Later this month, PBS will host a Republican presidential candidates’ debate at historically black college in Baltimore — and all of the top four GOP candidates have decided to skip it. Earlier this week, Univision was slated to host another Republican debate in Miami on Latino issues — but it was cancelled when all but one candidate declined invitations. The National Council of La Raza asked Republican candidates to address its annual conference in July, but none showed up. The National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials extended similar invitations to the entire GOP field, but only Duncan Hunter agreed to attend.
Minority communities are beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, Republican presidential hopefuls aren’t exactly attentive to their concerns.
There are, to their credit, a handful of Republican leaders who would like to see the party reach out beyond an all-white base.
Key Republican leaders are encouraging the party’s presidential candidates to rethink their decision to skip presidential debates focusing on issues important to minorities, fearing a backlash that could further erode the party’s standing with black and Latino voters. […]
“We sound like we don’t want immigration; we sound like we don’t want black people to vote for us,” said former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.), who was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. “What are we going to do — meet in a country club in the suburbs one day?”
“For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who is still considering a presidential campaign of his own. “I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse — this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It’s just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That’s baloney.”
Sounds right to me. In fact, I don’t think the Republican field has been feeling nearly enough heat over this.
When Dems announced that they would not attend a Fox News-sponsored debate, they had a fairly compelling reason — they didn’t want to legitimize a partisan outlet that exists to help the Republican Party. They didn’t need phony “scheduling problem” excuses; they were candid about their motivations.
People can debate whether the Dems’ strategy of avoiding the GOP’s network was wise — I believe it was — but multiple media figures lambasted the Democratic candidates for having the gall to boycott an event sponsored by partisans from the other side.
I long ago lost count of how many times major media personalities blasted the Dems over this, but Tim Russert’s slam on Fox News stands out.
Colmes said … he thinks Democrats have made a mistake not participating in a FOX News debate.
Russert then falsely suggested that Democrats were scared to participate, as opposed to refusing on principle. “It’s a TV show. If you can’t handle TV questions, how you gonna stand up to Iran and North Korea and the rest of the world?”
Jay Leno asked how Democrats could “stand up to terrorists when you’re afraid of Fox News?” Similar observers said the same thing over and over again for months.
It’d sure be nice if some of these same critics asked the question Jonathan Zasloff posed yesterday: “If Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain can’t stand up to Tavis Smiley, than how can they stand up to the terrorists?”
