(Photo: Courtesy of the CBC)

Our Director of News, Deborah Creighton Skinner sent me an article recently that caused me to take a second look.  The headline which read: “The Late Great Congressional Black Caucus” was alarming enough to get my attention.

For the past few months, I’ve been conducting intimate, sit-down interviews with members of the Congressional Black Caucus for an upcoming BET.com feature called, “Congressional Confidential,”  and it has given me an acute awareness of the CBC’s value and the role its members have played in raising the temperature of an often tepid body of lawmakers.

For this reason, the prospect of seeing a possible end to the CBC was disturbing to me so I read further.  The article is actually a commentary about the potential inclusion of three Black Republicans to the CBC’s membership ranks.  The article asserts that should the CBC include the viewpoints of right-wing conservatives, somehow its purpose is diminished and it’s standing as the “conscience of the Congress” is jeopardized.

My question is, how can the CBC be weakened if the overwhelmingly progressive, liberal body includes more diversity in its membership?  African-Americans are not monolithic. Although a vast majority of Blacks align with the Democratic Party, a sizable segment has found a home with the GOP.  The inclusion of Republicans within the CBC would not only be more reflective of a group of people it prides its self in representing, it would also be strengthened in the process.

The fear of an opposing viewpoint is just pointless.  If “progress” is truly the root of the progressive movement, then there is no need to be afraid of ideological stances that don’t exactly sing from the same songbook. To alienate Republican members of Congress is miss out on an opportunity to expand, and to influence others.  So when it comes, to embracing Republicans within the CBC, I say, the more the merrier.

(Photos from left: Kristoffer Tripplaar-Pool/Getty Images, Edward Linsmier/Getty Images)

By Andre Showell

Recent moves by both President Obama and Republican hopeful Mitt Romney are making the distinctions between the two candidates crystal clear. In what seems to be an effort to appeal to their base constituents, the campaigns are intensifying efforts to clarify exactly where their candidates stand. Are they liberal or conservative?

Mitt Romney’s announcement that Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan is his pick for vice president was aimed at showing Romney in a different, perhaps brighter, GOP light. The former Massachusetts governor was widely believed to be a moderate in a climate that has forced many elected officials to hop the fence and pick a side. The selection of Paul Ryan, a fiscal conservative bar none, may help to put questions about Romney’s conservative chops to bed.

Obama, amid criticism about his own liberal street cred as it relates to same-sex marriage, gave a televised interview clarifying his position of support. He had expressed his opposition to the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and strengthened hate crimes legislation within the Department of Justice in the past, but he felt the need to dispel any doubts about exactly where his own opinions lie in regard to same sex marriage.

As we march toward Nov. 6, I wonder if this is only the start of attempts to draw distinctions between the candidates in a race that seems to be providing voters with clearer choices.