.

          "There's something crude about the party pros declaring a year in advance that 26 percent of the delegates will be Hispanic, 16 percent black, 10 percent disabled, 9 percent Asian-Pacific Islander, 5 percent gay male, 5 percent lesbian and 1 percent native American. (The 50-50 male-female division is already decreed by the national party.) The plan is to parade this "inclusiveness" of the party for the TV cameras. We shudder to speculate how this will be accomplished.

          "The racial and ethnic breakdowns will have to be evident from people's color and facial characteristics. Mixed-race people may be excluded lest they confuse the showmanship issue. How will the disabled demonstrate their eligibility on TV if their disabilities are not obvious? How will gay men and lesbians be identified on the tube - by stereotypical signaling of their orientation? No point in having the closeted serve as delegates."  (San Francisco Examiner 08/18/99, Editorial)
[link ]

Racial Politics 2000:  Stakes High in 2000 (06/21/99, Washington Post - dead link)
          "The campaign of 2000 is starting a year too early for most voters, but there are reasons the politicians can't wait. Everyone talks about the fierce competition for contributions and the pressure to organize for the earliest primary elections in history.

          "But lost in all the focus on tactics and timetables is the biggest reason of all: The 2000 election has the potential to determine the direction of all three branches of the national government. "This is as big as it gets," said Joe Andrew, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "It's certainly the most important election of my lifetime."

          "That sense of apprehension also applies to the Supreme Court, whose three oldest members are GOP appointees: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will be 76 next Election Day; Justice John Paul Stevens, 80; and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70. As Daniel E. Troy, a constitutional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in the Weekly Standard, the court "recently has decided by only one vote the constitutionality of racial preferences and districting intended to empower minorities . . . the right of death row inmates to litigate endlessly and the legality of direct or indirect aid to students who attend parochial school. The court is also narrowly divided on abortion." Troy said, "One new appointment alone could dramatically change the course of constitutional law. And most court-watchers believe the next president will have three openings to fill." (Washington Post 06/21/99 by David S. Broder)
[former link **]

Racial Politics 2000:  Bush Bounces, Gore Flat After Tours (06/21/99 - dead link)
          "Texas Gov. George W. Bush holds an 18 percentage point lead over Al Gore in the race for the presidency in a new Reuters poll released Monday [06/2/99] ... Looking at the Bush-Gore matchup, the poll found Bush erasing the gender gap that twice helped President Clinton defeat Republican opponents. The Texan's lead among men and women was virtually identical - 16 points among women and 18 points among men. Bush also lead narrowly among labor union households, in cities and suburbs and among Catholics. Gore's sole lead in demographic sub-groups was among blacks."  (Reuters, via FoxNews 06/21/99)
[former link **]

Racial Politics 2000:  Clinton supported racial profiling in Arkansas  (06/21/99 - no link)
          "President Clinton last week criticized racial profiling by police as a "morally indefensible, deeply corrosive practice," but he strongly defended such profiling when he was governor of Arkansas.

          "[Clinton] approved the profiling of Hispanics by Arkansas State Police as part of a drug interdiction program in 1988. The Arkansas plan gave state troopers the authority to stop and search vehicles based on a drug-courier profile of Hispanics, particularly those driving cars with Texas license plates. A federal judge later ruled the program unconstitutional. A lawsuit and a federal consent decree ended the practice --known as the "criminal apprehension program" -- the next year, and Gov. Clinton criticized the court's decision and, at one point, threatened to reinstate the program despite the court's ruling.

          "Mr. Clinton said then that he considered the searches as he did airport metal detectors and that drugs were a bigger problem than airplane safety. He told the Arkansas Gazette he wished a way could be found to expand the searches again. ... Roberto Garcia de Posada, executive director of the Hispanic Business Roundtable, noted that while his organization supports statements made this month by the president against racial profiling, Mr. Clinton "has been a strong supporter of racial profiling against Hispanics in the past."  (Washington Times 06/21/99 by Jerry Seper)
[no link]

*Racial Politics 2000:   George W. Bush Repeats Opposition to Racial Quotas (06/30/99 - dead link)
          On a campaign tour through California on Tuesday, June 29, "Bush said he supported the goals of Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action initiative approved by voters in 1996 and which Latino voters overwhelmingly opposed.  'I support the spirit of no quotas and no preferences,' said Bush, who has never come closer to endorsing the initiative.  'But it's important to say it's not what you're against but what you're for.  In our state [Texas] I'm for increasing the pool of applicants, opening the door so that more people are eligible to go to the university system.'"  (Washington Post 06/30/99)
[former link **]

See Also:  Bush Opposes Racial Quotas (special collection of articles)

Racial Politics 2000:  FL. GOP to Abandon White Voters in order to Get Elected (05/15/99 - dead)
          (Editor's Note:  This excellent article in the Washington Post 05/15/99 illustrates the depths to which the Florida Republican Party will sink in order pander to those all-important minority votes.)

          Washington Post Headline:   Affirmative Action Tears At Fla. GOP; Gov. Bush Moves To Block Divisive Ballot Initiative

          Text:  "Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has mobilized Republicans in his state in an effort to keep an anti-affirmative action initiative off the ballot in 2000, wading into an issue that has divided the national party.

          "Ward Connerly, the California businessman who sponsored similar and successful initiatives in his home state and Washington, has brushed aside arguments that more of these efforts would create racial divisiveness at a time the GOP is trying to expand its appeal among minorities. Connerly announced last week that he has begun collecting signatures to put it on the ballot in Florida.

          "The result is that a struggle few Republican strategists welcome is boiling up in a key electoral battleground, drawing in the younger brother of Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the early leader in presidential polls for 2000. Several of his conservative rivals for the nomination are clearly on Connerly's side, but some top GOP officials fret that spotlighting the issue with another Connerly initiative may damage the party nationally.

          "Florida Republican Chairman Al Cardenas and his aides have lobbied business groups to withhold financing from the initiative. But Connerly said this week he is pressing ahead, bolstered by a pledge of money from one key group targeted by Jeb Bush, the Florida Associated General Contractors Council."  (Washington Post 05/15/99 page A01 by Terry M. Neal and David S. Broder)
[former link *]

See Also:  Florida Civl Rights Initiative News

Racial Politics 2000:  GOP Senator to Focus on Women, Minorities (05/09/99)
          "For years, Republicans have talked of reaching out to build support among women and minorities.  Now, state Sen. Jim Brulte is putting his money where his party's mouth is--and jaws are dropping.

          "Brulte, one of California's savviest GOP strategists, has announced a sort of ad hoc affirmative action plan:   Henceforth, he said, he will contribute in party primaries only to women and minority candidates.  White males need not apply.  "I think our message, by and large is all right. But if we're ever going to be the majority party and govern in California, we need a more diverse group of messengers," said the Rancho Cucamonga lawmaker, who passed out more than $500,000 in campaign cash in the 1998 elections.  "To bring that about, I'm going to do something I don't normally do and that is contribute in primaries. . . and target my resources to female Republican candidates, to black Republican candidates and Hispanic and Asian Republican candidates."

          "While few dispute the party's need to expand its ranks, particularly at a time when the white male is headed toward minority status in California, some fellow Republicans are aghast at Brulte's solution.   This is, after all, a party that has crusaded against quotas, set-asides and affirmative action."  (LA Times Sunday 05/09/99 by Mark Z. Barabak)
[link ]

*Illinois (Chicago):  Racial Gerrymandering Fails in Windy City (Page Has Moved)

(Impeachment):  The Impeachment Page has moved to:  Clinton Impeachment

END Racial Politics 2000 - General, Newest

Use the BACK button in your browser to return, or make another selection:

Racial Politics 2000:
General, Newest

Racial Politics 2000:
General, Older
Racial Politics 2000:
George W. Bush on Quotas
Racial Policitics 2000:
Clinton Impeachment

Main Site Index:

Go to Top of Page

by category
Contributions are tax-deductible

and case studies
and Definitions
Firms and Resources
GO:  Home Page
Page Index
URL's and page names for site

National opinion

How Quotas are Enforced
What's Hot!

D.O.J. Requires It!

News Analysis

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact    Last updated: August 03, 2000.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.