----- Original Message -----
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Double Standards on Regional Bigotry
> At 06:34 PM 1/11/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/10/2004 4:25:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> Personally, if you want to talk about pandering, I'll talk abotu a
party
> >> that collects 90% of the vote of people of a certain race.
> >> That's only
> >> *possible* via pandering
> >
> >Alternately, it may be the result of the policies of the republican
party
> with regard to the welfare of that race (by the way which race are we
> talkng about). And of course the fact that the republican party gets over
> 90% of the vote of a religous groups with certain philosophies or certain
> aspects of the economic sector is not pandering?
> >
>
> Of course the Republican Party is terrible for African Americans. That
is
> why 30 years of unquestioning, nearly unanmious, support for the
> Democratic Party has produced such a substantial improvement in the
welfare
> of African Americans.
I'll freely admit that the results of the '70s were mixed....but the
results since then are as clear as can be. Lets look at how different
races/ethnic groups fared under Republican and Democratic administrations.
black Non-Hispanic white
Hispanic
80-92 +5.9% +6.4%
+5.9%
92-00 +31.5% +13.9%
+22.0%
00-02 -6.3% -1.6%
-4.4%
So, in 14 years under Republican rule, blacks lost about half a percent.
In 8 years under Democratic rule, they gained over 30%. It seems to me that
deciding that the Democrats are better for them than Republicans is
straightforward.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
