Black Republicans, Obama, JC Watts, Armstrong Williams, African-American Republican Leadership Council in Texas,

Why black Republicans support Obama

---

Posted: July 05, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

I don't necessarily like his policies; but … history thrusts me to really seriously think about it [voting for Obama]. … Black conservatives tell me privately it would be very hard to vote against him in November.

– Armstrong Williams, talk show host

Recent comments by well-known black Republicans J.C. Watts and Armstrong Williams that they're conflicted about the upcoming presidential elections and are contemplating voting for Barack Obama have sent shock waves through the Republican Party.

I'm hearing many black Republicans echoing similar sentiments. They say that because of the historical significance of casting a vote for the first legitimate black presidential candidate, they may cross party lines.

These statements don't surprise me.

So, how did black Republicans get to a point where they're willing to abandon their own "values" to vote for a socialist?

To get an understanding of this phenomenon, I recently interviewed several black Republican leaders on my radio program.

Calvin Stephens, chairman of the African-American Republican Leadership Council in Texas, said that he's voting for Obama because this is a "black pride moment!"

Can you imagine if a white person in a similar position even hinted at voting for a candidate because it was a "white pride moment"? That person would be castigated, labeled a "racist" and fired.

Other black Republicans came on my program and repeated the Obama mantra of "change" without defining what that change meant.

I understand now that there's a major difference between a black conservative and a black Republican. A black conservative votes Republican because the party agrees with his values: pro-life, lower taxes, strong defense and strong families, etc.

A real black conservative could never vote for Obama. On the other hand, a black Republican could vote for Obama because he identifies more with color than character.

Because black Americans have long been catered to by liberal Democrats, most still feel like they're owed something. Even the staunchest black Republican believes that his party owes him.

A new breed of black Republican has infiltrated the GOP with the intent to wield black influence over both the parties. They may agree with the Republican Party on taxes and other economic issues, but that's it! At their core they're dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrats.

Until some 20 years ago, I used to be a liberal Democrat too. I followed Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and the NAACP. In my anger I believed what these so-called "black leaders" told me: that white racism was keeping me down.

I became a conservative after a deeply profound spiritual awakening at which point I repented of my anger, and God allowed me to see reality. I was then able to recognize that these liberal black leaders were no friends of decent black Americans. I could no longer identify with the liberal Democrat platform or their Godless "values."

I identified with conservative values and I joined the Republican Party to promote those values. I didn't join seeking to find what the party could do for me.

Understandably, white conservatives are bewildered and upset about the prospect of black Republicans voting for candidates based on race rather than values.

The Hispanic community already outnumbers blacks, and they're competing for representation within the GOP. Black Republicans' support of Obama will no doubt create a bigger rift between Republican leadership and blacks, and serve to close the window of opportunity blacks have had open to them to gain leadership in the party.

But what about "history"?

Let's examine the "history" argument. Is it right to vote for Barack Obama to make "history" while ignoring his record? Consider that Sen. Obama:

• believes in abortion on demand, and has told Planned Parenthood that sex-ed for kindergartners is "the right thing to do" (as long as it's "age appropriate");
  
  
• has announced his intention to gut our defenses including our nuclear arsenal and strategic missile defense programs;
  
  
• has said he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran and others without preconditions;
  
  
• wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, which would lead to chaos in the region and endanger Israel;
  
  
• seeks to raise taxes across the board including on oil company profits, yet opposes drilling domestically.

It would be nice to have a black president. But shouldn't it be someone who believes in the values that made this country great and is ready to protect and serve the American people?

I hear many blacks say that an Obama presidency will be the dawn of a new day for black America. Really?

Americans have elected black members of Congress as far back as the late 1800s.

We've had two black Supreme Court justices. We have blacks represented in the highest stratosphere of private and government sectors. Trust me, if all these accomplishments haven't persuaded and uplifted the masses, electing the first black president won't do it either.

Barack Obama is not black America's messiah. But the only way for black Americans (including those who identify themselves as Republicans) to see that reality is to drop their un-American identification with race and be willing to hear the truth about the issues from any American, regardless of color.

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "The Seven Guaranteed Steps To Spiritual, Family, and Financial Success" guide. He's also host of "The Jesse Lee Peterson Radio Show." For more information, visit www.bondinfo.org.

www.ruffcommunications.com

J.C. WATTS: Does GOP care about the black vote? October 2007

J.C. WATTS: Does GOP care about the black vote?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've noted in presidential campaigns present and past that most viable candidates are always looking to "enlarge their territory" by appearing before groups that may not be obvious constituencies.
To wit: Seven short years after referring to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other evangelical leaders as "agents of intolerance," John McCain was the commencement speaker at Falwell's Liberty University this past spring.
This is referred to in political circles as expanding your base. Or mending fences.
To wit again: Rudy Giuliani, America's mayor, who has not been known as a friend of the Second Amendment, recently addressed the national convention of the National Rifle Association. This speech came complete with an "unexpected" phone call from Mrs. America's Mayor, whereupon Mr. Mayor asked if she wanted to "say hello" to the conventioneers. How endearing.
This too, is a base-expanding, fence-mending operation.
This leads me to observe the obvious oversight (diplomatically speaking) of many of the Republican candidates for president this year.
I've heard an adage over the years that applies in this case: "If you are to be an alternative, you have to be where the alternative is needed."
For longer than I've been involved in the political process, the Republican establishment has claimed to want to provide an alternative for the black community, yet party elite refuse to show up for the game.
The more I ponder some of the boneheaded decisions GOP candidates have made of late, I can't bring myself to believe that they are serious about capturing more than about 8 percent of the black vote.
I have often said one of the reasons more blacks don't support Republicans is because they don't trust the GOP establishment. I can, without fear of contradiction, assure you the Conventional Wisdom Caucus and the Status Quo Caucus and the same-old-tired-establishment consultants are running the GOP front-runners' campaigns -- and aiming to get no more than 1/12th of the black vote.
As evidence, I point to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who was the only Republican presidential candidate to speak at the Urban League convention in July, and the fact that none of the Big Four GOP candidates showed up at Morgan State University (a historically black college) for a candidate forum hosted by National Public Radio commentator Tavis Smiley. Hmmm.
I'm perplexed by these actions because candidates say one thing about inclusion and outreach but they do another. How can you do outreach and not reach out? Not showing up for these events was a grievous and inexplicable error. I certainly don't consider inclusion to be baking a cake, then having me watch as everyone else eats it, as today's consultants would seemingly have us believe.
Inclusion is asking me to help in making the cake, and sharing in its tasty delight. This is the message the presidential candidates send when they show up at these forums.
Once in the general election, and safely out of the cloistered world of Republican primary politics, our nominee will want to trot out black faces -- usually black Republicans -- to try to win the black vote. This is insulting when you consider he likely didn't show up at events that were established to reach out to the black community. Trust me, these candidates will pay a price in the general election.
Republican candidates avoiding the Urban League and the Morgan State debate is as nonsensical as saying "I want a bath, but I don't want to get wet."
The excuse du jour -- "I had a scheduling conflict" -- is the campaign equivalent of "my dog ate my homework." All of us, in campaigns and life, make time for things that are important to us. It's a matter of priorities. One can only conclude that growing the base of our party isn't a priority to the GOP establishment. Not only that, but when national candidates make a decision to avoid these events, they put every loyal Republican activist at the state, county and even precinct level on the defensive.
The bottom line is, you can spin it, but you can't defend it.
One of my Republican friends asked me if I thought the candidates skipped these events because of the black audiences they would face. I can't presume to read their hearts and minds, but I do have to admit that it did cross my mind.
J.C. Watts (JCWatts01@jcwatts.com) is chairman of J.C. Watts Companies, a business consulting group. He is former chairman of the Republican Conference of the U.S. House, where he served as an Oklahoma representative from 1995 to 2002. He writes twice monthly for the Review-Journal.

www.ruffcommunications.com