by Matthew Hay Brown and David Nitkin
Ken Mehlman, the former Republican National Committee chairman, calls tonight’s GOP presidential debate at Morgan State University "an important opportunity."
Maryland’s former Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele calls it "crucial" that all of his party’s candidates show up.
To former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, "it just doesn’t make any sense" that his competitors would stay away.
But political analysts are divided over whether the decision by the four leading Republican candidates to skip the debate — set at a historically black college in Baltimore and focusing on issues of importance to minority voters — is likely to inflict enduring wounds.
Given the small number of African-Americans registered as Republicans and the propensity of black and Latino voters to favor Democratic candidates, many analysts say, the snub by Rudolph W. Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson might make strategic sense.
"There’s no group that actually votes in the Republican primary that is going to hold it against these guys for either A, not courting the black vote, or B, not showing up at Morgan State," said Donald F. Norris, chairman of the department of public policy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
See the rest of the story in the Sun:
(Tavis Smiley, public television and radio talk show host, above, will moderate the debate, along with Ray Suarez of The NewsHour, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and Juan Williams of National Public Radio in a PBS-sponsored debate in which the moderators might outnumber the candidates. PBS photo.)
"And there’s everything to lose by showing up," Norris said. Participating could give the impression that they are sacrificing conservative tenets, which might "very well hurt you with some elements of the Republican base."
The decision to bypass the forum has provoked outrage from minority leaders, who say the Republican front-runners are casting aside the concerns of minority communities. Some GOP leaders have joined the criticism, saying the party should be reaching out to those who have not traditionally supported its candidates.
"If in the long run we’re going to be a governing party, we’re going to have to work with people of all backgrounds," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is pondering entering the primary.
"If you’re losing 9-1 [among African-American voters] this year, you’d like to lose 8-1 next year and 7-1 the year after that," the Georgia Republican said. "That’s how you build a majority."
Ronald Walters, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park, who has studied black political leadership, is among the few observers who believe that the top-tier candidates will suffer serious damage by skipping the debate.
The leading contenders, he said, "are canceling out any prospect that Republicans will attract the black vote or even maintain the 2004 level of the black Republican vote."
Republicans have made little headway in their efforts of recent years to attract more minority votes. But party leaders such as Mehlman say the goal remains important in a closely divided nation, where elections can turn on a small numbers of votes.
In bypassing Baltimore, Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson all have cited scheduling conflicts as a quarterly fundraising deadline draws near.
But their decisions also reflect the sort of cold political calculation that members of both parties are making during an election cycle in which candidates are being invited to an unprecedented number of events by increasingly specific interest groups.
At this stage of the campaign, many analysts say, candidates are concentrating on raising money and support from committed partisans. Months from now, few will remember the Morgan State debate, they say, and the eventual nominee will be better positioned to build bridges with minority voters.
The need felt by Republicans and Democrats alike to build support among primary voters leaves them little time to engage their ideological adversaries. Thomas Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said the risk for the GOP front-runners was clear.
"When you have candidates who are already questionable on choice, already questionable on gay rights, already perhaps not acceptable on issues like immigration, do they want to go the further, additional step and answer questions on affirmative action, in front of a black audience?" he asked.
Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson also declined to participate this month in a "values voters" forum in Florida sponsored by a coalition of socially conservative groups. Republican candidates also have declined invitations from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Urban League and Logo, the gay-themed cable television network.
The Spanish-language television network Univision postponed a planned forum for Republicans when only McCain would commit.
"The fact that a group scheduled a debate at a difficult time on the political calendar, when all campaigns are focused on raising money, is unfortunate," said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant who managed Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. "But as one of these major candidates, you can’t be everywhere all the time."
Reed said the no-shows would sustain little long-term impact.
Michael K. Fauntroy, a George Mason University public policy professor and author of Republicans and the Black Vote, disagrees.
"If you’re focusing solely on getting through the primary, then this is really no skin off your back," he said. "But there will be a general election, and there will be a Republican nominee, and at that point, there’s going to be a huge cost paid by not just skipping this event, but the pattern that has developed."
Steele, who now heads the Republican political action committee GOPAC, and Mehlman, the Pikesville native who worked to build Republican outreach to blacks during his tenure as RNC chairman, have urged the candidates to reconsider their decisions not to show up tonight at Morgan State.
Mehlman said black voters "are tired of being taken for granted" by the Democratic Party.
The campaigns last year by Steele for U.S. Senate and Ken Blackwell for governor of Ohio came to symbolize Mehlman’s effort. But they and other black Republicans were defeated; there are currently no black GOP governors or members of Congress.
Mehlman and others "have made attempts to bring the party toward the mind-set of a 21st century majority," said Schaller, the UMBC professor. "But their appeals have been drowned out by the rest of the party. There really isn’t much of an effort to broaden and diversify the Republican voting coalition."
President Bush received 11 percent of the African-American vote in 2004, up from 8 percent in 2000, national exit polls showed. But next year’s Republican nominee is unlikely to reach either figure, said Walters, the College Park professor.
Bush’s low approval ratings among blacks, criticism of the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq — which has significantly less support in black communities — all work against the party’s black outreach, Walters said. And the Bush administration’s funding decisions for Pell grants and housing and community reinvestment programs don’t play well with black voters, he said.
If candidates want to appeal to black voters, "they have to do so not on symbolic issues, but on significant policy issues," Walters said. "But the candidates are not signaling they want to do that."
Hurricane Katrina, said Reed, "did more to set our party back with African-Americans than any issue, and it is going to take us years to recover."
In addition to Huckabee, candidates confirmed for tonight’s forum, to be moderated by talk show host Tavis Smiley, are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Alan L. Keyes, a former U.S. Senate candidate in Maryland and Illinois.
The paucity of prominent candidates forced the Maryland Republican Party to cancel a fundraising breakfast and rally scheduled for this morning, at which the candidates were supposed to appear.
State GOP Chairman James Pelura called the situation "really unfortunate" and said that middle-class blacks — a large number of whom reside in Maryland — increasingly "realize that the Democratic policies that are in place really hamper advancement."
Added Huckabee: "It’s very important that Republicans speak to the issues of [importance] to minority voters. If Republicans don’t win minority votes and votes that we traditionally don’t get, Hillary Clinton is our next president."
Matthew Hay Brown and David Nitkin are Washington correspondents for the Baltimore Sun.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"The fact that a group scheduled a debate at a difficult time on the political calendar, when all campaigns are focused on raising money, is unfortunate," said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant who managed Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. "But as one of these major candidates, you can’t be everywhere all the time."
Yeah,that Dole campaign was a real hum-dinger, so Reed must be a smart guy. The message the GOP sends on this one is loud and clear. Money trumps sincerity. Money trumps the melting pot. You're not the kind of Americans we need to care about right now.
It'll be up to the opponent of whichever of the four clowns who skipped this event that wins the GOP nomination to not let people forget about the decision made here. I mean, what do you in the general election to make up for this? "Ok, now I need your vote, so here I am." Blech.
Posted by: kb | September 27, 2007 8:20 AM
I am a registered Democrat and have a lot of respect for Republican Michael Steele.
It is a shame the main candidates for the Republican Party refuse to participate in the debates at Morgan State University.
Alienating the African-American community is NOT progressive for the party and will certaintly be reflected during the national election.
Posted by: concerned citizen | September 27, 2007 8:22 AM
Well, even though the event is being running by a cauldron of far lefties, I still think Romney, Guiliani, Thompson and McCain should have attended.
But before you Lefty Dweebs scream "Chickens!" I must remind you that ALL of your Demoncrap prez wannabes piddle in their pants when faced with moveon.org decrees and are too afraid to debate on Fox News and be interviewed by Chris Wallace and Brit Hume!
Posted by: John D | September 27, 2007 8:32 AM
Mehlman's right.
This is some dumb politics by the Republican candidates blowing off this debate.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 27, 2007 8:35 AM
"Some GOP leaders have joined the criticism, saying the party should be reaching out to those who have not traditionally supported its candidates."
I agree. And the opportunity is there to woo minority voters who see the Democrats taking them for granted. Of course, that's not easily done, but the effort must be made.
However, I also understand the mindset that asks why bother? with forums like this.
When the late Mayor Harold Washington was asked why he didn't make even token gestures at appointing Caucasians, his response was (to paraphrase) Why should I? Most of them didn't vote for me and they still won't if I appoint a White police supt.
A mistaken attitude, IMO, but an understandable one.
Posted by: I'm not Anonymous, I'm Anonymous | September 27, 2007 8:44 AM
John D.,
Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are Republican shills and operatives. Democrats are right not to legitimize this mouthpiece of the RNC.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 27, 2007 9:00 AM
Fret not my fellow voters, Ron Paul the front runner is going to be there to address our issues.
Posted by: Jim E | September 27, 2007 9:42 AM
Wooden Nickels.....
Thats what keeps coming to mind everytime I read what republicans are doing or any comment by John D.
Republicans are going to be as scarce as wooden nickels after the next election.
Posted by: Jim G | September 27, 2007 9:50 AM
Wouldn't want to show up for this debate and alienate the racist wing of the Republican party that you appeal to would you Republics? How come Republics wanted the Democratic Party to censure MoveOn.org but I've never heard the Republic Party denounce the KKK and neo-Nazis and tell every member to go to hell?
Posted by: john | September 27, 2007 9:53 AM
We have a political party that is willing to write off over 13% of the nation's voters. We also have a racial group that is willing to put all of their eggs in one political party's basket. I'm not sure that this has worked well for either side. I'm a white Republican who thinks that this is a missed opportunity for our party to reach out and build a bridge to black voters. In a close election, getting 12% of the African American vote as opposed to 8% may easily make the difference between winning and losing. Please tell me I'm not the only Republican that can see this!
Posted by: JohnP | September 27, 2007 9:58 AM
And who are the academic experts quoted in the above column?
Thomas Schaller, a Democrat strategist and author of a book on how the Dems can win elections.
Michael Fauntroy, a columnist for the leftie HuffPo.
Ronald Walters, who has contributed to Democrat candidates.
Donald F. Norris, onetime chapter head of the ACLU.
Notice any trend there? And notice how the article omitted the Dem connections of the "experts" quoted (connections that can be found in a 5 minute internet search)?
So when these "experts" diss the GOP, don't be surprised. The surprise would be if they DIDN'T diss the GOP.
Posted by: Bruce | September 27, 2007 10:14 AM
In this case, Barney the dog would be an expert. It doesn't take more than a lil common sense to see that some republicans either don't want or don't care to look like they care. In order, ofcourse, to change the perception that they exhibit a lackadaisical approach when it comes to African Americans. Especially, since they are under the microscope after Katrina. Regardless, to whatever ones opinion might be on the issue of who was really responsible, what were the flaws, what happened, etc.
Posted by: Iran | September 27, 2007 11:15 AM
So the only issues and concerns that matter are the issues and concerns of the people I KNOW will vote for me.
It's sad how both parties "play to the base". The result is that those candidates who are most successful at appealing to the radical wings of their bases (left and right) are the ones who "get the vote out" in the primary.
As a result both parties nominate polarizing candidates.
How is a moderate (from either side) ever going to get nominated?
Posted by: Carl L | September 27, 2007 12:14 PM
I thought the whole purpose of the Civil Rights movement was to give all people equal rights and freedoms and eliminate seperate treatment based on race. There are too many issues today that are still seperated by race.
My son finished 12 in his senior class. He had a GPA of 4.2 (took all honors classes). As he applied for scholarships, he was told that he was not eligible for some because he is white. In one instance, we were told that this particular scholarship as an endowment only for black students. I asked a simple question. What would happen if I endowed a scholorship that was only given to lower income white graduates? I can answer, Jessie Jackson would change his address to my front lawn. OK, so these dweebs are skipping a debate. IF the debate was being held at a neutrally racial sight, the discussion would be based soley on those peoples politics, with NO disticntion in race.
It is bad enough that the two major parties have turned our political systmen into a joke. Now we are using race as a wild card. Did we not learn our lessons 50 years ago? When you divide issues because of race, only negative can occur. Racism is alive and well. In addition, race is alive and well across the board. If it will help a person get the vote, they will play a race card in a heartbeat. This applies to ALL races.
Posted by: Karl R | September 27, 2007 12:28 PM
Karl R,
Can you honestly say a black family has the same needs/interests as a white family?
Posted by: Kelly St. James | September 27, 2007 12:51 PM
Karl R,
Can you honestly say a black family has the same needs/interests as a white family?
Posted by: Kelly St. James | September 27, 2007 12:51 PM
My point exactly. Each person, each individual should be judged on it's merit, not it's color. Every race/creed/religion have needs specific to them. But to exclude students of the potential for aid based soley on their color is wrong. If their were 50 black, hispanic and Muslim students who had more pressing financial issues, then they should get the scholorship. Notic e no where in that sentence was any regard to exclusion based on race. That is wht is wrong. People are using race as a reason to escape responsibility for their actions. Then have scholorships that are bigoted, politicians being judged differently etc. all based on race. I do indded feel that we are sliding on a dangerous past that we should have learned from.
Posted by: Karl R | September 27, 2007 1:49 PM
Karl R,
So is it discrimination if a prospective journalism major doesn't get a scholarship given to prospective engineering students
Posted by: Kelly St. James | September 27, 2007 2:08 PM
you guys do realize that as the opportunities have opened up for minorities in traditionally white colleges that traditionally afro-centric colleges offer minorities (whites) minority based scholarships . to keep up enrollment numbers they also make an effort to market themselves to a broader demographic seeking out non-minority students.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 27, 2007 2:56 PM
Doug, if Ailes and Murdoch are Republicans shills, then what Tim Russert, George Stephanopolous, Jeff Zucker, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann?
Posted by: John D | September 27, 2007 3:14 PM
Karl R,
So is it discrimination if a prospective journalism major doesn't get a scholarship given to prospective engineering students
Posted by: Kelly St. James | September 27, 2007 2:08 PM
How does t his apply to race? I was not at all concerned that my son could not get a scholarship through the UAW. But a very promising "EDUCATION" scholorship was denied to him becuse he is white. Your analogy is just a lot far off my point. If a child would otherwise be elligible for a grant IN HIS DEGREE AREA but is denied due to his race, this is racism, period. It does not matter which color is which. If a student is an eduation major, and is the most deserving through grades and any other required criterium, that student should get it. A women cannot sit in a certain seat on a bus, a student cannot get a badly needed grant. Notice that the only common denominator is serperation by race. IS this the door we really want to reopen?!
Posted by: Karl R | September 27, 2007 4:06 PM
IS this the door we really want to reopen?!
Posted by: Karl R | September 27, 2007 4:06 PM
If it allows people of color to attend colleges they would otherwise be unable to afford, yes it is.
I would say it wouldn't be necessary when we live in a world where experiments no longer show you are more likely to get an interview if your resume has a "white" sounding name, even if the resumes are identical.
Posted by: Kelly St. James | September 27, 2007 5:15 PM
OK, Uncle Joe D. Easy. Put the gun down.
******
Karl R,
I just don't think the door has ever closed.
America is still racist, though not as openly as during Jim Crow days.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 27, 2007 9:36 PM
Republicans oppose welfare and affirmative action racial quotas so of course they have nothing to offer the majority of blacks. Why would they show up to an area where they will simply be booed and hissed at before they even speak, I wouldn't
Posted by: Christian | April 26, 2008 8:31 PM