Editor, The Herald:

When the Republican presidential contender made the remark about not needing the 47% to vote for him he cast away the potential for many votes. If he was advised to say that, the advice was bad. If he made the decision on his own to say that, that was a dumb decision and it evidenced the level of his ineptitude. Did we really want an individual of that caliber running the business of the nation? Public information suggests that President Obama has an IQ above 160. An IQ of 115 is above average. A friend of mine's son had an IQ of 158 and he is performing extraordinary feats in the film animation industry. He was awarded an honorary doctorate at a very tender age. If President Obama's IQ equals his or is better, why would anyone question his ability to make brilliant decisions-given the level of his Ivy League education? That said; we get back to the question of the Republican presidential contender's faulty decisions on questionable issues. When the choice was made or accepted to voice the 47% comment, he concluded that the 53% left from the 100% consisted mostly of white males and their relatives and associates. The 47% comprised veterans (and I am a veteran), seniors, the poor and some middle class who (through no fault of their own) came to a hard place. In the past, political parties were too smart to write off such a huge chunk of the voting bloc. Granted, the remark was made behind closed doors and wasn't intended for the public's ears. However, as the old saying goes, “Things we do in the dark will often come to light”. In bygone days parties had strategies designed to capture the various segments of society that they wanted in their corner. They had planks in their platforms that focused on where they wanted to go and the voters they wanted to capture. They would only alienate a segment of society, if by alienating that segment they would gain access to a larger segment in exchange. For instance, they might alienate a black sector to gain a larger segment of the white sector or they might alienate the gay sector to gain greater access to the straight or Evangelical sector. That worked well once upon a time, when there was less power in the black or gay vote. The same alienation strategy was once used in the Jewish vote until the Jewish people came to be known for sharing common goals and aspirations and to a great extent voted in blocs to effectuate these goals and aspirations. However, in the most recent Republican climate, they seem to have lost track of the path of ethnic and social evolvement. They missed the point that “virtually every social element of modern-day America has enough voting power to deny the vote”. There is a thread that connects all of the ethnic and social elements of society in some immediate or distant way. For instance, when it comes to the black vote, when you push too hard against black people you're likely to lose some white constituents.

When it comes to the LGBT community, they come in all ethnic stripes and colors and are in virtually every family. They're our sons and daughters; brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews. When one supports laws respecting their agenda, it doesn't mean he is embracing the lifestyle for himself. It means one is supporting an individual's right to choose. When we live with hate and other sin and God refrains from striking us down, it doesn't mean that God agrees with the way we live, it simply means God is supporting our right to choose. However, along with our right of choice come consequences. When one leans hard on elements of the LGBT community, it is a known fact that he is alienating a large voting bloc of individuals. When you lean hard on Hispanics, you alienate segments of other voting blocs, because many American families have Hispanics within them-including the Bush family. You can't beat upon and compromise the agendas that are important to women and come out unscathed. Women make the world go around. They support our economic well-being; they birth and nurture our children; they calm our fears and they support some of man's most intimate desires. When it comes to unions, you would be foolish to go up against them. They're a very powerful force in America, as well as many other countries. They are supported by our husbands and wives; our mothers and fathers and our sons and daughters. When it comes to religion, don't even attempt to go there. This nation was founded on the principle of “Freedom of religion”. Even if we don't like a particular religious persuasion, we are all required by the tenets of the United States Constitution to be tolerant. The choices we make in life come along with consequences, so we must realize that when we dance, the “piper must get paid”. I've often heard people say “I wish I had”; “I should have”; or “If I had”. I've heard people say, less often, “I'm glad I did” or “I'm glad I didn't”. I wonder which party is using which expression at this time.

I don't quite understand a party that thought it could alienate everything and everybody except one element-male white and their companions in ideology-and win an election. The Republican Party did not just compromise the vote in two or three categories, it compromised the vote in all categories except the one mentioned. It employed a policy of “crash and burn”. It destroyed virtually every helpful element in its wake except one and was left with little more than large numbers of the male white vote. They “threw out the baby with the bath water”. That's how they lost.

Donald L. Gandy

Rice