An Open Letter to Fred Thompson

Dear Fred,

If there's one thing I admire about your campaign so far it is that you have been unafraid and unapologetic when faced with tough questions. From the moment you addressed Michael Moore's claims about Cuban health care via Internet video, I saw echoes of fireside chats, updated for the current era. That you followed up with a well-thought out written reply as well demonstrated to me that there was more to you than meets the eye. Since that point, I have not been disappointed, in fact I have been encouraged by your coverage of issues in your blog and I have subscribed to it and follow it regularly.

What I find most appealing to candidate Fred Thompson is your skills in communication and your ability to make the important distinctions in complex issues clear. I admire your ability to reckon with the unsubtle storms of opponents who tried to bash you against the rocks of anti-abortionists by misrepresenting your history of advocacy as an attorney.

Given all this, I am disappointed having received some indication that you may have declined to speak at a debate to be held at Morgan State University. While candidates of your distinction must often refute the false claims of open enemies as well as advocate those causes of their dedicated supporters. So too, must candidates, and more importantly true leaders, not be daunted by circumstances in which the true intentions of their interlocutors are murky. The prospect of wading through the fog of racial symbolism is such a cloudy circumstance. In the decision surrounding the path taken through known territory and unknown territory, leadership can be determined in a moment. Such a moment has presented itself as an obstacle whether you like it or not.

Like most thoughtful Americans, I am burdened with the problem of race. I am burdened by it because others are, and in their confusion, they are apt to make broad sweeping statements that are ill-informed, biased and sometimes just downright ignorant. Nevertheless, there is always enough truth hidden among the bluster to give rise to legitimate concerns, some of which rightly deserve our best efforts and deepest consideration. Unlike Lincoln, the implications of such concerns do not move our sons and daughters to fratricide testing whether our founding principles might long endure. But we are often met on such rhetorical battlefields testing whether we have the stomach, and the presence of mind to at the very least say the right thing and encourage Americans to do the right thing. We cannot wish such political conflict away, and the courageous and righteous among us cannot ignore it. I don't like being a 'black Republican' because I have to fight stereotypes every day. You may not like being a 'white Republican' for similar reasons. When somebody calls you a liar, tell the truth.

I am interested to see that you have the stomach and the presence of mind to reconsider what I believe may be a rash, if only symbolic decision. While we are not slaves to history, we are also not immune from its ability to overshadow our actions. No presidential candidate will long endure in my good stead who is defined by a lack of action. Perhaps the invitation to Morgan State brings other connotations to your mind which are not so murky and you have good reasons to ignore it. At the very least, we who follow you should know your mind on that. So far the Fred File has been silent on Morgan State. Let us hear what you have to say. The moment is yours.

Comments

[D.C. Thornton]

I'm in full agreement. Well stated.

[Submariner]

Man, you've got the gift. I couldn't make the Howard debates but I had planned to go to Morgan but decided not to make the effort to get tickets when the candidates turned their backs on the forum. I like to consider all available options. While living in New York my wife and I voted Bloomberg for mayor. If Republicans are moderate and make sincere efforts at courtship they would find many receptive blacks. When Steele ran for senator I noticed that white homeowners in my surrounding who previously had signs for GW and and Erlich when they were in contention didn't do the same with Steele. Maybe the Steele campaign wasn't aggressive enough. But I did see Steele placards on the lawns of several homes in my development which is 98% black.

[rikyrah]

Cobb,

Tavis already fixed it for them by NOT taking questions from ' the people'. How much more was he supposed to put the ' fix ' in for them?

The Covenant isn't a hard book to read. It was the Cliff's Notes for them...you're telling me that the issues brought up in there don't have possible Republican Solutions? And if they do, then why be afraid to present them?

This wasn't a GOP/Dem thing...it was going to be all GOP for them...they could present their platforms unfettered, without anyone ' interpreting' to them.

I co-sign with Submariner.

What WHITE Republican, that receives 30 Percent of the Black Vote - LOSES?

Which begs to ask....how come Michael Steele lost?

Where was that WHITE vote for him?

[Cobb]

Michael Steele lost because he didn't win. I cannot recall the details, but here are some of them.

[DarkStar]

Steele lost because it became a race between Dems and Repubs in a Dem state. The Repubs and Dems in Baltimore County abandoned him and Ehrlich. Steele didn't get 30% of the Jewish vote but he got 30% of the Black vote. But no one wants to mention that flavor of things.

[cnulan]

Only Newt and Mike Huckabee not scurred'a negros.

"I'm puzzled by their decision. I can't speak for them. I think it's a mistake. I wish they would change their minds — they still have a few days — and I wish they would in fact go to the debate Thursday night," said Gingrich, who is considering entering the race for the GOP nomination.